Talk:No Gun Ri massacre

'Colonel Mitchum'

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

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

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

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

Picasso

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

Timeline Comment

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)

Yes, Compassionate727, the lead confuses by saying the massacre account was found to be correct, and then saying there was an official investigation (which found it to be correct). That first sentence is superfluous, including the mention of undefined "disputed details," secondary matters that emerge in specific form later in the body. I will clarify the lead. Meantime, if you can point to other passages that you believe confuse the timeline, please advise. Thank you. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Undoing edits

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)

New "Testimonials" section

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:

• The point that “G.I.s had spoken out” in support is made in the Intro, in the “Events of July 25” section and in the “Associated Press story” section.
• Soldier “testimonials” are included in the “Events of July 25” section, the “Associated Press story” section and in the “South Korean report” section. Tinkler’s full “annihilated” quote is in that SK report section.
• Korean survivor statements are cited extensively in the “Events of July 25” section.
• The issue of “gunfire out” from the tunnels is dealt with in the "U.S. report" and “South Korean report” sections, the latter noting that only three of 52 veterans interviewed claimed such, “and then inconsistently.”
• Finally, Edward L. Daily, whom you quote in your edit, was later discredited as an eyewitness. His information was second-hand. (A reread will inform you of that, in the “AP story” section.)

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)

With only one notable Exception; "Edward L. Daily". Is there any mentions to all other specific quotes i added? Like one veteran recalling his captain saying "hell with these people, we should get rid of them all". Or the specific quote from a survivor according to a reliable source, saying "the soldiers played with us like boys playing with flies". Those historically important quotes are missing. Given this is an encyclopedia, I feel they should be added in as many verified quotes are currently not there at all but important. The reason for the chapter is so people can read the full unadulterated quotes from verified survivors and veterans as it is right to know for historic purposes, the exact words they used in their testimonials.

TheUntamedBig (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens and dozens of published quotes out there from survivors and ex-soldiers describing the NGR event. The article, very long as it is, distills them into a number of essential quotes. As for the “get rid of them” quote, please see the second paragraph of the “Events of July 25” section, in which soldiers recall orders. Footnote 18 there then extensively quotes a soldier to that effect. To accommodate, however, I will incorporate the woman’s “like flies” quote in the “Events” section when I undo (later today). Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The reworking of the lead

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)

Sounds good toobigtokale (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles J. Hanley (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)