Talk:Battle of Hill 282

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

A tactful version of Kenny Muir's last words. In fact he said "The Gooks will never drive the Argylls off this hill !" 85.154.249.58 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible tragedy?[edit]

The wording seems quite biased. After all, the people who got firebombed were not innocent bystanders, they were soldiers in a war and, in fact, it was them who called the airstrike.

The "terrible tragedy" expression seems to imply that "throwing napalm on North-Korea soldiers" is morally good but "throwing napalm on British soldiers" is morally bad. It is akin to an editor from North Korea using the words "poetic justice" to describe the same event.

Independently of the opinions about the causes of the Korean war, a less charged (chauvinistic?) wording would be way better (v.g., "The bombing was over in...") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.17.244 (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NK Victory[edit]

According to the description, the UN soldiers attacked a NK position but could not hold it. It is not clear from the article which were the stated objetives of the attack, but if they were to capture the hill (or hills), they clearly failed. In these cases, the rules I have seen in most articles is to declare the battle a victory for the defender (another issue would be the importance of that result in the outcome of the war, it could be just a tactical victory).

Unless other objectives are documented (say, keep the NK forces from reinforcing other positions under attack), I would see that this clearly classifies as a victory for North Korea, not a stalemate at all. I hope someone with access to more documentation can add information that justifies the current "classification" or solves the issue.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Hill 282. 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/20070928151218/http://www.kmike.com/Appleman/Chapter28.htm to http://www.kmike.com/Appleman/Chapter28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 17:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]