Talk:Battle of Taejon

Exact date of final retreat
In some Korean sources such as this, Gen. Dean ordered the retreat at July 20, not at July 21. Could you confirm the date? Gen. Walker ordered to hold until July 20 and Gen. Dean could meet the demand exactly. He didn't need to hold one more day. --Cheol (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

more pictures could be added
I found some pictures related to this article. It is in a book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu, which was published at 15 March 1960. I think the copyright of this is expired. --Cheol (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect unit
On the third paragraph of the "Taejon surrounded" section, the last line states The 34th Infantry Division repeatedly attempted to establish its defensive lines, and were repeatedly pushed back by the numerically superior North Koreans. Given that the 34th weren't present in Korea, I take it that it is a mistake. Is this meant to refer to the 34th Infantry Regiment, or the 24th Infantry Division as a whole? Not being an expert I have no idea which unit is being referred to here, as it could clearly be either judging by the sentence. QueenCake (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

^ Cite error: Invalid tag ???
Made several edits today to improve the accuracy of this article. There were some rather jarring embellishments added, mostly relating to Major General William F. Dean. I attempted to copy-paste a passage from his page, including the reference given, and received the following error message:

^ Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named Life3 (see the help page).

No idea how to fix this. Not what you would call tech-savvy. The source is legitimate and works perfectly well on the other page.

Help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.119.137 (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree with removing the North Korean casualties per Millett. The number came from a percent-strength estimation of the North Korean units after this battle. — Ed! (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

24th
Do we know why 24th is in bold? Is that a WP:MOS thing? The article on the unit itself does not have the numbers in bold. --S.G.(GH) ping! 10:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There seem to have been several terms and phrases bolded without cause. It was likely a mistake caused by visual editor, but I've removed them. — Ed! (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Division, singlehanded?
Seems somehow wrong. Midgley (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Effectively" is better. I think by that point in the article, readers would have got it that the 24th was the only non-SK ground unit in action during this period. Irondome (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Source not cited in the article included in the bibliography for some reason
Re this: Please add inline citations, then, because it looks to me like the source is not used anywhere in the article. If there is material taken from Bevin and not in the works cited inline, then that is poor sourcing and is not really what would be expected of FA-level articles (WP:CITE notes of this type of citation "They are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source."). If everything in the article is sourced to the works cited, and Bevin is just an "extra" source that also backs up a lot of it, then either change the section title "Sources" to "Bibliography" or something else appropriate, or add citations of Bevin inline. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, I know I quoted WP:CITE out of context and the following sentence allows for articles to list of general "further reading" texts alongside the sources cited inline, but I personally much prefer listing such works in a separate "Further reading" (or even "Bibliography" as opposed to "Cited works") section, and I think the majority of the project would agree with me. But Bevin actually looks like (full disclosure: I haven't read it) a better "further reading" entry for the Korean War overall, not this one battle -- there are surely books and dissertations out there specifically about this battle, and assuming they are RSes themselves they would surely be better. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Battle of Taejon. 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/20120201200632/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-12-06_D94TJ7800 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-12-06_D94TJ7800

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)