# Talk:Third Battle of Seoul

This review is transcluded from Talk:Third Battle of Seoul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: —Ed!(talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)
It is reasonably well written:
On Hold
Expand the lead to a few paragraphs to summarize the entire article adequately.
Give me a few days...I'm a slow writer.
Expanded into three paragraphs
Background section: "its unexpected victories over the UN forces had made the Chinese leadership intoxicated with success." — please reword this. "intoxicated with success" isn't very encyclopedic.
I tried a different reword, although all sources I have are extremely critical on the self-delusion of the Chinese command.
"Immediately after the PVA 13th Army's victory over the US Eighth Army" — please explain which battle you are referring to here.
Fixed
"A road dubbed "Route 33" runs south across the 38th parallel" — is there an explanation as to why this road is called "Route 33?"
No explanation aside from the fact that it's just labeled Route 33 by South Korean government.
Evacuation of Seoul Section: "The US 19th Infantry Regiment on the division's left flank was then involved in numerous hand to hand struggles with the Chinese around Uijeongbu" — Was there fierce fighting that boiled down to hand-to-hand combat? Was there hand to hand combat because one side lacked weapons? An instance of hand-to-hand combat in modern warfare is exceptional and should be explained.
Details are sketchy at best, but Appleman's book implied that fierce fighting boiled down to hand-to-hand combat. I reworded to imply that.
"while another 208 British soldiers were missing in action" — what happened to these men? Were they eventually captured? Did they all end up dead?
Captured, I believe, although official British history shed no light on this issue. I added an unrelated study on British POW in the hope that I didn't breach WP:SYN.
You should devote part of the Aftermath section to listing ESTIMATED  final casualty numbers for both sides.
Give me a few days, this issue is a bit complex, and the numbers on UN side are hard to compile because there aren't any sources that did a total estimation on UN side. Given that this is more of a China vs South Korea battle, the lack of ROK numbers or even a description of ROK losses is really hard to put all casualty numbers into perspective. Jim101 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Best I can do is to narrow the UN casualties to moderate...Let me see if it is okay with you. I also added the Chinese numbers in the aftermath section. Jim101 (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable:
Pass No problems there.
It is broad in its coverage:
Pass No problems there.
It follows the neutral point of view policy:
Pass No problems there.
It is stable:
Pass No problems there.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:
Pass No problems there.
Overall:
On Hold for a few small things to be worked out. —Ed!(talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I approve. Passing the article. —Ed!(talk) 04:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the IP is trying to pull here...repeatedly removing an established and cited fact, which is explained in detail the aftermath section, and without even leaving an edit summary is blatant POV pushing. If China lost all support at UN while all of its troops are rendered combat ineffective does not count as a "strategic failure", I don't know what it is. Furthermore, a "decisive victory" means both tactical and strategic victory, which China did not accomplish in this battle. Finally, the term "decisive victory" is something that only Chinese Propaganda Ministry would use to describe this battle. Even the researches from PLA has some reservations on using the term "decisive victory" to describe this battle's outcome. Jim101 (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Most people would write: "Chinese military victory." Further delineation beyond that point is pointless, anybody who is interest can go read more about it in the article. Second of all, the result section is not a place where you talk about strategic outcome of a battle. That is after-action reporting that surely doesn't belong in the results section. The result should be "Chinese military victory," and further strategic outcomes should be focused in the Aftermath section, not 'tactical victory or 'strategic victory', which is meaningless without context of what strategic relevance means, and in what context.Phead128 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Might I also drop a line that it's confusing because strategic win or loss needs context, and thus, befitting a role within the Aftermath section, rather than a simple-one-line explanation like "Chinese strategic failure"... I would much rather have it as a simple: "Chinese military victory", and leave the reader to read up on the 'tactical' or 'strategic' victories within the article itself. Isn't that the point of the Aftermath section?Phead128 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Please define "most people", because there is no guideline on whether strategic outcome should not be included in the article. In fact, a lot of high quality Wikiepdia articles do and sometime must included 'tactical victory or 'strategic victory' conditions to make it more complete and not oversimplify the situation. Content wise, if you have sources to back up your belief that the Chinese did not suffer a strategic failure, I would be gladly to remove the "strategic failure" line. But claiming something is too "confusing", when I did explain the situation in the 3d paragraph of intro, outlined the Chinese strategic goals in the Background and Forces and strategies section, explain it more in detail the Aftermath section, and without you specificity pointing out which part is confusing...is not really helpful in solving the problem. Jim101 (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
In light of the high quality Wikipedia articles presented, and more important, since there is a Wikipedia article on 'strategic victory', and not 'strategic failure', I have updated the article in accordance to that fact. Have a good day.Phead128 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Irony - high quality Wikipedia articles is obviously not that high quality because it contains 'over-linking.'Phead128 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. If you have a problem with the content, then provide sources. If you have a problem with me, then take it outside. I'm merely improving the presentation by preventing overlinking. Jim101 (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You are just butt-hurt because I used your own evidence against you, Kimchi boy. My changes reflect high quality articles on Wikipedia. Please do not contradict yourself. Phead128 (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Case closed and vandal identified. Have a nice day. Jim101 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
From this point of view, ALL battles in Europe's WWII should carry this tag, as Allied Forces finally won. Dunkerke? Strategic victory for Great Britain. Invasion of Poland? Strategic victory for US. The whole Korean War bunch of articles suffers from the same "approach", lacking communist Asian references or calling them propaganda, instead of recognizing the propaganda from both sides. For example, the word Communist is used as a pejorative, as in the American press of the times, while never, ever are UN forces qualified as Capitalist. It's frequent to find always the same ignorance and lack of historic approach in any article that remotely includes any American intervention, when editorialized by Americans; although I have no idea of Jim's nationality, I bet he is surprised by other people, like Koreans and Chinese, not sharing the same opinion Americans have about their colonial interventions in Asia. I believe Mr. Jim is disrespecting Chinese and North Korean point of view by calling it propaganda. Please, Jim, read twice which is the remedy for Countering systemic bias: avoid omissions. One would wish this ugly editorial attitude was caused by stupidity and lack of historic rigor and not by having an editorial agenda. Seoul was won in this battle by Chinese forces and the Eight Army was defeated in this particular battle, period. The strategic result of this war was an stalemate, for the love of Pete! I guess Jim must be worried sick by not having put the same tag (Vietnamese strategic victory) in all Vietnam battles or the tag of a Chinese strategic victory at the Second Battle of Seoul to prevent "vandals" from acting. What a shame to share this encyclopedia with editors like this one. A strategic victory implies a definite strategy in a crucial point of a particular battle (because one commander HAS a strategy), hopefully supported by quotes that show the point of view of a majority of historians. As you can hardly find common points among North Koreans and South Koreans or Chinese and Americans in a war that DEFINITELY ended in a stalemate, qualifying this as a strategic victory is amazing for many observers: show me Chinese and North Korean sources that agree with this, please! Even the "Have a nice day" comment shows the arrogance and rudeness that any diversion from official American history automatically brings forward in this kind of "editors" (or, as they should be called in justice, "distorters"). Knowledge without depth is the same as ignorance. This "strategic victory" tag qualifies for Americapedia, not the for the kind of Wikipedia many wish. As my father would say (sorry), "NPOV my ass".Ciroa (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 Rather than attacking another editor's motivations how about discussing the issue in good faith? For the record Jim has made a large number of contributions adding high quality CHINESE language sources to numerous articles on the Korean War and I seriously doubt his edits are anything other than an attempt to present the information available as accurately as possible. I for one have written a number of articles in this area which would suffer from the very bias you claim to have identified here were it not for Jim's efforts to add such sources. That said I agree there may be some issues with the trend in wikipedia to use the "tactical defeat, strategic victory" tag (or vice versa), although I'm not yet convinced that it is incorrect here. Happy to reconsider in light of a reasoned and polite opinion to the contrary if you a prepared to offer one though. Anotherclown (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the original victory condition was "Chinese strategic failure" per the failure to translate symbolic military victory to total political victory as Mao envisioned, but User:Phead128 insisted that it should be changed to "UN strategic victory", which is not accurate at all. In the end I yield since edit war with vandals over minor details is completely pointless. As for the analysis of how the Chinese decision to cross the 38th Parallel adversely impact Chinese military operation during February-March 1951 (which for the record cost China 4 out of 6 armies deployed in Korea), please read Zhang, Shu Guang (1995), Mao's Military Romanticism: China and the Korean War, 1950-1953, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, ISBN 0700607234 and Bin Yu's essay in  Ryan, Mark A.; Finkelstein, David M.; McDevitt, Michael A. (2003), Chinese Warfighting: The PLA Experience Since 1949, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, ISBN 0765610876. Professor Zhang Shu Guang has extensive access to Chinese government achieves while Bin Yu works for the PLA Academy of Military Science. I can't really be surprised at User:Ciroa comment since Wikipedia operates on "Experts are Scum" basis. Jim101 (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to clear that up Jim. Given this I think the current wording seems reasonable, or even something like "Chinese tactical victory, strategic Chinese defeat". I don't really have a strong opinion either way though. Any one else have any thoughts on this? Anotherclown (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I revert it back to "Chinese strategic failure" per the conclusion of Bin Yu and Zhang Shu Guang (I could also bring up the conclusion of Professor Xue Yan of the PLA National Defense University, but that's just carpet bombing the infobox)...compromise to reach consensus is one thing, compromise to reduce factual accuracy/article quality is an entirely different matter. Jim101 (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair call IMO. Now I think about it "strategic failure" does seem to make more sense than "strategic defeat" in this case. Anotherclown (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

why are <1k UN casualties described as "moderate" and 8.5k NK/CN casualties as "light"?
if these are quotes from sources, it should be either in quotation marks or otherwise marked as that, or changed in wording, shouldnt it? otherwise the article isnt neutral on this. EnTerbury (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumably each side assessed its own casualties according to their own subjective criteria and the RS simply reflected this.Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)