Talk:Battle of Sangju (1950)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Sangju (1950) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Battle of Sangju (1950) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed
December 22, 2010	WikiProject A-class review	Approved

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 27, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that members of the segregated US 24th Infantry Regiment claimed that the regiment's achievements at the Battle of Sangju were not recognized due to racism?

Current status: Good article

Military history: Asian / Korean / North America / United States / Cold War

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Korean military history task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Additional information:
/
	This article has passed an A-Class review.

Korea GA‑class Mid‑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

GA

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated working groups:
/
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.
	This article is supported by WikiProject North Korea.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
GA	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notes[edit]

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)[reply]
- Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 00:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"North Korean caution in advancing" seems to contradict "suicidal charges". - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Okay, done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know if anything else is unclear, and thanks for more copyediting. —Ed!^(talk) 05:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That all works for me. Belated support (for the whole article). - Dank (push to talk) 05:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Yechon section is technically not neutral...[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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