Talk:Korean axe murder incident

Murder?
User:Wbfergus has reverted my suggested change of "murders" to "killings". I don't want to kick up a bug fuss here over what I am quite certain is an emotive issue. My question would be however- given that there has never been a peace treaty, and the north and south are technically at war (not sure what the position of the US is vis a vis this however?) - is it therefore reasonable and NPOV to describe fatalities as a result of conflict between two groups of combatants in time of war as "murder"? (I realise that the unfortunate victims were not themselves carrying firearms). To me, "killings" or "deaths" would be a more NPOV (and technically accurate) term than "murders". Please note that I am not trying to play down the seriousness or the heinous nature of the incident. Badgerpatrol 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Badgerpatrol. No offense taken here, I understand where you are coming from, as somebody that was uninvolved and probably doesn't know much about the history there, other than what you've read here. So, let me illustrate a couple points on why they are called murders. First, this was a nuetral area (at that time), where both sides had free movement within the small area. The tree had been originally scheduled to be trimmed 11 days earlier (with proper notification to North Korean officials and no objections), but it was cancelled due to rain. Next, Lt. Bulldog had a history of unprovoked attacks on UNC guards, he was promoted from Sgt. to Sr. Lt. for kicking a UNC officer in the groin about 3 months before I arrived there. Next, Lt. Bulldog watched the tree trimming without any objection for approximately 15 minutes, even telling the KSC workers where to prune, without objection. Next, the KPA never started any kind of incident without at least a 3:1 numerical superiority (this leads to premeditation). Next, after suddenly objecting to the pruning, Lt. Bulldog sends a runner across the bridge with a message. Almost immediately, a KPA guard truck arrives with almost 20 more KPA guards, carrying various weapons, Lt. Bulldog then wraps his watch carefully in his handkerchief, places it in his pocket, and then gives a "karate chop" to the back of Capt. Bonifas' neck, snapping it and killing him instantly.


 * These events, with the history, clearly show premeditation and planning for the killing of unarmed officers within a nuetral area. If these events had happened on your street corner (a nuetral area), it would not be called a killing, but a murder (actually two). Numerous media reports from many different countries have already called (and classified) it as murder, lending historical perpective to the actions.


 * Finally, consider the means of death of Lt. Barrett himself. After jumping the retaining wall to go to the aid of an elisted person who was previously chased into the depression, he was somehow knocked unconcious in there. For the next (approximately) 90 minutes, numerous KPA guards took turns walking down into the depression with an axe and spent several minutes in there before returning and handing the axe to another guard for his turn. Finally a UNC jeep with several UNC guards arrived to check the area (since Lt. Barrett's whereabouts were unknown), and he was found down there, barely alive, one quarter of his head missing, and basically chopped to bits. He was medevacced immediately, but of course his wounds to to severe and died enroute. This one death alone can only be called murder, even by "war standards". There is simply no other appropriate word (or words) to describe this, and even in a "true" war scenario, this would amount to a war crime.
 * I hope this helps explains and clarifies why this should always be called a murder, regardless of minimalists or the amount of time elapsed. wbfergus 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All of these facts need to be referenced by reliable sources to avoid the problem of original research creeping in, although I think the article goes some way to doing this already. I'm not disputing the facts though, I cede to your superior knowledge there. As a technical point however...I do seriously doubt however whether these acts would be classified as murder under international law - but I stand to be corrected by others with a superior grasp of the rules governing warfare. As I compromise, one way forward would be to specifically reference the term "murder" with a direct reference (e.g. "have been described as murders" with appropriate inline cites) or similar. Badgerpatrol 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Law of land warfare, it states : "...and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary for military purposes and that they conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry". That sounds pretty much to be self-evident, though watered down quite a bit from what we were taught in the Army (back in my days anyway). Regarding the reliable source issue, I fall into the category of Primary source, not original research. Regarding describing it as killings with a reference that they have been described as murders, well, look at the name of the article itself. It's not the "Axe Killing Incident". Also, look at the various refernces provided, and see how how they term it. Also, perform a web search, see how many hits there are for +"Axe Murder" +korea (1100) vs, +"Axe killing" +korea (209) on Google. The concensus of reporting is clearly in favor of "Axe Murder". I wouldn't have a problem though if you wanted to reference one of the terms "murder" with something like "North Korea and visitors on their tours to the DMZ..."
 * Since the murders occured 31 years ago last Saturday, and Operation Paul Bunyon was 31 years ago today, this is still an emotinal issue for many of us that were there and knew those men. As the LTC Vierra stated last week in the Stars and Stripes, “The incident could have fallen into obscurity,” Vierra said. “But that’s not the JSA. That’s not the JSA I left.” wbfergus 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, any recollections from you added to the article would be original research- your memories are not an acceptable primary source unless you have published them elsewhere in the form of a third-party reliable source and are quoting from that (see WP:RS and similar). So long as your own recollections are confined to the talk page and not included in the article, this is not an issue however. The article is the "Axe Killing Murders", but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually were murders in the same way that the Hundred Years' War lasted 116 years, and Kansas City is actually in Missouri (well, more or less!). Just because it's called that, doesn't make it so. My preference would be to substitute the factually unambiguous and NPOV term "killings" for the more emotive term "murders", unless someone was actually tried or charged with the crime of murder, or unless an element of international or local law can be found (in a reliable secondary source) confirming that these were indeed murders under the law. But as you say, it's an emotive issue and I leave it to your judgement. (PS- On a complete tangent, why's it "Axe" murders and not "Ax" murders? Isn't "Axe" usually Americanised to "Ax"?) Badgerpatrol 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why it's spelled "Axe" instead of "Ax". I think it may be because the story was first reported by several foreign correspondents who spelled it "Axe", and it just cascaded from there.


 * Reading the entire Primary source and original research pages, (to me anyway), it seems that I guess I do fall into original research as a primary source, and from there the primary source definition gets progressively hazier. Perhaps later today I'll ask over on the discussion pages for some clarification on the issue.


 * Anyway, I did notice that the OR page did state "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so I guess in this case the "official" Army version that our QRF (Quick reaction Force) was over one mile from the DMZ at the time of the incident will go down in history as accurate, since that was a published report (however false). Our Advance Camp (called Camp Kitty Hawk then, renamed as Camp Bonifas later) was only about 100 meters from the DMZ, and that was the farthest south we ever went while "on duty". During the day, the QRF was actually closer though, as the QRF site was about 300 meters from the JSA, and at the time of the incident, the QRF was actually sitting in their trucks at the entrance to the JSA (over one the Talk:Joint Security Area page, there is an excerpt from an email I received from the guy who was actually working the checkpoint at the entrance to the JSA that day, under the "Flags" discussion). But, since the Army published a report saying that they were over a mile away from the DMZ, I guess that is what history will always record, at least by Wikipedia's stated standards. So future researchers/historians will prefer to use the published lie, therefore perpetuating it into eternity, rather than take a chance on eyewitness accounts that state otherwise. So also then, by the above standards of Wikipedia, I guess the term "Axe Murder Incident" will stand the test of time, as that is by far the most widely published usage of it, regardless of whether people want to try and re-classify it as just a killing or not, as with the preponderance of published documents it is easily verified, regardles of whatever the "truth" may actually be. However I will still maintain that it is a murder vs. a killing. Once one party has been rendered wounded or otherwise incapable of doing harm to the other party, the "victorious" (I can't remember what the actual word/term is right now) must then protect the "captured" party from all future harm, and provide any medical assistance that may be required, even at the risk of their own life. It's all covered in the Law of land warfare, especially in the link at the bottom that goes to the Army Field Manual on the subject, much of which is based on the Geneva Convention and upon international law. wbfergus 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you've posted anywhere else for clarification on this, but you should definitely not, under any circumstances, be posting your own personal recollections (including the testimony of other witnesses as told to you and relayed from you), no matter how closely you were involved, in the article proper. If you have done this, you should take out that material and replace it with information gained from reliable sources - i.e. (usually) written retellings of the event, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine features, etc. etc. Even if I witness an historical event (say for the sake of argument that I'm Neil Armstrong and I want to edit the article about the moon landings), it is not correct form for me to contribute my own memories directly. If the article says that Neil's middle name is Geronimo, but he knows it's actually Jemima, then unfortunately he can't change it, unless he can find a reliable source that says "Neil Armstrong's middle name is Jemima". (If he can't find such a source, he could I suppose consider removing the item altogether). I hope that somewhat convoluted example is clear- the place to rewrite one's memories is in one's autobiography. If that is subsequently published then it becomes a reliable source and can be used. A person is not a primary source - but their published testimony may be. As you rightly point out, verifiability, not "truth", is the gold standard. As for the actual question of murder/killing, whilst the more unambiguously accurate term is probably better, I leave it to individuals who are better informed in these matters (such as yourself) to make the judgement. All the best, Badgerpatrol 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all have to remember that by Wikipedia standards, only third-hand reports are "reliable" -- any second-hand report is unreliable, and first-hand accounts of anything that actually happened are totally prohibited.   N4aof (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with the use of 'murder' here, for a simple reason. Murder is a legal term, that is, non-justified homicide as determined by an authority. Killings is not a legal definition, and is much better in this case. I'm sure most (western) sources identify it as murder. That doesn't simply erase the pov issue of calling it as such- more difficult because the two countries were in a state of war and both sides were allowed to carry 'light' weapons only (i.e. sidearms), a rule which was evidently not violated in this instance. When a uniformed soldier kills another in a state of war, it can break an armistice- but it's not the same as killing someone on your street corner. Killings is better. Epthorn 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the most widely used terminology of the events that day use the term murder. Several of the supplied references even use the term "Murder" as the title. General Stillwell's assessment of the events that day (as seen in chapter 6 of his referenced book, available online), even state the case for why it was termed a murder. First, this is a truce area, and in those days the entire area was a nuetral area. Secondly, this was carefully planned and executed, again as outlined in Stillwell's book. If two armies are actively engaged in armed warfare, and either side raises a white flag for a truce talk, that does not allow the killing of either party and calling it a consequence of war. Internationally agreed conventions clearly state that that would be murder. The same thing, with the same conventions, apply here as well, regardless of the fact that most references refer to it as murder. Very few published accounts just call it a killing, compared to the number that call it murder. wbfergus undefinedTalk 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] "Murder" is not only a legal term, but is also a description. If someone murders 3 people and then kills himself, did he not murder them? No court in the US can convict him, but it is murder nonetheless. Just because they were allowed to carry weapons doesn't mean it wasn't murder. They were not in a "state" of war, but at an "armistice". A uniformed soldier can kill another uniformed soldier on opposite sides of the conflict and it can be murder (I will concede that it is not a common occurrence though...but then again, neither is this...) — BQZip01 —  talk 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The two US Army officers killed were unarmed and were supervising a non-hostile work detail that was arranged in accordance with the procedures established for operations in the Korean DMZ. The North Korean officer watched without objection for several minutes and then, by all accounts, began trying to provoke a response and finally, in a calculated and deliberate manner, attacked the detail.  This meets all the definitions of murder, as far as I can see.  Just because the parties involved had an adversarial relationship does not make it a mere "killing".  I think that everyone agrees that the casual execution of prisoners of war is murder and that involves co-belligerent parties as well.  Being in the military does not make you fair game for any sawed-off little pissant with an attitude problem.--SEWalk (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Killing anybody with an axe is murder regardless of the context. Axe Murder incident sounds better than Axe Killing Incident. --71.59.187.104 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No offense is intended at this comment, but your opinion isn't relevant. What the facts are is relevant. As I explained up above, it was murder because of the context. Had this been hand-to-hand combat, it would have been a combat fatality. I will concede that the end result is the same: a dead U.S. soldier. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some reasonable people consider it murder, others do not. Everyone agrees that it was a killing. Therefore to retain a neutral point of view, wikipedia should not call it murder (except in the context of a quotation). 75.34.103.144 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, we go by reliable sources on Wikipedia, not some vague assertion that some people disagree. Reliable sources call this murder and we will stand by the description. Should a body of knowledge refer to this incident as a "killing" we can certainly add the information and explain the controversy. Being neutral means appropriately representing all reliable sources. If you have a source, let's see it. — BQZip01 —  talk 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV is a policy. RS is a guideline. 75.34.103.144 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you had bothered to read the actual sources already in the article, you would've find that the most reliable ones (eg, new york times) call it a "killing" or "slaying", etc, whereas it is only the the less neutral politically motivated publications that call it a "murder". 75.34.103.144 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm that came off as rather argumentative and unconstructive, sorry. I do still think that the title should be changed though. 75.34.103.144 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've read all the listed sources and the only one that uses the term "killings" is the New York Times, but they also use the term "murder". WP:NPOV is a policy and WP:RS is part of the guidelines impementing WP:V. As I said before, until your assertion can be demonstrated in a verifiable source, it should not be given undue weight. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Compared and contrasted...
The response to this incident -- a show of force involving B-52 bombers and an aircraft carrier -- is remarkable, compared to the complete non-response to the sinking of the Cheonan. 75.163.163.29 (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * These were totally different incidents. They occurred decades apart against a completely different international climate. And they involved different principals. Any response to the obvious and deliberate murder of two US military officers was determined primarily by the US government with minimal input from the South Korean government.  Any response (or lack thereof) to the sinking of the Cheonan was already significantly delayed by the need to investigate the cause (and that cause was not incontrovertibly accepted), then the decision was made by the South Korean government with input from the US government.  N4aof (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

New published sources
Hi all. I have been too busy to do much these last 12 years or so, but here are three additional published sources that can be used as more citations (per the article page itself). I am probably going to be pretty busy up at least until the middle of next year as well, so if anybody wants to take the time to add these in as appropriate, here they are. The first is a video from Vice News, where the story starts at 8:59:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXqVhpEcDC4

These next two are published articles.

https://magazine.atavist.com/axes-of-evil-north-korea-dmz-tree-murders

and

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/axe-murder-north-korea-1976/562028/ wbfergus undefinedTalk 12:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox change
There is "1 poplar tree" listed as a North Korean casualty of this incident. I am aware that some articles retain non-human data for humorous purposes such is the Great Emu War had at one time, but considering two actual people were killed it is inappropriate. It should be removed. Any objections? 67.83.203.249 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I second your opinion. Signed,Pichemist (Talk) 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath Last Paragraph
The last paragraph...

Moon Jae-in, 19th South Korea President, his unit - ROK 1st Special Forces Brigade's 64 men participated in Operation Paul Bunyan. Moon Jae-in was supporting member in the rear at that time.

...is both poorly-drafted and -supported. There seems to be controversy about the claim even in the cited source, with the main proponent of the assertion being Moon Jae-in himself. This reads like a revision of history to insert a Glorious Leader into an important historical event.

Finneganz (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)