Talk:Battle of Taejon

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Taejon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jackyd101 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I have reviewed this article against the Wikipedia:good article criteria and although I am not quite prepared to pass the article for GA immediately, I don't think there is a long way to go. I have listed below the principle problems which prevent this article from achieving GA status and I have also appended another comment which, whilst it is not essential for GA, may help in the future development of the article. The article now has seven days to address these issues, and should the contributors disagree with my comments then please indicate below why you disagree and suggest a solution, compromise or explanation. Further time will be granted if a concerted effort is being made to address the problems, and as long as somebody is genuinely trying to deal with the issues raised then I will not fail the article. I am aware that my standards are quite high, but I feel that an article deserves as thorough a review as possible when applying for GA and that a tough review process here is an important stepping stone to future FAC attempts. Please do not take offence at anything I have said, nothing is meant personally and maliciously and if anyone feels aggrieved then please notify me at once and I will attempt to clarify the comments in question. Finally, should anyone disagree with my review or eventual decision then please take the article to WP:GAR to allow a wider selection of editors to comment on the issues discussed here. Well done on the work so far.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If a review against GA criteria gives hopes to its author, then surely GA criteria itself must be reviewed. As most articles of the Korean War, it lacks any North Korean or Chinese sources. It reflects the point of view of American historians in its entirety. Most of the sources rely heavily on statistics and stories provided by the US army during the war, undermining its reliability, as most rational persons would find hard to believe those numbers and narratives when given only by one of the combatants involved in any conflict. This makes very hard to believe the facts and figures shown, for a neutral reader. As usual, an account is given of any US army unit involved, while the "enemy" is given only the generic name of North Koreans or (worse) Communists, while no unit of the US army is referred to as Americans or Capitalists. The US army is never enemy of anybody, while there are references to North Koreans as enemy. The article also insists on the lack of resources or the tiredness of American units and defeats are qualified (as in many battles of the Korean War I've read in Wikipedia) as strategic victories because there were more positive results later in the war, while the authors cited qualify the entire war as a defeat (one of the books used as reference has in its title "How we lost the war"), a contradiction that apparently fails to notice its author. This is an egregious example of Newspeak (as in Orwell's novel, where the means are irrelevant, only the ends, so the Ministry of Propaganda is called the Ministry of Truth). Notice the "we" in the referenced book title, if any doubts remain. The thoughts and actions of American leaders are given in detail, but there is no counterpart summary of the intentions or even the names of the leaders of the adversaries. Even the names of the American sergeants are given, while no North Korean general is ever mentioned (although the names of a few major officers are given in the infobox). To me, this is also an example of how you create "unpersons" in the Orwellian sense (the enemies of the state are not persons, but unpersons, they disappear from the books). How this (or any article in the Korean War series) could qualify for GA status is incomprehensible to me, given the fact that Wikipedia insists on NPOV. Almost all this comments can be applied to any war or battle where the US army is involved. The fact that the US army has devoted an unit to Cyber Warfare, as explained recently in Wired, makes even more frightening this version of American Wars in the English Wikipedia. Although I understand that the intentions of the author are probably good and he's proud of contributing (and rightly so, as he gives us an excellent if one sided article), I strongly belive that he and those that commend this article are dangerously close to present us the Oceania vs Eurasia war in the Minitruth version, without even noticing it, as Orwell accurately predicted. I wonder if anyone has the knowledge and the time to compare the versions of the Korean War battles given in the Chinese and American versions of Wikipedia, and probably this exercise would be a waste of time for a historian, although enlightening to anyone that wishes to understand the insidious ways in which war propaganda works. I do not have any hope of being listened by the authors of this or any other article, as expressing this point of view, in my experience around Wikipedia, immediately disqualifies me as a valid critic. I believe they, citing Orwell, work under the principle of "Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death". --Ciroa (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That is genuinely one of the dumbest and most self-important collections of nonsense I've ever seen on Wikipedia. No doubt historians and Wikipedians alike would rejoice at being able to include information from North Korean and PRC sources, but there are none available, at least not that would meet Wikipedia's standards (propaganda with a capital "P", there). One can only work with the sources in existence, all of which, in this case, are Western (and, apparently, suspect in your eyes). It is worth mentioning, too, that Appleman's work is highly regarded enough to have caused the Army considerable discomfiture by virtue of its honesty and forthrightness. As an aside, using 1984 as some sort of template with which to measure historical truth might not be the wisest idea. Now, I say this not to hurt you, but it is A NOVEL.--172.191.112.214 (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues preventing promotion

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

• In the lead, where it says "superior North Korean forces at Taejon", state what Taejon is (i.e. "at the city of Taejon")
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is very long, can you split it? You also repeat part of it in the first clause of the next sentence.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• In the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead you repeat "battle" too often, try engagement or similar instead.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• The first sentence of the first paragraph of background is the wrong way round chronologically - talk about the invasion of South Korea first, then the deployment of UN forces. Otherwise it doesn't make sense to unfamiliar readers.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Following this, the United States committed" - following this is redundant and could be removed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• "However" repeated too often in first paragraph of background
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "The 24th Infantry Division sent the first US units sent into Korea" - this isn't clear, did the division send some of its units to Korea? Or was the whole division sent?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "On July 12, General Dean" - you need to link and introduce him in the main body of the text as well as the lead.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "in the two weeks of fighting, the 21st Infantry had 1,100 men" - which two weeks? The ones just gone or the ones about to come?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm still not clear here, it says "in the previous two weeks of fighting, the 21st Infantry had 1,100 men" - do you mean "after the previous two weeks of fighting, the 21st Infantry had 1,100 men left"?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• "the town with the 3rd and 4th Divisions" - its not immediately clear that these are NK divisions being referred to as you don't link to them until the next section, can you clarify this?
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "and inflicting heavy casualties on the battery" - tense is wrong and "on the battery" is redundant and can be removed.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "many intact for North Korean forces" - add "to seize" at the end of this sentence.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "to retreat via train to Taegu while remaining behind" - how can they simultaneously retreat and remain behind?
  • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• "while himself remaining behind" would make more sense as "while remaining behind himself"--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• "as at least a dozen entered the city during the battle and were destroyed by them" - not clear, try "as at least a dozen that entered the city during the battle were destroyed" instead.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "from advancing until the 20th." - wikipedia doesn't use the "th" on dates, instead give the month "20 July".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• You link Medal of Honor twice in the last paragraph
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• "George D. Libby also received the Medal of Honor" - remove also (Dean was not given it posthumously).
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Other comments

(This comment is not essential to passing GAN)

• Its not essential for now, but when giving distances you should use the {{convert}} template (i.e. 100 miles (160 km))

Very good work. There are still a couple of minor points above and then I will be happy to pass this. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All done, excellent work. I am happy to pass this now and must say how much I have been enjoying your articles on this previously neglected area of Wikipedia. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

PS, it has also occurred to me that there is a slight problem in the infobox - it should be made clear that the 12 NK tanks were not their total losses, but only those that can be verified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking closely at the picture above the caption "US forces prepare to retreat from Taejon, July 1950," it's clear that everyone in the picture is Korean, not American.

Missing

It appears that several thousand American and South Korean soldiers were captured and executed or were killed in battle without being accounted for. These numbers probably should be included in the infobox. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source I can use for that? —Ed!^(talk) 16:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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 <ref> 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 <ref> 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

@Ed!: 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 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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