# Talk:Battle of Yongyu

The Korean War battle between the KPA 239th Regiment, the US 187th Airborne Infantry Regimental Combat Team, and the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade during the period 21-22 October 1950 occurred in the vicinity of Yongyu, North Korea (GPS coordinates 39°18'17.90"N 125°35'59.02"E). Refer to . All references to Yongju should be replaced with Yongyu. --Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because a US source calls it Yongyu, doesn't mean the article or the text should use that spelling. The 3 RAR battle honour is "Yongju", and the Australian War Memorial refers to it as Yongju [1], as does Duty First (p. 97). Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The proper name translated from the Korean Hangul is Yongyu, not Yongju, it was quite common for UN forces to incorrectly translate Korean names, e.g. Fusan and Pusan, when the proper translation is Busan, but obviously we keep the Pusan Perimeter per Commonname. Appleman uses Yongyu as do multiple other sources and that together with Propername means the article should use it, except when referring to the Australian battle honor. I would note that the AWM seems to be inconsistent, referring to Yongyu here: [2] Mztourist (talk) 11:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
See US Army Map Service Topographic Maps - Korean War L751-6331 IV [3]. By the way, I had attributed the Battle of Yongju to the Australians who fought in it before Peacemaker67 reverted the article. Charles Shaulis (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I have made a reversion of the mass changes to the article in September and October, which have incorporated a significant amount of WP:UNDUE detail, expanding it significantly beyond the guidance of WP:LENGTH, from a manageable 6,608 words to a completely excessive 13,645 words, 30% over the generally accepted maximum. There is no justification for this excessive verbiage on this subject. Prior to this expansion, the article was a Good Article, but it wasn't in that state immediately prior to the reversion. These changes need to be discussed, and consensus for them achieved here. However, some of them are completely unencyclopaedic, including the insertion of geographical coordinates into the text, which breaks up the flow of the prose. The lead had also been expanded beyond the size laid down in MOS:LEAD, as it was five quite good-sized paras. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Mztourist (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I also agree with reversion here. While I acknowledge that the changes have been made in good faith, ultimately I believe that the article has been degraded from its GA standard through these changes. As such, I would suggest discussing proposals for specific changes here on the talk page before continuing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67, Mztourist, AustralianRupert: I am abandoning any more attempts to edit this article. I acknowledge that I was overzealous in my inclusion of material that bore no relevance to the actual Battle of Yongyu. Initially, all I wanted was to discuss the Yongyu/Yongju controversy. It seems that the four of us are pulling in the harness in different directions on how to make this a better, more well-constructed article. When three of four agree that the article doesn't need a history of the Korean War or 3 RAR up to the date of the battle because that information is found elsewhere on Wikipedia, and one disagrees and just reverts a good-faith attempt to make that change WP:EDITWAR, it’s time to step away. Two months is enough. Have a nice life. Charles Shaulis (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't accept that is an accurate reflection of what is happening here, or that your summary is an accurate reflection of the views of the discussion participants. I certainly have not been edit-warring. Instead of discussing here and formulating a way ahead, you continued to make significant changes to the article, which I reverted. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I also don't agree with your comment here, Charles. PM had concerns with your edits and reverted them legitimately per WP:BRD. You are then required to discuss the way ahead. PM's actions do not constitute edit warring in any regard, in my opinion. The way forward is to continue to make proposals on the talk page and establish consensus one way or another. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


### Reversion of Changes to Battle of Yongyu
To: Peacemaker67, Mztourist, and AustralianRupert
Sirs:
It seems that your word count requirement, which I believe was the basis for Peacemaker67’s reverting the Battle of Yongyu article to Illegitimate Barrister’s earlier version, has resulted in an error-plagued article. This reversion was not proofread or error-checked before it was published. I don’t know its source, but it is a near-verbatim copy of the Battle of Yongju|Military Wiki| Fandom web page article. Who is the plagiarist here?
A casual perusal of this reversion found the following discrepancies:
a. There are still 15 incorrect references to “Yongju” in the latest revision as of 05:00, 12 November 2020. Refer to my Yongyu Versus Yongju entry on the Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page.
b. GPS coordinates are in error. 39°18’17.9”N 125°35’59.02”E is the correct LAT/LONG for Yongyu, North Korea.
c. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 1. The United Nations Command (UNC) is not the same as the United Nations (UN). The UNC was the multinational military force that supported South Korea during the Korean War. The UN is an intergovernmental organization.
d. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 3. “US” is used twice.
e. Refer to Lead para. 1 line 4. “capital Pyongyang” should be “North Korean capital at Pyongyang.”
f. Refer to Battle|187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon and Sunchon, 20–21 October 1950. In para. 2 line 1, Songnani-ni is Songnam-ni. In para. 2 line 2, Chany-ni is Chang-ni. A simple cross-check of the Google Earth Map Set KMZ Files found on the Korean War Project website allowed me to catch this error during one of my earlier revisions, which is now deleted. I suspect a copy-paste OCR error in the reverted article.
There are too many other errors to list in this forum, but you get the idea.
Please enlighten me on how using “subsequently” 44 times in the reverted article qualifies this as a Good Article?
As far as Peacemaker67’s reference to the insertion of geographical coordinates into the text is concerned, Temple’s map of the Airborne Attack on Sukch’on and Sunch’on in the Battle section is too small to locate terrain features, even when enlarged. In retrospect, there may be some unnecessary GPS coordinates (Hong Kong, for example), but GPS links to the features in Google Map’s satellite and terrain views in the absence of detailed topographical maps were most helpful to my research.
Your removal of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s war diary entries contained in the US Army Command and General Staff College’s Combat Studies Institute Battlebook on the Battle of Sukchon-Sunchon and the Kirland/Pears Korea Remembered references on the Battle of the Apple Orchard that contains Australian Maj. Gen. (Ret) David Matheson Butler’s recollections of the battle when he was the 3 Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment’s 9 Platoon C Company commander detracts from the detail of the battle.
I found the original Wikipedia article during my study of Roy Appleman’s description of the US 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team’s operations at Sukchon and Sunchon in his book, South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu: United States Army in the Korean War: June – November 1950. Google Search returned the Battle of Yongju, which resulted in my original 18 September Talk:Battle of Yongyu Page entry.
This was my first major Wikipedia article revision (and thanks to you, it will probably be my last) so I expect critiques, not wholesale deletions. Examination of my User talk:Charles Shaulis page shows that I was allowed to correct errors that Users Dianaa and Renata caught. In my opinion, your subjective criticisms should have been accompanied by objective recommendations before you wiped out two months of my work. Although I found multiple issues with the original Battle of Yongju article on 18 September, I did not delete anything of substance. My good faith revisions and additions to the article may have been wordy, but they were factually correct, well documented, backed up by citation, and properly written/punctuated.
I believe that 40 years of US military and federal government experience in technical writing, more than a passing knowledge of Korean War military history from an American perspective, as well as having a father (deceased) who as a 24-year-old USAF 1st Lieutenant flew a C-119 that dropped US paratroopers over DZ WILLIAM on 20 October, allow me to write this.
So, what’ll it be? Word count or an informative description of the battle?
Charles Shaulis (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Shaulis
Topsham, Maine

User:Charles Shaulis the page Battle of Yongju|Military Wiki| Fandom is a mirror of the Wikipedia page, i.e. it copied Wikipedia. The page was already an informative description, your edits went into unnecessary detail and detracted from readability. As agreed earlier, all references to Yongju should be Yongyu. I have reviewed the other specific changes that you have suggested and made any necessary changes.Mztourist (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Aside for some minor MOS points above, which have now been largely addressed, there is the issue of focus and balance. My understanding is, per the first para of the lead, that the Battle of Yongyu/Yongju was between 3 RAR and the KPA 239th Regiment, ran from 21 to 22 October (this is what the British nomenclature committee states), and does not include the US paratroop drop itself (although it may include the actions by 3rd Battalion, 187th RCT, in pushing south towards Yongyu on 21 October). The information about the paratroop drop is not part of the battle, should probably have its own article, something like Airborne attack on Sukchon and Sunchon, and so should be in the background section and is currently too detailed for this article. The amount of material in the lead regarding the 187th RCT parachute drop is also undue given the focus of the article is as stated. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Regarding your “focus and balance” issues, I have no problem with relegating the US 187 RCT airborne operation to a lesser role in the article. I have several books in my reference library that discuss the airdrop in greater detail than I can find here. You should also consider deleting the Background section because of its irrelevance to the battle. The information about the Korean War and 3 RAR’s military history before the battle can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Likewise, the Prelude Section can be removed because the Opposing Forces are already listed in the table of Belligerents and Units Involved. That leaves the Battle section itself, which is why the article is titled Battle of Yongyu. I’m sure that this almost 4000-word section can be pared down to describe a three-hour battle in sufficient detail to better meet Wikipedia’s readability and reader attention span metrics. Charles Shaulis (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
There is no need for the snark. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 03:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the Military Situation section doesn't need a history of the war up to that date nor extensive details of the formation of the Australian forces in Korea, basically get rid of the first paragraph and most of the 2nd paragraph. No further details are required about the 187 RCT airdrop than what's already on the page and it certainly doesn't warrant its own page, given that nothing much happened.Mztourist (talk) 08:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Although “nothing much happened” during the Battle of the Apple Orchard, I believe the Sukchon-Sunchon airborne operation does warrant its own Wikipedia page. The operation was the first airdrop of combat troops since World War II, with resupply solely dependent upon airdrop. The doctrine for airdrop of troops, and particularly supplies, had been neither significantly developed nor improved after World War II. The operation was also the first time that C-119s were used in a combat parachute operation. It was the first time that heavy equipment, such as the 105mm artillery howitzer and 3/4-ton weapons carrier, had ever been airdropped in combat. This particular operation became the basis for lessons learned to conduct future parachute operations involving both troops and logistical support. The importance of airdrop logistics capabilities learned from the Sukchon-Sunchon operation was evident by the successful resupply of the US 1st Marine Division and the US 7th Infantry Division from 28 November through 9 December 1950. These units were trapped on the west and east sides of the Chosin Reservoir with ground-based lines of communication cut. Through aerial resupply, these units were sustained in combat for 12 days, against superior CPVA numbers until the completion of a successful withdrawal. Based on the skills, experience, and training achieved during and after the Sukchon-Sunchon operation, the same support units completed the largest aerial resupply operation in history by packaging and airdropping 1,643 tons and airlanding 202 tons of equipment and supplies. Future trends for the US Army Airborne units were affected by the Sukchon-Sunchon operation. One other airborne operation took place during the Korean War. On 23 March 1951, 187 RCT, reinforced with two US Army Ranger companies, dropped at Munsan-ni during Operation Tomahawk behind the KPA 19th Division. Again, tactical surprise was achieved. As a result of the Korean airborne successes, the XVIII Airborne Corps was reactivated at Fort Bragg, North Carolina on 21 May 1951 and the requirement for more tactical airlift was illustrated. Much of the success of these airborne operations can be attributed to a long-standing relationship between the US Air Force’s 314th Troop Carrier Group (TCG) and 187 ABN. The 314th TCG had been stationed at Sewart AFB, Tennessee, 50 miles from 187 ABN’s home base at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and had regularly supported and trained with 187 ABN’s parent 11th Airborne Division. My father was a member of the 50th Troop Carrier Squadron who served as a copilot of one of the four C-119s that deployed from Sewart AFB to Japan, ahead of the 314th TCG’s deployment. What was intended to be a 60-day temporary duty assignment for 2nd Lieutenant Shaulis would grow to four months; it would develop into a two-year stay in Japan before he returned to the United States. Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The parachute operation is certainly independently notable and meets GNG, I disagree with Mztourist on that score. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Charles Shaulis I didn't say "nothing much happened during the Battle of the Apple Orchard." I said nothing much happened during the drop of the 187 RCT. You are clearly obsessed with it due to your father's involvement. You are welcome to create a separate page, but expect pushback if it doesn't meet WP standards. Personally I believe it would be an unnecessary WP:CFORK. We already have a page for Operation Tomahawk and, as at Sukchon-Sunchon, nothing much happened because the PVA/KPA retreated before the landing. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That was poor wording on my part. Apologies. Charles Shaulis (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, sorry for the delayed response. Regarding the earlier suggestion, I can support some trimming of the Background and Prelude sections, albeit so long is it doesn't degrade the narrative flow. Beyond this, though I don't support removal of the units from the Opposing forces section in totality; the point to note is the the table referred to is the infobox, which is supposed to be a quick snapshot of the article and shouldn't really have extra information. If a separate article is to be written about the parachute drop, I would suggest starting it in draft space Draft:Airborne attack on Sukchon and Sunchon, to see if sufficient sources can be found to demonstrate independent notability and significant coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
AustralianRupert In addition to the Appleman, Flanagan, and Leary references currently cited in the Battle of Yongyu Reference list that contain information regarding the 187 RCT airborne operation, the 187 ABN war diary entries contained in the US Army Command and General Staff College’s Combat Studies Institute Battlebook on the Sukchon-Sunchon operations and Robert Frank Futrell’s The United States Air Force in Korea: 1950-1953 contain more than enough material to support a separate article. My inclusion of this reference information is the reason Peacemaker67 reverted this Australian-centric article in the first place. Charles Shaulis (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The article is Australian-centric because 3 RAR did the lion's share of the fighting. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
After looking at the Background/Military situation section after making the edits, I suggest moving the two new paragraphs to the Opposing forces section and deleting the Background completely. Comments? Charles Shaulis (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it needs a combination of the two as a Background. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Would you accept (a) removing the Military situation subtitle from the Background section, (b) restoring the two new paragraphs to the Background section, (c) removing the Opposing forces subtitle from the Prelude section, and (d) moving the top two paragraphs that begin the Prelude section to the Background section? It's 04:30 local time here in Maine and I'd like to get a consensus before I go to bed. Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 I need to look at it in detail, and that won't happen today my time. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
From my perspective, I could accept removal of the Military situation subtitle as it is the only level three header under a level two header, so it seems unnecessary; but I am not sure exactly is proposed in relation to the "two new paragraphs to the Background section". Is it as per this diff: [4]? If so, I'd need a bit more time to read through it also, but initial observations are that there are several (albeit minor) stylistic issues (English variation, unnecessary rank abbreviation, US presentation of names etc) with the change, although these of course could be easily adjusted if implemented. Regarding removal of the Opposing forces header, I think this could also be ok, but it would probably need to be replaced with something else to cover the remaining paragraph, or the "187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon" subheader could also be removed, I suppose. That said, I am not wedded to the change either, so I'd defer to the others if they have a different opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have trimmed the page as per my 19 November comments, please take a look. As advised there we don't need a potted summary of the Korean War, nor details of Australia's other contributions. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, seems ok to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

IllegitmateBarrister wrote that 187 ABN "requested assistance" twice during their encounter with the KPA 239th Regiment; once in KPA 239th Regiment is encircled (citing Coulthard-Clark/Gallaway) and again in North Koreans attempt to break-out (citing Appleman). These incidents are one and the same. According to the 187 ABN records, it was during the attack on 3/187 ABN's Headquarters and L Companies north of Yongyu that the 3/187 ABN command post sent a radio message to the 187 RCT command post at Sukchon describing the situation and requesting armored assistance from the US 24th Infantry Division, to which 187 RCT was temporarily attached. The request for reinforcement was received by the 24th Infantry Division’s headquarters in Pyongyang. With the US division still well to the rear, the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade, encamped on the Pyongyang-Sukchon road just south of Yongyu, was the closest formation and it was ordered forward to assist the paratroopers. Charles Shaulis (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I'd suggest moving the earlier mention to the later mention to remove the duplication (consolidating the three refs, I suppose) and clarifying that the request was made to the 24th Division, with the 27th Bde being ordered to assist. Would this resolve the issue? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I have adjusted this per the above; please advise if it needs further rectification. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I have completely removed the Gallaway/Coulthard/O'Dowd text from the "Encircled" section and temporarily relocated it to the "Break-out" section where I will incorporate it tomorrow. Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In re Background, the US 72nd Combat Engineers was a US Army company-level formation, not battalion-level. IMHO, I suggest replacing "a company from the US 72nd Combat Engineer Battalion" with "combat engineers from the US 72nd Engineer Company." In re Citations and References,  Mztourist's  22:32, 21 November 2020‎ Background edit removed the only Johnston and MacDonald citations contained in the article. Therefore, the Johnston and MacDonald references should be deleted, as they are now extraneous to the article. Charles Shaulis (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day, I have moved the uncited refs to the Further reading section; ref your comment about the 72nd Ginger Beers -- do you have a ref that backs up the 72nd Engineer Company designation, as opposed to 72nd Combat Engineer Battalion? Farrar-Hockley p. 239 says "a company of the 72nd Combat Engineers" which seems to me to imply that the unit (probably a battalion) was designated as the 72nd Combat Engineers, but the coy was presumably a different designation. In Farrar-Hockley's index (p. 484) the 72nd is listed as "72 Combat Engineer Battalion". Is it possible he has misinterpreted something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
AustralianRupert Ginger Beers? Charles Shaulis (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry rhyming slang for "engineers" in Australia (and the UK, I believe); it is close to my heart due to my time in RAE so I couldn't help myself sorry. Interestingly enough (or not) it has another meaning too, which I didn't know about until recently. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Perform a Google Search for "72nd Combat Engineer Company". Just because it's in a book doesn't make it correct. Appleman got the unit designation wrong on p. 284 of South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu (https://history.army.mil/books/korea/20-2-1/toc.htm). If Farrar-Hockley is referencing the US Army unit, it's technically the 72nd Engineer Combat Company. Also, I should have suggested "combat engineers from the US 72nd Engineer Combat Company". See https://history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/eng/0072enco.htm. Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, I'm sorry, while I understand this is frustrating, but unless there is a suitable WP:RS source to counter Farrar-Hockley's battalion designation, I don't believe we should be changing it to company.  From my Google search I haven't found anything so far that meets the threshold, IMO. If you have, please share it. However, unfortunately this link link does not provide enough, IMO. While it does prove that there was a 72nd Engineer Company, which served in Korea, it does not specifically link it to the fighting at Yongyu/Yongju.  Using that as a ref would be WP:SYNTHESIS, IMO. Short of something definitive, I think we will have to leave the designation as per Farrar-Hockley's designation. In the circumstances, at the moment I could support removing the numerical designation altogether, e.g. "a company of combat engineers" instead of "company from the US 72nd Combat Engineer Battalion", but I don't think the sourcing is there for "combat engineers from the US 72nd Engineer Company" or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I have reached out to several US Army organizations regarding our 72nd Engineers battalion/company unit designation discussion and Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS requirements, and will let you know what I find. Google Search only returns a single page of results for "72nd Combat Engineer Battalion" and all tie back only to Wikipedia and Anthony Farrar-Hockley's book. There were several results to a 72nd Engineer Combat Battalion during WWII but none during the Korean War. "72nd Combat Engineer Company" returned multiple results from a myriad of sources. FYI, the 72nd Engineer Combat Company was assigned to the 5th Regimental Combat Team, US 24th Infantry Division, the same US Army division as the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade and the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team. Coincidence? Although the US 72nd Engineer Combat Company was not directly involved in the "fighting at Yongyu/Yongju," the unit is mentioned in the Background section along with the attached US artillery and armor units. Are you able to cite other than Farrar-Hockley to justify your argument? In the meantime, I would suggest that we compromise and use "a unit of US combat engineers."
G'day, no worries, I'd be interested to hear their response. Unfortunately Farrar-Hockley is all I've got -- indeed I had to request the relevant pages from some one I know with the book for this discussion, as I was not the original author of this article. To be clear, I would not suggest changing the text to "a unit of US [[combat engineers" (as a company is not technically a unit, it is a sub-unit); although I could support "a company of US combat engineers" as that is supported by Farrar-Hockley. @Mztourist and Peacemaker67: what are your thoughts on adjusting the text in this manner? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
AustralianRupert I approve of your suggestion. Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
AustralianRupert I agree. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Let me relate another incident from the Sukchon/Sunchon/Yongyu fighting on 21-22 October. According to Appleman on page 659, “At midnight the N.K. 239th Regiment attempted to break out to the north. In its first attack a small group got into the K Company command post. In the close-quarter fight there Capt. Claude K. Josey, K Company commander, although wounded twice by an enemy burp gun, sprang on the gunner and wrested the gun from him before collapsing. The company executive officer was also wounded. Eventually, the enemy soldiers were either killed or driven off.” This citation is used in the North Koreans attempt to break-out, 21/22 October 1950 section of the Battle of Yongyu article. The problem is Claude Kitchin Josey, USMA Class of 1945, was a First Lieutenant at the time. The citation for the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC) that Lt. Josey earned for this action iaw Headquarters EUSAK General Orders No. 135, dated 12 Mar 1951, reads “The President of the United States of America, under the provisions of the Act of Congress approved July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Captain (Infantry), [then First Lieutenant] Claude Kitchen Josey (ASN: 0-27433), United States Army, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy of the United Nations while serving with Company K, 3d Battalion, 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team, 11th Airborne Division. Captain Josey distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action against enemy aggressor forces near Yongju, Korea, on 22 October 1950. At 0115 hours an enemy patrol infiltrated the defensive perimeter and followed a telephone line to the company command post where one of the enemy soldiers leaped over a low fence and began spraying the area with automatic-weapons fire. The first burst struck the company commander and Captain Josey. The soldier then swung his weapon around to fire on other members of the command post group, but Captain Josey, though seriously wounded in the side, jumped up and placed his body directly in the line of fire, shielding the group. He was again wounded, this time in the groin, but he sprang at the enemy, wrestled the weapon from him, and was attempting to fire it when, due to the seriousness of his wounds, he collapsed. The extraordinary display of heroism by Captain Josey in using his own body as a shield to protect his comrades and the, despite two severe wounds, disarming the enemy, reflects great credit on himself and the military service.” On the date of the award, 12 Mar 1951, Josey held the temporary grade of Captain. He was No. 311 of 628 on the promotion list for permanent promotion to Captain iaw Department of the Army General Order 7, dated 18 Jan 1952. Are you saying that Appleman’s book, according to WP:RS and WP:SYNTHESIS, overrides the information contained in Department of the Army general orders, even though Appleman’s citation contains two errors? Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
This sort of thing is easily fixed by changing it to First Lieutenant (citing that to the source you have identified), and adding a note that while Appleman says he was a captain, and citing this to Appleman, this is contradicted by your source. Personally I'm not very keen on the excessive detail regarding awards in this article, except for Wilson's MoH. Even the DSC is only a second-level award, and the others for both the US and Australians are third-level or lower. Keep the mention of the DUC for the US units though. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm also fine with Rupert's suggestion re the ginger beers. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
G'day, if you have direct access to the primary source and can provide the appropriate bibliographic details, then I support PM's suggestion re Josey's rank. The best way to deal with it would be to include a footnote in the text of the article using the"<ref group="Note">" tag (examples already used in the article) explaining the discrepancy between the primary and secondary source and citing the citation and the page in Appleman. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the conflicting information can be addressed in a footnote. We should not have excessive detail of actions leading to minor awards. Mztourist (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I had no intention of asking for any part of 1st Lieutenant Josey's DSC citation being included in the article. I included it here only to illustrate another example of errors in cited references. To Roy Appleman's credit, he did an excellent job; the problem was with the editing. Charles Shaulis (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I have adjusted the designation of the combat engineer company as suggested. Will have to leave the other adjustments to others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
On a whim, I ran a Google Search on the US 5th RCT, which included the 72nd Engineer Company. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia’s 5th Infantry Regiment (United States) Korean War section. The 5th Infantry Regiment Association’s web site also mentions “72nd Engineer Company” on its http://bobcat.ws/korea.html page. I also searched https://books.google.com/ for “72nd Engineer Company” to satisfy WP:RS and received a hit on The Korean war: an exhaustive chronology - Volume 1 by Bud Hannings (2007) with the following text: FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 979 … 555 Field Artillery Battalion (105mm) (Known as "The Triple-Nickel); 72nd Engineer Company 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team 187th Airborne RCT (Brigadier General Frank S. Bowen Jr. Units: 187th Airborne Infantry Regiment; …. Thinking that this book would be a nice addition to my Korean War reference library, I looked it up. The 3-volume hardcover set sells for $423.04 on eBAY and $339.20 on Amazon, a bit pricey to support my company/battalion argument. BooksAMillion has it for $97.66. There is also Hills of Sacrifice, The 5th Rct in Korea by Michael P. Slater (2000) that sells for $19.65 in paperback that I would assume contains 72nd Engineer Company reference material. If you’re interested, Hanning’s book bibliography is Hannings, Bud. The Korean War: an Exhaustive Chronology. McFarland & Co., 2007. ISBN-13: 978-0786428144 ISBN-10: 0786428147. I don't know what else to present as supporting evidence. Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
YOu could request the page (and the adjacent ones) from Hanning's book at WP:RSX. Someone might have access to a copy. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Done, assuming I correctly submitted the request. Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I bit the bullet and ordered Bud Hanning's books from Books-A-Million. It's a lot of money to prove a point, but right is right. So, which resource claims precedence in reverting "company of US combat engineers" to the correct 72nd Engineers unit/sub-unit designation? IMO, we should use the US unit designation (72nd Engineer Combat Company or 72nd Engineer Company) as it was employed during the Korean War (not WWII or present-day), add the Hannings book to the Reference listing, and include the Hannings page citation with the Farrar-Hockley page citation; something to the effect of "...and combat engineers from the US 72nd Engineer CompanyFarrar-Hockley citation Hannings citation. Charles Shaulis (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
I received an e-mail update from Books-A-Million today, stating Hannings book is no longer available and my order has been cancelled. Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your request at RSX? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Evidently some well-meaning Wikipedia soul deleted the request because I had posted that I had Hanning's books on order from BAM. That was before I received BAM's order cancellation. See WP:RX and View History for 07:20 30 November 2020 to see the source editor version of my original request. Charles Shaulis (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I've submitted another request. It doesn't need to be War and Peace. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 The official lineage certificate for the 72nd Engineer Combat Company[5] with Korea campaign streamers is posted on the U.S. Army Center from Military History's website, which seems to confirm the correct unit designation. US Army General Orders 40, page 3[6], confirms that it was a company-size unit by replacing an apparent typo in describing it as a battalion in the order describing units awarded Korea campaign credits. Most strongly, there are detailed accounts from two officers of the 72nd Engineer Combat Company in an official collection of Korean War US Army Engineer interviews. Uzal Ent in Fighting on the Brink provides a possible clue to the confusion of unit designations with the detail that the 72d Engineer Combat Battalion became the 5th RCT's 72d Engineer Combat Company in 1949[7]. Given all this evidence it seems clear that Farrar-Hockley's mention is just a typo. Kges1901 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have now some relevant pages from the Hanning's book. On p. 189 it mentions "a platoon of the 72nd Engineer Combat Battalion" in respect to action involving the 24th Infantry Regiment on 7 August 1950 near Kogan-ni, and on p. 979 there is a mention of the "72nd Engineer Company" being part of the ORBAT of the 5th RCT. These are the only two mentions of 72nd in the whole book (except the index). So, apparently they both existed, according to Hanning. The only engineers listed under the ORBAT of 187th RCT on p. 979 is "Airborne Engineer Company" and the book doesn't provide an ORBAT for the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade. Having said that, I'm sure engineer elements were attached to and detached from formations as needed. That is usually the case. Not sure where this leaves us. We are probably better off just going with what the reliable source we have says, which is Farrar-Hockley p. 239 which says "a company of the 72nd Combat Engineers". Given F-H's index says this is the "72 Combat Engineer Battalion", we could use the designation given in Hanning (a US source), which is slightly different in word order from F-H, and we could go with "a company of the 72nd Engineer Combat Battalion". Or we could stick with something more generic. Thoughts? Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I'm curious. Was Jim Hokins your WP:RSX source? His e-mail to me contained a link to a Russian file transfer site that blew up my AV software. My WTH e-mail to him was returned by the mail server as undeliverable. So, how did you get access to the whole Hannings book when your request was just for pp. 978-980? Did p. 189 contain a footnote supporting "platoon...Battalion"? I guess its time to quit kicking this dead horse down the road and agree to disagree. As my final suggestion, are we adamant about including the names of the US units attached to the brigade in the first place? There are very few mentions of them in the article. For example, can we delete the last sentence in the Background section in toto since it has already been stated in this section that "...it [the brigade] would rely entirely on the Americans...."? This would also require the "...from D Company, 89th Tank Battalion." reference to be deleted from the North Koreans attempt to break-out section. FYI Able Company, 127th Airborne Engineer Battalion jumped into Sukchon/Sunchon; 1st Platoon with 1/187 ABN, 2nd Platoon with 2/187 ABN, and 3rd Platoon with 3/187 ABN. Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we just try to keep each thread about one subject, and start a new one if you want to discuss something different? This is all over the place. Can you advise what you think is the best wording about the engineers? Are you happy with what is there given the difference between sources, or do you propose something else? Thanks. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 13:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert, Mztourist,  and Peacemaker67: I'll ask the question again. Are we adamant about including the names of the US units attached to the brigade? There are currently only three referrals (one "90th" and two "89th"; I don't recall the 72nd Engineers ever being mentioned other than once before we started this thread) in the article. To satisfy everyone, (1) delete the last sentence and its associated F-H citation in the Background section since it is stated elsewhere in this section that "...it [the brigade] would rely entirely on the Americans...." (this renders the 72nd Engineer Combat Company/Battalion argument moot) and delete the phrase "...from D Company, 89th Tank Battalion." in the North Koreans attempt to break-out section. Charles Shaulis (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
G'day, personally, I don't see how deleting this information improves the article, but I will defer to others if they think it does. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: It's not so much improving the article as it is resolving the Company/Battalion discussion. IMO it will neither improve nor detract from the article's subject matter. Charles Shaulis (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 Getting back to the original subject of this, the identity of the 72nd Engineers, it appears that Hannings' reference to the '72nd Engineer Combat Battalion' is copied from Appleman in South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu, because Hannings' chronology is a tertiary source by definition and Appleman's action involving them and the 24th Infantry is in reference to the Task Force Kean counterattack from 7-12 August 1950. It seems very clear that Appleman has a typo in referring to the unit as a battalion because a lieutenant from the 72nd Engineer Combat Company recounts their participation as part of TF Kean, which the 5th RCT was attached to, and running into a "North Korean buzz saw" while fighting as infantry in Remembering the Forgotten War, pp 22-25. What we have so far, then, is all mentions of the "72nd Engineer Combat Battalion" being typos for the 72nd Engineer Combat Company. Kges1901 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kges1901: After hearing nothing but crickets from the Farrar-Hockley citation defenders of the 72nd Engineers' battalion designation regarding my suggestion to delete the names of the US units attached to the British brigade, I added your Fowle-Lonnquest source to the Reference list and added "and combat engineers from the US 72nd Engineer Combat Company" with the corresponding footnote to the Background section. Let's see if it avoids reversion.Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
With all due respect, Charles, I don't think this is the best change. Please remember the designation was removed as a compromise. Your change does not seem like a compromise to me. Regardless, though, I don't see the point of reverting. However, I would ask you to explain where on page 20 in Fowle does it mention Yongyu in relation to the 72nd? Strangely enough, p. 273 of the document you cite mentions Yongyu, but in relation to the 73rd Engineer Combat Battalion. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Look at the dates. Page 20 defines the US 72nd Engineers as a company-level formation, and has nothing to do with the Battle of Yongyu. It states "We were designated the 72nd Engineer Combat Company." (before the Battle of Yongyu). Page 7 states " Another unit arriving during the early days of the war, the 72d Engineer Combat Company (ECC), returned to Korea from Hawaii, landing at Pusan on 31 July 1950. (again, before the Battle of Yongyu). Page 273 refers to different combat engineer unit after the Battle of Yongyu time period. I made the change on 12 December because there was no response to my 04:38, 3 December suggestion after User:Kges1901 weighed in on 2 December. Revert my Background section edit to the "compromised" edition if you see fit. I have bigger fish to fry with this article. Charles Shaulis (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert, Mztourist,  and Peacemaker67: I restored the "compromised" reference to the US 72nd Engineer Combat Company and removed the Fowle reference. IMO I and @Kges1901: have proven through presentation of multiple sources that General Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley was in error when he cited "a company from the US 72nd Combat Engineer Battalion." This thread is getting entirely out of hand with picking fly excrement out of the buckwheat. I shall get on with more rat killing in this article later. PS I am curious as to the exact wording of F-H's p. 239 citation.Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We don't have a direct reliable source for it being that named unit, so I am happy to go with the current wording, it is not in question that the brigade had US engineer support, and as you say, this stuff is mouseshit, and no more time should be spent on it. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 10:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

1. US Army Generals Walton Walker (commanding EUSAK), Hobart Gay (commanding the 1st Cavalry Division), and John Church (commanding the 24th Infantry Division) are mentioned only once in the article. I suggest deleting their names from the associated units as they are extraneous to the 27th British Commonwealth Brigade's attachment to the associated US army/division.

I usually mention the commanders when naming formations directly relevant to a battle. The two divisions are the immediate higher formations of the two formations involved, so I think they are certainly relevant. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
2. After "It was attached to the US 1st Cavalry Division," in the OPFOR section, I suggest adding "but would work as a separate task force at a considerable distance from, and without physical contact with, that division or other friendly units." See Gugeler, Russell A. Combat Actions in Korea. Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1987, Chapter 4, page 39 https://www.koreanwar2.org/kwp2/cmh/combat_actions_in_korea.pdf.

Sounds fine. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
3. I have noticed that this article is dominated by British English, as opposed to American English, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. I have absolutely no problem with sticking to British English, as long as it's used consistently throughout the article and does not introduce ambiguity. For example, I was taught to use the Oxford comma before the and/or coordinating conjunction in a series of three or more items (spelling, grammar, and punctuation); this is not the case in British English composition (spelling, grammar and punctuation). Prepositional phrases that begin a sentence (On 23 October, Prior to the attack, etc.) should be followed by a comma. Consistently correct punctuation will make this a better WP:GA.

Sure. I'll go through and look at this in details in the next week or so, I reckon. There is a bit of fat to cut. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments?
Charles Shaulis (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: The Chongchon River is linked in paragraph 3 of the Lead section. Does it require a duplicate link in the Prelude/Opposing Forces section? Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a duplicate link. Standard practice on WP is to link once in the lead and again at first mention in the body. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 05:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
That's nice to know. I'll have to double check my previous edits where I removed duplicate links. Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The MOS link is MOS:DUPLINK. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mztourist: 

Leary, William M. (2000). Anything, Anywhere, Anytime: Combat Cargo in the Korean War. Air Force History and Museums Program. ISBN 978-1-4775-4969-8. page 9: "[Major General William H.] Tunner, piloting a C–54, would personally supervise the drop, which would occur under the watchful eyes of MacArthur and [Lieutenant General George E.] Stratemeyer, flying in SCAP's personal C–121." General Tunner,  commanding FEAF Combat Cargo Command, served as the airborne commander for the Sukchon–Sunchon airborne operation. General Stratemeyer was FEAF's commanding general. SCAP stands for Supreme Commander Allied Powers.
Y'blood, William T., ed. (1999). The Three Wars of Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer: His Korean War Diary (PDF). Air Force History and Museums Program. ISBN 0-16-050106-7. page 211: Departed 0600 hours from Haneda, direct for Seoul aboard the SCAP32 with General MacArthur and a group of his staff to attend the ceremonies wherein CINCFE turned over the Korean capital, Seoul, to President Rhee." 32. “SCAP” was the name given MacArthur’s new Lockheed Constellation; page 242: Friday, 20 October 1950. "Departed Haneda aboard the SCAP with General MacArthur at 3:35 A.M. We proceeded on course and after arriving well into the interior of Korea, received word that Kimp’o airport was closed and that the para-drop had been postponed three hours. We turned around and made a landing at Pusan (K-9). While there I talked with both Generals Partridge and Tunner and found out that because of the weather, the scheduled time of take off for the drop had been postponed six hours. This made the drop at 1400 hours instead of 0800 hours. We departed K-9 (Pusan) about 1120 hours, flew direct to Kimp’o, where we circled and watched the take-off of many of the ‘119s, witnessed their assembly and squadron formation and then proceeded direct to the drop zone - Sukch’on–Sunch'on. We missed the first drop at Sukch’on and then proceeded to Sunch’on and there, in a regular ring-side seat, we witnessed the second drop, saw artillery and mortar shells falling in the area, witnessed both F–80 and F–51 strafing gun positions, destroying enemy troops in the villages and witnessed one F–80 burn and crash in the village due to hostile ground fire. We then proceeded to Sukch’on and witnessed another drop - this being equipment, again watching the fighters, witnessing the T–6s direct fighter fire as well as observing General Partridge (in a T–6) and General Tunner (in a C–54) witness the drop. Directly after this we proceeded back to P’yongyang, the captured capital of North Korea, and checking with the ground where General Partridge had arrived, landed on the airstrip which had been secured by the 1st Cavalry Division."
In November 1943, General MacArthur obtained his own personal B–17E Flying Fortress that he named "Bataan." In April 1945, General MacArthur received "Bataan II," a C–54 as his personal aircraft. See https://planesoffame.org/aircraft/plane-VC-121A for background information on his VC–121. The nose art on all three aircraft displayed "Bataan" over the island of Luzon.
If you are questioning the aircraft type, please remove your reversion. If you are questioning the aircraft name, change the text to read  "MacArthur had flown from Japan to watch the drop from the air, and after observing the landing aboard Bataan, MacArthur’s new VC-121A Constellation that he had received in September,...."
Charles Shaulis (talk) 05:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reference then reinstate it in with the reference, but once again you are adding minutiae to this page that really adds nothing to the overall subject. Mztourist (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree this is undue detail. There is already far too much detail about the US airdrop. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Saying that MacArthur flew to Pyongyang in a "bomber" is like saying the US 72nd Engineer Combat Company was a "battalion." It may be minutiae, but it's correct minutiae. Charles Shaulis (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I have fixed and referenced it. Mztourist (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, Mztourist,  and AustralianRupert:
Since Peacemaker67 and Mztourist believe that there is too much minutiae about the US airdrop that adds nothing to the subject of the Battle of Yongyu, I'd like to put forth the following recommendations:
1. 187th RCT airdrop at Sukchon and Sunchon, 20 – 21 October 1950 is covered in Wikipedia’s 187th Infantry Regiment (United States) article (see 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team Operations at Sukchon and Sunchon: Airborne assault, 20 October 1950), and can be deleted since it is covered in sufficient detail in the Lead section’s second paragraph and the last paragraph of the Prelude/Opposing Forces subsection. This removes a WP:CFORK issue between the two articles.
2. KPA 239th Regiment is encircled, 21 October 1950 is covered in the 187th Infantry Regiment (United States) article (see 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team Operations at Sukchon and Sunchon: NKPA 239th Regiment encirclement, 21 October 1950). The first two paragraphs can be deleted since they are not relevant to the Battle of Yongyu. Additionally, PFC Richard Wilson was killed sometime after 15:30 on 21 October. The 27th British Commonwealth Brigade did not leave Pyongyang until around noon on 21 October and did not reach Yongyu until that evening. This removes another WP:CFORK issue.
3. North Koreans attempt to break-out, 21/22 October 1950 is covered in the 187th Infantry Regiment (United States) article (see 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team Operations at Sukchon and Sunchon: NKPA 239th Regiment breakout, 22 October 1950). The first two paragraphs can be deleted since they contain no information relevant to the Battle of Yongyu. There is a WP:UNDUE issue with this section as written.
4. Five of the nine thumbnail images in the Battle of Yongyu article are associated with 187th ARCT airdrop, and can be removed since they are not relevant to the Battle of Yongyu.
Last, Edward M. Flanagan, Jr., author of The Rakkasans: The Combat History of the 187th Airborne Infantry, identified Lt. Col. Charles H. Greene [sic] as the CO of the Argylls on page 165. How is Flanagan’s credibility any different that Farrar-Hockley who referred to the 72nd Engineer Combat Company as a battalion? Is Flanagan any less a WP:RS than Farrar Hockley?
Charles Shaulis (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There certainly are plenty of UNDUE issues with the article when it comes to the activities of the 187th ARCT. I would be happy with all of the removals you have suggested. Further trimming and rewriting of background might be needed, but I don't have time to look at this at the moment. With reference to Flanagan, he is completely and obviously wrong and no other source says that Green was the CO of the Argylls. There is confusion between sources about the engineers, and frankly, this piece of detail about the unit number and size is probably undue and unnecessary given they do not feature in the battle, all that is needed in the article is that US engineers were in support. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Charles, please remember that the term "reliable source" here has a specific Wikipedia meaning; pretty much every source will make minor errors, as indeed do all humans; minor errors do not change whether they are considered an RS if they meet the requirements listed there and so long as they are not used inappropriately (i.e. synthesis). The usual way of handling discrepancies in RS in Wikipedia is to compare and contrast the sources appropriately in text if they specifically say something contrary. Whether or not Farrar-Hockley made an error in his description of the engineers seems a minor point to me, and one that was already resolved through the adjusted wording. I don't understand why you continue to bring it up. Regarding the proposed deletions, I can live with removing much of this information, with the following caveat. The recent addition to the lead seems a bit too much detail, IMO (it is a very long lead already), but if you are going to add things to the lead, they need to be backed up in the body with refs. As such, I would caution against removing things in the body if you have placed them in the lead, or they should also be removed from the lead. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

"The British and Australians had covered 122 kilometres (76 mi) in the previous two days, advancing rapidly until slowed by rain. A Company, 3 RAR, was engaged by snipers from a nearby village without suffering casualties. The Sherman tanks proceeded to heavily engage the KPA positions in the village, which was then cleared by the Australian infantry who killed five KPA and took three prisoners. As the rain ceased a KPA T-34 tank, which had remained concealed during the earlier fighting, engaged D Company, 3 RAR, and was knocked out by the US tanks. An unmanned SU-76 self-propelled gun was also located nearby and neither it nor the tank were found to have any petrol." [referenced source citation: Bartlett (1960), p. 30]
Would someone with access to Norman Bartlett's With the Australians in Korea clean up this text; e.g., what village is referenced? This action must have occurred before the brigade departed Pyongyang for Sukchon. Is this text even relevant to the Yongyu advance?
Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day,  Charles, I am afraid I am away from home right now with work, so can't check myself; that said I will see if can get someone at home to check for me. Will get back to you, shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Bartlett doesn't seem to mention the village name (just says "a village") but O'Neill  1985, vol 2 p. 34 seems to identify it as "Samgapo" with the incident taking place on 18 Oct in the mid-afternoon. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
That's interesting. In my 01:59, 8 February 2021 edit, I corrected a sentence in the second paragraph of the Opposing Forces section that originally read "Coad had hoped to rest his men at Pyongyang; however, the advance continued north with little respite and the brigade moved through the village of Sangapo. [referenced source citation: Horner (2008), p. 61] It took me over an hour scanning the KoreanWar.org map library to find that Sangapo was Samgapo. This is the type of error that gives researchers gray hairs before their time. That said, IMO the Bartlett citation referenced above needs to be moved out of the British and Australian Advance section and combined with the Horner citation in the Opposing Forces section, adding the O'Neill reference as a footnote. Leave the British and Australian Advance section for the brigade's movement from Pyongyang to Yongyu. I am hesitant to make the change myself, lest I incur the wrath of Mztourist or Peacemaker67. Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)‎
Charles Shaulis if you read widely about the Korean War you will find that current place names are often slightly different from what they were during the war as many were either still the Japanese name or an incorrect Romanization of the Hangul, e.g. what is now Busan was then either Pusan or Fusan. This isn't an "error that gives researchers grey hairs" just an evolution of Korean and translations of it. Regarding incurring my wrath, as I have said before you are too fixated on the minutiae of this page. Mztourist (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: I see that the Talk:Battle of Yongju/GA1 page lists you as the reviewer. Because of the amount of revision that has occurred since the page received its Good Article designation in 2011, IMO it needs to be submitted again. Charles Shaulis (talk) 09:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

G'day, the process is outlined at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. You are, of course, entitled to pursue a re-assessment if you wish, but if you haven't participated in the GA process (as a nominator, or reviewer) it is probably best to conduct it as a community reassessment, IMO. That way, at least there is a broader group of people looking at it. Anyway, in my experience, we don't usually renom at GAN just because there have been changes to an article over time; it would usually only be done if there were specific concerns aligned to the six Wikipedia:Good article criteria that haven't been, or can't be addressed through usual editing processes.  Have you a concern about one or more of those six points? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I have no desire to reassess this article's GA status nor do I have concerns with regard to Wikipedia:Good article criteria - it's certainly in better shape now than it was in September 2020 when I first found it during my Korean War research. I'm just surprised that users like Mztourist and Peacemaker67 didn't take action sooner, if they were so concerned about the amount of non-Australian-centric material present in Illegitimate Barrister's error-ridden version of the article. Thanks for being the calm head during this discussion thread. Charles Shaulis (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Charles Shaulis I really don't care that much about this page. It was only when you started making numerous changes that I started paying any attention to it. I don't agree that it is necessarily "in better shape now than it was in September 2020" thanks to your edits.  Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)