Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 8

Proposed edit 2
Still in the intro, moving to the second paragraph, I propose that we change the following:

Instead it should read:

Again, WP intros are to be tight.
 * If the AP report was “disputed” in 2000, it was affirmed and vindicated by 2001 in two government investigations, and by subsequent journalistic and official inquiries – i.e., the reference is moot, and the NGR Massacre article doesn't hang on the long-ago, original AP report. (The "dispute" remains in the body, though way overblown.)
 * It was never affirmed and vindicated. Saying that over and over again doesn't make it any more true. WeldNeck (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence describes how the massacre became known to the outside world, and this is not disputed, so I think "disputed" can be done away with in this sentence. However the report was found to be flawed in some respects and this needs to be mentioned (see my tweak below).--Wikimedes (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase “some of which” is gratuitous and illogical. When more than dozen ex-GIs backed up the Koreans’ story, it was corroborated, it happened, and that was the thrust of that story. It didn't say there was some "doubt" because some men we talked to didn't want to talk, told us to go to hell etc.
 * This is not gratuitous. Many of the veterans the AP quoted later turned out to be not present or testified to the IG they were misquoted or quoted out of context by the AP. Therefore it is more accurate to say that "some" of the veterans the AP interviewed corroborated the Koreans because they certainly all didnt. WeldNeck (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a reader would assume that "7th Cavalry veterans corroborated" means "every single 7th Cavalry veteran corroborated". That some veterans recanted (and weren't there) is in my tweak below.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , No one "recanted" and only one GI, Daily, was most likely not there (though passing on essentially truthful, second-hand information). The lies are from the dreadful Galloway's story. Somewhere here (search "Hesselman") I explain that the medical records of Flint and Hesselman clearly back up the fact they were there during the bloodbath. Look, they got cold calls after 50 years in isolation and immediately described the event the way the Koreans did. They were there, period. (The Mad Reverter deleted that knockdown story, re the med records, from this article, and of course left in the lies.) As for "recanting," Patterson claimed he was misquoted as calling it a "wholesale slaughter." He did use the term, twice, in two different phone interviews. On video, he then talked about 300 being killed at NGR. Galloway claimed Kerns said he was misquoted. At a 7th Cav reunion later, Kerns slapped me on the back and said his beef was that his local newspaper headline called it a "massacre" and "I never said it was a massacre." That was Galloway's "misquote." (Jeez, how have I kept my sanity through all this?) Then Carroll complained that we interviewed him for two hours but used only a bit of it. That's the news biz, of course, and what we used was his confirming that the 2nd Bn, 7th Cav opened fire on those refugees. That was the news. NOBODY was misquoted; The Associated Press doesn't misquote people. And nobody recanted. Some of these guys recounted NGR to other media. Which leads me to a crucial point...
 * What is this focus on the AP of 1999 and what these two mendacious characters, the 7th Cav ex-roommates Bateman and Galloway (and, understand, Galloway knew nothing; Bateman fed him his cockamamy ideas), cooked up to smear honest journalists? AP got the ball rolling, but many other news organizations replicated and advanced the story, and the U.S. Army retreated and acknowledged what happened. This article's not about the AP and its tormentors but No Gun Ri. The single flaw in that long-ago story, Daily's second-hand info, doesn't even belong in this article. (Oh, wait, there was another flaw: we quoted a colonel as saying he knew nothing about NGR; he later told the Pentagon he witnessed it. Shall we go crazy over that???)
 * Anyway, the observation above was correct: Calling the AP story "disputed" in the intro makes it sound as though there's some doubt that the massacre occurred. It occurred. Do view the BBC documentary; it's very well done. Charles J. Hanley 19:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Cjhanley's suggestion "a dozen 7th Cavalry veterans corroborated" below works for me if others find "7th Cavalry veterans corroborated" ambiguous.--Wikimedes (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IF the AP says a a dozen 7th Cavalry veterans corroborated the story does this include or exclude those who later stated the AP misquoted them or were found to not have been at No Gun Ri during the killings? WeldNeck (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * KPA? (Jargon peppers the article and must be removed).
 * Korean People's Army ... you like brevity. WeldNeck (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Acronyms that are used in the article should be spelled out at first use with the acronym following in parentheses: Korean People's Army (KPA). There's probably a specific guideline on this, but I think it's flexible with the overriding goal being understandability for the reader.  Linking is similar.  In general terms, I would favor spelling them out at first use in both the article and the body.  I don't have a strong opinion on whether "North Korean Army", "Korean People's Army", etc. is used throughout the article,  as long as it's clear to readers what is meant.  Other than that, we probably have bigger fish to fry.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact the survivors sought justice for years and were rejected by the U.S. is an essential element of the NGR story and should be in the intro. It was repeatedly removed from the intro and the body by one contributor, with no explanation.
 * They waited until after the statue of limitations for compensation claims was over. 18:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles J. Hanley 18:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If "incident" is used significantly enough, then it should be kept in, I imagine. I can definitely see where you're coming from with "My Lai incident," but that's a question of WP:COMMONNAME. Since the Army's investigation was a major event in the fallout of NGR, I wonder if putting in a brief mention to their "unknown" is significant. "Enemy North Korean" is perhaps a bit redundant, and I wonder if there would be a way to condense "rejecting survivors' claims" and "rejected survivors' demands." On grounds of specificity, I think that "some of which" is necessary, even if it makes the intro seem wishy-washy. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Googling turns up 413,000 "No Gun Ri Massacre" and 1,740 "No Gun Ri Incident." The Army's "unknown" in the Intro was long accepted. But, really, it says absolutely nothing, it came before the serious death toll work in Korea, and it could be worked into the Casualties section below, although it might puzzle readers (Why "unknown"?). Come to think of it, sticking with "undetermined" in the first sentence of the Intro might be debatable. But I won't debate, and I won't debate keeping the strange "unknown" in the lead. I call the NKs "enemy" because that hasn't been established yet, i.e., who's fighting whom. Unsure re your "rejecting" query, but the survivors' claims were rejected as far back as 1960. The new "demands" were rejected in 2001. Could be made "denied survivors' demands." Charles J. Hanley 19:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * Whoops, missed the "some of which." I believe at some point the intro said something like, "an AP report in which a dozen 7th Cavalry veterans corroborated the Korean survivors' accounts." That better? It seems our friend would want us to add, "... and 4,399 surviving veterans of the regiment did not, but the AP vows to find them all to achieve unanimity." To me, once a critical mass of corroborators is reached, that's the focus, not, as I said, the guys who wouldn't talk or said, "Hmmm... I don't remember. Goodbye." Or, and this is true, the ex-officer who said, "Er... I may have remembered that at one time, but I don't now.... Goodbye." That ex-officer later told the Pentagon interrogators he saw it all. Charles J. Hanley 20:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry for not clarifying regarding "rejecting." I meant that these two facts might make more sense if they were grouped together into a single sentence. I think their placing is fine as it is now, I'm not sure what I was thinking. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Hanley, to the best of my knowledge the AP team has never been able to substantiate which veterans they accurately quoted and who were actually where they said they were when they said they were there.


 * Not to beat a dead horse, but here's an example


 * "At 1st Cavalry headquarters, division commander Maj. Gen. Hobart R. Gay was told South Korean refugees were killed by North Korean troops in a crossfire at No Gun Ri, the division information officer recalled. “I think that’s what he believed,” said Harold D. Steward, an ex-colonel from San Diego."


 * Steward, for the record, is a retired Lieutenant Colonel and told the IG he was different from what the AP reported:


 * "Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Steward told the U.S. Review Team that he was misquoted; what he said was there were confirmed reports of civilians killed in crossfire throughout the Eighth Army sector. He did not specify areas where these incidents might have taken place. Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Steward stated that he never said that civilians were killed at No Gun Ri in a crossfire."


 * Mr Hanley, was Steward one of the dozen veterans you claim corroborate the AP's version of events? WeldNeck (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Neck, I've told the others I can't possibly respond to  point by point. Calm down, and ponder the possibility that a retired colonel (and LTCs are colonels) might dissemble when hauled before Pentagon interrogators investigating a war crime. I will say this, and you can consider this the answer to any similar nonsense you raise: The Associated Press doesn't misquote people; NOBODY was misquoted in its No Gun Ri reporting, no matter what they may have said after the explosive headlines hit the streets and they regretted talking, or were coached or had their words twisted by 7th Cav apologists; many are on videotape. By the way, in the end (by the time their book was published) the journalists had 26 ex-GIs confirming NGR, and the Pentagon an additional nine. That's over and out for me for the day. It's my wedding anniversary. At least my wife loves me. Charles J. Hanley 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Cjhanley, what book? Spare a thought for the uninitiated. Please cite things you are referring to. Also, where is the vindication in 2001 coming from? Assume I am an idiot. Shove the sources in my face.
 * WeldNeck, your first quote seems to be WP:CHERRYPICKING, and taken out of context. You appear to be quoting an article that is completely about the event, in order to cast doubt on the event. Your second quote seems at best irrelevant to your argument, and at worst to argue against it. If there were civilians killed throughout the sector, doesn't that add credence to the killing of civilians generally? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not casting doubt on the event, let me be perfectly clear about that. I am casting doubt on the idea that memories which are over 50 years old are to be taken at face value when forensic evidence is completely at odds with them. WeldNeck (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're not trying to cast doubt, quite the contrary you are trying to cast doubt. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll explain this this later. The AP would like to paint everyone who has dared questioned their reporting as some kind of "denialist" but their representation of events has serious deficiencies. WeldNeck (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need sources for this. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this:

My comments on the specific points are threaded into the points. I think a sentence on the flaws in the AP report, but it's basic correctness, is needed here. Also the army report would probably be better in the next paragraph.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was "because of reports of enemy North Korean infiltration via refugee groups" part of the (or another?) AP report? If not the sentence should probably be reworded.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I really have no opinion one way or the other, but thanks for contributing to the discussion and proposing a third party edit. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think a good compromise would mention the dispute, but also mention that the basic facts were confirmed by separate investigations. Thanks for the proposal. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We need to define what the basic facts are before we state they were confirmed by separate investigations. WeldNeck (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me address the questions above:
 * , the book is The Bridge at No Gun Ri (Henry Holt and Company, NY, 2001). I'll be glad to fedex a copy to any of you. As I told Irondome below, I'll also immediately send you the 2010 article from the academic journal Critical Asian Studies, which details the Army whitewash report of 2001 and can serve as an NGR primer, if you'll email me off my user page, or at cjhanley@att.net. Re "vindication": The U.S. Army rejected the Korean survivors' petitions for years, even said the 1st Cavalry Division (7th Cav's parent) wasn't in the area; in 1999, the AP found ex-GIs who were involved and who described the mass killing, corroborating the survivors' accounts in general and in many details (AP also found "kill" orders from the war front); in 2001, the Army (and the SK Defense Ministry in a separate report) reversed itself and acknowledged that the 1st Cav (i.e., 7th Cav) killed the trapped NGR refugees, concluding, “…it is clear, based upon all available evidence, that an unknown number of Korean civilians were killed or injured by the effects of small-arms fire, artillery and mortar fire, and strafing.”


 * asks, "'because of reports of enemy North Korean infiltration via refugee groups' part of the (or another?) AP report?" Yes, of course. The rationale was stated very high in the story. Also high in the story was a quote from ex-soldier Patterson, "It was assumed there were enemy among these people."


 * Also, somewhere here I believe TJWood is suggesting a line that includes something like "several AP witnesses weren't there." This is absolutely untrue. Only one, a fellow named Ed Daily, apparently wasn't there (even that isn't 100-percent clear, but we can't get into that). WeldNeck has poisoned this article with the garbage about Flint and Hesselman. As I think I've pointed out, those two guys' medical records made perfectly clear they were there (they were not medically evacuated, at all for Mr. H, not until after the initial killings for Mr. F). That fact was reported in a nationally distributed report, but WeldNeck deep-sixed that fact and citation from this article. (Sheesh! I think some of you have awakened to what's going on, but needs to catch up.) Daily's having essentially truthful but second-hand info is a truly minor sideshow, but one the denialists have seized on as a smokescreen for other garbage. Daily appeared in the 56th paragraph of the AP story, something like the 7th of 9 GIs quoted.


 * I think I should post the original AP story at my user page, or here at Talk. That's the very minimum any editor tackling this article should read. Thanks.


 * Oh, someone asked about the Tinkler article. I'll find it. Charles J. Hanley 14:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 *  Only one, a fellow named Ed Daily, apparently wasn't there (even that isn't 100-percent clear, but we can't get into that).


 * Wow ... did I just read that right? Are you stating there is a possibility (that naturally you cant get into) that Daily may have been present?


 * With respect to Hessleman and Flint, this has been gone over but it bears repeating.


 * "The daily 'morning report' from H Company, 2nd Battalion, obtained from the Army’s Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, shows that Hesselman was transferred from No Gun Ri on July 26. The July 27 morning report, typically filed at 8 a.m. each day, places Hesselman at the 15th Medical Clearing Battalion, some 25 miles away from No Gun Ri. The morning report is considered the most accurate record of where and when a soldier served. The H Company morning report for July 27, 1950, states that Hesselman was transferred on July 26 after sustaining an unspecified wound during a small-weapons skirmish with North Korean forces."


 * "According to the 7th Cavalry’s war diary, reviewed by U.S. News, Flint was transferred on July 25 from No Gun Ri, more than a full day before the alleged massacre. War diaries were updated sometimes days after events, typically at the regiment level, and can be inaccurate. Asked about the apparent discrepancy between the 7th Cavalry war diary and his statement to the AP, Flint told U.S. News, 'My memory is not so good.'"


 * In fact Hesselman's memory is so compromised, he actually remembers seeing Ed Daily at No Gun Ri: "I know that Daily was there, I know that. I know that."


 * For the record, Daily was as important as he was because he was the first "veteran" the AP spoke to who stated Captain Chandler ordered them to open fire. Chandler was supposed to be the Lt Calley of the AP's opus. WeldNeck (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Was Chandler the only veteran (no quotes necessary, he was actually a veteran) they talked to? If you just remove him from the story does it fall apart? Because it seems like we could all agree that Chandler was a guy in Idaho who hallucinated the war on bad acid, and the rest of the story moves along just fine without him. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chandler was 8CC and died in 1970. The service records of all three of the AP's sources who stated he gave the order to open fire on the refugees were shown not to be there. 00:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, here we go again. One rule I propose is that when it comes to what, when and how the AP did or didn't do something, folks check with me, not WeldNeck. WN hasn't the foggiest idea (nor did his lone mendacious source Bateman) what he's talking about, who AP interviewed, when, and what they said, since the interviews add up to thousands more words than WN has seen, and I bet WN hasn't even read the original AP story. (Wasn't he just complaining that AP hasn't turned over all its interviews to him? How'd he get so smasrt then?) TJWood's point is right on: The AP just kept accumulating GI witnesses. Even the Pentagon spokesman Maj. Collins at the time said Daily was "just one of many men we're talking to." I've just got to mention: Daily was a former head of the vets' association, and Daily wrote two extensive histories of the regiment in Korea. That's why he knew about NGR. But the guys wouldn't let him put it in the books. Daily: "They said, 'we'd be portrayed as baby killers.'"


 * I'm sick of this Flint-Hesselman nonsense. Bateman didn't know how to read morning reports properly. WN can go on and on about such documents, but he hasn't seen a one. More digging by the AP in 2000 and the guys' release of their med records showed they were not evacuated (in Flint's case, not until later). The AP reported that in the story on the final Army investigative report. As said, that knockdown material, that story, was inserted in this article to counter the Flint-H business, and our friend WN simply deleted it. So much for the truth.


 * And, yes, WeldNeck, there's a possibility Daily did see the NGR killings. But I'm going to keep it a secret from you. Charles J. Hanley 23:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Funny how all your souring comes from ... you. No chance for circular reasoning there. "Bateman didn't know how to read morning reports properly" - nah .. he is only a LtCol ... no way he'd know how to read a US Army document. Good to know you still trust Daily though. WeldNeck (talk) 00:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I would proposed some modified language for this section rewrite:

I drop the last sentence because two of the fundamental aspects of the AP's report were never verified: the number killed and the allegation from the AP that there was a direct order from the chain of command to fire on the refugees. WeldNeck (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Propo'se to move forward
I propose we move forward with Wikimedes's edit. The discussion has side tracked onto a debate as to whether one particular soldier was present, which doesn't appear to be particularly crucial. Even if he was not present, this is taken into account by "and some of the details are disputed"Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cjhanley has stated that "some veterans later recanted their testimony" is factually inaccurate. If so, this can be omitted.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have to throw up a huge red flag on this one. This is directly from the DOD's report pg 122.123 on the AP' star witnesses who werenet there for the events they claim to have seen.


 * The U.S. Review Team contacted both men. Mr. Flint declined an interview. Mr. Hesselman, when initially contacted, stated he did not want to be interviewed at that time. Despite repeated attempts by the U.S. Review Team to contact Mr. Hesselman both telephonically and in writing, he did not contact the U.S. Team. An examination of morning reports and the 7th Cavalry Regiment War Diary in the National Archives indicated that Mr. Flint was wounded on July 25, 1950, and evacuated no later than July 26, 1950, and that Mr. Hesselman was wounded and evacuated no later than July 27, 1950. 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.


 * Here is the portion confirming the AP's deliberate misquotation of the interviews to sex up their story:


 * Other veterans also present in the vicinity of No Gun Ri say they were misquoted in the original AP account. Mr. Herman Patterson was quoted in the AP report as saying that: "It was just a wholesale slaughter." In his statement to the U.S. Team, he said the AP misquoted him and that this quotation referred to his unit at the Naktong when they were overrun.35 He said he told the AP (September 29, 1999) that: "It was a damn near massacre of us." Mr. James Kerns is quoted as saying that "he, Preece and another GI found at least seven dead North Korean soldiers in the underpasses, wearing uniforms under peasant white." In his statement to the U.S. Team, Mr. Kerns said he never said such a thing.36 He told the U.S. Review Team that he saw between four and nine bodies laying down in the culverts but was not sure if they were dead.37 Mr. Kerns said he only told the AP that he saw some grenades and a burp gun in the tunnel. The AP article stated "[that] others recalled only heavy barrages of American firepower, not hostile fire." This comment was followed by a quotation from Mr. Louis Allen, who said, "I don't remember shooting coming out." The implication here is that veterans remembered Americans firing into the (No Gun Ri) tunnel but not refugees firing from the tunnel. However, when the U.S. Review Team interviewed Mr. Allen, he stated that he was on re-enlistment leave when the 7th Cavalry Regiment deployed to Korea and that he did not link up

with his unit, F Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, until August 1950 in the vicinity of Taegu.38 In its September 29, 1999, article regarding No Gun Ri, the AP reported that: "At 1st Cavalry Headquarters, division commander Major General Hobart R. Gay was told South Korean refugees were killed by North Korean troops in a crossfire at No Gun Ri, the division information officer recalled. 'I think that's what he believed,' said Harold D. Steward, an ex-colonel from San Diego.


 * Read the rest because there is more. WeldNeck (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to see the World News report as suspect. The story rehosted on Korean War Educator is missing the last two pages. Why is it not hosted on the World News site? The site it is rehosted on seems unapologetically biased. From their main page:


 * "This web site includes information about the Korean War from the perspective of U.S. veterans who were involved in the war effort, as well as American families who lost loved ones in Korea. For the communist viewpoint of the war, our viewers will have to look elsewhere on the World Wide Web. (Some links on our Links page might provide addresses of websites with a North Korean/communist slant.) Associates of the Korean War Educator website do not support the communist philosophy. We believe that an aggressive North Korean government started the war, and that American blood, sweat, tears, and money significantly helped to end it."


 * It seems like a good place to go for WP:FRINGE. It might be fitting for a section on criticism of the incident. But it doesn't seem appropriate for the lead, at least at face value. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you stating the Galloway article is fringe because you don't like where it was reproduced? If you want the original it is at the archive. WeldNeck (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, I have a quote from Lynnita Brown (the Korean War Educator) dismissing NGR and saying Koreans should be grateful, etc., if ever there's a desire for a section of "comments on NGR." Still more words, though.
 * By the way, regarding Wikimedes' proposed 2nd graf edit, the "dispute" etc. I can post at my user page, the "misquoted" Herman Patterson's statements in three interviews about the "wholesale slaughter" and "300 dead" etc. The last was a long video interview. I'm too technically inept to know how to transfer from VHS tape, to CD, to the Web. And, of course, it's AP property, a raw interview, and I shouldn't be passing it around the Internet.
 * On that edit, I obviously feel the "dispute," fed by false information, is ancient history, superseded and made moot by official investigations, other media investigations (and earlier by the AP's own refutation of all but the Daily non-presence) and should be left in the body, if in the article at all, and doesn't rise to intro importance. It's just part of the gratuitous bloat. In fact, I can point to other media errors on NGR. And that includes US News' Galloway, who earlier quoted Daily on NGR himself, before attacking us! But really, let's write about the No Gun Ri Massacre. 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

This may sound weird, but per WP:VNT, there do seem to be sources disputing the event and they may deserve at least honorable mention. What about this:

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Put a semicolon between "disputed" and "however," and I like it. Some criticism should be included, as long as we keep away from the WP:Fringe GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The arent WP:FRINGE. You shouldn't rely on Hanley to characterizes the truthfulness of the AP's work. WeldNeck (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am calling the story FRINGE because it doesn't seem to be mainstream. It's that simple. The article works because they claim to have found a hole in a widely accepted mainstream view. The article says as much. From the second paragraph: "there is little doubt that something terrible did happen there". That doesn't mean that it does not warrant inclusion in the article at all, but it does mean that it is not appropriate for the lead. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Briefly, I'll repeat: The "dispute" stems from a single highly unreliable source, using demonstrably fraudulent methods, with a glaring COI as a 7th Cav Regt activist seeking to "get" the the journalists (in an email quoted by the Wash Post), about a thoroughly tertiary detail (one hearsay source among 60 eyewitnesses) that was an incosequential sideshow in 2000 and long ago faded into total irrelevance. No? But in the spirit of compromise, I accept TJWood's proposal, tightened as "Some details were disputed, but the massacre account was found to be essentially correct."


 * Here then is the current proposal for all four grafs of the intro, including Wikimedes’ latest edit, of the 4th graf; the “dispute” language in graf 2 as proposed by TJWood and tightened by Cjhanley; and the graf 3 tightening and correcting of the documents’ language as proposed by Cjhanley. (I assume the Korean-language term for the massacre can come later.):


 * since Hanley continues

Cjhanley (talk)

Support per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose not WP:FRINGE (look at the new source from the original). WeldNeck (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The single source cited in the current lead says nothing to contradict the current proposal. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Irondome, GeneralizationsAreBad, Wikimedes, thoughts?Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- I don't want this article becoming WP:COATRACK for the AP piece itself. I was considering moving the "Some details" sentence to after the "The U.S. Army" sentence, to make it clear what affirmed the article.
 * Support per User:GeneralizationsAreBad Irondome (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, COATRACK, I see, that's what it is. With red herrings, wild geese and rabbit trails hung all over it. I've always felt, after all these years, all the investigations, all the other media work, the academic pieces, the establishment of the museum, the scholarly conferences in Korea, after all that, the attack on the AP in 2000 merited no more than a footnote in a book on journalism. And that this article should be about the No Gun Ri Massacre, what's known, what's not known. Re your suggestion, I, of course, don't think the "disputed details" even belong in the intro, but I think rewriting that sentence, or combining with the Army sentence might raise new complications of meaning.
 * Support - the above version, of course. Charles J. Hanley 14:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Narrowing the proposal. Edit five below seems to have met with no dissent and has been made. It it therefore no longer a relevant part of this proposal. All support and opposition is assumed to still be in effect, as no substantial changes have been made. Delaying this edit in case another third party wishes to object. Currently two of the four third-party editors have voiced support. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sentence "but the massacre account was found to be essentially correct" . is not correct because the AP claimed through the use of fraudulent sources that there was a direct order issued through the chain of command to fire on the refugees. That has never been proven and there is contradictory eyewitness testimony to the contrary. 18:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)
 * I don't understand why this is an important point. To my mind this is one of the "disputed details", and the part where lots of people died is the "essentially correct". The "essence" of a massacre seems to be the part where people stop living. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break because I'm tired of scrolling for three hours to make edits.
Differences:
 * Add Korean translation
 * Remove "as of 2012" from first para 5th line. It's odd wording and makes it seem like there are ongoing casualties. Compare "As of 2012 1.7 million people in Idaho have died of butt cancer." Obviously you expect people to keep dying from it.
 * Para 2 line 5. Replace "after years" with "after previously". (This is the one that's probably gonna come back and bite me.) While it technically may be true that the US denied these claims for multiple years, readers should reach this on their own. Per WP:EDITORIALIZING "Wikipedia should not take a view as to whether an event was fortunate or not." Saying "after years" is one big "Gasp! Can you believe these heartless bastards made those people wait for so long!?" Instead the reader should go "Wait...2001? Didn't this happen in the 50s? That sure is a long time," and they should get there own their own without editorialized hand-holding.
 * Para 2 last sentence. Added "Army" instead of "it". "It" just sounds weird. At least the Army should be a "they" or "the Pentagon", if you don't want to treat it like a person linguistically.
 * Add quotes to whitewash because...it's a quote.
 * Other than these minor edits, I still think we need to add sourcing in, at least for the claims in the last paragraph, as those are the most inflammatory. I have also tagged the paragraph for clarity. It should not be mysterious magical archival evidence. Archival evidence from what by whom? Timothyjosephwood (talk)


 * I can clarify some, and will follow with a tweaked version.
 * Clarifications:
 * We can say the foundation gave its estimate "in 2011." That's when the park/museum opened. The sourcing will be to Korean news reports of, I believe, 2012. (I've seen the exhibits, informational material myself.)
 * There was a stray "and" before "acknowledged" in graf 2.
 * Re graf 2: I've added an element one now realizes really should have been there all along: President Clinton's statement of regret. Agree? I also streamlined to "approaching civilians," instead of "civilians approaching U.S. positions because of..."
 * Still graf 2 and TJW's query: The body, of course, gives the sources for the "emerged orders." It cites the 2010 Critical Asian Studies article for the commanders' orders, but actually they were first reported in an AP story of 2007, a story that led with the Army admitting it had deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report. Then, the discovery of the Muccio letter is attributed in the body to Conway-Lanz (journal article and book). I will now place the attributions directly in the text; if footnotes are preferred, with no explicit text attribution, that will take me a bit to recall how to handle duping citations that already appear below. (My "mental health" sabbatical has made me rusty.) FYI on this point, in further reply to TJWood, the undisclosed "kill" orders were found by AP researcher Randy Herschaft after he learned that the 1999-2001 Army investigation's own files had been processed at the National Archives -- another brilliant bit of prodigious digging by a superb researcher. I now also see the "among them" in that passage technically equates the Muccio letter with the commander's orders. I'll do a slight tweak.
 * Also, restoring the intro's fourth graf, as edited by Wikimedes.


 * Here's the tweaked version, with the big change the addition of Clinton:

I'm moving this to the bottom of the page. The discussion is becoming cumbersome. I've also changed the archive timer from 90 days to 10 to try to cut down some of the finished discussions here. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Edit 4 (intro 3rd graf)
Still in the intro, moving to the third paragraph. (I find the fourth paragraph fine, so this would be the final for the intro, after which we could move on to the truly challenging stuff). I propose that we change the following:

Instead it should read:


 * Tightening.
 * The orders say in a blanket fashion, over and over, “shoot civilians” and “fire on refugees” etc. (And readers can see that for themselves in later links in the article.) This “authorization” business was inserted to euphemize, to insinuate it wasn’t indiscriminate. See the sensible comment on this by a Korean NGR scholar (SeoulScholar) at the top of this current Talk page.
 * The rationale for shooting refugees was established just five sentences earlier, and will be discussed in the body of the article. It doesn’t need to be explained in the intro again. WP intros must be tight, not redundant, and not littered with unexplained references (KPA? Taejon?).

Thanks. Cjhanley (talk)

More like this

Less inflammatory and quite honestly far more accurate. WeldNeck (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OMG.
 * 1. WeldNeck has never seen the South Korean report, but wants to fantasize about it. Among other things, it cites 17 Seventh Cav men saying they believe there were orders; two battalion radiomen distinctly remember orders to fire on the refugees coming down from above, i.e., regiment and possibly ultimately division; the report cites the fact there were orders around the war front at this time to shoot civilians. There's no documentation of orders at No Gun Ri, but that's because the 7th Cav log is missing from the National Archives.
 * 2. On the other hand, WeldNeck has seen the blanket "kill" orders, or should have, but feels he has the right to rewrite them. The orders say flatly "Fire everyone," "all civilians seen should be considered enemy and shot," refugees are "fair game," "shoot all refugees coming across river," etc. without WeldNeck's invented qualifiers to the effect of, shoot them only if they deserve it. He succeeded in falsifying and sugarcoating the kill orders in this NGR article because I couldn't stomach dealing with him anymore. Now we have a chance to tell the truth.
 * 3. Regarding the Muccio letter, it said refugees approaching U.S. lines despite "warning shots" should be shot. That's in the body; it could be in the intro. "Did not respond to warnings" is too vague. (Think about it: Some 21-year-old second lieutenant in 1950 Korea could order his troops to mow down a column of refugee families because the Koreans couldn't tell where the hell that shot came from in the midst of a war. Jornalists learned a lot about "warning shots" in Iraq.) Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so we have a conflict of fact. Per WP:RS, we have material that "has been challenged", and thus requires citation. So now we go to the sources. WeldNeck shoulders the burden of proof to establish that this is either a majority or significant minority view per WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Per the same guidelines, Cjhanley shoulders the burden of proof to establish that the mainstream view in secondary sources is that orders were given to fire on civilians, knowing that they were civilians. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not to be thick but what exactly are you referring to? WeldNeck (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to think that there was not a general de facto policy of shooting on civilians per se, that it was mostly related to concerns about infiltration, that the object was to kill combatants. Hanley seems to think otherwise. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, . Have you read the documents? Is there a question in your mind about whether "civilians should be considered enemy and shot" and similar represent a policy of shooting civilians per se? Yes, they wanted to kill combatants, but they were doing it by killing everybody. Isn't that clear? This is not my contention or theory. It's the plain English of the documents, plus the many accounts from soldiers in the official interrogations of 2000. Charles J. Hanley 19:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Every memo cited by Hanley, including the Muccio letter includes qualifiers. For example, the Rogers' memorandum actually recommends that civilians not be attacked unless they are definitely known to be North Korean soldiers or have committed hostile acts.  18:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)


 * !!! I don't know how much longer I can take this. I'm trying to ignore WeldNeck's, but sometimes I just have to bring this Talk page back to reality. WeldNeck, listen up: Rogers was recommending to his boss that civilians not be strafed, but the policy was in place to strafe them, indiscriminately, with no "qualifiers". The only qualifier in Muccio, as noted in the article, is that they be given warning shots, then killed indiscriminately. WeldNeck, where are the qualifiers in "civilians should be considered unfriendly and shot," and in "shoot all refugees coming across river," and "refugees are fair game"? Did you not understand this fundamental point? If not, you're not qualified to work at this page. And if you did understand but.
 * Editors can read the orders themselves. I hope they are. Simply take a look at, where are loads of "kill" orders. Cjhanley (talk)

Strafing, another arbitrary section break because it's becoming difficult to figure out where the active debate is

 * Dont take my for it, or Hanley's, read the memo. In the memorandum Colonel Rogers expresses his concern to his superior officer about the Army requesting to the Air Force to strafe civilians dressed in white who the front line soldiers believed were disguised as North Korean soldiers. The assumption by Rogers was the close air support being called in by the Army was to deal with disguised North Korean troops. WeldNeck (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So...I'm confused. You seem to be citing a memo that clearly states "Boy! We're sure strafing the hell outta civilians down here." And you seem to be presenting it as evidence that they are, in fact, not strafing civilians. Is this opposite day? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The memos also provide the reasons the strivings occurred. The reasoning and context are trying to be removed from the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * One way or another this is a WP:PRIMARY source, and your extension of this memo about strafing to the subject as a whole appears to be WP:OR.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How many secondary sources do you need? WeldNeck (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What's in dispute here is whether the SK report cited evidence for the SK "belief" (it doesn't declare the order to fire to be an established fact, but likely; remember, the log is missing). So, to be clear, it isn't a question of whether secondary sources themselves have a mainstream view on whether orders were given, but how the SK view is reported, am I not right?
 * Here are passages from two secondary sources:
 * "... the South Korean investigative report of 2001 said 17 ex-soldiers interviewed believed there were orders to shoot at No Gun Ri."
 * Those soldiers included four "who were in a particularly authoritative position as radio specialists at battalion headquarters, aware of communications within the chain of command. ...
 * "Concluded the South Korean investigative report: 'When the Eighth Army sent down the `no refugees cross the line' orders, the 2nd Battalion of the 7th Regiment was likely to have used every means possible to stop the refugees from crossing their line.'"
 * --"No Gun Ri: Official Narrative and Inconvenient Truths," Critical Asian Studies, 2010, page 610.
 * Also:
 * "The South Koreans’ report said their investigators believed U.S. fighter pilots had been instructed to attack South Korean refugees to guard against North Korean infiltrators." (The SK report cited five U.S. pilots as saying they had instructions to fire on civilian groups; and, of course, the SK investigators were aware of the Rogers memo saying the USAF had orders to fire on all refugees approaching U.S. positions.)
 * --The Bridge at No Gun Ri, 2001, page 285.
 * Perhaps it could be rewritten to say, "The South Korean investigators disagreed, citing testimony from 17 soldiers that they believed there were orders to fire, and from five pilots that they were instructed to strafe civilian groups." Thoughts???
 * Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of those 17 US soldiers later stated they didnt tell the AP what the AP reported ... see the excerpt from the DOD's report above. Hanley's repetition of that soundbite doesnt make it any more true especially since we have documentary evidence of the opposite. WeldNeck (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, before we get too far into the trees on orders, let's not lose sight of the forest: The NGR killings went on for three days, with no cease-fire orders. Combine that with Muccio's theater-wide policy to shoot refugees, Rogers' theater-wide USAF policy to strafe refugees, the string of "kill" orders from colonels and generals, the individual USAF mission reports reporting the strafing of civilians, the 7th Cav radiomen remembering orders, riflemen remembering orders ("kill 'em all").... if we keep such things in mind, common sense should guide us on some of these calls. Charles J. Hanley 16:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Unfortunately, with things like this it's a tree at a time. Let's be realistic, this process could take months. We've already been at it a week, and the most we have accomplished is to freeze the article as it is (no small feat), and agree on one very minor grammatical edit. If we are going to put ourselves through the self-flagellation, I would like for it to achieve an end product that can last for several years, before something like this is required again.


 * Are there corroborating sources outside of SK? You'll forgive me if I see Armenian and Ottoman sources as both highly suspect concerning the genocide. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand. You don't mean non-SK sources corroborating what the SKs say they "believe", do you? Charles J. Hanley 16:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * But if you mean corroborating "17 soldiers" etc., journalists have plenty such. Could simply write it, "citing what they say was testimony fromm 17 soldiers etc." But this can be, and I believe is, dealt with in the body. For me, saying the official SK investigators believe there were orders is all that's warranted in an intro that is already too long. Charles J. Hanley 16:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * Moreover, the intro has just cited the U.S. Army's "belief" without getting into what backs that up (which, of course, is zilch). Are we getting a little blinkered? Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm playing devil's advocate here. I'm trying to think of what criticism I would throw at the article if I was a skeptic. I would say "of course the Korean journalists found bad things. They're willing to publish anything so long as it makes them look like the victim and makes the US look like a monster." It's the same thing I would say of an Armenian source, and I think the Armenian genocide is an apt comparison here. When you have a controversial claim, it's best to over load the sources.


 * Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, no, this is the South Korean government's official investigation team, led by the Ministry of Defense, not journalists. And, in fact, it's generally felt the ROK government, not surprisingly as a dependent ally, were too deferential and quiet about the Pentagon's blatant lies, suppression of documents etc. There's a lot to be said on that, but I'll cut it short and point out simply that there's no moral equivalence here: the Koreans were the victims, the Americans the killers. The killer is more likely to lie than the victim. Anyway, do we want to load up the intro with words explaining how the U.S. Army report lied and the South Korean report more often jibed with what independent journalists found, or leave that, as I would suggest, for laying out in the body? Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What I'm asking for is citations for how "South Korean report more often jibed with what independent journalists found". The independent journalists circumvent the issues that evil-me would bring up. Evil-Me would argue against "killing babies is bad" because Hitler was once a baby. Evil-Me would argue that Korean sources are all suspect unless independently verified because "those chink-eyed Japs will say anything to discredit the US of A." Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I'm not sure I'm understanding. But, in any event, I think the first thing that must be decided is whether we want the intro to be mucked up with a bunch of support material that, in my view, belongs in the body. To me, there's no question you want the intro to simply say, The U.S. Army says it wasn't deliberate, and the SK government disagrees and says it believes there were shoot orders. The body can lay out the complex rationales, evidence etc. And we can wrap up the intro and move on. No?
 * In fact, "South Korean report more often jibed with what independent journalists found" is not even in the intro. Why ask for citations for that? I'll be glad to discuss everything and anything, but shouldn't we be sticking to the text, which ought to be concise, he said, she said, and reader read on to find out more. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I heard someone say, "sources." If you want to overload on inline citations as a precaution, I have collected some material here: User:GeneralizationsAreBad/NoGunRi GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think you are understanding. Weld's proposed edit implies that the US fired on civilians because of some significant chance that there were belligerents amongst them or that they would not comply with orders which, in the view of the US soldiers, put US soldier's lives at risk. You are offering sources to the contrary, but they are Korean sources. I am asking for independent sources (i.e., not Korean or American) who back up this claim. I ask this because if I wanted to be an asshole (evil-me), I would say that Korean sources are garbage, they are Korean, and they obviously have an agenda (because imperialism, nationalism, and racism). Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I fear you may be asking for a bit too much, since there really has not been as much research into NGR as other subjects. It's a forgotten episode of a forgotten war. Still, the BBC would probably count as an independent source:

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we're going down one of those rabbit trails here, because intros aren't supposed to have sources/citations/footnotes anyway.
 * The central point: WeldNeck wants to say, "Additional archival documents later emerged, showing U.S. commanders ordering troops to fire on civilians they suspected were disguised North Korean forces." But the documents don't say that, and that's what that sentence refers to, the documents that emerged. The documents say "shoot civilians," "fire on refugees" etc etc with none of the qualifiers that WeldNeck wishes were there and is trying to convince you were there. Are you asking for a secondary source (a footnote?) to answer some question like, Who says the Korean government says this? And then of course, Who says the U.S. Army says this?
 * What's wrong with the original, keeping it to, The U.S. Army says it wasn't deliberate, the Korean government says it believes there were orders ... and that's that? Then the body provides details and sources. Do we really want to muck up the intro with such supporting material? With footnotes? Thanks. Cjhanley (talk)


 * Per WP:LEADCITE the lead can cite sources if it is needed. I propose we close this discussion, and take the sources cited here and incorporate them into the proposal 2, along with the Korean alternative name provided below. I do think that as a general rule we should try to use a variety of sources when we are using them to establish fact claims. If we're citing the Army or the Korean government in order to say "The Army/Korean government said x", then that's fine. It's stand alone. But, if we're trying to say "Based on this source (insert Army Korean government source) we can safely say that x happened", if possible I think it would be advisable to use other sources along with the gov source.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

South Korean report
Does anyone know where I could find a copy of the South Korean report? It would be a very helpful source to have on hand.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As of 2001, it was issued only in Korean and only on paper. I'll doublecheck with a colleague in Seoul, but I'm sure I would have heard if it ever made it online. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just found a pdf in Korean, I'll try and upload it. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I won't ask how you managed that. It seems my colleague isn't even aware it exists other than on paper. Charles J. Hanley 12:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Funnily enough, I'm not sure how I managed it, either. Ironically, as soon as I downloaded it, the site that hosted it seems to have taken it down. I'm not sure if it's the final report, or just the original Korean version of the "Part Three Years" document. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, believe I misunderstood. I thought you were seeking the SK Defense Ministry investigative report of 2001, which my Seoul colleague tells me is still only available in print, in Korean. That "jinsil" site you found has housed material issued by the 2005-2010 Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including the "Three-Year" report. The TRCK did not investigate NGR, but one of its publications included a brief summary of NGR, based on the accepted timeline in Korea. Charles J. Hanley 16:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, my mistake, I conflated the two reports together. I hoped that jinsil would have some info on No Gun Ri, but the English report only had a few, unimportant references. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

's proposal
On my talk page (and Timothyjosephwood's, as well as above), articulated an idea which I think is long-overdue. To quote,

"The two opposing editors create a space where they can agree on their common ground, at least that would be a start."

"The two gents [should] come together in a new space and explore the areas on which they actually agree. A la Kissinger-style diplomacy. It may break the ice."

I agree completely, and think this is a must. All we've done is shown what we disagree on. How about we come together and find the points on which we do agree on?

My proposed guidelines for this "space:"

1. No personal attacks.
 * a) Not even if they deserved it.
 * b) Not even if it's "obvious" that you're right and they're wrong.
 * c) Because it destabilizes the talk page and distracts from the truly important tasks ahead.

2. '''If you disagree on a point, do not dwell on it. Move on and find something else.'''
 * a) Very self-explanatory.

3. Provide sources.
 * a) WP:V is key.

4. This is not a grand conspiracy.
 * a) We are trying to improve this page by adding information and citations, and editing when necessary -- with consensus.

5. No exceptions.
 * a) No one gets an exemption from the rules, no matter how many people agree or disagree with that editor.

Feel free to add others, these are the first few I could think of. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A space for exploring common ground

 * , I cannot think of anything else. I see this as a slightly despairing attempt for both of you gentlemen to at least indicate to the community points that you agree on. This may help to grow, or build bridges between, small, then growing ideas, then maybe whole paragraphs or even sections that can find consensus on, or at least does not make you mutually choke on your beers in indignation. Now gents, who would like to step up first? Simon Adler. Irondome (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the thoughtful suggestion, . But isn't that more an approach suited to building an entirely new article? I'd said some days ago I was open to that possibility. (I'd also suggested reverting to a pre-conflict version and building on that.), But starting from scratch would be a very time-consuming project, when in fact, thus far, progress has been made on editing the article from the top. Now that I've taken my deep breaths and looked the article over again closely, I see only three major problem areas. When we hit the first one, we can see how well reasonableness and objectivity reign. If not well, a different approach might be needed. In any event, I'll cooperate on whatever approach you several interested parties agree on at this point. Charles J. Hanley 14:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah but you really arent looking for a whole new article. You are looking to roll it back to an earlier version. 16:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeldNeck (talk • contribs)


 * Enough already. The WP:ASPERSIONS have gotten out of control. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at the text thats been proposed and then look at the proposed edits. WeldNeck (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fun with JSTOR: GeneralizationsAreBad throws out some articles.
As per 's request, I searched JSTOR. I found these articles, which are probably not helpful:


 * "U.S. Policy Change toward South Korea in the 1940s and the 1950s," by Tae-Gyun Park in Journal of International and Area Studies.
 * "Anti-Americanism in South Korea and the Future of the U.S. Presence," by Jeffrey S. Robertson in Journal of International and Area Studies.

I also found this article (which I mentioned above), which is most definitely helpful:


 * "Silencing Survivors' Narratives: Why Are We "Again" Forgetting the No Gun Ri Story?" by Suhi Choi in Rhetoric and Public Affairs. User:GeneralizationsAreBad/Choi

I will keep looking.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very thoughtful and collegiate of you GAB! I sense this new approach, new material now readily accessible to interested colleagues, both here and upthread will improve the article, and hopefully improve co-operation between editors with differing POV's. We are all in this for a common purpose, to better disseminate knowledge to our readers and to glean facts. I do hope this may be a new beginning for all. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well said, thanks! GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hm... it seems, unfortunately, that we will have to find a way to make this accessible to all, subscriptions aside. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have scanned, text-converted and posted the four relevant pages of Conway-Lanz's very important "Beyond No Gun Ri" article at User:Cjhanley/Sahr Conway-Lanz excerpt Charles J. Hanley 18:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks very much. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nutshell list for moving forward
,, , , please see User:Cjhanley/No Gun Ri Massacre: The Problems, a very brief, section-by-section look at the article's general, broad problems, drawn from 17 years' experience in dealing with No Gun Ri. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, what a surprise .. everything not sourced to the AP is "problematic". WeldNeck (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Unproductive sarcasm duly noted. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Once again, Timothyjosephwood asked for specific edit proposals, rather than a general statement of problems with the article. If you could offer up suggestions, we can repeat the constructive, productive approach found above. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

, that's precisely what my nutshell list was intended to be. For example, regarding the next section to be dealt with, the overdone Background section, I suggest 1) the sometimes questionable examples of "infiltration" be pared to one, or two if well-sourced, and 2) a quick line be added mentioning the "fire" orders that grew from these fears. My list is meant as reference for those not intimately familiar with the article, and as a heads-up about the extent of the work that lies ahead. By the way, as we move along, I have considerable new material and better or fresher alternate sources that have accumulated since taking my long sanity sabbatical. Also,, is the intent to insert newly edited sections in the article as editors move along, or to rebuild an entire article first in Talk? If the first, I take it the revised intro awaits an OK from Irondome or Wikimedes? Shall we go ahead and work on the Background section? Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgive me. We can get to the edits now, if you are interested in doing so. I have also accumulated a large amount of information on the Korean war in general, which may or may not be helpful. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More words!?! Behind me stand 14-15 shelf feet of Korean War books (I'm working on a KWar book); in front of me, 24 gigabytes of computerized Korean War files, half directly NGR-related. We won't be wanting for reference material. I hope we're not wanting for fortitude. I would like to propose an edit for the "Background" section, but I must do some work first, to track back on sources. Charles J. Hanley 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * As I am not a professional writer or researcher, I'm afraid I don't have access to the same volume of information that you do. I just meant to say that I am happy to work through some more proposals. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Misunderstood. Thought you were implying you thought the article needed more material about the broader war, and I've long felt cutting is what's needed. Charles J. Hanley 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Cjhanley, this is not an edit proposal and is not useful. Please see Law of holes and consider not digging.
 * There is a reason I posted WP policies on your talk, and it was not to persuade you to go to ANI and post a pages long tirade that is actively persuading editors that you need banned.


 * You are making me look bad personally because I have argued very publicly that both of you can be roped in and converted into something other than rambling ideologues, something resembling a productive member of the community.


 * You are not special. This is a big place. There are editors here who are Nobel laureates. There are lots of editors here who are subject matter experts. We value their knowledge and input, but we still require them to play by the rules. And we still ban then when they don't. I am replaceable. You are replaceable. Get over it.


 * Do your self a favor, stop talking about WeldNeck. Don't type his name, at all, ever. Die an old man having never typed his name beyond today. Next time you start to type it, stop and have a moment of self-reflection and think "That's something a complete idiot would do, and seeing how I'm not a complete idiot, I'm going to not do that." You are not convincing anyone that WeldNeck is a big fat meanie who needs a spanking. You are convincing everyone that you are self-entitled, self-absorbed and care a great deal more about being right than you do about doing anything productive. Stop it.


 * There is nothing wrong with being wrong. There is something wrong with being corrected and refusing to conform to community standards. You have been corrected. The policies are on your talk page. I encourage you to read them. (If you wish, you may now report me for violating WP:CIVIL. I'm not sure how else to get this message through.)Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)