Talk:766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)

766th_Independent_Infantry_Regiment_(North_Korea)#Origins

This section is not neutral. It dismisses South Korean partisans as agents and commandos of the North, calls actions of war terrorism, and is generally not very faithful to the history of that part of the war. Furthermore, this lack of neutrality compromises the quality of the entire featured article, I do not understand how this passed FA with such a glaring and eassily verifiable controversy so blatantly dismissed. --Cerejota (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Millett, Allan R. (2000), The Korean War, Volume 1, Lawrence, Kansas: University of Nebraska Press. A scholarly and magisterial history, a standard reference, published by a UP. When this went through FAC, I consulted my own copy of Millett to verify the primary editor's work. The DPRK did systematically use revolutionary terror in the South, both prior to and during the war. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly are "South Korean partisans dismissed"? I can't find it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because a source is not neutral does it mean we suspend NPOV. Plenty of sources do not describe such as actions as terrorism, but war actions. The south korean partisans are ignored, because they were independent, at least until the invasion, of the KPA, and as such were not part of a strategy, but an indepdent politico-military force. Plenty of sources explain this, including the purges of South Korean partisans and the takeover of the KPA of their previously independent forces. The paragraph in question simplifies the politico-military history of the Korean War to evade neutrality. --Cerejota (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Cerejota is asking for a comparative analysis of terror campaigns by the DPRK and ROK; a topic this article doesn't cover, as it only deals with revolutionary terror in passing in its connection to the formation of a large special operations unit. Revolutionary terror in the Korean War ought to be open for editing, I'd suggest Cerejota use the early part of Millett for such a new article, as Millett spends some time in the actions and context of partisan warfare. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Read above, we EC'd--Cerejota (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't relate to 766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea). Your sources on the independence of the pro-communist South Korean partisans conflict with scholarly sources. Millett doesn't present a synchronised homogenous KPA, far from it, but he recognises that in this period the KPA managed to successfully hemegonise revolutionary proletarian discourse in Korea. I was under the impression that you were talking about pro-ROK "partisans" in the DPRK. You need to clarify your expression. Rereading the section of the article there's no need to discuss southern recruited communist partisans in the ROK and they independence or not. The article discusses DPRK activists sent south—who did exist—in discussing the DPRK's special forces strategy and its decision to produce a large singular special forces unit. You may wish to edit Partisans and special forces in the Korean War. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You ar emissing the point. The description of the actions of war as terrorist actions is inherently POV. WP:LABEL, regardless of what the source says. The other stuff ill need to seek the sources to refute, but betrays why we shouldn't base articles on a single source, as this article is. I cannot believe this is FA with so little attention given to NPOV and sourcing variety.--Cerejota (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We pay an incredible amount of attention at FAC to these things. Have you read the article on revolutionary terror which is not related to individual or small group terrorism. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

red links!

When we start to allow redlinks in FAs?--Cerejota (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed them all. (Now let me see if I can find good links). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Per WP:RED, even a FA can have them. Why exactly would they not be allowed? —Ed!^(talk) 02:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Esthetics -- they are an unnecessary distraction. (and, why direct readers to articles that don't exist?). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed, I took a minute to look at wp:red, and based on that, I've restored the redlinks. "Redlinks help Wikipedia grow" it says. And even though I can't find anything in wp:red about FA's, and wouldn't have written the policy the way it's written, I don't mind deferring to you for all the work you've put into the article. Congrats on the FA status. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh it was never policy, but I remember in reading many FAs in 2008-2009 (and even in a GA process I went through) that red links made the article ugly.--Cerejota (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You were mistaken then. FA has never discouraged redlinks on the basis of aesthetics. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Article tags?

Since when do we allow cleanup tags on featured articles? --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 00:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ALways, because if issues exist, they should be fixed, and if we cannot fix them right away, we should tag.--Cerejota (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Then I believe that this article should not be featured, if there are still issues with it. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 01:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a bad tag, and it isn't POV, it is the results of the research in Millett. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If we need a quick decision, I think we need to go with Millett over Cerejota. Millett has written several volumes on the Korean War, some published by the University of Kansas Press University Press of Kansas. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was already bold on the basis of the scholarly source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I support your action, for the reason you gave. Sorry, Cj. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One minor point

The article says the 3rd Battalion's transport was sunk in the harbour of Busan but the article for the battle says it was near Tsushima Island, which is some distance away. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording a little (but I still need to read a full account of the naval battle). --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Millett 2000 source

The source we're calling Millett 2000 for short wasn't written by Millett. It was written by the Korea Institute of Military History in 1997, originally in Korean. Millett wrote the introduction. Can one of the article regulars change the refs? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)