Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hill 303 massacre/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:32, 16 November 2010.

Hill 303 massacre

 * Nominator(s): — Ed! (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It has passed both GA and a MILHIST A-class review. — Ed! (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: no dab links, no dead external links, will likely add further comments later. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, leaning oppose  Well maybe I should piped up on this earlier on this sequence of Korean War articles, but there doesn't seem to be any scholarly books used in this article, although this seems similar to this sequence of articles, with the sources apparently being popular history writers in popular-type presses that print a lot of "old war story" type stuff on Korea and VN, or stuff printed under the auspices of the US Military rather than university academics. I'm rather leery of having an article about war crimes being sourced only to popular historians and those that are not fully-third party.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  06:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to find a few of these sources. Are there any specific books/kinds of authors you're specifically looking for? I've tried to use a variety of sources I thought were scholarly to keep it as balanced as possible. — Ed! (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Analysis on source: The US Army source, aka Appleman, has been certified to be the most important/reliable scholarly source available on Korean combat operations, so I don't think an reliance on Appleman's work should be counted against this article. The same can also be said about Ecker and his research into US casualty numbers. Catchpole's book has a rather unknown reputation/impact in the Korean War research, so I would be cautious on giving too much weight to his work. Chinnery's book has been noted to be "superficial and naive" on analyzing the POW issue, so it's conclusions of the event should not be relied upon. Alexander and Fehrenbach's work, although important and notable, were written from dissatisfied Korean grunt point of view, so their point of view could have a somewhat skewed revisionist touch, and I would suggest to use another source, such as Allan Millet or Clay Blair to cross examine their findings. McCarthy's report is a primary government source, thus it needs a secondary source for interpretation. Varhola is a tertiary source that should only be used to support uncontroversial facts. And finally Millett's work currently represents the most up to date scholar studies on Korean War. A more detailed review of what sources to use on what Korean War topic can be found on . According to this list, the war crime issue could only be best explained with unpublished documents from US Judge Advocate General's Corps in 1954. Jim101 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What does "has been certified to be the most important/reliable scholarly source available on Korean combat operations" mean? "Certified" according to what and by whom?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He is certified at least according to the reviews by Prof. Allan Millet, David Halberstam, South Korean Ministry of Defense, etc, in which Appleman's research provided the definitive theater level account of the Korean War from the outbreak to the start of the stalemate period. He and S.L.A. Marshall has been recognized as the two leading experts on US Army operations during the Korean War, although S.L.A. Marshall did not wrote books on the entire history of the Korean War like Appleman did. Jim101 (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The official histories sponsored by the US Army from World War II to the present have a very good reputation for scholarly rigor and the historians were able to write and reach their conclusions without being influenced by the Army. Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll note I did a google scholar search (quick, but on a few permutations of "Hill 303" with korea/war/crime/massacre) and didn't turn up anything beyond what sources are given in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments relating to 1c: I was asked to specifically attend to the issue of HQRS in this, and other Korean War articles coming forward. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not highly esteem the works of McCarthy, Joseph; Karl E. Mundt, John L. McLellan, Margaret C. Smith, et. al. (1954) on matters of fact. (Also, 2c: semis versus commas)
 * Joseph McCarthy is known as a notorious liar, slanderer, and distorter of facts. This public knowledge is accurate and taints any capacity for McCarthy or any body he was involved with in a fact determining manner, to determine facts.  McCarthy etal (1954) should only be used for matters of clear opinion.  It should not be used for facts.
 * Millett, Allan R. (2010) and Appleman (1998) are beyond reproach; UPs and modern military historical scholarship by a military press.
 * Alexander, Bevin (2003) is reliable due to expertise overcoming any problem with his publisher being a general non-fiction publisher. Treat as HQRS.  Catchpole, Brian (2001) is published by a reputable commercial non-fiction press, it is of adequate length to be considered a high quality reliable source in this context.  Ecker, Richard E. (2004), is published by a non-fiction specialist with a scholarly publishing wing.  Ought to be reliable as a Tertiary.  Fehrenbach, T.R. (2001), This Kind of War is a highly republished "popular" work, the fact that it has been acclaimed by popular readers, and is not published by a partisan press, puts it that one rank above Korean Atrocity!: reliable but not high quality.  Michael J. Varhola is a professional (but not an academic) historian, Varhola, Michael J. (2000), Fire and Ice is published by a respectable non-fiction publisher.
 * Chinnery, Philip D. (2001) is published by a partisan press (an institute formed of retired US service people, to advance their political interests), in effect the press is a Trade Union of retired naval servicepeople. Korean Atrocity!: Forgotten War Crimes, 1950-1953 is not a reliable source: it is produced by a partisan press and fails to meet the standards of the relevant discipline (it doesn't cite based on archival, primary and secondary sources).  Support any points with another source, or double up citations.
 * I'm a little concerned that the standard South Korean academic history of the war doesn't seem to have been consulted or used. Korea Institute of Military History etal. The Korean War Vol 1 University of Nebraska Press, 2000.
 * I'm not surprised but saddened that there is no adequate North Korean or North Korean focused history to use.
 * Actually, I'm surprised to say The Korean War Vol 1 didn't mention the massacre (though it mentioned Hill 303). The book has very little to say of war crimed in general. As to Chinnery and McCarthy, I think I only used them as secondary sources to supplement the main info which is already cited by other sources. — Ed! (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Unexpected! Normally KIMH Korean War is my go to.  Maybe they found it impossible to present within the confines of their 2000 edition (they stripped out the... uh... partisan stuff when revising the earlier Korean editions for modern scholarly publication). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I appreciate the source analysis. Can I get some clarification, please, on how this affects the article? Have the nonreliable or nonpreferred sources been replaced or doubled up? Karanacs (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll act on this today. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1c is good following edits made by the article nominator Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I have concerns which lead me to Oppose on 1c grounds, I have not mentioned trivial or uncontroversial or correct ("for attributed opinion") uses of the two sources as these uses are correct uses of non-reliable sources, or are not concerning to FAC:
 * Use of Chinnery, a work identified as lacking Reliability due to being published by an involved press and by failing to meet HQRS standards in the appropriate discipline:
 * To solely support the unusual claim of first hand experience that, "The prisoners were taken to a road…and told…in Seoul."
 * To solely support a novel claim in contradiction to a HQRS that, "Another US survivor…claimed the two were beaten to death with entrenching tools."
 * To allege without attribution that, "North Korean troops…became agitated, fearing they would be captured…"
 * To claim, only supported by another unreliable source, that "50 guards present climbed to the top of the gully around the line of prisoners."
 * To claim, Two of the [at least three] North Koreans were Kim Kwong Taek and Chong Myong Tok, conscript replacements, members of 4Co 2/206 Mech Inf; that the commander of 4 2/206 had lead the executions; that Heo Chang Keun claimed only 20 North Koreans fired weapons.
 * These uses are concerning and a grounds for opposition on the basis of 1c: quality of research. They are claims derived from a partisan press, they appear to be claims derived from primary sources or a source compilation.  These are unique historical claims which are not supported from the core texts cited elsewhere in the article.
 * Use of McCarthy etal. McCarthy, Korean War Atrocities Report of the Committee on Government Operations is a US government publication of a parliamentary committee run by a notorious liar and falsifier.  The public stain of McCarthy's lies fall on this source.  As such it should be used only for the opinions of the US Government and / or US Congress.  Where the use of McCarthy etal was supported by other reliable sources, I have not complained, someone might get value from looking up the report there.
 * To claim that on 17 August, "Several more American prisoners were added to the group during the day, bringing the number of prisoners on Hill 303 to 45."
 * To claim that, "The officer ordered the men shot," on 17 August at 14:00. (This is a particularly bad thing to source from McCarthy etal.)
 * To claim that the survivors from the Ravine shooting incident survived by hiding under the dead bodies of others.
 * To claim that, "Following the incident…American troops were also less apt to take prisoners themselves."
 * These uses are concerning as they are statements of fact dependent upon Joseph McCarthy's capacity to be factually correct in a political matter related directly to Communism.
 * While the sections quoted from McCarthy and from Chinnery are almost certainly Witness Statements or Oral History Inteviews, neither McCarthy nor Chinnery are acceptable at converting these into reliable sources. Chinnery fails to display basic conventions of the appropriate discipline in sections related to the article I read, and was published by a partisan press.  McCarthy is McCarthy.  While a historian such as Appleman or Millett may be able to rescue such primary source accounts from the jaws of McCarthy or from the popular-press failings of Chinnery, Wikipedia is not a historian.  Also, given that this is a pretty typical prisoner killing incident by what appears to be a frightened gutless junior officer, the statements above are probably correct in fact, but they're not demonstrably correct in fact from reliable sources to the satisfaction of wikipedia policy.  Similar evidence which is obviously from interviews with soldiers who were present, cited in Life Magazine or Time Magazine are unconcerning: these news outlets have to the satisfcation of wikipedia policy fact checking standards in place in ways Chinnery and McCarthy don't.
 * The uses outlined above are grounds for opposition to this article being Featured. Other uses of McCarthy and Chinnery are acceptable: they are either trivial, cited with support from Reliable Sources or HQRS, or are permitted opinion / fact from otherwise unreliable or primary sources. (ie: that in late 1953 the US Senate Committee on Government Operations…conducted an investigation).  Were the following problem points cited in duplicate against HQRS, there would be no problem.  The FAC nominator should feel free to ping my talk page if they manage to fix these. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Response I am happy to say that the Chinnery source was added after the ACR only for additional detail. As all the points you mentioned above aren't really that important to the article, I have just removed the details since they are not substantiated by any of the other references. As for McCarthy, the things you listed above can all be cross-referenced by other sources (I would have done so already but I feared over-citation) and so I have replaced the refs in question with other sources that say the same thing. I hope this eliminates your concern, just let me know if anything else needs changing. — Ed! (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good now. Sadly this is one of those issues where Wikipedia's requirements are stricter than, for example, the rights of a historian or journalist.  We're not allowed to evaluate sources and critically read the truth out of their inadequacies.  It might be something to watch in future with your Korean article series, when considering the encyclopaedic benefit of humanising colour versus the HQRS requirements at Featured Article candidates. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Support, with the caveat that I'm not reviewing sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Comments
 * Given the length of the lead and article, I would recommend combining the second and third paragraphs of the lead
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Waegwan or Waegwon?
 * It is spelled with an A. I can't find anywhere where it is misspelled, am I missing something — Ed! (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Caption for the third image uses "Waegwon Bridge" - should that also be with an A? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Image check - images are all PD, no apparent problems
 * US Army prisoners of war or Prisoners of war or Prisoners of War? Be consistent
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in using US vs U.S.
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "with the mission to take the initial "shock"" - awkward phrasing
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "in large numbers in close support" - phrasing
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "along a long line along the Naktong River" - repetitive
 * fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "holding a 24 kilometres (15 mi) line" - grammar
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "the 10th,[11] 3rd, 15th, 13th,[12] 1st Divisions occupied a line" - grammar
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What is an underwater bridge?
 * Created an article for that. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Specify the time zone used for times in the Massacre section
 * Done. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "From there they would join 5,000 other US Prisoners of war in Taejon, then to Seoul" - grammar
 * Fixed. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Millett should be formatted the same as the other references. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I think that's everything. — Ed! (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Image concerns:
 * File:Hill 303 Memorial.jpg
 * South Korea does not permit commercial freedom of panorama. That said, I think tombstone (creative elements of helmet and base) qualify as de minimis to the subject (paying respects), so it is not an issue to me; however, I am listing it here for additional discussion (in case someone else has different opinions).


 * File:Waegwan Bridge.jpg
 * It is not really "labeled as US Army photo" at the source.
 * The book does not label the photo as a "US Army photo". "Mrs. Norma Heacock Sherris assisted in finding suitable illustrations for the volume."[pp. xii–xiii]  "Illustrations are from Department of Defense files."[p. xxiv]  This could be a South Korean aerial photograph instead.  Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is overly draconian. First of all, only US Far East Air Force conducts aerial reconnaissance in Korea during the war. Second of all, the book explicitly stated that this picture is the property of the US government. Third of all, even if it is an South Korean photograph, it is just two months shy to the "50 years after made public in the name of an organization" condition according to the South Korean copyright law. Jim101 (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to agree. The images were licensed to the US Gov when they were published in the book. Any qualms about South Korea's copyright were waived when they allowed the images to be published, and any other copyrights should have expired in the 60 years since. From my interpretation they are clearly in the public domain. — Ed! (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Hill 303 perp.jpg, File:Hill 303 Survivors.jpg
 * http://www.kmike.com/Appleman/Chapter19.htm#4 does not have these images.
 * These are not from the US Government book South to the Naktong, North to the Yalu by Roy E. Appleman. The entire series of images used in the book can be viewed at http://www.history.army.mil/books/korea/20-2-1/toc.htm or at the "fan"-mirror site http://www.kmike.com/Appleman/Appleman.htm.  These two photographs are not from the book.  Furthermore, the now corrected source (http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/hill303.htm) states "First are shown photos and a contemporary Associated Press account, followed by a historical story in the Boston Globe."  From the tone, these could be press photographs.  Where are these photographs from?  Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The last three images are more concerning. Jappalang (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the license tags on all three images to just "US Gov source." Though they come from an Army book I understand they aren't definitively taken by Army photographers. I also corrected the link for the last two images, same site and same book, just a different page. As for the first image, it was taken and published by the US Government with the knowledge and consent of the South Korean government. — Ed! (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The change of tags make no difference. None of the three photographs are verifiably taken by US government employees.  Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.