Talk:Battle of the Imjin River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Imjin River article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force Korean military history task force United States military history task force

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Community: Discussion - Notice board Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions Navigation: Key topics - Browse - Portal
	This article: Start quality, Medium priority. Working group: Military history
Korea-related tasks: edit refresh Collaboration of the month Create articles Cleanup articles Assess articles Add Korean text Maintain unstable articles Discuss articles for deletion Improve A-class articles Improve B-class articles Improve Start-class articles Improve D-class articles Improve Stub-class articles Improve top priority articles Improve high priority articles Improve medium priority articles Improve low priority articles Improve very low priority articles Articles to work on: Goguryeo, achieve consensus and neutral point of view. 2007-03-16 Tteok, expand. 2007-03-16 Jeongol (전골), create. 2007-03-16 Science and technology in Korea, create. 2007-03-17 Comfort women, achieve stability. 2007-3-29 Revised Romanization of Korean, include reasonably complete rule set. 2007-03-29

I added a battlebox, but much of the pertinent information is missing from the article. I guess, I can get around to looking the info up on the U.S. military history websites.--The Jacobin 04:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] expansion

This article needs serious expansion. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 08:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the action needs a clearer explanation; it also needs to be tied in with the pages on Gloster Hill, and Kapyong. I would be interested to give it a try when I get back from holiday; If anyone else wants to do it, the information is in "The Edge of the Sword" by Anthony Farrar-Hockley,(who was there) and C N Barclay's book "The First Commonwealth Division".Xyl 54 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK thenXyl 54 09:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious contradiction in figures

The battle summary box states that approximately 40,000 chinese soldiers lost approximately 11,000 men in the battle against approximately 750 british soldiers who only sustained approximately 300 casaulties. The figures alone raise eyebrows, but the article then goes on to list figures of at least 10,000 chinese vs 750 british soldiers of whom approximately 700 were KIA. Just which is true? Question2 12:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical victory / strategic loss?

should we not list this as being a phyrric tactical Chinese victory and a strategic UN victory as the Chinese won the battle but the UN forces successfully withdrew and stopped the PLA and NK armies advance on Seoul BritBoy 00:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese always used "pyrhhic victory" right? Their flood tactics. Unless there's literature for it, no. (Wikimachine 01:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC))