Talk:UN Forces retreat from North Korea

Not that evident and it is a huge fact

@Mztourist 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)

I am not hiding anything, obviously the PVA and KPA eventually reoccupied the land, that was why the fighting line was pushed back below the 38th Parallel. Your 1 and 2 scenarios are your own personal views not supported by any reliable sources. You should not make disputed edits to the page while there is an ongoing talk page discussion as is the case here. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

And how is it obvious? It is not like the outcome currently says 'Chinese troops evicted un troops from north Korea"?

It instead says in a very narrow way that the "UN had a successful withdrawal" which makes it ambiguous on what happened to the enemy troops in terms of territorial gain. It's not obvious at all especially when you say 'successful" withdrawal. For all you know, UN air raid campaigns, destroyed bridges and roads or left behind mines had successfully prevented the Chinese forces to advance 200 miles. We don't know anything unless it's written down to make it clear. And what is so wrong in saying the Chinese troops retook territories to clear the ambiguities? I don't understand the big deal on why you go through so much effort to hide a short brief sentence. It deserves to be mentioned as it is a big part of the outcome.49.179.183.11 (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It is completely obvious that after the UN forces withdrew the PVA/KPA reoccupied the territory. The lead explicitly "UN forces evacuated North Korea in its entirety on 25 December. UN forces then prepared new defensive lines above Seoul for an expected renewal of the PVA offensive." Mztourist (talk) 06:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That only mentions narrowly what the UN did. It gives zero or ambiguous indications on what the PVA did. Which is to advance and retake those NK territories. To make the outcome clearer, it's better to write down what the PVA did, instead of hoping it's obvious. 49.179.183.11 (talk) 06:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You would need to provide WP:RS to support that then, if not it will be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Why would I need a reliable source for what you kept claiming first was an obvious or already evident fact? Also an aftermath result doesn't mean direct consequences. It means aftermath of what occured in the actual following aftermath. The result that occured right after the withdrawal, was the PVA taking those territories and UN evacuating successfully at the same time. You first kept saying it was removed for being too obvious. Or imply that the retreat and offensive didn't occur at the same time. Regardless I can easily get a reputable source to support that resulting outcome. Weintraub would suffice. (A Christmas Far from Home: An Epic Tale of Courage and Survival during the Korean War) he says that not only did the Chinese forces retake NK territories but it emboldened them to go further south. He more than proves that the Chinese forces indeed retake all those abandoned territories because of the evacuation/mass withdrawal.

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/02/reviews/000702.02kennedt.html

So you argued with me for saying that it was obvious, but you claimed it wasn't and then when I asked you to support that with a reliable source you say you don't need to because its obvious... Truly circular reasoning. A book review is not a reliable source, you need to provide the full citation including page number for what you are claiming. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

" 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're hypocritically using circular arguments yourself which shows you're not arguing in good faith anymore. I never said the information was wrong. Don't twist my words. I said it wasn't presented in the article clearly enough.

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)

Look at the heading of this discussion that you created: "Not that evident and it is a huge fact". Well if is indeed "not that evident" and "a huge fact" then if you want to include it then you need to provide reliable source(s). You claim your "source is the actual book" then add the properly cited book to the page. I am getting tired of your poorly written comments with multiple personal attacks in all my dealings with you. Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)