Talk:No Gun Ri massacre/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Moving on to 'Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation'

The edit to the “Investigations” section has been posted to the article. Here is a proposed edit for the section “Additional criticism of the U.S. investigation,” beginning with a new heading for the section, since it now includes reaction material deleted from “Investigations” and moved here. I’ll propose following this section with a new one called “Legal context” or somesuch, to briefly note comments/analysis from survivors’ lawyers and legal scholars. As usual, deletions are here noted with strikethroughs and new material with boldface. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(NEW SECTION HEAD: Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges)

The No Gun Ri survivors' committee called the U.S. Army report a "whitewash" of command responsibility. "This is not enough for the massacre of over 60 hours, of 400 innocent people who were hunted like animals," said committee head Chung Eun-yong. The survivors rejected the notion that the killings were “not deliberate,” pointing to accounts from veterans and to documents attesting to front-line orders to shoot civilians. Lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition party in South Korea criticized the U.S. position. NOTE 1

Former U.S. congressman Pete McCloskey of California, the only one of eight outside advisers to the U.S. inquiry to write a detailed analysis afterward, agreed with the Koreans, saying, “I thought the Army report was a whitewash.” saying the finding that there was no order to shoot and a suggestion that the refugees were not intentionally strafed were “a glaring falsity” and “so misleading as to suggest a deliberate whitewash.” In a letter to Defense Secretary Cohen, another U.S. adviser, retired Marine general Bernard E. Trainor, expressed sympathy with the hard-pressed U.S. troops of 1950 but said the killings were unjustified and “the American command was responsible for the loss of innocent civilian life in or around No-Gun-Ri.” NOTE 2

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, a report that journalists NOTE 3 Journalists and scholars subsequently noted that the U.S. report either did not address or presented incomplete versions of key declassified documents, some 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, aircraft 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.

News reports pointed out that the U.S. review, in describing the July 1950 Air Force memo, did not acknowledge it said refugees were being strafed at the Army’s request. Researchers found that the U.S. review had not disclosed the existence of U.S. Air Force mission reports during this period documenting strafing of apparent refugee groups and air strikes in the No Gun Ri vicinity. NOTE 4 Later research found such U.S. air attacks on refugees were common in mid-1950. NOTE 4b The report did not address the commanders’ July 26-27, 1950, instructions in the 25th Infantry Division saying civilians in the war zone would be considered unfriendly and shot. 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 the Korean War's early months, such as communications from 1st Cavalry Division commander Gay and a top division officer to consider refugees north of the firing front line "fair game" and to "shoot all refugees coming across river". In addition, interview transcripts obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests showed that the Army had not reported repeated testimony from ex-soldiers that, as one put it, "the word I heard was 'Kill everybody from 6 to 60'" during their early days in Korea. NOTE 5

In this excerpt from a 1950 letter to Dean Rusk, John J. Muccio, U.S. ambassador to South Korea 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. The letter, dated July 26, the day the killings began at No Gun Ri, was deliberately omitted from the army’s 2001 investigative report. NOTE 6 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 that the U.S. Army has decided to fire on South Korean refugees approaching U.S. lines despite warning shots. The letter, dated July 26, the day the Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment began shooting refugees at No Gun Ri, was deliberately omitted from the Army's 2001 investigative report on No Gun Ri. Full text:

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, notified the State Department on the day the No Gun Ri killings began 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. Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report.

References

• NOTE 1 – This combines reaction moved from elsewhere in the article and fresh reaction material.
• NOTE 2 – Tightens McCloskey comment and adds comment from Trainor, who had been misplaced in the Investigations section.
• NOTE 3 – This Statement of Mutual Understandings is now in the Investigations section.
• NOTE 4 – This regarding USAF mission reports is a new addition and highly relevant in this section dealing with new evidence that emerged.
• NOTE 4b – This point is already made in an earlier section.
• NOTE 5 – Restoring a highly relevant element that was wrongly deleted.
• NOTE 6 – (in the Muccio document box) Restoring the original caption to replace an unnecessarily wordy one.

And so we get this:

(NEW SECTION HEAD: Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges)

The No Gun Ri survivors' committee called the U.S. Army report a "whitewash" of command responsibility. "This is not enough for the massacre of over 60 hours, of 400 innocent people who were hunted like animals," said committee head Chung Eun-yong. The survivors rejected the notion that the killings were “not deliberate,” pointing to accounts from veterans and to documents attesting to front-line orders to shoot civilians. Lawmakers of both the ruling and opposition party in South Korea criticized the U.S. position.

Former U.S. congressman Pete McCloskey of California, the only one of eight outside advisers to the U.S. inquiry to write a detailed analysis afterward, agreed with the Koreans, saying, “I thought the Army report was a whitewash.” In a letter to Defense Secretary Cohen, another U.S. adviser, retired Marine general Bernard E. Trainor, expressed sympathy with the hard-pressed U.S. troops of 1950 but said the killings were unjustified and “the American command was responsible for the loss of innocent civilian life in or around No-Gun-Ri.”

Journalists and scholars subsequently noted that the U.S. report either did not address or presented incomplete versions of key declassified documents, some 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. aircraft 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.

News reports pointed out that the U.S. review, in describing the July 1950 Air Force memo, did not acknowledge it said refugees were being strafed at the Army’s request. Researchers found that the U.S. review had not disclosed the existence of U.S. Air Force mission reports during this period documenting strafing of apparent refugee groups and air strikes in the No Gun Ri vicinity. The report did not address the commanders’ July 26-27, 1950, instructions in the 25th Infantry Division saying civilians in the war zone would be considered unfriendly and shot. 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 the Korean War's early months, such as communications from 1st Cavalry Division commander Gay and a top division officer to consider refugees north of the front line "fair game" and to "shoot all refugees coming across river". In addition, interview transcripts obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests showed that the Army had not reported repeated testimony from ex-soldiers that, as one put it, "the word I heard was 'Kill everybody from 6 to 60'" during their early days in Korea.

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 that the U.S. Army has decided to fire on South Korean refugees approaching U.S. lines despite warning shots. The letter, dated July 26, the day the Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment began shooting refugees at No Gun Ri, was deliberately omitted from the Army's 2001 investigative report on No Gun Ri. Full text:

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, notified the State Department on the day the No Gun Ri killings began 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. Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report.

References

--Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A new 'legal' section

The edited "Reaction ... further evidence" section has been posted to the article. Now, as promised, here’s a proposed new section addressing the legal context of NGR. The first paragraph consists of two elements that were deleted from the previous “Investigations” section in the latest edit, to be held for use here. The second two grafs are new material.

I propose placing this after the newly edited “Reaction” section, to then lead immediately – and naturally -- into the current “Continuing appeals’’ section. I also propose taking the “Archeological survey” section and working it into the “Memorial park” section. Again, that seems natural, combining the two physical, on-site developments of recent years. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(NEW SECTION HEADING: Law of war and No Gun Ri)

In disclaiming U.S. culpability in January 2001, then-President 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." American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that, saying that whether 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". Writing to the Army inspector general's office in May 2001, the lawyers also pointed out that numerous orders were issued at the war front to shoot civilians, and said the U.S. military’s self-investigation – “allowing enforcement to be subject to the unbridled discretion of the alleged perpetrator” – was an ultimate violation of victims’ rights.

In its 2005 report, the South Korean government’s inquest panel, the Committee for the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims, cited six South Korean legal studies as saying No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity. “The No Gun Ri Massacre overtly violates the basic principles of the law of war and customary international law,” legal scholar Tae-Ung Baik wrote in one study. The committee itself concluded, "The United States of America should take responsibility for the No Gun Ri incident."

American experts in military law agreed that the 1950 events violated the laws of war prohibiting targeting of noncombatants, but said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century later was a practical impossibility. Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn’t rule out prosecutions, a statement survivors later complained deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying.

References

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on to the final sections

The new "legal" section was posted to the article. Finally, here's a proposed edit of the final sections, the biggest changes being the incorporation of the site excavations element into the memorial park section, renamed "Graves, memorial park"; and the insertion of a line about the NGR cemetery, and a photo thereof. In this case, with so little done, I'll forego the "And so we get this" business here in Talk. (The "talkquote" shading template is failing me for some reason, so this is here presented in plain text.) Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

=== Archaeological survey ===

In July 2007, a team from Chungbuk National University began an archaeological excavation of the site to search for the physical remains of those killed at No Gun Ri. The team, led by professor of history of ancient art Park Seon-ju, planned on excavating several sites where eyewitnesses said they had buried the remains of the victims. A DNA analysis of the remains was to be performed to determine the identities of any remains. By the end of August, the excavation had turned up nothing, though officials said that "the remains may have been damaged by heavy rains or taken away by their bereaved families". NOTE 1

Later developments

Continuing appeals

Though often supported by South Korean politicians and newspaper editorials, the No Gun Ri survivors' repeated demands for a reopened U.S. investigation and compensation went unheeded. Meeting with South Korean officials in 2001, the survivors asked that their government seek action at the International Court of Justice at The Hague and in U.N. human rights forums, but were rebuffed. In 2002, a spokesman for South Korea's then-governing party called for a new U.S. inquiry, but the DefenseMinistry later warned the National Assembly that a reopened probe might damage U.S.-South Korean relations.

The Memorial Tower in the No Gun Ri Memorial Peace Park, with its three- and two-dimensional depictions of the refugees of 1950, and two arches representing the No Gun Ri tunnel entrances. The 33-acre park, adjacent to the massacre site in Yongdong County in central South Korea, opened in October 2011. It also contains a museum and a peace education center.

The disclosure in 2007 2006 that Pentagon investigators had omitted the Muccio letter from their final report, along with other incriminating documents and testimony, prompted more calls for action. Two leaders of the National Assembly appealed to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a joint investigation, but no U.S. congressional body ever took up the No Gun Ri issue.

Graves, memorial park

No Gun Ri villagers said that in later decades two mass graves holding some victims' remains were disturbed and bones were removed during a reforestation project and by farming activity. In 2007, excavations at several places near the bridge turned up little. The forensics team said it hadn't found more because so much time had passed, and any remains had been exposed to the elements and soil erosion, railway work, cultivation and highly acidic soil. NOTE 2

This cemetery, opened in 2009, holds remains of some victims of the 1950 refugee massacre at No Gun Ri. It occupies a hilltop above the No Gun Ri Memorial Peace Park. NOTE 3

After the United States refused to offer compensation, and the survivors rejected the plan for a war memorial and scholarship fund, South Korea's National Assembly on February 9, 2004, adopted a "Special Act on the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims." It established the committee that examined and certified the identities of dead and wounded, and it provided medical subsidies for surviving wounded. The act also envisioned a memorial park at the No Gun Ri site, which had begun attracting 20,000 to 30,000 visitors a year. The 29-acre (12-ha.) 33-acre (13-ha.) No Gun Ri Memorial Peace Park, built with $17 million in government funds and featuring a memorial, museum and peace education center, opened in October 2011. In 2009, Yongdong County established a nearby cemetery to which some victims' remains were moved from family plots. NOTE 4 A publicly financed No Gun Ri International Peace Foundation also sponsored an annual peace conference, a No Gun Ri Peace Prize and a summer peace camp at the park for international university students.

No Gun Ri in culture

In South Korea, the No Gun Ri story inspired works of nonfiction, fiction, theater and other arts. In 2010, a major Korean studio, Myung Films, released a No Gun Ri feature film, A Little Pond, written and directed by Lee Saang-woo and featuring Song Kang-ho, Moon So-ri and other Korean stars who donated their work. Besides commercial release in South Korea, the movie was screened at international film festivals, including in New York and London. In 2006, artist Park Kun-woong and Chung Eun-yong published “Nogunri Story, Volume 1; Recollecting That Summer Day", a 612-page In 2006-2010, artist Park Kun-woong and Chung Eun-yong published Nogunri Story, a two-volume graphic narrative that told the story of the massacre and the half-century struggle for the truth through thousands of drawings, based on Chung’s 1994 book. The Korean-language work was also published in translation in Europe. NOTE 5 In the United States and Britain, No Gun Ri was a central or secondary theme in five English-language novels, including the U.S. National Book Award finalist Lark & Termite of 2009, by Jayne Anne Phillips, and the James Bond thriller Trigger Mortis of 2015, by British author Anthony Horowitz.

Coincidentally, a war film released in 1952, One Minute to Zero, features a climactic scene of American armed forces reluctantly firing upon on a column of civilian refugees because North Korean soldiers are hiding among them to infiltrate behind American lines. NOTE 6

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

The 1999 No Gun Ri articles prompted hundreds of South Koreans to come forward to report other alleged incidents of large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military in 1950–1951, mostly air attacks. In 2005, the National Assembly created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea to investigate these, as well as other human rights violations in southern Korea during the 20th century. The commission's docket eventually held more than 200 cases of what it described as "civilian massacre committed by U.S. soldiers".

By 2009, the commission's work of collating declassified U.S. military documents with survivors' accounts confirmed eight representative cases of what it found were wrongful U.S. killings of hundreds of South Korean civilians, including refugees crowded into a cave attacked with napalm bombs, and those at a shoreline refugee encampment deliberately shelled by a U.S. warship.

The commission alleged that the U.S. military repeatedly conducted indiscriminate attacks, failing to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. In its most significant finding, the commission also confirmed that South Korean authorities had summarily executed thousands of suspected leftists in South Korea – possibly 100,000 to 200,000 – at the outbreak of the war, sometimes with U.S. Army officers present and taking photographs.

Of all American wars, the Korean conflict is believed to have been the deadliest for civilians as a proportion of those killed, including North Korean non-combatants killed in extensive U.S. Air Force bombing of North Korea, and South Korean civilians summarily executed by the invading North Korean military. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission recommended the Seoul government negotiate with the United States for reparations for large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military. This did not occur. Assistant U.S. Secretary of State Stanley Roth was quoted as saying in Seoul at the outset of the No Gun Ri investigation in 1999 that the United States would consider investigating any similar Korean War killings that came to light. The 1999-2001 investigation was the last conducted by the United States.

References

• NOTE 1 – The excavation element is now incorporated in the “Graves, memorial park” section below.
• NOTE 2 – This now incorporates the excavation element.
• NOTE 3 – Inserting a new photo, of the No Gun Ri memorial cemetery.
• NOTE 4 – Inserting material re cemetery established 2009.
• NOTE 5 – Updating to a two-volume work.
• NOTE 6 – Deleting an aside that may be interesting, but not directly related to NGR.

--Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's now move toward consensus

Except for dealing with our overly long "Further Reading" and "External Links" lists, I have finished a basic cleanup, update and reorganization of this article. Timothyjosephwood, GeneralizationsAreBad, Wikimedes, Iryna Harpy, Irondome, Binksternet, please review, question, suggest, reorder sensibly, rewrite literately, critique unsparingly ... all, one hopes, toward the end of reaching the consensus that TJWood spoke of some weeks back: an agreement that as it now stands this is an accurate, solidly sourced, coherent presentation of a historic event, and it shouldn't be tampered with except by competent hands doing honest work. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to respond to the multiple pings you've left here, Cjhanley. Every time I try to return to the discussion I end up being sidetracked by innumerable other articles and issues demanding immediate attention on Wikipedia. I suspect that I'm also speaking on behalf of the other editors you've pinged.

Given that you've thought out the structure and details carefully, I'd be amenable to your going WP:BOLD in working on the article rather than continue to hamper progress. Naturally, this would be on the proviso that these changes be subject to WP:BRD. I'd just like to check with the other editors that they are comfortable with such an arrangement. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

While this is one of the most fascinating subjects (and disputes) that I've ever come across, I just find myself without any constructive edit proposals to make. I'm also not sure what exactly what there is left to do. GAB^Hello! 00:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. As for further work (besides the reading and links lists), I do recall there was some sentiment weeks back for looking again at the Lead section, now that the entire piece is revised. Two matters strike me there:

• Citations are not usual in WP leads. My understanding is that the lead is simply a summation of already well-sourced material in the body. To me, the current lead suggests that central elements hinge on a single source, e.g., the very first sentence, saying refugees were killed by the U.S. military, is sourced singly to Baik’s law journal article when, of course, it’s the undisputed conclusion of official and journalistic investigations.

• Writing that the (AP’s) massacre account was found to be “essentially correct” is superfluous. It’s enough to say the AP reported the massacre, and the official investigations reaffirmed it. The “essentially correct” sentence that comes between those two facts is strange in another way: It sounds as though the AP report was confirmed, and then the governments investigated. The sentence can be dropped entirely, in my view.

On another matter, subject to discussion some time ago, I find that in the line in “Background” saying, “orders were issued to fire on Korean civilians in front-line areas”, the idea of “orders” is dropped in there much too matter-of-factly, as though this is routine business in war. There was objection (with which I disagree) some time ago to identifying these at this point as illegal orders. Fine. But it needs some wording alerting readers to the fact that such orders are surprising/unusual/jawdropping to military lawyers. And so I propose the following:

With gaps in their lines, U.S. forces were attacked from the rear, and reports spread that disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating refugee columns. Because of these concerns, orders were issued to fire on Korean civilians in front-line areas, orders discovered decades later in declassified military archives. Among those issuing the orders was 1st Cavalry Division commander Maj. Gen. Hobart R. Gay, who deemed Koreans left in the war zone to be “enemy agents,” according to U.S. war correspondent O.H.P. King and U.S. diplomat Harold Joyce Noble.

References

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Re 'Further reading,' 'External links'

The "Further reading" and "External links" sections are clearly well beyond the recommended WP length and criteria. It seems the WP guideline is to include sources not already cited and-or linked to in the References section, except for a very few that are so useful and central that they bear repeating.

I'll trim the two sections bearing in mind those considerations, along with the need to delete dead links (unless so important they're worth retrieving via "Wayback"), and to delete outdated and barely relevant or irrelevant sources.

Among the irrelevancies is the Bateman book. How can Wikipedia recommend that one's understanding of the well-established historical event called No Gun Ri can be deepened by reading a "book" -- in reality a jaw-dropping pastiche of fantasies -- that insists that No Gun Ri "never happened"?

Here is Bateman on his pages 126-127: "The unanimity of the Koreans' testimony suggests that it is the product of years of group and individual discussions. ... In hindsight, the Korean accounts appear to be a montage, a collection of the memories of several different events that took place at other times and other places, if they took place as described at all. ... Rather, the killings occurred in dozens and possibly hundreds of the small misfortunes that make war so horrible."

Bateman is just that unbelievable.

This rank absurdity, stupid and absurd on so many levels and based on absolutely nothing beyond this denialist's wishful "thinking," was published in 2002, after teams of professional journalists from major news organizations confirmed the outlines of the massacre, after the 15-month-long investigations by two sovereign governments reaffirmed it, and after the president of the United States issued a statement of regret.

Wikipedia might just as well recommend David Irving books in the "Further reading" section of the Holocaust article. As we delete serious works by serious people such as Suhi Choi and Kim Dong-choon from the list for other reasons, how can we possibly still recommend such a collection of inanities?

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems Bateman has now been entirely purged from the article, which has apparently been your goal for several months. Bateman is not what I would call a high-quality source, and I would not use it as a template for structuring the article in any significant way. It is, however, a reliably published source, and the controversies surrounding him (and you) received ample secondary coverage and commentary. In short, the article is not in compliance with NPOV if Bateman is completely absent. Regardless of Bateman's deficiencies, you have exceeded the bounds of prudent editing given your conflict of interest. I have restored a mention to his book in the most parsimonious fashion. I'm content to leave it at that, and I suggest you do the same. Rhoark (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I fear that a de-facto POVFORK will develop, with the article on Bateman's book becoming the "alternative version" of this page. GAB^Hello! 15:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, GAB, I'm afraid you've slipped into Bateman's rabbit hole with your edit. "35" was only one of his wildly erratic "casualty estimates," which he described as "ballpark estimates" based on a "lack of evidence" (!) to the contrary. In other words, "Time for me to make up my own numbers! But I'll keep them below triple figures!" (Of course, there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary; citing Bateman at all, as though worthy of attention, is frankly an outrage.) His numbers of dead, scattered throughout the book, range from "some half-dozen" and eight, up to 70. No basis cited, because there's no basis for any of it. At the same time, in at least four places, he certainly did deny No Gun Ri happened. On one and the same page (126) he describes survivors’ accounts as "unanimous," that is, a composite memory that should be discounted; and then, five sentences later, that they are "different" and so must stem from “hundreds of small misfortunes,” meaning No Gun Ri did not occur. This guy's outrages -- and his obtuseness in contradicting himself repeatedly and stunningly -- seem to know no bounds.

Bottom line: We've worked too hard to stay out of rabbit holes in this article, and we cannot descend into this warped mind-world again. Rhoark seems to think the lies-laden attack on the AP by 7th Cav men, ages ago made moot by immediate refutations and then by an avalanche of accumulated journalistic and official findings, is worthy of attention (as though adding to anyone's knowledge of No Gun Ri). I'll edit to roll back to that basic point, and avoid a silly diversion into Batemania. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am actually with Rhoark on this one. A passing mention is harmless, though I understand your frustration. GAB^Hello! 16:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Concertmusic (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statement

I would like to be thorough, so this review process could take me 1-2 weeks, as I will want to check and read most sources, given the nature of the topic. I will start with a copy-edit pass, and then will try to get the other points out of the way before I dive into the sources, so that some progress will be apparent. Thank you!

Comments

This article is well written, thorough, and appears to be extremely well-researched. I will first suggest numerous copy-edits; most of these are suggestions, and would not prevent the article from being passed as GA, but I think the article could benefit from a few of these edits. I will try to indicate a suggested edit by saying "I would", versus an edit that should be made, where I say "please add" or the like.

Copy-edit comments (with signature and date/time stamp for easier tracking, as this review will be done in phases): --Concertmusic (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Overall CE comment: I would add quite a few commas all across the article. If you'd like, I can do that directly into the article, just leave it alone, or advise you of each comma for your own action - please advise. Some additional commas are necessary to break up run-on sentences.
• Overall CE comment: You'll see a number of suggestions to add the word "that" in places. To clarify: "that" is used inconsistently throughout the article, and I decided to point out where to add the word, as opposed to where to delete it, if consistency is a goal. I think adding it clarifies many of these sentences, but I am ok with a decision either way.

• CE: In the Lead, first paragraph, first sentence, this phrase reads poorly, and could benefit from a noun: Original sentence fragment = "...were killed by a U.S. air attack and the 2nd Battalion, 7th U.S. Cavalry, at a railroad bridge..."; suggested fragment with underlined addition = "...were killed by a U.S. air attack and the actions of the 2nd Battalion, 7th U.S. Cavalry, at a railroad bridge...". If you'd rather leave it as is, I am ok with that decision.
• CE: In the Lead, last paragraph, next-to-last sentence, I would add "the" as indicated: "American historian Sahr Conway-Lanz reported that among the undisclosed documents was a letter from the U.S. ambassador in South Korea..."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, first sentence, I would restructure to put the date first, as seen here: "On July 25, as North Korean forces seized the town of Yongdong,..."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, 3rd sentence, I would change "in the night": Original sentence: "Seven refugees were killed by U.S. soldiers when they strayed from the group in the night." - Suggestion 1: "Seven refugees were killed overnight by U.S. soldiers", or Suggestion 2: "Seven refugees were killed by U.S. soldiers when they strayed from the group during the night."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, 4th sentence, I would add "that": "In the morning of July 26, the villagers found that the escorting soldiers had left."
• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, mid-paragraph, I would add "that": "Recalling the air strike, Yang Hae-chan, a 10-year-old boy in 1950, said that the attacking planes returned repeatedly..."

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", first paragraph, mid-paragraph, I would add "that": "He and another survivor said that soldiers reappeared..."

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "Larry Levine and James Crume, said that they remembered orders to fire"

• CE: In "Events of July 25–29, 1950", last paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add "the": "two miles or more from No Gun Ri late on July 28, the third day of the massacre."

• CE: In "Petitions", first paragraph, 2nd sentence, I would add "that": "Survivor Yang Hae-chan said that he was warned by South Korean police..."
• CE: In "Petitions", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "In March 1999, the Army told the U.S. council that it had looked into the No Gun Ri allegations..."
• Citation: In "U.S. Report", last paragraph, last sentence:I would eliminate the parentheses, as that sentence does not need them; but regardless, please add a reference to that fact - which could be the same reference as Reference #40. The number 218 is split into its component pieces up above, so the connection between the individual numbers (150 No Gun Ri dead, 13 missing and 55 wounded) and this total of 218 is not easily made: "(Four years after this 2001 report, the Seoul government's inquest committee certified the identities of a minimum 218 casualties.)"
• CE: In "South Korean report", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "The South Korean report said five former Air Force pilots told U.S. interrogators that they were directed to strafe civilians..."

• CE: In "South Korean report", last paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "...drawing on accounts from survivors and area residents, said that at least 62 bodies had been taken..."

• CE: In "Clinton statement, U.S. offer", next-to-last sentence, please add the word "a": "Instead, the U.S. offered a $4 million plan for a memorial at No Gun Ri and a scholarship fund."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 2nd paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that" twice: "...expressed sympathy with the hard-pressed U.S. troops of 1950 but said that the killings were unjustified and that "the American command was responsible for the loss..."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence, I would add "that": "News reports pointed out that the U.S. review, in describing the July 1950 Air Force memo, did not acknowledge that it said refugees were being strafed at the Army's request."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 3rd paragraph, next-to-last sentence, I would add "that": "The report did not address the commanders' July 26–27, 1950, instructions in the 25th Infantry Division saying that civilians in the war zone would be considered unfriendly and shot."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", 4th paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "After the Army issued its report, it was learned that it also had not disclosed its researchers' discovery of..."

• CE: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "Pressed by the South Korean government, the Pentagon eventually acknowledged that it deliberately omitted the Muccio letter from its 2001 report."
• CE: In the caption for the document on the left in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", I would add "that": "In this excerpt from a July 25, 1950, memo, the U.S. Air Force operations chief in Korea, Col. Turner C. Rogers, reports that U.S. aircraft are strafing South Korean refugees"

• CE: In the caption for the document on the right in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", I would add "that": "The letter, dated July 26, the day that the Army's 7th Cavalry Regiment began shooting refugees at No Gun Ri..."
• Clarification request: In "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", last paragraph, next-to-last sentence, and in the caption for the document on the right in "Reaction to U.S. report; further evidence emerges", you write "despite warning shots" twice. I don't think you mean "despite", but something along the lines of "after warning shots" or "after delivering warning shots". Please clarify.

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add the word "statement" or something like it - without the noun the sentence is incomplete: "American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that statement, saying that whether 7th Cavalry..."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 1st paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "...the lawyers also pointed out that numerous orders were issued at the war front to shoot civilians, and said that the U.S. military's self-investigation"

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "...cited six South Korean legal studies as saying that No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", last paragraph, 1st sentence, I would add "that": "American experts in military law agreed that the 1950 events violated the laws of war prohibiting targeting of noncombatants, but said that prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century later was a practical impossibility."

• CE: In "Law of war and No Gun Ri", last paragraph, last sentence, I would add "that": "Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement that survivors later complained deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying."

• CE: In "Graves, memorial park", 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence, I would add "that": "The forensics team said that it hadn't found more because so much time had passed..."
• CE: In "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", first paragraph, first sentence, please change the phrasing of "mostly air attacks" - suggestion here: "The 1999 No Gun Ri articles prompted hundreds of South Koreans to come forward to report other alleged incidents of large-scale civilian killings by the U.S. military in 1950–1951, mostly in the form of air attacks."

• CE: In "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", first paragraph, 2nd sentence, please add "allegations" or "claims" - "these" by itself is incomplete: "In 2005, the National Assembly created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of the Republic of Korea to investigate these allegations,"

I plan on tackling images, and possibly start on sources, tomorrow, time permitting.

Images have been checked, and past controversies have been reviewed. Source review will be next, and will almost certainly go into next week: --Concertmusic (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments on sources/references: --Concertmusic (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is incredibly well researched, and is supported by a wide variety of sources, many of which are not readily accessible online without access to university library resources. This appears to show that the authors have gone to some trouble to consult and use resources that are credible and authoritative, in some cases using sources from peer-reviewed scholastic journals. My goal is to have viewed and read the majority of the sources provided in this article. My comments below are again more in the way of suggestions, rather than items that would prevent this article from being rated as GA, as the GA guidelines are met as the article currently stands.

• Reference 12: This reference is placed at the end of this sentence: "The AP later discovered additional archival documents showing U.S. commanders had ordered troops to "shoot" and "fire on" civilians at the war front during this period; these declassified documents had been found but not disclosed by the Pentagon investigators." The referenced material appears to support the first part of the sentence only, up to the semi-colon, but appears to make no mention of the 2nd part of the sentence. I would recommend moving the reference to be placed after the semi-colon. If a separate reference is available for the 2nd part of the sentence, please add after the period.
• Reference 17: This reference is placed at the end of this sentence: "The combined U.S. and South Korean forces were initially unable to stop the North Korean advance, and continued to retreat throughout July." The referenced material appears to support the first part of the sentence only, up to the comma, but appears to make no direct mention of the 2nd part of the sentence. I would recommend moving the reference to be placed after the comma. If a separate reference is available for the 2nd part of the sentence, please add after the period.
• The following sentence is referenced by Reference 16 and 18: "With gaps in their lines, U.S. forces were attacked from the rear, and reports spread that disguised North Korean soldiers were infiltrating refugee columns." I would recommend to move Reference 16 to be located after the 2nd comma in the middle of the sentence, as that reference supports only that first part of the sentence about gaps in the U.S. lines, and to keep Reference 18 after the period.
• Reference 38: This reference is used for the following sentence: "The survivors generally put the death toll at 400, including 100 in the initial air attack, with scores more wounded." The referenced material appears to make no mention of an air strike, but does support the figure of 400. I would recommend to use Reference 38 for the first part before the first comma, and to use one of the other previously used references for the air strike piece, or leave that unreferenced.
• In "Associated Press story", you quote: ""We just annihilated them," it quoted former 7th Cavalry machine gunner Norman Tinkler as saying." This direct quote appears to have no reference, but should have one, per GA criteria 2b.
• Reference 82: Used at the end of the following sentence: "Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, a statement survivors later complained deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying." The reference appear to support the first part of the sentence only, and I would therefore move this reference to after the 2nd comma in this sentence.

As far as I am concerned, my active part of this GA review is concluded, and I will now await the reaction of the nominator and/or authors to my comments, before I pass this article. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Summary

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: After very quick and thorough responses by Cjhanley, all suggestions and items above have been taken care, and this article easily passes this GA review. Thank you, and great work! --Concertmusic (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   This article is meticulously researched, and contains reference after reference to a wide variety of material, with most of these sources being verifiable and reliable. The sources that were not directly accessed and checked by me were either available only in print, or were in Korean, which I do not read. The number of sources that fall into this category were well under 10% of the total. There is one single direct quote left that needs to be quoted, as seen in the "Comments on sources/references" above, to pass the GA criteria.

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article treats the various controversies and disputes by reporting them, as opposed to trying to convince the reader of one opinion or another. I find it to be neutral in tone and language. I will double-check on the fairness of the representation as I read the sources.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   I have read this - FYI. The article has been stable since mid-August 2015.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Cjhanley reaction-1

Concertmusic, I agree with all your copy-editing suggestions, including the one tagged “Citation,” where the use of Reference #40, as you suggest, would be appropriate.

I have one suggestion, related to the first “CE: In ‘Law of war and No Gun Ri’” item: Rather than adding the word “statement,” perhaps “rationale” more precisely describes what the lawyers objected to.

Now, Concertmusic, will you be able to do those edits, including insertion of commas as you see fit?

Meantime, let me work on implementing your “Comments on sources/references,” since I have the sources. Yours all look like on-target points. But a counterpoint or two might arise as I get down to the nitty-gritty of rereading the sources, in which case I’ll post here any counter-suggestion.

FYI, I am dealing with a family situation that might, in the next day or two, pull me away for several days. But I'd return to the sources task as soon as possible.

Thanks very much again for the fine detailed work on this. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: To avoid any editing conflict, I will await Concertmusic's completing the copy-editing work before I tackle improving the sourcing. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: My first reaction to cjhanley's request above was to check whether there is any conflict of interest, or specific rule, about a reviewer making suggested edits to an article under review - and I don't believe there is, based on my reading of the GA guidelines and other articles. If there is an issue with me making those changes, as discussed above, please jump in here. I likely won't have time to start until tomorrow in any case, which will hopefully permit enough time for anyone who may read this, and who may object to a reviewer making changes, to provide their input. Unless I find objections, I will plan on doing these edits starting on Monday.

In addition, the sources provided more than meet the GA criteria, and if there are any counterpoints encountered during the source review process, please do what you think is best, without worry of impact to the GA review. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made the suggested edits, found above under Comments, as requested, and have checked the item to do with prose and grammar for the GA review. Thank you! --Concertmusic (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley, GeneralizationsAreBad: I neglected to ping the review participants - please see the No Gun Ri Massacre/GA1 talk page for further updates. --Concertmusic (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cjhanley reaction-2

I have modified and added to the references per Concertmusic's suggestions, with one exception.

Regarding the item "In 'Associated Press story', you quote...", which suggests a need for sourcing the Tinkler quote: Sentences 3 through 8 in that paragraph all hang on footnote No. 2 ("AP Original") at the end of sentence 8. Those sentences begin by introducing the original AP story and then say, in effect, here's what the story says, including the Tinkler quote ("... it quoted former 7th Cavalry machine gunner Norman Tinkler as saying.") After six sentences, there's that single cite, to the Sept. 29, 1999, AP story. Hence, I've left that as is.

This relates to your last undecided rating, 2B reliable sources.

Thanks very much again for your great help on this. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Whoops

Because I apparently deleted an extraneous space in the text, that edit of mine today appeared to affect a big chunk of text involving Bateman etc. It didn't. All that blue is not "new." The only change there was to say the AP defended its work with "a lengthy, detailed refutation." (Up above, the other change was simply to note that Daily "incorrectly identified himself as an eyewitness." The previous wording left open the possibility that the AP had misrepresented Daily.) Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Everybody

Just wanted to say, I apologize that my editing perpetually comes in waves, but I'm glad to see the article has continued to see productive work. Good job everybody. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted final graf of lead section

GAB, today's deletion of the lead section's final sentence points up a couple of problems. First, the sentence (“The attention gained by No Gun Ri prompted South Korean government investigations into other alleged U.S. killings of civilians during the Korean War”) seems to be a telescoping of the way things read before our dear departed troll descended destructively upon the article in 2013. It originally read: “Prompted by the exposure of No Gun Ri, survivors of similar alleged incidents in 1950-1951 filed reports with the Seoul government. In 2008 an investigative commission said more than 200 cases of alleged large-scale killings by the U.S. military had been registered, mostly air attacks.” And that was drawn from the first graf of the section “Truth and Reconciliation Commission,” which still stands and which is properly sourced (sourcing that can easily be improved by me, by the way).

I don’t know where the USIP sourcing came from for the sentence you deleted. And that points up the second problem: I maintain that the lead section should not have citiations, since it is merely a summary of matters duly sourced in the body. Citations lead to silly situations such as the very first sentence of the article, summarizing the most important facts of No Gun Ri, being attributed to an unknown legal scholar writing in an obscure journal – when the central facts are powerfully established by dozens of sources, big and small, in the body. My personal bible, Wikipedia: The Missing Manual, says, “Citations aren’t generally appropriate in the lead section; they belong in the body of the article.”

I propose restoring the original wording to the end of the lead section. But I’ll do it with citations for the moment, for consistency’s sake. And meantime I’d like to discuss eliminating the lead section’s citations completely. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cjhanley: Sure, no concerns here. Feel free to remove the citations as needed and restore the sentence - I believe the citations were inserted some time ago, when things were much more tense. Thanks for bringing this up. GAB^gab 21:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, GAB. As said, I'll retain cites in the lead for now, including with my new addition, while I study the ramifications of removing each one. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Removing citations from lead section

As proposed, I will edit the lead section to remove the citations, per usual WP practice. Each of the statements of the lead is repeated with at least one source, often more, in the body of the article. In order to maintain coherence, this will be an edit of the entire article in one fell swoop, since several of the cites of the lead have to be reconstructed in the body -- substituting a full first citation for a previous cite in the body that was simply in "refname" shorthand. Several of the lead's cites were one-off cites, and so this edit will now incorporate them in "Further Reading" and "External Links," so as not to lose them entirely. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes in lead

Srich32977, I can see you did some helpful cleanup on this article. But your changes to the lead paragraph mystify me and introduce at least one error. Let me explain:

• It's important, as early as possible in the article, to identify the victims as both South Korean (i.e., friendlies) and refugees (i.e., not people sitting in their homes in this village). Simple "civilians" loses those details, for no discernible reason.
• It's essential, as early as possible, to identify the air attack as American.
• It's fine to eliminate "2nd Battalion," but you've misconstrued what happened. It was not "shellings" by the 7th Cav that killed them, but largely small-arms fire, i.e., M-1 rifles, 30-cal machine guns and possibly 50-cal machine guns. I might change it to "killed by a U.S. air attack and small-arms fire from the 7th U.S. Cavalry Regiment." (I never understood why "actions" was used.)
• I would suggest we not confuse things by introducing an alternative transliteration for No Gun Ri in the body of the article. Besides, your alternative is not the one used in the WP article on the village itself. That's Nogeun-ri, and that is noted in this article infobox at "Location." I think I'll add "also known as No Gun Ri" to the infobox line, to clarify.
• Finally, we shouldn't remove "village of" from before No Gun Ri. It's an essential fact. Otherwise, what's No Gun Ri? A city? A mountain?

Unless I'm missing something that would explain your changes, I'll go ahead and make those fixes. Thanks! Charles J. Hanley (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing some of your suggested changes. Here are my replies to those not done: "United States" is brought out by the link to 7th U.S. Cav and in the last sentence; the 2d Bn's involvement is unnecessary detail for the lede; the air attack was probably USAF, so it's parsed out of the lede, and the air attack is identified as American; discerning between friendly forces, non-combatants, enemy forces, refugees, and civilians is often difficult in combat (much less in syntax), so rather than use the term non-combatant (and/or "friendly", refugee, etc.) I think it is more readable to stick with the one word which clearly describes the victims, doing so includes civilians from the village, plus any others who were trying to escape the fighting. Thanks for your suggestions. – S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Srich32977, but there's still some confusion. There's no question that the victims were South Korean refugees. None was from the village of No Gun Ri, as you speculate. It had been evacuated earlier. And, of course, any "fog of war" problems in 1950, in distinguishing combatants from non-combatants etc., as you mention, have no bearing on writing what we know unequivocally in the clear light of 2017. Also, "shellings" is an awkward, unclear word. I've reminded myself the DAIG report did, indeed, mention artillery and mortar fire. The 7th Cav had mortars, but no organic artillery. There's an easy way to deal with that, which I will do. Also, the "was because" formulation in the 2nd graf is awkward, and it's important to mention that these declassified orders were uncovered by the reporters. Otherwise, where did these documents suddenly come from in this article? I'm also cleaning up some poorly placed commas from months back. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

'Colonel Mitchum'

Regarding Xknight1965's question about the movie “One Minute to Zero,” I can help. His insertion was correctly removed from the article by Berean Hunter because it’s extraneous to No Gun Ri and, anyway, was better raised in Talk. But this has come up before, and it’s an interesting case, and so let me put on the record:

The colonel in the 1952 movie, played by Robert Mitchum, orders artillery fire on South Korean refugees who are shown, on screen, to be harboring North Korean infiltrators. The truth behind the movie is quite the opposite, as explained to me by Forrest Kleinman, who was on the staff of Maj. Gen. Dean, 24th Infantry Division commander, at Taejon, and who later served as an Army liaison in Hollywood. In that job, Kleinman told a film producer of a July 1950 episode at Taejon in which Dean was urged to fire on SK refugees crossing the shallow Kum River, for fear of infiltrators. Dean refused, saying something to the effect of, "We won't win this war by killing civilians," Kleinman recalled. The producer appropriated Kleinman’s story for his film, but decided to have the "colonel" make the opposite decision.

Dean's division was routed at Taejon, but it wasn't because of infiltrators. His front line had huge gaps between units. The NKs just poured through. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I will delete the recent insertion of the “One Minute to Zero” film in the article’s “NGR in Culture" section, which is meant to discuss cultural works that grew out of NGR. (See the above discussion about the genesis of the film.) The movie does not relate to NGR since NGR was not even known at the time. In fact, no such mass refugee killings had been publicized in 1952. Saying the fictional movie events are similar to NGR is misleading because it suggests there were NK infiltrators among the NGR refugees, when there’s no evidence of such. In sum, it’s an anachronistic and confusing insertion, on a subject extraneous to the article's subject and better suited as an interesting aside in Talk. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Picasso

The Massacre in Korea wiki page about a painting by Picasso has a link to the page "No Gun Ri massacre". Conversely, I would mention this artwork by Picasso under the "No Gun Ri in culture" section. But English is not my mother language and somebody else could formulate it better than I. In the meanwhile, I put it under "See also" --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)