Talk:Korean Augmentation to the United States Army/Archive 1

Article
I started this article. It's been edited a bit since then, but for the better. This says that this article does not cite its sources, but what I originally wrote was all first hand experience from my time in South Korea. I'm willing to bet that whoever edited it also got thier information from first hand experience. Can anyone say how it is you would cite yourself?
 * I know what you mean. I often make edits from first hand experience in the military. What they are looking for is a link or a reference to back up what is written. For instance, use google, search for KATUSA, then check some of the pages that come up. If you see information that backs up what you wrote, put the link in brackets like this -- and it will appear in the article as a footnote like this -- [1] . There is an endnote citation format, but for now, that is the easiest way.--Nobunaga24 04:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the same problem myself with a lot of edits I've done. It was repeated to me by some KATUSA's I worked with back in '75-'76 that they came from wealthy families who bought their way into the KATUSA program, at least the ones who were serving at the Joint Security Area. It may have been different for the 2ID units, as we had easy duty. -- wbfergus 18:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I am not in the military, I have been in USFK army bases (Taegu and Seoul) for many years. One statement that got me that screams for citation is "One indication that this is a problem is the frequency with which North Korean propaganda leaflets are found on U.S. posts." It would be best if you found a source for this statement, try to check Stars and Stripes for it.--BirdKr 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was in the ROK as a US Army MP from 1985-1989 and both worked and shared barracks with KATUSAs. I know the following from my personal experience bit I can not cite it:

+ KATUSAs come into the program with the ability to read and write English but rarely with the ability to speak it. But, by the end of their 26 months they typically turn out to be fluent through interaction with GIs and their own study.

+ROK Army soldiers do look down upon KATUSAs and treat them as inferior.

+During my time a KATUSA SGT made about 12,000 WON a month- or $15.00.

+I can vouch for there being animosity on the part of GIs when a KATUSA makes SGT automatically in less then 2 years of service whereas a GI has to be really on the ball to make it in 3 years.

+As MPs KATUSAs did not file reports. The GI partner in my units was always required to do all paperwork (And there can be quite a lot).

+Occasionally there would be KATUSA SGT Patrol Supervisors but never KATUSA Desk SGTs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreytg (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was in Korea a bit more recently (2005) and I can say this:
 * -Most KATUSAs I've dealt with can speak English well enough to be understood, even on first entering their unit.
 * -KATUSAs still make hardly any money. I think it's gone up to about 20,000 Won now.
 * -The animosity on part of the GIs, I would say, is a bit more subdued than it once was.
 * As for the rest, the stuff about MPs, I don't think it's relevant enough to the broader topic of KATUSAs to be included in this article. Kronos o (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted a portion of the article because of incorrect reference. There is no AR 600-2. See: http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/600_Series_Collection_1.html --S. Rich 06:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

During my time in the ROK, I found most KATUSAs to be eager to sharpen their English skills (spoken and written), and very interested in gaining experience in everyday, conversational spoken English -- especially including American slang. And yeah, I did hear some grumbling from my fellow junior EMs about how quickly KATUSAs made SGT, but even with the rank, the KATUSAs earned a lot less pay than even a brand-new US private did. So there's that, too. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 22:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit Revert
On March 22, I reverted an edit with the following edit summary:


 * KATUSA stands for "Korean Augumente to the United States Army" The sorce for the acronym is als incorrect

I reverted this edit for the following reasons:


 * 1. Editor claims reference is incorrect, but does not provide a contradictory reference.
 * 2. "Augmente" is not a word.

Kronos o (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article Disputed?
It says the neutrality of the article is disputed. Where is this dispute taking place? I don't see any dispute happening. It says not to remove the tag until the dispute is resolved, but it looks like there's no dispute taking place. I'll remove the tag in a couple days if no one says why I shouldn't. Kronos o (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the tag. Kronos o (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent status of KATUSA soldiers
-Now a KATUSA SGT makes about 100,000won a month, $90. -Now they perform their duties for 21 months.

And I think I should say something about the mention above. "ROK Army soldiers do look down upon KATUSAs and treat them as inferior." -This mention is somewhat controversial. I am pretty sure that most of ROKA soldiers once wanted to serve to the country as a KATUSA soldier. The biggest reason why they despise KATUSA soldiers is because they were not selected. And actually, ROKA soldiers do not have any animosity against KATUSA soldiers.--Chotongfui (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Korean Augmentation To the United States Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090808002310/http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/69038.pdf to http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/69038.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)