Talk:First Battle of Yeonpyeong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Korea (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Korean military history working group.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

A few questions[edit]

What is this confrontation called in Korean? I wouldn't be surprised if the North and South call it different things, but in any case, that should be included in the article. It is also relevant because a better name for this article needs to be found I believe. "1st Western Sea" may be a common shorthand, just as the words "Vietnam" and "Korea" are sometimes used to refer to the Vietnam War and Korean War respectively; just as, for example, the words Hastings and Waterloo are used to refer to the Battle of Hastings and the Battle of Waterloo. But these are just shorthand, not the real terms. So, should this confrontation be called the 1st Battle of Western Sea or the 1st Western Sea Engagement or what?

Secondly, while I recognize that the Korean War never formally ended, that is, that a treaty was never signed, I feel that to consider this 1999 event a part of the 1950-53 war is a bit strange. It's playing off a semantic and legal technicality rather than an on-the-ground factual situation. The war never formally ended on paper, sure, but fighting ended over fifty years ago. Thoughts or suggestions would be most appreciated. LordAmeth (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't quite sure what to name this articale and the related ones myself. I cant read korean, and many of the translated ones said battle in the western sea or skirmish, ect. Perhaps just calling it Action of ..... would be better. As for the korean war itself, there have been many skirmishes and combat deaths other than these two battles since 1953, so i do think it is appropriate to list them under the korean war. XavierGreen

Well, I certainly default to the judgment of those who know Korean history/affairs better than I. Still, it seems bizarre to me. The Arab-Israeli conflict has been going on for nearly 60 years now, but the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Six-Day War, and Yom Kippur War are still distinct conflicts with beginnings and endings. Just because there was no formal treaty ending the war doesn't mean that we as historians have to (or should) consider this to still be an active war. The major fighting ended over 50 years ago, and no matter how many scattered confrontations and skirmishes there may have been since then, it's far from being an all-out war like it was in the 50s. Or is the Chinese Civil War also still ongoing, since the PRC continues to regard Taiwan as a rebel province or whatever? LordAmeth (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point that major combat is over for the korean war, but perhaps listing the two in a seperate section as the later island campaigns are in the Chinese Civil War Campaign Box. As for the names perhaps Battle of the Western Sea would be more descriptive. XavierGreen —Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talkcontribs) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


What was the outcome of the engagement? By looking at the casualties it appears the South Koreans won but you can't say for sure by looking at the casualties. Does anyone know, it should be included in the article. --Az81964444 (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Re-open this talk about the outcome of the battle: if we've to show some kind of fair impartiality, we can't just take the SouthKorean point of view of the outcome as official one. I agree that the NK claim of victory is not much credible, but all the SouthKorean data of evaluation of losses on North's side are evaluation, nothing of confirmed by the other side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, the fact that North Korea retreated by choice of force from the confrontation shows that South Korea prevailed somewhat in this engagement. Whether the numbers themselves are not correct, the outcome is that North Korea's boats retreated while South Korea's boats held the line for reinforcements. The number may be cited as a South Korean figure, but the fact that they were the only ones left on the battle field proves their victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3D00:15:E2F8:47FF:FE23:4262 (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It's just an assumption that "North Korea retreated by choice of force", actually they said basically the opposite: that South Korea retreated. And we can't simply assume that South Korean official sources are the automatically correct because South Korea it's one part involved in action (nor to mention the fact that South Korea's press has a sided view of a conflict). This is a page about a conflict, and as almost EVERY pages of battles, wars, should include the point of view of all the sides involved, this reguardless we can find one side "less likely" than others: we're not here to make judgment. I agree however that PERSONALLY i think the SouthKorean version in this situation it's more trust-worthy, but it's not the point here. (the events are a bit different from the Battle of Daechong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)