Talk:Battle of Sangju (1950)

This article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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. 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

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.

• 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]

Although I reverted

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]