Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 6

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)

...I...uh... Drugs? ...What am I even looking at here? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Investigations, 1999-2001 investigations
This section will be improved by: Charles J. Hanley 19:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * 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.

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

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)


 * 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)


 * (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)


 * "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)


 * 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)

''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)

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)

Regarding peer review

 * (A version of this has also been posted to the Military History Project, appended to the request for peer review/RFC)


 * ,,, , , , , , … I, for one, would welcome a peer review of No Gun Ri Massacre, as proposed by GeneralizationsAreBad at the Military History Project, in hopes the reviewers will prove to be intelligent, unbiased one way or the other about the U.S. military (and about Asian people), willing to put in the time necessary to understand the No Gun Ri story and the article (including reading the Talk archives back to August 2013, as GeneralizationsAreBad apparently has done), and cognizant of the fact that they themselves should independently review authoritative, professional sources on the subject.


 * Over the past 21 months, the article has become an example of the worst of Wikipedia. A single angry POV pusher, profoundly ignorant of the subject, has been allowed to make no less than 124 edits in a furious effort to minimize and excuse the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. military in 1950, a bloodbath confirmed by two governments and whose basic facts are enshrined in a museum and 33-acre memorial park at the site. While loading the article with countless falsehoods and purging it of crucial facts, he also turned it into an often incomprehensible mess.


 * GeneralizationsAreBad sensed that the article has become "stable." That is only because the journalists and academics who know the subject well became disgusted long ago with a system, Wikipedia, that allows one deeply biased "editor" to revert, without discussion or explanation, every effort to restore established, well-sourced and important facts to the article, facts he killed out earlier. Appeals to WP administrators for help simply led to being sent from one forum to another, with admins either ignoring the appeals or saying they weren't up to dealing with this serious problem. Those of us who are expert on No Gun Ri then decided to let the article fester. This POV pusher's juvenile bullying approach to WP has antagonized and drawn disapproval from dozens of contributors elsewhere:, , , , ,

,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , , , , , , , ,  … (He has great interest in the subject of guns, and in some imagined threat to the white race called Cultural Marxism).


 * Perhaps the WP community would catch up with him, it was thought. This all is a sad commentary on WP's failures -- thus far.


 * I will post separately below (under READER BEWARE) a litany, with diffs, of the incredible run of blanket reverts WeldNeck made over just one period of a few days to kill any effort to restore integrity and truthfulness to the article. I strongly urge all interested parties to study it. You'll see that in his frenzy he even attacks simple efforts to restore sense and syntax to the gibberish. (Whoops, just in: Sorry, but WeldNeck has now unilaterally deleted my posting at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre that listed the serial reverts and serious problems he has created with the article. That's right, he not only owns the article, but he now owns Talk, too. Let's see what we can do.... OK, the material WeldNeck doesn't want anyone to see is at [])


 * Finally, to address a couple of points raised by GeneralizationsAreBad:
 * On primary sources, this was discussed with Wikimedes some months back. The links are to documents cited in the article as coming from footnoted secondary sources, i.e., the "primary" sources are actually supplemental -- and valuable, since the reader can check the text firsthand and see that nothing has been misinterpreted. This is important, too, because WeldNeck has invented and tainted the article with wording that doesn’t exist in the documents, to sugarcoat orders to kill refugees.
 * The suggestion that some "middle ground" has been reached between "diametrically opposed viewpoints" is more than troubling. The journalists and historians who amassed the facts of NGR have no "viewpoint." They're professionals whose job is to gather and report facts to establish as complete a picture of the truth as possible. It's those facts that are under attack here (again, please see the recounting below). Can anyone seriously see equivalence between those professionals and this out-of-control, unqualified, unidentified guy WeldNeck? The havoc he has wreaked should be answer enough. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)


 * Alright. In all respect, I think you have argued your case very well and have been persuasive. Personally, I can fully understand your frustration in dealing with these edits. I agree that some are definitely questionable.


 * By "stable," I merely meant that I believed the situation had died down, owing to the lack of editing activity. Not unreasonable, since there had been no activity in a year. I was not endorsing or condemning the page itself, I just meant that the relative calm provided an opportunity to look the page over and possibly make improvements. In terms of the primary sources, I saw that Wikimedes had dealt with this. My mistake for not noticing, I just didn't want someone who opposed this section removing it on account of "original research" or "primary sources." It is a very important part of the article, to be sure. I support including the documents as supplementary, since good secondary material is already in the article supporting them.


 * Perhaps by "diametrically opposed viewpoints," I merely meant the contradictions between sources, such as the original story, Bateman's book, the Army investigation, etc. Initially, part of my concern was that the latter two sources would have been rendered inaccurate or incomplete by new research (Sahr.) I was referring to the very different versions of No Gun Ri provided by each source, but I was not specific enough. Sorry if this was perceived the wrong way, I did not mean to attack anyone.

Best,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Understood, . Your motivation was clear and your involvement welcome. Dealing with this problem has left us a little sensitive, despite having sworn off it for many months. You can see the seriousness of the problem in the fact that WeldNeck has now unilaterally deleted my READER BEWARE report on article issues from the Talk page. We'll deal with it. Best, Charles J. Hanley 16:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * He hasnt argued his case well. He wants sources that conflict with his POV removed. The Bateman material is the most serious because he actually contacted the books publisher and attempted to bully them into retracting it before it was published.


 * "Now, one of the three AP writers, Charles Hanley, is apparently trying to suppress publication of a new book -- 'No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident' -- that takes another view of what happened at No Gun Ri. The book, written by U.S. Army Maj. Robert Bateman, is highly critical of the AP story, calling into question the reporters' sources and research. But Bateman's book isn't the first time the AP story has been criticized."


 * If this doesnt stop Mr Hanley I will go to ANI and have you banned. Your behavior certainty warrants is. WeldNeck (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jesus. I have been reading back on this conflict for over an hour, and I have absolutely no idea what's going on. I can't tell is Hanley is a subject matter expert and neck is a wingnut, or Hanley is a bleeding heart too close to the story and neck is just a rational dissenter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I assure you,, it's the former. Have you looked at the litany of outrages over one brief period, at [] ? That's just an inkling. I believe most people would find his actions in immediately ripping that posting of mine from Talk yesterday, on down to such petty offenses as not allowing us to correct his grammar, make clear what the problem is. If you'd like to help restore more truth and sense to the article, please do. If I can help, please ask. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
 * By the way, if more evidence can help, it's been pointed out to me that a compilation of earlier WeldNeck outrages that I put together in October 2013 is still extant, at []. This one's probably more reader-friendly than the one WeldNeck deep-sixed yesterday. Reading this one, in particular, will give you a sense of the crucial material missing in the article, purged by WeldNeck. Otherwise, coming to the article cold, one might say, well, it's awfully messy, but seems complete. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
 * Your objections were noted and discussed. I dont know what else I can say on this topic other than you are beating a dead horse. WeldNeck (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please, WeldNeck, don't be surreal. You discuss nothing. You revert, over and over. Did you "discuss" your action yesterday in immediately stripping my litany of your edits from Talk (edits that were accompanied by not a peep of "discussion")? You must know what you did is a Class-A felony on WP. Anyone interested can go to User talk:WeldNeck and find serial complaints about your highly disruptive, arrogant behavior, including one user who complained that you've engaged in "POV pushing on every article" you've touched. But anyone going to your Talk would have to be sure to check the page history for the huge chunks you've deleted (another no-no). Somehow you've fallen through the disciplinary cracks on WP, a symptom of systemic weakness, not enough admins to take on hard cases. Boy, wouldn't we have a lot to "discuss" if you hung up your POV Warrior spurs and got real. Charles J. Hanley 16:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
 * Your post from yesterday can be found in multiple places on this this talk page, has been addressed point by point and is beginning to look like spam. WeldNeck (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am submitting a request for dispute resolution. This is rapidly becoming a repeat of the previous debate. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The formal request is here: Dispute resolution noticeboard

I am hoping for the best.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, scratch that. It was closed quite quickly. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Restoring content
I am restoring content by Cjhanley that was removed. WeldNeck, per WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning...you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.". That is a no go, no matter how much you personally disagree with it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was a member of the Pulitzer Prize-winning team of AP journalists that confirmed the No Gun Ri Massacre in 1999, and produced the definitive book on this Korean War event. We have developed considerable further information on No Gun Ri in the years since. I must forewarn Wikipedia readers that this article, No Gun Ri Massacre, is fatally compromised with falsehoods, including defamations and fabrications, and with the omission and suppression of crucially important facts, all for the purpose of minimizing and excusing the mass killing of South Korean refugees by the U.S. Army in 1950. These assaults on the truth have been perpetrated by a single WP user, going by "WeldNeck." It is unclear whether he has done this at the behest of or with the knowledge of members of the U.S. military (one vandal at this article was previously traced to the U.S. Army intelligence center at Fort Huachuca, Arizona).
 * Do you have any evidence that I am part of some grand conspiracy to edit this article? If not, Id kindly ask you not repeat this allegation again. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The dozens of serious problems are too numerous to detail, but they range from the defaming of two wounded Korean War veterans, Flint and Hesselman, as liars;
 * Flint and Hesselman’s service record show conclusively they weren’t there and had been evacuated for injuries. No defamation here. The AP’s star witness and fraud Ed Dailey had so contaminated the memory of everyone he came in contact with, Hesselman actually said "I know that Daily was there, I know that. I know that.". Hesselman has done a fine job destroying his credibility all on his own. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

to the falsification of wording in U.S. Army orders to shoot refugees to make the orders seem more benign; to the suppression of a soldier's statement, on British television, that his company commander ordered the troops to "kill them all" at No Gun Ri. Many, many other examples are just as damaging to the truths of No Gun Ri.
 * Joseph Jackman’s version is in the article, as is the link to the BBC. You should actually read what I added sometime. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators have proven incapable, thus far, of taking control of this sad situation. Until things can be remedied, readers looking for a truthful version should refer to the article as it stood in mid-2013, before this anonymous user's depredations. That can be found at:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&oldid=561319728.

New and significant material has emerged since then, but WeldNeck has taken "ownership" of this article and simply reverts attempts to restore its integrity. To give you a taste of how WeldNeck operates, and some of what's false and what's missing from the article, following is a litany of his actions from just the space of a few days. Read the description, then click on the "diffs" to see this outrageous behavior and to understand better what's so deeply wrong about the article. Charles J. Hanley 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)
 * IN THE INTRO SECTION (With none of this does he offer even a nonsensical explanation; he claims the edits he's quashing weren't explained on the Talk page, when they obviously were, on 18 February 2014.)
 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=596072606&oldid=596065018
 * Reverts simple efforts to improve the syntax in the first paragraph.
 * In the second paragraph, removes identification of the media source for the reports.
 * Covered in main body of the article. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes the fact that the Army had rejected the survivors' claims for years before finally having to acknowledge the killings in 2001.
 * Covered in main body of the article. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverts the correction of wording of the crucially important orders. As WP readers can see from the documents, they were direct orders to "shoot" and "fire on" civilians, not "authorization to use lethal force," as he would like them to have been. He restores his fabricated language.
 * It’s the same thing. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restores the redundant reference to the rationale for the killings.
 * Covered in main body of the article. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * N THE BACKGROUND SECTION
 * Reverts an effort to correct the sourcing of a quote from the 25th Infantry Division to the 1st Cavalry Division.
 * Which has been corrected. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverts an effort to tighten up an overly long section, to say the same thing in many fewer words.
 * Well, that’s certainly your interpretation. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Restores misleading wording saying refugees were "moving toward U.S. positions" (as though they were some advancing military unit) rather than simply "streaming down the roads."
 * That’s verbatim from the documents. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IN THE EVENTS OF 25-29 JULY 1950 SECTION (Again, he explains none of this.)
 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596207049
 * Reverts an attempt to simplify and tighten the long first paragraph regarding pre-No Gun Ri events.

WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes a survivor’s statement that soldiers were shooting the wounded.
 * Restores false statements that no air controllers were in the vicinity.
 * There weren’t any assigned to the regiment … that’s a verifiable fact. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes statements from ex-soldiers discussing why they opened fire.
 * Herman Patterson was not there, that’s been verified. Preece and Kern also stated that they were taking fire from the tunnel ….. I wonder what Mr Hanley didn’t include that in his version? WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restores wordy, gratuitous detail about the battalion panic before No Gun Ri.

WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes new statements from soldiers about opening fire on the refugee crowd under the bridge.


 * Removes soldier Jackman’s statement that his company commander ordered them to "kill them all."
 * That’s in the current article. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes the fact that three out of 52 ex-soldiers interviewed claimed there was gunfire from the refugees, the fact that other veterans questioned this, and the fact that there is no such reference to an encounter with infiltrators in unit documents.

If you mean the AP, we’ll need additional verification because the AP has been documented misquoting individuals it has interviewed on this subject. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes a statement from a survivor about soldiers shooting babies, women and disabled people over three days.


 * Removes a statement from an ex-soldier saying that to deny it happened would be a lie.


 * Restores a false statement indicating the 1st Battalion was involved in killing refugees.


 * Removes a statement from survivors who said they were rescued by arriving North Korean troops.


 * IN THE AFTERMATH SECTION (Again, no discussion, no explanation for his action.) (FYI, old section headings, which changed, are difficult to trace beyond this.)

−
 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596211427

−
 * Inserts a ridiculous statement that "the AP team could find no evidence of an investigation." No one, including the Army, found evidence of a 1950 investigation.
 * *	According to … oh yeah .. the AP. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596223458


 * With no explanation, removes references to two instances in which the official U.S. Army history supports statements by the survivors -- that there was no combat at the time and place of the killings, and the 1st Cavalry Division was in the area at the time.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596241739


 * With only a lame rationale, again removes a reference to the fact that the Army had dismissed the allegations for years.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596242032


 * With an explanation based on a false statement, removes the specific rationales given in the Army report for the shootings, three reasons that can be read as self-contradictory.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596242208


 * With nonsensical rationales:


 * Removes the fact that only three soldiers spoke of gunfire from the refugees, changing it to "several".


 * Removes the survivors' committee statement that the U.S. report was a whitewash, and removes a quote from their leader asking how could the killings have been carried out over 60 hours without orders.


 * Removes a quote from U.S. investigation adviser Gen. Trainor laying blame on U.S. officers.


 * Cites an incorrect source for a statement from the South Korean investigative report.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596244676


 * With a nonsense rationale, again removes the fact the Army dismissed the allegations for years.


 * Removes U.S. investigation adviser Gen. Trainor's statement that the investigation confirmed the news reports' central charges.


 * Again removes three specific, contradictory rationales given for the shootings in the Army report.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=596256219


 * In typical semi-literate fashion, inserts a pointless sentence about the unreliability of memories; includes a silly untruth about Korean survivors "remembering" soldier Daily at the shootings.


 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=597417218
 * The unreliability of 60 year old memories is very relevant to the discussion and was raised by the US army investigation and considering how the survivors remember an individual who was proven not tp be there, its especially relevant. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inserts a sentence about Korean investigators declining to review aerial photos, but the material cited in the footnote carries no such information.
 * Look again. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No_Gun_Ri_Massacre&diff=next&oldid=597987257


 * Without explanation:


 * Reverts an effort to restore logical order to this section by noting the Korean explanation -- that the bodies were under the bridge -- in the first paragraph.
 * Which would have been impossible considering the US analyst could see nearly 10’ into the bridge. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Removes a soldier eyewitness statement that 200-300 bodies were piled up under the bridge.
 * Not directly relevant to the aerial footage. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Removes these facts: the South Koreans suggested the aerial footage was not from stated date; the U.S. analyst worked with fourth-generation (i.e., fuzzier) copies; the U.S. analyst recommended a future process of certifying the integrity (authenticity) of aerial photos.
 * Your attempt here is to imply the South Korean’s believed the reconnaissance footage was fake (not surprising they would make this claim considering how completely it undermines their narrative) and the US analyst agreed with them. The US analyst most certainly did not agree with this allegation and makes it very clear that he personally verified the footage he was looking at by comparing it to the originals. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restores gratuitous background (Bosnia etc.) on the U.S. analysts.
 * The background is not gratuitous, it explains to the readers what the qualifications and experience of the analysts is and why they were qualified for this kind of work. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Restores a false statement regarding U.S. fighting holes being intact. (Some were filled in, as reported by survivors, who said bodies had been placed in them.)
 * according to the analyst, this isn’t true. The fighting holes were intact. Look at the source for this. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes local villagers' explanation of what happened to the massacre victims' mass graves.
 * The local’s account is still in the text. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Reverts an effort to update the section on the 2007 excavation by citing post-excavation news stories, to replace uninformative pre-excavation sources.
 * This section was updated … the excavations turned up nothing. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removes a quote from an ex-soldier that "if you saw any Korean civilians in an area you were to shoot first and ask questions later." He doesn’t like this quote, and so he ludicrously claims the source, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, is "unreliable".
 * The individuals name is not given and considering the sources well documented history of misusing sources, it needs to be given to properly evaluate it. WeldNeck (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be more than abundantly clear that this is an all-out assault on the truth, and on Wikipedia's principles, by someone whose only interest is in suppressing as much as possible anything that puts the U.S. military in a negative light.

Thanks to Timothyjosephwood. Deletion is verboten, especially in this kind of situation. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This material has been posted over and over again by Hanley (with fewer personal attacks upon me too I would add) and has been responded to. Hanley does not seek compromise or consensus on this article, he wants his POV to be the only one presented deposit what other reliable sources might add and more than anything he wants to see all content sourced to Bateman removed. That .. aint .. gonna .. happen.


 * However, since I am such a glutton for punishment, I shall endeavor to respond to all these points. WeldNeck (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do. Apparently GeneralizationsAreBad was also brought here from the ANI. Hopefully we can take this a point at a time. I will attempt to moderate as best I can. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. WeldNeck (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My God, I see here WeldNeck is pretending that his barrage of reverts -- and it's his method as well as his substance, or lack thereof, that's so highly objectionable -- is all perfectly reasonable. There is so much nonsense in what he says above that it would take many hours to demolish it all. Note, for example, how he says the service records of Hesselman and Flint conclusively say something. He doesn't have their records; the AP does. He's simply parroting nonsense fabricated by the truly terrible Bateman, the 7th Cavalry Regiment officer and apologist for No Gun Ri. I must sign off, but please, please, don't believe a word WeldNeck spouts. Charles J. Hanley 22:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Its been reported in many reliable sources that Hesselman and Flint were evacuated with injuries before any refugees were killed. Would you like me to list them here? WeldNeck (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Feeble attempt at moderation 1
Ok, so we have to parse this out if we are going to do anything but endlessly debate. Posting pages long diatribes will not help in actually agreeing on individual edits. So we'll take it by as small a piece at a time as we can (what am I getting myself into). First difference challenged by Cjhanley:

"'The massacre allegations were little known outside Korea until the publication of a series of reports in 1999'"

vs

"'The massacre allegations were little known outside Korea until publication of an [a disputed] Associated Press (AP) report in 1999'"

The burden of proof here seems to be on Hanley. Was it in fact a series of reports or was it a single report? Did the AP break the story and others followed? Or did the same AP authors publish multiple reports based on the same research? Was the AP report a WP:FRINGE theory at the time that was followed up by no one? Or were they simply the first to publish on the matter? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is one of the problems with Hanley's complaints: he's not even complaining about the right thing. The text, as it exists in the article (added by me no less) is as follows:


 * "The massacre allegations were little-known outside Korea until the publication of a disputed Associated Press (AP) story in 1999"


 * That texts is nearly identical to the text he wants in, which makes me wonder, what is he even complaining about? WeldNeck (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , you smartly were working from the top of my "litany of outrages," but that list was actually put together months ago. Why "AP" was ever removed by WeldNeck is beyond me, but I see that he restored it in order to insert "disputed." I very much appreciate your diving into this, and in a systematic way, but give me a day to review and update the list of WeldNeck edits. Alternatively, we could conduct an experiment, and you could watch while I try to restore purged facts and remove patently untrue material (with explanations), and we see how WeldNeck reacts. For the moment, I'm afraid I have to duck out for a commitment. Charles J. Hanley 22:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If the story was covered in a "series of reports" by multiple sources, then whether one source is disputed is a moot point. One can easily find sources for the 9/11 attacks that are disputed, but the core of the issue is that the disputations are WP:FRINGE and the stories are WP:MAINSTREAM. So the original question stands. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Add what you like, but if it cant stand on its merits I will change it. WeldNeck (talk) 01:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You are not the sole arbiter of merit and you do not WP:OWN this article. If either of these parties engages in unilateral editing in disregard of the discussion on this talk page, I will push for sanctions. Also, make an effort to remain WP:CIVIL, which both of you have had difficulties with. Ideally, I would like for one of you to convince me that your edit is the most correct according to WP standards, which I will try to elucidate since both of you seem fairly unaware. I would then like to recruit another third party to concur and make the edit. That way I'm not involved in any ensuing edit wars and I remain a third party in the case that sanctions are needed. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I misunderstood. If you like to update what you think is wrong then we can go from there. It seems appropriate that you list grievances as WeldNeck's suggestions appear to simply be the article as it exists. This is possibly due to WP:EDITWAR, but that's an issue for ANI. This isn't about punishing people for violating WP standards; it's about having a third party opinion on the individual edits. I await your list. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I will shortly post here a new section, "Fixing the article," stepping back, taking a breath and proposing possible ways to proceed, elaborating on what I suggested to above. Charles J. Hanley 14:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

Fixing the article
I’ll propose below, for comment, a couple of alternative ways to proceed to fix No Gun Ri Massacre. But first ….

The recent interest shown by, and, now,  presents a real opportunity to improve the article and bring it back to high WP standards. In the past couple of years, new sources have been published and there have been new developments, including a more settled estimate of the dead from South Korean authorities. They belong in the article.

But it will be a demanding task; there’s a hell of a lot wrong here. And, most of all, to fall back on a cliché, it’s essential not to lose sight of the forest for the trees. One big “forest,” clearly, is the way-out-of-line behavior of WeldNeck, not just at No Gun Ri Massacre, but Wikipedia-wide, as evidenced by the repeated warnings from other contributors, including many he simply deleted from his Talk page, as with ’s edit-warring warning at [], and including ’s observation [] that he has engaged in “POV pushing on all the articles you have edited.” As said, one must go back in his Talk history to find the thousands of illicitly deleted bytes. Then recall his outrageous action of just two days ago, killing my posting here at NGR Talk, and his taunting “have fun with this” when he posted his frivolous bid for a topic ban at ANI. When you combine all this with his dozens and dozens of rapid-fire, unjustified, unexplained reverts at No Gun Ri Massacre, I think it should be clear this is a guy who cannot be trusted on anything.

The “trees,” the distractions, are the red herrings that WeldNeck and other denialists wave on No Gun Ri. (Before WeldNeck, there was an NGR denialist going by "Kauffner" who got banned for general mayhem around WP.) The denialists arose in the year 2000, grasping at anything to attack those whose research work exposed No Gun Ri and thereby made the U.S. Army look less than saintly. One of their problems, along with their blinding anger and their obtuseness about so many things, is that they’re stuck in the year 2000.

Since then, after long investigations, the South Korean and U.S. governments confirmed that the U.S. military killed the trapped refugees at NGR “by the effects of small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing”; it emerged that more than a dozen military documents showing orders to shoot civilians were suppressed in the U.S. investigation; a Harvard historian reported (in 2005) the discovery of a U.S. ambassadorial letter to the State Department warning, on the day the NGR killings began, that the Army had decided to shoot approaching South Korean refugees (another suppressed document); other media organizations, including the BBC, replicated and then advanced the NGR story beyond the original reporting; a government committee led by South Korea’s prime minister certified a minimal death toll, with identified victims; and the government built a large memorial park and museum at the site where the facts of NGR are enshrined in exhibits and informational material, and where a new, consensus death toll is accepted. This is the “forest” to keep in mind.

Other knowledgeable journalists and academics have looked to me to maintain integrity on this subject in WP and elsewhere, as a retiree with more time available to learn WP's basics and monitor things. But they and I literally haven’t had the stomach even to read the article for many months, so disgusted were we at the way one out-of-control guy was allowed to run roughshod over the truth, not to mention turn it at times into a semi-literate, illogical mess. I’ll swallow hard and read it now.

A couple of possible ways to deal with this problem:


 * TimothyJosephWood, admirably, was willing to dig right in yesterday. He started from the top of my “litany” of WeldNeck’s unjustified reverts (a list done months ago but never posted until two days ago), and it turned out that first revert, a minor matter, had been remedied since I first noted it. A possible solution: I’ll compare my two lengthy lists of problems (from late 2013 and late 2014) and update them into one that lists problems that still exist. And Mr. Wood or others could then work from that. That might take me one day to prepare.


 * Alternatively, I myself could begin making edits, and other interested parties could stand by and observe the reaction (and ask for better explanations from me or whatever). In that case, I might as well also assemble some of the new material and sourcing I refer to (to include new external links etc.). That might take me until the weekend.


 * A third and most efficient approach: Restore the article to its mid-2013 status, salvage the truthful, useful material added since then, and add the new material.

In any event, interested parties with the time really should compare that mid-2013 version [], with the current one. For one thing, it was 1,400 words shorter, and at 5,400 words could have been even tighter than that.

I hope, and , in particular, are willing to continue to work to improve the article, and will let me know in which of these and other ways I can help. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley 14:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)


 * Mr Hanley’s solution seems simple: take all the work done on this article in the past two years and delete it, taking it back to a point in time where his perspective was the only one presented in the article. All other perspectives on this subject, with the exclusion of his own, should be removed. That’s not a viable option and certainly doesn’t adhere to the spirit of this project.
 * From the exchange yesterday, it should be evident many of his specific critiques are no longer valid and he is not staying current with the article in its present form. Hanley cant really quantify his issues with the article other than he doesn’t like it.
 * If you actually look at the history of the article, out of the dozens of edits I have made adding a substantial amount of information from Relabel Sources, very few have been reverts.
 * One of the reasons I like the anonymity of this project is I don’t have to worry about my real life being disrupted by my activities here, a luxury other historians who ran afoul of Mr Hanley haven’t been afforded.
 * "He has called my place of employment, he has called my boss at work (to try and get my boss to stop my research, before I'd even published a word), he called and wrote to my editor to try and get the book stopped. He has called and written to my friends. He has sent historians who had the temerity to write favorable reviews of my book scathing letters causing great emotional distress"
 * Considering he is currently trying to dig up information about me offline, this is rather troubling to say the least.
 * Even the title of this section is telling .. it assumes there is something fundamentally “broken” with the article in its present form and it needs “fixing”. The article currently considers all significant POV’s in proportion to their relative weight. Nothing “broken” about that. WeldNeck (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As said, beware the red herrings and the nonsense, and let's get to work fixing the article. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WeldNeck, I have to agree on this. As I said to Cjhanley below, I don't care if one of you is literally Hitler. I am not assuming that there is something wrong with the article. I am recognizing that Hanley believes there is. If he can propose edits, supported by WP:RS, and you cannot offer an effective counter argument as to why the edit should not be made, then the edit will go forward. If this is not the case then the article will stay exactly as it is.
 * At the base of it, neither of you can claim WP:CONSENSUS if all you have is two people who disagree. That's why we are bringing others here. Either we will build consensus that the article needs changed and this will protect it against reversion, or we will build consensus that the article is fine and that will protect it against further changes.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be honored to help out with anything I can, but as of now, I am not exactly sure how I can contribute. I think the divide between how we all think "fixing" this article will work is the major challenge right now. I think the best thing we could do is lay out the ground facts that are accepted by all... if there are any., I thank you for your patience and help in all this, and I would like your opinion on what I could do to help. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)