Talk:Korean War

Archives

Could someone please change the info for Welcome to Dongmakgol? The current description makes it sound like its about an American pilot in this village when in fact the American plays an extremely small role in the film. The movie is about a village, Dongmakgol, that is inhabited by people unaware of the current Korean crisis. Members from both the South and North Korean armies eventually wander to it and are forced to confront one another, at first with great hostility, but then come to understand one another. The American is a mere background character and is only important in a minor sense. Sorry, its just that since it is a Korean film (by the way I am not Korean) I find it offensive that someone who has clearly not seen the film and has only read a summary on an English page would make it seem like it centers around this minor American character. Great film by the way!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.50.233 (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like it was written by Kim Jong Il's slightly less fanatical brother. I would think that such a major event would have a much better wiki. 24.125.19.104 (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Disinterested Party

The article is an utter joke written by fantastics from the West, its sourced only from rather one-sided studies, and don't provide any balanced view, for instance, they only provide the Chinese loss based on west estamtion, but not include any Chinese estimation for UN loss.

And also, the west fantastics significantly understate their own loss, The total loss for UN is already around 1.3-1.6 million (based on various west sources, S.korean along loss from 1 million to 1.3 million soliders), the total loss of China/NK is around 1 million(base on Chinese estimation) to 1.5 million (US estimation, which claim chinese alone loss 0.9 million).

Here is a less biased casualties table: http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/casualty.htm

Either significantly rewrite the article, or remove it completely, as it is a big joke now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs)

I can point out one significant problem with the website you provided (other than that it's not a reliable source). It lists the US deaths as 54k; this is an old figure, that includes all US military deaths during the years 1950-1953, including, say, automobile-related deaths in West Germany or training accidents in the US. The reason we don't use the Chinese estimate of US casualties is because it's demonstrably false; numerous independent scholars have examined the US's record of its own wartime casualties, and have verified it. No independent scholars have verified the Chinese records. It's as simple as that. As for the UN casualties, the discrepancy lies with the South Korean figures; sometime in the 80s or 90s, the figure was revised down from in the 800k neighborhood to the figure that's in the infobox right now. Older calculations will probably still have the older 800k number, hence the differing numbers. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to add different studies on UN total loss as well.

You can not just add studies that over-estimate Chinese total loss only, it almost look like you are intend to compare the maximum estimation for Chinese loss to your minimum estimation for UN loss, it's more of entertaining stuff than serious study, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read through the archived discussion about casualties, which can be found here. Both the Chinese and US estimates of Chinese casualties are provided, I don't know what you're talking about. The article doesn't use the Chinese estimates of UN casualties because they are demonstrably false. NPOV doesn't require including views that are unquestionably wrong. Parsecboy (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First, lets talk about the UN loss:

Your west source is a joke, how could the american loss in Korea war can be reduced from 54000 to 36000 simply because they miscalulated the place where the guys dead back then? You mean your officials/new reporters back then were just a bunch of utter idiots who could not tell the difference between Europe/America/Asia, could not tell the diffence between KIA in Korea and drunk to death in a strip club in Germany, and then just simply put all the death as life loss in Korea?

Not to mention that the S.Korea could reduced their loss from 1.3 million to as low as under 0.3 million in 90s, what an utter joke, I guess just like the americans,back then, the koreans were also a bunch of fools who could not count any number beyond the total fingers they had.

Rubbish like that keep me from taking your west media rubbish seriously.

Now, lets talk about Chinese loss:

Given the fact your pathetic record on counting your own bodies properly, how could you give any, even remote to true, estimation on the Chinese loss?

You know, I really find its funny that how you can estimate our total loss since you were busy retreating all the time and hardly have any leisure to count anything, not to mention back then you guys could not count, as you have proved.

Anyway, for a less laughable comparison, at least you guys need to remove the US estimation for Chinese loss as well since it is, at the very very least, just as unreliable as Chinese estimation for UN loss.

Btw, I found another problem in the article, the Chinese source(reference #15) provided in the main page mentioned:

"148,000 deaths altogether, among which 114,000 died in combats, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized"

Therefore, the 114,000 should not be considered as KIA, since the number also includes those dead by incidents/winterkill.

Anyway, it is very obviously the wiki article is a laughing stock.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you read through the archived discussion to which I linked? What happened with the US casualty figures was a clerical error; the US Government had figures for total deaths during each of those years, not necessarily those who died in the war. Initially, it was mistakenly assumed that those figures were only for war-related casualties, but this was later corrected. Please advance a serious argument in regards to this issue, or don't waste both of our time.

As for Chinese casualties, the article says as much. From the casualties section of the article: "Chinese People's Volunteers suffered 148,000 deaths altogether (among which 114,000 died in combat, incidents, and winterkill, 21,000 died after being hospitalized and 13,000 died from diseases); 380,000 were wounded and 29,000 missing, including 21,400 POWs (of whom 14,000 were sent to Taiwan, 7,110 were repatriated)." It also mentions the Chinese claims about casualties inflicted on the UN forces, including the patently false claim of almost 400k US casualties.

I really don't see what you think is wrong with this article. Perhaps you should state clearly what you think should be changed. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have already made it very clearly:

1. Since in the article you have not mentioned the Chinese estimation of U.S. loss, for the fair of comparison, you should remove the U.S. estimation of Chinese loss as well, since it is just as unreliable.

2. The S.Korea number is obviously way too low, the U.S. estimation, the Chinese/N.Korea estimation are all much higher than that, and acutally S.Korea's own estimation is not consistant with each other, according to the book <<Korea Military History>> written by the Military History Dep. of S.Korea's DoD, the total loss is 227,800 dead, 717,100 wound and 43,500 missing, while you claim there are other sources say the number is way lower, yet a source has not been provided.

Therefore, you should include this around 1 million loss for Korea number in your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The common tactics US empolyed in Korea war is using S.Korean troop to fight first, it is rather highly unlikely that the S.Korea's loss is as low as 0.3 million, the number is questionable at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese estimate is included in the article, in the Casualties section. It's not in the infobox because it is demonstrably false. As for the South Korean figures, all I can tell you is that they have been dramatically revised several times since the war, and what's there now is the current estimate. If you have other sourced figures, they should probably be added into the Casualties section. Lastly, it's not my article—it's not anyone's article. We can all make changes as we see fit, provided they are in line with policies like WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and there is consensus to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Er. yeah right. you said 227,800 dead. So that problem has ended. Dead doesn't equal wounded.Kfc18645 talk 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

When I say loss I mean casualties which=total dead+total wound+total missing+total captured, etc, since English is not my first language, I prefer to use some rather simple word to discrbie the similar thing. By the way, since current S.Korea's total loss is unsourced, I suggest remove it and use a sourced 980k number instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

America's Wars in Asia (1997) gives an estimated figure of 59,000 SK war deaths (military only), that supports the number in the article. The Korean War (2001) also provides the 59,000 figure for South Korean deaths, although it has a higher number of non-fatal casualties, at an estimated 250,000 compared to about 175k listed here.

A Troubled Peace (2006) provides slightly different figures, and attributes them to the UN report: 47,000 KIA, 183,000 non-fatal casualties, and 70,000 MIA and POW. Parsecboy (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, those links doesn't provide the reference to the number listed in the amusing article written by west/korean day-dreamers, maybe they have not decided which number should make UN looks less miserable yet lol. I believe a ZERO loss should be best fit for such purpose, hence how about you simply put a ZERO casualties for UN here, since afterall the west estimation of their own loss in KW is uniformly convergent to ZERO as time goes, lol.

Jokes aside, since even those links your provided doesn't agree with each other, therefore I still suggest to remove those entertaining numbers.

I think Chinese scholars should reduced Chinese side of loss to 1/10th or so of the orignal estimation as well, otherwise we can not keep up with your pace of re-writting the history, lol. However maybe they aren't that pathetic, so they don't need to do that anyway.

Anyway, since wiki is not considered as serious source and full of entertaining articles, I guess one more is not that bad, you guys can write whatever you want, however just keep this in mind, history is something that has already happened and therefore wont change no matter how amusing a pathetic article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pptv2r2 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It will probably never be known exactly how many Koreans died during the war, so it's unreasonable to expect every source to agree. Just the same with the current war in Iraq, there are no firm figures for the number of Iraqis that have been killed, only estimates that differ widely from each other. Also, if you don't have an argument to make, please don't post here; Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant Baldomero Lopez Image

The image on the page incorrectly identifies Lt. Lopez as being "USA (United States Army) 2nd Lieutenant"

Lt. Lopez was a US Marine and was a First Lieutenant (appointed 16 June, 1950 prior to his deployment to Korea, and prior to Inchon where the picture was taken). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared WoodyUSA (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Err....so fix it. You can fix it.Kfc18645 talk 06:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

UN and Communist forces in Belligerents

I strongly object to this. This is POV. It suggests that the UN was fighting communism. The USSR was in the UN. Its not needed information. It makes the article seem anti-communist and therefore is in violation of NPOV. I suggest we remove the UN and communist forces in Belligerents to improve the articles neutrality. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

But the UN forces were indeed fighting. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. However, I am ok with removing the label "Communist forces". Colchicum (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed briefly once (the discussion can be found here). I also agree that "Communist" should go, but as Colchicum says, "UN" should stay. The forces there were fighting under the UN banner; despite the fact that both the USSR and China were on the UNSC. The Soviets were abstaining at the time, to protest the disagreement over whether Mao or Chang Kai-Shek would have the 5th seat on the UNSC. Parsecboy (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fine to keep "Communist forces". If you want to remove "Communist forces", one should use another definition/word that unites all military forces/countries on the North Korean side. Would that be "Soviet forces"? Biophys (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a label for the countries on the North Korean side. Take Napoleonic Wars for example; it just lists "French Empire and allies". If there must be an overarching label, then it should probably be "North Korea and allies". Parsecboy (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

All the nations fighting on the communist side were communists, they would have proudly told you they were communists, they would have appreciated being labeled as communists and they would have enthusiastically told you that they were fighting for communism. Calling them communists is historically accurate and I'm sure those nations would have no problem with it. Why not call a spade a spade? - Schrandit (talk) 05:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they were not defined as a group by it. In much the same way, the UN forces would be defined as "Democratic forces", and many would have enthusiastically told you they were fighting to bring democracy to Korea. I would have to agree that the "North Korea and allies" label would be much more accurate. Iciac (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong (I probably am), but were some of the countries under "UN" even in the UN at the time? I'm talking about countries such as South Korea, Luxemburg, Greece and Columbia. If they weren't part of the UN at the time, were they specifically fighting under the UN banner? If not, like the "Communist" forces, they should probably be stated under "South Korea and its allies" and the UN forces sublisted under that. Iciac (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "Communist Forces" to "North Korea and Allies", for a more neutral POV. While the UN label is fine as those countries fought under a UN banner, the nations on the North Korean side never refered to themselves as "Communist Forces". They may have all been communists, but they never formed any alliance called the "Communist Forces", so why should we call them that? Saru (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

or if folks do decide on "communist forces," should not they also include "capitalist forces"? or "imperialist forces"? or.... is this pointing out the obvious impossibility of NPOV and inescapability of POV? Hongkyongnae (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The UN label is inappropriate because it promotes the illusion that there was a global consensus surrounding the invasion and occupation of Korea by the USA and its client states. The historiography of China, for example, calls conflict in Korea the War to Resist U.S. Aggression. Serious scholars observing the conflict in Korea call it a United States campaign fought under a UN flag. It's also worth considering that UN activity on Korea was considered illegal by a significant part of the world. Nierva (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the UN label is quite appropriate, as it was officially under the UN banner. It doesn't matter what China calls the war. Why don't you provide some of these so-called serious scholars? Again, what people thought about the legality of the war is totally irrelevant to whether it was under the UN banner or not. Parsecboy (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Intervention

Whether this is written from the PRC perspective is unclear. Taiwan is mentioned as a province of China which is false -or at the very least, as yet undetermined. This should be corrected by mentioning Taiwan in the neutral sense by changing "launching an invasion against Korea and the Chinese province of Taiwan, and carrying out active intervention in other countries in Asia" to "launching an invasion against Korea and carrying out active intervention in Taiwan and in other Asian countries" or simply dropping the Taiwan reference altogether. Thoughts? Jamesbohling (talk) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you just us the word "Taiwan" (which also could refer to the island of Taiwan) it's doesn't say anything about the political status of Taiwan. So that's probably NPOV. Dre Odz (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Helicopters

Can we talk about the use of helicopters in the Korean war? It was the first time they where used in war. Try reading some pages on it. Or google it, like this. User:Micov 76.179.164.79 (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

KCNA

Please stop with senseless obstruction towards an attempt to provide balance to the section titled "Crimes Against POWs." Wikipedia is not a government propaganda network where viewpoints from the other side are excluded. To dispute the reliability of information from the media and government of a country with a solid international reputation is unreasonable. All English-speaking media depends on information published in the DPRK for information on that country. The KCNA is cited in numerous Wikipedia articles. This article itself contains citations from the BBC and sources published by the U.S. Government. Any future attempts to vandalize this article in such a fashion will be resisted. Nierva (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, Wikipedia is not North Korea's propaganda mouthpiece. The source you are using is clearly not reliable; it's straight propaganda. Any purported "news" website that refers to Americans as "ogres" and Kim Il Sung as "he great leader" is clearly biased (far more so, than, say Fox News). And no, North Korea (like most repressive regimes) most certainly does not have a solid international reputation. If you can provide legitimate scholarly works that support your allegations, fine, add them. But the KCNA is a totally unacceptable source. Removing such controversial and poorly cited claims is not vandalism, it's protecting the quality of the article. Parsecboy (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While you may have your opinion, international organizations and media would beg to differ. DPRK representatives have regularly been invited to speak at the United Nations. The KCNA is one of the most reliable sources with regard to the situation in Korea. Whether or not the KCNA is biased is irrelevant. The BBC and CNN are equally biased, yet they are cited in this very article. Wikipedia is hardly the place to apply cynical double standards. That the citation has been clearly attributed to a party conforms to Wikipedia policies. Unless the view from the other side is given consideration under a section titled "crimes against POWs", it qualifies as pure propaganda. Nierva (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If the KCNA is one of the most reliable sources in regards to Korea, I'd hate to see the rest. No, the BBC and CNN don't call North Korean "ogres", nor do they refer to either Bush or Gordon Brown as "the great leader". Again, I suggest you post the KNCA link at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and let the sourcing experts decide for us. Parsecboy (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The KCNA definitively is the propaganda mouthpiece of the North Korean regime and it ought not have a place in academic discourse. So help me God I will fight this tooth and nail. If events truly are as they are described by the North Koreans they will be documented in other, legitimate places. Seek them out. - Schrandit (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN is an independent news agency. BBC is supported by the government by taxes, but by charter it operates independent of government. As we all know, both agencies frequently and openly criticize their own governments, and the opinions of those who work for the government. The KNCA is completely different. It is by definition, a communication organ for the North Korean government. Its not just funded by the government, its controlled by the government. If you go to their webpage, there are NO articles that criticize the pongyang. Everything to do with North Korea, its leader and its government is 100% positive. There is NO debating opinions. Therefore I find it ludicrous that Mr. Nierva demands Wikipedia maintain its objectivity by balancing the entire world opinion with that from one, wildly slanted and utterly unobjective opinion expressed by the KNCA. That said, I do believe that the vast majority of the free world recognizes the fantastic bias present in KNCA information, and so long as KNCA's opinions are clearly labeled, I suppose they should be admitted to wikipedia.--Divbis0 (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The report by the DPRK Foreign Ministry is the important aspect of the link. Because it has been attributed as such, it has a place in Wikipedia. That it is linked to the KCNA is irrelevant; the KCNA merely reported what was presented. To include a report by a DPRK governmental organ is wholly consistent with the presence of analagous sources from western countries. Wikipedia is not the place to censor views that stand in contrast to a set of prejudices. Scholars studying Korea have utilized sources published in the DPRK. The KCNA is regularly cited by western news agencies. The KCNA is cited in other Wikipedia articles. You have yet to provide a reasonable explanation for such mischievous behavior.

Speaking of scholarly discourse, all specialists on Korea utilize sources published in the countries of every party. This scholarly book, for example writes: According to north Korean sources, in March, the United States carried out more than 220 espionage flights against North Korea. If scholars find it fit to report what is published in North Korea, then Wikipedia can do the same. Nierva (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There is, however, a difference between scholarly sources published in North Korea (and the book in question does not identify which sources it used), and the KNCA, which is a propaganda outlet for the North Korean government. Parsecboy (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here. I've read over the POW section and I have to say that the entire section is biased. The parts alledging North Korean war crimes read much the same as the ones alledging US crimes. I've accordingly tagged it for neutrality. As it stands, I believe that the KNCA reference should remain, as it gives a Korean view. However, the entire section needs a major rewrite. Iciac (talk) 07:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Its neutral. And, It's clear as it stands; each side disagrees violently with the other. The sources of the claims are clearly given; Hence Its up to the reader to decide which one is probably more or less correct, and..... which one is, er... light entertainment. --Divbis0 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Article quality

What is going on here? In doing a little academic work on wars I thought I would see what Wiki had to offer. Several wiki pages, one example of WWII, had a decent presentation for the purposes I needed. This page is just absurd and appears taken over by people with an agenda.

For example, this page subject, the Korean War, was a short time frame, relatively, in a small area, but is a whopping 11 percent, by kb, (and by screen count 25 percent)larger than the site labeled WWII on Wiki. WWII was the most devastating war in the history of the world, both in lives and property. It involved area and nations that make the Korean War pale. The only expansive aspect about this site is that it goes back in time to 700AD anf forward to 2007! That is absolutely amazing when this is about the Korean War; reasonably from 1945 to 1975 for wide prelude and generous end. I could add that the first emperor of Japan was Korean but I somehow cannot connect that to the subject matter. This doesn't need re-working but a complete start over. This work really reflects very poorly on Wiki scholarship. Asvrc100 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The WWII article is a summary, with reference links to thousands and thousands of wiki sub-articles that are more minutely detailed to a far greater degree than I could ever imagine. For example, the article on Operation Market Garden, just one battle in WWII, is 10% larger than the korean war article. The Korea article is probably more comprehensive, maybe because there are so few sub-articles on the subject?

"this work....poorly" If you think its a Poor article, then you should start rewriting it--Divbis0 (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Gratuitous photograph.

The photograph of a dead Chinese soldier is gratuitous and adds nothing to the article. I suggest that it be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin9 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death in the past, and you can find the related discussions in the archives. The tldr answer is: no, it's been identified as a featured picture, and Wikipedia is not censored for what people might find offensive. There's a picture of an executed American prisoner as well, so there's no NPOV issue going here (i.e., showing dead Chinese and victorious Americans, or the like). Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how much this topic has been discussed before. Wiki is supposed to make an attempt to objectivity. On this page, all the UN soldiers are portrayed driving tanks and making heroic postures, not to mention the famous photo of the courageous and winner of the Congressional medal of honor Lt. Baldomero Lopez leading his troops in an attack. And all you have to show for the Chinese side is a dead soldier. Lt. Lopez also died during battle. Maybe you can find a picture of him lying on the battle ground in the same posture as that Chinese soldier and see how people react.

What makes it gratuitous is that combat death is expected during war and this photograph adds nothing. Notice that I did not object to the photo of the US POW being shot. Uncomfortable as it is to look at, it is a proof of war atrocity.

This page is yours, but I can express my opinion.

No one owns any article on Wikipedia. There is, however, a longstanding consensus that the image is valid and useful in this article. It is also a Featured image. I don't see it as gratuitous at all.

As for the rest of the pictures, that's all we've got. If you can find suitably licensed images of Chinese soldiers in combat, or North Koreans driving their T-34s, by all means, upload them and add them to the article. We just don't have them, or have access to them. Plain and simple. Parsecboy (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is difficult to find those photos via google, but I guess the key word is "licensed". In any case, this article is locked up which makes uploading difficult. I just checked the corresponding Chinese, Korean and Japanese pages and I think the Chinese collection of maps and photos are better while the Japanese page has the best collection in my opinion. Lohengrin9 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It took me a while to put to reason my visceral reaction against this photo. When 9/11 hit, there were films and photos showing people jumping to their death from the top of the World Trade Center. Needless to say, it was very disturbing to watch and those photos and films caused a minor controversy at the time. Afterward, the media stopped showing them. When asked, a commentator said that it may have had some news value on the first few days, but that value has since disappeared.

This shocking photo is in the same league. The dead soldier once had a family and perhaps a wife who is still alive and children who have grown up. It is insensitive and of poor taste to put it up on World Wide Web for all to see. I don't fault people for publishing it back in the 50's in the height of war, but surely we know better now.

As I said above, it is gratuitous since combat death is expected during war; therefore, this photo showing a dead soldier on the battle ground doesn't add much to the article.

I have just checked the page on Battle of Stalingrad, supposedly the bloodiest battle in human history, and did not find a similar tasteless photo.

Finally, a tasteless photo remains tasteless regardless whether it is in featured picture.

After all the previous discussions, I don't think I can convince anyone on this; nevertheless, it needs to be said.Lohengrin9 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What About "Other" Nations?

One gets the impression reading this article that this was exclusively a US war against communists. There is almost (except for the flags in the box!) no mention of the dozen or so nations which sent their boys and equipment there and left so many dead behind. True, US forces did the heavy lifting, but there were others, their commanders, their units, their main battles, their ships and their stories. There are no references even. As for the article in general, it could be so much better. It should be much better. Lacks a clear organization, esthetics and it is rather uneven. No list of major battles. It also needs to be cleansed of some of the grandstanding and posturing. Can someone lead the way?--Murat (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, one thing I can say is that there is a list of major battles.Kfc18645 talk 04:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)