Herman G. Felhoelter was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 7 April 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 16, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JonCatal谩n (Talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
Until the above is sorted, I will put this review on hold. JonCatal谩n (Talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of the compass points in this article seem a bit off to me. For example "North Korean troops promptly set up a roadblock directly behind the 19th Infantry's line in its main route of supply along the road near the village of Tunam, just south of Yusong on Taejon's eastern outskirts" doesn't match up. As shown in the map, Tunam-ri (now essentially the suburb of Nam-Sejong) is due north of Yuseong/Yusong and northwest of Daejeon/Taejon. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.116.163 ( talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
How can this be a featured article when it is impossible to see where exactly the battle took place? There is no article linked to the village where this is supposed to have occurred and no external links pointing to its location. Such an omission is fairly glaring for a Featured Article. 66.57.39.115 ( talk) 09:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The final sentence is ambiguous and confusing. "Felhoelter was the first of twelve chaplains killed or missing at that point in the war, including Emil J. Kapaun, the second chaplain of the war to be awarded a Distinguished Service Cross" .
The intention appears to be to say that he was the first chaplain to get the DSC, and that twelve other KOM chaplains got the DSC too. Or, that 12 other chaplains were KOM at that stage in the war. Also EJ Kapaun was also the first to get a DSC, or be KOM, or got the DSC. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Mattymmoo ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The article title (as of today, Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre) is very misleading. With the two capitalized names and the endash, the suggestion is that it's about two people, one named Chaplain and the other named Medic. (Aside: My brain wanted to pronounce Medic as "medeech" and maybe add an accent over the c, like a Serbian name.)
Just lowercasing the M of "medic" would be somewhat of an improvement, but I wonder if there isn't a better name altogether. Is this really what the sources call it?? -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Right so this is the best kind of article this so-called encyclopaedia anyone can edit, can produce? You suggest on your main page a note telling people to read properly edited books not this tripe. In the very first words of the opening sentence of the introduction this event is identified as a "war crime" yet the indiscriminate killing of Korean civilians by American troops during the No Gun Ri Massacre is not? In fact the latter article says they're allegations whereas this article has all the jingoistic tone of an American high school essay. Yaddy yaddy yaddy one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Garbage in anything but name. 81.129.201.72 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
note to midnightblueowl: what constitutes a war crime is NOT subjective. it is well defined ('black letter law') under numerous conventions of international law; to wit, the hague convention, the 4 geneva conventions, the london charter, the international military tribunal for the far east (1946), etc. if (how's that for npov) the events occurred as described, they were, without question, a war crime. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 05:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both for your thoughts. This is something that continues to be a systematic issue about Korean War articles; Western sources are essentially the only ones tackling a great many things that North Korea has simply not acknowledged. I will contend that when it comes down to it, I simply can not find any sources that classify this incident under any other term. But in fact we have likely never seen a North Korean source on this, or on war crimes in general, that can be trusted. I would say that it might be fair to change the lead to "western scholars consider this incident to be a war crime" or something to that effect. But while this is a less-covered incident in the war, the sourcing on it is very consistent in how it identifies the incident, though I can find no sources using that term in any international court or legal setting. 鈥 Ed! (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gents, as someone who have access to both Chines and US source on the Korean War, here is my two cents on this debate:
Anyway, my personal opinion on this debate is that strictly enforcing NPOV just based on mere suspicion is not a smart way to produce quality content here. Jim101 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The POV tag remains, but nothing has been done. Personally, I'd just like to remove the POV tag and make no changes, but would there be any objections to removing the POV tag and adding an extra sentence to the lede emphasizing the lack of North Korean sources for *anything* in the article? (Which, per my earlier points, would seem fairer to me - the lack of NK sources applies to everything in the article, not just the 'war crime' bit, and thus avoids implying anything about NK's stance on the war crime issue.) SnowFire ( talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Herman G. Felhoelter was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 7 April 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 16, 2014. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: JonCatal谩n (Talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
Until the above is sorted, I will put this review on hold. JonCatal谩n (Talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Some of the compass points in this article seem a bit off to me. For example "North Korean troops promptly set up a roadblock directly behind the 19th Infantry's line in its main route of supply along the road near the village of Tunam, just south of Yusong on Taejon's eastern outskirts" doesn't match up. As shown in the map, Tunam-ri (now essentially the suburb of Nam-Sejong) is due north of Yuseong/Yusong and northwest of Daejeon/Taejon. 鈥 Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.116.163 ( talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
How can this be a featured article when it is impossible to see where exactly the battle took place? There is no article linked to the village where this is supposed to have occurred and no external links pointing to its location. Such an omission is fairly glaring for a Featured Article. 66.57.39.115 ( talk) 09:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The final sentence is ambiguous and confusing. "Felhoelter was the first of twelve chaplains killed or missing at that point in the war, including Emil J. Kapaun, the second chaplain of the war to be awarded a Distinguished Service Cross" .
The intention appears to be to say that he was the first chaplain to get the DSC, and that twelve other KOM chaplains got the DSC too. Or, that 12 other chaplains were KOM at that stage in the war. Also EJ Kapaun was also the first to get a DSC, or be KOM, or got the DSC. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by Mattymmoo ( talk 鈥 contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The article title (as of today, Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre) is very misleading. With the two capitalized names and the endash, the suggestion is that it's about two people, one named Chaplain and the other named Medic. (Aside: My brain wanted to pronounce Medic as "medeech" and maybe add an accent over the c, like a Serbian name.)
Just lowercasing the M of "medic" would be somewhat of an improvement, but I wonder if there isn't a better name altogether. Is this really what the sources call it?? -- Trovatore ( talk) 19:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Right so this is the best kind of article this so-called encyclopaedia anyone can edit, can produce? You suggest on your main page a note telling people to read properly edited books not this tripe. In the very first words of the opening sentence of the introduction this event is identified as a "war crime" yet the indiscriminate killing of Korean civilians by American troops during the No Gun Ri Massacre is not? In fact the latter article says they're allegations whereas this article has all the jingoistic tone of an American high school essay. Yaddy yaddy yaddy one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Garbage in anything but name. 81.129.201.72 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
note to midnightblueowl: what constitutes a war crime is NOT subjective. it is well defined ('black letter law') under numerous conventions of international law; to wit, the hague convention, the 4 geneva conventions, the london charter, the international military tribunal for the far east (1946), etc. if (how's that for npov) the events occurred as described, they were, without question, a war crime. Toyokuni3 ( talk) 05:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both for your thoughts. This is something that continues to be a systematic issue about Korean War articles; Western sources are essentially the only ones tackling a great many things that North Korea has simply not acknowledged. I will contend that when it comes down to it, I simply can not find any sources that classify this incident under any other term. But in fact we have likely never seen a North Korean source on this, or on war crimes in general, that can be trusted. I would say that it might be fair to change the lead to "western scholars consider this incident to be a war crime" or something to that effect. But while this is a less-covered incident in the war, the sourcing on it is very consistent in how it identifies the incident, though I can find no sources using that term in any international court or legal setting. 鈥 Ed! (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Gents, as someone who have access to both Chines and US source on the Korean War, here is my two cents on this debate:
Anyway, my personal opinion on this debate is that strictly enforcing NPOV just based on mere suspicion is not a smart way to produce quality content here. Jim101 ( talk) 16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The POV tag remains, but nothing has been done. Personally, I'd just like to remove the POV tag and make no changes, but would there be any objections to removing the POV tag and adding an extra sentence to the lede emphasizing the lack of North Korean sources for *anything* in the article? (Which, per my earlier points, would seem fairer to me - the lack of NK sources applies to everything in the article, not just the 'war crime' bit, and thus avoids implying anything about NK's stance on the war crime issue.) SnowFire ( talk) 21:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chaplain鈥揗edic massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)