Talk:UN offensive into North Korea

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the UN offensive into North Korea article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Korea Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

Military history: Asian / Korean / Cold War B‑class

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

International relations: United Nations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Proposed merge with UN Offensive, 1950

These two pages appear to be about the same battle. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, UN Offensive 1950 just provides a very brief overview of everything from the Inchon Landing to Chinese intervention. Whereas this page provides extensive detail of the offensive into North Korea. If anything UN Offensive 1950 should now be deleted.Mztourist (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mztourist, that's what merge means, no? Either put the stuff in there here or put the stuff here in there. Since this one is much longer, the majority of the merged article would be content here. I'm gonna ping some other people to see what they think and if there's consensus I'll copy some stuff here, redirect and call it a day. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UN Offensive 1950 is just a very brief precis of what happened between the Inchon Landing and the Chinese intervention with a large focus on air operations. It says it was all one offensive, when there were actually 2/3 distinct phases: the breakout from the Pusan Perimeter (16-22 September) which I covered in Pusan Perimeter Offensive; the pursuit of the North Koreans out of South Korea (23-30 September) which I covered in UN September 1950 counteroffensive and then the pursuit into North Korea which is covered in this page. UN Offensive 1950 is like a brief extract from the main Korean War page and so its usefulness has passed. I agree that any useful information from from UN Offensive 1950 should be merged into the relevant pages I recently created, however as most of UN Offensive 1950 doesn't have inline references I'm not sure how much information can be copied over. I was going to undertake that exercise myself as well as finishing off this page but am going on holiday so won't get to it for another 10 days. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issue for revision

It appears that this article is almost entirely the contents of the third source, Appleman, Roy E. South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu. 1992.

I think that this article will likely require serious revisions to shorten and simplify the information given. Each of the current subsections might even constitute an article of their own.

As is, it isn't the most comfortable piece to read casually.

NineLion (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct its all from Applemen with links and coordinates where available. I don't see how it can be broken up into separate articles as the various sections are all part of the same offensive. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victory

Surely it was the the Chinese and North Korean forces who achieved victory in the UN Offensive, because they pushed the UN Forces back to the 38th parallel, which was their goal. The UN forces failed their objectives to reunite North Korea with the south. 158.223.122.211 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its the result for the offensive, not what followed. Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the offensive was that we got pushed back, so it cant be a victory 2A00:23C5:348D:4301:C57:D543:413C:FE30 (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

User:RovingPersonalityConstruct contrary to your diff comment that "there was no notice requiring prior discussion." The Toolong header that you referred to states: "Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page". Your changes massively oversimplify the complex command process and considerations that decided the UN advance into North Korea, which you reduced to Hastings' pithy "MacArthur intended to invade North Korea even though he did not have the authority to do so." Per WP:CITEVAR, you cannot unilterally decide to change the citation style. The fact that Applemen was published in 1961 doesn't change the fact that it is the most detailed history of this period of the Korean War. I am happy to discuss changes, but first you need to revert to my version of 07:15 which contained a variety of cleanup and images. Mztourist (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "complex command process and considerations" as written by Appleman (in a particularly verbose and puffy way) boils down to that the US government discussed an advance into North Korea sometime (or times) before 27 September. I thought that that was implicit, and so started chronologically with MacArthur's intentions before 27 September. I suppose there must be an elegant and succinct way to add that back; any suggestions?

You may change the citation style back if you want. I have a preference, but can live with things either way.

Appleman is vague and incomplete when it comes to providing an overview of the international situation, which is where I replaced them with other sources at least in the parts which I did change. Elsewhere I merely condensed what Appleman had written with the aim of reducing minutia, and code-editing Appleman's puffy and verbose style. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 09:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert all your edits back to my version of 07:15, following which we can discuss changes. Mztourist (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert to Special:Diff/1244141926, which is Special:Diff/1244125521 (before the major revert) + your minor changes. I am willing to discuss changes from that revision. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 15:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, per WP:BRD you must revert to before your changes. You have to justify why your changes should be made, rather than starting with your changes and debating whether or not they should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD is optional. The important part is that a discussion takes place ([[WP:EDITING]); a revert to a five-month old revision is not required.

I think we need to take this elsewhere; given your reaction to my edit on Pusan Perimeter offensive, you pretty much object to any changes to Appleman, regardless of any need for copy-editing, tone, and excessive detail. - RovingPersonalityConstruct (talk, contribs) 13:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]