Talk:Battle of Wawon
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Wawon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Battle of Wawon appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Re: Main page
[edit]Noticed this on the main page:
"considered to be Turkey's first real combat action since the end of World War I?"
I have no idea about the reputation of the guy behind the source behind this fact (A.K. Starbuck / Military History magazine), but apparently this guy thinks the entire Turkish War of Independence did not have "real combat action". Does not sound reputable to me. This should be removed. --Xeeron (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote this with sources provided by members from Wikiproject Turkey, and they did not object, so I suggest you take it up with them. Jim101 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which sources? Which members? In any case, it is not my task to track down those people, if you want to argue that no "real combat action" took place after the end of WW1, you should bring a serious source explaining why the war of independence was no real combat. --Xeeron (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- User:Hudavendigar, if you insist. Now I'll drop a message on his talkpage. If you intend to argue that I committed negligence by taking advices from a more knowledged editor on the issue, then you better explain before finger pointing. Jim101 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- ??? I have no issue with you at all. I simply want the main page fact and this article to be accurate. --Xeeron (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, it's just my pet peeves on seeing editors argue over topics that none of them are familiar with, which is why I suggested on calling in an expert before doing content change at this point. Now let's be friends and wait for User:Hudavendigar to reply back. Jim101 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The current revision looks fine because Turkish Independence War is the direct aftermath of WWI, so after the "aftermath" is correct. I'm still waiting to hear from Turkish editors on whether WWI and Turkish Independence War are considered to be the same war in their culture. I know in Chinese culture, Japanese invasion of Manchuria is considered to be part of WWII, so I need confirmation on whether the Turks make the same connection between WWI and Independence War. Jim101 (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The "aftermath" version is much better than before. But remember that this is the English language wikipedia and there is no doubt that for (the very vast majority of) English speaking people, WW1 does not end in 1923. Btw, that is also the date on Turkish wikipedia: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/I._D%C3%BCnya_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1 --Xeeron (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- ??? I have no issue with you at all. I simply want the main page fact and this article to be accurate. --Xeeron (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- User:Hudavendigar, if you insist. Now I'll drop a message on his talkpage. If you intend to argue that I committed negligence by taking advices from a more knowledged editor on the issue, then you better explain before finger pointing. Jim101 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Which sources? Which members? In any case, it is not my task to track down those people, if you want to argue that no "real combat action" took place after the end of WW1, you should bring a serious source explaining why the war of independence was no real combat. --Xeeron (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. I guess I was responsible for what seems be an imperfect vetting of these aspects of the article. It is correct that WWI involvement of Turkey is distinct and seperate from the War of Independence, but for military it was mostly one continuous campaign and many military references, especially Turkish, tend to lump them together. It would be technically more correct to state that there was no real battle experience since the War of Independence. I will make a correction. Thanks for the scrutiny.--Murat (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I like the "aftermath" too. It is appropriate and gives a better sense. Gen. Yazici was a WWI Gallipoli veteran afterall.--Murat (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- In this case, aftermath is wikilinked to Turkish War of Independence, thanks for clearing this up. Jim101 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
American media at the time reported blatant fabrications about the battle
[edit]The Turks actually bayoned a column of South Korean troops, and it was misreported in western media as a Turkish victory over Chinese. This is the reason why we cannot really on articles like the Time magazine refernce I deleted from this article.
Note that the Time magazine article was talking about this exact incident about the bayoneting
Rajmaan (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
More sources on what actually happened
Rajmaan (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The only problem is that source is clearly trying to make the Korean War out to be a mistake, which makes him a blatantly biased and unreliable source. The current sources are fine as is, they are significantly more reliable than the sources listed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.220.115 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Translation of Turkish sources
[edit]User:Qutalmish, can you translate the sources you just included so that we can see how exactly is Chinese 38th Army was crippled during November 27 to December 2, 1950? This claim directly contradicts US Eighth Army Intelligence report cited in Roy Appleman's book in Ridgway Duels for Korea (ISBN 0890964327) page 43, and the fact that Chinese 38th Army was present during the Third Battle of Seoul. The only instance where Turkish Brigade did gain fame and inflict heavy losses to Chinese in which the Chinese 38th Army present was during Operation Thunderbolt on January 26, 1951, in which it claimed revenge for the loss at Wawon (although later studies found that the revenge was actually carried out against Chinese 50th Army that was acting as cannon fodder for the 38th Army, see Ridgway Duels for Korea, page 162-162 on the topic of "Turks Ridge")...are you sure this is not a case of mistaken chronology?
- Qutalmish: I cannot translate the whole document for you but the part about the estimate of Chinese losses are:
"Kunuri Savaşlarında Türk Tugayı 741 şehit, 2068 yaralı, 163 kayıp, 244 esir ve 298 diğer olmak üzere toplam 3514 kayıp vermiştir.Çin kayıplarının sadece ölü olarak en az 5 bin civarında olduğu belirtiliyor."
- In English: "During Kunuri Battles the losses of the Turkish Brigade was 741 dead, 2068 wounded, 163 lost, 244 captured and 298 others with the total of 3514. On the other hand, only the number of the dead for the attacking Chinese troops is estimated to be around 5000."
- In the course of the U.N. offensive and the Chinese counteroffensive, the 1st Turkish Brigade suffered 3,514 casualties, of which 741 were killed in action, 2,068 wounded, 163 missing and 244 taken prisoner, as well as 298 noncombatant casualties. ...that is the number of entire Turkish casualty during the Korean War. If your source can't even get that right, then I don't know what to say about the accuracy of that source's estimation on the Chinese number. For the record, the actual Turkish loss as recorded after the Kunuri battle was 68 men killed, 238 wounded, and 630 missing in action per the source below, and I haven't seen a notable historian that ballpark it over 20% of Turkish Brigade's full strength (~5,000 * 0.2 = ~1,000). Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If you look at those numbers, you will notice that Chinese army lost more soldiers that the Turkish brigade. The use of the word "crippled" for the situation of the Turkish brigade after the Battle of Wawon does not make any sense. In which part of that book it says that Turkish army is crippled? Could you please share?
- Sigh...the please read my entire post before making statement like that. Also, "crippled" in English only means "suffering losses that render one not functioning properly", not "suffering more losses when compared with other side". Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also in US Eighth Army Intelligence report, the Chinese 114th division's has an effective strength of 8,299 in the aftermath of Battle of Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River after being attacked by South Korean 2nd Corps, US 2nd Infantry division and the Turkish Brigades, and given that an standard Chinese infantry division at full strength is 10,000, can you translate how did the Turkish source came up with the estimate of 5,000 Chinese losses by its attack alone?
- Qutalmish: Since 10000 is greater than 5000, I don't see any reason why you are asking this question. Chinese troops might have lost half of their strength. If you have another source, you can add it under the Turkish estimate.
- Aside from 10,000-8,299 = 1,701 total losses SHARED between South Korean, US and Turks, a Chinese division lost half strength meant it is put out of action according to page 446 of Millett, Allan R. (2010), The War for Korea, 1950-1951: They Came From the North, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, ISBN 9780700617098. The problem is that 114th division was not described as put out of action according both US and South Korean histories. This fails WP:REDFLAG test, thus you can't just put that number in and expect other people to create an detailed explanation of that number for you. Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Then again, is there a reason to repeatedly remove sources that explicitly stated that Turkish brigade was crippled in the battle, such as Appleman's book Disaster in Korea: The Chinese Confront MacArthur (ISBN 9781603441285, quote page 91: "Until the Afternoon of 29 November, the Turks, in the face of crippling losses, had indeed delayed perhaps the major part of CCF division that was advance on Kunuri..." and quote page 288-289: "[Turkish Brigade] reported a loss of 68 men killed, 238 wounded, and 630 missing in action...The Turkish Brigade lost 50% of its artillery, 90% of its signal equipment, and 90% of its vehicles...") and the US Army Official history (quote at page 150: "...and both the 2d Division and Turkish brigade needed substantial refurbishing before they could again function as units.")?
- Qutalmish: I wasn't deleting your sources. Actually you kept deleting my sources and kept violating the WP:OR by changing the meaning of my sentences. You are also violating WP:OR with your angled point of view according to political reasons.
- You did delete my source (tag appleman91_200), then accuse me of WP:OR because the source are not present after the deletion. Also, your source (tag Bozkurt) was never touched during my edits...a bit overkill eh? Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
And finally, is Turkish source a blog? Jim101 (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- This source is a WP:NEWSBLOG.
- Not good enough per WP:HISTRS, especially for WP:REDFLAG claims. Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's have a frank disscussion...
[edit]Due to previous back and fourth editing, the quality of this article has suffered because the readability of the article has been cut up by the proverbial trench in the battlefield, with stretches of no man's land connects them. Let's get this article out of this rump, shall we?
Point 1, Lede:
Although during the battle the Turkish Brigade was crippled after being encircled by Chinese forces with superior numbers,[6] they were still be able to breach the Chinese trap and rejoin the US 2nd Infantry Division.[7] Delay of Chinese troops advance after meeting with heavy Turkish resistance helped United Nations forces to withdraw without suffering many casualties and reassemble later in December.[7]
Two problem with this:
a) Citation 6 is POV one (Turkish Brigade got crippled), Citation 7 is POV two (Turkish Brigade helped US Eight Army withdraw by defending Kunu-ri), both are equal and important POV when analysis the outcome of the battle. Why does this sentence does not leave this impression?
b) Regardless of Turkish involvement, US Eight Army did withdraw in an incoherent manner and with heavy losses in the aftermath of Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River. Why does this sentence stating the exact opposite?
Point 2, Background
Because the Turkish soldiers understood neither English nor Korean,[13] the deployment of the Turkish Brigade quickly ran into difficulties, and the lack of accurate intelligence on Chinese forces further added to the chaos.[15] During their advance eastward, the Turks were forced to conduct long marches in the Korean countryside because of misunderstanding of the IX Corps' instructions.[16] On 26 November 1950, a column 200 South Korean soldiers of the ROK 6th and 7th Infantry Divisions fleeing from Tokchon were attacked by a battalion of Turks who were the first to arrive at Wawon, after the Turks mistook the Koreans for Chinese. 125 Koreans were taken prisoner and many others were killed by the Turks. On the other hand, the Turks can hardly be blamed for that accident.[17] Because of false intelligence, the Turks were expecting to encounter with Chinese somewhere on the road.[18] The event was wrongly reported in American and European media as a Turkish victory over the Chinese and even after news leaked out about the truth to the Americans, no efforts were made by the media to fix the story.[19][20] On the night of November 27, the exhausted Turkish Brigade entered the village of Wawon to the east of Kunu-ri, and Brigadier General[nb 2] Tahsin Yazıcı of the Turkish Brigade ordered a semicircular perimeter to be established towards the northeast.[16]
One problem:
a) Within the context of an article that tries to explain a battle event, why does this paragraph give the impression that reader are actually trying to understand the basic concept friendly fire/media bias, rather than trying to understand the combat readiness of the Turkish forces on the eve of the battle?
Point 3, Battle:
Although both historian Clay Blair and Colonel Paul Freeman believed that Turkish Brigade was "overrated, poorly led green troops" who "broke and bugged out", and blamed them for not protecting on the right flank of the US Eighth Army,[28] historian Bevin Alexander noted that given the Turkish Brigade was the only UN force present between Wawon and Kunu-ri, the Chinese inability to capture Kunu-ri before the US 2nd Infantry Division meant the Turks had fulfilled their original mission and covered the withdrawal of the US IX Corps.[1]
One problems:
a) Like the Turkish Brigade, Colonel Paul Freeman was also accused of abandoning US 2nd Infantry Division at Kunu-ri in cowardice. He is also not a member of US advisory group to Turkish Brigade to provide insight on what is going on, nor is he a professional historian that published analysis of this event. Is there really a good reason why his name must be mentioned here to vet Clay Blair's opinion?
Anyway, more article improving, less axe grinding. Jim101 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Wawon. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523174605/http://www.muharipgaziler.org.tr/files/kore.doc to http://www.muharipgaziler.org.tr/files/kore.doc
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714165216/http://www.trdefence.com/2010/10/03/turkish-veterans-recall-korean-war-memories/ to http://www.trdefence.com/2010/10/03/turkish-veterans-recall-korean-war-memories/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628202710/http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html to http://www.korean-war.com/turkey.html
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) 22:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- B-Class military history articles
- B-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- B-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- B-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- B-Class Turkey articles
- Mid-importance Turkey articles
- All WikiProject Turkey pages
- B-Class Korea-related articles
- Low-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles