Jump to content

Talk:Korean War Veterans Memorial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Note where it states "Wounded — United States: 103,284, United Nations: 1,0644,453." Is the last line supposed to read 1,064,453? --Thisisbossi 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I guess that's been like that for a while, I was about to ask the same thing. Sluggy42 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was added in this unsourced edit and corrected in this later unsourced edit.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Is it worth adding somewhere in this article that the same legend - "Freedom is not free" - is inscribed at the War Memorial of Korea in Seoul? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.226.216.209 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

[edit]

I've put in request for semi-protection of this page, since the vandalism is continuous and from various IPs. Cross the fingers. :) --Ebyabe 19:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't work. Oh well... :( --Ebyabe 19:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im not sure, but i have seen on other sites that there are 14 army, three marines, one airforce, and one navy in stead of 15 army, two marines, one airforce and navy like it does here... and when I visited you could tell the marines by their straps that were tight around their chin and there were three, our tourguide also said there are three marines, so i am going to change it unless anyone objects —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.220.168 (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is I've seen two tour guides argue with each other, and then with two of the service members that were on the panel that helped build the memorial, about what the accurate numbers are. I'm not sure what the guidance is on matters like this that have become disputed, but to me it seems like the best course of action is to just mention that the statues represent members of each branch and cite two articles, each saying the different number.Jklharris (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the architect of the figures name really Gaylord or is that some vandal joking around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.220.168 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new photos

[edit]

i uploaded some photos i took at the memorial this summer. i would like to add them to the gallery and remove some of the photos that just don't convey the feel of the memorial. the ones i took are:

my goal is to get a good close-up of the faces of each of the 19 soldiers. any comments on which ones to add (if any) and remove (if any). --Jeff Kubina 10:34pm 25 Aug 2007 (EST)

I like what you've got, but is there a way to get some shots of the faces in the wall? Those are a bit eerie, to me, and may help convey the feel.Bigrafa (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigrafa, i agree. i took some photos of the wall but they really did not come out good enough. i plan on visiting the memorial again and will make a point of getting better photos of the wall. i think the article really should have at least one good photo of it. --Kubina (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Frank Gaylord has successfully asserted his creator's rights over the memorial, in a case against the US Government. See http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/02/frankgaylordip.html. Most of the images of the memorial on Commons have been proposed for deletion. William Avery (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted several pictures that were used on this page according to commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial. They may be acceptable here under a Fair Use rationale. If you are interested in transferring one or several of them, please drop me a note and I will undelete them on Commons momentarily. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All deleted pictures have been temporarily restored on request of users from the German-speaking Wikipedia. If you they can be transferred here under a Fair Use rationale, please do it now, as they won't last forever. Relevant pictures are:

Note: images are now in german wp [1] --MBq (talk) 09:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped image suitable or not?

[edit]

I recently reverted this edit by User:Jorfer that added a cropped image of the memorial: File:Korean War Veterans Memorial Without Soldiers.jpg. The central portion of the image (the sculptures) has been excised, leaving a blank white space. I disagree strongly with that approach (which feels like it is merely making a WP:POINT about the court case) and I also think it is disrespectful to those the memorial commemorates. I'll ask Jorfer to comment here, but we may need to ask others to comment as we may not agree on this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I admit that I am copyleft proponent, this is not to prove a point. The intention of the revamped photo is to keep the parts of the image that are public domain, not to disrespect the fallen; if you know another way of doing that then suggest it. The image gives a visual example of the impact of the court case. If it bothers anyone, it is because of the viewer's already existing view. If the viewer believes that the government was mistaken to allow an individual to keep intellectual property rights to a national monument, this will probably bother the viewer. If they see no problem with allowing such a thing to happen, this image should not bother them. TV shows regularly blur parts of video that contain copyrighted or trademarked material.--Jorfer (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is comparable to TV or film images being blurred to obscure copyrighted or trademarked material. I think this is a case where the image should be used whole or not at all, and the solution is not really a solution. If the statues were incidental, I might see a case for cropping them out, but this cutting out the centre of an image leaving a white square is far too obtrusive. I don't think the resulting image is at all useful to anyone (if you want images showing what the other bits of the photo are showing, try and get someone to take a photo from a different angle). I appreciate that you were trying something different here, but the resulting image is, in my view, of no use here or on Commons. I am going to bring this up on Commons as well, and if others agree, I may end up nominating the image for deletion as I don't think it can be usefully used anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Discussion on Commons started here.[reply]
It is useful for seeing the layout of the memorial and for the engraving in the front. Admittedly, four separate photos could be cropped instead, but it would not give an idea to the layout and would involve looking at multiple pictures to get the same information.--Jorfer (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I do in such situations (when there is a non-free picture that would improve the reader's understanding of the topic of the article) is provide an external link (in the external links section) to a copy of the photograph hosted on an external website - in this case a link to where the original photo came from (a US Navy site, I think). Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Done, here. Good addition here! Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image suitable or not?

[edit]

I'm not sure that this edit (the addition of this image) is a wise example of non-free image use, given that the sculptor has filed a court case over use of images like this in the past. In my view, it would be better to avoid using any images that feature the statues unless this is done so in a section that specifically includes sourced commentary on the appearance and look of the statues. Also, this image is not really suitable to be the lead image (the aerial photograph is much better for that), as there are several elements to the memorial, primarily the statues, the wall, and the pool. This image is taken looking away from the pool, with the wall not really shown, so it only shows one element of the memorial. If a ground level shot of the memorial is to be used as the lead image, it would be better to have one of the pool of remembrance. I'll notify the editor who made the change, and see if they will revert for now while this is discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I moved the nonfree image down to the "United States postage stamp court case" section. Would it be worth cropping it to approximate what's on the stamp, or perhaps use https://secure.reservexl.net/wwwimg/img/tours/593-4.jpg or http://www.anefian.com/anefian_yahoo_com/2009_05_15_057_Korean_war_memorial__Washington_architecture_statues.JPG in its place?   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking about cropping the aerial photograph to just the triangle and circle.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. What is really needed is a fair amount of work on the article itself and sorting out what images are best used where in the article. It would be nice to have more written about the memorial itself as well. There should be plenty out there about it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that cropping the aerial view for the article is a good idea (create a derivative instead of overwriting the old one). I think that since the stamp shows it and the wall has a de minimus reflection of it, using another fair use image of the sculptures does not seem to conform to WP:NFCC. Also, using the two images you suggested are an even worse idea, because the photos falls under the photographer's and the sculpture's copyright, while with the Navy photo, it only falls under the sculpture's.--Jorfer (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general with what Jorfer is saying here, and would support the removal of the non-free image and suggest that we only link to it (as is already done). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

casualty

[edit]

is it true that the casualty number written in the memorial is wrong? where exactly did the number written there come from if it's not direct casualty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.243.159.104 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Korean War Veterans Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean War Veterans Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Korean War Veterans Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Korean War Veterans Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Korean War Veterans Memorial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day

[edit]

at footnote 22, the statement by President Obama does not say that every July 27 is such a day, but specifies that July 27 2015 is the day. "I, BARACK OBAMA, ... do hereby proclaim July 27, 2015, as National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. " --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:4831:3A33:8593:B902 (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the source... however, it seems like this proclamation is renewed every year; see examples: 2020 and 2019. As such, I'm not sure how this section should be worded. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Korean_War_Veterans_Memorial&oldid=1208025544"