Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 15

We really must move on
It is past time to get this posted and move on. This now includes (in boldface) elements regarding the second and third days of killings, and it shuffles things a bit to establish a more sequential approach. It also restores Park Sun-yong’s full quote; having a Korean mother and a U.S. soldier both mention the fact that children/people were screaming is hardly overkill. If there are any constructive suggestions, for clarifications, elaborations etc., please let’s hear them quickly. I’d like to move on to Casualties and then Aftermath on Monday. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I can get behind it. It definitely answers the second day question. As it stood before it just seemed like continuous fire for days, and I'm thinking "geez, they must've gone through a lot of barrels to continuously fire for 72 hours". Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to 'Casualties'
The edit of the “Events” section has been made. Here’s a proposed edit of “Casualties,” to update, with strikeouts for deletions and additions in bold. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE 1: In reviewing material, I rediscovered this second source.
 * NOTE 2: Simplifying to the death toll, 400, finally settled on by the survivors group.
 * NOTE 3: Don’t want to suggest he was a sergeant major when he went through the tunnel.
 * NOTE 4: This notion re aerial imagery, vague here, is dealt with more specifically in a later section. It was raised early on, before the SK government inquest certified a minimum death toll.
 * NOTE 5: This is the most recent authoritative estimate (also now in Lead section).

And so we get this:

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No objection here. My only suggestion is perhaps reworking the first sentence so it might read something more like: "In the earliest published accounts of the killings, in August and September 1950, North Korean journalists with the advancing KPA reported finding an estimated 400 bodies in the No Gun Ri area and seeing some 200 bodies in one tunnel." This would clarify regarding the journalists, and would remove the "in one case" parts. I'm sorry that I missed the last edit, but I'm glad that you all have been able to make progress. I will try to find some time in the coming weeks to take a look around here more often. GABHello! 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good catch and suggestion, but with a complication: One of the journalists may have been a South Korean leftist, and his newspaper a Seoul-based publication resurrected by the occupying NKs. Even if we confirmed that (and I'll try), it would make for a cumbersome sentence, distinguishing SK and NK journalists. Let's see what I can find out. The rest of the smoothing out looks good. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, then. Sounds good! GABHello! 20:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

It's now clear I recently misinterpreted something I read as suggesting Cho Sun In Min Bo was an occupation newspaper of the south. Good sources identify it as a northern paper that predated the war. Hence, we can return to the original identification of the journalists as NKs and smooth out the first sentence as GAB suggests. ,, , , , I hope you can rejoin so we can get this done via consensus. This is a relatively simple section, as are the next couple. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Most may have been dead" seems a little obtuse. It seems implied when you are talking about hundreds of bodies. But other than that I don't see any immediate issues. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point, to be incorporated. Meantime,, , , , any other observations, objections? Otherwise, we'll post the edit, and move on to "Aftermath" and "Petitions". Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to 'Aftermath'
The "Casualties" edit has been posted to the article. Moving on, here’s a proposed edit of the current “Aftermath” introductory section, with strikethroughs for deletions and an addition in bold:


 * NOTE 1 – This out-of-place paragraph ought to be in a separate new section on the legal framework of the case.
 * NOTE 2 – A review of sources turned up this additional telltale item indicating a 1950 cover-up.



And so we get this:

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I am curious about the legal section. I remember suggesting something similar a while back, but I'd like to hear what others think about it. I think we would have to stay clear from rendering a legal opinion, although there's probably enough material for a short section. GABHello! 23:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Two elements come to mind for a legal section: Comments by the survivors' lawyers could provide an entrée, and I believe the "Committee to Restore" book summarizes a few Korean legal studies of NGR (as well as, I believe, the Baik article in the Notre Dame journal). Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly agree on the removal of the first paragraph. It is a complete WP:COATRACK. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad we are in agreement on this point. GABHello! 19:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to 'Petitions'
The edit to the introductory section of "Aftermath" has been posted to the article. Here's a proposed edit of the "Petitions" section, with strikethroughs marking deletions, and additions in bold:


 * NOTE 1 – Making fear of official retaliation more explicit, from new source.
 * NOTE 2 – Inserting concrete example of official pressure, from new source.
 * NOTE 3 – The children are so identified earlier, in “Events.”
 * NOTE 4 – Inserting local politicians’ petition.
 * NOTE 5 – Moving the 1994 book here, where it’s chronologically appropriate, from the “AP Story” section.
 * NOTE 6 – Combining two sentences into one.



And so we get this:


 * --Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 'AP story' section
The edit to "Petitions" has been posted to the article. Before posting a proposed edit here to the "AP Story" section, it seems necessary to dispose of one issue, i.e., this article's 289-word segment attacking the AP, a section that was wholly the creation of WeldNeck, the now-banned sock puppet.

The material there -- falsehoods presented as fact by one bad-faith editor, and therefore by Wikipedia -- dates back 15 years to a "say it ain't so" moment in mid-2000 when two aggrieved 7th Cavalry association activists (Bateman and his friend Galloway), faced with the AP's confirmation of NGR, cooked up a nonsensical magazine article as a smokescreen intimating that "maybe it ain't so." Everything that came after that (the AP's own and the NY Times' refutations, other journalistic inquiries reconfirming and advancing the NGR story, a parade of new witnesses and new documents, two governments' investigations reaffirming NGR, the SK inquest certifying the names and minimal numbers of victims, a memorial park and museum enshrining the proven truths of NGR) has shown that it was so and is so.

I hope all see, with me, that including a discredited attack on the original messenger, whose message was subsequently affirmed and reaffirmed countless times, adds nothing to a WP reader's knowledge of what happened at NGR. At most, this business could be a footnote in some journalism textbook. Otherwise, the 289 words will have to be doubled to 600 to show how false and pointless the nonsense of 2000 was, which in turn would only show how pointless those 600 words are in a WP article.

In the proposed edit, in lieu of those 289 words (and the added verbiage that would show the long-ago attacks on Hesselman and Flint, for example, to be the falsehoods they were) I'll include a simple paragraph noting the single error in the original story, the misidentification of Ed Daily as an eyewitness. Please be aware that Daily was a president and historian of the 7th Cav vets' association and had written two books about the regiment in Korea. From his own talks with fellow 7th Cav Korea vets over the years, he probably knew more about No Gun Ri than any other American. Ergo, he was telling essential truths about NGR, but lying, for his own reasons, about having been present. (He was with a nearby unit and joined the 2nd Bn. months later.) All in all, a bizarre little sideshow to a major historic event.

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to 'AP story'
First, here's a proposed insert to the end of the preceding "Petitions" section, which now ends with the April 1998 rejection of the claim in Seoul:


 * NOTE 1 – This further improves chronological approach, raising this from its out-of-sync spot in the “Investigations” section and segueing better into next section.



Now, here's the proposed edit to the "AP Story" section, with strikethroughs for deletions and additions/edits in bold:


 * NOTE 1 – The 1994 book was raised to the “Petitions” section.
 * NOTE 2 – Smoothing out awkward phrasing, and making connection between end of “Petitions” section (re the church council) and start of “AP Story” section.
 * NOTE 3 – Brief soldier quote helps illustrate content of article, i.e., “corroboration.”
 * NOTE 4 – Eliminates unneeded footnote explaining National Archives.
 * NOTE 5 – Completing the 25th Inf Division statements.
 * NOTE 6 – Correcting order of two elements in sentence.
 * NOTE 7 – This element is dropped toward end of section.
 * NOTE 8 - This long-ago magazine attack was refuted point by point, and the AP report was repeatedly reconfirmed by others, making this long section inserted by the now-banned sock puppet WeldNeck pointless. The AP article's only flaw (Ed Daily) is now dealt with in this section's final graf.
 * NOTE 9 - The all-important Rogers memo merits this bit longer treatment.



And so we get this:

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to "U.S. and South Korean military investigations"
Here’s a proposed edit of the section “U.S. and South Korean military investigations.” The article lost flow and cogency in its midsection as the now-banned sock puppet WeldNeck dumped irrelevancies and worse into it, most pointlessly with the overdone “Aerial Imagery” section. This edit reorganizes things into separate, tight subsections for the U.S. and South Korean investigative reports, dealing with “aerial imagery” and “NGR infiltrators” matters in the process.

I’ll propose following it with a section headlined something like “Criticism of the U.S. report; further evidence emerges,” combining some of what’s deleted here with the current “Additional criticism” section. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * NOTE 1 – Restores specificity to reasons cited by U.S. report for the shooting.
 * NOTE 2 – Expands on U.S. report, adding two important elements.
 * NOTE 3 – Raises the “aerial imagery” element to this U.S. report subsection, where it belongs (and to the SK report subsection). The current “Aerial Imagery” section, farther down the article, can be eliminated.
 * NOTE 4 – Trainor quote simply echoes U.S. report and is extraneous; he might be useful later, in reaction section.
 * NOTE 5 – This business about people’s memories is a pointless truism, especially since it’s not linked to any specific recollection or element of NGR.
 * NOTE 6 – The Clinton material now has its own subsection in this edit.
 * NOTE 7 – More precise wording.
 * NOTE 7a - Inserting a bottom-line conclusion from SK report.
 * NOTE 7b - Raises this element from its incongruous placement in the current "Additional criticism" section.
 * NOTE 8 – Deals more explicitly with infiltrator element, from SK report point of view.
 * NOTE 9 – This is now the SK component of the aerial imagery element, raised from below.
 * NOTE 10 – The Clinton material is here separated into its own subsection, including the quote re “wrong things happened” that was put earlier in Lead section.

And so we get this:


 * --Charles J. Hanley (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)