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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16Auto-archiving period: 10 days
![]() |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | No Gun Ri massacre has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 29, 2012, July 29, 2015, July 29, 2019, and July 29, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The chronology of events is unclear, especially in the lead. I would appreciate if someone who has more understanding of the subject could clean it up. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I am undoing the edits done on 3 November by 139.153.56.179 as gratuitous and unexplained, and for introducing errors. Attributing the casualties in the infobox to “reports” is incorrect, since these were official findings of two governments (“South Korea’’ and “the U.S.”). Also, it’s important to identify the victims as South Korean, making clear these were “friendlies,” citizens of an allied country. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 20:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Your interest in this subject is welcome, TheUntamedBig, but if you reread the article you’ll see that all of the points covered in your edit were already addressed higher up in the article. Examples:
Bottom line: The new section is redundant and introduces some serious disjointedness to a certified “Good Article” that has been well organized. I’ll undo the edit unless you’d like to discuss further. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
TheUntamedBig ( talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the reworking of the lead paragraph of this certified Good Article by Toobigtokale:
The first sentence has been unusually long for some time. It flowed directly and smoothly enough, but it was unnecessarily long because of non-essential elements, namely, the type of weapons fire, the specific U.S. Army unit, the mention of the bridge, the outdated reference to “an undetermined number” of victims (when the very next sentences provide specific numbers).
The latest reworking, on the other hand, relegates the most essential elements – who the victims and perpetrators were – to secondary sentences in the lead, and neglects to say where this village is (i.e., in South Korea).
I’ll rewrite to trim the original first sentence but prioritize essential elements, with the non-essentials covered later in the intro or deeper in the body of the article. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m afraid, XXzoonamiXX, that you deleted highly relevant, highly important material (Clinton’s statement, the survivors’ lawyers’ position, the South Korean government’s position, the West Point expert’s reference to targeting noncombatants as a violation of customary international law, the Army secretary’s statement on prosecutions, etc.), and substituted a much too long treatise-like digression on treaties. This article is already overly long.
I suggest you come to Talk and propose a succinct (50 words or so) paragraph that distills the technical point you’re making. Seems to me it should say that although experts say the deliberate killing of any noncombatants is a violation of customary international law, the relevant (Hague) treaty in 1950 seems not to relate to the killing of an allied nation’s civilians, but in any event the U.S. Army’s extant Articles of War would have deemed the No Gun Ri massacre a war crime (murder).
That succinct paragraph could then be inserted into the context of what has long been there under “Law of War and No Gun Ri”.
Or, if you prefer, I’ll write that summary paragraph. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
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". [1] American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that rationale, asserting 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. [15]
The South Korean government's inquest panel, the Committee for the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims, concluded in its 2005 report, "The United States of America should take responsibility for the No Gun Ri incident", citing six South Korean legal studies as saying that No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity. [12]: 118–119
In one such study, legal scholar Tae-Ung Baik noted that the 1907 Hague Convention, the relevant international treaty in 1950, seemed to exclude civilians victimized by an allied nation’s military, as with the South Koreans at No Gun Ri, from treaty “protected” status, leaving prosecution to local or military law. But Baik also contended any mass killing of noncombatants remained a crime under “customary international law.” [11]: 473–477 American soldiers sent to Korea in 1950 were issued a booklet telling them the Hague treaty forbade targeting civilians. "Hostilities are restricted to the armed forces of belligerents," it said. [16]: 74 In addition, the Articles of War, the U.S. military law at the time, listed murder among its war crimes. [11]: 491–492
American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri was a practical impossibility. [17] Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, [18] a statement that survivors later complained may have deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying. [14]: 165
- - -
Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
So, I’ll eliminate the sentence, “In addition, the Articles of War…” and substitute this for the sentence that follows: “American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri, under the relevant U.S. military law from 1950, the Articles of War, was a practical impossibility.”
And then I'll post the entire revised Law of War section. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Unanswered
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Baik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Committee
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CKD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TBANGR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13,
14,
15,
16Auto-archiving period: 10 days
![]() |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | No Gun Ri massacre has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 29, 2012, July 29, 2015, July 29, 2019, and July 29, 2020. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The chronology of events is unclear, especially in the lead. I would appreciate if someone who has more understanding of the subject could clean it up. — Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I am undoing the edits done on 3 November by 139.153.56.179 as gratuitous and unexplained, and for introducing errors. Attributing the casualties in the infobox to “reports” is incorrect, since these were official findings of two governments (“South Korea’’ and “the U.S.”). Also, it’s important to identify the victims as South Korean, making clear these were “friendlies,” citizens of an allied country. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 20:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Your interest in this subject is welcome, TheUntamedBig, but if you reread the article you’ll see that all of the points covered in your edit were already addressed higher up in the article. Examples:
Bottom line: The new section is redundant and introduces some serious disjointedness to a certified “Good Article” that has been well organized. I’ll undo the edit unless you’d like to discuss further. Many thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 21:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
TheUntamedBig ( talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the reworking of the lead paragraph of this certified Good Article by Toobigtokale:
The first sentence has been unusually long for some time. It flowed directly and smoothly enough, but it was unnecessarily long because of non-essential elements, namely, the type of weapons fire, the specific U.S. Army unit, the mention of the bridge, the outdated reference to “an undetermined number” of victims (when the very next sentences provide specific numbers).
The latest reworking, on the other hand, relegates the most essential elements – who the victims and perpetrators were – to secondary sentences in the lead, and neglects to say where this village is (i.e., in South Korea).
I’ll rewrite to trim the original first sentence but prioritize essential elements, with the non-essentials covered later in the intro or deeper in the body of the article. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I’m afraid, XXzoonamiXX, that you deleted highly relevant, highly important material (Clinton’s statement, the survivors’ lawyers’ position, the South Korean government’s position, the West Point expert’s reference to targeting noncombatants as a violation of customary international law, the Army secretary’s statement on prosecutions, etc.), and substituted a much too long treatise-like digression on treaties. This article is already overly long.
I suggest you come to Talk and propose a succinct (50 words or so) paragraph that distills the technical point you’re making. Seems to me it should say that although experts say the deliberate killing of any noncombatants is a violation of customary international law, the relevant (Hague) treaty in 1950 seems not to relate to the killing of an allied nation’s civilians, but in any event the U.S. Army’s extant Articles of War would have deemed the No Gun Ri massacre a war crime (murder).
That succinct paragraph could then be inserted into the context of what has long been there under “Law of War and No Gun Ri”.
Or, if you prefer, I’ll write that summary paragraph. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 17:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
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". [1] American lawyers for the No Gun Ri survivors rejected that rationale, asserting 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. [15]
The South Korean government's inquest panel, the Committee for the Review and Restoration of Honor for the No Gun Ri Victims, concluded in its 2005 report, "The United States of America should take responsibility for the No Gun Ri incident", citing six South Korean legal studies as saying that No Gun Ri constituted a crime against humanity. [12]: 118–119
In one such study, legal scholar Tae-Ung Baik noted that the 1907 Hague Convention, the relevant international treaty in 1950, seemed to exclude civilians victimized by an allied nation’s military, as with the South Koreans at No Gun Ri, from treaty “protected” status, leaving prosecution to local or military law. But Baik also contended any mass killing of noncombatants remained a crime under “customary international law.” [11]: 473–477 American soldiers sent to Korea in 1950 were issued a booklet telling them the Hague treaty forbade targeting civilians. "Hostilities are restricted to the armed forces of belligerents," it said. [16]: 74 In addition, the Articles of War, the U.S. military law at the time, listed murder among its war crimes. [11]: 491–492
American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri was a practical impossibility. [17] Nevertheless, Army Secretary Caldera said early in the investigation that he couldn't rule out prosecutions, [18] a statement that survivors later complained may have deterred some 7th Cavalry veterans from testifying. [14]: 165
- - -
Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 20:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
So, I’ll eliminate the sentence, “In addition, the Articles of War…” and substitute this for the sentence that follows: “American experts in military law said prosecuting ex-soldiers a half-century after No Gun Ri, under the relevant U.S. military law from 1950, the Articles of War, was a practical impossibility.”
And then I'll post the entire revised Law of War section. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley ( talk) 18:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
References
Unanswered
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Baik
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Committee
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CKD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).TBANGR
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).