Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 9

Reposting conglomerate proposed edits to the bottom of the page
Reposting this as everything seems to be swallowed up, and it's to the point where I have to look at diffs to tell where the debate is.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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 (per WP:RS and WP:LEAD). I have also tagged the paragraph for clarity. It should not be mysterious magical archival evidence. Archival evidence from what by whom? We should WP:ATTRIBUTE the archive. 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.

Counter 2

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

Cjhanley (talk)


 * The last paragraph is a WP:COATRACK and should be removed. All it says is "We have an article about a bad thing. Bad things are bad. So lets use this article to talk about other bad things that are not the bad thing the article is about." The article is about No Gun Ri. This would be appropriate for an article about civilian deaths generally during the war, but is not appropriate to this article, and certainly not the lead. I'll look more in depth, but that's my first thought. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree:
 * 1) The No Gun Ri revelations are universally credited in South Korea for having opened the floodgates; within three months, some 60 further cases of had been filed with the government (whereas none had been raised before, out of fear). In fact, it became clear that No Gun Ri's greatest historiographical importance was this shedding of light on a landscape of indiscriminate killing.
 * 2) These were not "civilian deaths generally," but for the most part deliberate strafings of refugee columns, along with attacks on sedentary groups of refugees, and therefore could be traced to the documented "kill" orders. New Air Force documents turned up with broad instructions to attack "people in white," i.e., Korean civilians.
 * 3) Not tying NGR to the broader "landscape" will leave the reader wondering, Gee, with all those orders flying around, why were only the NGR refugees killed? Survivors of other events said in some cases the death toll ranged up to 300. An AP reporter at the time counted 200 dead women, children and men along a road south of Seoul. (His story, with photo, was squelched somehow.) It became routine.

Charles J. Hanley 18:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry to be so annoyingly ambivalent, but I don't know how I stand on the last paragraph. Both of you make good points. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think an effort to expand coverage of other killings might work best as a stand-alone article. I'm willing to help out with that if need be. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is an article, Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Korea), that covers U.S. Korean War killings of SK civilians, within a larger context of SK killing of SK civilians in that war, plus human rights violations pre- and post-war. Also, I'm sure you're aware there's a final section of this NGR Massacre article headed "TRCK." I very strongly believe this context must be in the article, and I think it belongs, briefly, in the intro because even there the reader wonders, Well, were these the only refugees on the roads in South Korea at the time? Because, of course, it's made clear that these were blanket "kill" orders, not just specific to NGR. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Counter 3
Ok, how about this:

This is just about the last paragraph. I haven't gotten into anything else. It is succinct in that it keeps the focus on NGR. I don't think it's an unfair compromise to mention the fact and then put the details in the body. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree brief is (always) good. Understand, though, that the initial 60 cases, adding up to 200-plus, all involved U.S. killings of civilians, not simply "civilian deaths throughout the theater."
 * So I would suggest:

Cjhanley (talk)


 * Is there any way we could remove the "but" after "regret?" It makes it seem like Clinton had a different view than the Army. (Of course, if this is true, then keep it.) GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You're right, of course. Last-minute additions inevitably raise new problems. How about a "however" later in that sentence (and adding graf 4 back)...

Counter 4
Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Was is really killings in 50-51? With the war "ending" in 53, it seems like 50-51 is oddly specific. Why would everyone suddenly stop caring about civilian deaths in 1952? In the same vein, did it only spark interest in killings of civilians by US armed forces? Most of the troops were non-American. It seems odd, at face value (not a subject matter expert), that the US would have this problem but the SK and British troops would not, especially coming out of WWII where the killing of as many civilians as possible was a strategic objective for both sides. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Easy fix. Just make it "during the Korean War." GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Right. "during the Korean War." Do it. The cases brought were 1950-51, for tactical reasons we needn't get into, but GAB's fix harms nothing. The Brits were g'damned heroes, stopping a lot of crap. Yes, the TRCK investigated ROK killings of their own civilians, but those were gigantic mass executions, not strafing from the air, since, of course, they had no air. I hope we can go with this. The real problems lie ahead. Charles J. Hanley 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Counter 5

 * Removed "South Korea" from mention of Seoul. I think it's pretty obvious we're talking about Korea. Plus it's kindof like saying New York City, United States.
 * Added wikilinks for a lot of stuff. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The "essentially correct" can be sourced to Donghee Sinn, since that phrase was challenged previously. ("The central element of the AP story - that American troops fired on refugees - was confirmed by other researchers including the U.S. government's investigation team." -- in "Building Collective Memory," page 9, available on my page) GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Added. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me belatedly note, for the record, since I'm reviewing material and remembering things, the New York Times on May 13, 2000, when it first reported the reckless 7th Cav'er attack on AP, reported that the Pentagon had "confirmed" the core AP report AND that "hundreds" had been killed. Eight months later, the Pentagon spinners obviously insisted the cax toll should be "unknown." The Times paragraph: "Despite the new questions, senior Defense Department officials said yesterday that an Army investigation has confirmed the central element of the report, that American troops fired on refugees, resulting in what the Pentagon calls the 'tragic death of hundreds of civilians.'" Charles J. Hanley 19:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's late here and I'll sign off, but all looks fine. Charles J. Hanley 01:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not sure who removed the bolding on the title in the first line, but please leave per WP:BOLDTITLE.
 * I would like to continue thoroughly sourcing the lead. Compare the lead in Armenian Genocide, which contains 14 sources and even provides a source simply to justify the title of the article. Even two or three sources for a single statement is not overkill. For sure, direct quotes should always be accompanied by sources and there are four or five quote in the current proposal, none of which are sourced. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I will offer up sources for whatever I can, in a bit. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2, last sentence: needs a citation. Paragraph 3, sentences 2 and 3: need citations for quotes. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Two points:
 * On sourcing the lead: Mostly all I know re WP comes from Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, which says citations in the lead "aren't generally appropriate," the reader knowing he'll see the cites in the body. But if there's a groundswell of support, I'm not objecting. I have them all, of course, so I'll just need to hear what's needed.
 * I think Clinton, the presidential action, truly belongs in the lead. But it has complicated things a bit, and might still be better written, particularly since I'm now reminded that the next day he added, "Things happened which were wrong." What do you think? Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here rewriting to include Clinton quote, requiring some rejuggling; also to re-insert "U.S." before "killings" in final graf, since the 200-plus claims prompted by NGR all related to alleged U.S. killings. (I must say, however, that mentioning the so-called dispute, followed by "essentially correct," puts the cart -- the confirmation -- before the horse -- the investigation that confirmed -- for the reader. I really feel it need just say what the AP reported, then what the two official investigations said. The reader can see the essential confirmation):

Counter 6
Cjhanley (talk)

Counter 7
I threw some refs in, all of which are available on my page. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clinton still needs sourcing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like "numerous" citations for the claim of "numerous investigations" in the last sentence. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already a ref for the 200-plus cases in the final section of the article. I believe I have another standing by (and, of course, the AP reported it in 2008, making it at least three). In fact, and naturally, there are already refs in the body for everything in the lead section. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sourced investigations quote from USIP: "The Commission received 11,174 cases based on petitions from individuals. The body confirmed 8,468 cases (76%), rejected 1,729, and sent another 957 cases to other instances or closed them because of insufficient information." Also sourced from preliminary report, available here: http://www.japanfocus.org/data/TRC2009Report.pdf -- "215 cases of killings committed by U.S. soldiers" (page 43). GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Give me sources for the last two sentences in the first paragraph and the first sentence in the second and I'm good to go. I realize I'm being lazy by not just doing this myself, but I'm trying my best to argue against everyone, which is hard to do if you're not standoffish. So I guess thanks for playing the part of the person I'm arguing against. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The body cites two sources for the "inquest" casualty findings, in the "Casualties" section, 2nd graf.
 * I'll have to work up a cite for the 250-300 dead estimate.
 * You feel a cite is needed for saying the story was little known outside Korea before 1999? That's sort of like proving a negative, i.e., show me that it was known. Such was probably stated somewhere, but in my opinion finding it would be energy wasted on something unnecessary. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I meant the source for the original AP story. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've inserted the cite for the original AP story in graf 2. Charles J. Hanley 23:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've inserted the cite for the 250-300 estimate of dead. It's a Korean online news article reporting on a seminar at the NGR Peace Park that in the process uses the foundation's estimate of dead. Cjhanley (talk)
 * I've inserted the cite for the "inquest" casualty estimate. Cjhanley (talk)


 * By the way, I see GAB has posted and cited here Kim Dong-choon's 2004 article from the Journal of Genocide Research. Kim later became the Truth and Reconciliation Commission member who led its investigation of the U.S. killings of civilians. Looking back, I see again that this piece is very comprehensive and unflinching. Recommended reading. Charles J. Hanley 23:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

I'm satisfied. Support the edit. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur. Support, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for consensus. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked Irondome to take a look since he's another not-canvassed editor from MILHIST. If s/he approves I think s/he should be the person to make the edit since both the other third party editors here have been heavily involved in actually producing this final draft. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. I'll check in tomorrow. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, given the number of 7th Cav vets who stated the AP misquoted them and the three critical sources who confirmed orders were and were later shown to not have been present, I can object to the wording stating 7th cavalry vets corroborated the AP's account with at least some recognition of the issues surrounding that. I also cannot support the statement that the AP's account was confirmed. It wasnt. WeldNeck (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * We have a secondary source for that statement (Donghee Sinn), and I'll gladly provide more citations if that helps. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Then we need to be explicit about what the "central element" was. Do you have any comments on the veteran corroboration comments? WeldNeck (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the full quote from Sinn:


 * "The central element of the AP story - that American troops fired on refugees - was confirmed by other researchers including the U.S. government's investigation team."


 * Also, Sinn does mention criticism of some of the challenged witnesses (Daily, Flint, Hesselman). To quote Sinn once more:


 * "The controversy is that three veterans among those who were interviewed by the AP might not have participated in or witnessed the incident in question."


 * She goes on to say:


 * "Even though there was controversy over the interviewees’ reliability, the consensus of researchers seems to be that the veracity of the report concerning the No Gun Ri killings stands."


 * All of this is sourced from "Building Collective Memory," page 9.


 * GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly clear that what we have are dozens and dozens of sources about the incident, and a handful of alternative sources casting doubt on particular details. These particular details do not, in any way, seem to be crucial for the essential truth of the AP story. Further, even if they completely undermined the AP story, the AP story does not itself appear to be crucial for the essential truth of the event as there were numerous other investigations including official inquiries by both governments.


 * The wording is not problematic. The proposed edit does not say "every single 7th Cal soldier told exactly the same story word-for-word and no one ever changed a single word of that story ever." Some of the details are disputed, as is stated. If the reader wants to know what details are disputed they should go to the body of the article and see. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely concur with the above. In addition I would urge both parties to consider the new section created below, and begin to interact, show us the things you do agree on. I still believe we can move forward. Is an optimist merely an ill-informed pessimist? Cheers all. Simon. Irondome (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, it must be said, since I cannot allow repetitiveness to begin to take on the sound of truthfulness: All the contentions above about "misquotation" and "vets who weren't there" are simply bogus -- with one exception, and that's Daily, the unofficial regimental historian and ex-president of the vets' association, who had long known the details of NGR and who for his own reasons said (and very possibly still feels) he was there, when documents eventually dug up indicate otherwise. NOBODY was misquoted by AP way back when, and Flint and Hesselman WERE at NGR. Besides, a lot of water flowed under the bridge after that, and the journalists and Pentagon added some 20 more ex-GI witnesses to the ranks. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 19:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * The way I see it, the burden is not to establish that these dissenting reports are WP:TRUTH. The burden is to establish (1) even if they were true do they fundamentally undermine the story, and (2) even if they were true are they WP:MAINSTREAM or are they WP:FRINGE to the point that including them would produce WP:UNDUE weight to the argument. I do not feel that this standard has been met. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I don't want to rehash this particular tedious dispute, but I do think it needs to be dealt with eventually, somehow. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess having said that, and in the interest of fairness, I'm still not convinced that a WP:CRIT section isn't appropriate, so long as it is concise and doesn't violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But the argument still needs to be made that such a section would not be WP:UNDUE. That is, evidence needs to be presented that these criticisms have numerous and prominent adherents, and not one or two things written by one or two people that have largely attracted little attention. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * GAB is correct, it will have to be dealt with eventually, but not for a bit. And at that time I think things will be quite clear. Meantime, I have worked up an edit proposal for the Background section, but still must get a couple of kinks out of citation mechanics, and add explainer notes. To be done early Fri morn EDT. Charles J. Hanley 23:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * I'm considering making a proposal myself on the peace park, or maybe the legal precedent. Obviously, if we don't need this, I can table it and help out with other proposals. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the peace park, I have considerable information, having spent three days at a conference there last fall. The separate Nogeun-ri article, about the village, will eventually need updating with park info, I believe. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is good to see renewed momentum here. I think a criticisms section would be advantageous providing it is richly sourced. I would like to see 's input also on this point. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Question is, criticisms of what? The AP story? The overall massacre allegations? I absolutely agree that meticulous and comprehensive sourcing is necessary, especially when the criticism would likely differ so sharply from the rest of the article. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno. Don't really care. I'm not proposing the section. I'm just saying I'm willing to listen to someone who does. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI, I would suggest, before getting into the meat of this article, i.e., the massacre itself, that one might benefit from scanning the very brief written excerpts from two excellent TV documentaries, at User:Cjhanley/German ARD-TV No Gun Ri excerpts and User:Cjhanley/BBC No Gun Ri excerpts. The ARD text may be a tad ragged, but enlightening. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder. You cannot post copyrighted material, even on your own userspace per WP:COPYVIO. This is basically because Wikipedia can get sued for violating intellectual property laws because they control the servers and beeping lights that let you do it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not copyrighted, just notes taken while viewing in one case, and excerpts from an unpublished script in another. Since most of you haven't enabled "email this user" at your user page, I'm at a loss as to how otherwise to get solid background material to you. Charles J. Hanley 19:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Role call
It seems that debate in this section has reached a point where it is fundamentally not about the proposal. So lets be done with it.

Support as nominator.

Support fully. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Counter 7. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Updating links
In order to 1) save some time later, and 2) provide possible new resources for all, I would like to update the "External Links" section by deleting/replacing dead links and inserting newfound ones. The dead ones are: the very first, the survivors committees's "No Gun Ri Incident" (to be replaced by the Peace Park link); one AP interactive; and a PBS special report from 2000. I have about a half-dozen new links to add. (I might later also add a book or two to "Further Reading.") Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Links would be wonderful, as well as further reading. On a totally unrelated note, I am still hunting for Suhi Choi's piece, "Communicating trauma." I will share what I have as well. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Choi's 'Communicating' piece is now at User:Cjhanley/Choi's 'Communicating Trauma'. I suggest downloading such into your PC -- and Conway-Lanz's, too -- so that I can delete them relatively quickly. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks very much. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue of getting adequate sources to all is a real challenge. I'm still looking... GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have updated the "External Links" section of the article, to delete/sub for dead links, and add a few. A cautionary note: Many of these commentaries etc. are outdated in important ways, having been written before the 2006-2007 revelations of the Muccio letter and its suppression, before or without knowledge of the SK government inquest of 2005, before the deep analysis that produced the 2010 Critical Asian Studies article, and before the consolidation of information at the NGR Peace Park. Some were even written without knowledge of the AP's detailed refutation of the Bateman/Galloway fictions of 2000. Possibly most important: an updated link to the NGR database at SUNY-Albany,which, however, is obviously a work in slow progress, hardly comprehensive. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Counter 7
To all: please vote on Counter 7 above, if you have not already done so. I'd like to get that vote wrapped up so we can move on. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * By counter 7, you are refering to this:. WeldNeck (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

PSA on naming conventions
Hi to all,

Just a reminder that we should follow WP:NCKOREAN when using Korean names.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Source Request
Does anyone have access to the following: Massacre at No Gun Ri?: American Military Policy Toward Civilian Refugees during the Korean War AUTHOR(S)Weinberg, Carl R. PUB. DATEOctober 2008 SOURCEOAH Magazine of History;Oct2008, Vol. 22 Issue 4, p58 Thanks WeldNeck (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do. I will try to find a way to make it available. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. WeldNeck (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It's posted here: User:GeneralizationsAreBad/Weinberg. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a heads-up: as I don't want to fall afoul of copyright rules on Wikipedia, I'm going to leave the material up for a few more days and then delete it, just to be safe. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed edit 8
Hi,

Sorry to have been out for a while. I propose changing this:

To this:

This adds a significant fact to the paragraph. If it might seem too much like WP:OR to the unwary reader, then we can put something in such as, "Donghee Sinn, citing 5th Air Force mission reports, notes that..." GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, sorry for not putting in the other Bateman/DAIG references. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it looks good. WeldNeck (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably should add the wording about attributing the fact to Sinn. It's a direct quote, and it is quoting something quoting something.  Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Here's a new version:

WP:CN on the first sentence or is it supported by the second sentence citation? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'm not sure, myself. To quote from page 181,

"'The number of Korean witness statements describing the straﬁng and the photograph interpretation by NIMA does not permit the U.S. Review Team to exclude the possibility that U.S. or allied aircraft might have hit civilian refugees in the vicinity of No Gun Ri during an air strike/ straﬁng on July 26, 1950... The U.S. Review Team concluded that straﬁng may have occurred near No Gun Ri in the last week of July 1950 and could have injured or killed Korean civilians but that any such air strikes were not deliberate attacks on Korean civilians... It was not a pre-planned strike on civilian refugees.'" GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless we can find a good secondary source that indicates the NGRR's position on this, I think we might as well revise the first sentence to ensure it's accurate and in accordance with the text. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable and beyond
"When a witness is found false in one material part of his testimony, he may be distrusted in all others." That's a well-known California jury instruction.

Before we go much further, I think it's essential for us to come to an understanding as to why two potential sources must be distrusted in all things.

The USNGRR
A simple reading of even this article, as it is, shows how deceitful the U.S. No Gun Ri Review was, the result of the alleged perpetrator investigating itself. Among items covered up or misrepresented in that 2001 U.S. Army report, some noted in the current article, some not: the Muccio letter on the shoot-refugees policy; the Rogers memo on the strafe-refugees policy; the USS Valley Forge report on the practice of strafing groups of eight or more; the 1st Cav Division orders declaring refugees "fair game" and similar; the 25th Inf Div orders to shoot civilians; the U.S. Air Force reports on missions that strafed refugees and that attacked in the No Gun Ri vicinity; and others. The USNGRR team lied to the South Koreans about the existence of those mission reports. The USNGRR covered up the absence of the crucial 7th Cav log of July 1950. The USNGRR suppressed the testimony of 7th Cavalry veterans who spoke of the practice of indiscriminate killing of civilians ("Word I heard was 'Kill everybody from 6 to 60,'" and similar from others).

The simple fact is that when the USNGRR is cited on anything, it almost invariably can be and will have to be countered with verifiable contrary facts, and the wordage will balloon and balloon until we have an article on the USNGRR and not on No Gun Ri.

The USNGRR must be cited on essentials, such as its declaring that the killings were "not deliberate" and that no orders to shoot were issued, but even there the article must cite the disappearance of the 7th Cav log that would have held the orders.

A prime example of this problem is the "TACP" business atop the "Events of 25-29 July" section, a highly inconsequential and landmine-loaded subject. It's a total waste of 150 good words that, if left in, must balloon to 300 to counter the USNGRR's untruths. But it should not be left in; it's pointless, unless the point is to blow smoke and confuse readers.


 * The USNGRR has extensive interviews of the individuals involved. It cant be excluded because a certain someone doesnt like it. The TCAP 'business' is very relevant for a number of reasons.
 * 1. It shows the refugees impression of events may not mirror reality with any degree of certainty.
 * 2. It shows the lackadaisical fact checking done by the AP when they republished this allegation when a simple check of would have showed the AP the battalion lacked a TACP/ALO.
 * WeldNeck (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This whole business is absolutely inconsequential. There was a strafing, all hands agree. Whether it was called in by Army communications up the chain, by ground air controllers (who were, indeed, in the area), by the airborne Army spotter who was known to have been overhead, by Air Force controllers known to be overhead, or it was a spontaneous strike by jets following policy -- is inconsequential. What is consequential is that the USAF had a policy of strafing approaching refugees. If anything belongs atop the "Events" section, that does. All of this blowing of smoke, in the "Events" section, and here in Talk, does nothing to improve the article. Let's get back to the Background section. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In other words, you don't have any sources for this. Thanks for clarifying. WeldNeck (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

BATEMAN
Bateman is the "beyond unreliable" here, an unbelievable combination of ineptitude, wackiness and deceitfulness. On multiple levels he is beyond unreliable on the subject of No Gun Ri:

LEVEL 1: He is a 7th Cavalry Regiment Association activist who vowed in an email to a newspaper to "expose" those who brought disrepute upon his regiment. The only publisher he could find -- or was directed to -- was one with a long Pentagon affiliation. His editor was a U.S. Army colonel. This COI is way more than enough, clearly, to dismiss him as a "reliable source." The article has sufficient Army POV from the self-investigating USNGRR.

LEVEL 2: Academics and others knowledgeable about NGR dismiss Bateman's book as junk "history," beginning with the fact that he didn't even go to Korea to interview surviving victims and understand the setting, and moving on to his many other affronts to serious research and analysis. See one astute scholar's assessment at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/Archive 5, the posting beginning, "Speaking as a PHD candidate..." He refers to Bateman's "either remarkably careless scholarship or deliberate distortion." See also moderator John Callaway's castigating of Bateman's terrible book on U.S. national TV, at 45 minutes, here. If needed, if Level 1 doesn't make clear his unreliability, I will post at my user page the AP team's lengthy demolition of Bateman's book, page by page.

LEVEL 3: If a flagrant conflict of interest (Level 1) and an obvious lack of seriousness and competence (Level 2) somehow don't disqualify Bateman from any consideration (and why not?), one then need only look at the jaw-dropping examples of what he has written: hijacking and sticking in a footnote an otherwise hidden document he claims shows "two guerrillas" were at NGR, his major "finding," when the document has nothing at all to do with NGR (see Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/Archive 3 and see for yourself); as for wackiness, how about his going on for paragraphs, incredibly, (his page 216) insisting the original AP journalists claimed "24 generals" were present at NGR and were interviewed.

Perhaps most astounding among more than 100 astounding inanities in his book is his swinging back and forth (I kid you not) between declaring that NGR didn't happen, and then declaring it did and he alone knows "the truth" of how many were killed and how.

Here's Bateman on his page 126: "If they took place as described at all. ... the killings occurred in dozens and possibly hundreds of the small misfortunes that make war so horrible."

Then on his pages 198-199, he lays out "the truth, supported by historical evidence," that is, his scenario of mortar and small arms fire at NGR, and between a dozen to "slightly more" than two dozen refugees killed.

In between, on his page 151, he again denies NGR's confirmed reality, saying of a 19th-century massacre, "in the case of Wounded Knee, at least the event itself had occurred."

Elsewhere in his chaotic book, he cites ridiculously precise but ever-changing casualty tolls, from 8 to 70.

The fact that Bateman is cited more in the current mess of an article than are the people who actually did prodigious, honest research on No Gun Ri is a deeply sad commentary on Wikipedia and its failure to rein in POV pushers. The incoherent Bateman doesn't belong in the article, period. And the USNGRR necessarily does, but used prudently. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk)


 * Here's my two cents:


 * I agree that it is ideal to corroborate any material with additional sources. That's what footnotes are for: substantiating any material likely to be challenged. On this contentious subject, practically any fact whatsoever might be conceivably be challenged.
 * I have repeatedly sought outside opinion on the use of Bateman, with mixed results. Ironically, my attempt to clarify on the use of Bateman as a source was pretty much what set this off again. My advice for this case is as above.
 * There has been criticism of the US report on No Gun Ri. That's an incontrovertible fact. The headlines didn't read, "Korean Survivors Applaud Army Review." Criticism of the report is a legitimate POV which deserves inclusion. We should try to verify statements presented by NGRR using 3rd party references, and it's certainly appropriate to include "point-counterpoint" in the "criticism" section. I agree that undue weight to any one subject is ill-advised, but I think the air strikes (which killed an estimated 100 people) are significant enough to be covered in some depth. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes yes ... we get it. Bateman did such a fine job of damaging the AP's credibility over this issue that his use as a source is strictly verboten. Back to reality though ... Bateman's book was well received by the community of historians. WeldNeck (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * My point on the strafing is more that the "Events" section should simply tell what happened, and the discussion of why there was a strafing be left until later sections, particularly "Investigations," rather than confuse the reader with "TACPs" and "mission reports" and then only with the counter-factual USNGRR elements on those points. Why interrupt the flow of action with a sudden discussion of such things, which only have to be taken up later? In addition, the "no TACPs" and "no mission reports" items are presented as fact in the current article, merely footnoted, when they're actually, demonstrably false claims by the USNGRR. They should be explicitly attributed to the USNGRR, and then knocked down by the objective, published research. Then we end up with many words interrupting the action, but little added to our knowledge of NGR.


 * As for Bateman, "outside opinion" isn't going to be any more familiar with his book than you are. That's why I've marshaled countless examples of "show and tell" to make clear to any honest, intelligent editor that the guy's beyond the pale. And that's why that Ph.D. candidate bothered to demolish Bateman in his very cogent posting on Talk a while back, and why Sahr Conway-Lanz (see Talk Archive 5) said, "I have serious reservations about Bateman’s book as a source on No Gun Ri, especially because the book claims to be a comprehensive account of No Gun Ri but does not use Korean sources." I don't see why any more information than what has been laid out on Talk is needed to know to avoid Bateman while editing this article. Charles J. Hanley 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * If there was a TACP/ALO available to the 2/7 or if the soldiers who ordered the refugees into the tunnels could communicate with the USAF, surely you have a reliable secondary source confirming this? As for Conway-Lanz's opinion's, these too can be sourced to a reliable secondary source? Because if this material can be disqualified because an anonymous commenter on a talk page said so, whats that say about the volumes of criticism written about the AP's work? WeldNeck (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. Let's source it to his article, not his talk page comments. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Conway-Lanz, a highly regarded historian/archivist (his original journal article won the annual Bernath award from the Society of Diplomatic Historians), wasn't going to waste his time writing for publication to debunk a crank like Bateman.
 * Most serious academics, as you must know, are disdainful of Wikipedia. But Conway-Lanz cared enough about protecting the truths of NGR that he came to this Talk page to warn editors and readers against the 7th Cav crusader. And I don't know what WN is talking about, as usual: Conway-Lanz was not "anonymous" (as WN is) but announced himself on Talk. As for this tiresome nonsense about TACPs: Let it go, man. We'll deal with it later, when, yes, we can show via secondary sources, backed up by documents, how trivial (and untrue) this stuff is. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am the ghost of Albert Einstein. Photons are discriminatory. They encourage anorexia by reinforcing an unrealistic standard of masslessness. Trillions of so called "overweight" protons and neutrons are silently suffering.
 * Just to illustrate the point. But seriously, per WP:WINARS, talk page comments are not WP:RS.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if it was Mr. Conway Lanz, beyond a doubt, we couldn't use it anyways, considering it's arguably WP:UGC. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Quite aside from whether we don't want to believe Sahr C-L is Sahr C-L, his posting raised a substantive point, consideration of which will get us farther, I would hope, than citing WP: this's and thats. The point: The man ignored the whole Korean half of the NGR story (denigrating the survivors as liars in the process). C-SPAN moderator Callaway made the same substantive point in berating Bateman on national TV, viewable at the link above. I would urge all to engage the substance, not the messenger(s). The reliability question then answers itself. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 23:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

There are no easy answers here. I prefer not to be so gauche as to link my own essay, but this case touches on so many points I would essentially have to reproduce the whole essay here to address them all. What I can say for certain is it should not be the intention or expectation of editors to prove that Bateman is right or wrong. It's my assessment (though still up for debate), that his book is not self-published, and there cannot be a blanket statement that his views are WP:FRINGE. Some of his specific views may be fringe. He represents a significant viewpoint, which there is a duty to cover under WP:NPOV. He is definitely biased. If a point can be made using better sources, that should be preferred. Contradictions between sources should be highlighted, rather than used to suppress a source. Don't explain a contradiction unless a source explains it. Rhoark (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The ultimate point is a simple one: Bateman is grossly unreliable, and that should be abundantly clear to any alert WP editor who performs the extremely simple exercise at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/Archive 3 . After doing that, if anyone wants to try to persuade me he's reliable, I'm all ears.
 * Surely, WP editors aren't expected to refrain from doing independent thinking and making judgments. As for his "views," it's hard to say, since he contradicts himself all over the place: There was no mass killing in one chapter, and then there was and he knows how many died and how. The guy is so off the wall, it seems some people have a problem believing anyone could be this reckless and obtuse and get into print. But he did, via the Pentagon route. Please, please do the exercise. Thanks. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, "reliable" is a term of art, whose meaning differs from the vernacular usage. Rhoark (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you done the simple exercise, ? Do it, come back, and we'll talk about terms of art, vernacular and anything else. Otherwise, this is all WP: abstraction, not reality. And an encyclopedia, even a bad one, should try to deal with reality. Do it. Charles J. Hanley 01:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive done this "simple" exercise and I find your argument unpersuasive. Can we please move on? WeldNeck (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, then, to confirm and show everyone where you're coming from: You, WeldNeck, believe it's fine to take two random guns from an unrelated document and arbitrarily attribute them to two imaginary "guerrillas" among the No Gun Ri refugees, as Bateman did? Is that correct? Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I read your link. I did not find any persuasive argument based in policy. Rhoark (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what policy or policies you're referring to. The one I'm working by, honesty (as in "the best policy"), says a guy who plays fraudulent shell games with documents is hardly reliable. What am I missing? Charles J. Hanley 17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
 * Two words: Ed Dailey. WeldNeck (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As usual, no answer, no cooperation, no good faith. Charles J. Hanley 14:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)


 * This argument is going around in circles. I think it's worth quoting Christopher Booth's 2001 article in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, "Prosecuting the 'Fog of War?'":


 * This author... disputes the conclusion drawn by many of those dismissing the existence of a massacre merely through the discrediting of a single witness, or even casting doubt on all the servicemen's memories. Physical as well as documentary evidence suggest that the events occurred. (Page 13, footnote 56.)


 * This is an unproductive route to take. Can we please get back to edit proposals? GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)