No Gun Ri Massacre: The problems
editOn a superficial level, the article is hundreds of words too long, disjointed, often illogical, often poorly written. On a more fundamental level, it is seeded with factual inaccuracies and loaded with bias.
Here’s one man’s guide, section by section in the briefest of nutshells, leaving aside the detail of the many land mines:
Background: There’s overkill, with five supposed examples of refugee infiltration (some questionable), when a general statement and, at most, one example would do. And it should be followed by a brief reference to later research turning up orders to fire on refugee columns.
Events of 25-29 July 1950: Greatly overwritten, particularly with 200-300 words wasted on the decidedly tertiary matters of the “TACPs” and the battalion’s “breaking ranks” the day before No Gun Ri. Both are also incorrect on details (e.g., there were ground and air target spotters in the area, and there were reports on air attacks in the area). If such untruths are left in, the needed contradictory material would balloon things further. This section should just tell what happened, not get into “why.”
Casualties: OK, only needs updating.
Aftermath: OK.
Petitions: OK.
Associated Press story: Highly overdone, long ago made moot, irrelevant to NGR in 2015 after all the other media investigations, official inquiries, inquests etc. corroborating the original report. The 2000 anti-AP attack was refuted at the time point by point; other writers called attention to the attackers’ self-evident bias (as 7th Cavalry Regiment boosters) and deceptive writing; even the editor involved admitted they were in error. Adding all of that to this pointless paragraph, as it must be, would double its size. Then compare that paragraph to the extremely important but brief one that follows.
Investigations: Can be easily trimmed with no harm. The 50 words on the vagaries of memory are wasted. They could be inserted, pointlessly, in any article on any investigation.
Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation: OK.
Aerial imagery: Way overblown, lopsided and outdated. Please consider (here I must offer a little detail):
- Dozens of surviving South Korean victims; uninvolved nearby residents; North Korean army report writers of 1950; North Korean journalists who arrived at the scene; American soldiers who were there, including Garza, who went under the bridge and saw 200-300 bodies, and Hilliard, who wrote in the now-missing log that 300 were fired on (his Pentagon testimony was suppressed); the South Korean Defense Ministry in 2001; the South Korean inquest committee in 2005; the NGR foundation today …. all say a large number of people were killed, probably in the hundreds.
- Against that, denialists wave an aerial photo they claim shows no bodies. Any logical mind would think, "There must be something wrong with the photo, or with their interpretation." And, lo and behold, there is: Those frames were secretly spliced into the roll of film by the Defense Intelligence Agency; the flight path over NGR is different from the rest of the film; the NGR stream is running low while streams elsewhere on the roll are running high, after rain. The South Koreans decided it had been doctored, that later frames had been spliced into an Aug. 6, 1950, roll.
- No matter. All hands say the remaining bodies were under the bridge, out of sight of aircraft anyway, and many others had been taken away.
Archeological survey: May need work.
Park, Culture, TRCK: All OK. May need updates.
Notes: A small section that evolved haphazardly, probably needs attention.
Further reading, External links: Were recently updated and expanded. But now they appear overdone and should be trimmed.
Charles J. Hanley 18:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)