Talk:Hangang Bridge bombing

Korea Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.

Military history: Asian / Korean Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force

Article Rename

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I propose this article be renamed to Hangang Bridge Demolition. My rationale is that the term bombing is almost universally used to describe an air attack or, is used to describe a "terrorist" attack by explosives, i.e. Suicide bomber, Car bomb, and others. I think this may be originally due to translation foul-up. Irondome (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

If a structure is demolished with explosives, without any attempt to remove or warn the civilians who are using it, it seems reasonable to call it a bombing. Maproom (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was a chaotic military demolition that went horribly wrong. Bombing is technically inaccurate. Irondome (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it was a cockup rather than the result of a callous decision, then I agree. Maybe that could be made clearer in the article. Maproom (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree Maproom. It comes over as a premier league cockup with panic and an apparent collapse of communication. Unsurprising really in the context of almost the first hours of the invasion. We could do with more sources. Problem is the article appears to depend on a single source. I may be wrong here. Some English language material would help also. Regards. Irondome (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic