Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Infiltration

I am not sure if my comments are welcome here because what I gather from this voluminous talk page is that publishing on a subject means that one has a conflict of interest on that subject, a position I find perplexing. I am Sahr Conway-Lanz, the historian who wrote the article “Beyond No Gun Ri” cited in the current No Gun Ri Wikipedia article. But at the risk of offering an “interested” comment, I want to point out the difference between the US Army believing that the North Koreans disguised significant numbers of their troops as refugees and the North Koreans actually doing so. There is much evidence for the American fear, but very limited evidence for the North Koreans using this infiltration tactic in reality. Even Lt. Col. Bateman in his book agrees that the actual number of infiltrators was quite small (p. 71). The Wikipedia article should make this distinction more clearly. The current version suggests a level of actual infiltration, as opposed to feared and suspected infiltration, that the published accounts (Bateman, Hanley, me) do not support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noncombatant917 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are who you say you are, then perhaps Weldneck was right, and Cjhanley has resorted to meatpuppetry rather than sockpuppetry.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. WeldNeck (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

ALCON, I know Sahr and agree with him. See pages 68-74 of my book for an in-depth explanation of the term "infiltration" and my debunking that there actually was much, if any, infiltration through the lines by NKA forces dressed in civilian clothing. Most of the time they just went around units, in full uniform. What was happening was that there was massive fear that the NKA was doing that, but I found that to be largely unsubstantiated and a classic example of how rumors get turned into "facts." The sum of the rumors, and the citations such as Appleman, all stem from a single source so far as I can tell. (This is in footnote 12 in chapter 4 of my book, the infamous "pregnant woman with a radio" report.) See: 1st Cavalry Division War Diary, July 1950, RG 338, Box 42, see also the G2 report for the same period. Although it is also similar to an event cited in the 1 Cav Div radio log as something occuring near the 77th Field Artillery in the same time period. Sahr is an honest and open scholar. We disagree on some things, but I would never support anyone's idea that he is a "meat puppet" for anyone, let alone Hanley. Robert Bateman 86.188.140.194 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Aren't editors supposed to be welcoming to new voices? If I am violating some Wikipedia community standard by adding my voice, I would appreciate guidance about my misstep. I am who I say I am, and I will assume your good faith if you can accept mine. I am only trying to help improve the entry. If the Wikipedia community believes that I have a conflict of interest because I have published on this topic, I will bow out of commenting on this page. I am certainly not simply parroting Mr. Hanley's views since my comment on infiltration suggests that some of Lt. Col. Bateman's views should be taken into account. I hope folks can engage my comment on its substance. Thanks. Noncombatant917 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

New voices are welcome and there was no misstep as such. However what the article primarily needs now is not yet another opinion by a newcomer (though there is nothing wrong with that) but reliable sources and it would be great if you could help out with additionally academic sources on the subject. As far as a possible conflict interest is concerned so far I can't see one in your case. Having published on the subject or in the associated field in general doesn't necessarily create a conflict of interest but rather makes you a (welcome) expert in the field. C. J. Hanley however has a conflict of interest since his reputation is partially tied to his view being the correct view on no-gun ri and since he had public feud with Bateman over no-gun ri, so his situation is currently totally different from yours.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There are very few academic publications on No Gun Ri, and few of these are comprehensive treatments of the No Gun Ri massacre. The four peer-reviewed academic journal articles and anthology chapters that I am aware of are Bruce Cumings, “Occurrence at Nogun-ri Bridge,” Critical Asian Studies, 2001, Conway-Lanz, “Beyond No Gun Ri” (cited in current article), Young, “An Incident at No Gun Ri” (cited in current article), and Charles Hanley, “No Gun Ri,” Critical Asian Studies, 2010. Hanley’s 2010 article is currently the most comprehensive account of No Gun Ri peered reviewed by academics. Lt. Col. Bateman is not an academic nor is his book a peer-reviewed publication. Bateman’s publisher Stackpole Books is a trade press and does not vet its manuscripts through anonymous peer review (peer review is different and more significant, because anonymous, than a book review after publication). Personally, 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 would only use Bateman as a source when he agrees with other reliable sources. This Wikipedia article also needs to draw more on the Korean academic literature, but I do not read Korean and so it is harder for me to help here. I will continue looking for academic sources, though. Noncombatant917 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What hath POV wrought? A warning to readers

The POV pushing at this article since August has, predictably, produced a mess and a muddle -- even putting aside the untruths, superfluities, bad syntax and transparent prejudices that have infected the text. Any poor reader interested in understanding what happened at No Gun Ri will encounter many "Huh?" moments because a single, half-informed contributor was bent on introducing baseless speculation and pointless tangents that facts and common sense show to be, at a minimum, a waste of words.

One example: The "Events of 25-29 July" section now suggests that U.S. warplanes had no "confirmed" reason to attack those refugees and, besides, the record shows no "air assets" operating in the area. Might the Korean survivors (and ex-GI witnesses) have made up this story about their loved ones' deaths? Or, at worst, surely this was only a tragic mistake? Not until many hundreds of words later does the reader learn that the No. 2 Air Force officer in Korea himself reported explicitly that refugee groups approaching U.S. lines were intentionally being strafed. As for those "air assets" (telltale jargon now litters the text), the cited source, the Army investigative report, suppressed the Air Force mission reports showing operations in the area at the time, and showing pilots attacking refugee groups in July 1950. (This points up a related problem: Citing more than the requisite minimum from that deeply dishonest Army report will require still more words to knock it down, ballooning the article into a critique of the Army report, not a look at what's known of the massacre. Blindly citing the Army report as though authoritative may be fine within the Pentagon, but it isn't on Wikipedia.)

Many other examples of the mess exist, including the wasteful overkill on infiltration in the "Background" section, the illogical flow and gratuitous material (Bosnia etc.) in the "Aerial imagery" section (as noted by Drmies), and the ridiculous raising of Bateman's sophomoric snit in defense of "my regiment" in the "Associated Press story" section, adding nothing to our knowledge of No Gun Ri, but still more wasted -- and, in this case, untruthful -- words to this article.

Until these problems can be remedied, readers seeking a sensible accounting of the No Gun Ri Massacre are urged to refer to the article as it stood as of June 24. Charles J. Hanley 16:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC) ((User:Cjhanley|Cjhanley)) (((User talk:Cjhanley|talk)) • ((Special:Contributions/Cjhanley|contribs)))

Yeah, I'm certain people will get right on that. WeldNeck (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

WeldNeck, do you care that the above cited deceptive material about "no confirmed reason" for a refugee strafing and the lie about no air operations in the area damage the integrity of the "25-29 July" section? That section need only tell what happened (strafing, seeking refuge, shootings etc.), and not get into speculative material that in this case turns out to be false. If you care, will you fix it? If you don't, why not? Charles J. Hanley 23:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC) ((User:Cjhanley|Cjhanley)) (((User talk:Cjhanley|talk)) • ((Special:Contributions/Cjhanley|contribs)))

I agree with Cjhanley. The main notable fact of this incident is that refugees were "intentionally being strafed". That needs to be up there in the first paragraph to make clear why this incident is different from most other "collateral damage" incidents. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I second/third Cjhanley's and IIO's view on this matter. This should be done right away IMO. warshy ^(¥¥) 01:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, where is the evidence that refugees were intentionally strafed? Isnt it the contention of many that it was a case of target misidentification (friendly fire)? WeldNeck (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Such evidence that exists should be presented and sourced. I would like to hear what User:Drmies - a signature I recognise as a neutral editor in other contexts - has to say. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a step back and review the basics:

1) The No Gun Ri refugees were attacked from the air; the South Korean and U.S. investigations acknowledged that. They were attacked from the ground; the two investigations acknowledged that. The article reports that.

2) The No. 2 U.S. Air Force officer in Korea reported a day before the attacks that U.S. warplanes were following a policy of strafing refugee groups approaching U.S. lines. U.S. Navy pilots reported a day before the attacks that they had been instructed to attack any groups of more than eight people. The South Korean investigators reported in 2001 that five former Air Force pilots testified they had been directed to attack civilians. The article reports all of that, linking to relevant documents. (What it does not report: In at least three Air Force mission reports from July 1950, here here and here, pilots reported being directed to attack apparent refugees/civilians. It also does not report that there are significant gaps in the record of such mission reports.)

3) The U.S. ambassador wrote the day of the attacks that U.S. ground troops would shoot approaching refugee groups. Word went out from 1st Cavalry Division headquarters two days before the attacks to shoot refugees trying to cross U.S. lines. Various orders went down from the HQ of the other front-line division, the 25th Infantry Division, to consider civilians in the war zone to be enemy and shoot them. An order went down from overall HQ, Eighth Army, the morning of the attacks to stop all refugees trying to cross U.S. lines. The South Korean investigators said 17 ex-soldiers said they believed they were ordered to shoot the No Gun Ri refugees. Two radiomen remembered such orders. The regimental document that would have carried such orders is missing. In the days following No Gun Ri, archived documents show other orders to shoot refugees flew around the war front. All of that is reported in the article, linking to relevant documents.

The reader, armed with that information, can make his/her own surmisals.

Raising this business of who called in the air strike and how is decidedly secondary, because it's unknowable and speculative. Bringing up, for example, the Army report's claim that there were no air controllers around -- and its suggestion there were no such air operations in the area -- would simply require more words to discuss the documents that refute that. Besides, the Army's 2001 investigative report itself says there was such an air operation: the attack at No Gun Ri !

Zero sum: a lot more words adding nothing. This article is already too long, is it not? Charles J. Hanley 20:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

(Random break)

What speculative material is false? Is it false because it has been falsified, or is it false because the nature of the material leaves it open to interpretation? Put more directly: were there any flight logs of after action reports that describe an attack on the 25th of a large group of individuals? WeldNeck (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

That section has other problems, cases of what we might call "mutual cancellation," matters that are in dispute but that are inconsequential anyway, and that if explained inflate the article further toward incoherence. For example, it raises this matter of survivors believing the air attack was called in by ground troops, and the Army report saying no, there was no ground-to-air communication. But documents show the 1st Cav Division was, indeed, coordinating air strikes from the ground, and liaisons, ground air controllers (code-named "Angelo"), and a division spotter aircraft ("Pineapple") were calling in strikes in the immediate area at the time. But why even get into this wordy on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand stuff? What's important is that they were strafed, and the reader later learns this was policy, a common event. The same can be said of the new wordy quotes from Wenzel, regarding gunfire from the refugees. In earlier interviews, he said just the opposite, that there was no provocation. Men's stories changed. Do we really want to confuse readers with such things? We can just briefly say a handful of soldiers said they believed gunfire came from the refugees, but there's no supporting evidence.

Improving the text will be complicated. But it seems the original structure should remain: A lead tersely saying refugees were killed, there was fear of infiltrators, and a half-century later orders to shoot civilians were found. Then, chronologically, the war's background and infiltration fears; basic description of what happened between July 25 and July 29; then the journalism and investigations that filled in the details of "kill" orders etc. Bottom line: To now try weaving those orders into the July 25-29 section would require a major overhaul of structure, which IMO the article doesn't need. Charles J. Hanley 17:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ((User:Cjhanley|Cjhanley)) (((User talk:Cjhanley|talk)) • ((Special:Contributions/Cjhanley|contribs))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

If I red you correctly, information from other eyewitnesses like Wenzel regardless of how well sourced they are are 'confusing' because they don't follow the AP's cannon. That doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to remove it. As for the presence of a TACP, do you have some documentation that either the 1st Cav's TACP or spotter called in an airstrike on the refugees for whatever reason? How would this information square with the documented fact that the the 1st Cav's TACP was found to not be in the vicinity of NoGunRi? How could a TACP call in an air strike on a target he was no where near? To your contention that this was 'policy', how could a letter outlining a proposed policy dated on the 26th of July been communicated from the State Department and transformed into a change in SOP the same day? Even with the speed of communications that take place today, it couldn't happen. Are we to believe the command structure worked faster in 1950 than it does today?

You speak of "kill orders" when no such thing exists. Are you saying you have some solid documentary evidence than an order was given to fire on refugees at No Gun Ri? Certainly the eyewitnesses on the US side cannot verify this. There is no documentary evidence to support this. Have you been holding back on us this whole time? WeldNeck (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

WeldNeck, I'm afraid your comment doesn't relate to the reality of what we're talking about. Perhaps, indeed, you need to read mine again, correctly. But let me try:

* Wenzel contradicted himself in various interviews; I'm merely suggesting we stick with unnamed "soldiers" talking about gunfire out, since there were a couple of other men who did so.

You saying that Wenzel "contradicted himself" in interviews isnt really too impressive given your documented track record of deliberately misrepresenting individuals you interviewed. WeldNeck (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

* I didn't say there's documentation of a particular TACP directing the air strike at No Gun Ri; I said there were TACPs and a division spotter plane operating in the area. (Your "documented fact" in that regard is not a fact; it's another misstatement, deliberate or not, by the Army report. Please don't wave "documented facts" at WP readers when all you know is what you read in that highly untrustworthy report or in Bateman's nonsense).

The IG report specifically noted that based of the relevant documentation no TACP's were anywhere near No Gun Ri. Do you have some documentary evidence contrary to this? WeldNeck (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

* The policy of strafing refugees was reported in Col. Rogers' USAF memo; please read my comments more carefully. (And the practice thereof is found in several USAF mission reports.)

Rogers' USAF memo isn't about No Gun Ri. Note that the Roger's memo says they were strafed when requested to by the Army. Since a TACP would be needed to relay this request and no TACP was present, how would this order to strafe the refugees have been given? WeldNeck (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

* I said nothing about an order at No Gun Ri. I would hope the "kill" orders referred to are obvious to anyone reading this article: civilians should be "considered unfriendly and shot," "no refugees to cross the line. Fire everyone trying to cross the line," and on and on. (Whoops, I forgot: You didn't like that "unfriendly and shot" quote and so you deleted it.)

The "no refugees to cross the line" was to an entirely different regiment in an completely different area. "considered unfriendly and shot" refers to individuals in combat zones cleared by the ROK and was issued to the 25th ID, not the 2/7. Please dont bait and switch. WeldNeck (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally, it would help if you dialed down the belligerence a few notches, and dialed up the cooperativeness. You could start by fixing some of what we've been discussing. ???? Charles J. Hanley 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC) ((User:Cjhanley|Cjhanley)) (((User talk:Cjhanley|talk)) • ((Special:Contributions/Cjhanley|contribs)))

Sorry, WeldNeck, you're still not connecting with the reality of what's being said. On your one question that makes sense, yes, there is documentation that 1) the division spotter plane overflew the division area at midday July 26, just when Korean survivors say they saw a light plane overhead, 2) USAF "Angelo" TACP ground controllers were calling in strikes in the Yongdong area on July 26 and thereafter, and 3) USAF Mosquito air controllers called in strikes on July 26 and thereafter right at or close to No Gun Ri. Nos. 2 and 3 are based on USAF mission reports; No. 1 is an Army Field Forces observer team report, in which one observer reported flying with the Pineapple pilot at that time and place.

For the rest of it, for the moment, I can only throw up my hands. I've been chastised for too-lengthy postings at "Talk," but, I swear, I've been doing my best to meet you more than halfway and make you see the light, but you persist in misreading and misunderstanding everything, disrespecting the professional work that has been done on this subject, accusing honest contributors of lying, and thinking you have some right to sugarcoat war crimes on Wikipedia. Charles J. Hanley 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC).

So you are claiming to have documentation that hasnt been published by the AP, IG, or any other involved party. How convenient. WeldNeck (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

'According to the South Koreans'

The problem spotted and fixed by KorAmProf -- a fix then reverted by WeldNeck -- is that leading off a description of the massacre by the 2nd Battalion with "According to the South Korean government’s investigation..." (under "Events of 25-29 July 1950") makes it sound as though only the Koreans found the battalion responsible, when in truth, of course, everyone -- ex-soldiers, journalists, the U.S. Army -- confirmed it. The root of the problem appears to be benign (unusual among all the malign POV pushing that has damaged the article):

The article at some point had a stand-alone box quoting verbatim a description of events by the Truth and Reconcilation Commission, a widely accepted, broad-stroke description by a South Korean body that did not itself investigate No Gun Ri. That box was unnecessary and duplicative. All that was needed was the basic investigative findings and firsthand descriptions from survivors and other witnesses. When the box was eliminated, the commission was retained as the sole source for important elements incorporated in the main text. That shouldn't have happened. It was not the investigative body. The joint U.S.-Korean Statement of Mutual Understanding, for one, contains all the basic elements of the events and could be a source if needed.

Many, more serious fixes are needed in the article. All will be done in due course, in hopes that 2014 will bring a spirit of cooperation, rather than knee-jerk reverts. Charles J. Hanley 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC) ((User:Cjhanley|Cjhanley)) (((User talk:Cjhanley|talk)) • ((Special:Contributions/Cjhanley|contribs))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

The other POV

The reason I initially put the NPOV tag in the article (and which I will do again) is because a significant POV is missing from the article. We have Hanley and AP's POV firmly established and it is the POV that pervades the entire article: This was an intentional, deliberate and most importantly "coldblooded killing" of innocent civilians with no justification.

The other POV, shared by a number of historians and writers is best summed up by an excerpt in Armchair General from LtCol Robert Bateman:

What took place at No Gun Ri was definitely not the under-orders, cold-blooded “execution” of up to 400 unarmed Korean civilians as claimed in the AP report. It certainly was no Korean War version of Vietnam’s My Lai massacre. Instead, the few minutes of undisciplined, panicked smallarms fire that killed or wounded up to 35 civilians was the nearly predictable result of hastily throwing mostly inexperienced, poorly led and inadequately trained U.S. troops into a confused, chaotic situation for which they were completely unprepared.

Its the exclusion of this POV that warrants the tag. WeldNeck (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Bateman is not a good source, and should be used with extreme caution (and possibly not at all, I am unsure) - he having a strong close connection to the subject and due to a distinct lack of journalistic skill and outright fabrication. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thats a pretty bold statement. Do you have something to back that? What is Bateman alleged to have fabricated? Can we say the same about Hanley and the AP as they sat on news that their star witness was a fraud until after the Pulitzer Committee made its award? WeldNeck (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll again address Bateman's gross unreliability. But first of all, WeldNeck, your own bold statement above is categorically false. You continue to be duped by Bateman's made-up drivel, rather than any independent (at least non-7th Cavalry) sources, which would inform you that Daily (hardly a "star witness," since he was quoted only briefly in the 56th paragraph long after other GI witnesses were quoted in the original journalism; please do your homework on such things) was determined by the AP to have only secondhand information weeks after the Pulitzers were announced. In a story with some 60 eyewitnesses, Daily was barely a minor sideshow and has been irrelevant to No Gun Ri for years. That's what's not being grasped here: The article is about the No Gun Ri Massacre, not about the AP, or any of the dozen or more journalists who worked on No Gun Ri, or extraneous matters like Daily, or anything other than what is known and not known about No Gun Ri here in 2013.

As for Bateman, if you're interested in learning about his fabrications and distortions, I would have expected you to accept my invitation to review the lengthy analysis exposing it all page by page. Send me your email address, read the damning analysis, and ask any questions or raise any objections you like. If you choose not to, you're only suggesting that you're operating with a closed mind. Meanwhile, view the C-SPAN video, as I previously advised. There you'll find the respected moderator, John Callaway, of the Pritzer Military Library, taking the unprecedented step of berating an author, Bateman, for producing such an execrable piece of work. From the transcript: CALLAWAY, ``Why do the project if you can't do it right? ...You talk about lack of resources. Once you do that -- say I want to write a book about what's really going on inside Russia today, but I don't have the money to go to Russia. Wouldn't a good editor or publisher say to me, Mr. Callaway perhaps you shouldn't do that book? ... Why would you do a critical book on this subject if you didn't have the resources to go into the field to do that half of the story (the Korean half)? ... Whose account should we pay more attention to, the person who has the resources to go to South Korea and conduct the interviews, or the person who doesn't go to South Korea?"

I gave you here in Talk the example of Bateman's hijacking an irrelevant document, claiming it said something it didn't say, hiding it from his readers, and then having the gall to point to it as his central finding. How is that critique a show of "bias" on my part? I'll send you the document. Or would you rather to continue to blindly accept Bateman as a reliable source?

Meantime, I was ready to post in Talk saying that your pointing out the NYTimes report on infiltration (via Kuehl) is a helpful addition. But now I see there are other changes -- I hope not too many -- that are damaging to the article, such as what I believe is your removal of the 1950 North Korean journalistic report on the massacre. I don't understand: Isn't it clear who was lying and covering up No Gun Ri, and which sources actually had it right, to be begrudgingly acknowledged by the U.S. Army a half-century later? The same thing happened with My Lai in Vietnam (Please, please, read the Talk discussions on such matters; we're going over old ground here.) I believe you also removed eyewitness Tom Hacha. This sort of illogical thing totally baffles me. It'll be dealt with.

Finally, there are not "two sides" or "another POV" on No Gun Ri. There is simply the historical event, affirmed and accepted by two sovereign governments, with elaboration from eyewitnesses and documents, with gaps in our knowledge (such as the precise death toll, and the missing 7th Cav log that would have held any orders relating to NGR), and with repercussions in contemporary Korea. We scoured Bateman's book for anything useful and came up with less than zero. Any legitimate info advancing Wikipedia's knowledge of NGR is obviously welcome. Attacks on contributors' integrity are not.

Meantime, please come ahead with your email address, so you'll better understand Bateman's machinations. Charles J. Hanley 12:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC). Charles J. Hanley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

I would like to add my two cents to this discussion, having just discovered the back-and-forth between WeldNeck and Charles Hanley. It seems that certain motivations (biases?) are clouding some salient points: Isn’t this WP article entitled the “No Gun Ri Massacre”? Shouldn’t the facts drive the narrative? Are not those in the media -- as well as official sources within the two governments -- the best providers of the truth, vis-à-vis others who attempt to minimize this historic war crime? It would seem that the meticulous research undertaken by the Pulitzer Prize-winning Associated Press journalists and others (I find CBS, BBC, German television, Korean MBC, Sahr Conway-Lanz, et al. in the references) has time and again withstood the scrutiny of naysayers, regardless of their motivations. Don't WP readers come to this article to learn about the massacre, not about one person’s petty battle a decade ago with the AP? Reader0234 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)(Reader0234)

Reader. all relevant material and any notable POV's should be included in the article. Hanley's insistence on the exclusion of Bateman and anyone else whose perspective on the nature of the events differs from his is intolerable and unjustifiable. No one, especially me is arguing that (CBS, BBC, German television, Korean MBC, Sahr Conway-Lanz, etcetera) should be excluded, only that other notable voice be included. WeldNeck (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WeldNeck: "notable voice" has a nice ring to it. But, it seems to ring hollow when referring to Robert Bateman and his speculations on the massacre. From what I read above, Bateman is a highly untrustworthy source. His key finding hinges on a made-up No Gun Ri link to an unrelated document, and you think he's reliable? He didn't even interview the survivors or go to Korea, and you think that's fine? And, don't forget, he got censured on national television for shoddy work. I think all this adds up to one "hugely problematic" voice, not a "notable" one.

He's obviously a biased 7th Cavalry guy trying to downplay what the 7th Cavalry did in Korea. And I see he is included in the article, questioning the death toll -- in the face of all kinds of evidence and an official finding that it was substantial. Anybody can question anything they like about anything, but that doesn't make them a reliable Wikipedia source.Reader0234 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

BAteman has a great deal of other material from witness accounts (that not surprisingly differ dramatically form the AP account) to documentation. None of this is mentioned in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What I'd suggest with Bateman is that we let other sources identify if any of the information is useable. So if e.g. other books draw on Bateman (although I don't believe any do) or other sources identify material as accurate. This is a fairly typical approach for biased sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Do we also use this approach with Hanley and the AP? WeldNeck (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because they are an independent source. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes Bateman a non independent source, hsi affiliation with the US Army? WeldNeck (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Well... yes. He's an active-duty Army officer and the Army was the perpetrator in this case. More than that, he's a longtime 7th Cavalry booster (a former 7th Cav officer), and it was specifically the 7th Cav that did the killing. In 2000 he openly declared his intent to "get" the AP, the first media organization to pin No Gun Ri on what he refers to as "my regiment." This bias ought to be enough to disqualify him prima facie. But meantime the felonies he has committed against the truth have been pointed out to you here in Talk, and you've chosen to ignore them. That bespeaks a closed mind, and an unhelpful contributor. Charles J. Hanley 16:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

You opinion is not enough, sorry, but thats the way things appear to be run around here. I tell you what, I will take this to the reliable source forum and see what a few outside opinons say. WeldNeck (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a PHD candidate researching the NGR Incident and other similar episodes (committed by ROK or KPA forces), who has read English and Korean documents on this, and visited and spoken to survivors and their families, I can shed some light on this. Contrary to WeldNeck's observations that critcisms of Bateman are based solely on Hanley's personal animosity, there are a number of obvious flaws in the book which render it suspicious. Furthermore, the Bateman/Hanley debate is well known to scholars of Korean War massacres, and Bateman's book is seldom used for a number of reasons, a few of which are as follows:

1. He did not visit or contact any of the victims from the massacre, nor does he consult any Korean government sources. Basic standards of objectivity suggests that this is a rather dubious approach to scholarship. Most scholars who cannot access a foreign language at least have the foresight to use an Research Assistant. In the debate that Hanley describes, Bateman excuses this on the grounds that he has a family, not a lot of money, etc. As a grad-student who is in a similar situation, I can tell you that this excuse would not be accepted by my PHD defence committee.

2. He claims that it is certain that guerrillas were among the refugees. This is a minority viewpoint within the veterans' testimony (in the US ARMY NGR report for example), and non-existent in the victims' version. While it is certainly plausible that fear of guerrilla infiltration was a major motivating factor in the massacre (as it is in the case of most civilian killings), the evidence for the actual existence of guerrillas is weak.

3. He claims without any evidence that the survivors all suffer from group think. Again, since he did not interview any of them, one is left to wonder how he arrived at this judgment.

4. He ignores (or didn't bother to do enough research) evidence of a number of memos, documents, and vet testimonials suggesting that a tacit, if not official, policy was in place by the last week of July to shoot refugees deemed suspicious. Most glaring is the absence of the "Muccio letter" (uncovered by Sahr Conway-Lanz). I would encourage readers to read Sarh-Conway Lanz's treatment of this issue published in the Journal of Diplomatic History. After reading this piece, it is difficult to take Bateman's work seriously. The reviews that WeldNeck refers to were all published prior to Lanz's work. He also does not mention that the 7th Cavalry journal was missing from the US archives, yet he claims that there is no evidence that kill orders existed. This is either remarkably careless scholarship or a deliberate distortion, given that other journals from similar locales were uncovered by the AP team (and verified by countless other independent scholars) indicating an understood policy to fire on refugees.

5. His low and inconsistent estimate of those killed (35 at times, 18-70 at others) does not appear to be based on any actual findings. While it is inevitable there is debate and ambiguity concerning the actual number of those killed, Bateman in his debate with Hanley comments that he arrived at this number through a "Ballpark" estimation. This is rather careless. In 2005, the "No Gun Ri Incident Review Report" was commissioned and determined the total number of victims to be 218 (150 killed, 13 missing, 55 disabled). This number was arrived at by searching censuses, family registers, visiting graves of families, victim testimonials, and a detailed, multi-step verification process. It has also uncovered the specific identity of many of those who died, and they have been officially registered with the South Korean government. While no methodology is perfect, this is clearly more useful than "ballpark" estimate. One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia.

One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia. Finally as Weldneck appears to be raising the need for an alternative point of view defense, it should be noted that the article cites the US Army report multiple times and provides a link to it. In this report, one can find a flawed (in my view), but similar similar sentiment (that the killings were accidental, "tragic" etc). As it is mentioned not only in the notes, but also the text, it is a little confusing to read Weldneck's complaints that alternative viewpoints are not accounted for. The predominant issue with Bateman is unfortunately one of reliability, not interpretation.

BW5530 (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)BW5530

Thanks for the review of Bateman, that is quite useful.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As soon as you are published your opinion might become notable enough to include in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

For some reason I get the sense that when I do publish you won't be bothered to read it. In the same way that you likely have not bothered to actually read Bateman's account (since you claim below to not actually have a copy). In the same way that Bateman did not bother to read or consult any Korean sources (or a number of US ones for that matter). Seems to be a pattern here, no?

BW5530 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BW5530 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The aerial photo taken 11 days after No Gun Ri shows no indication of bodies, or of recent burial. This cannot be squared with the claim that hundreds were killed in the incident. The people who testified in 2005 were children at the time. They were not doing body counts. A lot of bad stuff happened to refugees during the war. Over the course of 55 years, memory can conflate incidents that occurred separately. The refugees at No Gun Ri charged toward a U.S. military position. So even with U.S. guns pointed at them, they were more afraid of the North Koreans behind them. A lovely bunch of coconuts (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Kauffner sockpuppet

I'm sorry, lovely bunch, but you don't know whereof you speak. Perhaps journalists who spent months and, eventually, years reporting professionally on the events can straighten you out: No one "charged" the U.S. Army. (Where did you get that one from?) The refugees were sitting on the railroad tracks when they were attacked from the air, and then by mortar or artillery fire. They weren't fleeing the North Koreans; they were trying to stay in their nearby village when they were forced out by U.S. troops, who then set the village ablaze. The many, many who testified (not in "2005" -- where'd that come from? -- but in 1960, the 1980s, the 1990s and, finally, in the 1999-2000 Korean investigation, with consistent accounts throughout) included people who were young adults in 1950, such as the young mother who watched her two small children die, the 17-year-old who lost most of his family, the ex-policeman who collected survivors' stories from the earliest years. This notion of conflated stories is an obnoxious invention we've heard before from people who, in their ignorance or inhumanity, suppose that people who watched their mothers, their children or other loved ones die before their eyes would forget where it happened -- when it happened under a concrete railroad bridge they saw down the road every day of their lives, and they all held annual memorial services in the village every year of their lives. This business of the aerial photos -- the spliced, questionable film -- has gotten mighty tiresome. The Army contends the photos cast doubt on hundreds of casualties; the Koreans cast doubt on the photos and say, anyway, remaining bodies were out of sight under the bridge (where ex-GIs also say they were). That's all in the article. Survivors estimate 400 dead; Command Sergeant-Major Garza saw 200-300 bodies in one tunnel, and most may have been dead; the Korean commission finally certified 163 dead and missing, and 55 wounded, some who died, and said "many" more names were not reported.

Much of the above may not suit your views, or what you'd like to believe. But those are the facts, professionally delivered. And my impression was that facts are what Wikipedia's all about. Charles J. Hanley 22:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

• I count three Korean witnesses in the original AP story: Chun Choon-ja (12), Park Hee-sook (16), and Chung Koo-ho (61-49=12). None of them said anything nearly as dramatic as what is being asserted above. I'm sure there were more who testified, but what kind of journalist holds back his best material? I don't see Garza in the AP report, the army report, or even the news archives. He's mentioned in exactly one place on Google Books (Truth and Reconciliation in South Korea), and the actual reference isn't even online. So I guess he's another secret source, or at least an extremely obscure one. To put this kind of material in the article goes against WP:DUE.
• No, the much quoted figure of 400 dead is not a "survivors' estimate," at least not in the sense that some survivors' group came up with this number. It comes from a 1950 news report that appeared in a North Korean newspaper. This information is actually in the article already. But why should a journalist who spend years on this story bother to read it? A lovely bunch of coconuts (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) User:Kauffner sock

Good point Mr Hanley, the idea that eyewitness memories could become confused after 50 years is impossible:

When confronted with the fact that Daily could not have been at No Gun Ri, one of the AP’s other notable witnesses, Eugene Hesselman, repeated over and over again, “I know that Daily was there. I know that. I know that.”

As for the aerial imagery, a picture's worth 1000 words, unless it doesnt tell us what we want it to, then its fake. WeldNeck (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in the Korean survivors’ community, they collected accounts of survivors about the massacre from earlier time. They filed petitions to investigate this massacre to the Korean government and the U.S. government. Several petition were filed in 1960 to these governments but all were denied (it’s obvious when considering the politically suppressive atmosphere in Korea—pro-American government, worrying to harm the friendship with the US government—during the Cold War). (If you want sources of this information, there are plenty in Korean publications about these petitions, such as “황순구, 노근리 피난민 적으로 취급하라, 미군 양민학살 공식문서 확인, 한겨레 Sep.29, 1999” or “정은용, 그대, 우리의 아픔을 아는가, 다리 미디어, 1994”. Korean researchers read and study publications in Korea and the U.S. but American researchers seem to have neglected Korean sources. I’m a Korean scholar and have consulted sources from both countries.)

The survivors’ claims were consistent over the years (petitions in 1960 and interviews in 1999 and afterwards). Human memory can be inaccurate and modified along the life experiences. However, such collective memory in the Korean survivors’ community from the time of the massacre can bear more accurate information, especially when the memory is about something that affects your entire life (extreme tragic, violent, fearful ones). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeoulScholar (talk • contribs) 17:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

WSWS

The WSWS content seems rather odd; basically a summary of the web link (which duplicates most of this article) rather than just the additional information. Imagine if we did this for every source! Can someone help work any pertinent details into the right place in the body? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as noted above, that paragraph is either redundant with what the article already establishes, or is inaccurate. It will be dealt with. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Citation Request

Anyway we could see the whole document: Eighth U.S. Army. July 23, 1950. Interrogation report. "North Korean methods of operation". Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.. I have a hunch that it might be used out of context but cannot confirm unless I can see it. Thanks. WeldNeck (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions on unit organization

It's difficult to tell from the article (and the links) which units the 2nd Battalion is part of. 7th_Cavalry_Regiment#Current_status has 2nd Battalion < 3rd Brigade < 1st Cavalry Division < 7th Cavalry Regiment. Was this the case at the time of the No Gun Ri Massacre? Was the 7th Cavalry Regiment part of the 8th Army, which is also mentioned in the article? (Is there a corp level between the regiment and the army levels?)--Wikimedes (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The organization: 8th Army, 1st Cavalry Division, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Battalion (Companies E, F, G, H). There were no corps organized at this point in the war. Charles J. Hanley 12:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

Thanks, I never would have gotten that. I added a note with this information to the last paragraph of the Background section, where the unit levels are mentioned in close proximity to each other.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

original research

This section appears to be a rather clear cut case of using primary sources to support original research. I see that there a few secondary sources buried within it, and I plan on moving what is salvageable back into the article shortly. The rest should probably remain here until the content is published in reliable secondary sources.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not immediately clear to me what information is contained in the secondary sources (and perhaps over-cited with primary sources as well) and what information has no secondary source support. It will take a bit of time to sort this out. If the intent was to provide additional credibility to the secondary sources by showing the original documents in support, it would probably be better to provide links to the primary sources in the citations rather than using primary sources directly in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you initially misinterpreted what was done in this section. It is principally sourced to secondary sources with supporting cites (and links) to the documents discussed in those sources. The seeming exceptions might be the direct citation of the Army investigative report on No Gun Ri, which was a widely published/disseminated document (i.e., not something requiring original archival research) and its accompanying Statement of Mutual Understanding. Your suggestion of placing the document links in the footnotes is an interesting one, but on this subject the documents are so important that subordinating them in that way would risk depriving the reader of vital information. I strongly suggest restoring this very important section, and if you still spot anything you feel lacks proper citation, tag it with the "citation needed" tag. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

I restored most of the content to the article, with some refactoring.[1] Much of the content was criticism of the US Army report, so I put it in the US and ROK investigations section. I was unable to find online text for any of the news reports. If Sloyan or Kim criticized the Army report for failing to mention the Air Force’s targeting of civilians, then the criticism could be mentioned. As it is, the article says that they found evidence of targeting civilians without connecting their findings to the Army report. While it would be admirable for a Wikipedia editor to scour the entire Army report to find that a particular piece of information wasn’t included, that really would rise to the level of original research.

While it’s entirely possible that Hanley (ref8) mentions that the 14 additional declassified documents contained “fair game”, “shoot all refugees”, etc., I couldn’t tell from the position of the inline citations, so I will leave that for someone else to put in if it can be referenced properly. The Conway-Lanz citation (ref13) is probably superfluous if the cited details of the Ambassador’s letter are contained in the Park (ref14) or Yonghap (ref15) articles.

The primary sources I put in the External links section.[2] I disagree that removing them from the inline citations “risk[s] depriving the reader of vital information”. Wikipedia readers are not expected to read the secondary sources, much less the primary ones. If, for example, a reliable secondary source (Mendoza ref8) claims that the Army report did not mention that something vital was missing from the National Archives, that’s generally good enough for Wikipedia; we don’t have to directly cite the Army report (or the National Archives) as well. Providing links to the primary sources is above and beyond (and sometimes too much) what’s required in Wikipedia. My personal preference (as a writer and a reader) is to have links to lots of additional information so that interested readers can pursue things as far as they want. It even pains me to decouple the page numbers in the primary sources from the text that refers to them – someone went through a lot of trouble to find them and someone will want to verify the information without having to repeat that work.

Anyhow, I hope I’ve put the information back in that should be there and that the organization and citation have improved as a result.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It will take some time to sort out what has been done here. One overriding point: As said, the documents are very important to this subject, all the more so because one contributor pushing his POV has repeatedly added sugarcoating words in describing such orders to shoot refugees -- words tending to exculpate but that don't exist in the documents. Without those links in the body, when an order is mentioned, the reader is unaware that one can see for oneself the truthful words. This is not primary sourcing but supplemental to the secondary sourcing. It does no harm, it adds no words, but it adds considerable authority to the article, while protecting it against efforts to distort. Charles J. Hanley 16:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to message left on my talk page [3] as well as the above.

Thanks for taking the time to go through everything. My apologies for guessing wrong about what was in the Sloyan article. That seemed to be what the position of the citation indicated, but as this proves, it’s really impossible to tell without having read the source. This alone is enough for me to revert my reshuffling of the “Further evidence emerges” section and leave an OR tag on it for someone with more knowledge of the sources to sort out. Moving the parts that deal with the US Army report to the section on the US and ROK investigations is still a good idea, but I don't have the sources to do it properly. I did take out “emerges” from the section title – this evidence has already emerged. (Changing “Continuing appeals” to “Further appeals” might be a good idea as well, or perhaps merging it with the Petitions section.)

I do think that the article could do with some restructuring, and I’ll mostly leave my earlier edits in place. (These were never intended to be a finished product, so please do continue to tweak as you see fit.) The article seemed pretty disjointed before my reorganization. The last paragraph of the AP investigation section is not about the AP investigation, for example. Too bad I missed it earlier.

I think that the article is too intricately crafted to survive the multiple authorship that is part of Wikipedia. Organizing some portions of the article more topically than chronologically might help. Probably “Petitions” should be grouped with “Continuing appeals” (or even merged?), so I’ll leave it where it is for now. It might make sense to put the Investigations section back under “Aftermath”, since technically they are part of the aftermath, but the AP investigations and the paragraph beginning “Information about the refugee killing...” should probably be kept in the Investigations section.

I had thought that the Truth and Reconciliation “[C]ommission’s work of collating declassified U.S. military documents with survivors' accounts” would make it appropriate to include it the Investigations section. If it doesn’t, please do move it somewhere more appropriate.

I’m putting this in the middle where it is less prominent so we can focus more on content than behavior. You’ve twice in this discussion accused another editor of harming the article by POV pushing without providing any evidence, and this is worse than useless. If you want some of the contentious content of the article changed, bring it to the talk page. If you’ve already done this and consensus has gone against you let it go. If you’ve brought it to the talk page and are in a deadlock with your nemesis, you could take it to WP:Dispute resolution or maybe try a Request for comment. But don’t waste other editors’ time and goodwill by throwing out accusations of bad behavior.

Back to content. I’m not sure what to do about the paragraph I titled “Possibility of investigations into other killings of civilians during the Korean War”. Only 1.5 sentences seem to have anything to do with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In total it reads like the conclusion to a hard-hitting newspaper expose, with its purpose being to drive home the opinion that the US Government is not doing enough in regards to its role in killing civilians in the Korean War. Although I generally agree with that opinion, such presentation is not really appropriate for an NPOV encyclopedia article. Focusing the paragraph on one of its topics (reparations for other incidents or investigations into other incidents) could be a way to improve the paragraph.

I wasn’t planning on getting too heavily involved in this article (famous last words), but there’s another thing that should be looked into. Paragraph 2 in “Further evidence emerges” contains “The report did not address the order in the 25th Infantry Division to shoot civilians in the war zone.” I am unable to find such an order in the linked journal page [4]. The closest thing I see is an order to notify a (South Korean?) chief of police that “civilians moving around in combat zone will be considered hostile and shot.” (2200hrs, SerNo 736) This is very different from ordering 25th ID soldiers to shoot civilians. Nor do I think that the chief of police is going to be ordered to shoot civilians; I think the chief of police is being informed so that he will keep civilians out of the combat zone. Is there something else on the page that I’m not seeing? This ties in to our discussion on primary vs. secondary sources: Did Mendoza’s law review article claim that this page contained an order to 25th ID soldiers to shoot civilians or was this a Wikipedia editor’s interpretation of the scanned document in Commons?

I have again presented a lot of information to digest. Please take your time. I hadn’t planned on spending too much time on this article and would be quite happy to spend weeks away from it before digging in again.--Wikimedes (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. The article will get another look at some point and tweaked as needed. To immediately address a couple of your points: On the 25th ID document, no journalist, scholar or military lawyer who has reviewed this and accompanying 25th ID documents has ever seen it as anything but an affirmation that 25th ID troops (not Korean police, who were scarcely present anyway) would be shooting civilians in the war zone, as the neighboring 1st Cav Division did during these same days at No Gun Ri. On July 26-27, 1950, 25th ID commander Kean in two additional communications directly ordered units to consider civilians to be enemy and "treat them accordingly," and to take "drastic action" against civilians. See "Category: No Gun Ri Massacre" at Wikimedia. As for the POV pushing, the evidence you seek is strewn all over the Talk page stretching back eight months. Efforts at dispute resolution were fruitless as admins either ignored requests or threw up their hands ("I'm in over my head," said one). This is a seriously, seriously distressed article, laced with defamatory material (Hesselman and Flint, inter alia), rank untruths and nonsense, and black holes where WeldNeck excised examples of the U.S. Army's investigative whitewash (one instance of many: suppressed testimony such as "The word I heard was `Kill everybody from 6 to 60."') His answer to efforts to restore some integrity to the article is blanket reverts. No Gun Ri Massacre stands, as of now, as a prime example of the vulnerability of free-for-all editing to manipulation. Rather than chastise honest contributors for pointing out these problems, one would do better by immersing oneself in the subject and helping remedy the problems. By the way, the "disjointedness" in the article that you rightly perceive, along with the misspellings, bad syntax and other minor issues, is largely the doing of this one contributor. Finally, one question: What strikes you as original research in that section where you've placed the OR tag? Thanks again. Charles J. Hanley 15:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be accurate to characterize the 25th ID document as an indication that the 25th ID would in the future be shooting civilians. As it stands, the article claims that it is an order to shoot civilians, which is not accurate. If a secondary source (Mendoza?) claims that there was an order to shoot civilians and that the US army report did not mention this order, citing this source and removing the citation of the 25th ID document would be a good way to correct this inaccuracy.

I'm not seeking evidence of editorial malfeasance, I'm asking you to cut out the attacks on other editors and focus on content. If an editor comes along later to contest changes that you and I have agreed to, we can deal with that when it happens.

As I said in my first post, the Further evidence emerges section appears to be a Wikipedia editor's compilation of information derived from primary sources. Removing the primary source citations so that the focus is on the secondary sources (and adjusting content as is needed to accurately reflect the secondary sources) would help. Moving criticisms of the US report to the section covering the US report would also help. How about putting this in the US and ROK investigations section?: "Pat Sloyan wrote that the US report's description of a July 1950 Air Force memo failed to acknowledge content of the memo indicating that refugees were being strafed at the Army's request.(ref Sloyan)"--Wikimedes (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You’ve arrived belatedly to a very sad movie. You’d have to review thousands of archived words in Talk to understand -- as far as “cutting out” criticism of one user -- what has gone on. Everything from last August (when the heavy POV pushing began) to this January has been archived, except for the “Other POV’’ section of August 2013 that leads off the current Talk page, still live apparently because a final comment was added in January 2014. The failed attempts at reasonable discussion, now archived, are deeply dispiriting reading for any WP idealist.

The 25th ID document reference could be more precisely worded. It may have been that the wording initially referred to another document, which was shuffled around in the article’s demolition derby of recent months.

Your idea of combining “Further evidence” with “investigations” ought to work; I believe that would simply amount to removing the “Further evidence” section headline and creating a much longer single section (desirable?). One wrinkle is the “Legal framework” section that comes between. The reader needs to be informed at some pertinent point what the laws of war say about targeting civilians. Perhaps those essentials could briefly lead off the section on official investigations.

As for “original research” in the “Further evidence” section, all the documents mentioned and linked to are identified in the secondary sources that, sentence by sentence, are referenced. I understand you’re suggesting explicitly attributing each sentence to the secondary source (as in, “Newsday’s Pat Sloyan reported that…”). Depending on the wording, that could suggest the possibility of some question about what is being reported, that there’s only this one source, when there’s no question; the document is there for all to see (and other secondary sources could be added). Anyway, rewording might be worth a try. But the section doesn’t merit an OR tag. All the document links could be removed, the secondary sourcing left alone, the section still stand as is, and the reader be the poorer for it. (The documents, remember, are stored in the Wikimedia system, just like the photos that adorn the article. In fact, two of the documents appear as photos. Surely the photos are not "original research.") Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 19:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Just so I understand your fourth paragraph: The Further evidence and Legal framework sections are already subsections of the Investigations section, and have been for quite some time. Do you mean combining "Further evidence" with "US and South Korean military investigations"?--Wikimedes (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought you were suggesting. My real point is that combining them does nothing but remove a subhead -- which would seem a natural, desirable break -- and create a more cumbersome section. In any event, let me have a go at it this weekend, including clarifying the "Further evidence" section and perhaps incorporating the "Legal framework" material more smoothly into other sections. Charles J. Hanley 13:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Upcoming is a reworking of the midsection of the article following some of the suggestions of Wikimedes, and in other cases restoring a more logical flow. Specifically:

• The "Petitions" section is restored to its original position, flowing out of the 1950 events and leading to the 1990s journalistic investigation.
• The "Legal framework" section is eliminated, with its three elements placed elsewhere.
• The "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" section, which would confuse readers in the middle of the No Gun Ri investigations text, since the TRC was not involved in the investigation, has been restored to its place at the end, as a 2005 upshot of the 1999 revelations.
• The "Further evidence" section is tied more closely and logically to the "Investigations" section. Its sourcing has been clarified, and there's more precise wording regarding the 25th ID document.

NOT YET DONE: Rationalizing the links to documents. Some are in a "Notes" section at the bottom. Some are now listed in External Links. And some probably are still linked to directly from the article text. That's a chore for another day.

Meantime, let's not lose sight of the fact that this exercise was a minor one compared with what must be done to rid this article of its severe problems -- glaring untruths and defamatory material, blatant whitewashing via deletions, and general nonsense. Charles J. Hanley 20:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

The sound of one hand clapping. WeldNeck (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Taking the “Investigations” subheading out and making everything part of the “Aftermath” section works. I see that you have changed the reference and the content in the sentence beginning “[t]he report did not address…”, addressing my OR concerns for that sentence. Breaking the large amount of content on the US and ROK investigations into smaller sections works, but I’ve retitled the Further investigations section to accurately reflect its content, which is criticism of the US report and a couple sentences of evidence supporting that criticism.

I’m still concerned about original research in the first several sentences of the “Additional criticism” (Further evidence) section. Did Pat Sloyan’s 19 January 2001 report criticize the joint statement of mutual understanding for failing to assert that no orders were given to shoot civilians? Did his report say that the joint statement should have included this assertion because that was a central finding of the US military report?

Breaking up the Legal framework section works. You've undone a few of my reorganizational changes, but I won’t pursue those further.--Wikimedes (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikimedes, but I missed this until now (I, at least, find Watchlist alerts to be erratic). On your question about the opening of the "Additional criticism" section: No, noting the difference between the mutual statement and the U.S. report is, in my view, a simple statement of fact about a central point. A close reading might infer, of course, that the Koreans told the Americans, "There's no basis for saying that," and the Americans conceded the point, though only in the mutual statement. In any event, that paragraph can be referenced -- not to Newsday/Sloyan, which reported solely on the Air Force memo -- and I'll do so. By the way, it's a semantical point I've been loath to raise since there are more pressing issues facing this article (the snide crack above gives you a hint of what we face), but news reports aren't normally described as "criticism." When the journalist Sloyan reports a key document was misrepresented, or Woodward/Bernstein report a White House link to the Watergate burglars, that's simple reporting of an important fact. Others can do the "criticizing." In this article, it's the survivors committee, ex-Rep. McCloskey et al. But I'll not contest the new section head. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Take your time. Thanks for addressing my last OR concern for the section. It looks much better now. It’s good that the criticisms of the US report have solid factual evidence to back them up, but they remain criticisms – else why mention the US report at all?

Although we still disagree on a few issues, we have worked together to improve the article, and since you have most of the expertise in the area and access to the sources, you’ve done most of the work, so thank you.

Not really related to OR, but I made one more structural change; Background sections are usually “top level” sections. (I checked several of the articles on WWI and WWII battles to make sure).--Wikimedes (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been reading through the talk page archives, which are quite off-putting. Nevertheless, I was just wondering about the two South Korean news articles ("Seoul Awaits US Explanation on No Gun Ri" by The Korea Times and "US Still Says South Korea Killings `Accident' Despite Declassified Letter" by Yonhap news agency), because they contain the very important assertion that the Pentagon "deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report." I have been unable to find the sources. Also, there's a reference to a mysterious "25th ID war diary," which is never actually quoted, in the background. I completely agree that the degree of original research here is a bit high, but I think that's unfortunately the nature of the beast in this case.

I also looked for, and found, the master's thesis by Dale Kuehl, easily accessible with a google search. It might provide some interesting information, although it was not published after the critical discovery of (frankly damning) documents.

Finally, while I most certainly do not want to rekindle this dormant dispute, is there a consensus on the use of Bateman? He is a prominent source, even if he has been criticized.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Further evidence emerges

A joint U.S.-South Korean "statement of mutual understanding" issued with the separate 2001 investigative reports did not include the assertion that no orders to shoot refugees were issued at No Gun Ri. But that remained a central "finding" of the U.S. report itself, which either did not address or presented incomplete versions of key declassified documents previously reported in the news media.

In this excerpt from a July 25, 1950, memo, the U.S. Air Force operations chief in Korea, Col. Turner C. Rogers, reports U.S. warplanes are strafing South Korean refugees at the U.S. Army's request because of reports of North Korean infiltrators disguising themselves as civilians. The Army's 2001 investigative report on the No Gun Ri refugee massacre excluded this passage from its description of the memo. Full text.

In describing the July 1950 Air Force memo, the U.S. report did not acknowledge it said refugees were being strafed at the Army's request. Later research found such U.S. air attacks on refugees were common in mid-1950. The report did not address the order in the 25th Infantry Division to shoot civilians in the war zone. In saying no such orders were issued at No Gun Ri, the Army did not disclose that the 7th Cavalry log, which would have held such orders, was missing from the National Archives.

After the Army issued its report, it was learned it also had not disclosed its researchers' discovery of at least 14 additional declassified documents showing high-ranking commanders ordering or authorizing the shooting of refugees in certain areas in the Korean War's early months. They included communications from 1st Cavalry Division commander Gay and a top division officer to consider refugees north of the firing line "fair game" and to "shoot all refugees coming across river".

In this excerpt from a 1950 letter to Dean Rusk, John J. Muccio, U.S. ambassador to South Korea, informs the assistant secretary of state of a meeting held with the South Korean government at which it was decided to warn refugees not to flee south at the risk of being fired on, and to fire on people approaching U.S. positions despite warning shots. The letter, dated July 26, the day the killings began at No Gun Ri, was deliberately omitted from the Army’s 2001 investigative report.

In 2005, American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz reported his discovery of a declassified document at the National Archives in which the United States Ambassador to Korea in 1950, John J. Muccio outlined guidelines and polices agreed upon by US and ROK forces regarding the increasingly severe refugee crisis. The document detailed curfew policies, evacuation procedures and leaflet operations warning refugees fleeing south that they would be fired on if they advanced on US positions and ignored warning shots. Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 No Gun Ri report.

The Korea Times and Yonhap articles on the Muccio letter, not directly found online, can be found through the (subscription) Lexis-Nexis database. In addition, the Korea Times piece can be found at this blog link: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/progressivealternativenetwork/conversations/topics/20833?l=1 . Also, a further source is an AP article of April 13, 2007, findable at http://www.japanfocus.org/-M-Mendoza/2408/article.html (where the date seems to have been dropped).

The Kuehl master's thesis is cited in the article. As for Bateman, as one who with journalistic colleagues spent years reporting on No Gun Ri, amassing a enormous wealth of information about the knowns and unknowns, I can only describe his book as an almost indescribable mess of wild imaginings, self-contradictions, gross errors and sophomoric polemic.

The sad, simple fact is that this article is a shameful example of the corruptibility of Wikipedia, a place where a single angry, anonymous man with an agenda can stage a daylight mugging of the truth while WP admins stand by and do nothing, saying in one case, "I'm in over my head." It would take me all day to list all the lies and nonsense in the article, untruths whose presence less knowledgeable readers, unfortunately, might not suspect. Charles J. Hanley 23:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the links. Also, my apologies for not seeing the Kuehl thesis cited; my concern was that it was published before more recent revelations, and so some of its conclusions might be faulty. In any event, I truly appreciate your efforts in uncovering this story.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Every one of your points has been addressed. If you would like to rehash them, please be specific about any item you find lacking. We all know your thoughts about Bateman ... you even went so far as to harangue his editors into not publishing his book (which was very well received by the way). I'd also as that you keep the personal attacks to a minimum here. WeldNeck (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not getting involved at all, and I have no intention of bringing up this again. I also did not say anything derogatory about Bateman, and I am not taking sides in this dispute.

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@GeneralizationsAreBad:, sorry, I should have been more clear about who my response was directed at. I was replying to Mr Hanley not you. WeldNeck (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

rev2 Spring 2015

I was asked by GeneralizationsAreBad to look over the article, particularly the overuse of primary sources and potential original research. The “Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation” section seemed like a good place to start. From my interactions with Cjhanley last year, I am under the impression that the content of this section is covered in the secondary sources cited, and that the unconventional use (by Wikipedia standards) of primary sources is to provide further information for the reader interested in verifying the basic claims. (I have not read the secondary sources myself, and as a result my contributions will necessarily be somewhat limited.)

Leaving the issue of primary sources for a moment, below is a draft revision of the “Additional criticism” section, reorganized and somewhat shorter. So far only (abbreviated) citations using secondary sources are included in the draft, but I’ll get back to primary sources before changing the article. Pictures have been left out at the moment to concentrate on the text. The 2 omissions from the U.S. report directly relating to the No Gun Ri Massacre, being the most relevant to the article, are grouped together in a single first paragraph. Coverage of numerous omissions relating to communications on other attacks on civilians has been shortened because they are less relevant (though still relevant) to the article. (Perhaps not including a single example is too much shortening?) The section might be short enough that the heading is no longer needed.

(Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation)
The U.S. report was also criticized for several omissions. Not included in the report was a July 26 letter from the US Ambassador to Korea notifying the State Department that the U.S. military, fearing infiltrators, had adopted a policy of shooting South Korean refugee groups that approached U.S. lines despite warning shots.[Conway-Lanz, Sahr 2006 and 2005] Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report.[Park, KT 200662; Yonhap 20061031] Also, although the report found no evidence of orders to fire on civilians in the vicinity of No Gun Ri, it did not disclose that the 7th Cavalry log, which would have held such orders, was missing from the National Archives.[Mendoza, Stanford Law 2002]

More than a dozen other documents of orders, authorizations, and other communications on United States Forces attacking civilians at other times and places early in the Korean War were also noted to have been missing from the US report.[Hanley 2012 in Suh; AP 20010113; Sloyan, Newsday 20010119;

The U.S. – South Korean Statement of Mutual Understanding, released at the same time as the report, was criticized for not mentioning the U.S. report’s assertion that no orders to shoot refugees were issued at No Gun Ri, which was a key finding of the report.[Hanley 2012 in Suh]

This is not a final draft, but is something like this desirable? I’ve only read primary, and not the secondary sources so I may have introduced errors in moving things around. Is the content still correct and properly referenced?--Wikimedes (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Just noticing this late on 24 May. (Watchlist alerts are awfully erratic, in my experience.) Allow me a couple of days to review. Meantime, tomorrow I expect to post important Talk comments for many interested parties explaining the desperate state of this article, so full of falsehoods, including material defamatory of two Korean War veterans, lacking in essential facts and so incoherent at times. Charles J. Hanley 03:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

In the third paragraph, I assume that this sentence and accompanying documents are cited to "Official Narrative and Inconvenient Truths?"

Such as communications from 1st Cavalry Division commander Gay and a top division officer to consider refugees north of the firing line "fair game"[66] and to "shoot all refugees coming across river".[67]

Best,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's correct. I believe sometimes the secondary source that mentioned the documents is cited at the end of a sentence that itself contains links to those documents. In this case, the secondary source came first, but the intent was the same. Best, Charles J. Hanley 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

Wikimedes, checking your draft above, I’ll make the following points:

• The one truly expendable element in the current section is its first graf, the discussion of the MOU. In any event, your draft misreads that graf by suggesting the MOU was “criticized” for not including the U.S. assertion of “no orders.” No, instead, that graf strongly implies that the South Koreans told the Americans, “Our joint MOU cannot contain your baseless ‘no orders’ business” – baseless because the 7th Cav log containing any orders is missing. But that entire graf, i.e., all mention of the MOU, can go.

• The Muccio letter is extremely important. A new book on NGR says it “proved that the U.S. military had a policy of shooting approaching refugees during the Korean War.” Diminishing its presence in the article, by not giving it its own paragraph, for example, would be unfortunate. But at the very least, I believe Muccio (a well-known figure from the Korean War) should be named, and the July 26 date should be followed by, “the day the killings began at No Gun Ri.”

• Rather than “the report found no evidence of orders to fire on civilians …,” I would suggest, “the report said no evidence was found of orders to fire on the No Gun Ri civilians…”

• Regarding “More than a dozen other documents…,” this graf now blandly distills into a few words the truly stunning “kill” orders – prima facie war crimes – the likes of which military lawyers said they had never seen elsewhere in 20th-century U.S. military history. I strongly believe the reader should know that refugees were declared “fair game” and troops were told “shoot all refugees” – i.e., examples should be quoted. Also, it’s crucial to note these were colonels and generals issuing the orders.

• Meanwhile, the Turner Rogers USAF memo, dropped from your version, is second in importance only to the Muccio letter: One day before the NGR refugees are strafed to begin the killings, Rogers reports the USAF is strafing refugees. Then the U.S. report of 2001 covers up this fact. That’s an essential, to note explicitly, in my view.

• Also, do understand, at least for your background knowledge, that all these “kill” orders were prominently highlighted by Army/Air Force historians doing research for the Army investigators, but were then deep-sixed by the Army. These documents were not “missing” through some inadvertence, an inference some might very well draw from the bland "missing." Hence, the current wording that "the Army had not disclosed its researchers' discovery..."

Hope that helps. Looks like your sourcing remains correct. As you note, the document links would have to be restored. Best, Charles J. Hanley 16:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Cjhanley (talk)

You continue to remove any context to SOP's regarding refugees. They were only to be fired on in certain locations, only when they refused to stop moving towards US lines, there had been many documented cases of North Koreans infiltrating US forces using fake refugees. I know you want all of this stripped from the article but since its been reported in multiple reliable sources that just aint gonna happen. WeldNeck (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Weldneck, please, all the context is in the article and was -- in sensible, readable, accurate form -- long before you got involved. Now, what's this about taking it upon yourself to delete my Talk entry? Don't you realize that's a first-degree felony at Wikipedia? I strongly suggest you put it back. Charles J. Hanley 17:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)