Talk:Korean axe murder incident

Copied from the discussion page of Operation Paul Bunyon>>>>> Bobo12345 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article needs major work

This article needs major work. I thought to start it out since it seems to be very interesting. I want to ask http://members.terracom.net/~vfwpost/opn-PB.html if we could use his pictures, but I'm pressed for time. -James --68.80.190.94 20:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This artical needs contents on NK side of the story.

So are you willing to volunteer to go to North Korea and get their side of the story?

Lol, haha.

I know the guy who took most of those pictures of Operation Paul Bunyan. I'll email him and ask for permission.

wbfergus 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text of an email I just received, per the above:

"Knock yourself out. I won't object.

Also, Kirkbride gives permission for us to use his stuff ... just in case you want to use it. He is living in Korea right now.

So, the pictures are free to use... BTW, Kirkbride is the author of the VFW site.

wbfergus wbfergus 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I notice about this article -- and several other published accounts on the web -- is that the account jumps from April 18th to April 21st as if nothing happened between those dates. Perhaps part of the reason for the gap is the massive press blackout that was conducted by the US forces and South Korean authorities on April 19th and 20th. A blackout which avoided mentioning a mech heavy task force rolling north out of Camp Casey, consisting of one company each from the 1-72 Armor and the two infantry battalions in 1st Bde, 2nd Inf Div - a force which was turned around when politicians decides not to allow an immediate military response.

I saw that the pics of the incident were mislabeled. "First two" was used to describe the first and third pictures, due to the original source being horizontal and not in vertical columns like the Wiki presentation. I can't chop up the photos and don't know the syntax for tables well, so I simply changed the text descriptions to match the actual photo order. I know it doesn't look great, but it's the best I can do. -ZZ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.210.66 (talk)

duplicate info

the Panmunjom Tree has its own non-wikied article, someone should merge them maybe? Cornellrockey 17:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My memories of "The Incident"

I had 36 days left in Korea when the incident happened.

Panmunjom - the "Peace Village" - has a series of watch towers. On the South side the watch towers are designed such that they can see / monitor each other. For example, tower #2 can see tower #1 and tower #3. The tree in question was in the North Korean side but it was obstructing the view between two towers from the Allied Command.

The Allied command informed the North Koreans several times that they were going to prune the tree. The North Koreans kept saying "no you're not!" and, finally, the day came to prune the tree. The Americans used a contingent of civilian Koreans to do the actual work and two officers (Capt. Arthur Bonifas and 1st Lt. Mark Barrett) as escort. It is worth noting that the North Korean soldiers, armed with axes, only attacked the US soldiers and left the civilian South Koreans alone.

After the attack, the response from the US forces was pretty swift and decisive. All of the 2nd Infantry Division was put on alert and went to the DMZ (De-Militarized Zone). All other combat units of the US military in Korea were put on war footing (DEFCON 1) but were not mobilized. The air force flexed its its muscles by bringing B-52's from Guam, F-111's from the US mainland; the navy sent the USS Midway (aircraft carrier) from Japan. I cannot confirm this but, at the time, the scuttlebutt was that the B-52's and the F-111's were carrying nuclear weapons.

We did receive intelligence that North Korea had requested help to the USSR and China but they essentially told the North Koreans "you're on your own." After that, the North Korean airspace was very quiet!

When time came to take care of the infamous tree, the information we were given was that we were going to go in and rip the tree off "...and if they shoot one bullet, its on!" At the same time that the Americans were ripping the tree out, a contingent of South Korean Special Forces, dressed as civilians, was standing by "just in case." We had as hard a time keeping the South Koreans from starting something as we had keeping the North Koreans from escalating further! --George casablanca 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks, George. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Damn, we should've invaded, if they weren't getting any help from the China and Russia.--Kross^Talk 12:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the story - this is the some of the content that really adds to Wikipedia, IMHO! Vedek Wren 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very new to contributing to please excuse any indiscretions. My father flew with the 430th TFS out of Mountain Home at the time of this incident. I showed him this article and he immediately commented that the base it had the 111's at was wrong. There was a discussion of which to go to, Gwangju or Teago. He can't remember precisely why, but he really didn't want to go to Gwangju and had been to Teago many times (and was familiar with it). The decision was to go with the latter. As for scuttlebutt about their being nuclear armed, I strongly doubt it. He's made the comment in the past that the only time he carried nukes was in the F-89 and the F-101 years prior. He confirms all air crews (111's/52's) had their targets assigned and it was a definite go to make reprisal strikes, but that the 111's flew to Korea with their bomb racks attached. The 111 would carry a nuke in its bomb bay. The racks are used for conventional bombs. An aside: the 111 was cleaner with the racks on the wings than without. Hence, when needed, they were ferried on the planes rather than transported. Some freak fact of aerodynamics. Additionally, unofficially, the 111's were unable to fly with weapons the day of the tree chopping, due to the unavailability of required ground test equipment. Though, they did fly practice the days leading up to it. So, the N Koreans knew they were around and considered them a threat (mission accomplished). M1super90 —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC).

death by axe or truck

It's not clear of the deaths were caused by the axe or the truck.

<<<<<Copy end Bobo12345 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm addressing several points with other discussions and the article itself. Parts I could edit directly (in the article), but other points I'm not sure how to properly word it. I'll leave that to somebody else who is more articulate.

Capt. Bonifas was actually killed by a 'karate chop' to the back of the neck by Lt. (Bulldog) Pak Chol. After the North Koreans (KPA) picked up the axes dropped by the KSC civilians, several of them used them to begin chopping on Capt. Bonifas, until his body was covered by the truck.

Lt. Barrett had jumped a low wall which lead down (about 15 ft.) into a tree filled depression (visiblity from the top was nil). Lt. Barrett was chased by several KPA guards into the depression and died there. The actual 'fight' only took a few minutes, and the UNC (American and South Korean)personnel evacuated the area without Lt. Barrett, since nobody saw him go into the depression. However, the people working at Observation Post (OP) #5, where the video was taken from, observed KPA guards from a checkpoint next to the depression taking turns going into the depression with an axe. One would go down with the axe and a couple of minutes later would climb back out and hand the axe to another guard who would then repeat the process. This continued for almost 90 minutes before a security contingent was sent to investigate, at which time Lt. Barrett's body was found and recovered. Almost every square inch of his body was cut up.

The tree was originally scheduled to be trimmed on Aug. 12th when my platoon was supposed to be working, and I was scheduled to be on the detail. However, it was raining hard that day so it was delayed until the 18th, which was my platoon's day off.

At the time, we worked a 72-hour 'shift' which consisted of 24 hours within the JSA, from 8am one morning until 8am the next morning. We would then head back to Camp Kitty Hawk (renamed to Camp Bonifas 10 years later), just outside the DMZ fence for breakfast and a change of clothes, then we would head back to the Day Quick Reaction Force (QRF) site. We stayed there until (usually) 4pm. We were on QRF duty until 5pm, but we would usually leave about 4pm so that we could run (exercise) back to Camp Kitty Hawk. We then were off for 24 hours, from 5pm until 5pm the next night, at which time we were then on Night QRF duty until 8am the next morning when we started back in the JSA again.

Regarding the UNC personnel in the area at the time. Each side (UNC and KPA) was allowed only 30 enlisted personnel and two officers inside the JSA at any one time who could be armed with a sidearm (pistol). At no time were rifles or machineguns allowed in the JSA, though occasionally we saw the KPA unloading them when they would open their checkpoints in the morning. The area where the 'fight' took place was surrounded by three occupied KPA checkpoints, two had AK-47's and the third (about 500 meters away) had a .51 cal. machinegun (I saw it numerous times during my 13 months), all of which had clear fields of fire to CP#3 where the 'fight' occured. The UNC only had OP#5 which could observe CP#3, at a distance of about 250-300 meters, and only armed with .45 cal pistols. Each UNC/JSA member at the 'fight' was armed with their sidearm, and the mattocks were in the back of the 2 1/2 ton truck at the scene. The personnel were not standing around carrying them, per JSA policy.

Since this was 1976, only 23 years after the Armistice was signed, all of the KPA guards selected to work at the JSA were orphans who were raised being told that their parents had been killed by Americans during the Korean War. Hence, they all had an extreme hatred of Americans.

I have some 'stuff' of my own at JSA Stuff

Not quite sure how end this correctly, but here goes.

wbfergus 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)wbfergus

Article re-arranged

I've created a new article for the Axe Murder Incident and copied across the content from the former Operation Paul Bunyan (OPB) article. It seemed odd to me that no Axe Murder Article existed, and since OPB would not have taken place without it, I reorganised the articles so that they are the other way around, with OPB mentioned as a part of the Axe Murder Incident. Bobo12345 05:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please delete

I'm a clumsy Wikipedia newbie and I didn't know about the Move function and tried to do it all by hand! Sorry! I intend to delete this page and Move it from the Operation Paul Bunyan article, once this has been deleted. 61.209.194.166 is my IP by the way, so it is only I who has made changes to this article. Bobo12345 06:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed, no problem. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Language Box

I disagree with the placing of the large, layout-disruptive multi-translation box, and have reverted it pending discussion (please see previous edits for the box).

I consider this is a rather inelegant way of placing information into the article which I consider of secondary importance (especially seeing that one translation was already nicely inline). If such a box was added to all articles about a thematic that happened in a non-Englisch-speaking country or was named in foreign languages in addition to English, it will end up producing substantial clutter on Wikipedia. MadMaxDog 06:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation junkies

How to handle the needs/requests of citation junkies, those that want everything cited? Many different parts of this article are referenced in the refences cited, but it's impossible to cite each and every sentence somebody wants cited, if it's already been cited once isn't it? Or is there some way to globally signify to the citation junkies that if they read the references the citation they need/want is there? Or is it already "assumed", that once an article has a reference to something/someplace, that it (can) apply elsewhere in the article as well? wbfergus 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wbfergus, the article is well cited. Sometimes, for particular statements (like the "This tree planted by Kim-Il-Sung", where I placed the fact tag myself) it is nice to directly place appropriate inline citations. Same for anything which is contentious. But apart from that - no worries. Just leave it as it is, and don't try to overdo it.

As for multi-citations - have a look at current reference #1. That shows how to use one source for citations at multiple places in the article. Cheers, MadMaxDog 22:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to yesterday when somebody with just an IP address deleted part of a sentence and wanted a source for it, though it is mentioned on several of the references cited elsewhere. Thanks for pointing out though how to do a multi-cite. I hadn't noticed that before. wbfergus 23:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Nomination

I nominate this article to be merged with Bridge of No Return, because some of the content is copied nearly verbatim from that article, and this article could be shortened to section-length without any loss of value. Vedek Wren 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the Bridge of No Return page should be merged with this. Just because the Axe-Murder Incident occurred near the bridge doesn't mean that the information should be in the same article. The Axe Murder Incident was an event, the Bridge is a location. If anything, the Bridge article could be merged with the Joint Security Area article, but I don't think it's necessary - they just need synchronising. Bobo12345 08:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the idea totally, as per Bobo12345. In fact, Bridge of No Return should be condensed instead, though not merged into this one either. MadMaxDog 11:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to it as well. I know I could add (and plan on adding) a lot more information to both the Joint Security Area and this article as well. If I can get some of my old Army buddies motivated enough to log on here, they can help add more information to the three articles also. Since we were there, it would really help to get more than just my input on the three articles. The reason they seem to have the same information about something like the Bridge of No Return is to me it makes no sense (and looks terrible) if the information conflicts between articles. I don't mind a repeat of the same information, but seeing opposing or otherwise conflicting information about the same thing in different articles looks bad. wbfergus 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Murder?

User:Wbfergus has reverted my suggested change of "murders" to "killings" [1]. I don't want to kick up a bug fuss here over what I am quite certain is an emotive issue. My question would be however- given that there has never been a peace treaty, and the north and south are technically at war (not sure what the position of the US is vis a vis this however?) - is it therefore reasonable and NPOV to describe fatalities as a result of conflict between two groups of combatants in time of war as "murder"? (I realise that the unfortunate victims were not themselves carrying firearms). To me, "killings" or "deaths" would be a more NPOV (and technically accurate) term than "murders". Please note that I am not trying to play down the seriousness or the heinous nature of the incident. Badgerpatrol 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Badgerpatrol. No offense taken here, I understand where you are coming from, as somebody that was uninvolved and probably doesn't know much about the history there, other than what you've read here. So, let me illustrate a couple points on why they are called murders. First, this was a nuetral area (at that time), where both sides had free movement within the small area. The tree had been originally scheduled to be trimmed 11 days earlier (with proper notification to North Korean officials and no objections), but it was cancelled due to rain. Next, Lt. Bulldog had a history of unprovoked attacks on UNC guards, he was promoted from Sgt. to Sr. Lt. for kicking a UNC officer in the groin about 3 months before I arrived there. Next, Lt. Bulldog watched the tree trimming without any objection for approximately 15 minutes, even telling the KSC workers where to prune, without objection. Next, the KPA never started any kind of incident without at least a 3:1 numerical superiority (this leads to premeditation). Next, after suddenly objecting to the pruning, Lt. Bulldog sends a runner across the bridge with a message. Almost immediately, a KPA guard truck arrives with almost 20 more KPA guards, carrying various weapons, Lt. Bulldog then wraps his watch carefully in his handkerchief, places it in his pocket, and then gives a "karate chop" to the back of Capt. Bonifas' neck, snapping it and killing him instantly.

These events, with the history, clearly show premeditation and planning for the killing of unarmed officers within a nuetral area. If these events had happened on your street corner (a nuetral area), it would not be called a killing, but a murder (actually two). Numerous media reports from many different countries have already called (and classified) it as murder, lending historical perpective to the actions.

Finally, consider the means of death of Lt. Barrett himself. After jumping the retaining wall to go to the aid of an elisted person who was previously chased into the depression, he was somehow knocked unconcious in there. For the next (approximately) 90 minutes, numerous KPA guards took turns walking down into the depression with an axe and spent several minutes in there before returning and handing the axe to another guard for his turn. Finally a UNC jeep with several UNC guards arrived to check the area (since Lt. Barrett's whereabouts were unknown), and he was found down there, barely alive, one quarter of his head missing, and basically chopped to bits. He was medevacced immediately, but of course his wounds to to severe and died enroute. This one death alone can only be called murder, even by "war standards". There is simply no other appropriate word (or words) to describe this, and even in a "true" war scenario, this would amount to a war crime.

I hope this helps explains and clarifies why this should always be called a murder, regardless of minimalists or the amount of time elapsed. wbfergus 18:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these facts need to be referenced by reliable sources to avoid the problem of original research creeping in, although I think the article goes some way to doing this already. I'm not disputing the facts though, I cede to your superior knowledge there. As a technical point however...I do seriously doubt however whether these acts would be classified as murder under international law - but I stand to be corrected by others with a superior grasp of the rules governing warfare. As I compromise, one way forward would be to specifically reference the term "murder" with a direct reference (e.g. "have been described as murders" with appropriate inline cites) or similar. Badgerpatrol 19:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Law of land warfare, it states : "...and requires that belligerents refrain from employing any kind or degree of violence which is not actually necessary for military purposes and that they conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry". That sounds pretty much to be self-evident, though watered down quite a bit from what we were taught in the Army (back in my days anyway). Regarding the reliable source issue, I fall into the category of Primary source, not original research. Regarding describing it as killings with a reference that they have been described as murders, well, look at the name of the article itself. It's not the "Axe Killing Incident". Also, look at the various refernces provided, and see how how they term it. Also, perform a web search, see how many hits there are for +"Axe Murder" +korea (1100) vs, +"Axe killing" +korea (209) on Google. The concensus of reporting is clearly in favor of "Axe Murder". I wouldn't have a problem though if you wanted to reference one of the terms "murder" with something like "North Korea and visitors on their tours to the DMZ..."

Since the murders occured 31 years ago last Saturday, and Operation Paul Bunyon was 31 years ago today, this is still an emotinal issue for many of us that were there and knew those men. As the LTC Vierra stated last week in the Stars and Stripes, “The incident could have fallen into obscurity,” Vierra said. “But that’s not the JSA. That’s not the JSA I left.” wbfergus 23:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, any recollections from you added to the article would be original research- your memories are not an acceptable primary source unless you have published them elsewhere in the form of a third-party reliable source and are quoting from that (see WP:RS and similar). So long as your own recollections are confined to the talk page and not included in the article, this is not an issue however. The article is the "Axe Killing Murders", but that doesn't necessarily mean they actually were murders in the same way that the Hundred Years' War lasted 116 years, and Kansas City is actually in Missouri (well, more or less!). Just because it's called that, doesn't make it so. My preference would be to substitute the factually unambiguous and NPOV term "killings" for the more emotive term "murders", unless someone was actually tried or charged with the crime of murder, or unless an element of international or local law can be found (in a reliable secondary source) confirming that these were indeed murders under the law. But as you say, it's an emotive issue and I leave it to your judgement. (PS- On a complete tangent, why's it "Axe" murders and not "Ax" murders? Isn't "Axe" usually Americanised to "Ax"?) Badgerpatrol 00:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's spelled "Axe" instead of "Ax". I think it may be because the story was first reported by several foreign correspondents who spelled it "Axe", and it just cascaded from there.

Reading the entire Primary source and original research pages, (to me anyway), it seems that I guess I do fall into original research as a primary source, and from there the primary source definition gets progressively hazier. Perhaps later today I'll ask over on the discussion pages for some clarification on the issue.

Anyway, I did notice that the OR page did state "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", so I guess in this case the "official" Army version that our QRF (Quick reaction Force) was over one mile from the DMZ at the time of the incident will go down in history as accurate, since that was a published report (however false). Our Advance Camp (called Camp Kitty Hawk then, renamed as Camp Bonifas later) was only about 100 meters from the DMZ, and that was the farthest south we ever went while "on duty". During the day, the QRF was actually closer though, as the QRF site was about 300 meters from the JSA, and at the time of the incident, the QRF was actually sitting in their trucks at the entrance to the JSA (over one the Talk:Joint Security Area page, there is an excerpt from an email I received from the guy who was actually working the checkpoint at the entrance to the JSA that day, under the "Flags" discussion). But, since the Army published a report saying that they were over a mile away from the DMZ, I guess that is what history will always record, at least by Wikipedia's stated standards. So future researchers/historians will prefer to use the published lie, therefore perpetuating it into eternity, rather than take a chance on eyewitness accounts that state otherwise. So also then, by the above standards of Wikipedia, I guess the term "Axe Murder Incident" will stand the test of time, as that is by far the most widely published usage of it, regardless of whether people want to try and re-classify it as just a killing or not, as with the preponderance of published documents it is easily verified, regardles of whatever the "truth" may actually be. However I will still maintain that it is a murder vs. a killing. Once one party has been rendered wounded or otherwise incapable of doing harm to the other party, the "victorious" (I can't remember what the actual word/term is right now) must then protect the "captured" party from all future harm, and provide any medical assistance that may be required, even at the risk of their own life. It's all covered in the Law of land warfare, especially in the link at the bottom that goes to the Army Field Manual on the subject, much of which is based on the Geneva Convention and upon international law. wbfergus 12:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you've posted anywhere else for clarification on this, but you should definitely not, under any circumstances, be posting your own personal recollections (including the testimony of other witnesses as told to you and relayed from you), no matter how closely you were involved, in the article proper. If you have done this, you should take out that material and replace it with information gained from reliable sources - i.e. (usually) written retellings of the event, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine features, etc. etc. Even if I witness an historical event (say for the sake of argument that I'm Neil Armstrong and I want to edit the article about the moon landings), it is not correct form for me to contribute my own memories directly. If the article says that Neil's middle name is Geronimo, but he knows it's actually Jemima, then unfortunately he can't change it, unless he can find a reliable source that says "Neil Armstrong's middle name is Jemima". (If he can't find such a source, he could I suppose consider removing the item altogether). I hope that somewhat convoluted example is clear- the place to rewrite one's memories is in one's autobiography. If that is subsequently published then it becomes a reliable source and can be used. A person is not a primary source - but their published testimony may be. As you rightly point out, verifiability, not "truth", is the gold standard. As for the actual question of murder/killing, whilst the more unambiguously accurate term is probably better, I leave it to individuals who are better informed in these matters (such as yourself) to make the judgement. All the best, Badgerpatrol 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the use of 'murder' here, for a simple reason. Murder is a legal term, that is, non-justified homicide as determined by an authority. Killings is not a legal definition, and is much better in this case. I'm sure most (western) sources identify it as murder. That doesn't simply erase the pov issue of calling it as such- more difficult because the two countries were in a state of war and both sides were allowed to carry 'light' weapons only (i.e. sidearms), a rule which was evidently not violated in this instance. When a uniformed soldier kills another in a state of war, it can break an armistice- but it's not the same as killing someone on your street corner. Killings is better. Epthorn 17:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the most widely used terminology of the events that day use the term murder. Several of the supplied references even use the term "Murder" as the title. General Stillwell's assessment of the events that day (as seen in chapter 6 of his referenced book, available online), even state the case for why it was termed a murder. First, this is a truce area, and in those days the entire area was a nuetral area. Secondly, this was carefully planned and executed, again as outlined in Stillwell's book. If two armies are actively engaged in armed warfare, and either side raises a white flag for a truce talk, that does not allow the killing of either party and calling it a consequence of war. Internationally agreed conventions clearly state that that would be murder. The same thing, with the same conventions, apply here as well, regardless of the fact that most references refer to it as murder. Very few published accounts just call it a killing, compared to the number that call it murder. wbfergus ^Talk 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict] "Murder" is not only a legal term, but is also a description. If someone murders 3 people and then kills himself, did he not murder them? No court in the US can convict him, but it is murder nonetheless. Just because they were allowed to carry weapons doesn't mean it wasn't murder. They were not in a "state" of war, but at an "armistice". A uniformed soldier can kill another uniformed soldier on opposite sides of the conflict and it can be murder (I will concede that it is not a common occurrence though...but then again, neither is this...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The two US Army officers killed were unarmed and were supervising a non-hostile work detail that was arranged in accordance with the procedures established for operations in the Korean DMZ. The North Korean officer watched without objection for several minutes and then, by all accounts, began trying to provoke a response and finally, in a calculated and deliberate manner, attacked the detail. This meets all the definitions of murder, as far as I can see. Just because the parties involved had an adversarial relationship does not make it a mere "killing". I think that everyone agrees that the casual execution of prisoners of war is murder and that involves co-belligerent parties as well. Being in the military does not make you fair game for any sawed-off little pissant with an attitude problem.--SEWalk (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, Killing anybody with an axe is murder regardless of the context. Axe Murder incident sounds better than Axe Killing Incident. --71.59.187.104 (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No offense is intended at this comment, but your opinion isn't relevant. What the facts are is relevant. As I explained up above, it was murder because of the context. Had this been hand-to-hand combat, it would have been a combat fatality. I will concede that the end result is the same: a dead U.S. soldier. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some reasonable people consider it murder, others do not. Everyone agrees that it was a killing. Therefore to retain a neutral point of view, wikipedia should not call it murder (except in the context of a quotation). 75.34.103.144 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we go by reliable sources on Wikipedia, not some vague assertion that some people disagree. Reliable sources call this murder and we will stand by the description. Should a body of knowledge refer to this incident as a "killing" we can certainly add the information and explain the controversy. Being neutral means appropriately representing all reliable sources. If you have a source, let's see it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is a policy. RS is a guideline. 75.34.103.144 (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you had bothered to read the actual sources already in the article, you would've find that the most reliable ones (eg, new york times) call it a "killing" or "slaying", etc, whereas it is only the the less neutral politically motivated publications that call it a "murder". 75.34.103.144 (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm that came off as rather argumentative and unconstructive, sorry. I do still think that the title should be changed though. 75.34.103.144 (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read all the listed sources and the only one that uses the term "killings" is the New York Times, but they also use the term "murder". WP:NPOV is a policy and WP:RS is part of the guidelines impementing WP:V. As I said before, until your assertion can be demonstrated in a verifiable source, it should not be given undue weight. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

video footage

the article claims that home movie footage was shot of the axe killings, does anyone have a source for where this may be obtained? Thisglad (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You could probably try the Army through a FOIA request. wbfergus ^Talk 11:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In Rick Atkinson's book, The Long Gray Line he states that the video shows that the US soldiers present with Bonifas and Barrett panicked and fled, abandoning the two officers to the mercy of the mob of North Korean soldiers. If true, that may account for why the US Army has never released the entire video publicly. I've heard that the copy of this video shown at the DMZ visitor's center has this portion edited out. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was on the edge of the DMZ when this happened and I saw this video well after it happened (several months later)and I saw it differently but I can still remember watching it. Everyone was attacked and one of the officers ordered the others to head away from the bridge but I don't know why, I thought the others were being directed to cover some civilian workers off camera. I don't know which one but it was proably Bonifas. He may have tried to do a rear guard action... I agree it could look differently to some and it could look like the others panicked and ran away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.250.26 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a friend of mine has been in contact with Capt. Shirron, Capt. Bonifas' replacement, who also is the one that took the pictures, ot at least most of them. Until such time as myself or somebody can work the new material into the article, there is now some NEW, unreleased photos and information about this day at http://www.jsavets.org/ wbfergus ^Talk 13:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I stand corrected, I had the names mixed up. It was Lt. Shaddix, not Capt, Shirron, and Lt. Shaddix got the film from Guy Breider, who was the ones taking the pictures. Lt. Shaddix was with him at OP#5, and had the film flown to Japan for processing, since there wasn't a place in Korea to develop that type of film used. It was personal film for a personal camera that was used after the 'official' Army camera ran out of film. The video was taken, but with such poor quality (8mm), at that distance, and from someone excited and scared (3 North Koreans had also snuck up behind them, the footage was grainy, out-of-focus, and to jumpy to see much except blurs. Many of us who were there have been having numerous conversations back and forth getting all the details worked out, for proper attribution of the photo's, etc., along with discussing how the 'official' Army version of various things are incorrect, like saying Lt. Barrett is the guy at the top of one of the photos. Everybody who was there knows 1.) that Lt. Barrett was white (not black as in the picture), that was Sgt. Bickley or PFC George, and 2.) Lt. Barrett never made it that far. He was attacked and killed down in the depression area to the left. There are also additional new pictures available on Facebook in the (open) 'JSA Veterans' group. wbfergus ^Talk 15:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I find the following statement very flippant and it could be reworded to seem more official

Kim Il Sung was often portrayed by the North Korean Communist Party propagandists as being responsible for almost everything in North Korea

Something really should be done about this in my view. It is so flippant. 167.206.75.157 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, whether or not it is true is irrelevant, It is most certainly not in an encyclopedic tone and is basically an opinion, and has no place on the article. I think the sentence should simply be removed and with regards to the exchange it refers to, it should be clear that it is not verifiable. ill go ahead and make the change. Leomann (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cobras laser targeting?

Aside from the POV language regarding the Cobra flights near the DMZ, the sentence refers to laser targeting. I'm no expert, but I don't believe Airborne Laser Ranger and Marked Target Seeker (LRMTS) were that well developed at the time. Thus I tagged the unreferenced statement. Any info from anyone?--S. Rich 14:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

LRMTS was in its most primitive form available around the 1960's. However, its another thing entirely that it was DUE to laser targeting that the North Koreans stopped firing. The entire sentence should just be removed as there is no sources to prove this exact thing occured. In fact, I'll remove it now. Anyone with complaints please give a responsable reason to keep it. 142.229.106.51 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am new to this article: I was on an ADA TACSITE/mountaintop looking down into the DMZ on its edge but this incident was on the edge of what we could see and hear. The cobras came within visual range and we were told they had asked for permission to fire so our tension level was thru the roof. And then we all heard a "braap", then the shooting suddenly stopped. We thought one of the cobras "demonstated superior firepower" or had taken out the NK guns without permission... We then all got another "hold fire, hold fire- only fire if fired upon". We never did find out what actually happened. I think this side event had more at stake then anything else that happened that day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.250.26 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC) Also, It's my understanding that these lasers can temporarily blind people... but I don't know if that actually happened or if someone is assuming something. Who ever wrote this info might be able to provide more info and I would like to know what really happened after all this time. I think it would be proper to trim the sentence to just communicate the firing stopped once the cobras came within sight/range.

Photo removals

A series of photos was removed today, based on "POV captions". Seems the better action would be to remove or rewrite the captions. The photos appear to be from an old newspaper (based on the yellow background). These photos were quite helpful in depicting the event, and I urge replacement.--S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The photos are not the problem, the captions are. The captions are severely POV. Some time in the next few days, I can crop the captions out, and reload them as six individual photos. Unless someone else can do it sooner. Kingturtle = (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And what was wrong or POV with the captions? The UNC personnel ARE the one wearing the white helmets. It is impossible to discuss this article properly without the photos, they are the proof of overwhelming odds, etc. and clearly show the fight. wbfergus ^Talk 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

"scheduled to be trimmed seven days earlier"

I can't find a source for this. Anyone? Also did both North and south agree to it beforehand? Demogorgonite (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think the article needs to change the fact on how it seemingly portrays that both north and south korea agreed to cut the tree down "days earlier." From this official report: http://www.nautilus.org/projects/foia/panmunjon.pdf It states that on August 6, soldiers came to survey the tree, and when a north korean solider was told that they were going to cut the tree down, the KPA soldier told them not to. General Stilwell was not informed of the KPA's opposition, since the matters were so "routine". On August 18, the soldiers came to cut down the tree, and that is when the incident occurred. I am not seeing any sources for how the north and south both "agreed" to cut the tree down on a "schedule". Demogorgonite (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was supposed to be on the earlier tree trimming detail, but it was postponed due to rain (just a drizzle, but the Korean civilian workers didn't want to work - lighting fears). It was discussed, we let them know, they agreed, since they were doing tree trimming themselves in other areas. But, the day it supposed to be done, it was postponed and then agreed upon to be done on the 18th, which wasn't a day I'd be working, and 1st platoon was on duty then. I have seen these facts mentioned in other articles, not just my own memory, so they are verifiable. I am pretty sure at least one of the references says this in at least one of them. I'm pretty sure the VFW site said it also, but since it is no longer up (at least that page), I'll have to use the wayback machine (Internet Archive) to see that page as it was several years ago, or somebody else can. I've been a tad busy lately to do much. wbfergus ^Talk 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Military Rank Style?

What is Wikipedia's military rank style? This article switches back an forth between common civilian style (Capt., Lt., etc.) and military style (CAPT, 1LT, etc.) Fustigate314159 (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations), but you won't find specifics there regarding this basic question. The truth is that the military uses all of the aforementioned abbreviations in various capacities. MLA and APA do not address this issue specifically and generally defer to military style guides (i.e. the Tongue and Quill). — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording of Pak's order

Although the article says Pak's order was simply "Kill them", according to the cited source which I downloaded, he is actually quoted as saying "Kill the bastards". I made the change for this reason. If anyone wishes to verify, the quote is on Page 13 of the PDF file cited, which is still available online at the link shown. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)