Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No Gun Ri massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the No Gun Ri Massacre. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the No Gun Ri Massacre at the Reference desk. If you are attacked, please do not retaliate. It's not worth it.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
Sorry I've been out for so long. I recently noticed the following sentence:
Although established international laws of war, such as the 1907 Hague Convention, held belligerents responsible for the conduct of their subordinates, Clinton later told reporters, "The evidence was not clear that there was responsibility for wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible."
Hague Convention. 1907 Article 3. The Hague, Netherlands. Retrieved February 14, 2012
"No Gun Ri: Unanswered". Associated Press. January 13, 2001.
It's pretty obviously WP:SYNTH. Unless the AP source cited actually states the first part of the sentence, or unless we can find another source explicitly mentioning the Hague Convention, I think we'd be better off removing it altogether. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Beyond synth, it's not Misplaced Pages's place to render a legal judgement. The President's statement appears notable since it represents the official US Government opinion (even though it is apparently inaccurate). Criticisms of the statement should be attributed rather than presented in Misplaced Pages's voice.--Wikimedes (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Just added a source re the Hague Convention's statement on responsibility, i.e., in addition to the convention itself, already cited. There's yet another source, the Baik article in the Notre Dame law journal, that cites Hague in establishing No Gun Ri as a war crime. But the point made in the above paragraph is a narrower one. I believe GAB intends to work up a "legal" section for this article that would sort all this out. Cjhanley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the CAS article. I was indeed considering stripping out the legal elements from other paragraphs and putting them into another paragraph, which might be helpful. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
On the day the US Army No Gun RI Report came out, then-President Bill Clinton issued a statement declaring, "I deeply regret that Korean civilians lost their lives at No Gun Ri in late July, 1950", but did not acknowledge wrongdoing on the part of the US Army. On , Clinton told reporters "The evidence was not clear that there was responsibility for wrongdoing high enough in the chain of command in the Army to say that, in effect, the government was responsible." Referring to Clinton’s statement in a 2010 Critical Asian Studies article, AP reporter Charles J. Hanley stated that according to the rules of war agreed to in the 1907 Hague Convention, belligerents are responsible for the conduct of their subordinates.
Hague Convention. 1907 Article 3. The Hague, Netherlands. Retrieved February 14, 2012
The 3 sentences dealing with Clinton’s statements should probably form a separate paragraph.
The date of Clinton’s second statement needs to be added.
The last sentence is an example of attributing the legal opinion rather than writing it in Misplaced Pages’s voice. Is the this sentence supported by the source? – I do not have access to the source to check.
The links to The Hague Convention text and to Clinton’s statement are in the notes so that primary sources for further reading are separated from secondary sources used to support the article.
CAS is cited as a source dozens of times across WP. In the end, rather than cite one individual by name to support what should be a self-evident truism, that a sovereign nation is responsible for the actions of its troops, probably all that is needed is a consolidated legal section that includes the lawyers' quote already in the article: "American lawyers for the survivors said that whether the 7th Cavalry troops acted under formal orders or not, 'the massacre of civilian refugees, mainly the elderly, women and children, was in and of itself a clear violation of international law for which the United States is liable under the doctrine of command responsibility and must pay compensation' ". Charles J. Hanley 13:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
In that case, is the third sentence needed? It looks like every subsequent paragraph in the section (except the one on the offer of compensation and a memorial) covers 'orders to shoot', and the final paragraph contains the lawyers' statement that whether or not orders were given, command responsibility still exists (and links to command responsibility, which covers the concept in more detail).--Wikimedes (talk) 14:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, the third sentence is probably unnecessary. But the essential problem, in my view, is that the "legal" elements are too scattered throughout the current article and ought to be consolidated, if not under their own heading, at least as a unit at the end of the "U.S. and South Korean military investigations" section.
That's a complex chore. For one thing, newfound source material, such as the Baik article in the Notre Dame law journal, which concludes NGR is a war crime under the Hague Convention, ought to be incorporated. I would appeal again that we stick to a section-by-section approach to fixing this article, from the top. Every major section has severe problems, and zeroing in on snippets here and there will delay and complicate the major tasks, in my opinion. I would urge that we defer dealing with this section until we've dealt with "Background," "Events" and earlier sections of "Aftermath." Charles J. Hanley 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
I'd recommend removing the reference to CAS altogether, since it's probably unnecessary. As for CAS itself, its aims are as follows (according to its website):
to develop a humane and knowledgeable understanding of Asian societies and their efforts to maintain cultural integrity and to confront such problems as poverty, oppression, and imperialism
to create alternatives to the prevailing trends in scholarship on Asia, which too often spring from a parochial cultural perspective and serve selfish interests and expansionism
In this spirit Critical Asian Studies welcomes submissions that challenge the accepted formulas for understanding the Asia and Pacific regions, the world, and ourselves.
Consolidating all the legal opinions (Baik's, Clinton's, survivors' lawyers', the US Army's, etc.) could work. When this was in the article previously , it looked like advocacy, so some care needs to be taken to present the information neutrally. Also, be careful of original research.--Wikimedes (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
To move ahead on Background section
Here is what I hope is a final proposed overall edit for dealing with the Background section, largely consisting of a consolidation of previous ideas presented in snippets:
Background
Main article: Korean WarHuge numbers of South Koreans fled south in mid-1950 after the North Korean army invaded. By spring 1951, the U.S.-led U.N. Command estimated 5 million South and North Koreans had become refugees.”. (U.S. Defense Department photo)
On June 25, 1950, the communist-led North Korean army invaded South Korea to try to reunify the peninsula, a former Japanese colony divided at the end of World War II. The United States quickly dispatched troops from its occupation forces in Japan to fight alongside the South Korean army. These American troops were insufficiently trained, poorly equipped and often led by inexperienced officers. In particular, they lacked training in how to deal with war-displaced civilians. Over two weeks in mid-July, the U.S. Army estimated 380,000 South Korean civilians fled south, passing through U.S. and South Korean lines, as the defending forces retreated.
With miles-wide gaps in their front lines, the Americans were sometimes attacked from behind, and reports spread that disguised North
North Korean snipers dressed in the white garments common among refugee groups being searched and interrogated by American and South Korean troops in early August of 1950.
Korean soldiers were infiltrating south with refugee columns A July 24, 1950, entry in the 1st Cavalry Division “war diary” claimed “many of the innocent-looking refugees dressed in the traditional white clothes of the Koreans turned out to be North Korean soldiers”. A newspaper report that same week said the division’s 8th Cavalry Regiment troops were attacked by North Korean irregulars who infiltrated a refugee crowd west of the central South Korean town of Yongdong, 100 miles (160 km) south of Seoul. At the same time, however, a U.S. Army intelligence report said no infiltrators were found when almost all southbound refugees were searched over one 24-hour period, and a Pentagon observer team at the war front referred to reports of civilian-clad infiltrators as “unconfirmed,” saying instead “strong flanking elements” of uniformed North Korean troops were penetrating huge gaps in the U.S. lines.
Research in declassified archives decades later found orders issued during this period to fire on Korean civilians. On July 26, 1950, Maj. Gen.Hobart R. Gay, 1st Cavalry Division commander, told rear-echelon reporters he suspected most refugees on the road were disguised enemy. It was on that day that one of Gay's front-line units, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, dug in near the village of No Gun Ri, was faced with an approaching throng of hundreds of refugees, most from the nearby villages of Chu Gok Ri and Im Ke Ri.
References
^ Conway-Lanz, Sahr (2006). Collateral damage: Americans, noncombatant immunity, and atrocity after World War II. New York: Routledge. ISBN0-415-97829-7.
^ Office of the Inspector General, Department of the Army. No Gun Ri Review. Washington, D.C. January 2001
Johnston, Richard J.H. (1950-07-27). "Guile Big Weapon of North Koreans". The New York Times. p. 1,3 (This report is not corroborated in the official Army history).
Eighth U.S. Army, July 23, 1950, Interrogation report, "North Korean methods of operation," Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2; and Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces, “Report of first OCAFF observer team to the Far East Command,” August 16, 1950. Cited in Hanley, Charles J. (2012). "No Gun Ri: Official Narrative and Inconvenient Truths". Truth and Reconciliation in South Korea: Between the Present and Future of the Korean Wars. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 74 and 79. ISBN978-0-415-62241-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Cumings, Bruce (December 2001). "Occurrence at Nogun-ri Bridge". Critical Asian Studies. 33 (4): 512. ISSN1467-2715.
This accomplishes what we have discussed previously: trimming the Background section, from 553 words to 370 words. I think we almost all agreed that the "infiltration" material was terribly overdone (not to mention weakly sourced in half the cases). And Timothyjosephwood felt strongly there was more wordage on the Korean War itself than needed.
One new element is added: The “Pentagon observer team” in the second paragraph. Also, the quick reference to orders to fire on civilians (3rd paragraph) is not in Background in the current article, but it seemed necessary to repeat this point from the Lead section in order to set up what follows.
We've been through proposed edits 6A, 6B and 6C. This now wraps it all up. We need to move on. Charles J. Hanley 22:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs)
Those other propositions didn't lead to much discussion when they were proposed. No agreement was reached, either to include or exclude them. GAB (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The "D-word"
We seem to have two different spellings of Edward Dailey's (or Daily's) last name in the text. I've seen multiple different spellings... which is correct? GAB (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record: copyediting and/or sourcing things properly is perfectly fine (and encouraged) as per our earlier agreement, but let's continue to propose and discuss substantial content changes.
(Also: while journalists can access the North Korean article mentioned, most people probably can't, so that's why I added the additional source.) GAB (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also agreed on adding a second source on that 1950 North Korean news report, although it needn’t be that one. Korean sources also have copies of the original article. Charles J. Hanley 20:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for the flap earlier. I would have no problem adding the material, provided we brought it up here. GAB (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant photo
Smart edit by Newzild on that alleged "snipers" photo. The caption was pretty much verbatim from the U.S. Army caption, but that hardly qualifies it as truthful. Since when do snipers wear two-foot-wide, bright white hats? It's obviously a case of sniping in the vicinity, and everyone in the nearby rice paddies being rounded up. If they were known snipers, they'd have been dead. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 11:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem with "suspected" is that it could well be factually incorrect. The caption was written by the military during wartime, and must therefore be treated with caution. The people in the photograph may not have been "suspected" snipers at all, but simply civilians who appear in a photo being used for propaganda purposes. The word "alleged", on the other hand, is correct in that the US military is certainly alleging that the people in the photo are snipers - whether they were snipers or were not snipers is irrelevant.Newzild (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
In as far as the use of WP:ALLEGED goes, the use of the term should be avoided unless it is an absolute imperative. It's essential to stick to WP:WORDS for the sake of best practice and, in context, I certainly don't find it appropriate for a photo caption. Such usage of 'alleged' really does need to be qualified by WP:INTEXT attribution (i.e., "According to the U.S. Army..."). As such, I'd consider such usage without qualification to be highly problematic. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If we step back, we'll see that the photo doesn't belong in the article to begin with -- and it was a late addition. If anywhere, it belongs in an article about irregular warfare in Korea, not in an article about the massacre of unarmed civilians. (More relevant would be my inserting a photo of piles of dead Korean civilians, and there are plenty of those.) The "sniper" pic was Exhibit X in one editor's effort to justify the mass killing of women and children at No Gun Ri, along with his gratuitous piling on of questionable and, at times, false "examples" of enemy infiltration via refugees (see the current "Background" section). His point: These "snipers" were wearing white, and so were the No Gun Ri refugees. Ergo, the refugees got what they deserved.
This article has many serious problems. A start was made on a fix, with the Lead section. That effort needs to be resumed. We can start by deleting this photo. The point raised by Iryna Harpy means that the only way to correct this photo's caption would be to write: "The U.S. Army caption on this Army photo reads, 'Enemy snipers are questioned...'" But the Army caption is clearly ludicrous: the big white farmers' hats? a whole squad of "snipers" captured at once? where are the weapons? etc. etc.
The photo belongs in the article to show us what the situation on the ground was like. I understand its been a key focus of some POV's to cast as much doubt on Nork irregular warfare but it happened and shaped both the refugee control policies as well as the events in the article. WeldNeck (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No, the infiltration worry is clear in the text, beginning right in the Lead, and there's no call for an irrelevant photo with nonsensical caption as some kind of "evidence." There are many aspects to your "situation on the ground," including trigger-happy soldiers ordered to "fire on everyone." Shall we "show the situation" by inserting a photo of some dead civilians who, like these rounded-up farmers, have no connection with No Gun Ri? WeldNeck, you have said of supposed infiltration episodes, including false "examples" you refused to remove, "I will put every single account I can find in the article." So much for good faith and balance. It's long been unavoidably clear where the POV pushing comes from in this article, and it's long past time to restore objectivity and coherence to it. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Instead of taking even more potshots at one another, here are the options:
We keep the photo in, and revert to its last caption or change the caption in some other way to satisfy everyone.
We keep the photo in, and keep the caption as is.
We take the photo out altogether.
We replace it with a different photo that everyone is happy with, and formulate an appropriate caption.
I realize we cannot all be totally happy with the results here. But I do think that it is important to remember, regardless of whether the suspicions were true, the significance of the Army's fear of infiltration. That's the most I'm going to verge off-topic into a subject discussion. GAB23:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
If you have photo's of dead civilians at NoGunRi, I would encourage you to add them. Seems relevant to the article ... just like a photo of Nork guerrillas that was in the DOD report. WeldNeck (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, photos (not photo's) of the No Gun Ri dead would, indeed, "seem" relevant. But, as usual, you're not getting the point: The "Nork guerrillas" -- and that's "alleged" guerrillas, by the way -- have no connection with No Gun Ri, and yet you feel their photo belongs in the article. Well, then, photos of any dead Korean civilians would just as much belong in the article, since mass killings of innocents by the U.S. military were also part of "the situation on the ground," as you put it. (And, no, there are no available photos of the NGR dead.)
To address GAB's points: The problem with the "sniper" photo (and the motivation behind it) was self-evident as soon as it was inserted, but there were bigger fish to fry in this unfortunate article and I was content to let it slide until happier times. Then Newzild sensed the problem and took a stab at it (and Iryna Harpy dove even deeper). And so it was appropriate then to point out the root problem. And that is that no proper caption can be devised. Do we write that the "Army caption claims" these were snipers, but then not note the illogic of that? And even more fundamentally, why is the photo there in the first place? And with a ridiculous caption saying these bad guys wore white, just like those damned refugees. Well, EVERYONE in Korea wore white in those days. Why not suggest that the U.S. Army was justified in shooting ANY and EVERY Korean?
On GAB's specific final point, the "fear of infiltration" is all over the article, including in the caption to the other photo in the Background section. The "alleged/suspected/sniper/farmer/who knows what" photo is gratuitous, highly misleading and should simply be dropped, rather than our wasting time trying to justify and caption it. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
What we are addressing is a two-pronged problem. 1) WeldNeck, I see that it is you who uploaded the photo and provided the description, but you have not provided your source. Under such circumstances, we have no way of evaluating whether it is reliably sourced or verifying the description. 2) WP:PERTINENCE vs. WP:POINTy: without being able to place the context or source, the image is redundant. The only way in which we can use 'alleged' is where we are dealing with highly contentious material where there are polarised opinions expressed by academic sources that we are obliged to represent for the sake of WP:BALANCE. Even there, it is necessary to attribute the use of 'alleged'.
Under these circumstances, unless you can provide the source there is no question about using an image in order to "show us what the situation on the ground was like" . This is not a simple example of a photo of generic domestic cat for the Cat article in keeping with the WP:TITLE, nor is a simplistic MOS:CAPTION provable one way or the other. The use of the image contravenes both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: as a 'my final word on the subject' reading of the content, substitution can be used for empirical absolutes and highly tangential subject matter. We are not dealing with such subject matter. Articles dealing with specific events must use images that have been identified as addressing the TITLE. For example, any generic photograph of Eastern Europeans dying of starvation, or of bodies of those who died in the famine piled up are not used for the Holodomor article. All images there are heavily scrutinised for verifiability as there have been mix ups over the years with the 1921 famines in other Soviet regions. The same has happened with Holodomor images turning up in other Eastern European famine articles. Such photos are fine for usage in the article entitled Famine, but we should not grab at just any photo because it's from the region and era in order to 'convey a sense of' for the reader and caption it further to 'convey a sense of'. That's a double-whammy misdirection, whether done in good faith or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).
Referencing and citation: criterion met
