Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 16

Moving on to 'Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation'
The edit to the “Investigations” section has been posted to the article. Here is a proposed edit for the section “Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation,” beginning with a new heading for the section, since it now includes reaction material deleted from “Investigations” and moved here. I’ll propose following this section with a new one called “Legal context” or somesuch, to briefly note comments/analysis from survivors’ lawyers and legal scholars. As usual, deletions are here noted with strikethroughs and new material with boldface. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(NEW SECTION HEAD: Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges)


 * NOTE 1 – This combines reaction moved from elsewhere in the article and fresh reaction material.
 * NOTE 2 – Tightens McCloskey comment and adds comment from Trainor, who had been misplaced in the Investigations section.
 * NOTE 3 – This Statement of Mutual Understandings is now in the Investigations section.
 * NOTE 4 – This regarding USAF mission reports is a new addition and highly relevant in this section dealing with new evidence that emerged.
 * NOTE 4b – This point is already made in an earlier section.
 * NOTE 5 – Restoring a highly relevant element that was wrongly deleted.
 * NOTE 6 – (in the Muccio document box) Restoring the original caption to replace an unnecessarily wordy one.

And so we get this:

(NEW SECTION HEAD: Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges)


 * --Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A new 'legal' section
The edited "Reaction ... further evidence" section has been posted to the article. Now, as promised, here’s a proposed new section addressing the legal context of NGR. The first paragraph consists of two elements that were deleted from the previous “Investigations” section in the latest edit, to be held for use here. The second two grafs are new material.

I propose placing this after the newly edited “Reaction” section, to then lead immediately – and naturally -- into the current “Continuing appeals’’ section. I also propose taking the “Archeological survey” section and working it into the “Memorial park” section. Again, that seems natural, combining the two physical, on-site developments of recent years. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(NEW SECTION HEADING: Law of war and No Gun Ri)

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to the final sections
''The new "legal" section was posted to the article. Finally, here's a proposed edit of the final sections, the biggest changes being the incorporation of the site excavations element into the memorial park section, renamed "Graves, memorial park"; and the insertion of a line about the NGR cemetery, and a photo thereof. In this case, with so little done, I'll forego the "And so we get this" business here in Talk. (The "talkquote" shading template is failing me for some reason, so this is here presented in plain text.) Thanks.'' Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

=== Archaeological survey ===

In July 2007, a team from Chungbuk National University began an archaeological excavation of the site to search for the physical remains of those killed at No Gun Ri. The team, led by professor of history of ancient art Park Seon-ju, planned on excavating several sites where eyewitnesses said they had buried the remains of the victims. A DNA analysis of the remains was to be performed to determine the identities of any remains. By the end of August, the excavation had turned up nothing, though officials said that "the remains may have been damaged by heavy rains or taken away by their bereaved families". NOTE 1

Continuing appeals
Though often supported by South Korean politicians and newspaper editorials, the No Gun Ri survivors' repeated demands for a reopened U.S. investigation and compensation went unheeded. Meeting with South Korean officials in 2001, the survivors asked that their government seek action at the International Court of Justice at The Hague and in U.N. human rights forums, but were rebuffed. In 2002, a spokesman for South Korea's then-governing party called for a new U.S. inquiry, but the DefenseMinistry later warned the National Assembly that a reopened probe might damage U.S.-South Korean relations. The disclosure in 2007 2006 that Pentagon investigators had omitted the Muccio letter from their final report, along with other incriminating documents and testimony, prompted more calls for action. Two leaders of the National Assembly appealed to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a joint investigation, but no U.S. congressional body ever took up the No Gun Ri issue.

Graves, memorial park
'''No Gun Ri villagers said that in later decades two mass graves holding some victims' remains were disturbed and bones were removed during a reforestation project and by farming activity. In 2007, excavations at several places near the bridge turned up little. The forensics team said it hadn't found more because so much time had passed, and any remains had been exposed to the elements and soil erosion, railway work, cultivation and highly acidic soil. ' NOTE 2''

After the United States refused to offer compensation, and the survivors rejected the plan for a war memorial and scholarship fund, South Korea's National Assembly on February 9, 2004, adopted a "Special Act on the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims." It established the committee that examined and certified the identities of dead and wounded, and it provided medical subsidies for surviving wounded. The act also envisioned a memorial park at the No Gun Ri site, which had begun attracting 20,000 to 30,000 visitors a year. The 29-acre (12-ha.) 33-acre (13-ha.) No Gun Ri Memorial Peace Park, built with $17 million in government funds and featuring a memorial, museum and peace education center, opened in October 2011. '''In 2009, Yongdong County established a nearby cemetery to which some victims' remains were moved from family plots. ' NOTE 4''  A publicly financed No Gun Ri International Peace Foundation also sponsored an annual peace conference, a No Gun Ri Peace Prize and a summer peace camp at the park for international university students.

No Gun Ri in culture
In South Korea, the No Gun Ri story inspired works of nonfiction, fiction, theater and other arts. In 2010, a major Korean studio, Myung Films, released a No Gun Ri feature film, A Little Pond, written and directed by Lee Saang-woo and featuring Song Kang-ho, Moon So-ri and other Korean stars who donated their work. Besides commercial release in South Korea, the movie was screened at international film festivals, including in New York and London. In 2006, artist Park Kun-woong and Chung Eun-yong published “Nogunri Story, Volume 1; Recollecting That Summer Day", a 612-page In 2006-2010, artist Park Kun-woong and Chung Eun-yong published Nogunri Story, a two-volume graphic narrative that told the story of the massacre and the half-century struggle for the truth through thousands of drawings, based on Chung’s 1994 book. The Korean-language work was also published in translation in Europe. NOTE 5   In the United States and Britain, No Gun Ri was a central or secondary theme in five English-language novels, including the U.S. National Book Award finalist Lark & Termite of 2009, by Jayne Anne Phillips, and the James Bond thriller Trigger Mortis of 2015, by British author Anthony Horowitz.

Coincidentally, a war film released in 1952, One Minute to Zero, features a climactic scene of American armed forces reluctantly firing upon on a column of civilian refugees because North Korean soldiers are hiding among them to infiltrate behind American lines. NOTE 6

Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The 1999 No Gun Ri articles prompted hundreds of South Koreans to come forward to report other alleged incidents of large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military in 1950–1951, mostly air attacks. In 2005, the National Assembly created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea to investigate these, as well as other human rights violations in southern Korea during the 20th century. The commission's docket eventually held more than 200 cases of what it described as "civilian massacre committed by U.S. soldiers".

By 2009, the commission's work of collating declassified U.S. military documents with survivors' accounts confirmed eight representative cases of what it found were wrongful U.S. killings of hundreds of South Korean civilians, including refugees crowded into a cave attacked with napalm bombs, and those at a shoreline refugee encampment deliberately shelled by a U.S. warship.

The commission alleged that the U.S. military repeatedly conducted indiscriminate attacks, failing to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. In its most significant finding, the commission also confirmed that South Korean authorities had summarily executed thousands of suspected leftists in South Korea – possibly 100,000 to 200,000 – at the outbreak of the war, sometimes with U.S. Army officers present and taking photographs.

Of all American wars, the Korean conflict is believed to have been the deadliest for civilians as a proportion of those killed, including North Korean non-combatants killed in extensive U.S. Air Force bombing of North Korea, and South Korean civilians summarily executed by the invading North Korean military. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the Seoul government negotiate with the United States for reparations for large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military. This did not occur. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Stanley Roth was quoted as saying in Seoul at the outset of the No Gun Ri investigation in 1999 that the United States would consider investigating any similar Korean War killings that came to light. The 1999-2001 investigation was the last conducted by the United States.


 * NOTE 1 – The excavation element is now incorporated in the “Graves, memorial park” section below.
 * NOTE 2 – This now incorporates the excavation element.
 * NOTE 3 – Inserting a new photo, of the No Gun Ri memorial cemetery.
 * NOTE 4 – Inserting material re cemetery established 2009.
 * NOTE 5 – Updating to a two-volume work.
 * NOTE 6 – Deleting an aside that may be interesting, but not directly related to NGR.

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's now move toward consensus
Except for dealing with our overly long "Further Reading" and "External Links" lists, I have finished a basic cleanup, update and reorganization of this article. ,, , , , , please review, question, suggest, reorder sensibly, rewrite literately, critique unsparingly ... all, one hopes, toward the end of reaching the consensus that TJWood spoke of some weeks back: an agreement that as it now stands this is an accurate, solidly sourced, coherent presentation of a historic event, and it shouldn't be tampered with except by competent hands doing honest work. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for taking so long to respond to the multiple pings you've left here, . Every time I try to return to the discussion I end up being sidetracked by innumerable other articles and issues demanding immediate attention on Wikipedia. I suspect that I'm also speaking on behalf of the other editors you've pinged.


 * Given that you've thought out the structure and details carefully, I'd be amenable to your going WP:BOLD in working on the article rather than continue to hamper progress. Naturally, this would be on the proviso that these changes be subject to WP:BRD. I'd just like to check with the other editors that they are comfortable with such an arrangement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While this is one of the most fascinating subjects (and disputes) that I've ever come across, I just find myself without any constructive edit proposals to make. I'm also not sure what exactly what there is left to do. GABHello! 00:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. As for further work (besides the reading and links lists), I do recall there was some sentiment weeks back for looking again at the Lead section, now that the entire piece is revised. Two matters strike me there:


 * Citations are not usual in WP leads. My understanding is that the lead is simply a summation of already well-sourced material in the body. To me, the current lead suggests that central elements hinge on a single source, e.g., the very first sentence, saying refugees were killed by the U.S. military, is sourced singly to Baik’s law journal article when, of course, it’s the undisputed conclusion of official and journalistic investigations.


 * Writing that the (AP’s) massacre account was found to be “essentially correct” is superfluous. It’s enough to say the AP reported the massacre, and the official investigations reaffirmed it. The “essentially correct” sentence that comes between those two facts is strange in another way: It sounds as though the AP report was confirmed, and then the governments investigated. The sentence can be dropped entirely, in my view.

On another matter, subject to discussion some time ago, I find that in the line in “Background” saying, “orders were issued to fire on Korean civilians in front-line areas”, the idea of “orders” is dropped in there much too matter-of-factly, as though this is routine business in war. There was objection (with which I disagree) some time ago to identifying these at this point as illegal orders. Fine. But it needs some wording alerting readers to the fact that such orders are surprising/unusual/jawdropping to military lawyers. And so I propose the following:

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 'Further reading,' 'External links'
The "Further reading" and "External links" sections are clearly well beyond the recommended WP length and criteria. It seems the WP guideline is to include sources not already cited and-or linked to in the References section, except for a very few that are so useful and central that they bear repeating. I'll trim the two sections bearing in mind those considerations, along with the need to delete dead links (unless so important they're worth retrieving via "Wayback"), and to delete outdated and barely relevant or irrelevant sources. Among the irrelevancies is the Bateman book. How can Wikipedia recommend that one's understanding of the well-established historical event called No Gun Ri can be deepened by reading a "book" -- in reality a jaw-dropping pastiche of fantasies -- that insists that No Gun Ri "never happened"? Here is Bateman on his pages 126-127: "The unanimity of the Koreans' testimony suggests that it is the product of years of group and individual discussions. ... In hindsight, the Korean accounts appear to be a montage, a collection of the memories of several different events that took place at other times and other places, if they took place as described at all. ... Rather, the killings occurred in dozens and possibly hundreds of the small misfortunes that make war so horrible." Bateman is just that unbelievable.

This rank absurdity, stupid and absurd on so many levels and based on absolutely nothing beyond this denialist's wishful "thinking," was published in 2002, after teams of professional journalists from major news organizations confirmed the outlines of the massacre, after the 15-month-long investigations by two sovereign governments reaffirmed it, and after the president of the United States issued a statement of regret. Wikipedia might just as well recommend David Irving books in the "Further reading" section of the Holocaust article. As we delete serious works by serious people such as Suhi Choi and Kim Dong-choon from the list for other reasons, how can we possibly still recommend such a collection of inanities? Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems Bateman has now been entirely purged from the article, which has apparently been your goal for several months. Bateman is not what I would call a high-quality source, and I would not use it as a template for structuring the article in any significant way. It is, however, a reliably published source, and the controversies surrounding him (and you) received ample secondary coverage and commentary. In short, the article is not in compliance with NPOV if Bateman is completely absent. Regardless of Bateman's deficiencies, you have exceeded the bounds of prudent editing given your conflict of interest. I have restored a mention to his book in the most parsimonious fashion. I'm content to leave it at that, and I suggest you do the same. Rhoark (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear that a de-facto POVFORK will develop, with the article on Bateman's book becoming the "alternative version" of this page. GABHello! 15:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Whoops,, I'm afraid you've slipped into Bateman's rabbit hole with your edit. "35" was only one of his wildly erratic "casualty estimates," which he described as "ballpark estimates" based on a "lack of evidence" (!) to the contrary. In other words, "Time for me to make up my own numbers! But I'll keep them below triple figures!" (Of course, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary; citing Bateman at all, as though worthy of attention, is frankly an outrage.) His numbers of dead, scattered throughout the book, range from "some half-dozen" and eight, up to 70. No basis cited, because there's no basis for any of it. At the same time, in at least four places, he certainly did deny No Gun Ri happened. On one and the same page (126) he describes survivors’ accounts as "unanimous," that is, a composite memory that should be discounted; and then, five sentences later, that they are "different" and so must stem from “hundreds of small misfortunes,” meaning No Gun Ri did not occur. This guy's outrages -- and his obtuseness in contradicting himself repeatedly and stunningly -- seem to know no bounds.


 * Bottom line: We've worked too hard to stay out of rabbit holes in this article, and we cannot descend into this warped mind-world again. Rhoark seems to think the lies-laden attack on the AP by 7th Cav men, ages ago made moot by immediate refutations and then by an avalanche of accumulated journalistic and official findings, is worthy of attention (as though adding to anyone's knowledge of No Gun Ri). I'll edit to roll back to that basic point, and avoid a silly diversion into Batemania. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am actually with Rhoark on this one. A passing mention is harmless, though I understand your frustration. GABHello! 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoops
Because I apparently deleted an extraneous space in the text, that edit of mine today appeared to affect a big chunk of text involving Bateman etc. It didn't. All that blue is not "new." The only change there was to say the AP defended its work with "a lengthy, detailed refutation." (Up above, the other change was simply to note that Daily "incorrectly identified himself as an eyewitness." The previous wording left open the possibility that the AP had misrepresented Daily.) Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Everybody
Just wanted to say, I apologize that my editing perpetually comes in waves, but I'm glad to see the article has continued to see productive work. Good job everybody. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted final graf of lead section
, today's deletion of the lead section's final sentence points up a couple of problems. First, the sentence (“The attention gained by No Gun Ri prompted South Korean government investigations into other alleged U.S. killings of civilians during the Korean War”) seems to be a telescoping of the way things read before our dear departed troll descended destructively upon the article in 2013. It originally read: “Prompted by the exposure of No Gun Ri, survivors of similar alleged incidents in 1950-1951 filed reports with the Seoul government. In 2008 an investigative commission said more than 200 cases of alleged large-scale killings by the U.S. military had been registered, mostly air attacks.” And that was drawn from the first graf of the section “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which still stands and which is properly sourced (sourcing that can easily be improved by me, by the way).

I don’t know where the USIP sourcing came from for the sentence you deleted. And that points up the second problem: I maintain that the lead section should not have citiations, since it is merely a summary of matters duly sourced in the body. Citations lead to silly situations such as the very first sentence of the article, summarizing the most important facts of No Gun Ri, being attributed to an unknown legal scholar writing in an obscure journal – when the central facts are powerfully established by dozens of sources, big and small, in the body. My personal bible, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, says, “Citations aren’t generally appropriate in the lead section; they belong in the body of the article.”

I propose restoring the original wording to the end of the lead section. But I’ll do it with citations for the moment, for consistency’s sake. And meantime I’d like to discuss eliminating the lead section’s citations completely. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, no concerns here. Feel free to remove the citations as needed and restore the sentence - I believe the citations were inserted some time ago, when things were much more tense. Thanks for bringing this up. GABgab 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . As said, I'll retain cites in the lead for now, including with my new addition, while I study the ramifications of removing each one. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing citations from lead section
As proposed, I will edit the lead section to remove the citations, per usual WP practice. Each of the statements of the lead is repeated with at least one source, often more, in the body of the article. In order to maintain coherence, this will be an edit of the entire article in one fell swoop, since several of the cites of the lead have to be reconstructed in the body -- substituting a full first citation for a previous cite in the body that was simply in "refname" shorthand. Several of the lead's cites were one-off cites, and so this edit will now incorporate them in "Further Reading" and "External Links," so as not to lose them entirely. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes in lead
, I can see you did some helpful cleanup on this article. But your changes to the lead paragraph mystify me and introduce at least one error. Let me explain:
 * It's important, as early as possible in the article, to identify the victims as both South Korean (i.e., friendlies) and refugees (i.e., not people sitting in their homes in this village). Simple "civilians" loses those details, for no discernible reason.
 * It's essential, as early as possible, to identify the air attack as American.
 * It's fine to eliminate "2nd Battalion," but you've misconstrued what happened. It was not "shellings" by the 7th Cav that killed them, but largely small-arms fire, i.e., M-1 rifles, 30-cal machine guns and possibly 50-cal machine guns. I might change it to "killed by a U.S. air attack and small-arms fire from the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment." (I never understood why "actions" was used.)
 * I would suggest we not confuse things by introducing an alternative transliteration for No Gun Ri in the body of the article. Besides, your alternative is not the one used in the WP article on the village itself. That's Nogeun-ri, and that is noted in this article infobox at "Location." I think I'll add "also known as No Gun Ri" to the infobox line, to clarify.
 * Finally, we shouldn't remove "village of" from before No Gun Ri. It's an essential fact. Otherwise, what's No Gun Ri? A city? A mountain?

Unless I'm missing something that would explain your changes, I'll go ahead and make those fixes. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm doing some of your suggested changes. Here are my replies to those not done: "United States" is brought out by the link to 7th U.S. Cav and in the last sentence; the 2d Bn's involvement is unnecessary detail for the lede; the air attack was probably USAF, so it's parsed out of the lede, and the air attack is identified as American; discerning between friendly forces, non-combatants, enemy forces, refugees, and civilians is often difficult in combat (much less in syntax), so rather than use the term non-combatant (and/or "friendly", refugee, etc.) I think it is more readable to stick with the one word which clearly describes the victims, doing so includes civilians from the village, plus any others who were trying to escape the fighting. Thanks for your suggestions. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, but there's still some confusion. There's no question that the victims were South Korean refugees. None was from the village of No Gun Ri, as you speculate. It had been evacuated earlier. And, of course, any "fog of war" problems in 1950, in distinguishing combatants from non-combatants etc., as you mention, have no bearing on writing what we know unequivocally in the clear light of 2017. Also, "shellings" is an awkward, unclear word. I've reminded myself the DAIG report did, indeed, mention artillery and mortar fire. The 7th Cav had mortars, but no organic artillery. There's an easy way to deal with that, which I will do. Also, the "was because" formulation in the 2nd graf is awkward, and it's important to mention that these declassified orders were uncovered by the reporters. Otherwise, where did these documents suddenly come from in this article? I'm also cleaning up some poorly placed commas from months back. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

'Colonel Mitchum'
Regarding 's question about the movie “One Minute to Zero,” I can help. His insertion was correctly removed from the article by because it’s extraneous to No Gun Ri and, anyway, was better raised in Talk. But this has come up before, and it’s an interesting case, and so let me put on the record:

The colonel in the 1952 movie, played by Robert Mitchum, orders artillery fire on South Korean refugees who are shown, on screen, to be harboring North Korean infiltrators. The truth behind the movie is quite the opposite, as explained to me by Forrest Kleinman, who was on the staff of Maj. Gen. Dean, 24th Infantry Division commander, at Taejon, and who later served as an Army liaison in Hollywood. In that job, Kleinman told a film producer of a July 1950 episode at Taejon in which Dean was urged to fire on SK refugees crossing the shallow Kum River, for fear of infiltrators. Dean refused, saying something to the effect of, "We won't win this war by killing civilians," Kleinman recalled. The producer appropriated Kleinman’s story for his film, but decided to have the "colonel" make the opposite decision.

Dean's division was routed at Taejon, but it wasn't because of infiltrators. His front line had huge gaps between units. The NKs just poured through. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will delete the recent insertion of the “One Minute to Zero” film in the article’s “NGR in Culture" section, which is meant to discuss cultural works that grew out of NGR. (See the above discussion about the genesis of the film.) The movie does not relate to NGR since NGR was not even known at the time. In fact, no such mass refugee killings had been publicized in 1952. Saying the fictional movie events are similar to NGR is misleading because it suggests there were NK infiltrators among the NGR refugees, when there’s no evidence of such. In sum, it’s an anachronistic and confusing insertion, on a subject extraneous to the article's subject and better suited as an interesting aside in Talk. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Picasso
The Massacre in Korea wiki page about a painting by Picasso has a link to the page "No Gun Ri massacre". Conversely, I would mention this artwork by Picasso under the "No Gun Ri in culture" section. But English is not my mother language and somebody else could formulate it better than I. In the meanwhile, I put it under "See also" --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)