Talk:Battle of Triangle Hill

Very Impressed

I have not really visited this page for a year and am positively impressed with the result. Good job, Jim.

Duduong (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

US 187th Regiment at Triangle Hill?

I have always been amazed by the neglect of Operation Showdown in the US media. Given that the battle was a major failure that led to the ignominious retirement of Gen. Van Fleet, this neglect is probably understandable but nonetheless something I would like to rectify.

In writing this article, I have tried to balance the accounts from both sides and filter out as much as I can the propaganda elements in the records, particularly on the Chinese side. Chinese readers must remind themselves that many of the heroes in their history books may have been puffed up by the propaganda practices common to communist regimes of the 50s and 60s. Please refrain from listing their supposed deeds verbatim here as these events cannot possibly be verified from the other side.

There is very little I can find about the fighting after October 25, 1952, from the Korean point of view, however, probably due to my inability to read Korean. Therefore the story on the latter half of the battle may be one-sided despite my best effort. If anyone with reliable sources can provide additional information, I will be most grateful.

A major discrepancy that I am already aware of is the participation of the US 187th Regiment in early November. The Chinese sources clearly state that this elite unit assaulted Triangle Hill for three days, but US records show that it was in Japan at the time. I have written to the regiment's veteran association for clarification but have not received a reply yet. It is possible a regiment from another US unit conducted the attack instead as Chinese battlefield intelligence at the time was rather poor. The most likely candidate for this mistaken identity would be the rested and reconstituted US 7th Division. Anyone knowledgeable of this issue is most welcome to contribute.

Duduong (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Something is indeed odd about 187th's presence on the Chinese account.

According to the Chinese, on Oct 30th, ROK 31st Regiment attack the hills and taken over 50% losses, after that 187th replace 31st in the attack, then 31st is put back to the attack again on Nov 5th by Chinese account. It just seemed a bit odd that the 31st is the only regiment that is not rotated after heavy losses like all the other units. It maybe that 31st was present at all times from Oct 30th to Nov 5th engaging in seesaw battle with PVA, and the communist propaganda machine just throw in 187th to make themselves look good.

Also the Chinese article in the reference is definitely published earlier than 2000. I remember I was read that article during 1997/1998 in an offical PLA publication detailing the history of the 45th division from the Red Army to the creation of the airborne corp. If anyone can find that book/magazine, it would be a great help.

Jim101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

If you look at the Chinese casualty numbers by the Chinese themselves, you will realize that the majority of it (over 11,000) occurred in November. The fighting against the ROK 2nd Division must have been really fierce and bloody. Given that the ROK troops were not nearly as well equipped nor trained as their US counterparts at the time, I doubt that one or two Korean regiment can hold on for five or six days in see-saw battles against more than 3 full Chinese regiments. Yes, American records that I can find speak of no American casualties in November. Then again, the Ethiopian and the Colombian battalions both were parts of the US 7th Division at the time. If the Ethiopians were in the battle, can the rest of the 7th Division totally stayed out of it? I still consider a few battalions of the 7th Division being mistaken for the 187th Regiment (mostly because 秦基伟 himself was expecting it, not knowing that the regiment had been withdrawn to Japan in previous weeks) as the most likely scenario.

Duduong (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese sources uses the book The Rakkasans: The Combat History of the 187th Airborne Infantry by Flanagan, E. M. as the reference for 187th's presence on the battle...If anyone has access to this book, it would be great, if not, my city's library has a copy to this book and I'll take a look when I have time. Jim101 (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

After going through the book, 187th was not there, period. Whoever put this up as reference on the Chinese wiki about 187th's pesence on triangle hill needs a slap in the face.

Also, the only thing I find is that between Oct 30 to Nov 5th is that only ROK 30 and 31 regiment was there. No element of US 7th division, including the Ethopians was mentioned. Jim101 (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Connection with US policy in Vietnam War...

First of all, I thank Duduong for taking time on this important event in Chinese history...

I do have a question on this quote from the article:

"The scale of these combats and their resulting casualties left a lasting impression on the US army, however, contributing to its refrain decades later from having its ground forces venture into North Vietnamese territory, a decision that had major ramifications on the general course of the Vietnam War."

After reading some papers and analysis on both Korean and Vietnam War from both Chinese and American side, this is the first time I read US military policy in Vietnam got tied directly into a battle of Korean War. I would like to see the source of this statement. Jim101 (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I first learned about the connection more than 20 years ago when I was still employed in the military of an Asian country. Later on, several English books on Vietnam War also made the connection/comparison. I still remember one of the books went on to comment that American Army never had a company-size position overrun by the Vietcom while defending companies and battalions in Korea were routinely wiped out by the Chinese. (I have not verified the accuracy of this statement.) Unfortunately, that was years ago and I can no longer say for sure which book it was. But I am fairly confident that this is not a new idea and would like to encourage people who have read similar accounts recently to fill in the references.

Duduong (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

By the account of Carter Malkasian, given Chinese's willingness to take casaulties and the massive loss of war materials in battles like this, US planners used attrition to wear out the Chinese until their economy was in ruins. So they tried the same tactic in Vietnam, but it didn't work. Jim101 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I was finally able to find one of the books that had a clear statement on this issue. On page 91 of "The Korean War, 1950-1953", Carter Malkasian, the author, says: "the USA never again tried to liberate a Communist state by invasion. For example, in the Vietnam War, the USA would not invade North Vietnam for fear of Chinese intervention." I think this strategic decision is far more important than the tactical lesson you mentioned above.

Duduong (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! I have that book in reference, its just a matter of adding page number as the reference. Thanks for your help. Jim101 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of remove this entire Vietnam War stuff, the Vietnam War policy was impacted by all hill battles between 1951 to 1953, and Triangle Hill is just one of them. As a single battle, it is not notable enough to highlight its impact on Vietnam War policy. Jim101 (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please romanization all Chinese charactors within the article...

Given that this is the English wiki, it would be apporiate to romanize Chinese charactors with the Pinyin system to help English readers. Jim101 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your changes to the Romanized spellings as well as the addition of some references. We definitely need more references, however, particularly Korean ones.

Duduong (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Corps vs Army

I want to mention here that the corps of the PVA were routinely mistranslated into English as "army". For example, the 15th Corps appeared in other wiki articles as "the 15th Army". As anyone who can read Chinese can see this mistake clearly, I will simply make the correction without verbose discussions.

Duduong (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Shangganling vs ShangGan Ridge

Please note that 上甘岭 is the name of the hamlet, not a ridge. I think the proper translation should therefore be Shangganling instead of ShangGan Ridge.

Duduong (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, my Chinese is getting rusty. Jim101 (talk) 14:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Found the corresponding Korean place Sanggamnyong. Jim101 (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Article in reference should be treated as questionable source

I propse this because:

a) The source of this article is unknown.

b) Lauguage of the article is unprofessional.

c) Strong Links to PLA publications and propaganda.

d) Plagiarism is suspected.

Limit the use of the Chinese article only on Chinese troop deployments, command decisions, and combat actions. Remove all Chinese reference to US/ROK troop depolyments, command decisions and combat actions. Jim101 (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not as serious as it sounds, as only two paragraphs in the current version will be suspect. As I mentioned before, some corroborating accounts from the US or ROK sources will be helpful.

Duduong (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are few things in the article that looks like hearsay from the Chinese article:

1) US preperation (highway works and smoke cover) plus probes increase before Oct 14th.

2) Amount of shells dumped onto Chinese on Oct 14th.

3) Spokesman of the Eighth Army admitted to reporters that Operation Showdown had failed.

Plus one inconsistency: Chinese article first said that ROK 31st regiment was out of action for the rest of the campaign after Oct 31st (which is supported by US sources), then it says that on November 5th it came back, without any explaination.

I would suggest to remove/modify those points at least because it undermines credibility. Jim101 (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Triangle Hill/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Background

• "With the resignation of Dwight D. Eisenhower as Commander of NATO in June 1952" - "With the resignation of Dwight D. Eisenhower as Commander of NATO forces in Korea in June 1952", since he wasn't commander of NATO as an organisation.
• "General Matthew Ridgway was transferred from Korea to Europe" - "General Matthew Ridgway was transferred from Korea to Europe to replace him" or similar? Assuming that was the motive for the transfer. It's kind of a loose sentence at the moment.

Reword the entire sentence, Dwight D. Eisenhower is now the "Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization"

• "reengage the Communists in a major campaign" - "reengage the Chinese forces in a major campaign", since it wasn't an assault on all commies :P.

I though Communist are sides like how UN was used in the article...nvm, I change it anyway.

• "due primarily to Sino-Korean insistence" - "primarily due to Sino-Korean insistence". Suggest an inline citation for this sentence, as well.

Added citation, changed.

• "the High Command of the PVA" - link PVA.

Linked

• "that describes a V shape " - "that appears as a V shape" maybe? "describes" doesn't really work.

Changed

• "The other terminated in a pair of hills that had been dubbed Jane Russell" - surely they still terminate in a pair of hills?

Changed the word "terminate" to "connected"

That hasn't fixed the problem. "connected" and "terminated" are past tense - although not pluperfect, they imply the ridge no longer terminates in a pair of hills which, short of tactical nukes being used for some quick redecoration, they probably do. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, serious misunderstanding, fixed. Jim101 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle

• "the two hundred-eighty guns and howitzers" - two hundred and eighty, surely? And link howitzer.

Linked and fixed.

• Ditto "three hundred thirty seven men".

Fixed

• "prevented UN forces from receiving any resupply, the defenders were forced to give up all captured ground after running out of ammunition" - "prevented UN forces from receiving any resupply, and the defenders were forced to give up all captured ground after running out of ammunition".

Fixed

• "replaced the 2nd Battalion of the ROK 32nd Regiment with 2nd Battalion of the ROK 17th Regiment" "replaced the 2nd Battalion of the ROK 32nd Regiment with the 2nd Battalion of the ROK 17th Regiment".

Fixed

• "The PVA 45th Division had infiltrated small units into UN positions every night to resupply the trapped units and to evacuate the wounded, heavy casualties were inflicted on Chinese logistics and medical units." - not quite sure to make of this sentence, but it certainly needs tweaking.

Reworded

• "But there was no battalion level combat between October 20 and October 29. UN forces were able to fortify their new possessions while the Chinese were gathering their strength for a decisive blow." - "As there was no battalion level combat between October 20 and October 29. UN forces were able to fortify their new possessions while the Chinese were gathering their strength for a decisive blow." and an inline, please.

I added a citation from Chinese sides that claimed most of the battle at this phase are just patrols, which were no larger than company level.

Excellent; did you fix the grammar problem there as well? Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually rewrote the entire sentence. It is now "As there was no battalion level combat between October 20 and October 29,[51] the Chinese were able to gather their strength for a decisive blow." Jim101 (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• "the 44th Division increased its attacks in strength" - "the 44th Division increased the strength of its attacks"

Fixed

• "15th Corps bombarded the Koreans with one hundred thirty three" - the 15th Corps, and the numbering problem again.

Fixed

• "When the bombardment ended by midnight" - at or before midnight, surely?

Around that point...Chinese said 12:00 a.m., UN said 1:00 a.m....changed to "at"

• "The Koreans fought to the last man, with only one hundred and seventy-five soldiers survived the onslaught out of the three defending companies." - first, "with" and "survived" are different tenses. Second, if 175 survived, that isn't fighting to the last man.

Fixed and reworded

• "With the PVA 91st Regiment of the 31st Division, 12th Corps, arrived as reinforcement on the night of October 31" - arriving, not arrived.

Fixed

Aftermath

• "one of the most prestigious unit within the PLA, and the PLAAF selected the 15th Corps to become China's first airborne corps in 1961.[71] It remains the most elite corps-size units in China today" - prestigious units, corps-size unit. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Jim101 (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

U.S. elections backdrop

The following section, which I added and Jim101 removed, states a key contextual fact -- this battle occurred during the final weeks of the Presidential Campaign, in which the Korean War figured prominently. The sources verify the fact.

The Battle of Triangle Hill was initiated during the final weeks of the 1952 U.S. Presidential Campaign in which the Korean War figured prominently as a campaign issue, and developments on the battlefield received extensive contemporaneous U.S. press coverage. On October 25, after Democratic Party candidate Adlai Stevenson said Republican promises of a "quick end" or "easy victory" were false, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his famous campaign pledge to visit Korea as his first task if elected president, and "bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end." On the eve of the elections, General Van Fleet declared that U.N. forces were "'in complete control of the situation' at Triangle Hill and nearby Sniper Ridge" and could "continue to chew up all the Chinese they want to throw into the battle" even as the Associated Press was reporting that Chinese forces had "stopped cold" ROK attacks on Triangle Hill with "pin-pointed mortar fire and showers of hand grenades." U.S. offensive operations in the battle largely subsided after Election Day on November 4, 1952. After winning the election, Eisenhower visited Korea on December 2.

The section is relevant to the article and should be retained for the following reasons:

1. To provide broader context for the battle, the only one that was actively fought during the final weeks of the U.S. Presidential Campaign, in which the war was a prominent issue. The outcome of the Presidential Campaign, in turn, affected the development of the war.
2. To show that the battle drew intense U.S. media coverage as it unfolded. Notwithstanding the fact, mentioned in a later section of the article, that this battle has largely been forgotten or overlooked in the West, at the time it was being waged, it was on the front page of newspapers across the United States.
3. To point out that while this battle was being fought, Eisenhower made his famous pledge to go to Korea as soon as he was elected. Many readers might have been under the impression that Eisenhower made the pledge much earlier in the campaign. After all, the Korean War had been ongoing for years and was already a central issue in the campaign, but Eisenhower did not make the pledge until Oct. 25, 1952, about 10 days before the Election. He made the pledge because the Korean War was a prominent election issue. It was a prominent election issue at the time of the pledge, because in part, Battle of Triangle Hill helped keep the war on the front page of the newspapers and on the minds of voters in the United States.
4. The history of battles frequently mention political events in relation to the battle, that affected the course of the war in some way. See, e.g. Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.
5. The timing of battlefield and political developments are often analyzed in tandem. This U.S. Army chronicle weaves together U.S. political developments with battlefield developments. It also mentions Truman's declaration on Oct. 30 of a plan to expand ROK forces -- a Koreanization of the war, precisely at a time where ROK forces were doing bulk of the fighting in Triangle Hill. A careful reader will notice that when Stevenson warned against believing Republican promises of a "quick end" or "easy victory" on Oct. 24, battlefield developments favored the UN forces, which had just about accomplished its objective of capturing the entirety of both Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge. As PVA took the initiative in the final days before the election, Van Fleet insisted that UN forces remained in control even as news reports suggested otherwise. After Election Day, the use of American troops in the battle almost ceased completely and UN offensive operations subsided (with only ROK forces launching occasional counter-attacks). The rest of November was largely about PVA counterattacks. Eisenhower won the election, kept his pledge, and visited Korea on Dec. 2, a few days after the Battle of Triangle Hill ended on November 2. Eisenhower eventually presided over the end of the war. These are some of the inferences, supported by facts in this article, that readers can draw on their own.

Sources cited

To address concerns of "synthesis", out of an abundance of caution, the section has been re-written along the lines of the Army Magazine chronology:

Operation Showdown was launched during the final weeks of the 1952 U.S. Presidential Campaign in which the Korean War figured prominently as a campaign issue, and developments on the battlefield received extensive contemporaneous U.S. press coverage. On October 25, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his famous campaign pledge to visit Korea as his first task if elected president, and "bring the Korean War to an early and honorable end." On October 30, Truman approved the expansion of the ROK army to 463,000 men. On November 3, Van Fleet declared that U.N. forces were "'in complete control of the situation' at Triangle Hill and nearby Sniper Ridge" and could "continue to chew up all the Chinese they want to throw into the battle" even as the Associated Press was reporting that Chinese forces had "stopped cold" ROK attacks on Triangle Hill with "pin-pointed mortar fire and showers of hand grenades." U.S. offensive operations in the battle largely subsided after Election Day on November 4. After winning the election, Eisenhower visited Korea on December 2.

NumbiGate (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The reason I removed the statement is this: "The following section, which I added and Jim101 removed, states a key contextual fact..."is this your opinion or another historian's opinion? If you can find a single established historian that stated the same five bullet points with regards to Battle of Triangle Hill, I will drop WP:SYN concern and restore the removed text. Jim101 (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Point to point WP:OR concerns:

1. The only one that was actively fought during the final weeks of the U.S. Presidential Campaign. - Are you really 100%, betting you life on it sure, since sometimes battles can happen, make international news, then quickly forgotten? Which historian actually said "there are no battles besides this one"?
2. That this battle has largely been forgotten or overlooked in the West, at the time it was being waged, it was on the front page of newspapers across the United States. - Are you really sure? The source you provided is on page 16, and then even if you provided a front page newspaper clipping, it still does not equal to "well known" (that will take like over few hundred such front page clippings, even after that you can't discount that people sometimes can have short-term memories). In another word, which US mass media expert/historian judged Battle of Triangle Hill to be "well known"?
3. To point out that while this battle was being fought, Eisenhower made his famous pledge to go to Korea as soon as he was elected. Many readers might have been under the impression that Eisenhower made the pledge much earlier in the campaign. After all, the Korean War had been ongoing for years and was already a central issue in the campaign, but Eisenhower did not make the pledge until Oct. 25, 1952, about 10 days before the Election. He made the pledge because the Korean War was a prominent election issue. It was a prominent election issue at the time of the pledge, because in part, Battle of Triangle Hill helped keep the war on the front page of the newspapers and on the minds of voters in the United States. - Which historian stated that same idea?
4. The history of battles frequently mention political events in relation to the battle, that affected the course of the war in some way. See, e.g. Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation. - Okay, which historian outlined how Battle of Triangle Hill impact 1952 election?
5. The timing of battlefield and political developments are often analyzed in tandem. This U.S. Army chronicle weaves together U.S. political developments with battlefield developments. It also mentions Truman's declaration on Oct. 30 of a plan to expand ROK forces -- a Koreanization of the war, precisely at a time where ROK forces were doing bulk of the fighting in Triangle Hill. A careful reader will notice that when Stevenson warned against believing Republican promises of a "quick end" or "easy victory" on Oct. 24, battlefield developments favored the UN forces, which had just about accomplished its objective of capturing the entirety of both Triangle Hill and Sniper Ridge. As PVA took the initiative in the final days before the election, Van Fleet insisted that UN forces remained in control even as news reports suggested otherwise. After Election Day, the use of American troops in the battle almost ceased completely and UN offensive operations subsided (with only ROK forces launching occasional counter-attacks). The rest of November was largely about PVA counterattacks. Eisenhower won the election, kept his pledge, and visited Korea on Dec. 2, a few days after the Battle of Triangle Hill ended on November 2. Eisenhower eventually presided over the end of the war. These are some of the inferences, supported by facts in this article, that readers can draw on their own. - Okay...which historian conducted such analysis with regards to Battle of Triangle Hill? Which historian actually agreed with such idea with regards to Battle of Triangle Hill? Are you sure your thesis here is published, peer-reviewed and repeated by reputable scholars?

Address those points at your leisure. But before those points are address, WP:OR prevents me from restoring the removed text and agree with your analysis of the topic. Jim101 (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Army Magazine of the Association of the U.S. Army, which I initially did not cite, but consider to be an authoritative source, saw it fit to include those events in its chronicle of the war. The fact that the battle received extensive front-page coverage by newspapers across the United States is quite apparent from the pages of those newspapers. This fact corrects a statement made in the article and attributed to Chae, Chung & Yang (2001) that battle is "one of the least known episodes of the Korean War within the Western media." I suggest that this statement be reconsidered. It goes to show that even established historians might have overlooked certain historical sources or their significance.NumbiGate (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that the battle received extensive front-page coverage by newspapers across the United States: How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? Did you consulted an expert for this conclusion or actually started to count the numbers of newspapers front pages?
• The Army Magazine of the Association of the U.S. Army also covers an event equal to "well known": How exactly did you arrive at this conclusion? One source covering it, then it is "well known"? Jim101 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Most respectfully, Jim101, I think you may be conflating the points I make in the numbered list with what the rewritten section I propose to be included in the article. The numbered list are inferences that one could draw from the facts that are in the rewritten section. You should direct any objections against those facts. NumbiGate (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My points still stands, you were dumping a bunch of newspaper articles that does not connects the 1952 election campaign with the Battle of Triangle Hill, and tries to create "inferences that one could draw from the facts that are in the rewritten section". This is bad and against policy. Jim101 (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper articles show (1) the battle was being reported in the press, and (2) that the battle was fought while a presidential campaign was in its final stages. Currently, the article does not tell the reader those two facts. Are you saying neither are relevant to this article? NumbiGate (talk) 00:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Further, in response to your concerns about synthesis, I have rewritten the proposed section. One is free to draw whatever inferences one wishes. The inferences are not being added to the article. The possible inferences are only being discussed in the Talk page.

As a minor point, if you like, I can find you many more front-page scans of newspapers from across America, from Toledo to Lexington, New York to Newport News, that carried stories of the Battle as it unfolded in October and November. I think the presumption should be, that stories on the front pages are read. That they are later forgotten is different from the suggestion that the media never reported on the battle in the first place. NumbiGate (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying neither are relevant to this article? - I am not saying anything. According to WP:PROVEIT and WP:PSTS, only an historian can say whether such fact is relevant to this article. So far you did not cross this threshold.

As for Synthesis, since no historian ever connected the Battle of Triangle Hill with the 1952 election during my research on the topic, by merely including discussion of election in the article, you are in fact joining point A (1952 election) with point B (Battle of Triangle Hill) to unpublished synthesis point C (Battle of Triangle Hill impacted 1952 election). The only way you can solve that problem is by citing a historian that connected the Battle of Triangle Hill with the 1952 election.

I think the presumption should be, that stories on the front pages are read. - WP:OR states you are not allow to presume facts in Wikipedia, you can only cite facts from reliable sources. Provide a secondary source that states "Battle of Triangle Hill is well known in 1952 election" instead of counting newspaper clippings and presume "majority" of people that will "read them and remember them for over 60 years". Jim101 (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim101, you need to reread the proposed section as rewritten carefully before you cite WP rules.

(1) Burden of evidence requires "any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation [that] clearly support[s] the material as presented in the article." Each sentence in the rewritten section is supported by the cited, published source.

(2) PSTS deals with analysis and analytical claims. The rewritten section provides no analysis. It merely states the fact that the battle occurred during the election campaign. The fact needs no analysis. The historians who prepared the Army Magazine's retrospective on the War mentions the battle together with the election developments.

(3) The fact that U.S. newspapers ran front page stories on Triangle Hill calls into question the claim that the battle is "one of the least known episodes of the Korean War within the Western media." Many episodes of the war were not reported by the U.S. media when they occurred and were revealed later. This battle is not one of them.Your last point makes no sense. Western media, in general, and news organizations, in particular, are not in the business of remembering events from years ago. An event that is not "known" to the media implies the event was never covered by the media, not an event that the media reported on years ago but stopped reporting and therefore no longer knows. NumbiGate (talk) 04:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Your sources only proved that 1952 election and Battle of Triangle Hill happened around the same timeframe (then again, so did Michael Jackson's death and the Urumqi riot, and I doubt Michael Jackson's Uyghur fans started the riot in mourning even through my cable news was displaying those two events side by side for weeks), yet none of your source clearly claim that "Battle of Triangle Hill had impact on 1952 election"...you did not WP:PROVEIT, and if you are going to abuse the US Army source again, please read the entire thing again and find a place where it actually says "Battle of Triangle Hill influenced the 1952 election" without you resorting to post hoc analysis.

(2) By dumping primary documents from 1952 election into the topic of Battle of Triangle Hill where there are no published connections between two events existed before, you are in fact making the analytical claim that "Battle of Triangle Hill impacted the 1952 election". If that is not your claim, then what could possibly be your reasons for defending the inclusion of technically off topic ramblings? And if you are going to abuse the US Army source again, please read the entire thing again and find a place where it actually says "this article is about all possible topics related to Battle of Triangle Hill" instead of "this article is about all possible topics in the Korean War between October to November 1952". And if you are going to argue about it even more, then please explain to me how in the hell does the topic of "Korean War between October to November 1952" is 100% equal to the topic of "Battle of Triangle Hill".

(3) As I said before, stop assuming and conjuring facts based on personal beliefs and experiences, because it is not helping your argument. Right now everything you are saying above is your personal opinion without any experts on US mass media that repeats your point. If you believe your point is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, an expert should have already repeated the same idea outside of Wikipedia. This is the basic fundamental of WP:OR. Wikipedia does not really care how accurate/truthful you believe your belief is. Jim101 (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Per my confusion over the issue in this edit, I now referred the matter to original research notice board for further inputs. Jim101 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Jim101, I appreciate your sincere efforts to guard against original research in this article, but I would advise you to withdrawal the request made to the original research notice board as the issue may be rendered moot. There are secondary sources that state the Battle was launched with a view to influence the elections and that the elections may well have affected the battle. I'll share those sources when I have more time, but I feel that the attention and energy of you and the panelists might be better spent on other efforts.

For one, I do not read Zhang Songshan at 290 as implying that the Army's November 9 announcement of Van Fleet's pending retirement as caused by the outcome of Operation Showdown, itself. Rather, much of Zhang's discussion focused on Van Fleet's letter to Orlando Mood in which Van Fleet complained about restrictions on his ability to wage the war by the Truman Administration. Eisenhower, after obtaining consent from Van Fleet's wife, disclosed the letter's contents at an election rally on October 25, as evidence against the administration's war record. The revelation caused a stir in the campaign (if you read Zhang) or any number of newspaper articles of time [Note: some of Zhang's dates appear to conflict with that in primary sources, see e.g., [1]. The Truman administration, while publicly fending off calls to relieve Van Fleet (and rumors that it was about to do so), announced on October 30, a major expansion in the build-up of the ROK army, which was one of the items that Van Fleet had wanted, but had ostensibly been denied. In light of the foregoing, Zhang describes the November 9 announcement of Van Fleet's retirement not so much as arising out of the commander-in-chief's unhappiness with the outcome of the battle (which was still being waged), but as expression of displeasure with Van Fleet's insubordination (a MacArthur-like scenario on a smaller scale).

Now, what does the Van Fleet letter, which Eisenhower used in the campaign, have anything to do with the battle itself? That Van Fleet's ability and capacity to lead was called into question in the middle of the battle, was at the least, a big distraction to Van Fleet and the U.S. command -- Clark had to issue a denial of Van Fleet's recall. Moreover, several sources say that Van Fleet and Clark held out hope that Eisenhower would be more supportive of their view of how to prosecute the war -- and sought to present Eisenhower a plan when the president-elect visited in December. Mrs. Van Fleet's consent to release the letter, therefore, was an effort to influence the selection of the next commander-in-chief.

In the coming days, I will not have time to work on this subject, but you might want to consider the foregoing and other ways in which the election and the battle might be connected. NumbiGate (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all Paul F. Braim, in 2001, did not mention any of this in his discussion of Van Fleets retirement between page 311-314 (or mentioned Operation Showdown was a political move between page 288-289). Robert Leckie mentioned in 1962 that the letter was a minor (p. 364) campaign issue, but he did not mention the topic of Van Fleets retirement or Operation Showdown...so you are still making claims based on personal interpretation of primary source (are you sure that later established historians, like Paul writing 40~50 years later after the dust settled, cannot deemed those events as insignificant or just plain wrong?). You keep on claiming you have secondary sources, yet you keep on refusing to present a book title or ISBN numbers during the entire discussion to help me understand you views when I was searching for secondary sources that directly supports your points (seriously, how much time does it take to type in a book title/author name from memory? And how long do you expect people to patiently play detective and investigate the origin of your researches?). At this point you are forcing me to resort to OR notice board in order to enlist additional editors to help in tracing the origin of your personal claims. Furthermore, if you believe Zhang p. 296 has nothing to do about the Battle of Triangle Hill, then why do you waste other editors effort and time to cross reference your off topic additions by adding it to the article in the first place? Finally I started a thread in reliable sources noticeboard about the suitability of Zhang's source in making claims about 1952 elections (or US politics in general). Jim101 (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

After dusting off my research note four years later, the closest published secondary source that actually connected Van Fleet, US politics and Operation Showdown in a single claim was that Van Fleet bitterly complained about artillery ammunition shortage since 1951 (with Operation Showdown listed as example by the source) and testified before US Senate on this problem. Unfortunately I did not record down which source it was in my note because I cannot follow up on the details of this claim or to establish its importance to US politics in general. But even this is not remotely close to the topic of 1952 elections.

Furthermore the correspondence between Orlando "Gus" Mood and Van Fleet seems to be only mentioned in this secondary source, and it is only noted as a footnote to the James A. Van Fleet Papers. Since James A. Van Fleet Papers is a collection of primary documentations, I advise User:NumbiGate to cancel the road trip if that is the "secondary source" to he is referring to. Jim101 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So, the Infantry number of United Nations is still unknown?

Just spotted that both Chinese and English article do not have an infantry number for United Nations.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The only UN number available are the official Chinese government claim (in another word, guesses) on the number of UN infantry, while no US nor South Korean sources ever discussed the exact number of infantry involved in battle. But since Chinese estimate of UN Orbat is significant inflated when compared with US and South Korean records on the exact units involved in the battle, the accuracy of the Chinese claim is suspect at best without comparative studies between US, South Korean and Chinese historiography. Besides, the Chinese infantry number in the infobox is taken directly from most recent Chinese sources instead from similarly inflated UN estimates to avoid the same problem for Chinese infantry numbers. Jim101 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My own personal research amongst Western sources only turned up the the claim that "almost all elements" from US 7th Infantry Divisions and ROK 2nd Infantry Divisions were involved in the battle (from Paul Edward's research I believe). That could mean anywhere from below 10,000 to over 50,000 men involved on the UN side depends on people's interpretations and imaginations. Jim101 (talk) 01:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The battlefield today

The Google maps satelite image of the battle's location shows a white structure approximately 60 metres long. Is this some kind of memorial or just a contempory building? Kiore (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If that is a battle memorial, then it would be strange that no Chinese sources ever mentions its existence (nor any instance of Chinese government delegate visit to the site). Jim101 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)