Talk:List of military special forces units

Spartan 3000
Spartan 3000 is former English nick name. official name is Jeseug Unit.

Actually, This is not the new special quick reaction unit.

1st Marine Division (South Korea) have below 3 Brigades.
 * 2nd Marine Brigade (Yellow-Dragon)
 * 3rd Marine Brigade (King-Kong)
 * 7th Marine Brigade (Warthog

These existing brigades undertake a task of the quick reaction unit by turns.

For example,
 * January to April: 2nd Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit
 * May to August: 3rd Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit
 * September to December: 7th Marine Brigade become Jeseug Unit

They are ordinary marine unit. absolutely not special unit.

Do you understand what I mean? Footwiks (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, few things;
 * 1) Items like this belong on the article talk page, not on a user talk page.
 * 2) This unit was already discussed here, see Talk:List of military special forces units/Archive 2
 * 3) in your edit, after you removed that unit, you added the name of another unit, but you linked it to the parent unit just above. The is problematic for several reasons;
 * 3a) it gives the impression that there is an article for the unit when there is not,
 * 3b) as there is no article, and you failed to attach a ref, this means the unit you added is unsourced, and subject to removal.
 * 4) there is an issue with your link in that it both uses a the 'pipe trick' to give the impression that an article exists when it doesn't, and it's a duplicate use of the same link in the same section, when this typically isn't even permitted on the same page. See Help:Link for more information.
 * 5) Once your edit was reverted, per WP:BRD, you should have then come to the article talk page to discuss it. Instead you, reverted again, which is not the preferred way to resolve a dispute. (and edit summaries such as: "I'm South Korean. I'll explain it at your talk page." are not at all useful).
 * 6) The unit is question is sourced, as noted above. If you have subsequent sourcing showing that it has been disbanded, please provide it. Unless and until then, the article should remain at WP:QUO. (And, I'm not going to mention my nationality/race here because it's irrelevant.)
 * 7) Lastly, looking through the link you included above, there is no mention of "Spartan 3000", of any special unit being disbanded, or of any nickname prior to "Jeseung Unit". This appears to be a different unit. - w o lf  18:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I will say it again, Spartan 3000 is former English nick name. This English nick name was disbanded and 'Jeseug Unit(제승부대)' is the official name of brigade with quick reaction task in the 1st Marine Division (South Korea)


 * Below foreign sources are not accurate. Term - The special force unit or special operation. These are the just translation mistakes.
 * The Telegraph: "Special Forces unit..."
 * The Diplomat: "The unit’s main task is to carry out special operations..."
 * The New York Times: "South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade..."
 * NZ Herald: "The special force unit..."
 * NZ Herald: "The special force unit..."


 * Below article is the original source by South Korean press Yonhap News Agency on 20 March 2016.


 * 해병대, 연대급 '신속기동부대' 편성…유사시 北 침투 임무
 * Marine Corps launches expanded mobile unit for N.K. contingencies - English article


 * Please translate and check out.


 * 군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.


 * For your information


 * In 2019, ROK Marine Corps restructured regiment as a brigade
 * In 2020, ROK Army restructured regiment as a brigade


 * Therefore, Regiment in 2016 and current brigade are same unit and Republic of Korea Armed Forces don't use term 'Regiment' anymore.


 * Please check out the South Korean press at that time (2016) about Spartan 3000.
 * absolutely not special unit
 * All South Korean sources about Spartan 3000 announced - Quick Reaction Unit(신속대응부대) or Quick Maneuver Unit(신속기동부대) or Mobile unit,
 * Absolutely not, 'Special Force Unit'
 * 스파르탄 3000 해병대


 * In conclusion, according to all South Korean press, Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is not the Special Forces unit,


 * Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is the just already existing Brigade with Quick Reaction Force Task in the 1st Marine Division (South Korea) .


 * I have questions.


 * (1) Can you provide South Korean reliable sources that Spartan 3000 is the special forces unit?


 * I can't find any South Korean sources that Spartan 3000 is the special forces unit.


 * As I mentioned before, some foreign sources used 'The special force unit or special operation'


 * But this is the obviously translation mistake.


 * Spartan 3000(currently Jeseung Unit) is the South Korean Unit. We have to prove the characteristic of Unit by South Korean reliable source.


 * (2) Do Quick Reaction Force or Quick Maneuver Force include in the list?


 * There are 2nd Quick Response Division (South Korea) and 8th Maneuver Division in the Republic of Korea Army.


 * Are they special forces units?


 * (3) Do you want official answer about Spartan 3000(currently Jeseong Unit) from Republic of Korea Marine Corps?


 * By this south korean government's Q&A system, About two 2 weeks later, I can receive the official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
 * Footwiks (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The entry is sourced, with not just one or two, but four sources, that are all considered reliable. Just because the unit is from South Korea, does not mean that South Korean sources are required, nor does it negate any non-South Korean sources that are considered reliable. Also, just because you claim there is a "translation mistake" (with all four...?!) doesn't necessarily mean there is. More is needed to support these allegations. I would suggest you re-read our sourcing guidelines and re-familiarize yourself with them.


 * Also, I read the text above in Korean (the bolding of the text there, as well as with your "In conclusion..." bit was unecessary, and some consider it rude). That said, I'm not clear on your point with that as it seems to support inclusion of the Spartan3000 entry.
 * I won't be "checking the South Korean press", as I don't need to. I already found multiple, reliable sources to support the entry. That however, doesn't preclude you from "checking the South Korean press", or any RS media outlet, and if you can find sourcing that clearly states the current sources are all, somehow, incorrect, or that clearly report that Spartan3000 has been renamed, or disbanded, or otherwise had their status changed as such they no longer should be listed here, then post your findings here and we'll go from there.
 * Lastly, may I suggest (make that strongly urge) that you perhaps write out your replies in your sandbox first? And then when you are satisfied with them, copy them over which ever talk page discussion your are engaged in? That, or use the preview function? As it is, you made thirty-one consecutive edits just for this one reply. The very reason we have the options of using preview or the sandbox (among others), is so that your edits don't clog up the page's history, or blow-up all the watchlists of users watching the page. This is something that you would be doing as a courtesy for your fellow editors. Thank you - w o lf  05:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. - I tried to translate that source you noted, and I rec'd a warning from Google:
 * "". fyi - w o lf  05:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion.
 * Please read original press release (English version) from Yonhap News Agency.
 * Marine Corps launches expanded mobile unit for N.K. contingencies
 * How about hearing other people's opinions and mediation from Dispute resolution requests.
 * Footwiks (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This lastest article you just added also appears to support the current entry. I have no opinion atm on reliability, but aside from that, I'm not sure what purpose it serves for your pov here.
 * As for your comment about "mediation committee". If a content dispute reaches a point where the two parties cannot come to any kind of an agreement, then typically the steps at dispute resolutuon are followed. I don't know about you, but I don't think we're there yet. We've basically just gotten started. You are still adding new information, I'm still not sure you are 100% clear in how our sourcing guidelines work. There's still some basic research that can be done and further discussion to be had, before we can reasonably say we've reached an impasse, and need DR. That's just my opinion, but you seem somewhat impatient. How about we slow down and see if we can't come to some kind of understanding? - w o lf  06:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #1)
"The most important thing is, You did't provide any South Korean sources that support your opinion." - Again, I don't need to provide South Korean sources. That's not how it works. I have already provided four reliable sources, to support the content in the article (not "my opinion"). This is why I suggested you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, so that you don't keep getting caught up in the same error (here or anywhere else). You need to either show that all four of those sources are somehow inapplicable, or provide more recent sourcing that supports the changes you wish to make. - w o lf  06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have also already provided so many South Korean reliable sources distributed in March 2016, to support the current content in the article have wrong information.
 * South Korean reliable sources about Spartan 3000
 * South Korean reliable sources about Spartan 3000 - English version
 * '''In March 2016, All South Korean press announced that Spartan 3000 is a Quick Reaction Force(신속대응부대) or Quick Maneuver Force(신속기동부대) or Mobile Unit.
 * In March 2016, Just 4 foreign press announced that Spartan 3000 is a 'Special Force Unit or Special Operation'
 * Original source was from South Korean Press, Foreign press translated the original source then distributed abroad.
 * Therefore, I reckon that I already showed that all four of foreign sources distributed in 2016 are inapplicable.
 * If you don't agree on this point, We need hearing other people's opinions and mediation from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.
 * Now, You only seems to believe only just 4 English newspaper articles distributed in 2016 - 7 years Ago.
 * I'm South Korean, So I'm good at South Korean military and I can easyliy access the South Korean reliable sources than foreigners.
 * Again, Just 2 weeks later, We can receive the newest official answer about charcteristic of Spartan 3000 from Republic of Korea Marine Corps
 * For you information. Please refer to Photos of Jeseung Unit from official ROKMC blog in May 2016.
 * We can find a word "제승부대 - ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" in the below Photo.
 * 'Spartan 3000' was just nickname in March 2016. In May 2016, At inauguration ceremony, official name was Jeseung Unit(제승부대).
 * Please check out South Korean reliable source English version again
 * dubbed "Spartan 3000," the official said.
 * In my humble opinion, I hope that you save your precious time in this discussion.Footwiks (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "I'm South Korean, So I'm good at South Korean military and I can easyliy access the South Korean reliable sources than foreigners." - Oy... you keep bringing up the fact that you are South Korean as if that gives you priority in evaluating content related to South Korea - it doesn't. You also keep bringing up South Korean sources as if they have some kind of priority over sources from other countries - they don't. Are you in the South Korean military? Yes? Congrats, you have an undeclared WP:COI. No? Then what's the point of that comment?
 * Unless you are a Subject Matter Expert in South Korean military affairs, you are no more special or important than anyone else here, and regardless, you still need to follow the same rules and practices as the rest of us. (eg: I already mentioned the needless bolding you keep adding to your comments, but it continues, and I already mentioned the needless, multiple edits you make, just to post one reply, and yet your last reply took nearly thirty edits.) But more importantly, you really need to familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines. Trying to dismiss a solid source like the NYT, just because it's "foreign", while countering it with the equivalent of "google.com/stuff_about_stuff" and "look at this picture!", is not how we build and maintain content here.
 * "I hope that you save your precious time in this discussion." - actually, I going to stop wasting my precious time on this discussion, and suggest that you indeed head off to seek assistance at WP:DR.
 * Have a nice day. - w o lf  06:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't you understand why I mentioned that I'm South Korean? Do you think that this discussion is productive?
 * This is the just translation mistake of western press. I hope that I save your time in this worthless discussion.
 * But you seems to be only interested in Wikipedia Rule than accurate information and contents in the Wikipedia
 * If I edited the wrong information from South Korean source about USA. later on, American user corrected my wrong edition by American press original source that I didn't know.
 * I am willing to accept the correction, and I'll say thanks to American user for correction of my wrong edition.
 * Anyway due to TL;DR, It is difficult for other users and administrators to participate in this discussion.
 * I'll arrange this discussion and I'll seek for assistance at WP:DR
 * Anyway, Thanks for your advice Footwiks (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you felt the rudeness from my comments and actions, I am very sorry and apologize to you.
 * As you know, I'm not an English native speaker. My English is poor.
 * Actually, I also felt some of your comments and actions were somewhat unusual.
 * In the discussion, Most users are interested in finding the accurate information, not interested in Wikipedia Rule.
 * So I have a question!
 * Are you interested in the accurate information about Spartan 3000
 * and Do you want to fill in the accurate information in the List of military special forces units?
 * If you do so, We don't need to argue to waste our precious time.
 * About 2 weeks later, We can receive official answer about Spartan 3000 from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
 * Let's decide to remove or not Spartan 3000, by the official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps.
 * How about my suggestion?
 * Footwiks (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 - Quick Maneuver Force vs Special Force Unit
(1) On 20 March 2016, So many South Korean press announced that ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) or Quick Reaction Force (신속대응부대) - Nickname Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 30000).

Original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News

"군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다. (Translation: ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division. 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다. (Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')
 * Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
 * Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
 * Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
 * English language source from Yonhap News Agency

(2) On 21 March 2016, The Daily Telegraph announced that ROKMC created the new Special Force Unit - Nickname Spartan 3000, later on, 3 other western press announced that similiar content.


 * Collection of sources from western press
 * The Telegraph: "Special Forces unit..."
 * The Diplomat: "The unit’s main task is to carry out special operations..."
 * The New York Times: "South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade..."
 * NZ Herald: "The special force unit..."

I was convinced that 4 western press took a translation error So I removed the Spartan 3000 in the article list

But User: thewolfchild reverted my edition due to no source.

I have discussed with User: thewolfchild and I provided so many South Korean reliable sources, to support the current list in the article have wrong information.

But despite above long discussion, agreement was not reached.

Spartan 3000 is a South Korean military unit.

I don't understand why English Wikipedia have to only believe the western press sources and neglect so many South Korean press reliable original sources about Spartan 3000.

I'm South Korean, I hope that English Wikipedia provide accurate information about South Korea.

Footwiks (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I checked out your reply. (actually, I going to stop wasting my precious time on this discussion,)

I have a question.

Don't you participate in discussion anymore?

Can I remove 'Spartan 3000' in the list? Footwiks (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, as for now, I don't see a point in discussing this with you one-on-one as becuase I felt some of your comments and actions were somewhat rude, and we weren't getting anywhere, but more importantly, you don't seem to be taking on board the rules we follow to build and maintain content. The entry is sourced. The sources are reliable. If you want to remove it, you need to either; provide more recent, reliable sources that either show the unit no longer exists (eg: disbanded or renamed) or you need to go to WP:DR and follow the steps there.


 * It doesn't matter if you personally believe the entry is incorrect, (see WP:Verifiability, Not Truth). Content is based on sourcing. I looked at your sourcing; one actually supports keeping the entry, the other makes no mention of this unit, but apparently of a new unit, while yet another only mentions a unit being upgraded from a regiment to a brigade. And one you added is just naver.com (which is basically a South Korean Google) and apparently the suggestion that I search it myself(?), and then there was something about you contacting a Q&A page...? And along with all of this, is your repeated reminders that you are South Korean, apparently you believe I'm not, and that means we should just automatically defer to your preferred edit, instead of following our sourcing guidelines. That is not how it works. So again, perhaps you should go to DR, read the page carefully and follow the steps from there.
 * Also, in the meantime, please don't try to make an end-around by making changes to this entry's parent article to support your position. And, lastly, please stop posting comments about this on my talk page. Any comments or discussion regarding this issue, from this article, belong here on this page. Thank you - w o lf  02:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, Glad to see you again. Let's discuss again with expert users in military field. Thanks but I know the Wikipedia Rule. Please stop posting comments about Wikipedia Rule on my talk page.Footwiks (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I reckon that You don't understand the point in this discussion. "Spartan 3000 is disbanded or renamed to Jeseung Unit."
 * This is a secondary point.
 * Please Check out below South Korean sources agian.
 * On 20 March 2016, So many South Korean press announced that ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) or Quick Reaction Force (신속대응부대) - Nickname Spartan 3000 (스파르탄 30000).
 * Original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News


 * "군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * (Translation: ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division).
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
 * (Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')
 * Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
 * Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
 * Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
 * English language source from Yonhap News Agency


 * Then, On 21 March 2016, The Daily Telegraph announced that ROKMC created the new Special Force Unit - Nickname Spartan 3000, later on, 3 other western press announced that similiar content.
 * In conclusion, according to South Korean relible sources, Spartan 3000 was definitely 'Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대)' or 'Quick Reaction Force (신속대응부대)' not Special Force Unit.
 * And List of military special forces units don't include ordinary Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) or Quick Reaction Force (신속대응부대).
 * Therefore, We have to remove Spartan 3000 in the list.


 * As you know, South Korean press announced on 20 March 2016, then The Daily Telegraph announced on 21 March 2016.
 * Original source about Spartan 3000 was South Korean press's news article. According to chronological sequence,
 * If you want to include Spartan 3000 in the list, You have to prove that so many South Korean press announced fake news on 20 March 2016.
 * Of course, The Daily Telegraph announced that Spartan 3000 was Special Force Unit and The Daily Telegraph is global newspaper.
 * But Western press always have to have priority of reliability. This is a kind of Western Supremacy.
 * Footwiks (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Footwiks (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are claiming that these several South Korean news sources published the original Korean proses:
 * ""군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다."
 * (Translation: ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division).
 * "이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다."
 * (Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')
 * This inherently leads me to believe that the ROKMC created a Quick Maneuver Force with the nickname "Spartan 3000", and surprise - Spartan 3000 is listed here. You are claiming that every single Korean news source also published this information, and that it is accurate, and that western outlets reported very similar content with a slight modification in phrasing, possibly due to errors in translation. So what is the issue you're attempting to address here? The fact that some western news outlets referred to it as a "special force unit"? Because from your description, it appears that from both the Korean news sources themselves, and the western news outlets, that referring to this unit as "Spartan 3000" is absolutely correct and in that case, there is no reason to remove it from the list or replace it with anything else, especially as wolf said without resounding evidence from reliable sources (western, South Korean, or otherwise) that not only disproves all valid sources for this sourced content, but proves the moot point you're trying to make. WhichUser  AmI  19:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the data at the ROKMC article. If I understand correctly, three brigades in the 1st Marine Div now carry out the QMF task in turn. So it's not a unit anymore, it's a function, a specific task. Thus it should be a bracket or annotation at List of marines and naval infantry forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The entry has four, reliable sources that clearly state this unit is a "special forces" unit. Where are the sources, subsequent to the ones in place, stating the unit has been either disbanded/downgraded or renamed? (as the OP and you are stating). If it has been renamed, which unit, or units, is/are now serving in the SF role, and which source(s) are we attaching to any proposed change? - w o lf  02:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in the discussion. You made a very good point. I agree that it's not a unit anymore, it's a function, a specific task.
 * Moreover, Most soldiers of ROKMC Spartan 3000 are not career soldiers. Just 18 months of mandatory military duty then they are discharged. Generally, Soldiers of Special Force Unit have expertise through long-term service. Footwiks (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in the discussion.
 * Although they look alike, Quick Maneuver Force / Quick Reaction Force and Special Force Unit are totly different.
 * As you see, Wikipedia also have respective articles. This difference is a very important issue in this discussion.
 * Of course, Some Special Force Unit have task of 'Quick Maneuver Force' or 'Quick Reaction Force'. But All 'Quick Maneuver Force' are not 'Special Force Unit'.
 * ROKMC Spartan 3000 is an ordinary marine regiment with task of Quick Maneuver Force like ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division - ordinary infantry division with task of Quick Response Force.
 * Do you think that ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division is Special Force Unit?
 * I'm South Korean. I can explain background knowledge. South Korea has adopted conscription system, Most soldiers of ROKMC Spartan 3000 and ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division are not career soldiers, Most South Korean Special Force Unit consist of career soldiers like ROK Army Special Warfare Command.
 * The fact that some western news outlets including Telegraph made a crucial translation error. Because they don't know the South Korean military thoroughly.
 * Please check out news article from International Business Times
 * International Business Times
 * International Business Time announced that Spartan 3000 is Mobile Unit and didn't make a mistake.
 * If we can include all Rapid Deployment Force / Quick Maneuver Force or Quick Reaction Force / Rapid Reaction Force in this list, We have to include Spartan 3000 and We need not to discuss anymore.
 * But List of military special forces units don't include ordinary Quick Maneuver Force.
 * Definitely, Spartan 3000 is ordinary 'Quick Maneuver Force' by so many South Korean reliable sources and 'Special Force Unit' - this is a just translation error of Western news outlets.
 * So I want to remove Spartan 3000 in the list but wolf opposed. Therefore a dispute arised.
 * '''In conclusion, If 'Spartan 3000' is 'Quick Maneuver Force', Western news outlets made a translation error / If 'Spartan 3000' is Special Force Unit, South Korean news outlets announced the fake news.
 * I hope that you are understand the issue I'am attempting to address here.
 * Footwiks (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , please consult the Republic of Korea Marine Corps article. The QMF is now not a unit or formation, it's a task. It should be removed from the listing here, with a possible annotation at list of Marine forces. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a passing note that IBT is classified per WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in the discussion But IBT's source doesn't matter in this discussion. Issue is about reliability of South Korean News outlets' sources (Quick Maneuver Force) and Western News outlets' sources (Special Force Unit). Footwiks (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Today I called the ROKMC Headquarters and Over the phone, Firstly, I confirmed that 'Spartan 3000' was provisional nickname on March 2016. Official nickname - Jeseung Unit (제승부대) and Jeseung Unit (제승부대) launched as Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) on 4 May 2016.
 * Please refer to official ROKMC Blog Post - Official launching ceremony of Jeseung Unit (제승부대) and Official logo of Jeseung Unit (제승부대)
 * I'll also receive the confirmation as an official document in 2 weeks later.
 * Many users need not to involve and argue anymore in this unproductive discussion. It's waste of time.
 * Let's decide to remove or not Spartan 3000 in the list, by the official answer from ROKMC.
 * What do you think of my suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) 04:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I am seeing a alot of unsuppoted/wp:or commemtary that does not change the four, reliable refs attached to the current entry. I noticed the IBT article, which is unreliable, and regardless, not at all helpful even if it was. I see that states he has "...called the ROKMC Headquarters and Over the phone, Firstly, I confirmed that 'Spartan 3000' was provisional nickname on March 2016.'". - Footwiks, this is precisely why I encouraged you to read our sourcing guidelines. This phone call means nothing, it's useless. I saw commemt about reading the ROKMC page, I looked, but also saw that it very recently had numerous edits made to it by Footwiks, so there is now a ? there regarding reliability. Is there anything else? Please let me know. Otherwise, I don't see a compelling, rules-based reason to change the Spartan entry. Lastly, Footwiks, remember that WP is about Verifiability, not truth. - w o lf  04:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please remember that I already met the requirements about Verifiability, not truth by South Korean reliable sources (announced as a Quick Maneuver Force). But you didn't accept it.
 * I have a question. Why do you intentionally neglect below South Korean reliable sources (announced as a Quick Maneuver Force) distributed on 20 March 2016?


 * Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
 * Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
 * English language source from Yonhap News Agency
 * I checked out rules about Reliable sources again thoroughly. But I can't find any rules that only Western news outlets' sources are considered reliable and all South Korean and other news outlets' sources are considered not reliable. Absolutely, English Wikipedia don't have Western supremacy.
 * I know that the Telegraph is classified as reliable source in English Wikipedia but I convinced that the Telegraph source (announced as a Special Force Unit) had a translation error.
 * If follow your logic, So many South Korean news outlets announced the fake news on 20 March 2016. Can you verify it?
 * In order to verify the translation error of Western News Outlets, Today I called the ROKMC Headquarters, Of course, I know that this phone call means nothing.
 * So I also requested written answer and I'll receive the confirmation as an official document from ROKMC about 2 weeks later.
 * '''Your sources (announced as a Special Force Unit) from Western news outlets are classified per WP:RS/P as "Generally Reliable Source"
 * But my sources (announced as a Quick Maneuver Force) from South Korean news outlets are also classified per WP:RS/P as "Generally Reliable Source"
 * Therefore, Let's decide to remove or not Spartan 3000 in the list, by the official answer from ROKMC.
 * What do you think of my suggestion? Footwiks (talk) 04:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Footwiks, can you cite footnote 3 of 1st Marine Division (South Korea) without undue delay, please, as well as in the same claim in the ROKMC article. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did cite footnote 3 of 1st Marine Division. I found the reliable source at website of South Korean Ministry of National Defense
 * 해병대교육훈련단, 개선 방안 토의 신속기동부대 계획수립절차 재정립 (2021-09-08)
 * 해병대 신속기동부대는 전시, 국지도발, 테러, 재해·재난 등 국가 위기상황에 신속히 대응하도록 합동참모본부에서 지정한 국가전략기동부대다.
 * (Translation: ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is National Strategic Maneuver Force for war, terror, disaster and so on.
 * 현재 해병대1사단 예하 2개 여단이 임무를 수행하고 있다.
 * (Translation: Currently, 2 brigades in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force.)
 * By the way, currently, Explanation of footnote 3 is not important. Because Spartan 3000 was just provisional nickname on March 2016.
 * Official nickname - Jeseung Unit (제승부대) and Jeseung Unit (제승부대) launched definitely as Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) on 4 May 2016.
 * We can check out the official ROKMC's sources - Official launching ceremony of Jeseung Unit (제승부대) in ROKMC Official Blog and Official logo of Jeseung Unit (제승부대)
 * '''There aren't any South Korean or Western sources which Jeseung Unit (제승부대) is a Special Force Unit.
 * Don't worry, About 2 weeks later, I'll show an official document from ROKMC. All we have to do is wait. Footwiks (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You actually do have a source which says so rather directly, The Diplomat, the key is that they also refer to the entire ROKMC as capable of special operations. This isn't surprising, in terms of special operations the ROKMC falls into a similar grey area as the USMC and a few other similar organizations do... They're either low grade special forces or really high grade light infantry and different sources will put them on different sides of that line because at the end of the day it is entirely subjective. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for participating in the discussion. Role model of ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is USMC Marine expeditionary unit. List of military special forces units don't include Marine expeditionary unit. Only Special Reconnaissance Battalion in ROKMC considered as a Special Force Unit by South Korean Government. I tried to repalce ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force with ROKMC Special Reconnaissance Battalion. But wolf opposed. Therefore a dispute arised.
 * Footwiks (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No the list doesn't include it, but the list as constructed is a rather absurd parody of fanboy masturbation rather than a reflection of the scholarly work published on the subject. See for instance the segregation of commando forces from every country except the US being segregated to List of commando units, the QMF more closely fits the criteria for wikipedia's List of commando units but the problem is because that criteria doesn't reflect the sources/reality the sources don't care and call them special forces instead of commandos. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is an ordinary marine brigade with task of Quick Maneuver Force like ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division - ordinary infantry division with task of Quick Response Force.
 * Do you think that ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division is Special Force Unit?
 * Do we include ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division in the list of Special Force Unit?
 * I'm South Korean. I can explain background knowledge. South Korea has adopted conscription system, Most soldiers of ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force and ROK Army 2nd Quick Response Division are not career soldiers, Just 18 months of mandatory military duty then they are discharged.
 * Generally, Soldiers of Special Force Unit have expertise through long-term service. Therefore, Authorized South Korean Special Force consist of career soldiers like ROK Army Special Warfare Command.
 * I can't find any reliable sources that ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is Special Force Unit. In South Korea, anybody don't consider that ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is Special Force Unit. Please refer to ko:대한민국 국군 특수부대.
 * Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO we should wait until there is significant academic coverage comparing this relatively new formation to others and really analyzing what their role is. But my opinion isn't really how things are generally done, what I can tell you is that as it currently stands there is definitely appropriate sourcing to add it to the list. I would also note that in a number of countries with general conscription like Taiwan, Israel, and Finland conscripts absolutely do get the opportunity to serve in the special forces if they are qualified. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion and List of military special forces units and List of commando units have ambiguity.
 * Every country's military have a different criteria about Special Forces.
 * But in this discussion, Most importantly, 'Spartan 3000' was provisional nickname of ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force in March 2016. Then ROKMC discarded nickname 'Spartan 3000' and ROKMC launched Quick Maneuver Force as official nickname 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)'in May 2016.
 * There are not any South Korean or Western sources which 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' is a Special Force Unit.
 * Especially, Western news outlets didn't know about 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' and Western news outlets mistaken that ROKMC still operate Special Force Unit - 'Spartan 3000'.
 * As a South Korean,‘What a ridiculous situation!
 * Let's wait official answer form ROKMC.
 * Thanks for your opinion anyway.
 * Footwiks (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I checked out the significant academic coverage about ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force.
 * Thesis - Development Direction of ROK Navy·Marine Quick Maneuver Force from Republic of Korea Marine Corps Laboratory
 * I can't find any source that ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force is Special Force Unit in this thesis.
 * If you want, I can send you this thesis. Footwiks (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #2)
"...the list as constructed is a rather absurd parody of fanboy masturbation rather than a reflection of the scholarly work..." - Lolz! While I wouldn't characterize it as such myself, I don't necessarily disagree with this either. More than once in past few years I've gone from A to Z and gutted this page of all sorts of content. While this page exists, I and others continue to remove unsourced additions, but at the same time, retain those entries that have reliable sources attached. While this frustrates some who may be personally familiar with some of the content, those are the guidelines we agree to abide by. I will say though, I do at times wonder if someone were to nominate this page for deletion, if they would be successful... - w o lf  22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Footwiks, we don't add personal notes with our opinions of western sources on asian topics. The entry is sourced, so as I suggested to you ages ago, perhaps seek a resolution through wp:dr. Can't just keep dragging this on and on. - w o lf  03:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * wolf, Not personal note, South Korean news outlets and Western news outlets. The two news outlets gave contradicting sources. It is an undeniable fact and you reverted User:Buckshot06's edition.
 * In this case, We can use dispute templates and therefore we can involve many participants in a dispute.
 * I felt that you often closed with some smug remark about Wikipedia Rules, But I didn't violate any Wikipedia Rules.
 * Is this your own article? Please don't cause edit war. Please respect other's contributions.
 * Soon, We can confirm official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000 and I'll seek a resolution through wp:dr. Till reach the consensus, Spartan 3000 in this article is needed dispute templates.Footwiks (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We still don't note supposedly opposing sources based on East vs West. Further, you made an edit, it was reverted, you then follow WP:BRD, you don't revert your edit in again. As for Buckshot's edit, I don't blame him for doing so, based in the changes you made to the parent article and the unit's redirect. Doing so during a content dispute is just dirty pool. You should leave them be until this discussion is resolved, or you find a resolution via DR. The reason I ask you to read, learn follow the rules, is so that maybe you'll actailly do so, and we'd have far less drama and problems. Accusing me me of ownership without evidence is a personal attack. Where are your diffs? (And "smug", huh...? So your previous apology was meaningless it seems.) You mentioned "edit warring"... mow read up on it and follow it. This is getting ridiculous. -  w o lf  04:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Do you know best ridiculous thing in this discussion? We discussed about disestablished active unit - 'Spartan 3000'. Even though 'Spartan 3000' is Special Force Unit, currently not active unit. What a waste of time.
 * I'll be back with the official written answer from ROKMC. Have a nice weekend. Footwiks (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice
An informal request for comment regarding the above content dispute has been posted at MILHIST by - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (now archived). fyi - w o lf  04:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would kindly request you both to put your opinions at WT:MILHIST, where third eyes are much more likely. More unseen notes here will not solve things. Wolf, you're an experienced editor dealing with someone whose English is not perfect. I would remind you to observe WP:AGF. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Erm, the only reason I posted this here is so people would know about it and go there to post comments. It was the only reason I did that, and as for any other parties here, I haven't made an issue of any potential language barrier, just the opposite actually, so perhaps practice a little agf yourself? Have a nice day - w o lf  04:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I called the ROKMC today again and I requested an expedited written answer schedule.
 * Maybe, We can receive official answer from ROKMC next week. Spartan 3000 was just provisional name of current ROKMC's Quick Maneuver Force. Therefore, Absolutely, Spartan 3000 was never active unit. List of military special forces units can include only currently active units. So We can resolve the dispute soon.Footwiks (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps about Spartan 3000
I received the official answer from ROKMC and I uploaded screenshot of the document below link which I used in this discussion in May.
 * Screenshot of official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000

It goes as follows.

1.

2016년 언론에서 보도된 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭은 해병대에서 공식적으로 붙인 명칭이 아니며

현재 공식 명칭은 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)입니다.

Translation =>

'''ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' which announced by the the press in 2016.

Currently, official name is ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.

2.

'제승부대(Jeseung Unit)'라고도 불렀지만 현재는 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)라는 명칭으로 통일해서

사용하고 있으며 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고

기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.

Translation =>

'''The name - 'Jeseung Unit' had been in use in ROKMC.  But, currently the name - 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE' is in use consistently.  ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not a newly formed Special Force Unit.  Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn. '''

3.

현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.

Translation =>

'''Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'. '''

I verified that your sources from western news outlets are totly fake news.

If you want to include accurate information in this article, Remove the Spartan 3000 immediately. Footwiks (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing about what you call "fake news" is that is that it's published on real news sites. You are not a reporter, or what we would call a reliable source. Anybody in a content dispute can type up something on their computer, attach an offical-looking logo via photo-shop, then claim "Look! I have "evedince" from the offical people that the content version I want is the correct one!". I'm not saying you did that here, but we have sourcing guidelines for a reason. We can't use your "Official answer from Republic of Korea Marine Corps about Spartan 3000". Now, judging from some of personal comments you've made here, it may that you need to take a step back from this. I really don't know what else to add that hasn't already been said (repeatedly in some cases) in this very, very lengthy discussion. If you're not going to follow any of the help I've tried to provide to you, (in that, you're not going to read, learn and abide by the polices & guidelines cited that apply here), then I think it is time for you to let this go. (jmho) - w o lf  13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For Wikipedia discussion, Anybody can do forgery of official document. Are you kidding me?
 * It's criminal act to forge official document for the purpose of fraud.
 * In order to prevent the forgery, the government's official documents bore the seal and have the identification number.
 * What is the suspicious in the official document from ROKMC?
 * I have other screenshot of official answer from website.
 * Please check out website version again.
 * Screenshot of official answer from ROKMC about Spartan 3000-2
 * If you think that this screenshot also have possibility of forgery via photoshop and you are interested in finding accurate information.
 * The way to verify an authentic document from ROKMC
 * Please login the South Korean petition website and Please check for falsification of official answer.
 * It will take just 1 minutes and very easy and simple
 * https://www.epeople.go.kr/nep/crtf/userLogn.npaid
 * (1) Login
 * 아이디 / ID: vernaler
 * 비밀번호 / PASSWORD: (I can reveal the password).
 * (2) Click: 나의신문고 (above menu)
 * (3) Click: 민원
 * (4) Click: List 2
 * (5) Select: Sequence Number: 103 / Petition Number: 1AA-2305-0795420 / Title - 해병대 신속기동부대 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'과 '제승부대(Jeseung Unit)' 관련 문의 (This Title have Only English Letter, You can find easily)
 * (6) Click: 이전 답변 보기 (bottom)
 * (7) You can compare the screenshot of website answer version to the original answer version.
 * English Wikipedia use screenshot from Wayback Machine. Therefore, English Wikipedia can use screenshot of "official answer from ROKMC and I didn't violate the sourcing guidelines.
 * Screenshot have Petition No. 1AA-2305-0795420, Through the identification number, Anybody can confirm that this screenshot is forgery via Photoshop or not.


 * Let's hear other users' and administrators' opinions about this official answer from ROKMC.Footwiks (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wolf, Knock it off!! You are getting down this guy's throat when he is sincerely trying to provide better data - whether or not we could use it!! WP:AGF!! You should have learned from working with Coldstreamer that inquiries to official bodies are useful and can provide useful data.


 * But we can use it, if we take a few extra steps.


 * The former-OTRS ticket process allows people to import official responses to questions into Wikipedia. Go to WP:Volunteer response team if you have questions about the process. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, Footwiks, there is a process for importing your ROKMC answer into Wikimedia Commons so that it can officially be used as a source. Go to the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team page to start the process:
 * "In some cases, sending email to the VRT may be required in order to provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission to publish a file under a free license. Such evidence should be sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (or a language specific address)."
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#If you are NOT the copyright holder
 * Because you need to upload the ROKMC answer on Commons for us to be able to use it, and to upload it you need to certify that it meets US copyright law. So read the Commons VRT page carefully, then follow those instructions.
 * Any questions or queries come back to me. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'll try to upload the ROKMC answer into Wikimedia Commons. Proscess looks very complicated.
 * But There is a Korean WIKIPEDIA VRT. I'll try to figure it outFootwiks (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Footwicks: "Please login the South Korean petition website and..." etc., etc,... erm, no... I'm not gonna do that. That's not how Wikipedia works. And jtbc, I did not accuse you of "forgery of official documents". In fact, I specifically stated "", and went on to clarify that the possibility of anyone providing fake evidence to support content is why we have a sourcing policy. (an accusation would be something more like "I verified that your sources from western news outlets are totly fake news."[sic]) You say you wanted to "hear from other users" on this, but we already have. You and I are not the only two contributors in this very, very long discussion. I had repeatedly suggested you seek asssistance from DR, which you said you were going to do, and a notice regarding this discussion was posted at milhist. But, BS says you now might also get some help from VPT, so great... give that a shot. Hopefully you find a resolution you can be satisfied with, and this can finally be put to rest. @BS06: "Wolf, Knock it off!! You are getting down this guy's throat..." - Um... I'm what? (and, am I the pot or the kettle here?) I suggest you take a moment to re-evaluate this entire situation, because you are (again) needlessly personalizing this and straying into NPA territory. Now, focusing on the content and the sourcing dispute, if you think there's a resolution to be had via vpt, then as I said; great, give it a shot. But leave the histrionics out of it. I really have no interest in interacting with you, and haven't for awhile now. I've had quit enough of your personal attacks. Now, with all that said, I guess we'll wait to see how the VPT angle plays out. Have a nice day fellas. - w o lf  01:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I put it to you that I have only responded in the fashion you started introducing. What I see is someone biting a newbie. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Quick comment for clarification as this thread is likely going to be reviewed by a DRN Vol., this is to address the "biting a newbie" accusation above; the user had been on WP since 2010 and has 62,000+ edits. They themselves also do not consider them to be a "newbie" as seen here. fyi - w o lf 04:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I opened the case in the Dispute resolution noticeboardFootwiks (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed solution

 * Fair enough (though I thought you had already done that). I do have question for you; I had noticed the many edits you've made to the Republic of Korea Marine Corps, specifically the entry regarding the unit being discussed here. I see that even as of today, you have retained mention of "Spartan 3000" as a "nickname" for the unit. If the unit was changed here the "official name" you're seeking, (along with whatever sourcing you have), I take it that the "Spartan 3000" would also be noted here as a nickname for the unit? This would be akin to how we have nicknames noted for other units, such as "SEAL Team Six" for DevGru and "Delta Force" for the 1SFOD-D under the US, etc. Is that something you could agree with? As a compromise, it could resolve the whole issue right here, right now. Lemme know. - w o lf  06:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for this suggestion Wolf. I appreciate it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "SEAL Team Six" for DevGru, "Delta Force", "Green Berets". People around the world know these names and still use these names. There were films used these names - "The Delta Force", "The Green Berets" and so on. These are not just nicknames. These are common names.
 * But "Spartan 3000", ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' and didn't use the name - 'Spartan 3000'
 * Even South Koreans don't know this name.
 * "Spartan 3000" was a just nickname created by Press only in 2016
 * "SEAL Team Six" for DevGru, "Delta Force", "Green Berets" are akin to "Spartan 3000".
 * This is the original research
 * Additionally,
 * I think that "Spartan 3000" fit tatse of western military name. This is a good nickname for Western military unit.
 * But "Spartan 3000" does not fit taste of South Korean military name. South Korean units prefer pure Korean nickname.
 * For example, Capital Mechanized Infantry Division - "맹호부대 (Fierce Tiger Unit)"
 * So ROKMC couldn't use "Spartan 3000" at that time and ROKMC officially designate the nickname - 제승부대 (Jeseung Unit).
 * As you see, Currently, ROKMC even discarded official nickname "제승부대 (Jeseung Unit)"
 * Anyways, Most importantly, In order to correct wrong information, We have to remove "Spartan 3000" in the List of military special forces units.
 * Footwiks (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So... that's a 'no' on the suggested compromise then? I know I suggested you read WP:VNT up above, but I'm not sure you have. The gist of it is that while WP content is supported by reliable sources, we don't always agree with those sources, even if sometimes we personally believe them to be wrong. WP is about verifiability, not truth. Just because you don't like the sources, doesn't change that. Neither does claiming bias because they're "western sources", or claiming there is a "translation issue" or calling them "fake news". (You have the option of taking them to WP:RSN, but all four of those sources are pretty solid.) Anyway, between the ridiculous length of this discussion, the bad will it seems to be creating, and that it seems like you will never let this go, are the reasons I suggested this compromise. I was willing to show some AGF, accept your "sources", and have the unit name changed to the "offical name" you are pushing for. (Besides, you've completely re-written the ROKMC article to suit your position, and while I don't think that was quite cricket, I'm not interested in opening up another front with you on this). You can change the unit name, but it needs to include "Spartan 3000" as a nickname, because that's what a handful of reliable sources say. Part of editing WP is collaborating with other editors. That is what I am trying to do with you here by offerring a reasonable solution so we can finally wrap this up. Are you also willing to be reasonable, to collaborate on this and accept the compromise? - w o lf  02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about verifiability of official answer from ROKMC. Except VRT process, I have another option.
 * I can request to move my website answer version to open bulletin board in the petition website.
 * I believed that if you confirm the official document version, You remove the 'Spartan 3000'.
 * I never expected your comment - Document answer version have possibility of forgery via Photoshop.
 * So I didn't request answer's disclosure. Now I can request answer's disclosure. It needs approval process and It'll take much time.
 * But we're not working to any deadline
 * By the way, What is your point of compromise?
 * I guessed your compromise
 * (1) You agree on removal "Spartan 3000" in the List of military special forces units.
 * (2) You hope to Keep below prose in the Republic of Korea Marine Corps
 * In March 2016, the South Korean defense ministry announced the formation of a Quick Maneuver Force (nickname: "Spartan 3000", size - regiment consisting of 3,000 of South Korean marines.)
 * Do I understand that correctly? Footwiks (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the entry would remain on this list, but it would be changed to the "official name" that you wanted, along with whatever sources you have now that you feel are sufficient. The entry would also have a note (eg: in brackets) that the unit nickname is "Spartan 3000". There wouldn't be any prose added, as this is a list article, and any prose would be found in the linked/parent article. This proposal addresses the entry on this list only, and does not involve the ROKMC article. This is a comprise because it addresses both of our positions (though not completly in either case, which is typical in successful compromises). So... sound good? - w o lf  05:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regrettably, I can't accept your comprise.
 * As a South Korean, I can't allow to spread wrong information about South Korean military through this article of English Wikipedia.
 * To the best of my knowledge, I will do my best to remove wrong information in English Wikipedia.
 * In order to spread accurate information, Here, List of military special forces units, We have to remove 'Spartan 3000' immediately.
 * As you see, according to below official answer from ROKMC.
 * ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not newly formed Special Force Unit. Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.
 * As you know, There are not any South Korean or Western sources which 'Jeseung Unit (제승부대)' or ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is called a Special Force Unit,
 * In conclusion, 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE(former nickname Jeseung Unit and Spartan 3000')' also is not the Special Force Unit.
 * On the list, Replacing 'Spartan 3000' with 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE'. This is the Original Research.
 * If you want to add ROKMC Unit on this list. I recommend adding of ROK Marine Corps Special Reconnaissance Battalion instead of 'Spartan 3000'.
 * This is the accurate information about List of South Korean Special Force Units.
 * If you want to make 'List of military special forces units' featured article, Please fill the list with accurate information.
 * Footwiks (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. I'm not sure what: "I can request to move my website answer version to open bulletin board in the petition website" means, but I think you need to focus more on the policies & guidelines of this website. Comments like "As a South Korean, I can't allow to spread wrong information about South Korean military through this article of English Wikipedia", fly in the face WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. After you go through all the trouble of validating your response from ROKMC, and if it is accepted, that is still just a single point of primary source information. The entry is supported by four secondary sources. If you read the guideline WP:PST, you'll see that secondary sources are the preferred type of sourcing of content on WP. As I said, we may not always like or agree with what these sources report, but that is how content is built and supported on this site, and these rules, the policies, guidelines, sections of the MoS or essays on widely accepted practices, that I have repeatedly cited and/or linked for you throughout this discussion, and in related discussions, these rules are what we agreed to abide by when we started editing this site. - w o lf  16:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * If I accept your compromise, then entry changed to the official name - "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force"


 * But, as you know, about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force, We don't have any reliable sources to support 'Special Force Unit'. This is the original research


 * Even if we reached a compromise. Probably, in the near future, Some user will remove "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" on the list, due to original research.


 * If you find the sources that "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" is Special Forces Unit, I can consider your compromise again.


 * Yes, the current entry is supported by four western secondary sources. But your 4 Western secondary sources are published in 2016 and 2017.
 * Can you verify that 'Spartan 3000' is active unit and Special Force Unit by the latest secondary sources?


 * Your secondary sources have critical weak point.
 * ROKMC official answer was issued in June 2023.
 * Now 2023, Official answer issued in 2023 vs just 4 western sources published in 2016 and 2017.
 * Which is reliable?
 * And Thewolfchild, Please remember and don't forget, I have so many South Korean secondary sources that Spartan 3000 is not a "Special Force Unit", This unit is a just "Quick Maneuver Force" as follows.
 * Original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News


 * "군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * (Translation: ROKMC created the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division.
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
 * (Translation: dubbed 'Spartan 3000')
 * Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
 * Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
 * Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
 * English language source from Yonhap News Agency


 * Are secondary sources the preferred type of sourcing of content on English WP? Really?
 * But according to your action, Only western secondary sources the preferred type of sourcing of content on English WP and intentionally ignored South Korean secondary sources, in spite of South Korean military issue.


 * Spartan 3000' has reliable secondary sources with contradicting facts.(Western secondary sources vs South Korean secondary sources)
 * So I attached dispute template two times. But you didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times.


 * Supposedly, If many users involved this discussion, without ROKMC official answer, By only South Korean secondary sources, 'Spartan 3000' can be removed.


 * 신속기동부대 첫 훈련 from Korean Broadcasting System published on 8 June 2016
 * 약 4천명 규모의 연대급 부대인 신속기동부대는 지난 3월 초 편성됐다.
 * (Translation: 4,000 Regiment Size - Quick Maneuver Force was organize in March 2016)
 * 인터뷰 - 임성근 해병대 제1사단장 from Newsis published on 9 June 2023
 * Interview with commander of ROKMC 1st Marine Division - Major general Lim Seong-geun.
 * 사단의 2개 여단이 합동참모본부로부터 지정돼 임무를 수행하는 '해병대 신속기동부대'는 기동전력을 상시 편조해 어떠한 지역으로도 신속하게 출동할 수 있는 태세를 갖춘다.
 * (Translation: 2 brigades undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is capable of fast deployment outside anywhere.)


 * As you see, Between 2016 and 2023, There are so many South Korean secondary sources. I can't list all articles here due to space.


 * Anyways, Don't worry about single primary source problem.


 * Let's wait and hear others opinions.
 * Footwiks (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that TheWolfChild's proposed solution is fine; the issue is that the changing nickname over time, and its basis, needs to be explained. "Spartan 3000" can be included, and if that nickname was only sourced from one particular point of view (was it only from some Western newspapers originally?- Daily Mail etc sometimes creates nicknames), that can be included. if it was dropped in some official way, that can also be included, with the date. When the "Guarantee Victory" nickname was officially adopted, that would be noted as well. What might be better is a paragraph of text above the entry at List of marine corps units to explain the rotational tasking involved, the initial Spartan 3000 nickname and any relevant sourcing details, and the adoption of the official nickname later. Context there, not hidden down in a footnote at the bottom helps readers understand better, I think. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It also might be worth adding an entry at List of defunct special forces units in the ROK section to explain the whole story as well. Probably better text than trying to cram things into a one line entry. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Issue is Removal or Keeping of "Spartan 3000" on the list of military special forces units. not changing name of "Spartan 3000" on the list.
 * "Jeseung Unit" and "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" don't have any reliable sources to support "Special Force Unit".
 * According to ROKMC official answer,
 * 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고
 * 기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.)
 * (Translation: "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not newly formed Special Force Unit.
 * Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.")
 * I also want to finish this lengthy discussion, But Wikipedia articles must not contain original research
 * Remove "Spartan 3000" on the list of military special forces units. Then describe detailed name history and rotational tasking about "Spartan 3000", "Jeseung Unit", "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" at List of marines and naval infantry forces and Republic of Korea Marine Corps
 * Footwiks (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Footwiks: Wow... where to begin? Well, first... why are you going on and on about this here when there is an active DRN case dealing with it? But anyway...


 * "If I accept your compromise, then entry changed to the official name - "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" But, as you know, about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force, We don't have any reliable sources to support 'Special Force Unit'. This is the original research" - Actually, we have four (4) reliable sources that state the unit is "Special Forces", (one of them even quotes the ROK Defense Minister saying it!), so... no, it's not "original research".


 * "Even if we reached a compromise. Probably, in the near future, Some user will remove "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" on the list, due to original research." - Um... what? No, we don't make content decisions based on what someone "might do in the future", whether they violate the rules or not. That is just ridiculous.


 * "If you find the sources that "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force" is Special Forces Unit, I can consider your compromise again." - Nope, you rejected that offer and then went to DRN, so for now that is off the table.


 * "Yes, the current entry is supported by four western secondary sources. But your 4 Western secondary sources are published in 2016 and 2017." - First off, you need to stop with repeated emphasis on "'western' sources"... it's obnoxious. Second, the entry is already sourced, as the editor seeking to change it, the WP:ONUS is on you to find reliable sourcing, that is clear, more recent and has more weight than the current sources.


 * "Can you verify that 'Spartan 3000' is active unit and Special Force Unit by the latest secondary sources?" - Yup, already done.


 * "Your secondary sources have critical weak point. ROKMC official answer was issued in June 2023. Now 2023, Official answer issued in 2023 vs just 4 western sources published in 2016 and 2017. Which is reliable?" - First off, again... they're not "'my' sources", they're just "the sources". They are reliable, and until and unless something just as relaible, that is clear, more current and has more weight can be found, those sources are what we go with. You have a yet to be validated, single, primary source (again, see wp:pst), that states " which, in fact... is good, even they confirm that "Spartan 3000" is a name that was used for the unit. That it wasn't an "offical" name doesn't matter (see WP:COMMONNAME). In fact, once you get that response validated, I'm going to use it to support my position. So, thanks for that.


 * "And Thewolfchild, Please remember and don't forget, I have so many South Korean secondary sources that Spartan 3000 is not a "Special Force Unit", This unit is a just "Quick Maneuver Force" as follows."


 * Ok, well the first source (Yonhap News) states: "", so again, thanks... I'll be using that source as well.


 * Your second source (Seoul Broadcasting System) also states: "". This is great, you are being very helpful in providing this additional sourcing.


 * I have to ask if you even read the third source? (Channel A) The headline states: "".


 * And it goes on to say: "






 * " - There is no ambiguity there, the news report is quite clear that the unit's name is "Spartan 3000", it's based on the legend of King Leonidas I and his brave 300 Spartans, who defended the pass at Thermopylae, against a Persian force that was 1000× their size (perhaps even >6000×), an event that was immortalized in the stylized and fictionalized action film "300". Again, my thanks, this is very helpful.


 * As for your fourth source (Hankook Ilbo), it states: "" - Four in a row. Awesome.


 * Your fifth source (Kumkin Ilbo): "". Keep'em coming!


 * And your sixth source (Yonhap English edition): "" - Well Footkiks, I will "remember and not forget" the benefit that all these additonal, secondary, Eastern sources from South Korea will provide.


 * "Are secondary sources the preferred type of sourcing of content on English WP? Really?" - yeah, really. As per WP:PST, a Wikipedia sourcing policy: "" - You should already know this. I have asked you to read policy this numerous times now. With all your time and experince on this project, there is no excuse for you to not know this. But even if you have somehow missed it, or had read but forgetten about it, there is still no reason why you can't or won't go lookup any applicable policies & guidelines when you enter into a content dispute, and certainly no reason when during said dispute, another editor cites and even links these policies & guidelines for you, repreatedly. If you have a problem with a policy, then you need to take it up on the policy talk page, and not try to debate it here.


 * "But according to your action, Only western secondary sources the preferred type of sourcing of content on English WP and intentionally ignored South Korean secondary sources, in spite of South Korean military issue" - Seriously? This is the English Wikipedia, the vast, vast majority of users here are primarily English speakers, all the arricles are English, therefore the vast, vast majority of sources are going to be English. You can't come to a Wikipedia in a certain language and then complain about that language being used. Also, the accusation that "South Korean sources are intentionally ignored" is yet another personal attack. When will you cease with all these insults? You need to focus on edits, not editors (or race, language or geography).


 * "Spartan 3000 has reliable secondary sources with contradicting facts.(Western secondary sources vs South Korean secondary sources)" - Actaully, that is not the case at all. You've just provided six "Korean secondary sources" that all confirm the unti name as "Spartan 3000". Add to that the possible primary source from the ROKMD and the four initial sources, and that make's a prerty solid case for the name.


 * "So I attached dispute template two times. But you didn't accept the dispute template and removed it without consensus two times." - Yes, this time and this time, except you didn't just add in the template, as part of your changes, you also added personal commentary about "western sources" vs "South Korean sources". As I explained, we don't do that in articles. That's why you were reverted, and I noted "see talk page" in the summaries so that you could see why.


 * "Supposedly, If many users involved this discussion, without ROKMC official answer, By only South Korean secondary sources, 'Spartan 3000' can be removed" - You'll need to clarify, as that doesn't make any sense.


 * You then added a seventh source (Korean Broadcasting System): It's not clear how it applies. It's now well-established (in the Korean news and even from the "Official ROKMC response" that the unit's name is/was "Spartan 3000". This article doesn't mention the name at all, not to even confirm the name was changed to another. It also mentions a "4,000 man strong", (not 3,000), is it talking about the same unit? We need sources with clarity.


 * And you also added an eighth source (Newsis): Again, there is a clarity issue here. The article is from 2023, mentions two marines brigades, with almost 8,000 people, called a "Rapid Task Force" (there is no mention of a "Quick Maneuver Force"). It then goes on at length about how the unit fought a forest fire. It doesn't seem to make any connection to unit from 2016 that is the subject of almost a dozen sources now (west & east) that confirm a different size unit with a different name. Perhaps it could be a source for a different unit on the ROKMC page, but how can it be used to change or remove the current Spartan 3000 entry, when doesn't explain any changes, and when you compare this one source to all the others?


 * "As you see, Between 2016 and 2023, There are so many South Korean secondary sources. I can't list all articles here due to space." - I see that you provided six, possibly seven, sources, that confirm the name of the current entry, and two sources that don't seem to have much value at all. But, Wikipedia isn't made of paper, if you have additonal sources to add, then go ahead, it's not as if we're gonna run outta room. It would be nice if you had even more sources that I can use, but... if you have sources, (enough secondary sources, that are clear, more current and have weight) that clearly state "Spartan 3000"'s name was changed, and/or it is not a Special Forces unit anymore, then please do add them and if they're sufficient, we will update this (and the ROKMC) articles to reflect those changes. I am not opposed to doing so, I am just opposed to it not being done correctly.


 * "Anyways, Don't worry about single primary source problem." - if you can't validate it, that's fine, but if you can, that also it also fine because I can use it.


 * "Let's wait and hear others opinions." - Yes, Footwiks... I agree, let's do that. - w o lf  07:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't you remember this edition? When I edited as follows - "Jeseung Unit (제승부대, 제승 means guarantee victory, former nickname "Spartan 3000")"
 * '''"You removed sentence - "former nickname Spartan 3000" and you commented - "not supported by source."
 * At that time, I accept your edition, Because I couldn't find any sources including sentence "Jeseung Unit's former nickname was "Spartan 3000".
 * As you know, even though that is truth, If we can't find sources to support, This is the Original Research and We can't include them in Wikipedia.
 * Where are the sources including follow sentences?
 * "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is a Special Force Unit." or "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force's main task is a special operations..."
 * As you said, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research.
 * According to ROKMC Official Answer.
 * 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고
 * 기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.)
 * (Translation: "ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not newly formed Special Force Unit.
 * Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.")
 * Do you want to ignore ROKMC official answer and do original research?
 * Let's hear opinions of administrator with expertise of OR RuleFootwiks (talk) 08:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Footwiks, I understand that you are eager to get this fixed. I understand that these issues can seem very important. But is correct: continuing to discuss things here duplicates the active more official process at WP:DR. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are risking looking like you are "forum shopping;" looking for a place-for-discussion that might result in an outcome that is more favourable to you.
 * I would urge you as strongly as I possibly could to (a) cease any posts about this matter anywhere but at the dispute resolution page; (b) turn your energies on Wikipedia to the WP:DR discussion or something else, like collaborating with me on the structure of the ROK Army; and (c) remember that Wikipedia is really just only a website. None of this really matters too much. I always find that time away from the screen and increasing my amount of exercise helps me. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just responded, Anyways, Thanks for your advice.Footwiks (talk) 23:44, 13 June

Apology
Dear, in accordance with your talk page instructions I am leaving this note here.

I have been backing and his opinions in this issue re Spartan 3000 because the information available to me suggested the designation was for a rotational tasking, not a specific special forces unit, now since having gained a more official South Korean nickname (translated as "Guarantee Victory").

But has started a WP:DR process without following the proper procedure, it appears, notifying you - even if that meant he had to post a short note on your talk page which you would have removed.

So if this user continues to breech conventions any case you make will be substantially strengthened.

Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, it's frustating enough that I have to repeatedly explain this to Footwicks, but you should know better. I didn't ban him from my tp, I asked him to post his comments about this article, on this article's talk page, because that's where they belong. I didn't ban you either. After reading your last post on my tp, I removed it, just like I do every other post, however I added the summary "... let's be done". Why? Well, after calling me a racist a few weeks back, (and then doubling down on that), you show up here, and without apparently reading this full thread, accuse me of failing to AGF, (twice), accuse me of "jumping down his throat" (and yet you also bring up Jman? Look at how you treated that kid), accuse me of mistreating this editor because of his poor English skills (still think me a racist it seems). And yet, I hadn't made an issue of his English, in fact afaic it's just fine, far better than many editors here that can barely speak a word of English and still contribute significant content to this site, while following the policies & guidelines without any difficulty. And, you accused me "newbie biting" an editor that has been on this site for 13 years with 62,000+ edits?? (not including experince on ko.wp) But, you aplogize becuase he didn't notify me about a DR report? Ok... got it. Thanks. - w o lf  03:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(arbitrary break #3)
I just looked up the source about the organization of the Korean Marine Corps. What has now been identified is a brigade-level unit of about 3,000 Marines called the ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force in March 2016. The unit is also a temporary formation unit in which three brigades belonging to the 1st Marine Division alternate with each other to perform tasks such as rapid task force for a period of time. In other words, this unit can be expanded or disbanded in the event of a local provocation or war on the Korean Peninsula. The name "Spartan 3000" is presumably a nickname given to the unit's 3,000 personnel, but since 2016, no mention of "Spartan 3000" has been found in Korean sources.

Currently, the unit's official name is ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force, which was nicknamed winning unit (제승부대, Hanja: 制勝部隊) at the time of its creation, but is no longer called this nickname. I think it would be most appropriate to call this unit ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force. If you can't find a compromise with each other, I think it's a good compromise to put the general name or nickname, Spartan 3000 together. What is clear to date is that there is still a brigade-level unit with 3,000 troops under the command of the 1st Marine Division called the ROK Marine Corps Quick Maneuver Force. Gasiseda (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2023 (UT
 * "I think it's a good compromise to put the general name or nickname, Spartan 3000 together." - I thought so. (Well sorta... I'm not sure if it was "good" compromise, or really just way to finally bring this to a close). Anyway, Fw rejected the idea, and is not willing to compromise. This is now at DRN. We'll see what happens there. As for your comments, I read them, and appreciate the effort, but as I'm sure you know, content changes and additions need to be supported by sourcing. If you can provide anything reliable and more recent than the current sources, that would be appreciated as well. - w o lf  22:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Post-DRN
@Thewolfchild "''The article is from 2023, mentions two marines brigades, with almost 8,000 people, called a "Rapid Task Force" (there is no mention of a "Quick Maneuver Force") - Original South Korean source Now it all makes sense, I found that why you don't understand my South Korean sources to support my opinion. I translated the South Korean sources by Google translator. Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources. For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names. You can confirm that from ROKMC official answer. Please again check out all South Korean sources (from 2016 to 2023) which I presented. All South Korean sources have the term "해병대 신속기동부대", and don't have the term "특수부대 (Special Force Unite)" or "특수작전 (Special Operations). I hope that you understand what I mean.Footwiks (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @Footwiks: Well, that DRN just kinda, apruptly... folded, huh? And so now, among the options presented for a possible path forward, you've chosen to return here, in an attempt to resume this discussion? Fair enough, we've come this far, so... why not? I will attempt to resolve this, here, and now, with you. First I will bring up is the possibility of a compromise. I had offerred one to you before, at the same time you were seeking out the DRN. Buckshot appeared to be in favour of a compromise, and even the moderator suggeasted a compromise as a solution during the DRN, and again in his close. So, clearly... this is something you should consider, instead of repeatedly dismissing it completely. At any time, have you had a potential compromise in mind? (Say that is the decision of arbitrating third party? What then? Think about it.) Before the DRN, the entry had four sources attached in support. There are now another sixteen sources that support the entry, bringing to a new total or twenty (possibly 21);

Four widely accepted sources about the unit from around the world:


 * Six additonal refs, as noted in "Second statements by thewolfchild"; (Six South Korean sources are published on 20 March 2016)
 * 1) first source (Yonhap News) states: ""
 * 2) second source (Seoul Broadcasting System) also states: ""
 * 3) third source (Channel A) The headline states: "". And it goes on to say: "" ""  ""  ""
 * 4) fourth source (Hankook Ilbo), it states: ""
 * 5) fifth source (Kumkin Ilbo): ""
 * 6) sixth source (Yonhap English edition): ""


 * Just a few extra sources to add;
 * 1) popularmechanics.com
 * 2) nbcnews.com
 * 3) nationalinterest.org
 * 4) stripes.com
 * 5) thedrive.com
 * 6) inews.co.uk
 * 7) ussc.edu.au→news.com.au
 * 8) english.alahednews.com.lb
 * 9) vox.com
 * 10) businessinsider.com


 * You can't keep posting these giant walls of text where you repeatedly try to dismiss these sources, and say over and over that your view is the only correct view, because of your opinion, or synthesis of slected translation. You can't just ignore policies and when they don't suit you. You need to read fully and ensure you understand the policies & guidelines, MOS guidance, essays on widely accepted practices, etc., etc. (...otherwise known as 'the rules'). A perfect example of a rule that has been mntioned to you several times, is wp:preview. And yet, you dismisssed it as non-existant, then blew up the DRN with something like 470+ edits. In contrast I made about 17 edits. Even now, back on this page, your most recent post above took about 17 edits, just for one post. A post should only take one (somwtimes two) edits. I will again ask that you puh-leeeze, pretty please... read the rule at wp:preview and try to keep your edit count under control. This helps the project and your fellow editors. - w o lf  04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild
 * (1)
 * Let's check out recent statements on DRN.
 * Fourth statements by thewolfchild (Special Forces)
 * Yep, take all the disputed refs to RSN. The reliablility or sources can't be determined here based on the complaints of a single editor such as "fake news" (the NYT!), or original research, translation error, intentional journalistic exaggeration, reporter mistook 'x' for 'y', cultural bias, etc., etc. ... this is precisely why we have RSN. - w o lf  01:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fifth statements by thewolfchild (Special Forces)
 * See my fourth statement, except change "single editor" to "a pair of editors". - w o lf  01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sixth statement by moderator (Special Forces)
 * It now appears that one of the editors has changed their view on acceptable sources. So I will now ask the editors whether they agree to remove the mention of the unit in question.  That is the only question at this point.  I am not asking about sources, although I will resume asking about sources on the next round of discussion.  Do we have agreement to remove the mention of the unit sometimes called 3000 Spartan?
 * Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sixth statements by Footwiks (Special Forces)
 * Yes, I completely agree to remove entry - "Spartan 3000" form List of military special forces units. Now Issue is reliability of 4 western sources attached by thewolfchild.
 * Therefore, If we fail to reach a consensus on removal here, We have to go to reliable source noticeboard immediately.
 * I am ready to join reliable source noticeboard. Thanks for your service.
 * Footwiks (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sixth statements by Buckshot06 (Special Forces)
 * As per my fifth statement. Would advocate removal of any mention of "Spartan 3000" from List of military special forces units. There should probably be a paragraph of explanation of the confusion at the ROKMC article. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sixth statements by thewolfchild (Special Forces)
 * No. - w o lf  15:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)




 * '''As you see, Buckshot06 finally supported my opinion (removal)
 * "Your view is the only correct view, because of your opinion, or synthesis of slected translation."
 * '''Absolutely not,....Why do you ignore Buckshot06's opinion
 * But you don't agree on opinions of me and Buckshot06. then DRN folded, you also wanted to go to RSN.'''


 * Don't you remember ROKMC official answer? I think that We definitely know what the truth is. So we have go to RSN.


 * I misunderstood DRN system in WP, I look forward to evaluating my and your sources thoroughly by mediator and deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance by good editorial judgment and common sense.
 * We had to go to first RSN. I am really sorry to take up your time.
 * We had to go to first RSN. I am really sorry to take up your time.


 * (2)


 * Have you checked out my evaluation your extra sources at source annex on DRN (I attached here)?, According to RS, Most sources are unreliable but I evaluate your sources thoroughly. Most sources have translations errors or mistook Spartan 3000 for 13th Special Mission Brigade (Decapitation Unit),


 * Have you read this source Stripes.com (207-06-06)
 * '''This source have the term - Quick Response Force and don't have the term - "Special Force Unit" or "Special Operstions.
 * Rather, This source is supporting my opinions.'''


 * And don't you remember your comment? When I presented IBT source, You said to me, "


 * Please check out my evaluation and I hope that you set forth a counterargument.


 * And I read the below sentence
 * Reliable_sources/Flaws
 * Editors *have to evaluate* sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative.
 * Now I obey the WP rules


 * But I agree that we are tired of lengthy discussion. So we need a break. After a break, Let's we meet the RSN and Let's we use the function of RFC in order to finish rapidly. How about my suggestion?
 * I'll open the case and I'll let you know on your talk page. Have a nice weekend and take a good rest.


 * 1. Sources about: Spartan 3000 is a Quick Maneuver Force, support to remove Spartan 3000 on the list of military special forces units


 * South Korean reliable sources about the unit (Below all sources are published on 20 March 2016)
 * Original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News


 * "군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
 * Translation: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - regiment size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000'
 * Collection of reliable sources from South Korean press. - Similar to above Original Korean prose from Yonhap News
 * Korean language source from Seoul Broadcasting System
 * Korean language source from Channel A (TV channel)
 * Korean language source from Hankook Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Segye Ilbo
 * Korean language source from Kukmin Ilbo
 * English language source from Yonhap News Agency


 * FYI - Newest South Korean reliable sources about the unit (as of June 2023)
 * (1) Newest Primary source
 * Screenshot of Official Answer from ROKMC - There are website version (issued 8 June 2023) and document version issued (issued 7 June 2023)


 * It goes as follows.


 * (1-1).


 * 2016년 언론에서 보도된 '스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭은 해병대에서 공식적으로 붙인 명칭이 아니며


 * 현재 공식 명칭은 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)입니다.


 * Translation =>

'''
 * '''ROKMC didn't officially designate the name - 'Spartan 3000' which announced by the the press in 2016.
 * Currently, official name is ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE.


 * (1-2).


 * '제승부대(Jeseung Unit)'라고도 불렀지만 현재는 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)라는 명칭으로 통일해서


 * 사용하고 있으며 해병대 신속기동부대(ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE)는 새롭게 창설된 특수부대가 아니고


 * 기존 1사단 내 소속 부대들이 번갈아 임무를 수행하는 형태로 운영되고 있습니다.


 * Translation =>

   
 * '''The name - 'Jeseung Unit' had been in use in ROKMC.
 * '''But, currently the name - 'ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE' is in use consistently.
 * '''ROKMC QUICK MANEUVER FORCE is not newly formed Special Force Unit.
 * '''Currently, subordinate units in the 1st Marine Division undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn.


 * (1-3).


 * 현재 '스파르탄 3000(Spartan 3000)'이라는 명칭으로 운영되는 부대는 대한민국 해병대에 없습니다.


 * Translation =>

'''
 * '''Currently, Republic of Korea Marine Corps don't have any units with the name - 'Spartan 3000'.


 * (2) Newest Secondary source
 * Interview with commander of ROKMC 1st Marine Division - Major general Lim Seong-geun from Newsis published on 9 June 2023


 * 사단의 2개 여단이 합동참모본부로부터 지정돼 임무를 수행하는 '해병대 신속기동부대'는 기동전력을 상시 편조해 어떠한 지역으로도 신:속하게 출동할 수 있는 태세를 갖춘다.


 * Translation =>


 * 2 brigades undertake a task of the Quick Maneuver Force in turn, ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force is capable of fast deployment outside anywhere.


 * 2. Evaluation of 4 Western sources attached by Thewolfchild 
 * Firstly, South Korean sources about 'Spartan 3000' are published on 20 March 2016,
 * (1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence - "according to the Seoul-based news agency Yonhap


 * (2) The Diplomat source (2016-03-24) - "The Diplomat source have a follow sentence - "a South Korean military official revealed to Yonhap News last Sunday."


 * But Below is the original Korean prose from article of Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스) published on 20 March 2016.


 * "군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
 * (Translation of gist: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division on 1 March 2016, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000')


 * Original sources from South Korean Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any terms - "Special Force Unit (특수부대)", "Special Operations (특수작전)",


 * But Telegraph and Diplomat source created terms "Special Force Unit (특수부대)" and Special Operations (특수작전)" in the article. They made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration.


 * (3) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence - "the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a“decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year."
 * Most importantly, NY Times source absolutely didn't have any terms "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.
 * Therefore, NY Times source was definitely not about the "Spartan 3000", actually NY Times source cited this Korean language source (4 September 2017).
 * 송영무 "北지도부 참수작전 수행부대 12월1일 창설"
 * (Translations: Song Young-moo (송영무) said that Decapitation Unit for North Korean Heads will be formed on 1 December 2017)
 * In conclusion: NY Times source was about the ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit established by the end of the 2017.
 * In conclusion: NY Times source was about the ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit established by the end of the 2017.


 * For Check: On 1 December 2017, Officially, ROK Army 13th Special Forces Brigade reorganized as a ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit.


 * Reference 1: Korean language source (2017-12-02)
 * 특수전사령부의 13 공수특전여단이 특수임무여단으로, 이른바 김정은 참수부대로 개편됐는데요.
 * (Translations: ROK Army 13th Special Forces Brigade in ROK Army Special Warfare Command reorganized as a 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) for Kim Jong Un.)


 * Reference 2: Korean language source (2017-12-04)
 * 충북 증평 흑표부대가 ‘김정은 참수부대 (Decapitation Unit for Kim Jong Un)
 * 충북일보는 4일자 신문을 통해 충북의 향토부대인 증평 흑표부대(13공수특전여단 / ROK Army 13th Special Forces Brigade)가 유사시 북한 전쟁지도부 제거 임무 등을 수행사는 1000명 규모의‘특수임무여단'으로 개편됐다고 보도해 관심을 끌었다.
 * (Translations: 13th Special Forces Brigade undertake task of Decapitation Unit for Kim Jong Un.)


 * Reference 3: Newsweek source (2017-12-07)


 * Reference 4: You can see other references in the English Wikipedia Article - 13th Special Mission Brigade


 * (4) Nzherald (2017-09-13) - Nzherald source have a follow sentence - "according to UK newspaper the Telegraph" and "New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported" (NY Times source's reporter was also Choe Sang-Hun)"


 * This source is full of howlers. Reporter mistook the "Spartan 3000" (cited Telegraph source) for ROK Army 13th Special Mission Brigade / Kim Jong Un Decapitation Unit (cited NY Times source) then reporter blended the "Spartan 3000" and 3th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) together in the article.


 * Excerpt
 * Spartan 3000: South Korea's elite decapitation unit
 * New York Times Korea correspondent Choe Sang-Hun reported Seoul is using the unit to send a menacing message to Pyongyang.


 * He wrote it was rare for a government to announce a strategy to assassinate a head of state, but Seoul wants "to keep the North :on edge and nervous about the consequences of further developing its nuclear arsenal".


 * The unit is due to be fully established by the end of the year, 
 * according to the South Korean defence minister Song Young-moo said the unit could conduct cross-border raids, while re-tooled helicopters and aircraft could also enter North Korean territory at night.
 * (cited Korean source (4 September 2017): Song Young-moo (송영무) stated that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)
 * (cited Korean source (4 September 2017): Song Young-moo (송영무) stated that Decapitation Unit will be formed on 1 December 2017)


 * In reality the unit is capable of much more than that.


 * SPARTAN 3000
 * The special force unit, which was first unveiled last year, can be deployed to any part of the Korean Peninsula within a day, :according to UK newspaper the Telegraph.


 * (5) In conclusion: firstly: NY Times source (4 September 2017) was not about the "Spartan 3000", secondly: Nzherald source :(13 September 2017) cited Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and NY Times source (7 September 2017) - Nzherald Reporter mistook Spartan 3000 for 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대) established by the end of 2017 then Reporter blended them together in the article.


 * Telegraph source (21 March 2016) and The Diplomat source (24 March 2016) cited South Korean Yonhap News Agency (연합뉴스).


 * But original Korean prose from source of Yonhap News (연합뉴스) didn't have any sentences and terms - "Spartan 3000 is a Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's main task is the Special Operation."
 * Telegraph and The Diplomat sources (published on March 2016) made a translation errors or intentional journalistic exaggeration.


 * Arrangement


 * 3. Evaluation of South Korean sources attached by Thewolfchild  (Six South Korean sources are published on 20 March 2016)
 * (1) Background knowledge
 * (1-1) Korean "신속기동부대" = "Quick Maneuver Force", Korean "특수부대" = "Special Force", Korean "특수작전" = "Special Operation".
 * Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.
 * For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.


 * (1-2) Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force is a unit of different concept in the military, likewise, 신속기동부대 and 특수부대 is a unit of different concept in South Korean military.
 * Of course some Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are Special Forces, But definitely all Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force are not Special Forces. This is why Wikipedia have independent 2 articles - Quick Maneuver Force / Rapid Deployment Force and Special Force.)


 * (2)
 * Upper six South Korean additional sources attached by Thewolfchild saying similarly as follows: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, dubbed "Spartan 3000". (5 South Korean news articles had term: 신속기동부대, 1 English news article by South Korean press had term: Mobile Unit)

ROKMC had formation of the Special Force Unit (특수부대) - Regiment Size, Subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, dubbed "Spartan 3000". (5 South Korean news articles didn't had terms: 특수부대 / 특수작전, 1 English article by South Korean press didn't had term: Special Force Unit / Special Operations)
 * (3)
 * Upper six South Korean additional sources attached by Thewolfchild definitely didn't say as follows:
 * In other words, In the upper six South Korean additional sources, We can't find any sentences as follows:
 * "Spartan 3000" is a Special Force Unit (특수부대) or Main tasks of "Spartan 3000"' are Special Operations (특수작전).


 * (4)
 * In conclusion: Spartan 3000 is a special force unit and This is supported by upper 6 South Korean sources. Thewolfchild's this statement is the Original Research, Rather 6 South Korean sources attached by Thewolfchild are consistently supporting that 'Spartan 3000 is a just Quick Maneuver Force, definitely not a Special Force Unit.Footwiks (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * (5) Cause of misunderstanding about South Korean sources
 * Now it all makes sense, I translated the South Korean sources by Google translator. Google translated "해병대 신속기동부대" into "Marine Corps Rapid Task Force or Rapid Maneuver Unit" in the South Korean sources.
 * It appears that thewolfchild misunderstood that my South Korean source are not about ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force.
 * So, rather thewolfchild added my sources at his source annex.
 * For the record, "(대한민국) 해병대 신속기동부대" = "ROKMC Quick Maneuver Force". These are Korean and English official names.
 * From 2016 to 2023, All South Korean sources have the term necessarily "해병대 신속기동부대" and subsidiarily "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)", "제승부대 (Jeseung Unit)", as nicknames

Footwiks (talk) 12:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, I didn't "misunderstand" anything. Unless Footwiks wants to claim that each of those six sources does not specifically confirm the unit name as "Spartan 3000". That's all I "understood" them to say and that's the only reason I added them to my annex and stated that I might use them as additional sourcing. I made no other claims. (fyi this, my 17th edit, is a reply to Footwiks 448th edit -no lie- ...could the perhaps remind editors here about the wp:preview function? This is seriously blowing up the page history which could create needless difficulties for all editors using the DRN board. Thanks) -  w o lf  14:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Those six South Korean sources published in March 2016 have similar Korean phrase.
 * "군 관계자는 "지난 1일 경북 포항 해병대 1사단 예하에 3천명 규모의 연대급 신속기동부대가 창설됐다"고 20일 밝혔다.
 * 이 부대의 별칭은 고대 그리스의 최정예 전사였던 스파르타인들을 연상시키는 '스파르탄 3000'으로 지어졌다.
 * Translation: ROKMC had formation of the Quick Maneuver Force (신속기동부대) - regiment size, subordinate unit of ROKMC 1st Division, the unit dubbed 'Spartan 3000'
 * But Google translated "신속기동부대" into "Rapid Task Force", sometimes "Rapid Rapid Maneuver Unit".
 * Please remember that Those six South Korean sources published in March 2016 have terms "신속기동부대 (Quick Maneuver Force)", nickname "스파르탄 3000 (Spartan 3000)" but don't have any terms "특수부대 (Special Force Unit) and "특수작전 (Special Operations). Footwiks (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

4. Evaluation of extra sources attached by Thewolfchild
 * According to RS, Except NBC News, It appears that most sources are unreliable. But I analysed.

(1) english.alahednews.com.lb (2016-??-??) - This source have a follow sentence: a Seoul military official told South Korean Yonhap News Agency. => Yonhap News didn't announce that "Spartan 3000" is Special Force Unit or Spartan 3000's task is special operation., | Original source from Yonhap News announced that "Spartan 3000" is Quick Maneuver Force.

(2) nbcnews.com (2017-04-07) - This source have a follow sentence: Last year, South Korea announced the creation of a special operations unit called Spartan 3000 to operate behind enemy frontlines inside North Korea

=> South Korean Government and All South Korean media outlets didn't announce that "Spartan 3000" is a Special Operational Unit or Spartan 3000's task is Special Operation, They announced that "Spartan 3000" is a Quick Maneuver Force

(3) ussc.edu.au→news.com.au (2017-09-13)

=> This source don't have the term - "Special Force Unit", "Special Operations".

(4) businessinsider.com (2017-09-12) - This source have a follow sentence: South Korea's defense minister is publicly boasting that it will create a new "decapitation unit" called the Spartan 3000

(5) vox.com (2017-09-12) - This source have a follow sentence: South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo told lawmakers of the government’s intention to build the “decapitation unit” on September 4, the day after the recent nuclear test. The administration wants the team ready by the end of the year.

(6) inews.co.uk (2017-09-14) - This source have a follow sentence: Such exercises are the prelude to the formal formation later this year of the unit, Spartan 3000.

(7) thedrive.com (2019-06-29) - This source have a follow sentence: On Sept. 4, 2017, South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-moo suggested the country’s military might create a new special operations element specifically for the task of hunting down North Korean regime members in the event of a crisis. The unit would reportedly work closely with American counterparts training for the same mission, as part of the secretive Operations Plan 5015. Earlier in 2017, the Pentagon denied a report that the Naval Special Warfare Development Group, better known as SEAL Team Six, was in the country training for these potential targeted raids.

“We are in the process of conceptualizing the plan,” Song explained in response to a question from lawmakers about how the South Korean could figuratively decapitate the Kim government, according to The Korea Herald. “I believe we can create the unit by Dec. 1 and have it become operational.” (This is the discription of

=> 


 * Refer to Yonhap News (2017-09-04)
 * Refer to Newsweek (2017-12-07)
 * Refer to WP article 13th Special Mission Brigade / Decapitation Unit (참수부대)

(8) stripes.com (207-06-06) - This source have a follow sentence: Hedelund, who is going to command the II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Lejeune, said his successor will take over as the South Korean marines have formed a 3,000-member quick response force to respond to natiural disasters and other emergencies. They also are developing their own aviation capabilities.

“They want to develop their marine corps toward this task force concept that they have a ready-to-fight kind of crisis reaction force that they would have permanently established. And they have begun that effort,” he said.

The Yonhap news agency reported last year that the unit, dubbed Spartan 3000, had the main purpose of destroying “key military facilities” in North Korea but also has been trained to tackle natural disasters.

=> This source have the term - Quick Response Force and don't have the term - "Special Force Unit" or "Special Opersation".

=> This source is supporting my opinions.

(9) nationalinterest.org (2017-10-19)

=> This source don't have the term - "Special Force Unit", "Special Operations".

(10) popularmechanics.com (2022-08-31)

=> Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources.


 * Footwiks (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Question

 * I have a question
 * Have you checked out NY times sources you attached.
 * (1) Telegraph source (2016-03-21) - Telegraph source have a follow sentence: "South Korea has formed an elite force of 3,000 marines which is poised to carry out raids inside North Korea (in 2016)
 * (2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017)."
 * (2) New York Times (2017-09-12) - NY Times source have a follow sentence: the South Korean defense minister, Song Young-moo, told lawmakers in Seoul that a special forces brigade defense officials described as a decapitation unit" would be established by the end of the year (end of the 2017)."




 * In chronological order, two sources are saying contradicting facts, also, Please find the term "Spartan 3000" in the whole prose from NY Times sourse.
 * NY Times source didn't have the term "Spartan 3000" or ROK Marine Corps.


 * You are an English native speaker and You look very smart.


 * Surmisedly, You provided this link - NY TIMES
 * But this link have a problem of accesibility. So I also couldn't read the whole prose. But I found the article in Wayback Machine recently.
 * Because of this problem of accesibility, I think that you can't read the whole prose and you you made a mistake.
 * Please read the NY Time source again.


 * Can I remove NY Times source on the list?

Footwiks (talk) 06:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

About compromise
As you know, This issue of dispute is very simple. You want to retain "Spartan 3000", I want to remove "Spartan 3000".

'''But your compromise: retain but adding note. If you put yourself in my position, Can you accept this compromise?'''

When two editors describe about something, If there is a disagreement of description view in the prose, Compromise will be a good solution.

But We have just two options, to retain or remove.

If "Spartan 3000" exist on the list, This means that we leave grounds for quarrel. In the near future, Some other WP user (especialy South Korean user) will try remove "Spartan 3000" on the list. I don't want to leave grounds for quarrel.

I really thanks for your compromise and I also want to propose the compromise '''But I can't find even and fair compromise. Please understand me.'''

'''May I ask a favor of you? My English is poor, You also have to use translator in order to check out South Korean sources. '''There may be a misunderstanding here, But Buckshot06 is a native English speaker and he understood the whole story. '''Please communicate with Buckshot06 and hear his opinion again.

'''Finaly, I didn't intend to, but If you feeled the rudeness, insult and personal attack and so on,,, I really apolozize again.

Kind regards, Footwiks (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow... 74 consecutive edits. So, still not even remotely interested in using the preview function, huh?. And now a reply that is almost 38 thousand bytes in size... that's larger than many (if not most) of the articles here. Thankfully, (though only in this instance) I see that much of your reply is just copied text from previous posts. I say "only in this instance" because it saves from actually having to read (or re-read, as it were), the entire post, as in tl:dr. But, in skimming through so much content, that means it's possible that something important could be missed. That's why it' helpful to try to keep posts as concise as possible and avoid reposting the same comments, over and over. I see that only now you state "My English is poor.", yet it hasn't been made an issue until now, and in fact, your attitude has been quite the opposite, (eg: "Hi, I participated in so many discussions for 10 years in English Wikipedia.") I suggest you read WP:CIR;


 * If you want Buckshot to take over for you, that's fine, I'll tell him the same thing I've fold you; the entry is sourced, originally by 4 refs, but now by up to 20 refs. We're still waiting to see if your ROKMC reponse if is a valid, reliable source, and what weight it may have, (and if it can be used, I will be adding to the list of refs to support the entry). If you or he still want to challenge the reliability of all 4 20 refs, then feel free to go to RSN, just don't forget to post the notification on my talk page. Of course, in lieu of all that, you could still consider a compromise. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort afterall. And again, content is about what can be verified in sources, not just what we know to be true . This may seem incongruous at times, but it's the system we have, and with a site that "anyone can edit", it's the best and only system. Anyway... it's up to you, let me know which way you decide to go. - w o lf  16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * About my question (New York Times source), Why do you not answer?
 * I will say it again, As per [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources] and Reliable sources/Flaws, your extra sources are mostly unreliable.
 * And I evaluated your all sources, In my humble opinion, Your all sources have flaws - translations erros or journalistic exaggeration, mistook Spartan 3000 for 13th Special Mission Brigade (Decapitation Unit).
 * So I will go to RSN. Of course, you can claim that entry is sourced by up 20 refs and 20 refs don't have any flaws.
 * RSN will judge the case and then decide which is right.
 * See you soon at RSN. I'll post the notification on your talk page.
 * Take care!
 * Footwiks (talk) Footwiks (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 redux
Spartan 3000 does not exist. it was just the dummy name for a proposed rapid reaction unit, that didn't even make it further than concept stage. it's similar to how Delta Force is called Task Force Green in some military sources. you're arguing over a nonexistent unit. in the end, what was supposed to be spartan 3000 was taken up by (multiple) rotating, high readiness, already existing unit(s). 92.87.96.3 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a more recent reliable source to support that? This also applies to some of the changes you made today. - w o lf  05:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * the only reliable source is western nonsense. and editors who can't use their brain. show me on any official ORBAT where the spartan 3000 is. don't give me new york times cnn tabloid blog level nonsense. 92.87.96.3 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I get that you disagree with the entry, but you can't remove sourced content just because you don't like it, or the sources. Unlike some of the refs you had added to your entries, NYT and CNN and recognized as reliable sources here on WP. I get the impression from your edits, and the insults, that you are not familliar with theb rules that govern this project. I have tried to assist you by going to the user talk page of the IP account you're currently using, and adding templates, along with a personal note, all of which contain several links to relevant and important polices and guidelines, that you really should read, thoroughly, before proceeding with this dispute any further. You will see that you can't just simply delete sourced content by saying the sources suck and all the editors here are idiots. You also can't add or change content, supported only with inter-web detritis and talk page posts that are the eqiivalent of 'Cuz I said so!. So, that said, please read your talk page, before continuing with this. Thank you - w o lf  07:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is clear that Spartan 3000 does not exist. Footwiks has already received an official response from the Republic of Korea Marine Corps proving this. And yet, you continue to ignore it. It is common sense and reasonable that an official response received directly from the subject of the matter, not from a third party, is the most reliable. I am not ignoring the reliability of major media outlets such as the New York Times, but there are some cases in which such media companies sometimes fail to rigorously analyze the accuracy of information and release incorrect information. And in fact, historically, there have been cases where major media outlets have often given out false information. I hope you can understand this. I would like to inform you that this issue, caused by your continued refusal to accept the obvious, is being seriously discussed within the Korean Wikipedia, and many Korean Wikipedia users, including myself, are concerned about it. If you really cannot accept this fact, I would like to propose a way to solve this problem through polling. Thank you. --Lee6597 (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You've been here since 2009 and have almost 300 edits worth of experience, so surely you know that content is determined by what is found in reliable sources, not what you "think is obvious". Amd we're not talking about a couple of borderline refs here, were talking about multiple, widely-accepted sources. Footwiks claims to have a letter which means... well, so far nothing. He also claimed he was going to pursue this (at RSN next... I think) if there was anything left to pursue after arguing about this ad nauseum last year (and that's just here, have you even read the the DRN...?), but instead he just disappeared, then got himself indef'd a few months later for CIR, DE & CV, among other things. Anyway, there's a proper way to go about this, and posting nonsense such as: "I would like to inform you that this issue, caused by your continued refusal to accept the obvious, is being seriously discussed within the Korean Wikipedia, and many Korean Wikipedia users, including myself, are concerned about it." - is. not. it. I really don't care what what the Korean Wikipedia community thinks about me. Now, if the English Wikipedia community comes to a consensus that this entry should be removed, then so be it. But I'm not going to ignore the improper removal of sourced content, just because you, Footwiks, or some random ip user doesn't like it and can't be bothered to go about the correct to address their concerns about it. Have a nice day - w o lf  06:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is certain that Spartan 3000 does not exist, and furthermore, it seems unnecessary to discuss this further, as we have received an official answer from the 1st Marine Division of the Republic of Korea that the unit does not exist. Gasiseda (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Certain" according to... what? We have an entry that is certainly well supported by multiple sources that are widely (if not universally) accepted as reliable. Many of these sources were supplied by Footwiks himself during the... lengthy, and troubled, dispute spread across multiple talk pages, both user and article, as well as at DRN, and a vow to continue at RSN, (which didn't happen due to said block). As for the purported "official letter", well, nothing has really come of that. Now I take it you are also a part of this group of Korean editors that has an issue with this entry. All I can say to you is the same as I've said to your cohorts, which is there is a way to do things here and way not to. You've been here for almost 3 years, with almost 3000 edits, (not incl. other wikis), so you should have an idea of the right way and the wrong way. As for me, I've already said I'll go with any commumity consensus otm, or changes supported by sourcing and/or policy. I'm not married to any particular entry, I just watch the page, and fix edits that need... fixing. Have a nice day - w o lf  06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

comment. it seems like mainstream journos made a mistake (not a rare occurrence which everyone knows), but wiki editors keep forcing it as 'reliable' even though it's an obviously erroneous. if CNN puts out an article saying the earth is flat by some part time writer, it would obviously not be held as a reliable source, because the burden off proof is so against such assertion. this is a similar situation.2A02:2F0C:C203:D400:DD6F:1545:7251:D54D (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Spartan 3000 entry
Remove i know intimately that this unit does not exist, but i guess my word as a former member of said military that supposedly has this unit is not as important as some part time western writers with mid google translate skills. have a nice day 2A02:2F0C:C203:D400:A9F9:AF7F:3A9:40D1 (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. - w o lf  21:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * so you just spread falsehoods and ban anyone who tries to make corrections. genius. no wonder my uni professor would fail anyone on the spot, who was caught using wikipedia as a source. 2A02:2F0C:C203:D400:81A:29C0:8CA4:B0AD (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I... wut? - w o lf  11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Remove It is questionable what reliable sources are needed to correct or delete misinformation, and how many more sources must be presented to prove what does not exist. Gasiseda (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What is "questionable"...? There was, as last count, over 20 refs that support this entry, with numerous reliable sources in English, and many more in Korean. Content is based on sourcing (see verifiability, not truth). If you have an issue with sourcing, (as you make clear in the manifesto on your user page), you need to address that over at WP:RSN. - w o lf  11:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)