Talk:Battle of Inchon

A public domain source with more info

The Joint Forces Quarterly article I added to references is in the public domain (as indicated here). Hence, some of the material may be useful for direct inclusion into this article. On-line versions: (pdf) & (txt). Michael Ward 21:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is another link [1] Unugy 05:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the name of the Chinese Army

As I know, the army fighting in Korea is called People's Volunteer Army(PVA). People's Liberation Army (PLA)is another army in China, though PLA is also a volunteer army. But they are different. And they do still exist in China now. Unugy 05:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about "Inchon, the movie"?

I'm troubled that this article managed to make FAC status, & omitted mention of one of the worst movies ever made, with a number of name actors (Sir Laurence Olivier, Jacqueline Bisset, Ben Gazzara, Toshiro Mifune & others -- this movie is even included in the lists of screen appearances in the articles on Olivier & Bisset). My criticism is not so much that I want to poke fun at this movie (well, okay, a little), but that an article that has FAC status ought to be reasonably comprehensive, & by omiting any mention of this movie, this article fails to be comprehensive. (Note: both Battle of the Bulge & Attack on Pearl Harbor both mention the movies based on those battles, so it is not unreasonable for "Inchon, the movie" to also be mentioned here.)

We need not turn this article into a POV attack on this movie (it was funded by the Unification Church, so some may believe I'm motivated only because of this connection); a simple mention of this movie -- & hopefully a link to an article about it -- would do much to fix this oversight. But the fact that this article got thru at least one stage of review without any thought to adding this fact alarms me over the quality of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Instead of adding that content to this article I wrote a short article about the movie at Inchon (movie). I don't know where we should link to the page though. In a new section at the end or a disambig at the top. Maybe I'll make it a see also. As to how Pearl Harbor and Battle of the Bulge include the content. I don't like the way Pearl Harbor included the movies in the middle of the aftermath section but I don't mind making a pop culture section <as the bulge article did>. BrokenSegue 21:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seeing your work, BrokenSegue, I added a section header & a sentence about the movie. I don't feel much more needs to be said about the movie in this article. (And if it's thought unnecesaary, the section header could be removed -- although I wonder if there is any memorial about the battel in Inchon.) -- llywrch 23:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fact Check

I was reading this section of the Encarta making sure that the information in this article is accurate and I can upon several thoughts.

• Should the article be Incheon or Inchon? Our article is Incheon and Encrata spells it Incheon but other sources spell it as Inchon
• Instead of Battle should it be called Invasion

BrokenSegue 06:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm not particularly literate in this area, I think "battle" is more widely-used (and less POV) than "invasion." As for the name, Inchon is the spelling most used in Korean War histories; I can't see any point in changing it (much like the equally incorrect spelling of hangul). Inchon is appropriate in the Korean War context, Incheon in the contemporary SK context and Inch'ŏn (in theory) in the contemporary NK context. -- Visviva 04:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the article title should use the newer spelling 'Incheon'. While the spelling 'Inchon' was used in the time of the Korean War, I don't see a precedent in Wikipedia for prefering spellings dating back to the subject matter at hand. For example, the article on the First Opium War uses Pinyin spellings for the relevant cities — a system invented about a century later. --Bletch 23:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that the article should use "Incheon." All old spellings need to be renamed to the newer ones because of the major inconsistencies with "Inchon," "Incheon," and "Inch'ǒn." ---JpKllA 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Use boats not ships

The last sentence in the "green Beach" section has both 'boats' and 'ships' - probably should be 'boats'.

except the name of that kind of vessel is tank landing ships so it should probably be "ship". 04:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pusan

The article's third sentence reads "During the amphibious operation, United Nations (UN) forces secured Inchon, and broke North Korean control of the Pusan region through a series of landings in enemy territory." This can't be exactly correct -- the Pusan (Busan) region was the only part of the peninsula *not* under NK control at this time. I would change it, but I'm not sure what the sentence should say. -- Visviva 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe something along the lines of "allowed a breakout from the Pusan perimeter"--Looper5920 08:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Battle of Inchon article

Not the Battle of Seoul one. --HanzoHattori 06:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I will go ahead and make a separate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L46kok (talk • contribs) 22:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ROK participation in the battle

Substantial number of South Korean forces participated in this battle, specifically, the Marine Regiment and the 17th Army Regiment. These units deserve mention. All references to UN forces in this article at the moment are Americans only. H27kim 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Incheon VS. Inchon?

The official name of the city Inchon(인천) in English is now have been modified to Incheon. Shouldn't we change the title of the article accordingly? L46kok (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

so why don't you?Toyokuni3 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Done--CorrectlyContentious 09:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the name was "Inchon" when the battle actually occurred, shouldn't the article's name remain "Battle of Inchon" in the interest of historical accuracy? I realize I this was done a while ago but I would still like to move it back and will do so if there are no reasonable objections. SJSA 14:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Plagarism

This article uses wording which is exactly the same as that of an article on Nationmaster (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Inchon). While this entry has been expanded, it does overuse the nationmaster article without siting it. (references also appear to be copied from it). Njj4 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nationmaster copied Wiki, not the other way around. Rjensen (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Analysis

The analysis section perplexes me as it consists solely of the opinion of some fellow named Stolfi (who is not introduced within the text with his full name). It then makes the awkward comparison between the US Army's amphibious landing at Inchon and the Wehrmacht's drive on the Baltic in '41. Firstly, Stolfi's opinion is valid. However, I think there should be at least an alternate opinion. Furthermore, while it is not for me to criticize a published work, I frankly find the comparison between the US Army's campaign at Inchon and the Wehrmacht's on the Eastern Front somewhat silly. The Battle at Inchon was a seaborne invasion that tried to break out of a beachhead. 4th Panzer Army's Baltic Campaign was, by the army's name, an armored drive to rapidly secure key objectives. We are thus comparing an armored drive with a seaborne invasion which, I think, makes them awkward to compare. Furthermore, I think we can also see differences in their respective military cultures, such as the German operational drive to seek a battle of encirclement. I honestly think we can get some better analysis here. Any other thoughts on the analysis section?

76.114.70.98 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's ridiculous to state that the strategic victory of Inchon was "negated" by the slow advance to Seoul. Before Inchon, the ROK/UN forces were restricted to the Pusan Perimeter. After Inchon, the ROK/UN forces were able to sweep the North Korean army almost all the way back to China. --76.121.228.186 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)