Talk:White Shirts Society

Page rename

I think title of article is an uncommon way of referring to the group in peer reviewed lit.

Here are some candidates for article name, only tallying sources from papers, books, newspapers, or encyclopedias.

• Baeguisa (current)
  • Revised Romanization
• Paeguisa [1] [2]
  • McCune–Reischauer without the accent mark (as per WP:TSC, accents commonly omitted in MR)
• Baikyi-sa [3]
• White Shirt Society [4][5][6][7]
• White Shirts Society [8][9][10]
• White Shirts of Korea [11]
• White Clothes Party [12][13]
• White Clothes Society [14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
  • Based on refs in other papers to a Bruce Cumings book [21], I suspect he uses this term, but haven't been able to confirm unless I buy the book.

I propose renaming the page to "White Clothes Society".

Edit: see later part of comment chain

Reasoning:

• Keeping in mind guidelines from WP:UE
• Used the name with the highest tally
  • Tally by whichever name the source uses most (i.e. if it lists both translation and romanization, prefer whichever is used more)
• Overall it seems more common practice in English-language academia to translate the group's name rather than use a romanization
  • Some of the sources I linked above are in mainly in Korean but have an English title or abstract

It'd be great if I could find how the CIC referred to the group. Didn't find on quick research. I'll do later and update if I find. toobigtokale (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Will rename page; please undo if you disagree and if you think it warrants more discussion. toobigtokale (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The name "White Shirts Society" is likely a better translation and my preferred title though...

Reasoning:

• The name of the organization is universally agreed on as being inspired by the names of other fascist groups, including the Italian Blackshirts and the Chinese Blue Shirts Society. Those names are translated with "Shirts" in the title.
• The character "衣" [22] can be used to refer to upperwear specifically.

I think it's arguable that this article falls under WP:DIVIDEDUSE. I'm still on the fence, but may argue for renaming the page to "White Shirts Society". toobigtokale (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Decided I'll pull the trigger and rename. Please re-discuss if disagree toobigtokale (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

It turns out the CIC uses either "White Clothes Party" or "White Clothes Society" [23]. This is a declassified memo from a CIC agent who was close to Yeom.

I'm going to stick to my guns until someone disagrees 😎 toobigtokale (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Scope of here vs Yeom Dong-jin

Hey,

I'm making an effort to keep the scope of this article (WSS) more on the overall organization and less about Yeom. It's very hard to separate the two; I'm often tempted to merge the Yeom page onto the WSS page, but I feel like some info on Yeom would become too niche for this page (his wife, nephew, etc).

Future editors, please try to separate the scopes of the two articles. Thank you! toobigtokale (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Image

I have yet to find a representative image for the group. There aren't even any copyrighted photos that I can find that would adequately represent them.

I've considered using an image of Yeom, but that doesn't really represent the entire group. I also considered using a pic of historical peasants wearing white clothing, but that's also not really representative and imo risks negative associations between those clothes and this group.

Think our only hope is if a logo or group photo gets leaked at some point. But seems unlikely. toobigtokale (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Source reliability

Hi @Emiya1980, I saw you put the unreliable source tag. Thanks for the feedback; is there anything in particular that concerns you about it?

I could put the text from the paper in both Korean and my own English translation if you'd like. Otherwise I can pull up a few other sources; that factoid is a reasonably widely shared opinion in scholarship about the WSS.

Edit: oh is it the scope? I just realized the wording could imply all future attacks were done in collaboration. I can tone down the claim if that helps.

toobigtokale (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

toobigtokale I would prefer you to provide additional sources and links to the same (preferable those that allow viewing without a paid subscription). Saying that the South Korean government and its intelligence services conspired to have North Korean leaders killed several years prior to the Korean War is a very bold allegation.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Got it, I'll do that.

Side note though, afaik it's pretty widely accepted by the South Korean public that the KPG was responsible for it. In fact, many are either in favor of it or just don't think about it much. We/they have a lot of cognitive dissonance; was a very ugly time. toobigtokale (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. Also toned down the wording a bit as per my first comment.

From the Bae source (Monthly Chosun) "1946년 3월 1일의 김일성 암살 작전도 백의사와 정치공작대가 함께 벌인 일이었다" can be translated as "The March 1, 1946 assassination plot was done by the WSS and DPI together".

From the Lankov source: "As early as February 1946, the Department of Political Intelligence of the newly-established provisional government of the Korean Republic in Seoul (this self-proclaimed nationalist government in exile returned to Korea in the autumn of 1945) sent a group of its agents to the North. Their mission was to assassinate a number of North Korean leaders, including Kim Il Sung himself." toobigtokale (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the source listed as Lankov? I see a name but no title of the book he allegedly wrote.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

May need to refresh; I added it in a recent edit. [24] toobigtokale (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

toobigtokale On another note, do you have any primary sources that corroborate these claims? Most of what I am seeing is unverifiable hearsay. The article says evidence of South Korean involvement with the White Shirts Society can be found in "declassified documents published by the US National Archives and Records Administration." Links to those documents would go a long way toward verifying these allegations.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Argh that's a can of worms... I haven't been able to find all the pages, but here's the first one.

The document in question is "RG 319, Entry 85A, Army Intelligence Document File, 1944–45 (ID File) no. 573339, Kim Koo: Background Information Concerning Assassination" in NARA. After struggling through NARA's website, I managed to confirm at some point (too lazy to repeat now) that the documents in it aren't digitized yet :(

However, here's the first page of it: [25]

Unfortunately, after a few hours of attempts, I haven't been able to find a full original scan of the document (there's four pages if I recall). Maybe I'll visit DC and scan it myself at some point lol.

Here's a really cool article written by a member of the team who discovered the document: [26]. They have some other related documents in the article, but not the article in question unfortunately.

There is a full Korean translation of the document (should be in the source list), but unfortunately no full English transcription that I can find. toobigtokale (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Based on the links you provided, I don't see any corroboration that South Korean or American officials were involved in assassinations of North Korean officials. The page only indicates that a member of American intelligence met a Korean who was allegedly engaged in such activity.

Korean translations of an original document are secondhand adaptations and therefore suspect. Actual copies would be preferred.Emiya1980 (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I partially agree. Maybe I'll send some emails to people asking for scans, or I'll try to visit DC myself later this year and scan them myself.

But for now, maybe we can reword things to your satisfaction to represent the skepticism.

After the rewording, I'm personally not too worried about the overall quality of the information. Scans would be a nice bonus. But the rest of the sources, while not 100% (I mean, even the guy who wrote the orig CIC report made several easily disprovable factual errors, maybe he was just wrong about everything), all agree on the same conclusions. And most of the names cited in the article are widely respected names in Korean scholarship.

I agree that this specific topic has a controversial conclusion, but the conclusion is basically unanimous. Anecdotal, but I've never seen even a single author that disagrees with the conclusion. toobigtokale (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, a quick fact check on something you said. There is no evidence the US was involved on March assassination attempts in North Korea. The articles I've written on this topic (several) shouldn't imply that.

Feel free to peruse this article I've been working on too: User:Toobigtokale/Attempted assassination of Kim Il Sung. toobigtokale (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 Ok I'm dumb. Found it.

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

Lmk thoughts; should we still change anything in the article or is this sufficient? toobigtokale (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

toobigtokale I’ve had a chance to review the primary sources you listed. Based on my review,I don’t see anything in them corroborating that the South Korean government conspired with the White Shirts Society to have North Korean leaders assassinated.

Contrary to depicting the WSS as a group whose actions were directed by the South Korean government, the U.S. intelligence report you provided show the WSS was a right-wing terrorist group that solely answered to a clique comprised of “Rightist dissidents within the Korean National Army." This is further evidence by the reports' reference to how the organization conspired “to overthrow the government of Rhee Syngman by a coup….by a Rightist Army clique.”

Unless there are other documents you can point to, I don’t see any primary sources corroborating that the South Korean government was directly involved in any assassination attempts on North Korean leaders. As things currently stand, the only evidence in the article supporting this claim are from two sources of questionable reliability:

(1) a 1946 Soviet report alleging the WSS was directly led by Kim Gu while President of KPG which gives no proof upon which such conclusions are based.

(2) interviews with right-wing terrorists that U.S. documents show not only acted independently of the South Korean leadership but attempted to overthrow it.

If you’re insistent on including these claims within the body of the article, I would prefer that you qualify them by specifying where they originate from instead of framing them as an undisputed fact.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think the information should stay in; it's by far the leading theory. The phrasing should have been qualified in the first place, I'll get around to that.

Minor point, but the KPG cannot easily called "the South Korean government". The KPG had no de facto authority on the peninsula, and was never recognized by any countries except for South Korea after South Korea's establishment and the KPG's dissolution. toobigtokale (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Made some edits; is this better? toobigtokale (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 Update? toobigtokale (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Missing info

Hi,

I wrote most of the article. I may work on it again later, but not in my immediate plans.

I grade the article as a C due to missing information; I know for sure that more information on their relationships to other groups is out there. I encourage others to search for it; they're a fascinating group that still grabs headlines in South Korean newspapers even in recent years. toobigtokale (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Tags

Hello @Emiya1980, this is toobigtokale again. The tags have returned after a year of silence. Please provide written explanation for your concerns; explanations are standard practice. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 08:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that most of the claims about cooperation between the White Shirts Society and the United States prior to the Korean War's outbreak are set forth in sources based or published in Korea. While you have taken care not to present claims about alleged cooperation between the White Shirts Society and American forces in Wikipedia's voice, they are not balanced by enough views on this subject from English-language sources or at least those published in the West. In order to minimize perceptions of bias, please incorporate more of these kinds of sources within the body of the article. If you oppose doing so, please obtain a consensus via an Rfc. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the description of them being fringe theories is appropriate. Maybe "needs more references" matches what you've just written, but going so far as to call the perspective fringe I feel is unfair and almost feels reverse POV.

The authors being cited are major South Korean historians, and their perspectives are widely shared in South Korea. There are documentaries on family-friendly major history channels that share this information verbatim; that's how I found out about this group lol... Here's one with cute sound effects. It's by Korean Broadcasting System.

You're right that more English-language sources would be desirable, but honestly while researching this article I struggled to find real significant coverage of this group in the English language. I can give it a look in future.

I worked hard on this article and I hope you can trust that my intentions are good. I am both an American and South Korean; the last thing I'd want to do is paint both my countries poorly for no good reason. I strictly limit my writing to RS. History was just endlessly ugly during this time. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I'm skeptical of the allegation that South Korean historians would be notably biased here; what incentive is there to insult SK's ally like this? Some of the historians cited are from the political right in South Korea, which is notably pro-American. One of them is from the left, but is Korean American.

On the contrary I'd argue many articles over-rely on Western scholars, but I'd have a hard time imagining that's something you'd put these kinds of banners on for articles like Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (almost all Western scholars for a topic that's about Japan, that also strongly affects China and Korea). I went out of my way to be receptive to your criticisms last time, but this time it feels unfair. These are heavy accusations you're levying towards me. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If you think you're being treated unfairly, you are free to open an Rfc on the matter.Emiya1980 (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

I will. Thanks for returning my good faith with bad faith and this dismissive reply. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

RFC on bias

Dispute over whether this article is promoting fringe theories. The information being covered is contentious, and hardly available in the English language. Most historians being cited are South Korean. One user alleges the South Korean historians have reason to be biased (and per tag, promoting fringe theories), and that more Western historians are needed. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

As a heads up, I'm toobigtokale from earlier on this talk page. See User talk:104.232.119.107#My activities on an IP for context.

To be clear, I want and plan to try looking for more Western sources on this. I just disagree with the assertion that the writing is fringe. If the user provided no assertion of what is mainstream, how do you judge what is fringe? 211.43.120.242 (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@211.43.120.242: The article could use more English and other Korean sources. But I would not call this fringe. The existing tag about neutrality and another suggested for more references should suffice. Senorangel (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@211.43.120.242:The fringe tag arises because it is presently unclear whether allegations of cooperation between the White Shirts Society (WSS) and the U.S. are supported by corroborated facts, historical speculation or testimony from dubious sources. This is applicable to at least 4 instances in the article.

(1) In the subsection entitled "Espionage in North Korea", the article states that the WSS's founding leader, Yeom Dong-jin, claimed that his organization collaborated with the U.S. Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) and United States Forces Korea in "training and sending spies to North Korea...from January to September 1946". In the ensuing paragraph, it goes on to state in Wikipedia's voice that "the CIC continued to collaborate with the WSS on other activities until the latter's dissolution". Is this based on the aforementioned allegations of Yeom or some other evidence? In the case of the former, the article should specify that they are based on Yeom's statements and therefore of questionable veracity on account of him being the WSS's leader. In the case of the latter, the evidentiary basis of such allegations should be set forth within the article so the reader can confirm that this statement is a corroborated fact and not mere speculation.

(2) In the subsection entitled "Assassination of Kim Ku", the article states that Ahn-Doo Hee, the man responsible for assassinating Kim Ku, "had been an informant and then an agent of the CIC" at the time according to a report by George E. Cilley, an American intelligence agent. In the reports written by Cilley that you provided to me earlier in the above discussion thread, there is mention of an Anh Tok Hi (NOT an Ahn-Doo Hee) who is described as an informer and agent of the CIC. If you want to set this forth in Wikipedia's voice, you need to directly cite a link to the Cilley report which corroborates this statement; not merely reference a secondary source as you did in the body.

(3) In the subsection entitled "Decline and Dissolution", the article states in Wikipedia's voice that Douglas MacArthur's chief of intelligence, Charles A. Willoughby, "sent an envoy to Yeom and requested they work together to acquire information on the North" thereby giving rise to the Korea Liaison Office. What evidence is this based upon?

(4) In the article's infobox, both the United States and the United States Army Military Government in Korea are listed as allies of the White Shirts Society with no evidence to back it up besides the aforementioned unverified statements listed above.

In the absence of links to verifiable primary sources (or at least an explanation of what evidence the cited authors are basing their claims on), the article reads like a speculative revisionist account of the lead-up to the Korean War. Combined with references to attempted assassinations of North Korean officials (including Kim Il Sung himself) by the WSS in 1946, the takeaway is that the United States was aligned with a group that regularly violated North Korea's sovereignty well before Pyongyang backed a communist insurgency in 1948 and later ordered an invasion of South Korea in 1950. This challenges the conventional wisdom that it was aggression by North Korea which gave rise to the Korean War. Consequently, I am not inclined to remove the fringe tag until verifiable evidence for the aforementioned claims is included within the article. Emiya1980 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Why didn't you write all this up front? Then an actual discussion could have been had, versus the dismissive If you think you're being treated unfairly, you are free to open an Rfc on the matter. In your first reply, you even incorrectly assumed that I wouldn't want more sources or want to engage with you, If you oppose doing so, please obtain a consensus via an Rfc. Can you see how this is rude? I'm begging you, reflect on this behavior. I've consistently tried to work with you, I don't deserve this.

Your questions invite a small essay in response, and I'm traveling rn so will reply in a day or two. 59.5.79.44 (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated by the tag itself, fringe on Wikipedia is defined with respect to the mainstream view. It is not forbidden as long as the mainstream view is duely explained. In this case, a connection between the CIC and the White Shirts Society sounds plausible according to JoongAng Daily and the Encyclopedia of Korean Culture. Senorangel (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Senorangel Are you saying that is sufficient proof for collaboration between the U.S. and WSS to be a mainstream view?Emiya1980 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be the case. Even if it is not, fringe allows alternative views to be covered as long as in a way that is due compared to any mainstream view. If this article is not promoting non-mainstream views as or more heavily than the mainstream view, then it does not violate fringe. Senorangel (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Senorangel That is the problem though. In the instances I have pointed out above, the mainstream view of the lead-up to the Korean War is given little (if any) attention. Therefore, the fringe tag is justified until the mainstream view is provided.Emiya1980 (talk

The views being expressed in this article are mainstream, your understanding of the mainstream is just incorrect especially because you have yet to actually provide any sources. The US spied on the north but did not engage in violence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've already suggested you visit the Korean War page as a frame of reference. That is enough. I do not have the burden of providing sources corroborating what the common wisdom is. That is your responsibility on account of your insistence on presenting views which are not widely held except among largely Korean sources.Emiya1980 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok fine, I can concede this. Can you see why it's frustrating though, when I've done my reading (stuff that's available in English too) but am being accused of being a fringe theorist? And seemingly few other people in the world have read this easily available stuff lol?

This context is not excessively hard to find, I'm just paying the price of having been more diligent about reading it and sharing what I learned (admittedly with poor prose) and now am being accused of being a fringe theorist for it. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

As per Senorangel's comment just above, none of your points indicate anything in the article is a fringe theory, just that you're not satisfied with the sourcing. Being unsatisfied with the sourcing is perfectly fine and I'll work with you on it; this is a contentious topic which merits scrutiny. Although we should discuss these concerns possibly in a separate thread; this discussion should be strictly on whether or not this article is "fringe".

In the meantime, you've provided no description of what is mainstream, and this article and Senorangel's post has multiple sources from mainstream South Korean and Korean-American historians. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@104.232.119.107: As evidenced by my follow-up query, it’s not clear whether that is what Senorangel is saying. Even if it is, 2:1 is hardly a decisive consensus in your favor. Emiya1980 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't indicate we had reached consensus. I'll use this space to repeat this: In the meantime, you've provided no description of what is mainstream, and this article and Senorangel's post has multiple sources from mainstream South Korean and Korean-American historians. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Emiya1980 You've still yet to provide any description of what is mainstream. "I don't agree with the rigor of the sources and want more detail" is not the same thing as "the article is fringe". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The mainstream view is that the Korean War was triggered by North Korean aggression and the U.S. was not aligned with radicals actively engaged in hostilities against the north well before the outbreak of said conflict. Most of the histories I have looked at on the subject have made no mention of the materials you have cited nor of the claims they espouse. For a frame of reference, there is no mention of such collusion in Wikipedia's article for the Korean War.Emiya1980 (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

In multiple replies, you've revealed you don't understand this article nor the time period of 1945–1950 very well.

1. Previously, you equated the Korean Provisional Government with South Korea, when during this period the KPG (led by Kim Ku) was fierce rivals with Syngman Rhee/the US. This is introductory-level information about this period; it is covered extensively even in the English language.

During this period, Kim and the KPG took a number of actions that went against the US's and Syngman Rhee's agenda, including both belligerent and reconciliatory acts in the North. This is covered by English language sources (Millett pgs. 74, 80). Part of this conflict is described at a high level on Wikipedia: Division of Korea#UN intervention and the formation of separate governments.

The reason I bring this up is because of my next point, that the KPG/WSS's violence was independent of the US. The US just used the WSS to support their espionage.

2. You incorrectly implied in your wording that the US collaborated with the WSS on attacks in the North. Never is this suggested in the article; the US's collaboration with the WSS was limited to information, at least until the Korean War began. In fact, the US was caught off guard by the WSS/KPG's attacks in the North ([27]).

James Jongsoo Lee writes this in his book:

An aspect of the popular resistance against the Soviet rule that made such resistance difficult was the fact that it received very little or almost no support—either financial or in terms of personnel—from nationalists in southern Korea or from the U.S. military government. This needs to be qualified by the fact that sporadic acts of violence against the Soviet occupation and the communists in northern Korea were staged by Paegŭisa (note: the White Shirts Society's name in McCune–Reischauer) and other right-wing elements from southern Korea in spring 1946 and that the U.S. military intelligence and, later, the CIA sent agents into northern Korea as early as 1946... As for the American intelligence and counter-intelligence activities in northern Korea, these seemed to have been mainly for purposes of gathering information and most likely did not give support to oppositional elements in northern Korea.

It wouldn't have made sense for the US to support violence in the North; all of their actions suggested they just wanted to get out of Korea ASAP without rocking the boat. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you don't include such sources within the article itself and use them to qualify the otherwise broad representation the U.S. and the WSS being allies?Emiya1980 (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Because I wrote the article a year ago, when I first started editing Wikipedia and was not good at writing lol.

This article is not fringe, the time period is just ridiculously complicated and poorly understood in the West (clearly; the English Wikipedia is missing the dispute I wrote about just above, when most of the dispute is in some of the books I tagged). Again, I want to rewrite the article and source it better, but can you see how time consuming and difficult that will be? How much context readers will need that virtually doesn't exist elsewhere?

But the topic's so controversial that I really should do it ugh... 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The claims are not fringe because of a relative dearth of western or English-language sources alone, and I think the suggestion that they are is troubling. I also don't think the argument this article contradicts any established mainstream historical knowledge on the lead up to or causes of the Korean War has much weight: it isn't presenting itself as and should not try to be a comprehensive article on that much, much broader subject.

The basic claim of collaboration appears borne out by reliable (albeit difficult to verify) sources, and there doesn't appear to be any other mainstream historical scholarship refuting it. Individual issues with sourcing or NPOV may be valid, but that doesn't make it fringe. I say the tag should be removed. Chaste Krassley (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Collaboration between the CIC and the White Shirts is not being presented as a cause of the Korean War. What the mainstream view is about the latter does not seem to be relevant here. Senorangel (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, Rjensen, Parsecboy, TheTimesAreAChanging, Mechanical Keyboarder, Illegitimate Barrister, Srich32977, Hohum, and Mztourist: In light of your significant number of contributions to the Korean War page (as well as the relatively recent nature of such edits in that regard), you are invited to participate in an Rfc that may significantly impact the narrative concerning said conflict's origins. In this discussion thread, a dispute has arisen as to whether claims of American ties to Korean radicals engaged in spying and terrorist attacks on North Korea well before the war's outbreak are fringe theories. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below. Thank you.Emiya1980 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We're nearing a month since the RFC, it seems like we're gradually arriving at a rough consensus that the fringe and neutrality tags on the article are inappropriate. I'm going to be submitting a request to close the RFC. seefooddiet (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet I'm not convinced 3:1 is a decisive consensus. Even if it is, the only discernible consensus I see in this thread is regarding the removal of the fringe tag, NOT the neutrality one. As a matter of fact, Senorangel and Chaste Krassley both previously acknowledged indicated that concerns about the article's neutrality were valid. Emiya1980 (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

My mistake; only the fringe one. And if you're unsatisfied with the progression of the conversation, invite more people. I may retract the close req then. seefooddiet (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record @Emiya1980, I said "Individual issues with sourcing or NPOV may be valid" - I do not believe the article as a whole has sufficient issues with neutrality to justify that tag and would support that being removed as well, not least because they've been added without any recent discussion and despite toobigtokale earnestly attempting to address the concerns you had raised last year. From reading this RFC and the preceding threads I think your way of engaging with this article and with toobigtokale has been quite unproductive and might merit some reflection. Chaste Krassley (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaste Krassley I think you should reflect on the risk of this article giving viewers the impression that North Korea's acts of aggression in the Korean War were acts of self-defense against the West and its allies.

The section entitled "1945 assassination attempts and Cho Man-sik", discusses at length how the WSS engaged in numerous assassination attempts on North Korean officials throughout 1946. In the following section entitled "Espionage in North Korea", it then sets forth the claim that the U.S. collaborated in training and sending WSS agents to spy on North Korea from January-September 1946, the same timeframe in which said assassination attempts occurred. Can you see how viewers could construe that the U.S. was indirectly involved in attacks on the North Korean government? I'd like to point out the chance of this happening is reinforced by the decision to list the U.S. in the infobox as allies of the WSS without any qualification.

I see toobigtokale has provided information in this thread demonstrating that U.S. aid to the WSS was limited and likely did not encompass the WSS's more violent actions. I believe such information should be incorporated within the article and the infobox should likewise represent that the nature of their alliance was transactional at best. Otherwise, I do not feel inclined to remove either the "neutrality" or "fringe" tags. Emiya1980 (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that is something that could be reasonably inferred from the article, but I don't see any harm in including clarification in line with that source. What qualification would you propose for the infobox? Chaste Krassley (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I added some qualifications to the article in relevant sections. [28] @Emiya1980 Thoughts? Further qualifications needed? seefooddiet (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@seefooddiet Following your recent revisions to the article as well as some of my own , I have decided to remove the "fringe" and "neutrality" tags. Emiya1980 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad this is mostly over. A thoroughly avoidably unpleasant experience. You had valid concerns, but communicated them poorly and doubled down on your behavior multiple times when asked to reflect by me and other users. Don't treat others like this. Here's hoping we will never interact again. seefooddiet (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, particularly after I've decided to accommodate you.Emiya1980 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, not a personal attack. WP:PA Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. Here's the evidence [29] You made no effort to actually engage with me before moving to RFC. I further explain how your first interaction with me was rude here [30]. You ignored it and only provided a reasonable explanation once another person showed up opposing you and you felt like you might "lose" the exchange. Not a personal attack, an observation of behavior. A personal attack would be an insult. Calling behavior (not fundamentally you) rude is not. seefooddiet (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

seefooddiet You need to develop a thicker skin if you want to continue writing about such controversial subjects on Wikipedia. I can assure you will come into contact with much ruder and more inflexible editors than I am. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

"Other people are ruder" is a whataboutism and a poor excuse. You're saying "My rude and inflexible behavior is your problem" is ridiculous.

Here I am discussing controversial topics without being rude: [31][32]. If you can't control your tone in these topics, that's 100% on you. I work hard to make sure my feedback stays polite, and you don't extend that effort to others. seefooddiet (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

As a heads up to others reading, we worked out our differences on Emiya1980's talk page. Resolved, and we managed to productively address an issue. seefooddiet (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)