Talk:No Gun Ri massacre

Past discussions for renaming from Archive 1

• Requested move to "massacre"
• Requested move
• Many major newspapers used the word "massacre"
• Use of the word "massacre" by the press

This is for reference.--Caspian blue 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The unilateral page move and where all the past extensive discussions gone?

• note It is copied from Talk:No Gun Ri because I think the discussion should be held here.--Caspian blue 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm visiting this page in a while but very surprised to see that this article originally about geographical information was merged without "discussion" and past discussions were all gone too. The editor who did this should tell the rationale, or I will restore the original title "No Gun Ri massacre" and the discussion page.--Caspian blue 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I opened a page move discussion on 7 December 2008 and went ahead with the move after a week went by without comment. There is no lost "geographical information" on the village. Both articles were always about the Korean War incident. A Google search will reveal that the number of hits for "No Gun Ri" (26,000) vastly outnumber those for "No Gun Ri massacre" (1,310). There was a formal vote and a consensus to move the page from "No Gun Ri event" to "No Gun Ri" on 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC). The name was then changed several times without vote or consensus. The article was moved back to "No Gun Ri" on 09:26, 5 April 2007 after a second formal vote. When the page was moved to "No Gun Ri massacre" on 21:35, 4 April 2008, there was no vote or other formalities, only this mysterious note, which talks only about a histmerge. So perhaps a page move was not intended. Kauffner (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, do not say such untruth about you action. You unilaterally moved the page just 5 days after your brief note. You did not do it formally in a due course. I wonder why you did not even request the move to WP:RM nor notify the big change to WP:Korea and WP:US. What is your reason for not informing your action to the communities? It looks like you just wanted to carry your POV very quietly. As you see this article is rated as "high" and your unilateral action is totally unacceptable. Moreover, Google hit is not a "reliable source" nor standard for the decision making according to our policy. Of course "No Gun Ri" would be the highest hit number because the massacre was committed in the place. The previous RM discussion had no consensus for moving, and therefore I will restore the original article. You can request a RM on the page, not here.--Caspian blue 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S Your such "cut-and-paste" move totally erases the edit history of the article.--Caspian blue 19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Full content paste merger" is the approved way to merge articles. If you're worried about the history, you can histmerge. There have been two (2!) consensus votes in favor of putting the page here. If you want to move the article again, proper procedure is to start a page move discussion here and see if you can get consensus for it. Kauffner (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. Why didn't you notify the merge to the communities? Did you get the consensus from "your move proposal ". Not that I know of. You are the one who should one a RM and request the history merge since you have not done with such formal course. Now, I'm restoring the original article.--Caspian blue 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming dispute solution through the merger?

Judging by this 2 and half year belated comment to the past, it is clear that Kauffner (talk · contribs) does not want to add any descriptive word to the title. Thus he does not want to draw readers' attention to the character of the mass killing committed by the US military. However, the almost secret merger is a poor method to resolve the naming dispute. The place is not the same as the incident and any article title should be summary of its content. Moreover you hugely reduced the massacred people's toll. How come the number of 400 people become just 35? If you think that the place, No Gun Ri does not meet the notability guideline, you have to discuss. If a consensus is reached, the article of No Gun Ri could be a redirect page to here. However, the place has inhabitants, a school, memorial park and a future planning to build a "museum" dedicated to the massacre. So I don't see why the page should be merged. --Caspian blue 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't put in the number 35 into the article, but I can tell you where it came from. It's from the book No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident by Robert Bateman. As for the 400 estimate, that's from a North Korean newspaper article. I followed proper procedure when I merged the articles, but you are being quite a bully about this. If you look at the voting from 2006 above, there is a five-to-two majority against using the word "massacre" in the article title. This is the central issue here and the motivation for merger. Wikipedia has plenty of disk space for two articles. A vote on whether "No Gun Ri" should be a redirect misses the point altogether. Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you did not follow any proper procedure at all. You erased the whole 5 year accumulated history of the article. This article was created on 2005, while the No Gun Ri was created April 2008 for the village itself. Bear the valid criticism since I make you acknowledge your mistake. I'm still wondering why you can't answer to my question at all? If you thought that your merger to the wrong article was accepted by others, why did not you notify the projects and even erase the merger suggestion at the talk? That is a cheating. You see, the move discussion happened "3 years ago" and I see anything that comes from 2008 is only "you". You must forget the fact that "consensus" were never reached, so the page has remained at here. I recommend you read WP:Consensus and WP:Vote. Wikipedia is not one-man show.--Caspian blue 06:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There no suggestion in any guideline that a consensus expires after a certain period of time, after which you are free to move material without consulting others. The rule is "silence implies consent," so if others had an opportunity to reply and did not, a consensus can be assumed, regardless of the number of people who voted. There was a vote and an administrator-determined consensus to move the article to "No Gun Ri" in April 2007. So you are going against a consensus expressed on three separate occasions (16 January 2006, 5 April 2007, and 12 December 2008). If you think too much time has past since the last vote, by all means hold another.

You should look at the revision history before making wild accusations against me. The "accumulated history" you refer to was removed by Jac16888 at 15:38, 23 December 2008. Why do you care about some old talk discussion? It's not really "accumulated history" anyway. It is just a tiny part of the endless discussion that occurs on this page that someone arbitraly decided was worth preserving. Kauffner (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You see what you want to see just like your odd interpretation of policies. Give an evidence that you gained a consensus for your sneaky merging. I don't see any such thing. Before your edit, No Gun Ri was just very short stub with one sentence and you began to edit the article not expanding its geographical information. The article at that time was simply "duplication" of this article. Thus, if the two articles be merged, the expanded contents by you had to be merged to here. You reversed such due course and even removed your own merger proposal. It is clear that you made the disguised merger for your pov pushing, so do not bring more implausible excuse any more. Your merging is not indeed merging but simply "renaming the title" without "effort". I see that you once visited WP:RM and clearly know how to rename article titles. You did not want to draw attention from people for your renaming here. That's why you can not answer to my question: Why did not you inform your action to the project pages to get more comments from editors? Our policy says that consensus can be changed any time and of course can be "expire any time" via "discussion". However you freely interpreted the past discussion to use as a ground for the merging/renaming, and then the archiving the old discussion is meaningless? An article is merged into another, editors generally relocate its discussion to the merged article's talked page. Accumulated edit history is a barometer to show what has happened in the article. If I did not remember its existence, your tactic could be covered up until somebody like me brings up. Since you're depending on the absurd claim "silence is consensus" (you induced the "silent renaming), I don't condoning such "cut and paste renaming" which is against our policy. You have to get a consensus with "plausible rationale.--Caspian blue 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you couldn't read revision history and now it seems that you can't even read the guidelines that you yourself cite. "Silence implies consent," is an official Wikipedia policy (as well as being a principle of Roman law). If you think it is absurd, by all means take it up on that page. "Full content paste merge" is also an official policy, i.e. there is no requirement to go to WP:RM. But in fact I did go to WP:RM and obtained a consensus for a page move to "No Gun Ri" back in April 2007. Revision history is the "barometer to show what has happened in the article." Old posts preserved on a talk page may or may not be representative of anything. Once again, I am not the one who removed these posts as you can verify for yourself in the revision history. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You could neither admit your own fault nor properly interpret the policies. Read WP:Consensus again. "Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community." You did not do adequate exposure to the community. Such selective half-quoting is not a good way to explain your behavior. Your merging for renaming the title that you don't like is not "merge". Just disruptive cut-and-paste renaming. Read this policy You should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that.

The article with much older history is the priory article for merging/renaming. If you can provide your rationale for the renaming, I'm not gonna waste more time on this since you don't see what is your problem is.--Caspian blue 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Below is the April 2007 vote, copied from here:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauffner (talk • contribs) 2009-03-02T17:21:54 (UTC)

Again, your selective presentation is not amusing. The diff is sufficient since the past discussion is archived. The very next day, another admin reversed the no-consensus-reached decision. That's why this article has the "massacre" in the title.--Caspian blue 18:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to have a lot of trouble reading the revision history. This article was called "No Gun Ri event" until January 2006. It was then renamed "No Gun Ri." In July 2006, it was renamed "No Gun Ri tragedy." It was moved back to "No Gun Ri" on 09:26, 5 April 2007 following the vote I linked to above. The article stayed there until 21:33, 4 April 2008, i.e. for almost a year. It was then moved to "No Gun Ri massacre" by an admin, but without discussion or explanation. "The very next day" would be 6 April 2007. There is no event recorded for this date. Also, it is not accurate to say "reversed" since the word "massacre" had never been in the title earlier. Kauffner (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had hard time to catch up the history due to your cut-and-paste move and twice deletion of this talk page. I'm reading through the ast discussions and found your hilarious comments like "The claim that the U.S. killed 400 Koreans at NGR is a joke" "Yet his exposure as a fraud didn't stop the AP from winning the Pulitzer Prize". Those denial comments gave me a no-brainer answer for what was your intention for the sneaky move. Given your strong oppostion to using "massacre", I wonder why you did not protest to the admin who moved the article to include "massacre". The other admin who moved the article to exclude "tragedy" was also not based on the 2007 vote consensus as well. Wiping gout the 1000 edits is not a wise choice to rename the article.--Caspian blue 14:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't I protest? I was living in China at that time and Wiki is blocked there. (See the pictures on my homepage.) It's nice of you to care, really. You seem to think that I am obsessed with the article's title, but that's not really my number. You keep making nasty and unfounded allegations against me, so I respond. Kauffner (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No more such nasty personal attack, Kauffner. Who cares about you being in China? Wikipedia kindly instructs people in China as to how they can edit English Wikipedia regardless of the firewall controlled by the RPC. Since you're resorting to "Silence is consensus", you also can agree that the move that did not get any opposition was a "consensus". The move was also based on the division by an anon. I also found the log of No Gun Ri incident and first log of the No Gun Ri[1] which suggests that the current article title is not originally named "No Gun Ri". This main article had mush less contents than No Gun Ri event on the same day before the merging at that time. In old days, Wikiedia did not seem to record every "log" and move". Since you have been complaining about the title so far for over one year and half, your comment is not substantiated. Every action has its "consequence" and I guess you would not repeat the same mistake from the valid criticism. If you want to rename an article, take a formal course. That is my piece of advice.--Caspian blue 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Kauffner on this. This was discussed and rejected. The article should be moved back to No Gun Ri.radek (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to clarify your statement. You're saying you agree with the such sneaky cut-and-paste move without notification or just renaming? I've talked about the former so far. Whenever you find something unsatisfiable from an article, you gotta "discuss" every time, especially articles that deal with controversies. Don't forget that fact that people in the oppose side of you existed. That's why the article was not moved until Kauffner made the alleged "merging" as blanking the article.--Caspian blue 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1. This has already been discussed on several occasions. On each, consensus was not to use the word "massacre"

2. Given that there's quite a bit of controversy about what really happened and that AP retracted some initial claims it's POV to use the word "massacre" - it means taking sides in the debate. This is in contrast to articles on events where there was very clearly a massacre.

3. The move to "No Gun Ri Massacre" was done without a re-initiation of discussion. "When" article was moved is not important. radek (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your comments should have back up "sources". Your support for just using the name of the village and the past discussions do not warrant the cut-and-paste move. In last, there is no consensus to use just "No Gun Ri" either. Whenever the move discussion was held, this article had a descriptive title like "incident or "tragedy". People have moved the article to "No Gun Ri Massacre", "No Gun Ri Incident" or ""No Gun Ri Event". The cut-and-paste move was done without taking a full discussion and notification to the involved communities. I merely restored from such disruptive move to the title which wiped out the edit history. So if you want to rename the article, open a RM and get a consensus. --Caspian blue 18:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the archive?

Huh! So the past discussions are all deleted without archiving? What a poor documentation. Kauffner, with the "discovered" past discussion, you admit yourself that your merging is not "merging", but just cut-and-paste renaming of the title that you don't like. I see that you did not gain a consensus from the 2007 discussion, and you're telling me that your such behaviro was justified? I'm gonna archive the old discussion for new comers. --Caspian blue 17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion archived. I see that your merger proposal was not held in this talk page. Since the article is the main page to describe the incident, your merger notice to the No Gun Ri and removing it are WP:GAME--Caspian blue 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The notice is here. Moves and mergers should be based on the current consensus. You are getting bogged down in procedural trivia. Kauffner (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It did not happened in this main article, and the merger notice should have not deleted if you had nothing to hide. You can't blame me for correcting your procedural wrongdoings. Your cut-and-paste move wiped out the whole edit history of almost 1000 edits of the article. That is not "trivial". You're the one getting bogged down in your own implausible excuses.--Caspian blue 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I "hide" the notice on top of the two article pages, "No Gun Ri" and "No Gun Ri massacre", which have over 150 times the readership of the corresponding talk pages. Kauffner (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can explain this "removal of your own merge proposal" as if nothing ever happened. Besides, your expansion of the stub right before the merging based on the "silence consensus" was quite a noble tactic.--Caspian blue 18:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Updates

This article was a bit of a mess; and included a lot of unsourced material & original research. I've been working with Charles Hanley, one of the original AP journalists, on a new article - which I moved into place today. This is much expanded and based on a wider range of sources. The material does still need work to clean it up a bit - mostly to fit in with our encyclopaedic tone (I intend to do that over the coming days - but if anyone else can help, awesome). However, I have checked the original material and the new copy to make sure nothing has been missed - and I think it is all there. If there are any issues, we'd be happy to fix things. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)