Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 7

A brief WeldNeck primer (please do read)

 * (Let me try again on this, to clear up confusion)
 * One sometimes despairs of being able to explain to people who haven’t the time to see for themselves just how outrageous WeldNeck’s behavior has been on this article, and how, frankly, dim his thinking can be on this subject, and presumably on all others where he’s behaved outrageously. After reviewing his rapid-fire, no-reasons-given reverts of things he doesn’t like, I ask you to consider just these three, one of them nice and fresh:


 * Just now, he deleted, without discussion, a brief sentence in the article summarizing the controlling laws of war on treatment of noncombatants, claiming it was “irrelevant” to an article on a mass killing of noncombatants. Truly. Take a look.


 * Its called WP:SYNTH ... do you have a reliable secondary source that discusses this? There wasn't one in the article so I removed it based on this. WeldNeck (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here [] he reverted a rewrite that sought to raise higher in the section on aerial photos the crucial fact that the 2001 South Korean investigative report, drawing on accounts from survivors and nearby residents, said bodies remained inside one tunnel, out of sight of airborne cameras. WeldNeck decided to bury that essential explanatory item low in the section. No discussion, no excuse. When re-posted my litany of reverts last night, WeldNeck hastily wrote of this that the fuzzy aerial photo saw “nearly 10 feet” under the bridge, and what all those Koreans say is “impossible.” So, WeldNeck gets to decide, sitting in his underwear and anonymity somewhere, a half-century later, when and where we are allowed to hear from the South Koreans on this pivotal point.


 * The aerial photo wasnt "fuzzy", it was taken from 3500'. Even with 1950 era technology, the photo's offered good resolution as indicated by the NIMA analyst. With respect to the depth of view, here is what the NIMA analyst said:


 * "No corpse or other objects on the railroad -- NIMA IA found no indications of human remains on the imagery. Of particular interest was the area of the railroad bridge; the obliquity of frames 32, 33, and 35 allowed the IA to look approximately 3 meters into the openings of the bridge arches on the upstream side and the area was found to be clear of debris or human remains"


 * The angle of the photo allowed the analyst to see 3 meters into a 5 meter deep bridge. Is it Mr Hanley's assertion that several hundred bodies were stacked only in the 2 meter portion of the underpass that the camera could not see? WeldNeck (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What!? As usual, you've got everything wrong. I'll have to find the precise dimensions, but those tunnels were, what, 120, 150 feet long. I have no idea what "5 meter deep" means. Please, WeldNeck, common sense. Charles J. Hanley 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The tunnel is not 150' deep. WeldNeck (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (Hanley again)
 * Finally, here [], Weldneck removed a key item on the extent of NGR casualties, a North Korean journalist’s 1950 report that proved a half-century later to be correct. No discussion, just WeldNeck's edit summary, “Are we really quoting a North Korean journalist?” And then, “Nork sources should not be used.” He seems not to have caught on to the fact that it was the U.S. Army that covered up No Gun Ri for 50 years, and the North Koreans who got it right at the time. (Expressing disbelief, he later also purged the article of tunnel survivors’ statements, sourced to a Korean scholar's new book, that NK soldiers rescued them. He apparently believes North Koreans don't rescue children, but eat them.)


 * Umm, correct me if I am wrong, but the account from the Nork "journalist" is still in the article, isnt it? WeldNeck (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point, obviously, is no thanks to you. Charles J. Hanley 19:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop the personal attacks. It's not doing any good, and we all know that you disagree with each other. No need to criticize how "dim his thinking" is, or make snide remarks on what another user is wearing. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, GeneralizationsAreBad. I apologize if anyone's sensibilities have been ruffled. But I would sure like to see some indignation from other quarters, if only to ask WeldNeck to stop fooling with the article while others ponder how to improve it. Charles J. Hanley 20:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * I fully agree that edits should be put "on pause" while we talk about it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The tunnels' dimensions: 24.5 meters long, 6.75 meters wide (each tunnel) and 12.25 meters high (from the 2001 South Korean investigative report). The suggestion that there was only a sliver of space left for hidden bodies in a minuscule (5-meter) tunnel, and so there weren't any bodies, is, to put it mildly, bizarre. This kind of uninformed, cherry-picking, nonsensical "theorizing" has been a staple of denialists from the beginning. For example, in an online piece that's unfortunately linked to at the article's end, an ex- or active military officer theorizes that there couldn't have been bodies stacked up under the bridge because the stream ran through there, and No Gun Ri villagers used it to do their laundry or somesuch, and so they wouldn't have tolerated the bodies. Wild, since this officer never was there and never spoke with any Koreans, and since the stream flowed not through the tunnel with bodies, but its twin tunnel. But she pushed the button knowing she had proven all those eyewitnesses, Korean and American, wrong! Charles J. Hanley 21:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't explain why the recon photos showed nothing .... who are we to believe 50 year old memories or our lying eyes. Regardless, the point is moot, this information and what it implies has been widely reported in reliable sources. WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. Three dozen South Korean survivors; plenty of ex-GIs, including Command Sgt. Maj. Garza, who saw 200-300 bodies in the tunnel; uninvolved No Gun Ri villagers who returned there to find "hundreds" of bodies down the road; at least two North Korean journalists who filed separate news stories from the scene; captured North Korean army documents reporting on NGR; 75 families who all celebrate their ancestors' death days on July 26; a 2005 South Korean prime ministerial committee report that confirmed a bare minimum of 218 casualties; and a government foundation overseeing the park/museum that estimates 250-300 dead, mostly women and children.... they've all got faulty memories that, miracle of miracles, all happen to coincide. But you've got (no, you don't; you've only heard about them) the half-century-old film frames that U.S. Defense Intelligence spliced into a roll purportedly from 8/6/1950 and that South Korean experts recognized immediately were highly suspicious and that led even the Pentagon analyst to recommend a more secure system of handling in the future. Frankly, the lady's laundry-day theory holds more water, so to speak. I know you won't listen to any of this, WN, but I write for the benefit of others, since the often incoherent "Aerial imagery" section is way overblown. Charles J. Hanley 22:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Other veterans on the scene have a drastically different recollection of events. I'm surprised you didnt mention Ed Daily, he had some pretty vivid recollections of that day. What about the Koreans who remember Daily being there that day? Are we supposed to believe their memories over documentation (that the AP couldnt seem to figure out) that proves Daily wasnt there? The fact still remains the only piece of physical evidence completely demolishes claims of hundreds of bodies and freshly dug mass graves. I could only imagine the Korean's seeing the footage and flipping their lids that it did not confirm what had been beat into their heads for years. Telling someone over and over what happened and then not being able to corroborate that with the physical evidence must have been tough, the cognitive dissonance must have been a bitch for them. The NIMA specialist verified the images he looked at matched the originals. Interestingly enough, the NIMA specialist wasnt given any background on what he was looking at, he was just told to find evidence of human remains, thereby removing any bias he may have brought into the process with him.


 * To the point, not one reliable source calls into question the authenticity of the photos. If I am wrong, please provide a citation that I can verify.


 * And being the only physical evidence from that day, I think the section could use significant expansion into its results. WeldNeck (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need to set some ground rules
Please review Talk page guidelines and Dispute resolution, both of you. Cjhanley, I don't care if WeldNeck is literally Hitler. WeldNeck, the fact that one user launches a personal attack does not justify doing the same. Both of you please review WP:CIVIL. This isn't about the user; this is about the article. This isn't about grand philosophical arguments; this is about edits. Any discussion that does not directly propose an edit is not useful and will be ignored. It will probably be helpful if both of you propose edits to me or GeneralizationsAreBad, and simply refrain from talking to one another. You are not going to convince the other person here, but you may convince one of us.

WeldNeck, per WP:DR, please address any potential edits in the talk page and reach WP:CONSENSUS before adding the edit. If you do not, I'm pretty sure we have enough people here that we can just revert anything that you do. We will seek at least a ban for you on this page for WP:EDITWAR and the discussion will happily move on without you. This is at least your third warning. To be clear, from this point on I will personally revert any edit that you make on this page regardless of content or reference if you do not address it first on the talk page and reach consensus.

In case you don't know, all of these are links to WP policy and guidelines. There is a reason these are in place: because without them the discussion spirals into two years of useless debate and the article suffers. This will be done the right way. It can be done the right way with you or without you.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Now please propose a specific edit. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets expand the aerial imagery section to include more about what was and what wasn't found. This being the only physical evidence of the events is seems underemphasized in the article. Would you like specific language? WeldNeck (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd also like language added quoting some of the Korean survivors who claimed to remember seeing Ed Dailey. I can dig up a source for this. WeldNeck (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like specific language. Really, what I expect is for you to post the exact proposed edit here on the talk pages. See for example the multiple revisions of the conscription section we went through on the talk for sexism. We cannot judge the veracity of a hypothetical section. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to propose the ground rule that sources must be provided by the editor making a statement. Challenging the other editor to "prove them wrong" is belligerent and negates the point of sourcing. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is probably a good idea. This has gone on so long, and the two parties are so familiar with each other's sources, it seems the discussion often doesn't cite anything. This leaves me in the dark trying to grope around in the discussion history to find what they're talking about. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would like to take charge and not allow our friend to pour still more dreck into the article. Let me explain, as briefly as possible.
 * "Frustration" is hardly the word for what has gone on. For my own mental health, I had to stand back for a year or so and let WP readers be terribly misinformed and confused by the rank nonsense that has polluted this article. This was after some early attempts via ANI and elsewhere to bring WeldNeck under control, get him thrown off WP or whatever (and after still earlier attempts to reason with him, nice guy style). As said, the admins were, frankly, useless ("in over my head"). I'm probably not a good litigator, since someone did get the previous polluter, Kauffner, banned, for nonsense he was perpetrating elsewhere. Your appearance heartened me -- two or three sensible people who want to improve the article, and presumably recognize its importance. In fact, TJWood's suggestion of establishing the known basics and starting from there is, theoretically, a good one. I would favor starting an entirely new article. But WeldNeck is still here (I don't have the stomach right now to litigate), and I worry that he'll mislead you with his aggressive, sure-sounding b.s. I'm struggling to try to summarize the problems for you... Let me say this, for one thing, the article is incredibly bloated with material (guess whose) that is gratuitous and contradicted or flatly disproved by other material, other material that guess-who won't allow to be inserted (instant revert, w/o discussion). It's all mutual-cancellation and a terrible waste of words. The examples are numerous. Just a couple:
 * He's got Buddy Wenzel saying there was gunfire out from the refugees; I knew Wenzel very well and he said just the opposite for years (on the record), until apparently influenced by another vet (known to me) or misquoted/misconstrued by the highly untrustworthy 7th Cav apologist Bateman (WN's source). The article only needs the statement that a couple of (unnamed) vets said there was gunfire out, but there's no concrete or documentary evidence for that.
 * Stuck in May 2000, he insists on playing up this nonsense that witnesses Flint and Hesselman were "not at NGR." But the two guys (who'd been called cold by reporters, had had no contact with others for 50 years, and described the NGR scene and their place in it when asked a simple question about "any trouble with refugees") were so pissed off at this lie purveyed by Bateman that they released their medical records to reporters. The records supported the fact they were there (Hesselman, slight flesh wound, was never evacuated; Flint was evacuated after the initial refugee killings). A story was published to that effect nationwide. The Flint-Hesselman garbage doesn't even belong in the article, but as a compromise it was proposed to cite the knockdown story. WeldNeck reverted it. Consequently, you might actually believe these two wounded vets just made up the NGR story (like everyone else, according to our friend).
 * Just two of many examples. Let me quickly make two more points. Do you know why just now he says he wants to insert some fantasized survivor quote that the survivor saw Daily at NGR (the one ex-soldier who almost certainly was not there)? Because in his mind that demolishes the credibility of everybody who remembers this mass slaughter. What insanity. After years of official investigations, in-depth journalistic reporting, scholarly journal articles and books that confirmed the mass killing, can this article possibly need a bloated section discussing the vagaries of memory and this supposed woman who supposedly (?) spotted a particular big-nosed white guy from 200 meters away while she was ducking bullets?
 * My final point, a very important one, is that WN gets most of his nonsense from the Bateman book. I thought two years ago it was decided here that Bateman, the 7th Cav activist, was a grossly unreliable source and didn't belong in the article. So, I'm sorry, but I must ask you to take a minute and carry out a simple exercise, so that you,, and , can see instantly how deceitful that book is (Bateman didn't go to Korea, didn't interview Koreans and spoke with very few soldier witnesses). This is copied from a 2013 Talk archive:
 * What follows is an important example, but only one of dozens from Bateman’s book, of the distortions, misrepresentations, misreadings of military documents and (as in this case) outright fictions that he fashioned on the way to propounding baseless “theories” about the massacre. Here, from page 120 of his book, is how he purported to show there were enemy infiltrators among the refugees slain at No Gun Ri:
 * ``There were guns, and these guns were collected, turned in to the company supply sergeant, and then passed through him to the battalion supply sergeant, finally working their way up to regiment. Soldiers from one of the nearby platoons collected a Japanese rifle and the Russian submachine gun during a subsequent sweep through the refugees and sent the weapons up through the supply channels, thereby giving some of the only documentary evidence that South Korean communist guerillas were among the South Korean refugees."
 * The footnote for the above paragraph cites ``S-4 (supply) Journal, 7th Cavalry Regiment, entry for July 28, 1950." But Bateman didn’t replicate the document for readers, or even quote from it, and he twice refused to share the “source document” when asked for it by the AP journalists who first confirmed the killings. The AP team subsequently obtained that S-4 log on their own. It’s at . (Click a second and third time to zoom.) Anyone reviewing it with an honest, logical mind will instantly see the flimflam.
 * The 28 July 1950 entry – in the last sentence of the second paragraph – reads, with no surrounding context: ``Captured enemy equipment -- 1 Jap rifle; 1 Russian sub-machine 7.62mm." There's nothing saying who found these weapons, where, when or how. There's nothing at all to link them to the refugees or to guerrillas or to July 26 or to the No Gun Ri area or to the 2nd Battalion.
 * What ``nearby platoon"? What ``company"? What ``subsequent sweep"? This is all fiction. An irrelevant document was hijacked, and random weapons were arbitrarily attributed to imagined “guerrillas" at No Gun Ri, in apparent desperation to produce a central “finding” for a worthless book. There are many, many possible explanations for two weapons turning up in the Korean war zone in the last week of July 1950. One of them: The 7th Cavalry war diary shows ``two prisoners" captured 3 miles southeast of No Gun Ri, in another valley, on July 27. (In a final affront to the truth, Bateman’s use of ``some" implies there is other documentary ``evidence," but he offers none, because there is none.)
 * Does anyone want to defend this kind of claptrap as “reliable”? This example is blatant and easily comprehended. Many others are just as outrageous. Charles J. Hanley 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Please do dig in, fellow contributors, but beware. Cjhanley (talk)
 * Please do dig in, fellow contributors, but beware. Cjhanley (talk)
 * Please do dig in, fellow contributors, but beware. Cjhanley (talk)


 * First, you continue to show your complete disdain for this process with the never ending personal insults. Secondly and more to the point all the material I have added is cited to a publication that meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. If you are going to opine about how Bateman is too "unreliable" to be used here, perhaps we should see what some other individuals have had to say about the AP's work


 * Jeffrey Grey, professor of history UNSW


 * On 13 May 2007, Janet Valentine wrote: "Among the myriad points of dissonance in the discussion of No Gun Ri are the different standards by which journalists and historians work."


 * It's perhaps worth just reminding ourselves as well of a point that Bob Bateman makes in the introduction to his account of No Gun Ri:


 * 'It now appeared that the AP won the Pulitzer Prize for a story in which fully one quarter of its mentioned sources on this side of the Pacific had not been at No Gun Ri or were not members of the 7th Cavalry at the time, but who were nonetheless feeding the AP and other reporters what they wanted to hear. Even more damning . . . was the fact that several of the veterans they represented as having witnessed or taken part in what the journalists all but called a massacre said they were misquoted or that their words were taken out of context.' (p. xii)


 * My question is a simple one: given this, why should we be expected to have any more confidence in Mr Hanley's interpretation of events when he throws a few documents and bits of documents at us, than we can have from the sort of 'evidence' on which he and his colleagues placed so much weight originally, and which has been exposed as false?


 * (Dr) Jeffrey Grey Professor H&SS/ADFA


 * Historian Paul Westermeyer


 * I am not an expert on No Gun Ri, but this comment bring a larger historiography question to the point.


 * Whatever happened at No Gun Ri, it is no longer the province of journalists, but of _historians_. Journalism allows a margin of error that history cannot tolerate, the justification for that is that Journalism is immediate, there may not be time to gather all the facts on unfolding events.  Moreover, Journalism is driven by sensationalism and scandal.  The journalist looks for the 'scoop' and jealously hoards his sources against his fellow journalists. Journalism, constrained by time, tends to accept sources at face value, especially witnesses.  And Journalists. Constrained by time and writing for an impatient audience, spend little time or effort on understanding the context of their story.  They do not place it within the framework of larger events.


 * Historians, in contrast, are _not_ driven by immediate concerns. They can, and should take as long as needed to ferret the truth of an event. They are not deadline driven.  Historians should not be driven by sensation or scandal, but by historical importance and relevance.  Many 'sensational' stories are interesting, but they are not historically relevant.  Historians do not hunt for the 'scoop', nor do they hoard sources (or should not).  On the contrary, the more historians who examine a given issue, the better.  Historians spend a great deal of time carefully examining their sources, _especially_ witnesses, and especially witness speaking long after the fact.  And every historian must answer the question of context fully.


 * Anyone who has worked with veterans and oral history understands the ways in which war stories shift and then solidify into myth. Last year I interviewed some Medal of Honor recipients, these were all men who had been formally interviewed about these specific events many times.  It was clear that they were reciting the 'Story', something honed, unintentionally, over the years through subconscious readings of what the listener found interesting or shocking.  Our job would be easier if everyone possessed total, objective recall, but we do not. That is why history is difficult, and why journalism cuts that corner to save time.


 * Finally, as I mentioned I am no expert on No Gun Ri, but I attended graduate school with Bob Bateman. He is an extremely ethical, skilled historian and he would never attempt to white wash any crimes or scandals he discovered in the Army, or his regiment.  Bob is not an 'apologist' for this event but he is a historian who demands, as we all should, careful attention to the sources.


 * Paul Westermeyer, Historian, History Division Marine Corps University


 * Now, lets get back to the brass tacks of working on this article and leave the personal insults and professional grievances for another forum. WeldNeck (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (All I can say regarding that is that Westermeyer and anyone else should carry out the very simple exercise I prescribe above and then tell me about Bateman's ethics. Good grief. And, WeldNeck, if we're not to assess the reliability of sources here, tell me what other forum you're talking about.) Meantime: My apologies to the others for just now not directly addressing your earlier points in this section, but TJWood's very understandable feeling of groping in the dark made me feel I ought to at least try to summarize briefly one kind of problem plaguing the article: simple bloat, with gratuitous, sometimes moot material. (And another: Bateman proved himself a highly unreliable source.) I truly think starting over might be the best route, if painful and demanding. But short of that, I would suggest editing from the top -- while resisting any new unnecessary bloat. One necessary addition to the intro would be the current, updated official estimate of dead: 250-300, as cited at the government museum (source: Korean news story). Charles J. Hanley 15:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * If I could, I would remove all Veteran statements sourced to the AP because of the source contamination they introduced with Ed Dailey. The fact that Daily contacted veterans of the 2-7 after he spun his yarn for the AP and in all probability convinced them into remembering his version of events remains very troubling. WeldNeck (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll be Captain Obvious here and remark that a main issue is the conflict between Bateman and the AP story. This is the very conflict that I initially tried to address with my first comment here, and I think it needs to be settled for good. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Both meet the WP:RS criteria and both should be used. Thats been my position from day one. There are obviously more verifiable holes in the body of the AP's work but with that said it still can be (and has been by me!) used in the article as a source. WeldNeck (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'll respond to yours below on the edits, but first I must say: I beg you, and  to perform the simple, two-minute exercise prescribed above, linking to Bateman's fraudulently hijacked document, to see, in easy, comprehensible fashion, how deceitful the man was in putting his "book" together. My colleagues and I assembled a 10,000-word demolition of that book, finding more than 100 jaw-dropping examples of how utterly untrustworthy the man is. His self-contradictions alone would make a serious scholar sick. (In fact, please do search the Talk archives for BW5530, a serious scholar who skewers Bateman in a dispassionate and informed way.) I will be happy to send our Bateman critique to you all. Just email me at cjhanley@att.net. Again, Bateman, a 7th Cavalry veteran and association activist, who vowed to get the AP for what it did (as quoted in the Wash Post), did not go to Korea, did not interview the surviving victims or any Koreans, and interviewed only four vets from NGR and didn't quote them on casualties or "kill" orders (one was Wenzel, who told us and others first he saw 75, then 200 dead on the tracks). I didn't want to get into this, thinking the Bateman sourcing was limited, or we could discuss it later. But, on the other hand, if you all take the time to examine this issue, I'm sure you'll see Bateman's a horror show and should be held unreliable, and considerable turmoil will be avoided later. Charles J. Hanley 19:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Greetings colleagues. I am a fairly experienced editor with some knowledge of the subject, and have been attempting to catch up on the vast reams of material that has been generated thus far. I have an initial suggestion, to seperate the Bateman issue from the overall discussion to improve the article. (From my reading of it, it could be in far worse shape than it is at the moment). I suggest Bateman be taken to the WP:RS noticeboard, so a wider consensus can be reached as to it's suitability. Also, I would urge Civility, and the Assumption of good faith, as has been urged several times in this complex and emotional discussion. Regards Irondome (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bateman was brought to WP:RSN but there was little imput. Based on the reviews of his book there wasn't any criticism outside Hanley here on the talk page. WeldNeck (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have just submitted a request. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the reviews I found from last time and thats all. WeldNeck (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A few citations still needed
I read through the article a few times and found a few things that still need citations. You guys seem to be working on multiple things at once now, and the tags will still be there when you get the bandwidth to deal with it.

I found citations for the first two, but the article might be better without the sentence cited in the first one and a page number is still needed for the 2nd one. I’m not sure about the 3rd one so I didn’t tag it in the article.

1)	Picture caption: “Hundreds of thousands of South Koreans fled south in mid-1950 after the North Korean army invaded. North Korean forces used the refugee crisis to cloak the movement of infiltrators and guerrilla forces.”
 * Although there is supporting evidence for the second sentence elsewhere in the article, such a blanket statement should have its own citation. I found support for this in the US No Gun Ri Review Report and reworded accordingly.  The first sentence can probably remain without citation.  Alternatively, I think this picture would be fine without the second sentence.  Also I don’t see any evidence that there were NK infiltrators in this group of refugees, so it might be better not to mention NK forces in this picture’s caption.

2)	Picture caption: “North Korean snipers dressed in the white garments common among refugee groups being searched and interrogated by American and South Korean troops in early August of 1950.”
 * Page number needed. (I copied the citation information from the Wikimedia picture page, but there was no page number listed for the US No Gun Ri Review, and pictures are not included in the Wikisource copy of the US No Gun Ri Review.)


 * Page # 71. WeldNeck (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

3)	“During the Battle of Taejon later in mid-July, hundreds of North Korean soldiers, many dressed in white to disguise themselves as refugees, infiltrated behind the lines of the U.S. 24th Infantry Division and played a crucial role in the defeat of the 24th at Taejon. The battle resulted in the capture of Major General William Dean, the conflict's highest-ranking prisoner of war.[5] “:
 * Is the first sentence covered in citation 5? (It looks like it is, so I didn’t tag this in the article, but it would be good to be sure).

4)	“At the war’s outbreak, the United States declared it would abide by the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1949 Geneva Conventions' articles regarding protection of civilians during wartime.[24]:113 The Hague Convention and the U.S. Army's own contemporaneous Rules of Land Warfare manual said that belligerents must distinguish non-combatants from combatants and treat them humanely.[27][28]”
 * Secondary sources are needed for the second sentence.
 * (On an unrelated note, it’s a bit jarring for the first paragraph of the aftermath section to be about things before and during the massacre. Smoothly incorporating the “legal framework” (which I believe used to be its own section) into the article is tricky business, so it might take some work to come up with a good solution.)

5)	“In 1994, the U.S. Armed Forces Claims Service in Korea dismissed one No Gun Ri petition by asserting that any killings took place during combat. The survivors' committee retorted that there was no battle at No Gun Ri,[33] but U.S. officials refused to reconsider.”
 * Did US officials even respond to the survivor’s committee’s “retort”? A secondary source describing the officials’ refusal is needed.  Or is this also in the Victim’s Review Report cited later in the paragraph?

--Wikimedes (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Good points. I can and will certainly help, but as you note I think we've got a number of balls in the air. In fact, if we can restore a section-by-section process here, perhaps you could raise each of the above in the appropriate section? Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Posted articles should help greatly

 * I have posted at User:Cjhanley/Critical Asian Studies article the extensively detailed and sourced 2010 article on No Gun Ri from the scholarly journal Critical Asian Studies. While examining the irregularities of the U.S. Army investigative report on No Gun Ri (and also citing the South Korean report at times), it also introduces the reader to the facts, the gaps and the nuances of the No Gun Ri story. I highly recommend it to anyone editing this WP NGR article.


 * As noted, I also posted at my user page the KC Star article on Tinkler.


 * If anyone wants to see any other source material from No Gun Ri Massacre, please ask. I'll email it or post it as needed. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Thanks very much, this is helpful. Where might I be able to find Sahr Conway-Lanz's "Beyond No Gun Ri?" After a lot of looking, I've been unable to find the whole thing. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I believe that Conway-Lanz article from the Dip History journal is only available behind a paywall. Have you still not found it elsewhere? If so, I'll scan the relevant pages and, I hope, convert to text and post at my User page. I'm skirting those pesky copyright laws, and will advise all that they should download quickly from my User page, or email me to ask for particular source material. (Someone's already taken down the KC Star article on Tinker.) Please let me know whether you found the article elsewhere. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk)


 * Also, I've found some more articles which may or may not be helpful:
 * "A War Crime against an Ally's Civilians: The No Gun Ri Massacre," by Tae Ung-Baik, published in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. (Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3 -- 1-1-2012)
 * "No Gun Ri Incident: Implications for the U.S. Army," by Moo Bong Ryoo, published by the United States Army Command and General Staff College.
 * "Silencing Survivors' Narratives: Why Are We Again Forgetting the No Gun Ri Story?" by Suhi Choi, published by Michigan State University Press in Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Volume 11, Number 3, Fall 2008, pp. 367-388.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Choi is here: User:GeneralizationsAreBad/Choi GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moo Bong Ryoo is here: []
 * Tae Ung-Baik is here: [] GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ummm

 * 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 am picking up the latter at this point. After over four hours of reading the arguments and counterarguments. I still have no POV on this, but WP is not a mouthpiece for AP, and dissenting voices must be heard. I am concerned especially by the copious use of oral testimony which appears in several cases to have been repudiated by the original source. I would suggest a removal of all oral testimony from the article, as they cannot be counted on as WP:RS, especially if they are subsequently disputed. I would further suggest this article be completely rewritten by editors who are not so "involved", professionally or emotionally. Irondome (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A rewrite would be messy, but I'm prepared to roll up my sleeves. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. Irondome (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TIND, let's wait and see where this goes. Remember, this is talk, not ANI. We should be evaluating sources, not editors. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm afraid you're misreading things horribly. TJWood is trying to ringmaster a rational assault on improving the article, and so I am trying to refrain from "personal attacks" (although how can someone who  suffer from personal attacks, since nobody knows who he is?). But since this article can only be further damaged by editors coming in truly innocent of what has been going on, I implore you to look at the "Reader Beware" section here, outlining WeldNeck's technique of blitzkrieg reverts. To top it off, he immediately deleted that section from Talk. You see,.


 * Secondly, you've said you know something about No Gun Ri. How did you learn about it? Have you read the book The Bridge at No Gun Ri, which is the definitive story (up until 2001), written by the journalists who won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize? I can't get the book to you instantly, but I can send you a lengthy article from the academic journal Critical Asian Studies that in 2010 meticulously detailed the elements of the Army's 2001 whitewash report on NGR, if you will email me off my user page, or simply at cjhanley@att.net. That article, in passing, gives one a very good picture of the basic NGR story. (and that article is now posted at User:Cjhanley/Critical Asian Studies article, .)


 * I would welcome any new material from both of you gentlemen. I would certainly study it with keen interest. I already note some links have been thoughtfully posted by Mr. Hanley. I would certainly welcome any additional material. I certainly have no intention of making any significant edits until I have fully appraised all new material and the frankly vast history of the disputation. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 19:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) That's very good to hear. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 19:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(Back to Hanley)
 * Finally, you have to be aware as you proceed that No Gun Ri denialists, spewing falsehoods, slandering the Korean victims, slandering the "yellow journalists" who exposed NGR, have been active on the Internet since 2000. They're simply The previous one on WP, going by "Kauffner," got banned.


 * It's getting a little tiresome being told to lay off the "personal" stuff, when I'm being told so by people who haven't bothered to read up on the facts and who seem to think there's some equivalence between the professionals who did the hard work for years on this subject, and an anonymous serial reverter (at many other articles as well) who somehow has escaped being shown the door. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA: "The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user... Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it... editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia."

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Cliff notes on No Gun Ri
,,, , I just realized the easiest, least painful way to ground yourself in the No Gun Ri story is to watch the BBC's excellent documentary on No Gun Ri, here []. Jeremy Williams' online accompanying BBC report is here [] German ARD television also did another very good hour-long documentary, here []. That, I believe, is the first link of five, the film having been split up for some reason. The links are all there in the right-hand column at YouTube. Charles J. Hanley 16:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the best backgournd source I have found is this paper from Dale C. Kuehl. He provides a most reasonable reconstruction of the events beginning on page 73 but the whole paper is worth a read if you are interested. WeldNeck (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Kuehl, who was helped with documents by AP, is an Army guy with a clear protective bias (not reckless and dishonest, like Bateman, but an honest guy looking for the best interpretation of things). Secondly, his master's thesis (not a usable source on WP, one thought) is outdated, as I think noted previously, as well as misleading and uninformed. Outdated because the discovery of the Ambassador Muccio letter, reporting a theater-wide policy to shoot approaching refugees, came three years later. I won't belabor; if anyone's interested, I can point out further problems. (Of course, he didn't go to Korea, didn't talk to victims etc.) Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 17:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I wince at throwing out sources, but are master's theses truly not usable on WP? Some of the background did seem helpful, but we can always source it from elsewhere if need be. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure I saw such a "rule," but one probably observed more in the breach. Maj. Bong's thesis, which you retrieved, takes, as I recall, a more forthright approach than Kuehl. (They both were studying at the Command and General Staff College.) The Sahr Conway-Lanz article in Journal of Diplomatic History, which won some kind of annual award from diplomatic historians, is very important (and led to his book, Collateral Damage). It's probably not available online, but I'll risk arrest and post the relevant section at my user page. Charles J. Hanley 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) Ah, spoke too soon; I have only hard copy of Conway-Lanz. If I can figure out a way to scan bits and post, I will. Charles J. Hanley 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Don't bother breaking the law; I'll try to find it on JSTOR, EBSCO or Project Muse. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:RS has more on the rules governing use of scholarship. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe published thesis' are acceptable as RS if they meet certain criteria. I deployed one earlier this year, to no outcry. I would be most grateful if you could link anything you find, as I have not yet applied for my JSTOR account, due to pure sloth. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will indeed! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From Identifying_reliable_sources (3rd bullett) "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." (There's more in the rest of the bullet.)  So a published master's thesis might be sort of OK.--Wikimedes (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An additional source for some on the debate and controversy behind the AP's series as well as the primary alternate POV as to the events of the day Did the Associated Press Misrepresent the Events that Happened at No Gun Ri?. One excellent point is every time you hear the AP talk about how they never misquoted anyone and they have the videotapes to prove it ... they wont release any of that material making it impossible for any kind of independent verification of the source. The kind of verification which separates academic and journalistic material. WeldNeck (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That is simply more dreck from Bateman, the source of all the made-up rubbish about NGR. But my colleagues and I replied, and the site offers an excellent explanation, link and entree into Bateman's shining moment, when he hijacked a document unrelated to NGR and, while hiding it from his readers, claimed it "proved" something it didn't even deal with. And this was no misreading, misunderstanding of Bateman's. It was simply an outright fraud. Take a look, and please do link and study the document, if you haven't done so. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 21:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * I' not entirely convinced that Bateman doesn't warrant some inclusion in the article. But I'm also not entirely convinced that he isn't a vast minority dissenter. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , have you done the two-minute exercise and seen the irrelevant S-4 document that Bateman claimed "proved" "two guerrillas" were present at NGR? Cjhanley (talk)


 * Considering Hanley attempted to get Bateman's work squashed, his thoughts should not be taken into consideration because of his COI in this respect. And speaking of fraud ... just how long did the AP have Daily's service records before they came clean? 00:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)


 * No one's thoughts are to be taken into consideration. What is under consideration are the sources. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit 1
Starting with the intro section, and the first paragraph, I propose that we change the following (no refs in an intro):

Instead it should read:

WP intros are to be tight and footnote-free. The word “incident” is tendentious, an effort to minimize a major historic event (the “My Lai incident”? the “Malmedy incident”?) With the estimate now established by the government-funded museum/park (the foundation, which of course will be footnoted in the body of the article), it’s time to relegate the early, widely varied estimates to the lower “Casualties” section. The Army's "unknown" of 2001 (it didn't investigate casualties) also belongs there, if in the article at all, since it adds nothing to our knowledge and was long ago superseded. "Inquest certified the names" is a more precise description.


 * "Incident" is another common, all be it less common, name for these events. Leaving only the south Korean estimate in the introduction to the exclusion of all other estimates starts the article off on a bad foot by minimizing other WP:RS's. WeldNeck (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WeldNeck, is "incident" a common name for the event or is it used by a small minority of sources? What sources refer to the event as an incident? Are they numerous and prominent per WP:UNDUE. What are the other estimates and from whom? Why is the unknown estimate notable enough to include in the lead per WP:LEAD?
 * Cjhanley, try to remember to sign your comments. It makes it difficult to follow who is saying what. Are there other estimates that can be used besides Korean? You'll forgive me if I see Korean sources as being as suspect as American. They both have an agenda. Are there third party secondary sources? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's what I got, searching by exact words in quotation marks on Google and Google Scholar:
 * Google Scholar:
 * "No Gun Ri Massacre": 65 results
 * "No Gun Ri Incident": 63 results
 * Google:
 * "No Gun Ri Massacre": 5780 results
 * "No Gun Ri Incident": 1740 results

Just food for thought.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

When I search scholar for "Nogeun-ri incident" I get six hits. Two of them are duplicates. So it's really four hits and two of them are in Korean, so I have no idea what they are. I realize we're arguing about anglicizations of non-latin based words. You could make the same arguments on topics rooted in Arabic. Someone in the depths of the talk (no idea who) suggested that we include the name of the event in Korean. Maybe we could try to enlist someone on WP who speaks Korean to provide this and skip the whole debate? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, since the event took place in Korea, it's a good idea to have the Korean name in the first line of the article (I can't remember if it's "allowed", "recommended", or "required".) As GeneralizationsAreBad states below, inclusion of a name is more a matter of whether a name is used (commonly or in scholarly works) than whether the name is accurate or tendentious (we have articles on the Pig War and the Great Leap forward for example).  I'll take a closer look later, but I'd like to skip a lengthy debate if possible, which can by itself take months.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Is the strafing incident generally considered to be part of the No Gun Ri Massacre? Also, do most reliable sources agree that this strafing incident happened?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm late spotting these points/questions:


 * Strafing: Yes, it was the beginning of the carnage. And yes, of course, even the U.S. Army report said NGR refugees were killed by strafing. If you raise this question because you've been confused in reading the article's discussion of an air attack, welcome to the club. There's entirely too much pointless wordage on this, seemingly to raise doubts on something universally accepted.
 * Other estimates on casualties: Well, there was the North Korean reporter who counted about 400 bodies at the time; there was Command Sgt. Maj. Garza, who led a patrol through the tunnel and said he saw 200-300 bodies stacked up (others remember that patrol returning and talking about the heaps of bodies); and then the very early eyewitness estimates. But no other official estimates, except earlier SK government numbers that evolved into the 250-300 we can now cite.
 * On the Korean-language name for the massacre, I don't speak Korean but have learned that one Korean term used has sometimes been inadequately translated as "incident." I'm told by bilingual people that the Korean term is much weightier, signifying more an important event or episode. And, of course, they use a Korean term translated as "massacre." So, do we want both of those in the Hangul alphabet? Or leave it for now, as Wikimedes seems to suggest? Charles J. Hanley 18:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

"Nogeun-ri incident" does not seem to be a popular usage. I have posted on a Korean page, asking for a translation. I propose using the Korean and skipping the whole debate.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

On “Denialism and Photographic Evidence
Since Hanley has brought this up, I think I would address this.

This word “denialism” has been thrown around a lot in this debate. According to some, anyone who questions any portion of the AP’s reports is a “denialist”, meaning we believe nothing bad happened. Let me clarify why I have always found the AP’s story so suspicious and what I believe the most likely series of events is.

The AP would have you believe that the 2-7 spent 3 days ordering air attacks on a group of refugees and pouring fire into a group of civilians trapped under a rail bridge. They would also have you believe the officers in the 2-7 from the CC all the way to the BC himself ordered this. They would also lead the reader to believe that up to 400 people died in these attacks. Now, I first began to question this with the timeline. Anyone who has seen firsthand what a .30-06 rifle cartridge can do to human flesh would immediately realize that had a heavy weapons platoon and several rifle platoons poured continuous (or even sporadic but regular) fire into a tightly packed group of people for 3 days and nights, there’d be nothing left but hamburger. But according to the AP, this is exactly what happened and then, according to both sides, when the dirty work was done they sent medics in to tend to the wounded and evacuate those they couldn’t treat on the scene.

Does that make any sense?

And had several hundred people been killed … where’s the evidence? Now, the survivors said they did several things with the hundreds of bodies: left them in place, piled them up in the trestle, buried them in mass graves, and used the abandoned fighting holes to intern the remains. Five days after the US withdrew though; a USAF reconnaissance plane flew over the area and took surveillance photos. The photos show no evidence of mass graves, no bodies left in the open, no bodies in the tunnel, no improvised graves in the fighting holes and none of the assorted dunnage strewn about that you would expect to see from several hundred refugees who dropped their possessions after being killed. This is the absolute trump card in this debate and the main reason why Mr Hanley so desperately wants to eviscerate this section. He says all the bodies were in the rail tunnel where the cameras could not see them, but how likely is it that several hundred bodies and all the possessions of the deceased would be staked like cordwood ONLY in the area of the tunnel where the reconnaissance footage could not see? And what does that say about the claims of the survivors that the bodies were immediately buried? The aerial surveillance calls into doubt much of the refugee’s testimony and provides a great deal of evidence that the death toll was very low. I always wondered why the AP never touched on this … In the tens of thousands of words the AP team has written on No Gun Ri, the USAF’s surveillance footage is never mentioned even once (to the best of my knowledge). It probably caused them too much cognitive dissonance. You have all this research, all these interviews and then in black and white you have photographic evidence that turns all that on its head. What I have come to believe happened was a group of refugees attempted to cross the US battle line. The Army said no. The USAF strafed them as a target of opportunity (just as they attacked the Bn’s command post the day before) believing them to be KPA forces in disguise. They then took refuge in the rail tunnel. When they tried to move from the tunnel towards US lines, some troops fired warning shots over their heads, some fired into them for a very brief period of time and some did nothing. The officers ordered them to stop firing and in investigate. They then ordered medics to assist the wounded and evacuate those they could behind US lines. The rest were left in the tunnel and told to stay put. The 2-7 then withdrew as part of the overall retreat.

Refugees did die, but the number was not in the hundreds (probably not more than a few dozen), the air attack was not ordered by the 2-7, and there were no orders given to fire on the by the BC or CC. All of these statement can be supported by a reliable source as well. But I suppose that makes me a denialist. WeldNeck (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:OR. This does not cite any sources and does not propose any edit or change to any proposed edit. It is therefore not useful. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you want sources? Ill add them tomorrow. WeldNeck (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No. I want edits. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Too many untruths,imaginings
,, , : As I've said before, I cannot possibly find the time or the stomach to refute every "point" raised by WeldNeck. I assure you that everything of seeming "substance" he writes, if not untrue, is at least off-topic (since the massacre did happen, the U.S. Army and everybody else confirmed it, the strafing happened, the "kill" orders and policies are there, the SK government very meticulously confirmed 218 casualties, dead and wounded, and estimates 250-300 dead, and everybody remembers the bodies stacked under the bridge). However, if any of you want me to address a particular point, please do ask.

Meantime, WeldNeck, cut out the damned deletions of my material. Restore my description of that passage as being poorly written etc. Pronto. Cjhanley (talk)


 * I wont restore personal attacks and am creating a of of them for future use. WeldNeck (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * However, I can't help but address one point, since it crystallizes a major problem: WeldNeck writes of Ambassador Muccio's letter to Asst Sec State Dean Rusk, "One reason I always found the Muccio-Rusk letter to be a red herring is the notion that a theater wide policy could go from the Assisant Secretary of State all the way down to a front line battalion in the same day." The problem should be obvious: comprehension, an issue that cropped up over and over in the miserable months when I was trying to reason with him. Obviously, the policy decided at the July 25 U.S. Eighth Army staff meeting, with the U.S. embassy sitting in, was promulgated through Army channels. Muccio, on July 26, was writing Rusk merely to inform him of the Army decision (and possible "repercussions"). And, lo and behold, the NGR slaughter begins that day. WeldNeck, Foggy Bottom doesn't tell DOD what to do. Lord, have mercy on me. Charles J. Hanley 15:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * As with Weld's section above. This does not propose an edit and is unproductive. Please stop general debate. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Any information on rules of engagement?

 * Is there documentary evidence that rules of engagement were issued during the first deployments of U.S. units in June? Do we know what these were? I am wading through a mass of new material, so apologies if I have not reached it if it is in already cited material. Irondome (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Many man-weeks of research at the National Archives never turned up anything dubbed "rules of engagement." I don't know when that terminology entered U.S. military SOP. But, of course, we do have plenty of documented orders to "fire on" refugees, and "shoot" all civilians. And so I wonder why you ask about ROEs. In effect, those were the ROEs. FYI, the 1st Cav Division in Japan almost entirely missed training on dealing with civilians in wartime. That came from the horse's mouth, a very regretful divisional training officer from 1950, interviewed in 1998 not long before he died. Charles J. Hanley 23:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * My question was based on whether any preliminary guidance was given to the initial units deploying, whatever the terminology of the day may have been. Was the 24th Inf Div given any? This was the first unit deployed in those first chaotic days. I am unsure whether the apparently ad-hoc guidance to "fire on" refugees would qualify as what today would be termed ROEs, which appear to be agreed on before units are engaged. I believe there are precedents for "ROEs" from WW2. I ask about ROEs because I need to clear that point up, for my own clarity. Regards. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A few things, please read the documents Hanley is citing in their entirety. There is a great deal of context in them the AP team has, IMO, intentionally left out.


 * As for the ROE's, I found this clip from Life Magazine pretty interesting (emphasis in the original):
 * "“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.”- John Osborne, “Report from the Orient: Guns are not Enough,” Life, 21 August 1950"
 * 00:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the 1st Cav Div archives, in particular, were checked thoroughly, and nothing there would fit the description. We heard about a lot of oral briefings, on the troopship to Korea etc. The SOPs were in the training manuals. In fact, the 7th Cav regimental commander was spotted in his cabin cramming FM 7-40, "Infantry Regiment," on the way over to his "big exam." Charles J. Hanley 23:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

P.S. In the oral briefings, the 7th Cav men were told the enemy would be in civilian clothes, or often in civilian clothes. The fatal paranoia had already taken hold. Charles J. Hanley 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Considering how the KPA had been documented using refugees to infiltrate US lines, the paranoia was justified. WeldNeck (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From Kuehl, Pg 8; "Finally reacting to the problem, Eighth Army published its first policy

statement on refugees on 26 July, the same day as No Gun Ri. Although trying to clarify the procedures, the policy still left much up to the division commanders. How did these policies impact the soldiers at the front? Were they legal? Were they clear?" What "policy statement" is this referring to? I can find no reference to it in the article, and it puzzles me. It sounds like a ROE guideline for treatment of civilians. Do we have a copy of the original "policy statement"? I can only assume that it refers to the Muccio letter to Rusk, dated the 26th. It appears to be a desperately late and muddled attempt to create ROEs which poorly translated as localised "orders to fire". A collapsing U.S./R.O.K front and panic seems to have been the poisoned offspring of this confused Muccio-Rusk communication. In this context the Life extract quoted above makes more sense given the realities on the ground. There also appear to be significant differences between the wording of the extract of the subsequent letter presented in the article and the original letter held at WP:Commons Simon Irondome (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One reason I always found the Muccio-Rusk letter to be a red herring is the notion that a theater wide policy could go from the Assisant Secretary of State all the way down to a front line battalion in the same day. Even with the communications the Army has today, something like that isnt possible. What differences in the letter do you see with how its represented in the article? 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)


 * As noted in a comment below, a Department of State underling in Washington does not issue orders to troops of the Department of the Army 9,000 miles away at a war front. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

A symptomatic problem
I must say, as I swallow hard and reread this NGR Massacre article that I've sworn off for months, I don't know how you folks can possibly gain any sure understanding of the subject. But, please, you need to try. Here's a sad and extremely important example of the illogic, non sequiturs and, at times, chaos that's been introduced:

High in the "Events of 25-29 July" section (military usage once fixed to "... July 25-29" and then reverted by guess who), WeldNeck fashioned a poorly written, long, rambling passage about "TACPs" and "An explanation for the refugee strafing was never confirmed by investigators," in an apparent effort to... let's see, maybe suggest it was all a terrible accident? But wait, there are "no flight logs or action summaries from any air assets operating in or around the No Gun Ri," and so maybe it never happened! But, whatever, the "air assets" couldn't have meant any harm, you know. OK, now....

It isn't until 15 paragraphs and 2,000 words later, at the end of an entirely new section, that we learn, if we're attentive since the mention is so brief, that a memo from the USAF operations chief, the day before NGR, said the Air Force was attacking all refugee groups approaching U.S. lines, at the Army's request.

This sort of thing is simply outrageous and it rears its ugly head throughout the article. More and more, I'm telling you, the most efficient solution is to revert way back and rebuild. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 22:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * I understand that both of you are probably frustrated. But you have to understand that this is akin to a diplomatic negotiation. At the heart of it, on WP whatever can be easily done can be easily undone. However, if we take our time, vet the sources, wrangle over the wording, and establish a solid consensus among many editors, it provides a level of security for whatever the end product is. It provides a significant burden of proof for anyone who wants to change the article: they have to overcome the consensus we reach, and the argument to reach that consensus stands as a record to testify against whoever wants to make substantial changes in the future. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well put. Got to call it a night here. Sorry we're working on different shifts. Charles J. Hanley 23:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * The strafing is important because it has been alleged by the survivors and the AP that the strafing was intentional (knowingly attacked civilians) AND ordered by the 2-7. The attack couldn't have been ordered by the 2-7 because they didnt have the technical capability to do so.


 *  the Air Force was attacking all refugee groups approaching U.S. lines, at the Army's request


 * How did the army strafe the refugees at the battalions request when the did not have the technical capability to do so?


 * The intent is important because the AF pilots had attacked the nearby 1-7's command post just the day before. Friendly fire happens in combat zones and it certainly happened that day. WeldNeck (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is evidently not a specific reference to NGR in particular, but a general policy. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it, of course, . My follow-on point from what I say at the top of this section -- and this relates to important upcoming edits -- is that the "Events of July 25-29" section should simply recount what happened, that the refugees were strafed from the air, fired on by ground troops, and died. That section shouldn't try to explain the why. That should come later, with the investigations and the emergence of many documents, at which point it can be written that USAF ops chief Rogers wrote they were strafing all refugee groups in a memo the day before the NGR killings began with a strafing. The reader can draw his own conclusions. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk)


 * That would, unfortunately, be WP:SYNTH; even if the causality appears obvious, it still must be sourced. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit 3
I propose that we change the following line:

Instead it should read:

Tinkler has given multiple statements on how much he fired and how long he fired for. Because of this, I would like to remove reference to that and only concentrate on what he has not provided contradictory statements on. WeldNeck (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WeldNeck, we're trying to take this in some sensible order, from the top. Let's leave poor Tinkler alone for now. Charles J. Hanley 18:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * No, I like this order better. WeldNeck (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Galloway says that Tinkler stands by his statement. If necessary, we could say "Tinkler reported he fired at least [x rounds] for at least [y time]." I would support including more of the detail from Tinkler in the original version that doesn't deal with shooting, since he hasn't apparently contradicted that part. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding Galloway in general, please be aware of something. As noted on page 44 of A Century of Media, a Century of War (Lang, 2006, New York) by Robin Andersen: "… The truth of the incident did not rely on one faulty memory of war. Other evidence and testimony provided ample proof that a massacre took place. Only later was it revealed that the attempt to discredit the story came from the military affairs reporter at U.S. News & World Report, Joseph Galloway, a member of the veterans group opposed to the story." Also, from page 19 of Truth Claims: representation and human rights (Rutgers University Press, 2002, New Brunswick), in an essay by NYU historian Marilyn Young: Galloway's US News article "neglected any discussion of Korean witnesses or the general orders of the day: 'No refugees to cross the lines. Fire everyone trying to cross lines.'" What she's saying is that Galloway, disgracefully, didn't tell readers there were Korean survivor witnesses who told the same story as the ex-GIs Galloway was struggling to discredit, and didn't tell readers there were orders flying across the war front to shoot civilians. Does that sound to you like a reliable source for this article? He later left the magazine. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * He sounds no less reliable than a journalistic outfit that had been shown to use the testimony of frauds and misrepresent the testimony of others. Wouldn't you agree? WeldNeck (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I cant find the Kansas Star article, and the other two links seem to be broken. We're going to need to provide sources before we start asserting whether Tinker made conflicting statements or whether he stood by his word. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've posted the KC Star article at User:Cjhanley/KC Star Tinkler article, and . But, guys, why do this "rabbit trailing," to use TJW's phrase? Tinkler's quotes are decidedly tertiary. There are various quotes from Tinkler from various media. He says he machine gunned a lot of people; he says he doesn't remember orders; that's because everybody was shooting; other guys, closer to the company commanders etc., remember orders ("Kill 'em all"). I don't get the Tinkler thing 'Neck has foisted on you. Let's deal with the intro section, then the next section etc., no? I'm sorry I know so much and you know so little, but what am I supposed to do? Charles J. Hanley 14:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WeldNeck proposed an edit, and I offered my input. We can get to everything in due time. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, thanks for posting sources. It saves us all a lot of trouble. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So it looks like we have two sources in opposition to the edit. The claim has been made that Tinkler made conflicting statements, but no conflicting statements in WP:RS have been submitted. I think we can probably move toward closing this suggestion unless additional sources can be provided. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll have the sources by tomorrow evening. WeldNeck (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit 5
I propose changing this:

To this:

Obvious edit for clarity. I know this is a contentious subject, but I hope we can all agree on grammar. '''Please do not debate here. This is not a controversial edit.'''

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been, and it seems unlikely that there will be very much dissent on this. I'm going to go ahead and close this proposal and make the edit. It's probably a good idea going forward that we adopt a policy where the editor who makes the edit is not the editor who proposes it. So in an absolute worst case, there are at least two editors in agreement. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Synth (?)
The following sentence -- while undoubtedly true -- violates WP:SYNTH:

Although established international laws of war, such as the 1907 Hague Convention, held belligerents responsible for the conduct of their subordinates,[49] Clinton later told reporters, "The evidence was not clear that there was responsibility for wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible."[50]

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. The next question is: when a reference is found that contains this factual information, what should the proper NPOV wording be?  The question after that is: when half the article is made up of short, factual, well-referenced, relevant, implicit (or explicit) criticisms of the US Army and US Government, how can one make the article read like a neutrally-worded encyclopedia article instead of a piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism?--Wikimedes (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You've hit the nail on the head. I think a complete review for wording would help. I'll do my best to work on it.GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For a nice change of tone, check out this February 2006 version.. (Though it is almost completely lacking inline citations.)--Wikimedes (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Brings back memories :) GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Real life calls. Don’t let the drama and the line by line work make you lose sight of the fact that the article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view.

Somewhere between this version (just before Cjhanley) and this version  (just before Weldneck), the article became part scathing indictment of the US military and US Government, and part advocacy piece for Korean civilians killed by US forces. The article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. More than removing a few “however”s and “but”s, rearranging a few pointedly juxtaposed facts, rephrasing the introduction of entire events now brought up by making a critical statement (“South Korean investigators disagreed with Pentagon findings” – how about mentioning that there was a South Korean investigation first?), etc, the article will need to be restructured. I expect that this will still be the case when you all get done going through it line by line. The necessary rewrite will probably be accomplished by a couple of editors, who have come up to speed on the reliable sources, working in a Sandbox with complete freedom to rewrite the article (maybe GeneralizationsAreBad and Irondome?). This will likely take several months in addition to the line by line work going on now. The good news is that much of the necessary content is already in the article and well referenced. My two cents.

--Wikimedes (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Korean name of the incident
The Korean name of the No Gun Ri Incident is 노근리 양민 학살 사건. This name is not so difficult to find, it's the title of the Korean Wikipedia article 노근리 양민 학살 사건 that is listed in the left column of this English Wikipedia article. A translation of this name is not so difficult to obtain either, even Google Translate can do that. nogeunli (노근리) is Nogun-li, the place where the incident takes place. hagsal (학살) is, at your choice, slaughter, pogrom, massacre, carnage, butchery or cruel murder. yangmin (양민) is civilians: those who were killed like animals (slaughtered) were civilians. And sageon (사건) is incident, case, event. Something that factually occured, without any notion of scale as would be implied by "big murder" or "small murder" or even "collateral" one. Pldx1 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thank you for the help. I hesitated to use g.translate. It seemed like a good way to end up with something obliviously silly. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Galloway, his editor rolled back-important
Rooting around in things, reviving traumatic memories, I rediscovered that Galloway's executive editor at U.S. News & World Report, Brian Duffy, subsequently admitted they screwed up with their defamation of wounded vet Flint, having neglected (or, I would say, more likely ignored) a key document. "We should have cited the morning report that said he was wounded on the 26th, and on our part it was an oversight," he told the NYTimes. (Duffy told me, when I asked him how they could write such crap and why they didn't call AP to get clarification, "I don't understand this stuff.") Nice. Writer Galloway, of course, didn't really understand either, since he was simply being fed stuff by the terrible Bateman, his 7th Cav crusader friend, who was misreading some things and making up other things, apparently convincing Galloway, e.g., that a false rumor was true that the other defamed vet, Hesselman, had shot himself in the foot.

Then Galloway told the NY Times, "If I had time to do the other interviews and sit back and ponder, I might have written it differently." Remember, among other journalistic felonies, this is the guy who didn't tell his readers there were Korean survivor witnesses (dozens) whose accounts matched those of the 7th Cav vets he was trying to discredit, and didn't tell readers there were orders flying around the war front to shoot civilians indiscriminately. Remember, too, he left the magazine soon thereafter.

So there you have it. If someone wants to try to sort out the awful USNWR article and actually use it as a source -- for what? -- you've got your work cut out for you. It belongs in the trash. And a straightforward article saying what's known and unknown about No Gun Ri belongs on Wikipedia. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have actually found sources for this, but in the future, please provide them, for everyone's benefit:  GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The more detailed and knowledgeable demolition of the Galloway garbage came in AP stories immediately afterward, material that serial reverter WeldNeck deleted from the article. It interfered with his POV. Enough has been laid out here clearly enough (check Galloway for Korean witnesses, check him for "kill" orders) for his rubbish to simply be labeled Utterly Unreliable and ignored, just as our keyboard-pounding POV Warrior should be banished from WP forever. Cjhanley (talk)


 * The DOD's report, which came out after the the NT Times article, confirmed Galloway's sleuthing:


 * It is likely that Mr. Hesselman and / or Mr. Flint were not present in the vicinity of No Gun Ri at the time of the alleged incident. No other veterans interviewed can confirm the presence of either individual in the vicinity of No Gun Ri. Since the U.S. Review Team could not interview either man, the U.S. Review Team cannot explain or resolve the contradiction between the published accounts of the incident by Mr. Flint and Mr. Hesselman, with their probable absence from the area as indicated by military records and other interviews.


 * And before we forget, Hesselman vividly remembers a man (Ed Daily) being there for the killings when its a metaphysical certainty he wast present. Thats all there is to it. WeldNeck (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why this is important, and I still don't know why we're debating it at length. The story does not seem to collapse if both these guys never existed.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If I am reading this correctly, Hanley wants Galloway removed as a source in the article because he supposedly made serious errors (he didnt) and later apologized (he didnt). WeldNeck (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)