Talk:Battle of the Imjin River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

battlebox[edit]

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)

expansion[edit]

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)

Serious contradiction in figures[edit]

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)

Tactical victory / strategic loss?[edit]

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))

Bullshit. Chinese never used human wave attack, it is call "short attack", in which Chinese infantry groups (a hoard composed of 3 to 5 soldiers) keeps on rotating at the UN unit boundaries until the UN forces are wored out. Most of the Korean military history books and Chinese military studies had already disapproved the notation of a flood or wave tactic, starting with the work by Alexander L. George in his book The Chinese Communist Army in Action; The Korean War and Its Aftermath in 1969. Jim101 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kapyong[edit]

The Battle of Kapyong and the Battle of the Imjin River are clearly related because the take place over the same dates and the objective of the attackers was the same "advance on Seoul". What is needed is an over view of the Chinese/NK offensive/campaign and were these battles fit into it. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; a page on the Chinese Spring Offensive, or the Fifth Phase offensive would cover it, though both these actions (Kapyong and Imjin) merit pages on their own; you aren't proposing to merge them, are you? I'm not in a position to do it just now, though I've got the information somewhere; are you? Xyl 54 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Commander?[edit]

shouldn't the commander be listed as Brody, since he was brigade commander and therefore more appropriate than Ridgway, who was commanding the entire UN defence as opposed to this particular battle? perhaps Carne should be listed also as he was operational commander of the Glosts and they were at the centre of the battle for its entirety BritBoy 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

As you may have noticed, I have expanded the background section with information based on an essay by Anthony Farrar-Hockley in the Oxford History of the British Army and a chapter from Max Hastings' "The Korean War". If I have the time in the next few days, I will try to work on other sections of the article as well. I have tried to make the connection between Kapyong and Imjin clear but I think that an article about the entire Chinese Spring offensive would be very helpful to clarify the issue.--PINTofCARLING 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to expand the rest of the article, especially the battle section which I divided into four subsections. However, I couldn’t come up with nice titles for the sub-sections. Any changes are very welcome. I also tried to keep as much of the previous contributions as possible. This was difficult because the previous versions included hardly any references and described the action in very general terms. Other changes are listed below:

  • added Luxembourg to the list of combatants in the infobox. Their contribution was small but nevertheless, they participated in the battle as part of the Belgian battalion and should therefore also be included in the infobox
  • there was some inconsistency concerning the name Brody/Brodie; based on my sources, I changed it to Brodie
  • added Further Reading, includes books mentioned by Xyl 54 above
  • I could not verify the number of casualties mentioned in the article. Farrar-Hockley and Hastings both provide exact numbers of the Glosters' and 29th Brigade's casualties. Therefore, I changed the casualty section and the infobox accordingly. I could not verify the Chinese casualties mentioned in the infobox either (tens of thousands is just unbelieveable), Hastings puts them at 10,000 based on several campaign histories, I changed that number, too.
  • added a section on the importance of the battle

--PINTofCARLING 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I managed to expand the article further. I added some pictures and maps to illustrate what happened, rewrote the lead and most of the other sections and used some new references for additional information. In my opinion the article can still be expanded and become more detailed but I doubt that I will have the time to do it. Any other contributions are very welcome. There must be more people out there who are interested in this battle. --PINTofCARLING (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Chinese[edit]

Please do not tamper with the article. We know there are pitiful Chinese nationalists out to ruin history in their favor, and it only makes you look bad and to be honest, your image is already trashed in many aspects. Do not vandilate this article or any other which could be a source for Chinese embarassment.

Thank you.

Necessary revisions for inappropriate changes have been made. Oyo321 (talk) 03:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm no Chinese nationalist, but this battle ended with a Chinese pyrrhic victory, as the article itself makes clear:
When the units of 29th Infantry Brigade were ultimately forced to fall back, their actions in the Battle of the Imjin River together with those of other UN forces, for example in the Battle of Kapyong, had blunted the impetus of the Chinese offensive and allowed UN forces to retreat to prepared defensive positions north of Seoul where the Chinese were halted. FusionWarrior (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


When you look at this page, you can see that a similar discussion took place about a year ago.In my opinion, the battle was not a UN victory. 29th Infantry Brigade was unable to hold its positions and had to fall back. Chinese forces advanced further, then they were stopped and lost the initiative. Therefore, their Spring Offensive was a failure. Key objectives were not achieved. Still, they overcame 29th Infantry Brigade and their opposed river crossing was successful, although their overall strategic concept failed. However, the crossing of the Imjin proved to be costly and time consuming, more than the Chinese had expected. This contributed directly to the failure of their overall strategic concept. Thus, it is appropriate to call it a pyrrhic victory. PINTofCARLING (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well doesn't this mean UN strategic victory, Chinese tactical victory? The Chinese casualty rate here are lower than the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, and I don't see a lot of Chinese formations getting knocked out of battle like the 9th Army Group. Chinese offensive failed because they have no provision/supply. But the last time I checked, supply problem or lost of initiative does not count as pyrrhic victory. Jim101 (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW, it wasn't the 29th Brigade that turned the tide, it was the ROK 1st Infantry Division that turned the tide by delaying the Chinese 64th Corps such that it allowed the rest of the UN forces to pull back...the hype about the 29th Brigade blunted the Chinese offensive should really be checked against both South Korean and Chinese records. Jim101 (talk) 06:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope of the article...[edit]

What exactly is the scope of this article? Are we talking about the Battle of the Imjin River between the Chinese 63rd Corps and the 29th Commonwealth Brigade, or the entire CCF Spring Offensive? Because the number in the info box is way off. Jim101 (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Systemtic bias[edit]

After consulting American, Chinese and South Korean sources on this battle, it is incredible to see this article only talks about the fighting between the 29th Commonwealth Brigade and the Chinese 64th Corps, while the entire battle was fought between the US I Corps and four Chinese armies.

To give a scope of the systemtic bias, according to casualty data of this battle, the 29th Commonwealth Brigade only suffered 1,310 casualties while the entire US I Corps suffered 16,092 casualties along the Imjin River. The Chinese also had one army (~40,000) knocked out during the battle, but this was achieved by the ROK 1st Division, not by the 29th Commonwealth Brigade. Since we already had an article on the Gloster Hill with regards to the delay action by the 29th Commonwealth Brigade, I don't see why this article has to be purely focused on the 29th Commonwealth Brigade. I'm putting a tag on the article until either I worked my way to this article or someone else do a rewrite. Jim101 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The article definately focuses on the actions of the 29th British Brigade, although perhaps this was the original editors intention? I know that there was a British battle honour 'Imjin River' for their role in fighting the Chinese Spring Offensive and perhaps it is reasonable to deal with this in a distinct article. What does seem necessary is an article that covers the entire Chinese Spring Offensive to tie in articles like this one, Battle of Kapyong and others for instance. I guess the question is do you intend on turning Battle of Imjin River into an article which covers the entire period? I think that may lead to issues with the article name etc. Anotherclown (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I assume by the title of the article, it meant the whole attack across the Imjin River, so that pretty much covered the half of the entire Chinese Spring Offensive, or in Chinese and some US sources, it is called CCF Fifth Phase Campaign, First Impulse. Jim101 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
By digging through US Army records, the Chinese Spring Offensive is composed to two major battles, one across the Imjin River with the US I Corps, which ended in a costly tie, and another across the Soyang River with the US X Corps, which resulted a crushing Chinese defeat. I believe that by covering those two battles should be enough to cover the Chinese Spring Offensive. Jim101 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
That sounds promising. I suppose the question then is what do we do with the 29th Brigade focussed content in the current Battle of the Imjin River article? Should it be moved into a new article or perhaps moved to Battle of Gloster Hill? I assume it would be too focussed to remain in this article should it be developed into looking at the whole (I Corps) battle. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, crap, I just changed the info box...anyway, good idea. Move it, then turn this article into a redirect for now until the rewrite time. Jim101 (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
When I expanded the original article, which also dealt only with the British perspective,systemic bias was not my aim. The sources that I read (among them Farrar-Hockley's contribution to the Oxford History of the British Army and Hasting's overview of the Korean War) used the term "Battle of the Imjin River" to refer to the engagement between 29th Brigade and CCF. In addition, the British National Archives website also uses the term in a way which suggests that it refers only to the engagement involving 29th Brigade. A map from the office of the defense attache at the British embassy in Seoul also uses the term in order to refer to events from 21 - 25 April. As far as I could find out, Mossman doesn't use the term "Battle of the Imjin River" at all, but devotes some lines to the engagement of 29th Brigade and the 65th Infantry under the title "Along the Imjin", while other areas where fighting took place are dealt with under different titles. As it appears, it all boils down to a question of terminology: Does "Battle of the Imjin River" refer to a specific engagement or is it synonymous with a larger part of the Fifth Phase Campaign as suggested above. It seems that there is evidence in sources for both which raises the question: How can confusion be avoided? From what I have read the term "Battle of Gloster Hill" does not appear to be helpful since it wasn't used in any of the sources that I consulted.PINTofCARLING (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), the current article title works only if it is universally agreed that Battle of the Imjin River only means the action against the 29th Brigade, but this is not the case. According to Mossman's colleague Roy Appleman, the Battle of the Imjin River includes the action of the entire I Corps. For Chinese, it meant the entire first half of the Chinese Spring Offensive. To South Koreans, it meant the heroic stand of the ROK 1st Divisions. In case where people cannot agree that Battle of the Imjin River only include the action of the 29th Brigade, then the name must be strictly interperted according to the location name Imjin River. In this case, This article must at least include the actions of ROK 1st Division, 29th Brigade and the US 3rd Infantry Division. Jim101 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining and making things clearer for me. Based on what you have written it makes sense that an article on Battle of the Imjin River includes more than what was described so far. With regard to strictly interpreting the name according to the location name I would say that this does not make connections as clear as interpreting it as the first half of the offensive like you said above. To avoid confusion, it would be useful if the article could explain that the different participants in the battle also have a different focus on events, for example the British focus on the 29th Brigade or the Korean focus on the stand of the ROK 1st division. This would perhaps reduce the problem of confusion about terminology. Based on the naming conventions, Battle of Gloster Hill is an easily identifiable title for an article dealing specifically with the involvement of 29th Brigade, it's better than using other geographic names like Battle of Solma-ri, even if it is not a name that is used in any sources. An explanation clarifying possible misunterstandings in connection with Battle of the Imjin River would certainly be needed. If I find the time, I would be glad to work on that article, using some of the information already present in this article.PINTofCARLING (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

America-phile wikipedians rewrites history (again)[edit]

I notice that this article has now been rewritten to give undue providence to the role of peripheral forces during the battle, sic namely the Americans. The infobox now lists all the American deployments ahead of the Belgium, Turkish and 29th Brigade. The Americans fell back on the 22nd to Line Kansas while the Belgiums and the 29th held their lines!!

That is why it's called the Battle of Imjon River because the fighting was being done by the British Brigade and Belgiums. The yanks had "bugged out" 24 hours before the Belgiums were forced from their positions and 48 hours after the remnants of the surrounded 1Bt Glosters made their bid for freedom. If due credit must be given, then it should be to the 1ROK which also stood and fought heroically under its legendary commander Paik Sun-yup. Both the 29th Infantry Brigade and the 1ROK stopped the advance by Chinese forces into Seoul.

Their sacrifice gave I Corps time to withdraw to positions along Line Utah and No Name. But the judicious editing that has now been done gives undue providence to battle groups that did not contribute anything to the Battle of Imjin River (except for being there). This article is now an absolute travesty and one that demonstrates the ideological agendas of so-called "neutral" editors.

Thankfully I know the real history behind this particular battle so I recommend that any interested party pick up a history book rather than rely on this jaundiced drivel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.48.185 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh. From the (US) 1st Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment's Presidential Unit Citaion: "...On the morning of. 23 April, the 1st Battalion was given the mission of cleaning out enemy pockets in the rear and on the right and left flanks of the 29th British Independent Brigade. After fighting fiercely the entire day, the battalion was ordered to attack an enemy force estimated to be composed of two regiments which had forced the withdrawal of friendly troops resulting in the entrapment of the Belgian United Nations Battalion. Under Intense enemy small-arms, automatic-weapons, mortar, and artillery fire, the battalion launched a night attack which was pressed with such aggressiveness, determination, and skill that the enemy was required to commit his entire force to meet the onslaught, thereby relieving pressure on the Belgian Battalion and allowing them to withdraw all equipment and vehicles. Following the withdrawal of the Belgian Battalion, and although surrounded on three sides by enemy troops, the 1st Battalion immediately started a brilliantly executed disengagement. The 1st Battalion inflicted such staggering losses on the enemy that he was unable to continue action in that area." "... This gallant unit killed over 3,000 enemy troops and wounded an estimated 5,500 of the enemy." There's more, but you get the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P1340 (talkcontribs) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Yet according to the Chinese, the very reason why they couldn't capture Seoul was because the Americans "bugged out" and consolidated their positions, which made the Chinese completely exhausted by chasing them...That positions is hardly American-centric. Jim101 (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope, again[edit]

(moved from Talk:Battle of Gloster Hill#Merge tag)
"The basic problem with associating the action of the 29th Brigade with the name of Battle of the Imjin River is that it limits the scope of Chinese offensive while excluding all the actions of the American and the South Koreans units that was fighting besides British along the Imjin River. Although the association of the Gloster Hill battle with the Battle of the Imjin River is widely accepted in UK, my research concluded that it is not universally accepted by US, South Korean or Chinese sources, in which the Imjin River Battle had a much wider context than Gloster Hill. During the last discussion on naming, it was agreed that the battles on Gloster Hill needs a separate article due to their notability in UK, but the name Battle of the Imjin River should not be attached to it because it only favors the British point of view" (posted by Jim101 (talk) at 00:02, 10 September 2010):This comment, and the discussion here, seems to be missing the point a bit.

This page is on an incident in British military history, the action between the British 29 Bde and the Chinese forces in Korea, and the title "Battle of the Imjin River", is well supported by reliable sources. It was not just the action of the Glosters, and it didn’t take place just around Gloster Hill, as the article here makes clear.
The Chinese Spring Offensive was a bigger event altogether, and involved larger forces over a wider area; it involved a number of battles and engagements, of which this was only one. There has been a suggestion on this page for about three years now to have a page covering the whole of the Chinese Spring Offensive; if you feel the other participants in the action have been under-reported, I would suggest that is the place to start.
And If there was (for example) an action between ROK 1st Divisdon and the Chinese (and that article doesn’t mention it, nor is it in the Mossman article) and if that action was called also called "Battle of the Imjin River", and if someone was wanting to write an article on the action, then, I suggest, would be the time to discuss some form of disambiguation for the titles (not before); but playing shove-ha’penny with what we have already should be a long way down the list. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Writing an article on an entire Chinese Spring Offensive would not be easy, useful or needed, because within Korean War histories there weren't any unified narrative that connects all of the small battles together, and you have to bend few WP:OR rule to get it working. But, most of the Korean War narrative did broke the Spring Offensive into three semi-independent sector, an they are the Imjin River sector guarded by the US I Corps, Kapyong sector guarded by the US IX Corps, and the Soyang River sector guarded by the US X Corps and the ROK III Corps. It is only within the Imjin River Sector that the UK 29th Brigade guards the Solma-ri area. It should be noted that within the Imjin River sector, the US I Corps had 3 Infantry Divisions besides the 29th Brigade, and at two of the divisions (ROK 1st Infantry Division and US 3rd Infantry Division) had also played an important part in the defense of Imjin River. My argument is that the name Battle of the Imjin River must include the entire Imjin River sector guarded by the US I Corps. If you want to disembarg, then it would be something like Battle of the Imjin River (US I Corps) and Battle of the Imjin River (29th Independent Infantry Brigade), but this is really absurd given that 29th Brigade was part of the US I Corps.
Although only British sources explicitly used the term "Battle of the Imjin River", other countries sources have defined the Imjin River battle area to be much wider. For example:
  • "From above the Imjin on the west wing of the main effort, the XIX Army Group was to attack southeast toward Seoul, crossing the river on a twelve-mile front centered on the Korangp'o-ri bend and advancing on the capital through a narrowing zone between Routes 1 and 33 (areas from ROK 1st Division to Turkish Brigade)...pit the 64th Army against the bulk of the ROK 1st Division and the 63d Army against the British 29th Brigade occupying the left half of the 3d Infantry Division's sector." - Mossman, p 379.
  • "The US I Corps established its Main Line of Resistance along the Imjin River and Hantan River (it should be noted that Hantan River is still part of the Imjin River Valley) in the Western front...XIX Army Group [sic] along the line of Kuhwa-ri-Toksa-ri north of the Imjin River...the CCF XIX Army Group deployed along the Imjin River attacked US I Corps..." - Korean Institute of Military History, Korean War, Vol II, pp 601, 604, 607.
Given that only British sources equate the battles along the Imjin River with the actions of the 29th Brigade alone, I don't believe it is either accurate or fair to use this article to only include 29th Brigade's action alone. Jim101 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:TITLE says “Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources”;There are a stack of reliable sources that back up this content with this title; I suggest before we go much further you need to come up with a reliable source or two that use the title "Battle of the Imjin River" (BotIR) in the way you describe. ( and no, I don’t think “ doesn’t explicitly use the term, but..” cuts it, do you?)
Second, the article already mentions the contribution to the battle made by US and Filipino forces ie. the relief operation; what exactly do you think needs to be in that isn’t already here? As far as the wider event goes, the Filipino action to rhte north is already described (at Battle of Yultong Bridge) the actions by US 24 and US 25 were on the Hantan (and no, it isn’t the same thing; you wouldn’t rename the Battle of Antietam because it’s in the same river system as the Potomac). And the attack on ROK 6th was nowhere near the Imjin, nor were they even in I Corps.
Third, whatever the future scope of BotIR, there is no warrant for the current content to be renamed "Battle of Gloster Hill", a title which is not only unsupported by any source I’ve ever seen, but grossly inaccurate as well. To suggest that, while dismissing "Chinese Spring Offensive" (the phrase Mossman uses) as original research is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?
Now if you feel there is undue weight given to the British forces in all this (and as far as the CSO goes, that may be fair comment) there is a compromise suggestion here which is to put it in the context of the whole event, at an article of that name. What possible objection is there? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
At least the Philippine Battalion's battle name during the Chinese Spring Offensive is clearly limited to the Battle of Yultong Bridge rather than the Battle of the Hantan River. By equating 29th Brigade's defense to the entire defense along the Imjin River is also gross inaccurate. WP:Title did say article titles must be unambiguous and precise. If you want to avoid WP:OR, I have a more accurate name which I dug out of South Korean history published in English: Battle of Solma-ri, but then again no British ever heard of the location Solma-ri even through that is the exact sector of responsibility assigned to the 29th Brigade during the Chinese Spring Offensive (nor the fact that the 29th Brigade defended both Hantan River and Imjin River). Furuthermore, WP:Title state "when a subject or topic has a single common name (as evidenced through usage in a significant proportion of English-language reliable sources), Wikipedia should follow the sources and use that name as our article title (subject to the other naming criteria)". Given that American sources rarely, if ever use the term Battle of the Imjin River, I doubt British sources alone count as significant proportions of English-language sources. As for the creating the article "Chinese Spring Offensive", I avoided this scope because it is purely a Chinese point of view, an it is only mentioned in other countries sources as a reference. No Korean War histories ever tired to frame their narrative according to Chinese POV, now I got to synthesis one just to sidestep this dispute?
As for river systems, you clearly lack understanding in Korean terrains and its effects on operations in Korea. Given the river system in Korea and its hilly terrains, river valleys are more important terrain features than just rivers. Within Korean War histories, you will hears a lot about army operations in Han River (referring to the valley), Chongchon River (referring to the valley), Naktong River (referring to the valley), Imjin River (referring to the valley), etc. It is perfectly acceptable to use a major river name to refer the entire river valley within Korean War battle histories.
(Replying from my talk page) If you are implying that I'm favoring American side of the story, you can stop talking right now. It isn't about giving American POV more prominence, it is about telling what happened along the entire Imjin River when the Chinese Spring Offensive struck, given the Imjin River is one of the three major Chinese thrusts. Both ROK 1st Infantry Division and US 3rd Infantry Division also played an role in the defense of Imjin River, and ROK 1st Infantry Division is just as important as the 29th Brigade in the defense of Seoul. Now isn't it bit odd that the 29th Brigade is the only unit that mattered in an article named Battle of the Imjin River? If we have to obey the language technicality, the only compromise I can see is disembg between Battle of the Imjin River (US I Corps) and Battle of the Imjin River (29th Independent Infantry Brigade), but I smell this is more of a POV fork that is aimed to placate rather than solve systemic biases in an international conflict involving more than 30 nations.
I'll wait for more outside editors opinion in the meantime, but equating Battle of the Imjin River to British version of history based on language technicality feels more like wikilawying and POV abuse. Jim101 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
So, to repeat the question; do you have a reliable English language source that supports your interpretation of the term Battle of the Imjin River?
Just to be clear, Solma-Ri was not the “exact area of responsibility of 29 Bde”; it was the responsibility of one of 29 Bde’s four battalions ie the Glosters.
Also, if “American sources rarely use the term”, how can British sources not be a significant proportion of the English-speaking sources?
And if Mossman (an American) uses the term Chinese Spring Offensive, how can it be a “purely Chinese point of view”?
And my understanding of Korean terrain is not the issue; at least I know the difference between a hill and a monument.
And I’m all in favour of having the story of the ROK 1st Div told; where is it? There’s nothing here about it at all.
Also I notice you’ve edited the header to read “The Battle of the Imjin River, also known as the Fifth Phase Campaign, First Impulse” at some point; have you got a source for that? the first phase of the CSO involved most of the front, from the west coast over to the Hwach’on reservoir; the two terms are not synonymous at all.
But I totally agree this needs outside opinions; I’ve posted a request here. Xyl 54 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. I already listed two sources above (Mossman's book and Korean Institute of Military History), and their interpretations of the Imjin River battle is about the defense of the entire US I Corps.
  2. According to the English publication of Korean Institute of Military History, Battle of Solma-ri is the title assigned to the entire 29th Brigade's action, which is used to disembag ROK 1st Division's action named Battle of P'ap'yong-san also at the Imjin River
  3. Because American was involved in the battle, so their POV and naming conventions does counts.

  1. Understanding terrains and naming conventions of Korean War battles is important here because the issue is complex and involving more than 5 countries' POV, so a bit of competence is required. Furthermore, I requested that the Gloster Hill to be renamed into the full name of the memorial complex because Gloster Hill title is somewhat ambiguous (a British name for a Korean Hill or the entire memorial complex?). So far you did not respond to this request nor refute my concerns.
  2. Just because Mossman used the term doesn't mean he followed the Chinese POV. The narrative of lumping the entire Chinese Spring Offensive actions together is a practice I only find in Chinese sources. Other English sources merely refers to the concept, but none of them actually use it to frame their POV or narratives.
  3. Use Wikipedia article as sources for your points doesn't help here, and I presumed you have read enough books on South Korean contributions. But as an overview, the ROK 1st Division throw back two Chinese armies with light casualties while the 29th Brigade only managed to delay one with heavy casualties. According to Chinese version of the story, ROK 1st Division did more in stopping their attacks than the 29th Brigade.
  4. Not exactly. According to official Chinese history's narrative on Fifth Phase Campaign, First Impulse, North Korean actions were totally ignored while the actions at Kapyong and X Corps sector only received scant attention, so technically Fifth Phase Campaign, First Impulse in Chinese interpretation is synonymous to all the actions along the Imjin River Valley. But I'm willing to change this to "Imjin River Campaign" in Chinese should the scope be narrowed down. Jim101 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

outside opinion[edit]

(I've taken the liberty of sub-sectioning this, as it was getting too long (also, I forgot to sign in! Xyl 54 (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

In British English the name simply is the Battle of Imjin River. We can set this in context, and explain there were other actions along the course of the river or whatever, and mention other names used for this specific action, but nothing I've seen here convinces me that the specific name is widely used for other actions. There is an official "Battle Nomenclature Committee" which as part of the process of awarding battle honours decides what for British purposes is the official name of the battle. David Underdown (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't change my stance on this issue until someone found reliable English sources that is published outside of UK also equates the term "Battle of the Imjin River" solely to the action of 29th Brigade. Otherwise I favor renaming the action of the 29th Brigade into Battle of Solma-ri to disembeg it from ROK 1st Infantry Division's Battle of P'ap'yong-san, as per the conventions in the history books published by ROK Ministry of Defense and the fact that it is a Korean battle. It is wrong not to scrutinize the issue and let UK POV to override US, Chinese and Korean POV just on the fact that UK speaks English. Jim101 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be very surprised if Australian and New Zealand accounts didn't use the same terminology as British. Koreans may use a different name, but you haven't shown that actually refer to something as the Battle of Imjin River, so there isn't actually need for disambiguation. This can stay at this title, mention the South Korean name, and that P'ap'yong-san was also located along the Imjin and we've covered all bases. WP:ENGVAR, the battle may be in Korea, but it was fought by British (and Allied) forces, no South Korean forces were actually involved, so it's just as much a British battle. David Underdown (talk) 09:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See eg http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/ART90321.016/ "The 'Battle of the Imjin River' lasted from 22 April - 25 April 1951 and involved troops from the 29th Brigade (British) , taking a stand against the oncoming Chinese Army." from Australian War Memorial, various hits from .au in general http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBS_en&as_q=&as_epq=battle+of+the+imjin+river&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=.au&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images David Underdown (talk) 09:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
(reply to Jim)
"I won't change my stance"?: You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to ride rough-shod over articles in defiance of the guidelines we have on titles, content and sources.
BTW your link to the ROKDrop page on “Battle of Solma-Ri” doesn’t work, but I presume you mean this (picture 8) and yes, the stand of the Glosters was at Solma-ri. You might also note picture 4, the plaque with the map on it (it’s this one) showing the whole action ie 63 Army’s attack on 29 Brigade, entitled "Battle of the Imjin River".
Or you could read the acount of the battle here which covers much the same ground as this article, and titled Battle of the Imjim(sic).
The same page also has a piece on the "Chinese Spring Offensive” which says “The offensive was launched all along the frontlines but the two most important objectives...would be to capture the Kapyong Valley...and to secure a river crossing across the Imjim River"
Does this qualify as an English source “that is published outside of UK”(sic)? Xyl 54 (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"Chinese Spring Offensive” which says “The offensive was launched all along the frontlines but the two most important objectives...would be to capture the Kapyong Valley...and to secure a river crossing across the Imjim River" Common error in popular culture in describing Chinese Spring Offensive. Chinese Spring Offensive is much bigger than that. And would you please read stop quoting popular myth and accusing me of being factually inaccurate?
Furthermore, what guideline did I break by taking a stand? By presenting reliable sources which shows that the concept of Imjin River battle in Chinese, ROK and US sources is different from UK and Commonwealth sources? By arguing that when 4 distinct POV are present, just because 1 POV speaks English does not mean we should automatically override NPOV in naming? So far I did not see you presenting any RS in supporting your argument aside from wikilawyering the guidelines and accusing me of violating OR and disruptive.
To clarify, I was asking reliable sources, so at least use a history books that took another countries interpretation into account and still used the term Battle of the Imjin River exclusively to the actions of the 29th Brigade. Although DU stated that we should keep the name and explain the context, lacking a RS that explicitly explaining the context still runs afoul of WP:SYN. In case people forget, this is the interpenetration that we need to take into account when naming this article:
  • "From above the Imjin on the west wing of the main effort, the XIX Army Group was to attack southeast toward Seoul, crossing the river on a twelve-mile front centered on the Korangp'o-ri bend and advancing on the capital through a narrowing zone between Routes 1 and 33...pit the 64th Army against the bulk of the ROK 1st Division and the 63d Army against the British 29th Brigade occupying the left half of the 3d Infantry Division's sector." - Mossman, p 379.
  • "The US I Corps established its Main Line of Resistance along the Imjin River and Hantan River in the Western front...XIX Army Group [sic] along the line of Kuhwa-ri-Toksa-ri north of the Imjin River...the CCF XIX Army Group deployed along the Imjin River attacked US I Corps..." - Korean Institute of Military History, Korean War, Vol II, pp 601, 604, 607.
Both interpretation explicitly stated that the battle at the Imjin River is larger than the scope of this article, thus a RS is needed to reconcile the differences before DU's solution can be implemented. Jim101 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Your sources show that there was fighting along a wider front based on the Imjin River, you haven't shown any source (so far as I can see) that explicitly describes this wider action (in English) as the "Battle of the Imjin River", so there's no need to disambiguate this article or move it to another name other than that under which it was originally established. The synthesis would be to take all fighting along the Imjin River and call that the "Battle of the Imjin River" rather than the action of 29th Brigade which is explicitly known as such in Enlgish language sources. David Underdown (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The narrative of lumping the battles along the entire Imjin River Valley is not synthesis, it is explicitly outlined in other Korean War books such as the Korean War, Vol II, pp 607-628 (Chapter 6, section 2), and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), it is perfectly valid to also name that narrative Battle of the Imjin River. But to be more precise, it maybe more prudent to call that narrative as the Battle of the Imjin and Hantan River. I have already abandoned the idea of equating Battle of the Imjin River into the actions of the entire US I Corps, but lacking a RS that explicitly explains the naming convention and reconcile other countries conflicting POV is still not NPOV. Jim101 (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I can feel another argument coming on, but if you have in fact abandoned your idea of "equating the battle of the imjin river with the actions of the entire I Corps", then we can agree to disagree about the rest.
I notice you've removed most of the changes you've made here; I've fixed a couple that you missed. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It is synthesis, or possibly OR, to apply the name Battle of the Imjin River to the wider set of actions (I don't disagree that they are linked into a wdier campaign), none of the sources you've cited explicitly uses that name for the wider set of actions, that is the point, when there are sources which do explicitly refer to the 29th Brigade action as such. David Underdown (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of the Imjin River took place during the Chinese Fifth Offensive (Spring Offensive). It is called the Battle of Injin river by the British and the Belgium who fought there. Koreans call it the Battle of Solma-ri after the hamlet at the base of Kamak moutain the largest peak in the area. This article is written for an English speakers so the naming is what it is - UK English.. Interestingly the Battle of Kapyong is called the batle of Kapyong by Koreans. So what you need to do is start a page called the Chinese Fifth (Spring) Offensive then you can write about the battles of Paek and 1ROK, the 3rd US Div, the 10th Philipinos etc. BTW:

The narrative of lumping the battles along the entire Imjin River Valley is not synthesis, it is explicitly outlined in other Korean War books such as the Korean War, Vol II, pp 607-628 (Chapter 6, section 2), and according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), it is perfectly valid to also name that narrative Battle of the Imjin River. But to be more precise, it maybe more prudent to call that narrative as the Battle of the Imjin and Hantan River. I have already abandoned the idea of equating Battle of the Imjin River into the actions of the entire US I Corps, but lacking a RS that explicitly explains the naming convention and reconcile other countries conflicting POV is still not NPOV.

What guff! The battle was one part of the Chinese Fifth Offensive. Imjin was just one of several encounters fights that happened over the four days. Stop stirring it, what you are trying to do is like trying to stick the events of Omaha Beach into Juno or Gold. You can't. You don't seem to realise that all you have to do is make a new page regarding Peng Duhai's grand plan = the Chinese Spring Offensive. The Chinese were using three field armies in their Spring Offensive. Only the first attacked the Glosters, the second and third were assaulting the eat sof the line. SO how can they be included here? Because the Battle of Imjin River involved the British 29th Brigade and the Belgiums. The Philipino tank force tried to reach them but they couldn't; the survivors eventually got out with the 10th Hussars. Furthermore the 29th Brigade was only "attached" to Soule and 3rd Div, Carne answered directly to Brodie and not the US commander. Get your facts correct before trolling, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.7.81 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Troll vs troll, two can play this game...the exact Chinese plan against the 29th Brigade, if anyone here bother to read in detail, was to break through the ROK 1st Infantry Division's line and then roll up 29th Infantry Brigade's flank, but of course that doesn't count because that would ruin the fact that it is a purely British battle. It is amazing that people, or shall I say nationalistic zealots, still refuse to understand the full picture, and the fact that the Chinese battle plan against the 29th Brigade was actually the same battle plan against the ROK 1st Infantry Division. But then again trying to present a balance picture on an international conflict involving 30 countries would ruin the a perfectly good British article. And may I repeat one more time, Chinese Spring Offensive ran for over two months, and there isn't any western narrative that lump the entire two month event into a single narrative!
I have been thinking about the article scope a bit more, and frankly I just can't see why the scope could only allow British POV, or why blatantly ignoring NPOV policy and POV forking between Chinese, US, South Korean and British interpretation of the same event is the only solution to the problem. To present an fair an comprehensive picture on what is happening to the 29th Brigade, the least people should do is to understand the Chinese intention was with the 29th Brigade. But given the Chinese intention is a frontal attack with one army and try to roll the 29th Brigade's flank with two armies, then the ROK 1st Infantry Division's action in stopping the two flanking Chinese armies from crossing the Imjin River must also be noted due to its direct contribution to the fate of the 29th Brigade. Also directly contributing to the fate of the 29th Brigade are the actions of the US 3rd Infantry Division, and I believe that people should really put their pride and hate aside to actually analyze why the US 3rd Infantry Division made the mistakes and whether the mistake was due to the heavy Chinese attacks against the Americans, like what happened during the Third Battle of Seoul. Finally, the last piece of puzzle is the actions of the US 25th Infantry Division in rescuing Gloster, in which despite what nationalistic POV pushers say, both Chinese and US sources actually tell a hard battle were fought to rescue Gloster. The point is, when people start to look at the 29th Brigade's story neutrally from all angles, it is invertible that the story will involve the actions of the entire US I Corps, because it is pretty much a team effort between British, American and South Korean fighting man. It may be correct that the 29th Brigade was made the famous during the battle, but it's achievement did not happen in a vacuum. Jim101 (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah so write your version on a page entitled the Chinese Fifth offensive that includes the Battle of the Imjin River in the context of the wider battle plan. This page is about the Battle of the Imjin River fought between the British 29th Brigade and the Chinese 63rd Army. You keep balling about POV so what about you considering your own? This page is called the Battle of Imjin River because it's written in British English about a British action. If you want wider context then do it on the entire Chinese Fifth Offensive. What is so frustrating - and I have to come clean is I got my Masters analysing this battle and Kapyong - is that politically the UN forces were riddled with complete political infighting at this time. MacArthur had just been dismissed, the Republicans and Rhee both blamed Britain's socialist government and questions were being raised in the UK about trying to make a peace deal. BUT Wikipedia rules state that only reliable third party sources can be used to write articles, original research based on primary sources is strictly forbidden. Therefore this page should just contain the narrative of battle and how courageously the Glosters, RNF, RUR and the Belgian battlalion fought on the Imjin River April 22-25, 1951. By all means, if there are reliable sources from China [sic totalitarian state] by all means include them, but to stick to the battle. If you want to play grand tactician create a page called the Chinese Fifth Offensive and contextualise there. You are absoluelty right that Peng's thrust was to move down the Uijongbu corridor and break open the front between 29th Brigdae and the 1ROK (a la Battle of the Bulge). Fancy a single brigade of just under 6,000 men to cover 17,000 yards of front. But that is opinion and is not allowed under Original research rules. Furthermore the loss of the Glosters shows how the UN airpower behaved lamentably during the battle in it's inability to break up the Chinese wave attacks. Again, I know from original research that the Glosters had their air drops cancelled for some unknown reason. Why? I don't know t wasn't in the battle logs. But these are questions that a proper historian would be able to examine. However this is Wikipedia. You cannot add original research based on primary sources. Therefore the only thing this article needs to contend with is the battle narrative, of who, when and where. You're need to add the why is in violation of that policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.57.237 (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please understand what is original research...by incorporating already published South Korean, US, Chinese and British interpretation of the 29th Brigade's fate into a single narrative is not original research. I have been repeating for the infinite amount of time here, it is not original search if you brought sources from other established POV in trying to to fill in what is happening on the other side. Furthermore, your zeal in excluding American, South Korean and Chinese contribution to the fate of the 29th Brigade and trying to POV fork everything into a Chinese Spring Offensive article (which by the way is borderline original research because no western narrative actually lump every actions fought from April to June 1951 together) is breaking the neutral policy. Jim101 (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
A further clarification from original research policy. The policy states "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." The published Chinese document from the Chinese Military Science Academy directly stated that the Chinese battle plan against the ROK 1st Infantry Division was actually the flanking attack against the 29th brigade, therefore the defense conducted by the ROK 1st Infantry Division is directly related to the attack against the 29th brigade. Also, historians such as Appleman, Mossman and Farrar-Hockley explicitly stated that the 3rd Infantry Division's rear guard action caused the Gloster to be trapped, thus the how and why 3rd Infantry Division conducts a poor rear guard action is directly related to the Imjin River battle. Finally, it is a open fact, even within British official history, that the 25th Infantry Division tired to rescue Gloster by attacking the 63rd Army, thus how did 25th Infantry Division tried to conduct the rescue operation is also directly related to the subject matter. Did I break the original search guideline by going beyond the scope defined by the British government and incorporating directly related facts from published Chinese, Korean and American histories, even through the expanded materials could potentially include the actions of the entire US I Corps and the Chinese 19th Army Group? I don't think so. In fact, I believe the burden of proof is onto the other to demonstrate why the actions of the ROK 1st Infantry Division, US 3rd Infantry Division and the US 25th Infantry Division are not directly related to the fate of the 29th Brigade and thus should be entirely excluded from the article. Jim101 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is almost a work of fiction....[edit]

There are just far too many errors in this article that it pains me to be even bothered. But the Chinese have a good saying "Only a dog returns to its own vomit" but I could not resist. I will therefore make only these short points. Firstly the editor has really used three sources Mossman, Farrar-Hockley and [shudder] Hastings. The first two although official histories take a great deal of liberty with the truth. Mossman paints a wonderful picture of the united US 3rd Division when in fact the communications breakdown between Soule and Brodie was a significant reason for the disaster (Soule first visit to 29th BDE HQ/Brodie on the 24th). Farrar-Hockley, who was the 1st Glos. adjutant (so no question of personal bias, then?), does a wonderful job covering the cracks and the abjects failure of the 29th Brigade to a) fortify its positions (no mention of that) b) that none of the company positions even overlooked the Imjin (therefore concerted small arms fire could never be brought down on to the Imjin = a defensive water feature) c) that the Glosters failure to pull out was the result of various factors including a dull-witted commander, a slow-witted Divisional commander and an egotistical Brigade commander. Hastings' book is a paperback and hardly a peer-reviewed academic work. It makes good story but nothing else. My other point is this: when the 65th Inf. pulled out promptly at 1330 on 23 April in its withdrawal to Line UTAH, the teamwork in the 3rd Division was so wonderful [sarcastic laugh] the Belgium's right flank was only left completely exposed (WO 308/49, ‘Operations of the 1st Belgium Contingent in Korea’, The National Archive, London.). It wasn't but for the grace of god and a great deal of luck that the 44th Chinese Army didn't realise what was happening and sweep them off Hill 194. The 7th Inf. being rushed into help the Belgiums masked the other reason for their rapid deployment = the 65th was no longer there. You see where proper academic rigour leads, to more f**king questions!!!!! The stuff that is written here is no better than an average high school essay paper.

Warnings should be slapped on articles telling people that they only reiterate opinions of published authors, they are no more objective, accurate or neutral than a letter in a "Readers Digest". Unless an article is based solely on actual primary sources (e.g. the National Archives of the USA or UK), it is just a collaborative essay that contains a collection of statements that lack any analysis, assessment or academic scrutiny. BTW the rule about original research is very interesting because it means that any published opinion becomes a verifiable fact on Wikipedia. It's like money laundering with information, take a published viewpoint from a given source, reference it here = FACT. Try to question that FACT i.e. review that statement (i.e. who is the source, when was it made, why was it made etc ) and you hit the wall of introducing Original Research. And without that methodology you get something like this....And if you are wondering, no I wouldn't want to contribute to improve this article because in a collaborative effort the result is only as good as its weakest element. I am not going to waste my life "arguing the toss" with every "I-need-convincing" know-it-all who has got a copy of Max Hastings on their keyboard. I will stick to research where the best work actually comes from the most imaginative, intelligent and open-minded individuals. Charles T —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.141.206 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course WP:RS has some obvious drawbacks, but IMO allowing original research would lead to far more problems so I guess its a compromise to achieve the most workable solution. Certainly that seems to be the community consensus anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Pyrrhic victory[edit]

After the Battle of the Imjin, the forces of the United Nations had been able to stabilise the front north of Seoul on the "No-Name Line", before taking up some of their former positions on the Imjin later in the year. As a result of the battle, Chinese 63rd Army, which had started out with three divisions totalling approximately 27,000 men between them, had lost over a third of its strength and was pulled out of the front line. British 29th Brigade Group (including the attached Belgian Battalion) had borne the brunt of 63rd Army's attacks, and had gone into battle about 4-5,000 men strong. The Brigade Group lost 1,091 in killed, wounded and missing, of whom 620 were from the Glosters. The battle had been a Pyrrhic victory for the Chinese, and a short-lived one at that.

Through out my researches in British, Chinese, American and South Korean materials, this statement, which is from the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum, is the only source I can find that explicitly label this battle as Pyrrhic. Although Chinese losses is great by consulting Chinese sources, this statement is full of errors that the claim about Pyrrhic victory just can't be taken at face value.

Point 1: 63rd Army was never pulled off the frontline, it was moved to the eastern sector of the Chinese Spring Offensive and participated in the Battle of the Soyang River. Historiography wise, most British sources kept on ignoring the Second Chinese Spring Offensive happened during May and June of 1951 on eastern Korea because both Commonwealth brigades (27th & 29th) was deployed to western Korea, thus did not see any action.

Point 2: Even though Seoul is a huge prize, Chinese battle objective was never focused on Seoul. To quote Farrar-Hockley and Chinese Military Science Academy, the Chinese objective was "wiping out three divisions of American Army, three brigades of British and Turkish troops, and two divisions of South Korean Army to the west of the northern Han River." Capturing Seoul, through an important aftermath of the victory, was besides the point.

When you take out the two pillars of assumptions in Commonwealth sources in declaring this battle as a "Pyrrhic victory", is it still neutral to label it as "Pyrrhic victory" without any form of historiography discussion in the article? Jim101 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems like you are sceptical of the circumstances involved here. I just put some sources up which you withdrew and there is no point conjuring your own POV. All sources point to pyrrhic victory US, Korean, as well as British... but if you have any Chinese sources that describe this battle as a Chinese victory (although I can't imagine why) then by all means cite them. You say and I quote: Even though Seoul is a huge prize, Chinese battle objective was never focused on Seoul well please do tell what was the main focus of attack and where you got hat information? Also to add to that; that the offensive itself got the Chinese nowhere and that is a known fact. Whether the 63rd army was destroyed, moved about, left in the rear etc is irrelevant most sources describe the formation as being severely mauled. Also most sources (British too) do mention the May attack which failed disastrously mainly because the attack in April was a failure (Ridgway Duels for Korea has good info as well as Max Hastings War in Korea) to answer your last question where do take any pillars to label this as a Chinese victory? Pfifer11 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, "pyrrhic" is a loaded word, and tacking it on without crosschecking other POVs can't hardly be viewed as a responsible action. Second, all of your sources merely said that 29th stopped a possible Chinese advance on Seoul, but with regards to whether Chinese did intended to capture Seoul through 29th's area is open to speculation (the presence of the weaker ROK 1st Division on the 29th Brigade's flank and the fact that Chinese stationed three armies in front of it to break through makes the Chinese choices of breakthrough even harder to determine). The Chinese order I cited (with is authenticated by both Chinese and British official history) only hinted that destruction of the entire 29th Brigade is the real aim, while none of your sources cited used the word "pyrrhic" (nor any American and South Korean sources explicitly used the word). On the issue of whether Chinese did gain a victory here is dependent on the scope of this article, which is still fluid and covered in the long and drawn out discussion above. If you intended to frame this article as 63rd Army vs. the Glosters, then it is a Chinese victory since the Chinese managed to eliminate an UN unit, and it is the only battle of the Chinese Fifth Offensive that went according to plan after consulting with Chinese sources. But if you intended to frame this article as an examination of the entire action of the 29th Brigade (the preservation of which included the participation with almost all units of the US I Corps and the Chinese 19th Army Group), then it is a Chinese defeat since one brigade of British and one divisions of South Koreans got away in contrary to the order. Jim101 (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Then again using the result as a Chinese victory without crosschecking other POVs can't hardly be viewed as a responsible action either. The source I mentioned use the word 'failure' for the Chinese attack I have not yet seen a source that states Chinese success let alone victory. The use of the word victory is also dubious since there is no source to support it. All the sources mention the word 'failure', so therefore I will have no hesitation to remove 'Chinese victory' from infobox unless it is sourced/cited properly. As you say this is 29th Brigade as whole and not the Glosters as a sinlge unit.Pfifer11 (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. Jim101 (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be far too controversial to describe the result as a pyrrhic victory for the Chinese. Better instead to stay with the existing 'disputed'. This better represents the lack of academic consensus on the matter. ThoAthena (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of the Imjin River. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of the Imjin River. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Battle of the Imjin River. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian, Canadian and New Zealand?[edit]

I'm curious to know what part the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand forces played in this battle. They are represented in the infobox, but do not appear in the narrative. FactotEm (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I went WP:BRD and removed mention of these from infobox and awards section. Battle of Kapyong is thataway. FactotEm (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead image[edit]

I've replaced the lead image on the basis that the Centurions of 8th Hussars disabled during the withdrawal of the 29th Brigade on 25 April are more relevant to the article's topic than an image of US troops, who do not figure in the narrative, going on patrol before the battle started. As a note of interest, I suspect that the image's Commons description is wrong. From what I've read, no Centurions were knocked out during the attempt to relieve/reinforce the Glosters on 24 April; the column was halted when the leading M-24 Chaffee of the Fillipino 10th BCT blocked the road on being knocked out. They did lose a few during the race down route 11 though. FactotEm (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)