Talk:Nogeun-ri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening summary is too long and it is imbalanced[edit]

The opening should summarize what is in the article. This one gives disproportionate emphasis to one side of a controversy and then repeats that same controversy (Dailey) later in the article. The material about Dailey should be in the section titled "Challenges to AP articles" where it is explored and the repetition should be removed. The article also ignores AP report "U.S. Policy Was to Shoot Korean Refugees"[1]

Any objection to these changes i.e. to treat this subject even-handedly and without repetition?Skywriter (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The summary is currently the proper length, i.e. you can just see the top of the table of contents in the opening screen. You are saying that the summary repeats information in the main text? What's wrong with that? The full article is what's disproportionately long considering that the underlying incident is historically trivial. Kauffner (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historically trivial? That statement offers information as to POV.

The problem with the earlier version of this article is that the facts were lost in the weeds of a rooster fight between a military writer and an AP reporter debating one aspect of an event. The duty of encyclopedia writers is to at least get the official version into the record. While the article still has a lot of repetition, it now at least reflects some of the facts agreed upon between the two nations, which is more important than placing the differences between two writers high in the story.Skywriter (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is in dire need of a rework, as it is merely a repetition of statements made by various researchers, and not an unbiased article based on fact. More emphasis needs to be placed on the forensic evidence, and less on the opinions of various parties, as this article provides little to no basis for a reader to judge for themselves what happened in this historical event. I have come across this summary of some forensic evidence, and while I do not believe that we should quote from this summary, it provides some interesting citations and illustrations which may prove useful to our readers. http://rokdrop.com/2008/07/26/the-forensics-of-no-gun-ri/ --Dummhuman (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary to cite sources[edit]

I don't know that recent edits by Kmg365 are helpful as each edit lacks the possibility of verification. Many people have strong feelings about this article and to not cite sources invites trouble. Therefore, this message is to ask that you cite sources for each claim. Thanks. Skywriter (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unilateral page move and where all the past extensive discussions gone?[edit]

I'm visiting this page in a while but very surprised to see that this article originally about geographical information was merged without "discussion" and past discussions were all gone too. The editor who did this should tell the rationale, or I will restore the original title "No Gun Ri massacre" and the discussion page.--Caspian blue 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a page move discussion on 7 December 2008 and went ahead with the move after a week went by without comment. There is no lost "geographical information" on the village. Both articles were always about the Korean War incident. A Google search will reveal that the number of hits for "No Gun Ri" (26,000) vastly outnumber those for "No Gun Ri massacre" (1,310). There was a formal vote and a consensus to move the page from "No Gun Ri event" to "No Gun Ri" on 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC). The name was then changed several times without vote or consensus. The article was moved back to "No Gun Ri" on 09:26, 5 April 2007 after a second formal vote. When the page was moved to "No Gun Ri massacre" on 21:35, 4 April 2008, there was no vote or other formalities, only this mysterious note, which talks only about a histmerge. So perhaps a page move was not intended. Kauffner (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not say such untruth about you action. You unilaterally moved the page just 5 days after your brief note. You did not do it formally in a due course. I wonder why you did not even request the move to WP:RM nor notify the big change to WP:Korea and WP:US. What is your reason for not informing your action to the communities? It looks like you just wanted to carry your POV very quietly. As you see this article is rated as "high" and your unilateral action is totally unacceptable. Moreover, Google hit is not a "reliable source" nor standard for the decision making according to our policy. Of course "No Gun Ri" would be the highest hit number because the massacre was committed in the place. The previous RM discussion had no consensus for moving, and therefore I will restore the original article. You can request a RM on the page, not here.--Caspian blue 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S Your such "cut-and-paste" move totally erases the edit history of the article.--Caspian blue 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Full content paste merger" is the approved way to merge articles. If you're worried about the history, you can histmerge. There have been two (2!) consensus votes in favor of putting the page here. If you want to move the article again, proper procedure is to start a page move discussion here and see if you can get consensus for it. Kauffner (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered my question. Why didn't you notify the merge to the communities? Did you get the consensus from "your move proposal ". Not that I know of. You are the one who should one a RM and request the history merge since you have not done with such formal course. Now, I'm restoring the original article.--Caspian blue 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be shortened[edit]

The article should be about the village, with only the briefest mention of the massacre. As things stand, I didn't even realize that this article was not supposed to be Wikipedia's main article about the massacre until I started digging into the history page. Currently this article is something it shouldn't be, namely a summary of the main massacre article (and a summary of debatable neutrality, too, considering the selection of aspects and facts to be highlighted).--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice on Wiki to summarize in one place and have fuller version in another. This article is its own thing and whether the same information appears in some other article or not is irrelevant -- "Wikipedia is not paper" and all that. It is not like the village is famous for something other than this incident. The problem is not with this article, but with the No Gun Ri massacre article. Several votes have been taken on this issue and each time it was resolved that it is inappropriate to have the word "massacre" in the main article title. As a result, the No Gun Ri massacre became a redirect to here. But then it was improperly recreated, as you can see on the discussion page there. Kauffner (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing what was said above, why are there two articles covering the same material, No Gun Ri and No Gun Ri Massacre. Nevermind the naming. The two articles should be merged unless someone intends to explain the place, No Gun Ri, in some kind of detached manner. Student7 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been the subject of repeated discussions. Each time, the consensus was that putting the word "massacre" in the title is POV. No Gun Ri Massacre should be a redirect, and the material there should be merged with this article. Kauffner (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stub[edit]

Looks great! I think the incident occurred outside the village which would ordinarily make the massacre irrelevant to the WP:TOPIC. Since they took the name of the village, I guess this can't be removed, but we need to be clear on where the incident was, where the museum will be, etc. etc. Student7 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was very close; you can see the village in this ariel shot of the area of the killings. I think the railway bridge is to the north of No Gun Ri. I can't answer your other questions :) --Errant (chat!) 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: No Gun Ri → Nogeun-ri (2012)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved for preferred Romanization. No Gun Ri can now be made to redirect to massacre as needed, aligning with examples given in the discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Gun Ri → Nogeun-ri – "The preference is to use Revised Romanization for South Korean articles," according to MOS:KO. This policy was recently confirmed at Talk:Joseon#Requested_move, despite the fact that "Choson" is a far more common romanization. This is an article about the village, so this move would free up the lemma No Gun Ri to become a redirect to No Gun Ri Massacre. Yonhap, the official news agency, uses the proposed form. From List of cities in South Korea, it looks like every other town in South Korea is given using Revised Romanization, aside from Panmunjom. Kauffner (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:COMMONNAME, clearly, as a result of the massacre, the common spelling is "No Gun Ri". MOS:KO is not a WP:POLICY, while WP:UCN is policy, and policy overrides guidelines, which is what MOS:KO is, a guideline. To override a policy, you need a WP:IAR. -- 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The subject is not notable enough to get an entry in any geographic reference I checked, including GeoNames, Columbia, Oxford's Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names, and Britannica. I don't see how it can be said to have a common English-language name. Numerous Korean subjects with common names, such as the Joseon/Choson example given above, are put at RR titles all the same. Kauffner (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The village is not primary topic for the term No Gun Ri. My Lai is not a village article, but redirects to My Lai Massacre. Kauffner (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That only makes the case that it should be called No Gun Ri, South Korea, not that it isn't "No Gun Ri". 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't this village be spelled using the system we use for everything else in Korea? Not that the spelling issue makes any difference to me. I'm just trying to get this subject out of the way. Kauffner (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Need map[edit]

There is neither a decent map showing where this place is, nor it's province. (Probably insufficient editors).

Nor where this place was inside or out of the Pusan Perimeter. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bridge is a few clicks west of Yeongdong Station on the Daejeon-Daegu section of the Gyeongbu Line. The Inmun Gun overran this site soon after the incident, otherwise there would be no mysteries or tall tales. So it's obviously outside the Pusan Perimeter. The battle for the perimeter started August 4, so No Gun Ri was just a few days earlier. Kauffner (talk) 08:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think having the village (and the massacre site) overrun is significant history in both articles. I don't have a ready cite or would insert it myself. Student7 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nogeun-ri&oldid=1204315456"