# Talk:Battle of Chosin Reservoir

should this be added on how Tootsie Rolls Saved Troops at the Battle of the Chosin Reservoir if you want to do some research here is a link -> https://americangimuseum.org/tootsie-rolls-saved-troops-at-the-battle-of-the-chosin-reservoir/ https://tootsie.com/letters-stories/5 2604:3D09:A984:F000:246B:307E:EB7D:22C2 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Trivia. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Umm this is wikipedia not fandom. 2604:3D09:A984:F000:246B:307E:EB7D:22C2 (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Umm this is wikipedia not fandom 2604:3D09:A984:F000:38F7:22F8:686D:8A66 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably noteworthy to mention in the lead paragraph that the evacuation at Hungnam was the very last time American or South Korean troops would fight in North Korea. And that the US intelligence had failed to notice a quarter of million Chinese advancing only at night and camping camouflaged and marching 100 miles from the border to Chosin Reservoir, and that intelligence mishap was what lead to them effectively ending their control of North Korea. Saturdaysuggestion (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Historyman1944, stop WP:EDITWARRING this page by changing the outcome to "Chinese victory" in the Infobox. As can be seen from the Outcome assessment section of Aftermath, it was much more complicated than that. 
The Template:Infobox military conflict provides clear guidance on the result parameter: "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." 
If you continue to editwar the result I will have you blocked. Mztourist (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m simply correcting the outcome for this battle. The Chinese forced the Americans to retreat and evacuate. This battle was a part of the Chinese offensive that caused the longest retreat in US history. I would definitely call that a defeat for the US. You need to make sure to not let bias change how history is told. I would hope that someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you have would understand this and would understand to only tell history through a neutral stance. It seems by changing the outcome to “see aftermath” you are trying to make it seem like the battle was not as much of a defeat for the US as it really was and are trying to have it seem more inconclusive as that is the best you could do with a vague term like “see aftermath” while not lying outright. When people visit a Wikipedia article they don’t want to have to scroll through the aftermath section to find out which side won especially since a lot of sources in the aftermath section can be biased. People go to Wikipedia for a clear cut answer when it comes to battles, and the clear cut answer for this battle is that it was a Chinese victory. Historyman1944 (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
You are not "correcting" anything. See Aftermath is correct because the outcome was a lot more complicated than your interpretation. As I have already said above, Template:Infobox military conflict provides clear guidance on the result parameter and I am following that. Your opinion on the outcome and what people come to WP for is just that, only your opinion. The result was stable until you decided to try to impose your opinion on the Infobox. I disagree with you and am following policy, so unless you can establish a WP:CONSENSUS that supports your opinion that this was a Chinese victory the result stays as See Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The infobox has now been changed to "Pyrrhic Chinese victory". I don't see a consensus for this and no sources have been produced to say it's "pyrrhic". "See Aftermath" would be better.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Jack Upland, this needs more eyes and as you can see above and on the main page I have until now been dealing with a user who insists that their view is correct. Mztourist (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Tagging User:Hey man im josh as you restored the result to be "Pyrrhic Chinese victory". As detailed above Template:Infobox military conflict provides clear guidance on the result parameter and so Pyrrhic should not be used. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Mzt summarises the situation well above. At the least there needs to be a consensus here to IAR and a consensus in both the article and the RSs that the battle resulted in a Pyrrhic Chinese victory. I have changed it to match the article, the infobox guidance, the RSs, and consensus here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Outcome assessment section of Aftermath shows that there are conflicting views from various RS about the result. In such circumstances the approach has always been to have the result parameter as See Aftermath. Mztourist (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey I'm fine with you fixing the result. I was not aware of that. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
So long as there isn't a consensus for a Chinese victory - ie unanimity is not required - then fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Victory and defeat depend on what the objectives were.  The article says that the Chinese Communist Forces objective was the destruction of the four named Allied divisions.  It is evident that this objective was not fully achieved. So the answer is more complex than "Chinese victory".-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Can someone else please change the result so that I'm not accused of edit-warring again. Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
You’re acting like I accused you of edit warring first. Let me remind you that it was YOU that accused me of edit warring while you were simultaneously doing the exact same thing I was doing. If your going to be a hypocrite then just own up. Historyman1944 (talk) 05:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
In response to the last two posts, I have changed the result field in the infobox to see aftermath, with a wikilink to the aftermath section because that makes it easier for people skim-reading the infobox to understand what is meant by "see aftermath".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Until recently, this article was written on the basis that the level of command in the Chinese Army above division was "corps", and the level above that was "army".  Footnote (e) says: In Chinese military nomenclature, the term "army" (军) means corps, while the term "army group" (集团军) means army.  The companion article Battle of Chosin Reservoir order of battle is still written on that basis.
This way of describing things is not consistent with (at least some) English-language histories of the Korean War, which use the terms "army" and "army group" when talking about Chinese Army formations.  For example, The Korean War by Max Hastings page 160 says "China's initial force in Korea was organised as XIII Army Group, and comprised four armies, each of three 10,000-man infantry divisions..."  Similarly, the Korea Institute of Military History's The Korean War, Volume Two page 205 says "the three armies (the 20th, the 26th and the 27th Armies) of CCF IX Army Group..."  [CCF stands for Chinese Communist Forces].
On 14 July, Hughwang made three edits to the article that changed all the Chinese Army designations from "corps" to "army" and from "army" to "corps".[1][2][3] - though he/she did not change the note that explained the previous designations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
The article made sense in English before Hughwang changed it - though it was inconsistent with English-language books on the war.  The article would also make sense if it used the terms "army" and "army group" for Chinese Army designations.  But it is confusing/wrong, in English, to use the term "corps" for the level above "army", which is what Hughwang's version does.  We should either revert Hughwang's edits, or we should mostly accept them but change where it says "People's Volunteer Army (PVA) 9th Corps" to "People's Volunteer Army (PVA) 9th Army Group".  The companion article Battle of Chosin Reservoir order of battle should be made to match whatever the decision is, and footnote (e) should explain the designation system used.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

There has been a lot of information that has recently been added to this article that I believe are duplicative and should be either put in a better way or removed altogether. In the introduction, we have two new sentences which were added to the end of the section, the first one dealing with the Hungham evacuation and the second dealing with changes in territorial control. However, these are topics which have already been covered in the section and there's no reason why the new information which the sentences contained can't be merged with the preexisting material which covered those topics. We should put what's new from the first sentence (the description of the evacuation as the "greatest evacuation movement by sea in U.S. military history" ) with the pre-existing part which discussed the UN withdrawal to Hungnam while we should put what's new from the second ("Chinese forces had advanced and reclaimed nearly all of North Korea.") with the preexisting part which discussed the withdrawal of the US Eighth Army from northwest Korea.
Moving on to the Aftermath, a new section entitled Territorial changes was added. However, as is the case with the introduction section, this topic has already been covered elsewhere in the section (mainly in the "Outcome assessment" and "Wider effect on the war") so there's no need for a dedicated section for it. Additionally, the wording (e.g. "decisively halted" and "compelled to abandon") and lack of a page number for the source indicates neutrality and verification problems with the way the section is written. If a page number can't be given for the information in the section, then it should be removed as it can't be verified. To give editors some time to meet verification requirements, we can for now retain the information. However, we should put it into the "Wider effect on the war" section as the preexisting material there most directly covered the topic of territorial control. Sgbreaker (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)