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)

I'm not sure historical accuracy is all it's cracked up to be when it comes to spelling, otherwise, we'd have to rename the articles to "Twelfe Night" and "Merrie Wiues of Windsor". But a better reason to use "Incheon" is that a machine translation would have a better chance of properly rendering this (especially into Korean) using the latest romanization guidelines.138.163.0.41 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2010 (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)

Also agreed. I mean ... the Germans ended up over-extending themselves in the Soviet Union, and lost the war, while if you consider at least the pre-China phase of the Korean war, the Americans had met their objectives the moment they'd established a beach head. They were trying to relieve pressure from Busan, and had achieved that. The next phase was basically to expect a counter-attack, so cautious movement is to be expected. And from this point, they decisively relieve the pocket, and march to the Chinese border.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Who was the winner?

A quote from the introduction: "the battle ended a string of victories by the invading North Korean People's Army" this can't be right, can it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.57.118 (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it meant that it ended the string of North Korean victories that led to the UN forces being pushed back to Pusan, and that it started the victories for the UN side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnormalitycomplex (talk • contribs) 23:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Correct. It's referring to the series of UN-NK engagements that started with the UN defeat at the Battle of Osan and continued through the Pusan Perimeter campaign. —Ed!^(talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sinking of an LST at Blue Beach?

In the Blue Beach section, it is mentioned that "the combined fire from several NKPA gun emplacements sank one LST." There's no citation for this; in my own research on the Battle, I've not come across any reference to an LST's sinking at Blue Beach. Does anyone have a good source or reference for whether this happened or not? I don't ask to disparage the idea that it happened, but rather out of interest to know if it did indeed happen and what details are known of it. -- Filmcom (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Inchon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080513212923/http://www.ussrochester.org/gray_ghost/grayghost.pdf to http://www.ussrochester.org/gray_ghost/grayghost.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Battle of Inchon. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/kowar/50-unof/inchon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070430015053/http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Lopez_B.htm to http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/HD/Historical/Whos_Who/Lopez_B.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/korea/chron50.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://history.navy.mil/download/i-40-41.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929173840/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031103/3korea_2.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031103/3korea_2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041017232054/http://history.navy.mil/wars/assault.html to http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/assault.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Inchon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140713225120/http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-unoff/unoff.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/kw-unoff/unoff.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607090224/http://www.concordma.gov/pages/ConcordMA_Veterans/articles/2005/042005 to http://www.concordma.gov/pages/concordma_veterans/articles/2005/042005

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Incheon

Is transliterated as Incheon. Han Jo Jo (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

And also as Inchon; see the sources already cited in the article, and our WP:Use commonly recognizable names policy. As long as Inchon is the more common spelling in contemporary works in English, we'll continue using that spelling on Wikipedia; if this changes, then we'll change with the shift in practice (thus we have articles on cities at Beijing and Mumbai rather than Peking and Bombay, which redirect to the newer names).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

See Romanization of Korean. Note, at the time of this battle, the city's name was translated under this spelling, so that's why we've used that spelling, and other names as they were translated at the time. —Ed!^(talk) 02:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus in the discussion is that, while Incheon is the WP:COMMONNAME of the city, the common name of the battle is nevertheless "Battle of Inchon". (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Battle of Inchon → Battle of Incheon – The article title for the city itself is Incheon, and the translation from Korean is Incheon, (I'm Korean) Jishiboka1 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Copying the !vote from the RM/TR, and pinging: @Vpab15: UtherSRG (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support WP:CONSISTENCY In ictu oculi (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Korea has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose In English-language RS sources, it seems "Battle of Inchon" predominates by quite a bit. This is how the historical event is commonly known. That current spelling on the modern city article is "Incheon" should not affect that, any more than the "Black Hole of Calcutta" or "Battle of Madras" should be re-spelled "Black Hole of Kolkata" or "Battle of Chennai". Walrasiad (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose while I recognise the modern English spelling of Incheon, the WP:COMMONNAME for this action was the Inchon Landings or Battle of Inchon. Agreeing with User:Walrasiad, if we go down this path then presumably the Battle of Pusan Perimeter would need to become the Battle of Busan Perimeter, whereas it was known as Pusan or even Fusan during the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Names of battles often use historical names, e.g. everybody calls it the Battle of Stalingrad, not the Battle of Volgograd, even in the Soviet Union after Stalin had been almost erased. PatGallacher (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
• There are many instances: Sawol (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.