Revision as of 19:26, 20 January 2006 editTDC (talk | contribs)8,719 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:09, 22 January 2006 edit undoPatCheng (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,062 edits →Tiananmen Square "events"Next edit → | ||
Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
:What a surprise. He tried to delete it. --] 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | :What a surprise. He tried to delete it. --] 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Did I move the article to "Tiananmen Square Anti-government attacks"? No. Unlike you, I am at least capable of rationally analysing the actions of the Chinese government. I don't go around and post OR POV pro-American/anti-Cuban rubbish and delete factual evidence that embarass your government. |
Revision as of 08:09, 22 January 2006
Template:Korean requires
|hangul=
parameter.
Name
The use of "massacre" for this incident is hardly NPOV, especially in the page title. -- Visviva 02:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Not every incident involving civilian casulaties is a massacre -- the US Army does not admit that there was any deliberate slaughter of civilians. -- Visviva 04:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, which is why it was there. --TJive 08:16, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
- First, my brother is in the US army, so I hope that everybody understands this is not targeted against the US fighting forces in any way. I am only concerned about the principle of NPOV, when we choose terms, such as massacre and incident. A massacre is a massacre whether it was deliberate or not. If we compare with the Armenian genocide most people agree that it was a genocide and nothing else. However, the Turkish government denies that it was a genocide so according to the logic provided by Visviva, he should rename that article the Armenian incident.--Wiglaf 08:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, a massacre normally denotes deliberate mass killing. See, for example, the article Massacre, which currently states that the word "most commonly refers to individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents, that would often qualify as war crimes or atrocities." It seems that the mass-ness, the deliberateness, and the general atrociousness of the No Gun Ri shootings are all legitimately disputed. Therefore, calling this a massacre, although probably correct, is not consistent with a neutral point of view.
- For my part, I hope that this is not misunderstood as supporting the US fighting forces, or US imperial government, in any way. -- Visviva 07:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Many major newspapers used the word "massacre"
We are talking not talking about POV. Underneath the thin vener of "neutrality" we find we are really talking about jingoism, it is also called Americanism, the religion that binds Americans together.
I find it ironic that in the editor of the AP story, who fought for this articles very exsistence, explains how the editors and managers of the AP had the same fear of using the word "massacre" :
"Boccardi, Ahearn, and Wolman had made clear the word "massacre" would be censored from all AP copy - though dozens of newspapers using the story, including the New York Times, instinctively turned to that word to write their front-page headlines. Even when government officials, such as Secretary of Defense William Cohen, uttered the word in the context of "massacre" being an allegation, as opposed to a proven fact, the word was banished from the AP wire in connection with No Gun Ri. Soldiers who were there and who called it a massacre saw their quotes left unused. And when the AP ultimately won its Pulitzer, in the wire service's own story announcing its award, Boccardi, a member of the Pulitzer committee himself, personally sat at a news terminal and deleted every occurrence of the word used by the story's writer, who had taken it from the language of the Pulitzer committee's official press release."
I think based on the historical record, that the No Gun Ri incident should be renamed for what it truly is: a massacre. If the Pulitzer committee itself can call it a massacre, and dozens of news papers including the New York Times call it a massacre, can't we the editors of wikipedia refuse to shrink from the peity justifications of a few apologists? Travb 07:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Another excellent point from someone's talk page:
On Misplaced Pages: Soviet troops shooting Polish army officers is a massacre.
US troops shooting Korean civilians is an incident.
Which led me to post this on the Katyń massacre page:
I suggest we rename this page the "Katyn incident". If American troops can gun down unarmed civilans and it be called an "incident", to pacify American jingoists , I think it is only fair that we rename this massacre, involving military POWs an incident too. Travb 08:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- We call what happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 the "Kent State shootings." Some people call it the "Kent State massacre" but we decided against that on the WP page. Four died at Kent State but more at No Gun Ri (and at My Lai, which does use the term "massacre"). So probably the two latter events do merit "massacre" in the title. Badagnani 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Use of the word "massacre" by the press
In fairness, Lexis Nexis has 109 hits with the phrase :"No Gun Ri incident" and 79 hits with the phrase "No Gun Ri massacre".
New York Times
- Pentagon Says It Can Find No Proof of Massacre; Washington seems not to be inclined, 49 years later, to open a major inquiry. By ELIZABETH BECKER. New York Times Sep 30, 1999. p. A16 (1 page)
- U.S. to Revisit Accusations Of a Massacre By G.I.'s in '50 By ELIZABETH BECKER. New York Times Oct 1, 1999. p. A3 (1 page)
- Distant Rumbles of a Korean War Massacre DAVID B. HAYDEN. New York Times Oct 3, 1999. p. WK16 (1 page)
- REPORT DISCLOSING MASSACRE BY G.I.'S IS UNDER QUESTION; A 1950 EPISODE IN KOREA Credibility of Two Ex-Soldiers' Accounts in Prize-Winning Article Is Challenged Questions Raised About 2 Accounts of Korean Massacre ELIZABETH BECKER and FELICITY BARRINGER. New York Times May 13, 2000. p. A1 (2 pages) Reporters and Editors Defend A.P. Report on Korea Massacre FELICITY BARRINGER. New York Times May 14, 2000. p. 6 (1 page)
- A Press Divided: Disputed Accounts of a Korean War Massacre; News Analysis The Press Divided: Arguments Over Prize-Winning Report of a Korean War Massacre. The Events; Did G.I.'s Kill Civilians At No Gun Ri? The Witness; Was Daily Credible? Was He Even There? The Rules; Amid Fear, Were There Orders to Kill? FELICITY BARRINGER. New York Times May 22, 2000. p. C1 (2 pages)
- The Story Behind a Soldier's Story; The Story Behind a Soldier's Story of Involvement in a Korean War Massacre Recalling the Service; Memories of War Grow in Importance Improving on History; Recollections Draw Skepticism and Praise Defending a Confession; Veterans Roiled, A Time to Move On ,MICHAEL MOSS. New York Times May 31, 2000. p. A1 (2 pages)
- U.S. and Korean Officials Meet To Discuss Wartime Massacre; Separate views of refugee killings at No Gun Ri in 1950. New York Times Dec 7, 2000. p. A8 (1 page)
- South Koreans Grow Impatient With U.S. Stand on '50 Massacre SAMUEL LEN. New York Times Dec 8, 2000. p. A5 (1 page)
- The Story Behind a Soldier's Story The New York Times May 31, 2000 People familiar with the Army's inquiry into the purported massacre say investigators have obtained documents...
Sun-Sentinel
- KOREA'S NO GUN RI: MASSACRE OR MYTH?, Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, FL), November 17, 2002
Charleston Gazette
- Massacre in Korea Persistence uncovers the truth about a slaughter of civilians in wartime, Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), October 07, 2001, Sunday, Life; Pg. P3F, 951 words, Rusty Marks
Federal News Service
- EVENT: NEWS CONFERENCE - NO GUN RI MASSACRE VICTIMS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS TIME: 12:00 noon , FNS DAYBOOK, December 19, 2000 , GENERAL NEWS EVENTS , 89 words, National Press Club, 14th and F Street NW, Washington, DC -- December 19, 2000
- EVENT: NEWS CONFERENCE - NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHESTIME November 12, 1999 National Council of Churches presents a news conference with four survivors of the alleged No Gun Ri massacre of 400 South Korean civilians by U.S. military personnel during the Korean War...
Congressional Schedules
- No Gun Ri Massacre victims and their attorneys - hold a news conference to denounce U.S. Army negotiators authorized to issue a final report on the massacre after a meeting December 20 with Korean government officials., Congressional Schedules, December 19, 2000, 12 noon, National Press Club, 14th and F Street NW, Washington, DC
U.S. Newswire
- Victims of the Massacre Question Good Faith of U.S. Army Negotiators, U.S. Newswire, December 15, 2000, Friday, ASSIGNMENT DESK, DAYBOOK EDITOR
- Press Conference Dec. 10 to Detail New Revelations on U.S. Massacres During Korean War, U.S. Newswire, December 8, 1999
- No Gun Ri Survivors to Hold Press Conference March 6 U.S. Newswire March 3, 2000 ...A press conference will be held Monday, March 6, at 11 a.m. in the Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., N.W., Washington, D.C., in connection with the No Gun Ri massacre.
The Bulletin's Frontrunner
- Pentagon Report Attributes No Gun Ri Massacre To Soldiers' Panic., The Bulletin's Frontrunner, December 6, 2000
The Commercial Appeal
- PENTAGON SAYS NO GUN RI MASSACRE RESULT OF PANIC, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), December 6, 2000, WEDNESDAY,, FINAL EDITION, Pg. A4
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- GIS PANICKED, FIRED INTO CROWD OF REFUGEES, PENTAGON REPORT SAYS St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) December 8, 2000 "IN THE NEWS: NO GUN RI MASSACRE"
United Press International
- No Gun Ri massacre blamed on panic, United Press International, December 6, 2000, Wednesday, GENERAL NEWS, 327 words, WASHINGTON, Dec. 5
Washington Post
- No Gun Ri Massacre Blamed on Panic; Korean War Probe Finds No Proof of U.S. Orders to Shoot, The Washington Post, December 6, 2000, Wednesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A01, 1094 words, Thomas E. Ricks , Washington Post Staff Writer
- SHOOT THEM ALL; Half a century after the Korean War, members of the 7th Cavalry Regiment had hoped for recognition; instead they are having to account for what happened at No Gun Ri The Washington Post February 6, 2000 ...News of a massacre of civilians by U.S. troops at No Gun Ri, first reported by the Associated Press last fall...
- Unhealed Wounds of Korean War; Survivors of Incident Meet With U.S. Vets The Washington Post November 11, 1999 Still bearing disfiguring wounds, three survivors of an alleged massacre of Korean refugees by American troops at No Gun Ri, South Korea...
The Guardian (London)
- Bullied Koreans rage at US base: Villages in the South want to be rid of American troops whose presence has brought years of silent misery The Guardian (London) November 13, 2000 ...Last year, Koreans were horrified to learn of the No Gun Ri massacre, in which hundreds of civilian were reportedly gunned down by US troops during the Korean war. More recently, the US forces headquarters in Seoul was forced to apologise after admitting that it has been dumping formaldehyde into the Han river.
- Korean war killing inquiry The Guardian (London) October 30, 1999 US investigators yesterday visited the scene of an alleged massacre of 400 South Korean civilians by American soldiers during the Korean war.
Sarasota Herald-Tribune
- Korean vet disputes No Gun Ri claims Sarasota Herald-Tribune (Florida) July 26, 2000 The AP reported that 50 years ago today, soldiers from McKown's regiment began a three-day massacre of about 300 South Korean refugees near the village of No Gun Ri. According to the story, most of the victims were women and children, who were herded under a bridge and machine-gunned.
International Herald Tribune
- Anti-U.S. Sentiments Rise in Seoul ; 'Special Drama' Depicts American Soldiers Taking Part in Massacre, International Herald Tribune (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France), June 9, 2000, Friday, News; Pg. 6, 810 words, By Don Kirk; International Herald Tribune, SEOUL
Deseret News (Salt Lake City)
- Keep No Gun Ri probe top priority Deseret News (Salt Lake City) June 12, 2000 ...Once that is done procedures need to be put in place to assure that there will be no more My Lai or No Gun Ri massacres.
Facts on File World News Digest
- Media:Korean War Massacre Report Challenged, Facts on File World News Digest, May 13, 2000, Pg. 340C1
Los Angeles Times
- Army extends inquiry into alleged No Gun Ri massacre; Some of the witnesses to reported atrocity may be unreliable, officials say, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), May 13, 2000 Saturday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 05A, 501 words, Los Angeles Times
Seattle Times
- 'Witnesses' may not have been at alleged No Gun Ri massacre Investigators question men's accounts, The Seattle Times, May 13, 2000, Saturday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. A8, 682 words, Seattle Times news services
- AROUND THE WORLD The Seattle Times October 17, 1999 About 1,000 students took part in the protest against the so-called No Gun Ri massacre...
Too International Herald Tribune
- The Unsung Heroes Deserve to Be Remembered, Too International Herald Tribune (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) February 8, 2000...The North Koreans had infiltrated American positions with refugees so many times that orders were given that all should be turned back. That this caused the death of many innocent people was revealed in September by The Associated Press in its report on the No Gun Ri massacre.
The Washington Times
- No Gun Ri revisited The Washington Times January 19, 2000 The living relatives and survivors of the No Gun Ri massacre are seeking compensation for their pain and suffering: $100,000 per victim.
- The 'word' that transforms comes after God's silence The Washington Times December 06, 1999...I recently participated in a service of "recognition and remembrance" between South Koreans who survived the No Gun Ri massacre and American Korean War veterans...
The Christian Century
- Endings and beginnings; results of the 1999 National Council of Churches conference The Christian Century December 1, 1999 The service "of reconciliation and remembrance" at the Old Stone Presbyterian Church brought together U.S. Korean War veterans and Korean survivors of the July 1950 No Gun Ri massacre in which hundreds of fleeing refugees were killed by U.S. troops.
Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio)
- THE FALLOUT FROM NO GUN RI;SHOULD THE U.S.;APOLOGIZE FOR KOREAN WAR CASUALTIES? Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio) November 21, 1999 Sunday On Sept. 30, the Associated Press released a well-documented report of the massacre of approximately 400 women, children and elderly by U.S. troops...
The Toronto Star
- FINDING JOE WALL'S DOG TAGS AT DMZ The Toronto Star November 14, 1999 The story came to world attention on Sept. 30, after several ex-GIs confirmed survivors' stories of the massacre of 100-300 civilians under a railway bridge 160 km southeast of Seoul.
The New Republic
- Wounded The New Republic OCTOBER 25, 1999 Horrible as it appears to have been, the No Gun Ri massacre does not invalidate the U.N.-sanctioned American effort to roll back a North Korean invasion...
The Australian
- Pentagon dissects No Gun Ri The Australian October 22, 1999 THE US has started an investigation into the No Gun Ri massacre...
THE BALTIMORE SUN
- THE BALTIMORE SUN October 17, 1999 ...About 1,000 students took part in the protest against the so-called No Gun Ri massacre'
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
- SOUTH KOREANS PROTEST REPORTS OF U.S. MASSACRE, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), October 17, 1999
Charleston Gazette (West Virginia)
- Today's News Charleston Gazette (West Virginia) October 17, 1999 About 1,000 students took part in the protest against the No Gun Ri massacre...
Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL)
- WORLD BRIEFING Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, FL) October 17, 1999 About 1,000 students took part in the protest against the so-called No Gun Ri massacre...
IPS-Inter Press Service
- KOREA-RIGHTS: NO GUN RI MASSACRE CONDEMNED AT SEOUL NGO MEET, IPS-Inter Press Service, October 12, 1999
Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA)
- NATIONAL WORLD BRIEFS Times-Picayune (New Orleans, LA) October 17, 1999 About 1,000 students took part in the protest against the so-called No Gun Ri massacre...
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
- WAR BEGETS HORROR' The Record (Bergen County, NJ) October 15, 1999 Record Staff Writer Charles Yoo writes of the so-called"No Gun Ri massacre" even though an official inquiry has just begun
Hartford Courant (Connecticut)
- FRIENDSHIP, BORN OF WAR, ENDURES Hartford Courant (Connecticut) October 11, 1999 Ro is concerned that the reports of a massacre at No Gun Ri may leave people with the wrong impression...
- KILLING OF CIVILIANS DURING WAR IS AN OUTRAGE Hartford Courant (Connecticut) October 8, 1999 ...The massacre of civilians is an outrage and certainly should be a crime.
Newsweek
- 'I've Tried to Repent' Newsweek October 11, 1999 ...South Korean villagers from the town of No Gun Ri have alleged for years that on July 26, 1950, early in the Korean War, American soldiers massacred hundreds of civilians in their hamlet...
- 'I Still Hear Screams' Newsweek October 11, 1999, Now a 62-year-old farmer from Joo Gong Ri, Chung Goo Ho is one of about 20 people who lived through the massacre...
The New York Post
- THE KOREAN MASSACRE, The New York Post, October 7, 1999
Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada)
- PROBES OF NO GUN RI MASSACRE EASE THE SUFFERING OF SURVIVORS, Hamilton Spectator (Ontario, Canada), October 5, 1999
Detroit Free Press
- FOR ONE MICHIGANDER, THE NIGHTMARE IS BACK, Detroit Free Press, SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 Within a few days of the massacre, Flint said he and two other U.S. soldiers were captured and imprisoned by North Korean soldiers. He said they escaped and eventually found friendly troops.
The White House Bulletin
- Cohen Denies Knowledge Of Any Evidence On No Gun Ri Massacre., The White House Bulletin, September 30, 1999 Travb 08:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Requested move to "massacre"
No Gun Ri incident → No Gun Ri massacre - "incident" is a weasel description of the massacre, and plenty of evidence has been produced showing that the press now refers to it as a bona fide massacre. --James S. 00:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Voting
- Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with --~~~~
- Support as nominator --James S. 00:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The term "massacre" betrays a particular POV for an incident in which there is a serious dispute as to what happened and in what context, as the article and sources describe. This is similar to the case of the Kent State shootings, which are commonly (perhaps more often) referred to as the "Kent State massacre", and as opposed to cases of indisputable and outright slaughter, per My Lai massacre and Katyn massacre. There is nothing "apologist" about this position; it is simply necessitated by Misplaced Pages's own policies, which are neither the guidelines of the press, nor of Google searches. --TJive 02:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- "which are neither the guidelines of the press" Ummm...TJive, did you happen to miss the very, very long listing of newspaper headlines above, which call this a massacre?
- Misplaced Pages's own policies Please tell me where the policy is located not allowing the killing of unarmed civilians to be called a massacre?
- Google: "No Gun Ri massacre" 551 hits, "No Gun Ri incident" 426 hits. All three of your reasons are found to be falacious with minimal research.
- If your reasoning is not "apologist" I don't know what the definition is. Travb 03:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The slightest thought attended to my remarks might show that I was arguing against the very premise of your "evidence", not setting you up for a vain rhetorical sweep. --TJive 06:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since you disregard anything which does not support your own view, including Google searches and newspaper reports, I still await the "Misplaced Pages's policies" which you claim support your view.
- Further, since you are in the minority here in regards to the use of the word "incident", I would suggest refraining from revert wars until the voting is over.Travb 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The most obvious policy supporting an NPOV term is WP:NPOV.--Visviva 09:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Since you disregard anything.... I'm sorry. I do not know you, but you seem to behave as if you know me. Why is this? --TJive 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
*Support Please read the way that the AP attempted to bury this story, and refused to use the word "massacre" although most other major papers picked up the word. One wikipedia user said it best: On Misplaced Pages: Soviet troops shooting Polish army officers is a massacre. US troops shooting Korean civilians is an incident. Travb 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize for not being swayed in the least by the musings of a Stalinist who was involved in the initial effort to politicize this event--yes, I am quite aware of the quote and who uttered it.
- Nor, might I add, am I intimidated in the slightest by the (typically anonymous) Chinese nationalist troll and vandal (who I'm sure will sign this farce without the slightest hesitation should he deign to look at the talk pages amidst his mass reverting) who has taken upon himself to carry this mantle further. --TJive 06:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The above absurdly irrelevant unsubstantiated personal attacks/blanket statments add nothing to the discussion at hand and only make your position weaker.Travb 08:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Name Change Changing my vote from support to the name change of "No Gun Ri".Travb 14:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support In Korea, civilians were massacred, and we have written orders from that period regarding the orders to kill civilians. Compare this to Katyn, which at the time was denied in the West, in which officers were allegedly killed, and for which less evidence exists. Yet Katyn is called a massacre and No Gun Ri an "incident". It is clear what this is - if there is clear documentation and testimony that Americans kill civilians, that is an incident. If there is some evidence that a country killed officers, a country that was an ally so the US party line was it didn't happen, then became an enemy, after which the killings suddenly went from myth to indisputable fact, in that case it is called a massacre. Ruy Lopez 17:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would have requested of Travb an inquiry as to the views of Ruy regarding Katyn were I not so certain he would oblige us in any case. And so we come full circle. --TJive 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, I would happily support moving other disputed "massacre" articles to more NPOV titles. Please note that I also still oppose this confrontational and non-wiki approach to the issue. At any rate, has anyone posted this on Current Polls, RfC or elsewhere? -- Visviva 09:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per wikipedia:naming conventions (common names): no escaping POV for naming armed conflicts, so failing any other indication, just use the most common, in this case I get 1.180 Google hits for "No Gun Ri incident", English pages, excluding Misplaced Pages. With the same parameters I get 955 for "No Gun Ri massacre" - the difference is only some 200 hits, I don't care: as there's no apparent other way to get out of this, just use the most common. I'm sure that for some other conflicts it will be "massacre", which might please some people more, and some other people less. --Francis Schonken 17:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Better would be putting under 'No Gun Ri'. -R. S. Shaw 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
- Add any additional comments
- Oppose voting. I believe that we are good intelligent editors who can come to a reasoned agreement. I agree that "incident" is not satisfactory, but I don't find "massacre" to be a very satisfactory term either. We might do well to consider other options besides these two... for example, what about No Gun Ri shootings? -- Visviva 02:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- The American media has either used the word "massacre" or "incident".Travb 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are good reasons to avoid common usage, for example see Liancourt Rocks.-- Visviva 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent point. If it would stop the revert war, I would support it.Travb 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes there are good reasons to avoid common usage, for example see Liancourt Rocks.-- Visviva 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- The American media has either used the word "massacre" or "incident".Travb 03:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral - but it is interesting to note that only 3 people died in the Orangeburg massacre. LuiKhuntek 07:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Another option would be to merge this back (regretfully) into No Gun Ri. which will never be more than a very short stub anyway. -- Visviva 09:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Another great point....would Tjive (right) and those on the left support this? I would.Travb 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would be willing to agree to this as a compromise. Ruy Lopez 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --James S. 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts James S.. I applaud your work.Travb 03:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Done. --James S. 23:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would be willing to agree to this as a compromise. Ruy Lopez 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Might someone explain to me how it was decided that this was a "consensus" move? I do not resist it but the question was posed and fulfilled within a day and without any substantial discussion or a chance for disagreement.
Inserting the same phraseology within the article is not qualitatively different from doing so in the title. This can readily be avoided in such a fashion as I have attempted. --TJive 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- To avoid any revert wars and hard feelings, I personally wish that James S. would have waited for your approval first.Travb 10:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought everyone had weighed in. I put the hot-button phrases back in, but only because they are the redirect targets. I also renamed the section heading with "killings" which seems to be a decent compromise. Is everything okay now? --James S. 10:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think "killings" is unreasonable but I find it leaves a problematic impression for the reader in this context, as you would expect in the case of i.e. a serial murderer--namely systematic, repeated, deliberate infliction of death which is not even accurate in the harshest depiction of this particular incident, which pertains to a limited time frame and geographic approximation. It is quite common in wars to list casualties in such (when speaking in sum) as "deaths", which applies in any and every case of what happened in No Gun Ri and how, so I believe "killings" should be avoided where possible. --TJive 18:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- To be clear, even the most innocuous of accidents in war (not to say this is) could literally be described as a "killing", but this is not the extent of what is implied. --TJive 18:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- To this end, I changed the title of the section but left alone the original (pre-merge) phrasing of the passage itself. I actually find the naming of this incident to be redundant and useless. --TJive 18:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I put it back to "killings" -- because civilian "deaths" happen all the time. Civilian "killings", even in war, are theoretically supposed to be avoided. Sadly that seems to be lower on the priority list than it should be. Also, I put the quote said to be lacking context in. If it needs context, the proper solution is to add the context, right? --James S. 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Contradiction: The crux of the matter
The article appears to contradict itself. |
- "The Army has requested that we strafe all civilian refugee parties that are noted approaching our positions. To date, we have complied with the Army request in this respect." (1950)
- "There were no orders to fire on civilians" (2001)
--James S. 05:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
TJive: Please do not remove the contradict tag without resolving the contradiction. Thank you. --James S. 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is not a contradiction. The document in question is the summary recollection of a USAF Colonel for which there was never found a source order (or any similar)--not either in the press or official investigation. In any case the second is a claim specifically attributable to the two governments, whether they are lying or not, so any possible "contradiction" is on their part, not the article itself, which does not stake a claim (nor should it). --TJive 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Why do you think that the Colonel isn't a source himself? Primary sources are sources for which no additional sources can be found; that's what makes them primary. This is surreal. --James S. 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the document cited is quite clear on why there are requests to strafe refugee groups, North Korean infiltration, and that any if request to strafe these groups should be made, there should be a reasonable belief that NK infiltrators are using them as cover. If anything, the document lends credence to the belief that the 7th Cav was taking fire from elements within the refugee group. DTC 17:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- That "belief" doesn't even have a secondary source, from what I can tell; it is just the assumption of a military historian. --James S. 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- What in God's name are you talking about? Bateman goes into great detail about this. DTC 20:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I admit I have not read Bateman's book. What is his evidence for believing that the NK infiltrators were using civilians as cover? --James S. 20:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bateman's interviewed individuals involved who believed that infiltrators had been in the refugee group. He makes several cases that they were, based on numerous past examples of the North Koreans using this tactic, and also raises the possibility that the 7th Cav members mistook the source of the fire they were taking. Also according to the document you continue to insert in the article:
- 2.a.(2) U.S. soldiers were legitimately fearful of the possible infiltration of North Korean soldiers who routinely entered American lines in groups disguised as civilians in refugee columns and then attacked American positions from the rear. DTC 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. However, this proves the point that there were orders to fire on civillians. --James S. 22:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No, from the report:
- 2.e.(2) All the veterans interviewed by the U.S. Army who fired at refugees stated that they did not receive any order to fire. Some other veterans, however, stated that they believed that such an order must have been given. While a comprehensive search of records and these veterans’ interviews did not disclose any evidence of the issuance of such an order, some other veterans, who themselves did not fire at refugees, assumed that there must have been an order to fire on refugees because they observed small arms, machine guns, mortar and artillery fire at refugees.
- 2.e.(3) The message log of the 8th Cavalry Regiment contains an entry of message from a regimental liaison officer on 24 July 1950 about guidelines on shooting refugees to prevent them passing through US front lines. But, whether an order to fire was made could not be determined because records of other regiments do not show such guidelines and thus discrepancy among interview accounts exists. DTC 22:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- So, we have an authenticated report that the Army requested strafing civilians and the Air Force was complying, and we have a documented guideline to shoot refugees local to the regiment but not other regiments, but we can't find anyone who admits to giving an actual order to fire. Ignorance is strength. --James S. 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- What we have is a report that the Army was requesting air support when refugee groups were infiltrated with DPKR troops. DTC 04:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that, and the difficult ethical implications. I think it just says something about so-called courage in the military. Everyone involved agreed, and many still agree that there was a legitimate reason to fire on civilians because they were being used as cover. I question whether that is in fact legitimate under the traditional laws of war. But far more I question those involved who don't have the common sense of basic decency and backbone to take responsibility for the "request" and "guideline" involved. --James S. 05:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- “So called courage”; where exactly are you trying to take this debate? Not everyone does agree that there was a legitimate reason. It breaks into several categories: there were in fact DPKR infiltrators in the refugee group, it was only believed that DPKR infiltrators in the refugee group, the refugee group was misidentified as the source of DPKR incoming fire. It would appear that your lack of knowledge about standard rules of engagement as well as a poor understanding of the history of the Korean War are feeding your misconceptions.
- The issue of orders being given, has also been covered: there is no evidence that orders had been given to fire upon the refugee group in this instance. An strafing runs made by USAF/USN/USMC close air support could not have been asked for by the 7th cav who were at the scene, as there were no ways to communicate with air assets. That would mean that no close air support was used on the refugees, or that an order for its use came from Bt HQ, and there is no record of this. 15:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)DTC
(back left) When is it appropriate to fire on civilians? How much evidence of infiltrators is sufficient to start shooting at refugees?
If we let soldiers break the law just for their safety, then what's left to keep them from deserting altogether? Where do you draw the line? When they signed up (or were drafted, excuse me) they knew that their safety would be compromised by their participation in the military. If we "request" that they follow a "guideline" to attack innocents just because they have suspicion of infiltration, then there remains no moral authority for them to respect any regulations, laws, or treaties.
As for "no record of orders," we have the record of the "request" and the record of the "guideline." I find the fact that nobody was willing to own up to those clearly documented orders and call them what they were to be pathetic, shameful, and a black mark on the U.S. military. Trying to downplay the significance is merely complicity with the weasels. --James S. 18:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Just the facts please, James, leave all undocumented speculation out of the article. Not only did anyone own up to ordering the refugee’s being fired on, but there is no record of it. I realize you might not understand the level of documentation that takes place in the armed forces, but an instance like this would have had several possible sources to verify if there had been an order to fire on the refugees. An after incident report, from the company Cmdr, an after incident report from the Bt Cmdr, a flight log from the pilot as well as the after incident report from the pilot and his Cmdr. None of these have been found, and I realize that in a time of hectic combat perhaps one or two of the parties may have not filed a report, but the likelihood that no one did is very low. The chance of the pilot not filing is almost nonexistent because the gun camera would have recorded everything. So, no, in this instance there is no record of an order givento fire on the refugees.
- As far as the legality of any such action, that is tricky. I am not familiar with the rules of engagement as laid down in 1950, but had the members of the 7th cav who fired on the refugees had a reasonable belief that they were taking fire from infiltrators who were using the refugees as cover, they were most likely protected by law as well as by the UCMOJ and their rules of engagement, for you to believe otherwise shows your ignorance of the regulations that cover them. I am not here to “downplay the significance” or align myself with the “weasels”, just to write a fair and balanced article. You want to turn this into an indictment of war crimes against the Army and the “cowards” in it, I just don’t want a half assed smear comprised of poorly investigated emotional accounts like the AP did.
Tiananmen Square "events"
From our benighted anon. --TJive 05:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- What a surprise. He tried to delete it. --TJive 04:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Did I move the article to "Tiananmen Square Anti-government attacks"? No. Unlike you, I am at least capable of rationally analysing the actions of the Chinese government. I don't go around and post OR POV pro-American/anti-Cuban rubbish and delete factual evidence that embarass your government.