Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wikimedes (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
2,514 edits
Line 440: Line 440:
::::Although we still disagree on a few issues, we have worked together to improve the article, and since you have most of the expertise in the area and access to the sources, you’ve done most of the work, so thank you.
::::Although we still disagree on a few issues, we have worked together to improve the article, and since you have most of the expertise in the area and access to the sources, you’ve done most of the work, so thank you.
::::Not really related to OR, but I made one more structural change; Background sections are usually “top level” sections. (I checked several of the articles on WWI and WWII battles to make sure).--[[User:Wikimedes|Wikimedes]] ([[User talk:Wikimedes|talk]]) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
::::Not really related to OR, but I made one more structural change; Background sections are usually “top level” sections. (I checked several of the articles on WWI and WWII battles to make sure).--[[User:Wikimedes|Wikimedes]] ([[User talk:Wikimedes|talk]]) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

:::I've been reading through the talk page archives, which are quite off-putting. Nevertheless, I was just wondering about the two South Korean news articles ("Seoul Awaits US Explanation on No Gun Ri" by The Korea Times and "US Still Says South Korea Killings `Accident' Despite Declassified Letter" by Yonhap news agency), because they contain the very important assertion that the Pentagon "deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report." I have been unable to find the sources. Also, there's a reference to a mysterious "25th ID war diary," which is never actually quoted, in the background. I completely agree that the degree of original research here is a bit high, but I think that's unfortunately the nature of the beast in this case.

I also looked for, and found, the master's thesis by Dale Kuehl, easily accessible with a google search. It might provide some interesting information, although it was not published after the critical discovery of (frankly damning) documents.

Finally, while I most certainly do '''not''' want to rekindle this dormant dispute, is there a consensus on the use of Bateman? He is a prominent source, even if he has been criticized.

[[User:GeneralizationsAreBad|GeneralizationsAreBad]] ([[User talk:GeneralizationsAreBad|talk]]) 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)




Revision as of 21:58, 26 April 2015


The other POV

The reason I initially put the NPOV tag in the article (and which I will do again) is because a significant POV is missing from the article. We have Hanley and AP's POV firmly established and it is the POV that pervades the entire article: This was an intentional, deliberate and most importantly "coldblooded killing" of innocent civilians with no justification.

The other POV, shared by a number of historians and writers is best summed up by an excerpt in Armchair General from LtCol Robert Bateman:

What took place at No Gun Ri was definitely not the under-orders, cold-blooded “execution” of up to 400 unarmed Korean civilians as claimed in the AP report. It certainly was no Korean War version of Vietnam’s My Lai massacre. Instead, the few minutes of undisciplined, panicked smallarms fire that killed or wounded up to 35 civilians was the nearly predictable result of hastily throwing mostly inexperienced, poorly led and inadequately trained U.S. troops into a confused, chaotic situation for which they were completely unprepared.

Its the exclusion of this POV that warrants the tag. WeldNeck (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bateman is not a good source, and should be used with extreme caution (and possibly not at all, I am unsure) - he having a strong close connection to the subject and due to a distinct lack of journalistic skill and outright fabrication. --Errant (chat!) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a pretty bold statement. Do you have something to back that? What is Bateman alleged to have fabricated? Can we say the same about Hanley and the AP as they sat on news that their star witness was a fraud until after the Pulitzer Committee made its award? WeldNeck (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We'll again address Bateman's gross unreliability. But first of all, WeldNeck, your own bold statement above is categorically false. You continue to be duped by Bateman's made-up drivel, rather than any independent (at least non-7th Cavalry) sources, which would inform you that Daily (hardly a "star witness," since he was quoted only briefly in the 56th paragraph long after other GI witnesses were quoted in the original journalism; please do your homework on such things) was determined by the AP to have only secondhand information weeks after the Pulitzers were announced. In a story with some 60 eyewitnesses, Daily was barely a minor sideshow and has been irrelevant to No Gun Ri for years. That's what's not being grasped here: The article is about the No Gun Ri Massacre, not about the AP, or any of the dozen or more journalists who worked on No Gun Ri, or extraneous matters like Daily, or anything other than what is known and not known about No Gun Ri here in 2013.
As for Bateman, if you're interested in learning about his fabrications and distortions, I would have expected you to accept my invitation to review the lengthy analysis exposing it all page by page. Send me your email address, read the damning analysis, and ask any questions or raise any objections you like. If you choose not to, you're only suggesting that you're operating with a closed mind. Meanwhile, view the C-SPAN video, as I previously advised. There you'll find the respected moderator, John Callaway, of the Pritzer Military Library, taking the unprecedented step of berating an author, Bateman, for producing such an execrable piece of work. From the transcript: CALLAWAY, ``Why do the project if you can't do it right? ...You talk about lack of resources. Once you do that -- say I want to write a book about what's really going on inside Russia today, but I don't have the money to go to Russia. Wouldn't a good editor or publisher say to me, Mr. Callaway perhaps you shouldn't do that book? ... Why would you do a critical book on this subject if you didn't have the resources to go into the field to do that half of the story (the Korean half)? ... Whose account should we pay more attention to, the person who has the resources to go to South Korea and conduct the interviews, or the person who doesn't go to South Korea?"
I gave you here in Talk the example of Bateman's hijacking an irrelevant document, claiming it said something it didn't say, hiding it from his readers, and then having the gall to point to it as his central finding. How is that critique a show of "bias" on my part? I'll send you the document. Or would you rather to continue to blindly accept Bateman as a reliable source?
Meantime, I was ready to post in Talk saying that your pointing out the NYTimes report on infiltration (via Kuehl) is a helpful addition. But now I see there are other changes -- I hope not too many -- that are damaging to the article, such as what I believe is your removal of the 1950 North Korean journalistic report on the massacre. I don't understand: Isn't it clear who was lying and covering up No Gun Ri, and which sources actually had it right, to be begrudgingly acknowledged by the U.S. Army a half-century later? The same thing happened with My Lai in Vietnam (Please, please, read the Talk discussions on such matters; we're going over old ground here.) I believe you also removed eyewitness Tom Hacha. This sort of illogical thing totally baffles me. It'll be dealt with.
Finally, there are not "two sides" or "another POV" on No Gun Ri. There is simply the historical event, affirmed and accepted by two sovereign governments, with elaboration from eyewitnesses and documents, with gaps in our knowledge (such as the precise death toll, and the missing 7th Cav log that would have held any orders relating to NGR), and with repercussions in contemporary Korea. We scoured Bateman's book for anything useful and came up with less than zero. Any legitimate info advancing Wikipedia's knowledge of NGR is obviously welcome. Attacks on contributors' integrity are not.
Meantime, please come ahead with your email address, so you'll better understand Bateman's machinations. Charles J. Hanley 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC). Charles J. Hanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I would like to add my two cents to this discussion, having just discovered the back-and-forth between WeldNeck and Charles Hanley. It seems that certain motivations (biases?) are clouding some salient points: Isn’t this WP article entitled the “No Gun Ri Massacre”? Shouldn’t the facts drive the narrative? Are not those in the media -- as well as official sources within the two governments -- the best providers of the truth, vis-à-vis others who attempt to minimize this historic war crime? It would seem that the meticulous research undertaken by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press journalists and others (I find CBS, BBC, German television, Korean MBC, Sahr Conway-Lanz, et al. in the references) has time and again withstood the scrutiny of naysayers, regardless of their motivations. Don't WP readers come to this article to learn about the massacre, not about one person’s petty battle a decade ago with the AP? Reader0234 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)(Reader0234)[reply]
Reader. all relevant material and any notable POV's should be included in the article. Hanley's insistence on the exclusion of Bateman and anyone else whose perspective on the nature of the events differs from his is intolerable and unjustifiable. No one, especially me is arguing that (CBS, BBC, German television, Korean MBC, Sahr Conway-Lanz, etcetera) should be excluded, only that other notable voice be included. WeldNeck (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WeldNeck: "notable voice" has a nice ring to it. But, it seems to ring hollow when referring to Robert Bateman and his speculations on the massacre. From what I read above, Bateman is a highly untrustworthy source. His key finding hinges on a made-up No Gun Ri link to an unrelated document, and you think he's reliable? He didn't even interview the survivors or go to Korea, and you think that's fine? And, don't forget, he got censured on national television for shoddy work. I think all this adds up to one "hugely problematic" voice, not a "notable" one.
He's obviously a biased 7th Cavalry guy trying to downplay what the 7th Cavalry did in Korea. And I see he is included in the article, questioning the death toll -- in the face of all kinds of evidence and an official finding that it was substantial. Anybody can question anything they like about anything, but that doesn't make them a reliable Wikipedia source.Reader0234 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BAteman has a great deal of other material from witness accounts (that not surprisingly differ dramatically form the AP account) to documentation. None of this is mentioned in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd suggest with Bateman is that we let other sources identify if any of the information is useable. So if e.g. other books draw on Bateman (although I don't believe any do) or other sources identify material as accurate. This is a fairly typical approach for biased sources. --Errant (chat!) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we also use this approach with Hanley and the AP? WeldNeck (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because they are an independent source. --Errant (chat!) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Bateman a non independent source, hsi affiliation with the US Army? WeldNeck (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yes. He's an active-duty Army officer and the Army was the perpetrator in this case. More than that, he's a longtime 7th Cavalry booster (a former 7th Cav officer), and it was specifically the 7th Cav that did the killing. In 2000 he openly declared his intent to "get" the AP, the first media organization to pin No Gun Ri on what he refers to as "my regiment." This bias ought to be enough to disqualify him prima facie. But meantime the felonies he has committed against the truth have been pointed out to you here in Talk, and you've chosen to ignore them. That bespeaks a closed mind, and an unhelpful contributor. Charles J. Hanley 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
You opinion is not enough, sorry, but thats the way things appear to be run around here. I tell you what, I will take this to the reliable source forum and see what a few outside opinons say. WeldNeck (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Speaking as a PHD candidate researching the NGR Incident and other similar episodes (committed by ROK or KPA forces), who has read English and Korean documents on this, and visited and spoken to survivors and their families, I can shed some light on this. Contrary to WeldNeck's observations that critcisms of Bateman are based solely on Hanley's personal animosity, there are a number of obvious flaws in the book which render it suspicious. Furthermore, the Bateman/Hanley debate is well known to scholars of Korean War massacres, and Bateman's book is seldom used for a number of reasons, a few of which are as follows:

1. He did not visit or contact any of the victims from the massacre, nor does he consult any Korean government sources. Basic standards of objectivity suggests that this is a rather dubious approach to scholarship. Most scholars who cannot access a foreign language at least have the foresight to use an Research Assistant. In the debate that Hanley describes, Bateman excuses this on the grounds that he has a family, not a lot of money, etc. As a grad-student who is in a similar situation, I can tell you that this excuse would not be accepted by my PHD defence committee.

2. He claims that it is certain that guerrillas were among the refugees. This is a minority viewpoint within the veterans' testimony (in the US ARMY NGR report for example), and non-existent in the victims' version. While it is certainly plausible that fear of guerrilla infiltration was a major motivating factor in the massacre (as it is in the case of most civilian killings), the evidence for the actual existence of guerrillas is weak.

3. He claims without any evidence that the survivors all suffer from group think. Again, since he did not interview any of them, one is left to wonder how he arrived at this judgment.

4. He ignores (or didn't bother to do enough research) evidence of a number of memos, documents, and vet testimonials suggesting that a tacit, if not official, policy was in place by the last week of July to shoot refugees deemed suspicious. Most glaring is the absence of the "Muccio letter" (uncovered by Sahr Conway-Lanz). I would encourage readers to read Sarh-Conway Lanz's treatment of this issue published in the Journal of Diplomatic History. After reading this piece, it is difficult to take Bateman's work seriously. The reviews that WeldNeck refers to were all published prior to Lanz's work. He also does not mention that the 7th Cavalry journal was missing from the US archives, yet he claims that there is no evidence that kill orders existed. This is either remarkably careless scholarship or a deliberate distortion, given that other journals from similar locales were uncovered by the AP team (and verified by countless other independent scholars) indicating an understood policy to fire on refugees.

5. His low and inconsistent estimate of those killed (35 at times, 18-70 at others) does not appear to be based on any actual findings. While it is inevitable there is debate and ambiguity concerning the actual number of those killed, Bateman in his debate with Hanley comments that he arrived at this number through a "Ballpark" estimation. This is rather careless. In 2005, the "No Gun Ri Incident Review Report" was commissioned and determined the total number of victims to be 218 (150 killed, 13 missing, 55 disabled). This number was arrived at by searching censuses, family registers, visiting graves of families, victim testimonials, and a detailed, multi-step verification process. It has also uncovered the specific identity of many of those who died, and they have been officially registered with the South Korean government. While no methodology is perfect, this is clearly more useful than "ballpark" estimate. One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia.

One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia. Finally as Weldneck appears to be raising the need for an alternative point of view defense, it should be noted that the article cites the US Army report multiple times and provides a link to it. In this report, one can find a flawed (in my view), but similar similar sentiment (that the killings were accidental, "tragic" etc). As it is mentioned not only in the notes, but also the text, it is a little confusing to read Weldneck's complaints that alternative viewpoints are not accounted for. The predominant issue with Bateman is unfortunately one of reliability, not interpretation.

BW5530 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)BW5530[reply]

Thanks for the review of Bateman, that is quite useful.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as you are published your opinion might become notable enough to include in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I get the sense that when I do publish you won't be bothered to read it. In the same way that you likely have not bothered to actually read Bateman's account (since you claim below to not actually have a copy). In the same way that Bateman did not bother to read or consult any Korean sources (or a number of US ones for that matter). Seems to be a pattern here, no?

BW5530 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BW5530 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The aerial photo taken 11 days after No Gun Ri shows no indication of bodies, or of recent burial. This cannot be squared with the claim that hundreds were killed in the incident. The people who testified in 2005 were children at the time. They were not doing body counts. A lot of bad stuff happened to refugees during the war. Over the course of 55 years, memory can conflate incidents that occurred separately. The refugees at No Gun Ri charged toward a U.S. military position. So even with U.S. guns pointed at them, they were more afraid of the North Koreans behind them. A lovely bunch of coconuts (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Kauffner sockpuppet[reply]
I'm sorry, lovely bunch, but you don't know whereof you speak. Perhaps journalists who spent months and, eventually, years reporting professionally on the events can straighten you out: No one "charged" the U.S. Army. (Where did you get that one from?) The refugees were sitting on the railroad tracks when they were attacked from the air, and then by mortar or artillery fire. They weren't fleeing the North Koreans; they were trying to stay in their nearby village when they were forced out by U.S. troops, who then set the village ablaze. The many, many who testified (not in "2005" -- where'd that come from? -- but in 1960, the 1980s, the 1990s and, finally, in the 1999-2000 Korean investigation, with consistent accounts throughout) included people who were young adults in 1950, such as the young mother who watched her two small children die, the 17-year-old who lost most of his family, the ex-policeman who collected survivors' stories from the earliest years. This notion of conflated stories is an obnoxious invention we've heard before from people who, in their ignorance or inhumanity, suppose that people who watched their mothers, their children or other loved ones die before their eyes would forget where it happened -- when it happened under a concrete railroad bridge they saw down the road every day of their lives, and they all held annual memorial services in the village every year of their lives. This business of the aerial photos -- the spliced, questionable film -- has gotten mighty tiresome. The Army contends the photos cast doubt on hundreds of casualties; the Koreans cast doubt on the photos and say, anyway, remaining bodies were out of sight under the bridge (where ex-GIs also say they were). That's all in the article. Survivors estimate 400 dead; Command Sergeant-Major Garza saw 200-300 bodies in one tunnel, and most may have been dead; the Korean commission finally certified 163 dead and missing, and 55 wounded, some who died, and said "many" more names were not reported.
Much of the above may not suit your views, or what you'd like to believe. But those are the facts, professionally delivered. And my impression was that facts are what Wikipedia's all about. Charles J. Hanley 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
  • I count three Korean witnesses in the original AP story: Chun Choon-ja (12), Park Hee-sook (16), and Chung Koo-ho (61-49=12). None of them said anything nearly as dramatic as what is being asserted above. I'm sure there were more who testified, but what kind of journalist holds back his best material? I don't see Garza in the AP report, the army report, or even the news archives. He's mentioned in exactly one place on Google Books (Truth and Reconciliation in South Korea), and the actual reference isn't even online. So I guess he's another secret source, or at least an extremely obscure one. To put this kind of material in the article goes against WP:DUE.
  • No, the much quoted figure of 400 dead is not a "survivors' estimate," at least not in the sense that some survivors' group came up with this number. It comes from a 1950 news report that appeared in a North Korean newspaper. This information is actually in the article already. But why should a journalist who spend years on this story bother to read it? A lovely bunch of coconuts (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) User:Kauffner sock[reply]
Good point Mr Hanley, the idea that eyewitness memories could become confused after 50 years is impossible:

When confronted with the fact that Daily could not have been at No Gun Ri, one of the AP’s other notable witnesses, Eugene Hesselman, repeated over and over again, “I know that Daily was there. I know that. I know that.”

As for the aerial imagery, a picture's worth 1000 words, unless it doesnt tell us what we want it to, then its fake. WeldNeck (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the Korean survivors’ community, they collected accounts of survivors about the massacre from earlier time. They filed petitions to investigate this massacre to the Korean government and the U.S. government. Several petition were filed in 1960 to these governments but all were denied (it’s obvious when considering the politically suppressive atmosphere in Korea—pro-American government, worrying to harm the friendship with the US government—during the Cold War). (If you want sources of this information, there are plenty in Korean publications about these petitions, such as “황순구, 노근리 피난민 적으로 취급하라, 미군 양민학살 공식문서 확인, 한겨레 Sep.29, 1999” or “정은용, 그대, 우리의 아픔을 아는가, 다리 미디어, 1994”. Korean researchers read and study publications in Korea and the U.S. but American researchers seem to have neglected Korean sources. I’m a Korean scholar and have consulted sources from both countries.)
The survivors’ claims were consistent over the years (petitions in 1960 and interviews in 1999 and afterwards). Human memory can be inaccurate and modified along the life experiences. However, such collective memory in the Korean survivors’ community from the time of the massacre can bear more accurate information, especially when the memory is about something that affects your entire life (extreme tragic, violent, fearful ones). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeoulScholar (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article: Lead and Background sections

We’ll begin improving this article section by section, in some cases cleaning up syntax, and in other cases trimming extraneous, pointless wordiness. General Dean, Bosnia etc., among other things, bloated the article unnecessarily by 1,000 words; a further 200 words was added recently with an unsourced paragraph (“On November 17…”) that is inaccurate when it’s not simply repetitive of what the article has already established. In the most important cases, we’ll restore references to the U.S. military’s long-running rejection of the No Gun Ri allegations (removed without explanation or justification) and Army investigators’ suppression of evidence (removed without explanation or justification).

In the lead section, “authorizing the use of lethal force” is wordy and inaccurate, since we’re talking about direct orders to “shoot” and “fire”; the reference to a “series of reports” is incorrect and incomplete; and the reference to Taejon is gratuitous, since the paragraph above already establishes the rationale for the shootings and Taejon is dealt with in the body of the article.

The Background section can be trimmed, saying the same thing in 25 percent fewer words – e.g., “refugees fleeing the onrush of the North Korean advance” is redundant; this has just been established in the preceding graf. In addition: The quote attributed to the 25th Infantry Division war diary appears misattributed, since the Army investigative report and Conway-Lanz (and my own files) show it only in 1st Cav Division archives. At the same time we’ll add a quote from a U.S. official saying soldiers regarded all Koreans as the enemy.

Finally, the insertion of irrelevant events during the Chinese civil war will be removed. Surely we don’t think a good Wikipedia article should be an ever-expanding grab bag of “fun facts” that are not essential to the subject at hand. Charles J. Hanley 14:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

The material you call bloat, some would call relevant material which provides a great deal of context to the article and has been cited by other WP:RS as such.
The phrase “authorizing the use of lethal force” is more accurate than shooting.
The Nork infiltration at Taejon was specifically mentioned by Muccio in his letter. That certainly belongs in the lede.
There is no misattribution in the 25th ID War Diary. I suggest you check your sources again as I have found this particular passage mentioned several times in other reliable sources.WeldNeck (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think Cjhanley’s edit was more accurate. “Authorizing the use of lethal force” seems to me an interpretation. Any wordings that may suggest potential interpretation or inference should be used very prudently or should not be used at all. Using actual wordings from military documents will give the wiki readers a better sense of No Gun Ri and its background. The actual quotes in those documents are,
“fire everyone trying to cross lines” in Communication Log, the 8th Regiment of the 1st Cavalry Division, July 24 1950
“All civilians seen in this area are to be considered as enemy and action taken accordingly” in Memorandum, Commander, 25th Infantry Division, 27 Jul 50
“we strafe all civilian refugee parties” in Memorandum to General Timberlake, Policy on Strafing Civilian Refugees, Colonel T.C. Rogers, 27 Jul 50 and
“all civilians moving around the combat zone will be considered as unfriendly and shot” in Journal, HQ 25th Infantry Division, 26 Jul 50.
To me, these wordings suggest actual orders of “shooting” rather than giving the power (“authorizing”) to make decisions on shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeoulScholar (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


WeldNeck, you continue to trample all over Wikipedia's principles of cooperativeness, assumption of good faith, and everything else. Incredibly, you seem to feel you have a right to revert, wholesale, intelligent and well-informed edits. And all the while you continue to fail to grasp the simplest of points. For one, orders to consider civilians enemy and "shoot" them, and to "fire" everyone trying to cross the line, are not a grant of "authority" to shoot. They are ORDERS to shoot. Do you not grasp that?

Do you not understand that the lead should be kept to the barest of essentials, and certainly does not need to repeat the rationale for shooting refugees? Once it's stated in the second paragraph, it doesn't need to be repeated in the third.

Do you not understand that an event in the Chinese civil war has no place in this article, especially when the text is nearly illiterate? Why did you revert that deletion?

One had hoped for a more cooperative spirit in 2014, but it appears that you're only interested in pushing your POV.

Finally, please cite for us a "reliable source" that attributes that quote to a 25th Infantry Division "war diary." You simply footnote the document, not a secondary source. But do you have the document? Meantime, the Army IG report, the Conway-Lanz book and my own files find that quote only in the 1st Cav Division. Please come ahead with a source. Charles J. Hanley 23:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

There is an issue with the War Diary citation, I will correct that. WeldNeck (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many, many more corrections needed in this article, not to mention the need to fix the lousy writing, restore essential points that you deleted because they disturbed your point of view, eliminate your falsification of the wording of orders etc etc etc. How about continuing your corrections by restoring to the lead the fact that the Pentagon stonewalled for years on the allegations (or come up with a reason why readers should not know that), correcting "authorizing lethal force" to what the orders actually said, and getting rid of the ridiculous Chinese civil war material? How about it? Charles J. Hanley 14:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I cannot understand why Weldneck continues to make unnecessary edits which blatantly undercut the spirit of Wikipedia. Just a couple of basic examples: Why did Weldneck remove references to the fact that the U.S. military rejected the No Gun Ri allegations for years? And the fact that its investigators in 2001 suppressed incriminating evidence? An understanding of the truth about No Gun Ri requires the restoration of those essential facts. Will you, Weldneck, restore those facts now?Reader0234 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Reader0234 (talk • contribs)[reply]

Events of July 25-29, 1950

Continuing the fixes, this section will now read in a logical, sequential manner, with 200 fewer words, and yet with strong new descriptive quotes from a variety of new media and academic sources (quotes from Chung Koo-hun, Yang Hae-sook, Kerns, Preece, Levine, Patterson, Durham).

We'll tighten the Ha Ga Ri material, saying the same thing in fewer words; trim superfluous material; eliminate out-of-place military jargon (2-7, 1-7); note that arriving North Koreans rescued children. We'll note the specific number of men who testified about a supposed exchange of fire (as has been said, Wenzel is not quotable on this because he contradicted himself on this point at various times).

We'll also eliminate the pointless discussion of whether air controllers were in the area. As has been pointed out, that material is drawn from a section of the Army's 2001 report that is rife with deception, specifically suppression of documents showing air-control activity, air operations and a division spotter plane in the immediate area at the time. Leaving this pointless discussion in the text would require many more words and sources knocking down the untruths, while adding nothing at all to the article. We still wouldn't know how the air attack originated. It would also require upending the article's entire structure, to note, for one thing, the Air Force command's report that it was strafing all refugees approaching U.S. lines. This "Events" section should be limited to what happened on the ground from the 1950 point of view of the survivors and soldiers. Charles J. Hanley 16:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

There's issues with all the eyewitnesses and removing some because they, according to you, "contradicted themselves" is dangerous considering how many witnesses the AP cited who stated they were taken out of context or directly misquoted by the AP team. As for the Norks "rescuing children" ... is that some kind of joke? WeldNeck (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Two North Korean newspapers from Aug. 1950 describe the after-scene of the massacre. These were found from NARA. The actual citation of one of these is Choson In Min Bo (조선인민보, Korean People’s Daily), by Chon Uk (전욱). Aug 19 1950. These sources include information that North Korean solders met some children and elderly who survived from the killing and they escorted them to the villages. WeldNeck, that is not a “joke.”

In addition, the 2008 article from the journal Rhetoric & Public Affairs, cited as the source for the sentence about the North Korean rescue, now expunged by the uncomprehending WeldNeck, quoted survivor Yang Hae-sook as saying, "If they did not come to No Gun Ri ... if American soldiers stayed there longer, no one would have survived from that tunnel," and survivor Chung Koo-Ho as remembering that the North Koreans advised them not to leave the tunnel until nighttime, or they'd be killed by U.S. warplanes. Chung said, "On the way home, North Korean soldiers even gave us meals ... I felt a sense of same race-consciousness." The survivors, of course, told the same to many journalists and to South Korean government interviewers. It's simply a well-known fact. And so, WeldNeck, how about restoring this fact to the article? No joke. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Casualties

This section will be improved by sharpening the sourcing on the report of 218 casualties. Charles J. Hanley 17:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Aftermath

This section will be improved by restoring the sentence -- unjustifiably deleted without a word of explanation -- regarding the fact that no investigation was conducted in 1950, despite knowledge of the massacre. Charles J. Hanley 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Petitions

This section will be improved by restoring text that was deleted without explanation regarding the survivors' 1994 petition and the Army's claim of combat, and by restoring text regarding the official history's agreeing with the survivors on two points. Charles J. Hanley 19:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

it was deleted because you are using Appleman as a source to make an arguemnt which Appleman is not making. Its a combination of sources to make a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. WeldNeck (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appleman on page 179 says the 1st Cav Division took up positions in the Yongdong (No Gun Ri) area, and on 203 that it "faced no immediate enemy pressure" prior to its withdrawal from the area. Quid est demonstratum. Charles J. Hanley 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but it doesnt work that way. WeldNeck (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "it" that doesn't work what way? What you're saying is that the official Army history didn't uncover the whereabouts of an entire Army division in late July 1950. Please, WeldNeck, this is a serious subject. If you cannot engage seriously, if you can only deal dismissively with others while having nothing to offer, I would urge you to stand down for a while and let knowledgeable people repair this article. Charles J. Hanley 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Knowledgeable people who also have raging COI's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you or are you not going to restore the official history reporting the location of the 1st Cav? Surely you understand the point: the Army kissed off the petition without even checking the official history. There's nothing that "doesn't work," nothing to be disputed, about what the history says. Will you restore what you've wrongly deleted? Charles J. Hanley 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

I take your silence to be a "no." We'll fix it. Charles J. Hanley 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Weldneck- Speaking of conflict of interest and POV problems how about yours? You seem to repeatedly nitpick on things that point to responsibility in the higher ranks. You ignore Pete McCloskey's statements which seem to me to support the conclusion that what happened at No Gun Ri resulted from orders issued by general officers. Hanley's alleged POV & COI have been debated for months yet WP has not pulled the plug on him? That says something to me about the merit of the criticism. Hanley has made it clear who he is so we know his NGR connection. Who are you? How do you explain your POV/COI issues? The fact that you devote so much time to this small slice of the police action tells me that you may have an axe to grind. Come on out of the shadows and be as open as Hanley. Let us see what makes you tick. In closing, I'd like to say that your snark & attitude, obvious even to a newbie, is offensive and not in the WP spirit.Breckenridge51 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, another one of Hanley's meat puppets, welcome to the show. As for McClosky I dont usually take input from holocaust deniers too seriously, but hey there's a first for everything I suppose. WeldNeck (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what a meat puppet is but from what I've seen of your track record it must be a nasty crack. And then the slam on McCloskey- deabate 101- when they go to the personal attacks they've got nothing else. As to McCloskey's alleged anti-semitism, what does that have to with his veracity on NoGunRi- just more smoke and mirrors from you. Your real issue with McCloskey is that despite his documented heroism in the Korean War, he's never been a member of the protect Mother Green club, as you so clearly are. Here's a question- you'll toss out McCloskey as reliable because of something he may have said once, does that apply to Bateman, who seems to be the foundation of your entire approach? Bateman- a self-identified serving military officer has written several times recently about how if he came to power he'd scrap the Constitution and take discriminatory action against law abiding gun owners. Clearly his career is terminal so he'll write these things, but he's crazy, not to mention seditious. So I throw out Bateman because I disagree. That's your reasoning on McCloskey & most everything else here. Here's my pov- my Dad was a rifle platoon leader in 1952 Korea with the 7th ID; I was a company grade officer for a few years & most of friends were em's. I resent it when people like you try to blame the lower ranks to protect a few top dogs and the Service.Breckenridge51 (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet – it means Hanley asked you to come into this debate.

As for McCloskey he like Bateman seems to drink more Kool-Aid the longer they are around and the effects seem to compound with every passing year. While that certainly doesn’t disqualify either of them I am not just going to acquiesce to a tirade made on a Wikipedia talk page. McCloskey had some bad experiences with the Cav in Korea and certainly and that clouds his ability to be an impartial arbiter here. To McCloskey’s point that the Army is to blame because it sent inexperienced units to fight the KPA … you go to war with the Army you have not the army you want. That’s a simple truth about warfare and the nature of it.

Were there general guidelines to fire on refugees – yes, when they were approaching US positions it was left to the discretion of the CO’s or commanding NonComs to determine if they were a threat and what to do about it. A Life Magazine dispatch by John Osborne sums this dilemma up quite well:

“Oh, Christ, there’s a column of refugees, three or four hundred of them, coming right down on B company.” A major in the command tent says to the regimental commander, “Don’t let them through.” And of course the major is right. Time and again, at position after position, this silent approach of whitened figures has covered enemy attack and, before our men had become hardened to the necessities of Korean war, had often and fatally delayed and confused our own fire. Finally the colonel says, in a voice racked with wretchedness, "All right, don’t let them through. But try to talk to them, try to tell them to go back.” “Yeah,” says one of the little staff group, “but what if they don’t go back?” “Well, then,” the colonel says, as though dragging himself toward some pit, “then fire over their heads.” “Okay,” an officer says, “we fire over their heads. Then what?” “The colonel seems to brace himself in the semidarkness of the blackedout tent. “Well, then, fire into them if you have to. If you have to, I said.”

In this situation, what are the soldiers or their commanders supposed to do? There are many examples of the KPA using refugees to cover their movement and infiltrate their troops (a point the AP teams does its best to ignore or gloss over even though the evidence to the contrary is quite staggering). It was a bad situation for the soldiers and an even worse situation for the refugees, but what were the options?

Were there specific orders given from any officer present that day to fire on the refugees – although the AP would like to convince the reader otherwise, there is no documented order to fire on the approaching refugees and individuals there have conflicting accounts as to whether or not there were verbal orders given

The narrative the AP and much of the rabidly partisan and anti-military portions of the press and academia want to convey is that these blood thirsty/brainwashed troopers were ordered to fire on defenseless noncoms by wicked commanders who didn’t care how many pee-ons they put through the meat grinder … oh yeah, and they all liked it too. Furthermore, the AP and other pushers of that POV want the reader to believe there was no rationale for these orders (which there was) and any rationale given was baseless (which they weren’t). For Christ sake, look how many times the AP team was caught using fake witnesses or misrepresenting the interviews with the witnesses they had. If their story was that strong, they wouldn’t have needed to resort to such sloppy techniques and deliberate misrepresentation to make it.

Tell me, if you were an infantry man explain to me this: how could a group of civilians take sustained fire by an entire battalion for three days and any of them survive? That’s the story the AP is telling here. According to them, the 2-7 attacked these refugees nonstop for three days. If that were so, how did any of them survive?

Along the same lines, how did aerial surveillance taken ten days after this not find any bodies? Do you honestly think a couple hundred corpses could be stacked up under that rail bridge and the survivors would have taken to time to do this with the KPA only a few miles away and advancing on their position?

Its ridiculous on its face.

(WeldNeck, how can you, again and again, show such ignorance of basic facts of No Gun Ri and yet deign to have some right to shape the Wikipedia article on the subject to your liking -- i.e., pro-refugee killing? The bodies weren’t dragged in and stacked up; they were there to begin with, in heaps of dead later attested to from all sides, SKorean, NKorean and American. At least four GIs spoke of seeing “stacks,” “a crowd” etc. of dead; Garza, who walked among them, said, “They were stacked on top of one another, trying to prevent getting hit. … I saw little babies trying to nurse on dead mothers.” Every paragraph of this latest comment of yours is full of similar nonsense. What is “ridiculous” is that the Wikipedia community has allowed this stuff to be spewed out for so long, and to infect such an important article. Charles J. Hanley 22:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

More than likely, a few died when the mortars went off and a handful more when someone got jumpy and fired into them. That’s the extent of the “massacre”.

As for my POV – its really none of your business but let me assure you I am not, as you put it, trying to blame on the enlisted and junior officers to spare the “top dogs” in the service. WeldNeck (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot to sift through here. As to meat puppetry you'll think what you want. You could be bateman or a his "fanboy", no way to know. On to McCloskey/Bateman- an awful lot of what you want believed is your opinion. Example- you throw MCC out because his experiences bias him in your opinion, but not Bateman, although you do allow he's drunk the koolaid. But it appears to9 this observer that McC's out because he supports Hanley's pov & bateman is in because his book suypports your pov. No logic there. You may not want to believe McC but your opinion isn't conclusive reason for others to disregard him. In addition I read thru McC statement just now and you badly misstate his opinion. He says nothing about inexperienced troops. His comment was regarding UNTRAINED troops. this is certainly one of my issues with the entire general staff in FE Command. Maybe MacArthur was too busy playing Emperor of Japan but his staff were not requiring that troops be trained up nor did division commanders do it. Here's a quote from SECDEF Bob Gates new book "The key to success, as with most things military,is training, education and above all, strong and principled leadership up and down the chain of command." Truman & Congress are to blame for not enough troops, but the Generals are to blame for untrained troops. I threw in the Gates b/c you were paraphrasing Rumsfeld. I'm afraid I have problems with your next point as well. There were not general guidelines- there were orders. I've read them. In the Army I knew, the brass didn't issue general guidelines, unless they were in CYA mode. But in this case, in this desperate time they were ordering that if refugees tried crossing/coming thru lines they were to be shot.Period. The Osborne excerpt is very powerful, but I can't tell whether the original story was hard news reporting or a 'this is what war is like' piece. I'd also feel a little more confident in the excerpt if it didn't have a major giving orders to a regimental commander[usually a full colonel] But putting that aside for a minute it shows why war is such a bitch. That's why the existence of ORDERS in this instance is important. Let's be clear KILLING CIVILIANS is against the rulesPERIOD. So the regimental commander follows orders and hopes the USA wins the war. If North Korea wins"I was just following orders' doesn't help. He'd be just like all the fellows tried at Nuremburg. If the US wins he's committed war crimes but the Army doesn't care and they wouldn't go after the Gen'ls who gave the orders. If, as you suggest, he ordered his men to shoot civilians w/o orders from higher and his rationale is 'Gee it was a tough spot and what was I to do? Well then he could be in a world of hurt. It's as simple and unfair as that. But in war, fair isn't even in the same universe. Sherman didn't say "War can be a trying experience" now did he? HELL is what the man said. I'm not gonna debate infiltrators, they are a red herring. I'll also point out some inconsistency here. On the one hand you argue no orders, then bring up infiltrators to justify the orders. Infiltrators is a red herring because ordering troops to shoot civilians is aginst the rules. Refer back to previous sentences. OK- moving on "Were there specific orders give by an officer present?" Once in a while you write something that makes me question whether you have ever been in the military, or maybe you think you'll blow one by me. The Place officers would have been present at was a battalion in combat. Commander a major, at most LTC. At best 4 rifle companies, maybe a weapons platoon. He's not writing up orders, depending on the situation he calls them together, or uses the radio or sends one of his staff,xo,s1 etc to them. ORAL orders. The company commanders- CPT's or 1LT's- get their platoon ldrs together and pass on the order they got. Plt ldrs. go to squad ldrs. who then tell the men. Sorry to say- the point about no proof of orders may be true but there would not ever be written proof at that level- just not the way the Army works. You either know that or you don't. Inconsistency among the troops about whether orders were given. Well, DUH? That would have been true 40 minutes later, much less 40 years. Moving right along- the rant about the press and academia. That's not a not a knock on you, it is a rant & I do it myself all the time. I don't see it so much about the military but guns and politics. DON"T get me started. BUT- Hanley's book is very sympathetic to the grunts. I haven't read anything that attempts to paint them as bloodthirsty or that they liked doing what they were ordered to do. Seems to me Hanley's target are the Big Green Machine and the 'evils' of war. Referring to your comment about 'wicked commanders' I didn't see that in the book either. My personal opinion is that in a war, officers from platoon to corps/Army, give orders that result in men dying. By the time some LT's make it to stars they've learned that lesson. You can't do what needs to be done w/o men dying. Maybe it gets easier the further away you are, like the difference between a rifleman and a bombardier. If you haven't read any of Rick Atkinson's non-fiction trilogy about WW2, you really should. More about Atkinson later.
  Next topic- battalion firepower. 1st off- never said I was in the Inf. My dad was. I spent my time wearing crossed cannon. But I can answer your question b/c I do know small unit tactics and how the Army functions defensively. In terms of who would be shooting at the civilians, it would be only those troops who were dug in at the at the point the civilians approached. Maybe a a few squads, a platoon? And some mortar, firing from behind the front line. This is another of the things that make me wonder. You've hinted of military experience with jargon {norks,etc] but then you refer to non-combatants as noncoms, the previously mentioned expectation of written orders being issued from Battalion down to Company cmdrs in the field in combat and then the battalion firepower as if all the riflemen and machineguns in a battalion would be in the same place at the same time. Also, no one was attacking. They were in place shooting at the civilians and not non-stop. Whoops, the wife is telling me to get off the computer & get something done. Life, huh? To sum up for today. I can certainly see that you're pretty pissed about the bias in the press and academia. Join the club. But the specific angry comments don't hit their mark about this book. I mean bloodthirsty troops & all that. Not in the book, or this wiki art that I can see. Also- you assured me that you weren't looking to blame the troops and shield the brass but that is exactly where your 'logic' seems headed. Civilians WERE killed; if no orders were given to 2/7 then elements of that unit killed civilians w/o orders. This is exactly what Clinton's coverup said [we know how truthful he is] blamed it on a few grunts, just like always. You may want to believe numbers of dead were lower than Hanley says, but even dozens is still killing civilians, it matters, because to be cynical/realistic about it, people found out about it. And your scenario seems to me to lead right to blaming a few frightened enlisted men and incompetewnt jr officers. You say that is not your intent but that's the direction of your arguments are going. Don't you see that or were you just blowing smoke up my butt figuring I'd go away. Bottom line- no blaming rifle platoon line troops on my watch. What puzzles me is why NOGUNRI? Why not Benghazi or the IRS, or Fast & Furious.````

Looks like I may have screwed up here. not all got in & I'm out of time. Try to fix it another day.Breckenridge51 (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations, 1999-2001 investigations

This section will be improved by:

  • Recasting the first paragraph to clarify.
  • Adding, improving sourcing.
  • Restoring Army's years of dismissing allegations, and the specific reasons for the shootings cited by the Army report. (Again, critical elements deleted with nary an excuse from WeldNeck.)
  • Adding a key quote from the prime minister's office regarding orders to shoot at No Gun Ri.
  • Substituting a better quote from adviser McCloskey, and adding a quote from adviser Gen. Trainor regarding le0adership to blame.

Charles J. Hanley 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Legal framework

This section will be improved by trimming the unnecessarily wordy reference to the 1949 Geneva Conventions' status. Charles J. Hanley 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Further evidence emerges

This section will be improved by:

  • Restoring the reference to the Army's acknowledging it had deliberately omitted the incriminating Muccio letter from its investigative report. (Outrageously, WeldNeck had removed this crucially important fact twice, from the article's body text and from the caption to the document excerpt, as usual without any attempt at justifying its removal. How could one justify trashing the most glaring example of the 2001 cover-up? Too glaring?)
  • Improving sourcing.
  • Inserting ex-soldier's testimony about shooting civilians.
  • Noting new academic research that found much strafing of refugees in 1950.

Charles J. Hanley 23:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Aerial imagery, excavations

This section will be improved by trimming and being made more logical by, for example, putting the important explanation of the disposition of bodies (under the bridge etc.) in the first paragraph.

The paragraph "Archeological survey" was also weak, relying on prospective articles as sources and lacking the forensic team's final report and explanations, now inserted. The excavations are now incorporated under the "Aerial imagery" heading. Charles J. Hanley 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Just a word of caution - any attempt to downplay the most important piece of information and the only truly objective evidence will not be allowed. WeldNeck (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What should be "not allowed," WeldNeck, is your arrogance. Meantime, the "only truly objective evidence" is a highly questionable and seriously questioned half-century-old roll of film whose key frames were spliced into it by unknown hands at Defense Intelligence, from a camera that couldn't see anyway under the bridge where the bodies were? What about the ream of documents showing orders to shoot refugees? They're not "objective"? What about the ambassador's letter and USAF operations chief's memo saying refugees are being deliberately killed? They dreamed that up? What about the hundreds of American bullets and bullet holes that forensic teams documented in the bridge's concrete? What about the bullet-damaged faces and bodies of survivors? What about the graves of the dead, and the July 26 memorials for the dead? What about the area residents and North Korean eyewitnesses and the GIs who agree with the survivors about heaps of dead in the tunnel, including Command Sgt. Maj. Garza's "two or three hundred piled up there"? What about the South Korean government's confirmation of a minimum of 218 casualties? What about the U.S. government's affirmation that they were killed by "small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing" -- a hell of a lot of firepower? The deeply suspect -- and, at the very least, irrelevant -- aerial recon photos eventually became the last flimsy refuge of a little band of flag-waving denialists who, bizarrely, argue out of one side of their mouths that the U.S. military had to kill refugees (after all, one was found carrying a radio!), and out of the other that No Gun Ri didn't happen, that the overwhelmingly powerful evidence should all be disregarded because... well, just say it ain't so, not our good ol' American military. And this article, sadly for the truth and sadly for Wikipedia's ideals, has been in the clutches of one of them, for too long. Charles J. Hanley 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
  • highly questionable

Other than the fact that it is one of the few pieces of physical evidence and it absolutely demolishes claims that several hundred refugees were killed, what makes it “highly questionable”?

  • seriously questioned

Seriously questioned by whom, the South Korean team who couldn’t be bothered to look at the originals when offered?

  • half-century-old

What does age have to do with it?

  • roll of film whose key frames were spliced into it by unknown hands at Defense Intelligence,

Index map were the only things spliced into the footage. Additionally, the DIA team cut frames around the railway tunnel for easier viewing. Originals from the overflight mission were available for the South Koreans to inspect if they chose to do so. An interesting observation is that the DIA analysists were not given the specifics so their analysis.

  • from a camera that couldn't see anyway under the bridge where the bodies were?

The analysis were able to determine what was into the tunnel to a depth of three meters. Were the hundreds of bodies stacked in the rail tunnel intentionally placed in a location where the analysts could not see them, or was this mere coincidence?

  • What about the ream of documents showing orders to shoot refugees? They're not "objective"? What about the ambassador's letter and USAF operations chief's memo saying refugees are being deliberately killed? They dreamed that up?

None of that is physical evidence as to what took place. The aerial footage is.

  • What about the hundreds of American bullets and bullet holes that forensic teams documented in the bridge's concrete?

Interesting you should bring this up and I don’t really understand why its not in the article. The FBI team found a grand total of 316 bullets marks at both the culvert and tunnel. Considering the Korean claims that 7th Cavalry soldiers fired at them for up to four days with both machine guns and small arms for hours at a time something just doesn’t add up. How could there be only 316 bullet marks if thousands, potentially tens of thousands, of rounds were fired for four days?

The Koreans determined that 20 of the 50 bullets they were able to recover (not hundreds) were from 50 cal. With no eyewitnesses stating any strafing took place while the refugees were under the bridge these 50 cals must have come from a different engagement as the heavy weapon companies assigned to the battalion were only armed with 30 calliber machine guns.

  • What about the graves of the dead,

What graves? To the best of my knowledge there hasn’t been one documented excavation of any grave or graves related to this event.

  • and the July 26 memorials for the dead? What about the area residents and North Korean eyewitnesses and the GIs who agree with the survivors about heaps of dead in the tunnel, including Command Sgt.

What of the witnesses who recalled far fewer numbers of dead and injured? I know it wasn’t enough for the AP to twist their words out of context when reporting their story, but are you going to claim that every account is exactly the same?

  • Maj. Garza's "two or three hundred piled up there"?

What physical evidence supports this?

  • What about the South Korean government's confirmation of a minimum of 218 casualties?

Confirmation based upon what? 60 year old contradictory recollections?

  • What about the U.S. government's affirmation that they were killed by "small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing" -- a hell of a lot of firepower?

Where does the DAIG report confirm that the numbers of dead are anywhere near what the Koreans claim?

  • The deeply suspect

Suspect only to you evidently.

  • -- and, at the very least, irrelevant

How can photographic evidence of the aftermath be irrelevant?

  • -- aerial recon photos eventually became the last flimsy refuge of a little band of flag-waving denialists who, bizarrely, argue out of one side of their mouths that the U.S. military had to kill refugees (after all, one was found carrying a radio!)

I am not arguing that anyone had to do anything, only that there were severe aggravating and mitigating factors involved in these decisions.

  • and out of the other that No Gun Ri didn't happen,

Never said it didn’t. No one says it didn’t. All I am arguing no one ordered the attack and claims of several hundred dead cannot be supported by any of the physical evidence.

  • that the overwhelmingly powerful evidence should all be disregarded because... well, just say it ain't so, not our good ol' American military.

Eyewitness testimony, especially memories that have been contaminated by unethical teams of journalists are especially reliable. WeldNeck (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring deleted paragraph) WeldNeck's "To the best of my knowledge" underlines one aspect of the WeldNeck problem: He knows so little, and so often misreads or misunderstands, and yet so disrespects Wikipedia and its contributors as to blanket-revert contributions by those who do know the facts (and the unknowns) of No Gun Ri.
To cite just a few examples from above:
  • It's untrue that "Index map were (sic) the only things spliced into the footage." Frames 29-35 -- of the bridge -- were spliced in. (Read the report).Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I did read the report, and you shouldn’t mislead readers on something so easily verifiable.

NIMA IA verified that the ON consisted of 86 continuous unspliced frames of imagery with a film leader containing mission and coverage data (index frame) spliced into the roll. At some point in time, damage to the Original Negative had occurred; tears -- repaired with transparent tape -- were found on frames 41, 51, 52, 53, 58 and 59. The film was somewhat brittle; the tears probably occurred during some previous reproduction process, though the repairs with transparent tape appeared to be recent (tape was unyellowed and flexible).

Good God, WeldNeck. When will this insanity end? We can't spend all our time debunking your misreadings and nonsensical points. The suspicious splicing was spotted by the South Korean experts on the FOURTH-GENERATION COPY, not on the Original Negative. Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • He doesn't understand that the great bulk of bullets and bullet marks would be found on the tunnel walls below the roadway that raised the floor level by six feet in later years. As for some "FBI team," it "found" nothing. No one from the FBI or any other U.S. ballistics experts went to Korea. The Koreans did the ballistics work, checking a good sampling of bullets to confirm they were, indeed, U.S. military ammo.
  • No .50-calibers with the 7th Cav Regiment at No Gun Ri? G Company's George Preece manned and fired one at No Gun Ri. The cover photo of the disgraceful book by WeldNeck's friend Bateman, showing one being fired that summer, bears this U.S. Army caption: "A .50 Cal. Machine gun squad of Co. E, 2nd Battalion, 7th Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, fires on North Korean patrols along the north bank of the Naktong River, Korea."Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Right you are, but just to confirm, this would be the same George Preece that stated on many occasions after you quoted him in the article that you misquoted him and used his interview out of context to support a version of events he didn’t witness?

The AP article also stated "the Koreans said the Americans may have been seeing their own comrades' fire, ricocheting through from the tunnels' opposite ends. 'That's possible', said Preece. 'It could actually have happened, that they were seeing our own fire, ...We were scared to death'," said Preece, a career soldier who later fought in Vietnam. When interviewed by the U.S. Team, Sergeant First Class (Retired) George Preece said, "I've got a feeling it was a blast. A muzzle blast coming out of that tunnel. Again, now, it could have been. I'm not putting that out of possibility, but I don't see how. I mean it could have been. I mean ricochets from this guy shooting from this tunnel. I've had that told to me before too, but it's -- I don't believe that." He also said: "I saw flashes coming out from under the bridge and you saw where the shells were hitting. And it's close to that machine- gun over there. You could see where it was hitting the dust, hitting the rocks, and things...And when they [soldiers] shot into it, there wasn't that many rounds shot into it."

Once more, WeldNeck, NOBODY was misquoted. Hiding behind your anonymity, you blithely slander as unethical and dishonest accomplished professional journalists whose work was re-endorsed by the Pulitzer committee after Bateman managed to get his baseless garbage into print, and you slander wounded war veterans as liars at the same time -- when you know nothing about this other than what you read from a 7th Cav apologist and a highly deceitful Army cover-up report. Your statement in your edit summary that Col. Carroll was "grossly misquoted" is an outrage. Even Carroll didn't say he was misquoted. You just wildly throw this stuff around because you're anonymous and unaccountable and -- thus far -- Wikipedia hasn't reined you in. As for Preece, he's on videotape saying what he was quoted as saying. From the tape: Q: "And then an order came to fire on these people?" A: "Yes, sir. I know the order was given for them to fire." Q: "You saw bodies piled up. How many?" A: "One hundred, 150, 200. I just don't think it was right to kill women and babies. We felt bad about it, but when you've got orders you've got to do what the uppers say. They'll get you for treason and everything else." Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"NOBODY was misquoted" ... hmmmm ... who to believe ... the close to a dozen individuals who testified that they were misquoted or the AP that misquoted them ... hmmm .... gosh that's a tough one, I'll have to think about that. WeldNeck (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To the best of my knowledge" there are no graves? This is another Bateman-inspired inanity. Go to Korea. They'll show you graves, including many where the government disinterred remains and reinterred them at a memorial cemetery near the massacre site.
  • What of those who said there were fewer dead? They've long been in the article: in the lead ("Estimates of dead have ranged from dozens to 500"), and in the Casualties section ("7th Cavalry veterans' estimates of No Gun Ri dead ranged from dozens to 300.") When the only man to lead a patrol through the tunnel, career soldier Garza, supports the survivors' estimate of hundreds of dead, that merits attention -- and not the snide "what physical evidence supports this?" as though only skeletons still stacked there would do.Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The views you claim that have been long in the article are not given the WP:WEIGHT they are due. They are intentionally downplayed because they don’t support the AP reporting. And, for the record, is Garza the only individual who testified to going into the tunnel after the shooting? Think fast, the credibility of the AP is on the line here.

The appearance of the lowball casualty estimates in the article's very first paragraph and again in the section dealing with the subject (Casualties) is hardly downplaying. As for their "not supporting the AP reporting" ... Wake up, WeldNeck: It was the AP reporting that first carried the lowball estimates. AP's own reporting does not support its own reporting? A couple of things that seem not to occur to you: Almost all the Americans were hundreds of yards away and had little idea of body count, and men accused of a war crime might be expected to minimize the damage done. No? Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The aerial photos -- real or rigged -- are irrelevant because the overwhelming bulk of witness statements from all sides -- survivors over the decades, uninvolved South Koreans in 1950 and in recent years, North Korean journalists and military documents in 1950, 7th Cav veterans in recent years -- and the official South Korean investigation say there was a large number of casualties. Hence, if someone wants to interpret the aerial photos to indicate otherwise, there must be something wrong with either his interpretation (doesn't he realize bodies are out of sight under the bridge?), or the photos (the splicing; the two flight paths on allegedly the same roll of film; nearby streams running high while the No Gun Ri stream is almost dry on supposedly the same day and same film roll, etc).Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Your thoughts on the aerial footage are pretty well established … they are fakes. How else could you explain it ... its like there’s a conspiracy afoot to discredit the AP’s reporting and all the juicy information they gleaned from individuals like Ed Daily.

Our "thoughts" on aerial footage have no place in the article. Journalists deal in facts, and the fact is that the South Korean experts suspected the footage had been doctored. You've managed even to mangle that fact in the article. The bottom line should be clear, at least to clear thinkers: Is there something wrong with the mountains of documentary evidence and near-unanimous testimony, from every corner, pointing to a substantial bloodletting at No Gun Ri, or is there something wrong in the aerial-photo category, including the simple fact that the photos, whether authentic or doctored, couldn't see the bodies that Koreans and Americans alike say were stacked under the bridge? Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

South Korean "experts" thought they were doctored because it was so detrimental to a politically sensitive issue. They had the opportunity to view the originals and chose not to, that alone speaks volumes. Secondly, the testimony only seems "near-unanimous" because the AP team intentionally distorted so many of the US eyewitness accounts which is why you want to see so much of this removed from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, WeldNeck wants to "argue" (his word) that mitigating factors were involved in "these decisions" to shoot refugees. Decisions. Very next thing, he "argues" that "no one ordered" the No Gun Ri shootings. Which is it, were decisions made to shoot refugees or not? This points up the bizarre dichotomy of such POV pushers: The U.S. military can't be faulted for ordering the shooting of refugees, but it didn't do it. Two very well-placed battalion radiomen were among those who heard orders to shoot at No Gun Ri. What's more credible, some anonymous WP user's "argument" or the unambiguous word of men who were there? In any event, the article shouldn't "argue" anything. It should report the facts and the unknowns. That's what knowledgeable people will continue to do. Charles J. Hanley 00:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I am not saying no one gave an order to fire, just that there is no documentation to support that the soldiers of the 2-7 were ordered to do so and firsthand accounts differ. There’s a difference between established ROE’s and formal orders. WeldNeck (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's no documentation of orders. The regimental log for those days is missing from the National Archives! Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

And for the record, Mr Hanley ... do you still believe "There was no “documented infiltration” among the refugees to be found in the records of front-line units in the time leading up to No Gun Ri". WeldNeck (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Later developments

This section will be improved by expanding a footnote to list other No Gun Ri novels. Charles J. Hanley 15:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

WSWS

The WSWS content seems rather odd; basically a summary of the web link (which duplicates most of this article) rather than just the additional information. Imagine if we did this for every source! Can someone help work any pertinent details into the right place in the body? --Errant (chat!) 15:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as noted above, that paragraph is either redundant with what the article already establishes, or is inaccurate. It will be dealt with. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Citation Request

Anyway we could see the whole document: Eighth U.S. Army. July 23, 1950. Interrogation report. "North Korean methods of operation". Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.. I have a hunch that it might be used out of context but cannot confirm unless I can see it. Thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

original research

This section appears to be a rather clear cut case of using primary sources to support original research. I see that there a few secondary sources buried within it, and I plan on moving what is salvageable back into the article shortly. The rest should probably remain here until the content is published in reliable secondary sources.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not immediately clear to me what information is contained in the secondary sources (and perhaps over-cited with primary sources as well) and what information has no secondary source support. It will take a bit of time to sort this out. If the intent was to provide additional credibility to the secondary sources by showing the original documents in support, it would probably be better to provide links to the primary sources in the citations rather than using primary sources directly in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe you initially misinterpreted what was done in this section. It is principally sourced to secondary sources with supporting cites (and links) to the documents discussed in those sources. The seeming exceptions might be the direct citation of the Army investigative report on No Gun Ri, which was a widely published/disseminated document (i.e., not something requiring original archival research) and its accompanying Statement of Mutual Understanding. Your suggestion of placing the document links in the footnotes is an interesting one, but on this subject the documents are so important that subordinating them in that way would risk depriving the reader of vital information. I strongly suggest restoring this very important section, and if you still spot anything you feel lacks proper citation, tag it with the "citation needed" tag. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I restored most of the content to the article, with some refactoring.[1] Much of the content was criticism of the US Army report, so I put it in the US and ROK investigations section. I was unable to find online text for any of the news reports. If Sloyan or Kim criticized the Army report for failing to mention the Air Force’s targeting of civilians, then the criticism could be mentioned. As it is, the article says that they found evidence of targeting civilians without connecting their findings to the Army report. While it would be admirable for a Wikipedia editor to scour the entire Army report to find that a particular piece of information wasn’t included, that really would rise to the level of original research.
While it’s entirely possible that Hanley (ref8) mentions that the 14 additional declassified documents contained “fair game”, “shoot all refugees”, etc., I couldn’t tell from the position of the inline citations, so I will leave that for someone else to put in if it can be referenced properly. The Conway-Lanz citation (ref13) is probably superfluous if the cited details of the Ambassador’s letter are contained in the Park (ref14) or Yonghap (ref15) articles.
The primary sources I put in the External links section.[2] I disagree that removing them from the inline citations “risk[s] depriving the reader of vital information”. Wikipedia readers are not expected to read the secondary sources, much less the primary ones. If, for example, a reliable secondary source (Mendoza ref8) claims that the Army report did not mention that something vital was missing from the National Archives, that’s generally good enough for Wikipedia; we don’t have to directly cite the Army report (or the National Archives) as well. Providing links to the primary sources is above and beyond (and sometimes too much) what’s required in Wikipedia. My personal preference (as a writer and a reader) is to have links to lots of additional information so that interested readers can pursue things as far as they want. It even pains me to decouple the page numbers in the primary sources from the text that refers to them – someone went through a lot of trouble to find them and someone will want to verify the information without having to repeat that work.
Anyhow, I hope I’ve put the information back in that should be there and that the organization and citation have improved as a result.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will take some time to sort out what has been done here. One overriding point: As said, the documents are very important to this subject, all the more so because one contributor pushing his POV has repeatedly added sugarcoating words in describing such orders to shoot refugees -- words tending to exculpate but that don't exist in the documents. Without those links in the body, when an order is mentioned, the reader is unaware that one can see for oneself the truthful words. This is not primary sourcing but supplemental to the secondary sourcing. It does no harm, it adds no words, but it adds considerable authority to the article, while protecting it against efforts to distort. Charles J. Hanley 16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to message left on my talk page [3] as well as the above.
Thanks for taking the time to go through everything. My apologies for guessing wrong about what was in the Sloyan article. That seemed to be what the position of the citation indicated, but as this proves, it’s really impossible to tell without having read the source. This alone is enough for me to revert my reshuffling of the “Further evidence emerges” section and leave an OR tag on it for someone with more knowledge of the sources to sort out. Moving the parts that deal with the US Army report to the section on the US and ROK investigations is still a good idea, but I don't have the sources to do it properly. I did take out “emerges” from the section title – this evidence has already emerged. (Changing “Continuing appeals” to “Further appeals” might be a good idea as well, or perhaps merging it with the Petitions section.)
I do think that the article could do with some restructuring, and I’ll mostly leave my earlier edits in place. (These were never intended to be a finished product, so please do continue to tweak as you see fit.) The article seemed pretty disjointed before my reorganization. The last paragraph of the AP investigation section is not about the AP investigation, for example. Too bad I missed it earlier.
I think that the article is too intricately crafted to survive the multiple authorship that is part of Wikipedia. Organizing some portions of the article more topically than chronologically might help. Probably “Petitions” should be grouped with “Continuing appeals” (or even merged?), so I’ll leave it where it is for now. It might make sense to put the Investigations section back under “Aftermath”, since technically they are part of the aftermath, but the AP investigations and the paragraph beginning “Information about the refugee killing...” should probably be kept in the Investigations section.
I had thought that the Truth and Reconciliation “[C]ommission’s work of collating declassified U.S. military documents with survivors' accounts” would make it appropriate to include it the Investigations section. If it doesn’t, please do move it somewhere more appropriate.
I’m putting this in the middle where it is less prominent so we can focus more on content than behavior. You’ve twice in this discussion accused another editor of harming the article by POV pushing without providing any evidence, and this is worse than useless. If you want some of the contentious content of the article changed, bring it to the talk page. If you’ve already done this and consensus has gone against you let it go. If you’ve brought it to the talk page and are in a deadlock with your nemesis, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution or maybe try a Request for comment. But don’t waste other editors’ time and goodwill by throwing out accusations of bad behavior.
Back to content. I’m not sure what to do about the paragraph I titled “Possibility of investigations into other killings of civilians during the Korean War”. Only 1.5 sentences seem to have anything to do with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In total it reads like the conclusion to a hard-hitting newspaper expose, with its purpose being to drive home the opinion that the US Government is not doing enough in regards to its role in killing civilians in the Korean War. Although I generally agree with that opinion, such presentation is not really appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia article. Focusing the paragraph on one of its topics (reparations for other incidents or investigations into other incidents) could be a way to improve the paragraph.
I wasn’t planning on getting too heavily involved in this article (famous last words), but there’s another thing that should be looked into. Paragraph 2 in “Further evidence emerges” contains “The report did not address the order in the 25th Infantry Division to shoot civilians in the war zone.” I am unable to find such an order in the linked journal page [4]. The closest thing I see is an order to notify a (South Korean?) chief of police that “civilians moving around in combat zone will be considered hostile and shot.” (2200hrs, SerNo 736) This is very different from ordering 25th ID soldiers to shoot civilians. Nor do I think that the chief of police is going to be ordered to shoot civilians; I think the chief of police is being informed so that he will keep civilians out of the combat zone. Is there something else on the page that I’m not seeing? This ties in to our discussion on primary vs. secondary sources: Did Mendoza’s law review article claim that this page contained an order to 25th ID soldiers to shoot civilians or was this a Wikipedia editor’s interpretation of the scanned document in Commons?
I have again presented a lot of information to digest. Please take your time. I hadn’t planned on spending too much time on this article and would be quite happy to spend weeks away from it before digging in again.--Wikimedes (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article will get another look at some point and tweaked as needed. To immediately address a couple of your points: On the 25th ID document, no journalist, scholar or military lawyer who has reviewed this and accompanying 25th ID documents has ever seen it as anything but an affirmation that 25th ID troops (not Korean police, who were scarcely present anyway) would be shooting civilians in the war zone, as the neighboring 1st Cav Division did during these same days at No Gun Ri. On July 26-27, 1950, 25th ID commander Kean in two additional communications directly ordered units to consider civilians to be enemy and "treat them accordingly," and to take "drastic action" against civilians. See "Category: No Gun Ri Massacre" at Wikimedia. As for the POV pushing, the evidence you seek is strewn all over the Talk page stretching back eight months. Efforts at dispute resolution were fruitless as admins either ignored requests or threw up their hands ("I'm in over my head," said one). This is a seriously, seriously distressed article, laced with defamatory material (Hesselman and Flint, inter alia), rank untruths and nonsense, and black holes where WeldNeck excised examples of the U.S. Army's investigative whitewash (one instance of many: suppressed testimony such as "The word I heard was `Kill everybody from 6 to 60."') His answer to efforts to restore some integrity to the article is blanket reverts. No Gun Ri Massacre stands, as of now, as a prime example of the vulnerability of free-for-all editing to manipulation. Rather than chastise honest contributors for pointing out these problems, one would do better by immersing oneself in the subject and helping remedy the problems. By the way, the "disjointedness" in the article that you rightly perceive, along with the misspellings, bad syntax and other minor issues, is largely the doing of this one contributor. Finally, one question: What strikes you as original research in that section where you've placed the OR tag? Thanks again. Charles J. Hanley 15:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be accurate to characterize the 25th ID document as an indication that the 25th ID would in the future be shooting civilians. As it stands, the article claims that it is an order to shoot civilians, which is not accurate. If a secondary source (Mendoza?) claims that there was an order to shoot civilians and that the US army report did not mention this order, citing this source and removing the citation of the 25th ID document would be a good way to correct this inaccuracy.
I'm not seeking evidence of editorial malfeasance, I'm asking you to cut out the attacks on other editors and focus on content. If an editor comes along later to contest changes that you and I have agreed to, we can deal with that when it happens.
As I said in my first post, the Further evidence emerges section appears to be a Wikipedia editor's compilation of information derived from primary sources. Removing the primary source citations so that the focus is on the secondary sources (and adjusting content as is needed to accurately reflect the secondary sources) would help. Moving criticisms of the US report to the section covering the US report would also help. How about putting this in the US and ROK investigations section?: "Pat Sloyan wrote that the US report's description of a July 1950 Air Force memo failed to acknowledge content of the memo indicating that refugees were being strafed at the Army's request.(ref Sloyan)"--Wikimedes (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve arrived belatedly to a very sad movie. You’d have to review thousands of archived words in Talk to understand -- as far as “cutting out” criticism of one user -- what has gone on. Everything from last August (when the heavy POV pushing began) to this January has been archived, except for the “Other POV’’ section of August 2013 that leads off the current Talk page, still live apparently because a final comment was added in January 2014. The failed attempts at reasonable discussion, now archived, are deeply dispiriting reading for any WP idealist.

The 25th ID document reference could be more precisely worded. It may have been that the wording initially referred to another document, which was shuffled around in the article’s demolition derby of recent months.

Your idea of combining “Further evidence” with “investigations” ought to work; I believe that would simply amount to removing the “Further evidence” section headline and creating a much longer single section (desirable?). One wrinkle is the “Legal framework” section that comes between. The reader needs to be informed at some pertinent point what the laws of war say about targeting civilians. Perhaps those essentials could briefly lead off the section on official investigations.

As for “original research” in the “Further evidence” section, all the documents mentioned and linked to are identified in the secondary sources that, sentence by sentence, are referenced. I understand you’re suggesting explicitly attributing each sentence to the secondary source (as in, “Newsday’s Pat Sloyan reported that…”). Depending on the wording, that could suggest the possibility of some question about what is being reported, that there’s only this one source, when there’s no question; the document is there for all to see (and other secondary sources could be added). Anyway, rewording might be worth a try. But the section doesn’t merit an OR tag. All the document links could be removed, the secondary sourcing left alone, the section still stand as is, and the reader be the poorer for it. (The documents, remember, are stored in the Wikimedia system, just like the photos that adorn the article. In fact, two of the documents appear as photos. Surely the photos are not "original research.") Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 19:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Just so I understand your fourth paragraph: The Further evidence and Legal framework sections are already subsections of the Investigations section, and have been for quite some time. Do you mean combining "Further evidence" with "US and South Korean military investigations"?--Wikimedes (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I thought you were suggesting. My real point is that combining them does nothing but remove a subhead -- which would seem a natural, desirable break -- and create a more cumbersome section. In any event, let me have a go at it this weekend, including clarifying the "Further evidence" section and perhaps incorporating the "Legal framework" material more smoothly into other sections. Charles J. Hanley 13:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Upcoming is a reworking of the midsection of the article following some of the suggestions of Wikimedes, and in other cases restoring a more logical flow. Specifically:

  • The "Petitions" section is restored to its original position, flowing out of the 1950 events and leading to the 1990s journalistic investigation.
  • The "Legal framework" section is eliminated, with its three elements placed elsewhere.
  • The "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" section, which would confuse readers in the middle of the No Gun Ri investigations text, since the TRC was not involved in the investigation, has been restored to its place at the end, as a 2005 upshot of the 1999 revelations.
  • The "Further evidence" section is tied more closely and logically to the "Investigations" section. Its sourcing has been clarified, and there's more precise wording regarding the 25th ID document.

NOT YET DONE: Rationalizing the links to documents. Some are in a "Notes" section at the bottom. Some are now listed in External Links. And some probably are still linked to directly from the article text. That's a chore for another day.

Meantime, let's not lose sight of the fact that this exercise was a minor one compared with what must be done to rid this article of its severe problems -- glaring untruths and defamatory material, blatant whitewashing via deletions, and general nonsense. Charles J. Hanley 20:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

The sound of one hand clapping. WeldNeck (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the “Investigations” subheading out and making everything part of the “Aftermath” section works. I see that you have changed the reference and the content in the sentence beginning “[t]he report did not address…”, addressing my OR concerns for that sentence. Breaking the large amount of content on the US and ROK investigations into smaller sections works, but I’ve retitled the Further investigations section to accurately reflect its content, which is criticism of the US report and a couple sentences of evidence supporting that criticism.
I’m still concerned about original research in the first several sentences of the “Additional criticism” (Further evidence) section. Did Pat Sloyan’s 19 January 2001 report criticize the joint statement of mutual understanding for failing to assert that no orders were given to shoot civilians? Did his report say that the joint statement should have included this assertion because that was a central finding of the US military report?
Breaking up the Legal framework section works. You've undone a few of my reorganizational changes, but I won’t pursue those further.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wikimedes, but I missed this until now (I, at least, find Watchlist alerts to be erratic). On your question about the opening of the "Additional criticism" section: No, noting the difference between the mutual statement and the U.S. report is, in my view, a simple statement of fact about a central point. A close reading might infer, of course, that the Koreans told the Americans, "There's no basis for saying that," and the Americans conceded the point, though only in the mutual statement. In any event, that paragraph can be referenced -- not to Newsday/Sloyan, which reported solely on the Air Force memo -- and I'll do so. By the way, it's a semantical point I've been loath to raise since there are more pressing issues facing this article (the snide crack above gives you a hint of what we face), but news reports aren't normally described as "criticism." When the journalist Sloyan reports a key document was misrepresented, or Woodward/Bernstein report a White House link to the Watergate burglars, that's simple reporting of an important fact. Others can do the "criticizing." In this article, it's the survivors committee, ex-Rep. McCloskey et al. But I'll not contest the new section head. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)[reply]
Take your time. Thanks for addressing my last OR concern for the section. It looks much better now. It’s good that the criticisms of the US report have solid factual evidence to back them up, but they remain criticisms – else why mention the US report at all?
Although we still disagree on a few issues, we have worked together to improve the article, and since you have most of the expertise in the area and access to the sources, you’ve done most of the work, so thank you.
Not really related to OR, but I made one more structural change; Background sections are usually “top level” sections. (I checked several of the articles on WWI and WWII battles to make sure).--Wikimedes (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading through the talk page archives, which are quite off-putting. Nevertheless, I was just wondering about the two South Korean news articles ("Seoul Awaits US Explanation on No Gun Ri" by The Korea Times and "US Still Says South Korea Killings `Accident' Despite Declassified Letter" by Yonhap news agency), because they contain the very important assertion that the Pentagon "deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report." I have been unable to find the sources. Also, there's a reference to a mysterious "25th ID war diary," which is never actually quoted, in the background. I completely agree that the degree of original research here is a bit high, but I think that's unfortunately the nature of the beast in this case.

I also looked for, and found, the master's thesis by Dale Kuehl, easily accessible with a google search. It might provide some interesting information, although it was not published after the critical discovery of (frankly damning) documents.

Finally, while I most certainly do not want to rekindle this dormant dispute, is there a consensus on the use of Bateman? He is a prominent source, even if he has been criticized.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]



Further evidence emerges

A joint U.S.-South Korean "statement of mutual understanding"[1] issued with the separate 2001 investigative reports did not include the assertion that no orders to shoot refugees were issued at No Gun Ri. But that remained a central "finding"[2]: xiii  of the U.S. report itself, which either did not address or presented incomplete versions of key declassified documents previously reported in the news media.

File:No Gun Ri-Col. Rogers memo-recropped.jpg
In this excerpt from a July 25, 1950, memo, the U.S. Air Force operations chief in Korea, Col. Turner C. Rogers, reports U.S. warplanes are strafing South Korean refugees at the U.S. Army's request because of reports of North Korean infiltrators disguising themselves as civilians. The Army's 2001 investigative report on the No Gun Ri refugee massacre excluded this passage from its description of the memo. Full text.[3]

In describing the July 1950 Air Force memo,[3] the U.S. report did not acknowledge it said refugees were being strafed at the Army's request.[2]: 98 [4] Later research found such U.S. air attacks on refugees were common in mid-1950.[5] The report did not address the order[6] in the 25th Infantry Division to shoot civilians in the war zone.[2]: xiii  In saying no such orders were issued at No Gun Ri, the Army did not disclose that the 7th Cavalry log, which would have held such orders, was missing from the National Archives.[7]

After the Army issued its report, it was learned it also had not disclosed its researchers' discovery of at least 14 additional declassified documents showing high-ranking commanders ordering or authorizing the shooting of refugees in certain areas in the Korean War's early months.[8]: 85  They included communications from 1st Cavalry Division commander Gay and a top division officer to consider refugees north of the firing line "fair game"[9] and to "shoot all refugees coming across river".[10]

In this excerpt from a 1950 letter to Dean Rusk, John J. Muccio, U.S. ambassador to South Korea, informs the assistant secretary of state of a meeting held with the South Korean government at which it was decided to warn refugees not to flee south at the risk of being fired on, and to fire on people approaching U.S. positions despite warning shots. The letter, dated July 26, the day the killings began at No Gun Ri, was deliberately omitted from the Army’s 2001 investigative report.[11][12]

In 2005, American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz reported his discovery of a declassified document[11] at the National Archives in which the United States Ambassador to Korea in 1950, John J. Muccio outlined guidelines and polices agreed upon by US and ROK forces regarding the increasingly severe refugee crisis. The document detailed curfew policies, evacuation procedures and leaflet operations warning refugees fleeing south that they would be fired on if they advanced on US positions and ignored warning shots.[13] Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 No Gun Ri report.[14][15]

  1. ^ Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of Korea. ”Statement of Mutual Understanding”Washington, D.C., and Seoul. January 2001
  2. ^ a b c Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Army. No Gun Ri Review. Washington, D.C. January 2001
  3. ^ a b "File:No Gun Ri 04 - USAF 25 July - Memo tells of policy to strafe refugees.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  4. ^ Sloyan, Pat (January 19, 2001). "New Account of No Gun Ri; AF Memo: Army Sought Strafing". Newsday.
  5. ^ Kim, Taewoo (2012). "War against an Ambiguous Enemy: U.S. Air Force Bombing of South Korean Civilian Areas, June-September 1950". Critical Asian Studies. 44 (2): 223. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
  6. ^ "File:No Gun Ri 12 - 25th Infantry Division 26 July - Shoot civilians.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  7. ^ Mendoza, Martha (Winter 2002). "No Gun Ri: A Cover-Up Exposed". Stanford Journal of International Law 38 (153): 157. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
  8. ^ Hanley, Charles J. (2012). "No Gun Ri: Official Narrative and Inconvenient Truths". Truth and Reconciliation in South Korea. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-62241-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ "File:No Gun Ri 17 - Maj. Gen. Gay 29 August - Refugee are fair game.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  10. ^ "File:No Gun Ri 15 - 8th Cavalry 9 August - Shoot all refugees.jpg". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  11. ^ a b "File:No Gun Ri 06a - Muccio letter 26 July - Decision to shoot refugees.png". Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  12. ^ "File:No Gun Ri 06b - Muccio letter 26 July - Decision to shoot refugees.png". Wikimedia Commons. 2012-01-14. Retrieved 2012-08-29.
  13. ^ Conway-Lanz, Sahr (2005). "Beyond No Gun Ri: Refugees and the United States military in the Korean War". Diplomatic History. 29 (1): 49–81. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2005.00459.x. Conway-Lanz, Sahr (2006). Collateral damage: Americans, noncombatant immunity, and atrocity after World War II. New York: Routledge. pp. 97–99. ISBN 0-415-97829-7.
  14. ^ Park, Song-wu (June 2, 2006). "Seoul Awaits US Explanation on No Gun Ri". The Korea Times.
  15. ^ "US Still Says South Korea Killings `Accident' Despite Declassified Letter". Yonhap news agency. October 30, 2006.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=659360800&oldid=603667046

Leave a Reply