This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@Mztourist in response to your edit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
It's not that evident at all that the Chinese and NK forces can even retake that land. You can have two very different possible scenarios. 1. The UN forces leaving quickly..(and the Chinese forces returning back home or staying their position as they are too tired to advance). OR 2. they advance really fast and retake the lands that were formerly UN controlled. When you can have two very different situations. That is why it's important to mention that it was the latter and enemy troops indeed seized that ground. people should know the full details that the outcome = UN forces retreating and Chinese plus NK forces retaking territory and your edits are just hiding that fact now. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/reviews/000702.02kennedt.html
" saying that it was obvious, but you claimed it wasn't" - Truly circular reasoning.
umm, shouldn't I be the one telling you that. Why are you now saying it to me? Opposite day?? 🙄
You were the one who first removed my edit because you had claimed the info was already made obvious. I told you that the info wasn't presented obviously enough. I never said the info was wrong but argued for it to be added in. Ironically your reason to delete the information was because you said it was already "completely evident enough". You went from claiming it's evident enough to now claiming you need evidence for that info. You went full 180. Which is it? Already evident enough or doesn't have evidence?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
[Special:Contributions/49.179.183.11|49.179.183.11]] ( talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You argued there is no need for its inclusion as you say it's already evident enough. And now you change your tact and imply that it's false information that must need a reliable source now. Seriously? Fyi, i was questioning your circular arguments but I STILL gave a source nonetheless. And the book review is just in case you didn't read the book. My source is the actual book itself. The book is on the whole war chronologically and shows that the evacuation resulted directly to NK troops taking over the abandoned territories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
49.179.183.11 ( talk) 07:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You went from arguing that the article already mentions that fact. To now asking me for a source to prove that fact. I already pointed out to you that nowhere in the article does it make such information clear and needs to be added in. Now you are stonewalling as you realise i am right. So now asking me for a reliable source despite earlier, you were arguing thar the article made such information obvious.
I see no point in arguing with you further if you stonewall and try to make it so difficult to add in true info. Many historians don't deny that by 24th December north Korean territories were lost to the opposite side. And of you genuinely didn't know that fact, You should read my reliable source - (A Christmas Far from Home: An Epic Tale of Courage and Survival during the Korean War) by Weintraub. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Two days before Thanksgiving, American soldiers, dispatched by MacArthur far northward in direct violation of Truman's orders, were urinating triumphantly into the Yalu. Hours later, some 260,000 Chinese troops appeared as if from nowhere and hurled MacArthur's troops southward in a grisly repetition of the flight toward Pusan. By Christmas, the battered and humiliated Americans were struggling in subzero cold to re-establish a defensive line near the 38th parallel.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/reviews/000702.02kennedt.html
A successful withdrawal should ideally mean they retreated a short distance, regrouped and successfully prevented the Chinese from pushing them any further. Instead, the China Army struck, the UN army had no good defensive positions. Spread too thin, the Chinese forces overwhelmed, outflanked, and cut them off from their supply lines and caused mayhem. This mayhem caused US / UN forces into a long embarrassing disastrous retreat from the Chinese border to the approximate current DMZ line a staggering 200 miles away. That doesn't sound that successful if the withdrawal was over such a drastic excessive distance. That sounds like a defeat and unsuccessful withdrawal where they lost so much ground as they were not able to hold their ground. But i suppose some historians like to present it as successful. I disagree but thought it should be discussed. I don't really have interest in changing it without a consensus on it so you guys should debate on it. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@Mztourist in response to your edit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
It's not that evident at all that the Chinese and NK forces can even retake that land. You can have two very different possible scenarios. 1. The UN forces leaving quickly..(and the Chinese forces returning back home or staying their position as they are too tired to advance). OR 2. they advance really fast and retake the lands that were formerly UN controlled. When you can have two very different situations. That is why it's important to mention that it was the latter and enemy troops indeed seized that ground. people should know the full details that the outcome = UN forces retreating and Chinese plus NK forces retaking territory and your edits are just hiding that fact now. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/reviews/000702.02kennedt.html
" saying that it was obvious, but you claimed it wasn't" - Truly circular reasoning.
umm, shouldn't I be the one telling you that. Why are you now saying it to me? Opposite day?? 🙄
You were the one who first removed my edit because you had claimed the info was already made obvious. I told you that the info wasn't presented obviously enough. I never said the info was wrong but argued for it to be added in. Ironically your reason to delete the information was because you said it was already "completely evident enough". You went from claiming it's evident enough to now claiming you need evidence for that info. You went full 180. Which is it? Already evident enough or doesn't have evidence?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
[Special:Contributions/49.179.183.11|49.179.183.11]] ( talk) 06:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You argued there is no need for its inclusion as you say it's already evident enough. And now you change your tact and imply that it's false information that must need a reliable source now. Seriously? Fyi, i was questioning your circular arguments but I STILL gave a source nonetheless. And the book review is just in case you didn't read the book. My source is the actual book itself. The book is on the whole war chronologically and shows that the evacuation resulted directly to NK troops taking over the abandoned territories. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1052629619
49.179.183.11 ( talk) 07:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
You went from arguing that the article already mentions that fact. To now asking me for a source to prove that fact. I already pointed out to you that nowhere in the article does it make such information clear and needs to be added in. Now you are stonewalling as you realise i am right. So now asking me for a reliable source despite earlier, you were arguing thar the article made such information obvious.
I see no point in arguing with you further if you stonewall and try to make it so difficult to add in true info. Many historians don't deny that by 24th December north Korean territories were lost to the opposite side. And of you genuinely didn't know that fact, You should read my reliable source - (A Christmas Far from Home: An Epic Tale of Courage and Survival during the Korean War) by Weintraub. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 07:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Two days before Thanksgiving, American soldiers, dispatched by MacArthur far northward in direct violation of Truman's orders, were urinating triumphantly into the Yalu. Hours later, some 260,000 Chinese troops appeared as if from nowhere and hurled MacArthur's troops southward in a grisly repetition of the flight toward Pusan. By Christmas, the battered and humiliated Americans were struggling in subzero cold to re-establish a defensive line near the 38th parallel.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/reviews/000702.02kennedt.html
A successful withdrawal should ideally mean they retreated a short distance, regrouped and successfully prevented the Chinese from pushing them any further. Instead, the China Army struck, the UN army had no good defensive positions. Spread too thin, the Chinese forces overwhelmed, outflanked, and cut them off from their supply lines and caused mayhem. This mayhem caused US / UN forces into a long embarrassing disastrous retreat from the Chinese border to the approximate current DMZ line a staggering 200 miles away. That doesn't sound that successful if the withdrawal was over such a drastic excessive distance. That sounds like a defeat and unsuccessful withdrawal where they lost so much ground as they were not able to hold their ground. But i suppose some historians like to present it as successful. I disagree but thought it should be discussed. I don't really have interest in changing it without a consensus on it so you guys should debate on it. 49.179.183.11 ( talk) 08:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)