Talk:Battle of Sangju (1950)

Notes

• I'm finishing the copyediting I started during the A-class review. I don't understand this: "it moved back to Sangju in the ROK Army reorganization in progress". - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• I had a hard time following the paragraph that starts "By July 26". I couldn't tell if the troops were widely dispersed or concentrated. I took a whack at it, and may have gotten it completely wrong; feel free to rewrite or revert. And ... is "suicidal" really a good description of the charges? Did they have a mentality similar to Japanese kamikaze pilots, or were they instead ordered into reckless battles? - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's difficult to tell. My sources indicate death or virtual suicide in battle was a very socially acceptable part of Korean culture at the time but there were probably different levels of commitment to this among the North Korean troops. I've just taken out the word. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• I also had a hard time with what is now the paragraph after that; feel free to revert my changes if they don't make sense. I'm not getting the connection between that material and the last sentence, "That night the supporting artillery fired 3,000 rounds in holding back the North Koreans." - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• "S-1": a link isn't enough; terms that many readers won't know should either be reworded, or a clue to the meaning should be provided. - Dank (push to talk)
  • His titie isn't important in this context. I've worded it slightly more vaguely. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• "tried for desertion under fire, a capital offense": it's unsatisfying to know that he was tried for a capital offense without knowing the result of the trial. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• "North Korean caution in advancing" seems to contradict "suicidal charges". - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The North Koreans generally advanced slowly and steadily in this sector (something they were criticized for) in order to be able to fight on their own terms. However, when they did make contact with UN units they would immediately close and hit them as quickly as possible. Like a timed strike as opposed to coming out swinging indiscriminately. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Let me know if anything else is unclear, and thanks for more copyediting. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
• That all works for me. Belated support (for the whole article). - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Capture of Yechon section is technically not neutral...

Although I reverted User:BamakoEdit2 edit due to the fact that it is a knee jerk addition aimed at right great wrong rather than being constructive, this user did have a point about this article not being neutral. The entire Capture of Yechon section was copied verbatim from South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu, and this source was at the heart of controversy on US Army not recognizing Battle of Yechon had occurred. I believe that a rewrite of this section is in order, especially we now have more recent sources such as Black Soldier, White Army or The War for Korea, 1950–1951: They Came from the North that had the chance to critically examines both Appleman and Bussey's POV side by side.

Also a note to User:BamakoEdit2...overwriting Appleman's POV (which is racist against blacks) with Bussey's POV (which is unverified primary account) while erasing all hints of negativity against 24th Regiment in a knee jerk fashion is just inflaming the situation here. Jim101 (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am moving the NPOV tag at the top of article. After cross examining this article's content against both Appleman and Bowers sources, I have to say the entire article narrative is strikingly close to Appleman's description of the event when compared with other published POVs. My suggestion on fixing the situation would be:

• Rewrite this article based on Bowers, Millet and official South Korean narrative of the event.
• Relegate Appleman, Alexander and Hasting to sources that only "fill the narrative gap" while avoid invoking their outdated analysis of the event.
• Regardless whether 24th Regiment fought well or not, or whether the battle was big or small, or whether Bussey's claim of 258 kills was officially vetted, etc...at least acknowledge that Bussey actually got a Silver Star at Yechon with his machine guns.

Jim101 (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ed! and Jim101: Has this been resolved? AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen further issues pop up with it. —Ed!^(talk) 00:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)