Talk:Chaplain–Medic massacre

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chaplain-Medic massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I did the usual light copyediting.
• "American soldiers were untrained ..." → How true is this? Did those soldiers not go through a basic training, or infantry school? I have a feeling you don't mean untrained. Rather, you are referring to the fact that they were "green", in which case inexperienced is a better word.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Most of the Americans were out of shape, untrained, undisciplined and used to occupation duty in Japan." → This is related to the above. That they were "out of shape" and undisciplined is clear, but I'm not "untrained" is the right word. All green soldiers are "untrained" relative to those who have combat experience (similarly, soldiers with three years of combat experience are better "trained" than soldiers with one year of combat experience). This relationship is better established as differences in experience, rather than training. That American soldiers were untrained seems to imply that they did not go through any formal training (such as basic training).
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "...a group of men from the NK 3rd Division which had infiltrated the US lines." → For the sake of formality, I think NK should be "North Korean", even if it's repeated.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Felhoelter told Buttery to escape, and as the medic ran, he was shot in the ankle by North Korean fire, though he was able to escape the wound was severely wounded." → This sentence needs work (... "his wound was severely wounded"?)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Regarding the citations, while I figure that linking each and every reference to the book in the bibliography is acceptable by Wikipedia standards, I think it is far better to link only the first use, and then use regular unlinked citations thereafter. Right now, it's kind of hard on the eyes to read those citations because of the heavy linking.
  • Normally I'd be inclined to agree, but my experience in the war crimes and massacre articles people have preferred I cite heavily to be safe. Do you agree? —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not referring to the number of sites, just the citation style. I'm not suggesting you reduce the number of cites, rather reduce the amount of times each reference links to the bibliography. JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Although not necessary for this review, I suggest finding someone to copyedit the article a bit.

Until the above is sorted, I will put this review on hold. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've responded to everything. Let me know. —Ed!^(talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apart from that standing issue with the references (not the references themselves, but that template which links every single reference to its respective book. You should only need to do it once), this article looks good to go. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:44, 14 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.116.163 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Location is completely unclear

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)

Unfortunately our articles on the geography of Korea aren't very comprehensive. Also impacting it could be the Romanization of Korean city names after the war and the remoteness of the area. It's outside of Daejon. —Ed!^(talk) 20:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Aftermath

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattymmoo (talk • contribs) 18:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Article title

The article title (as of today, Chaplain–Medic 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)

As the sources mention it, this is the only name specifically ascribed to it. Since it was called this in the Congressional report I fear it wouldn't be proper to just name the article after the date. —Ed!^(talk) 20:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least I would downcase "medic", so it doesn't look like a proper name. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. The Congressional record capitalized it, but they capitalize everything. —Ed!^(talk) 13:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

So biased

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)

Although I would not adopt the anonymous writer's use of wording here, I too have concerns about whether this article is NPOV. Significantly, the article definitively states that the event was a "massacre" and proclaims it to be a "war crime" as if that were an objective fact. To be clear, my own personal opinion is that it was an abhorent war crime, but I can appreciate that others might not adopt that view, given that what constitutes a "war crime" is no doubt subjective. I would suggest that we use wording along the lines of "widely interpreted as a war crime..." or something of that nature. Given that there is a debate to be had, I shall place an NPOV tag on the article itself. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the concern there is what is the standard for it to really get the title of a "war crime?" All the scholarship describes it by that term — the North Koreans themselves were internally concerned about it, and externally have not said anything about the incident. There's really no serious argument I can find to counter that term. —Ed!^(talk) 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I do appreciate your point when you assert that "All the scholarship describes it by that term...". However, bear in mind that of the eight sources that we are using here in this article, seven are published in the United States, and the other is published in the United Kingdom. Thus, the use of sources here is itself overtly Western-centric and will no doubt represent a pro-U.S. view of the events (on this innate bias through the use of sources, see WP:BIASED). Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

parties from the people's republic or those representing their views are welcome to edit (so long as their edits are well documented). think that's likely to happen any time soon? until then, these are the best sources available.further along that line, and while we strive for npov, this isn't a court of law. we are not bound by rules of evidence. personally, i thought the prk came off about as well as could be expected, i.e. their efforts to counter this behaviour were pretty well described.this is like saying that no documentation of the third reich is cited in the holocaust article. as to the derogatory comments by anonymous,they can hardly be seen as constructive.finally,i would refer him/her to the meta-wiki:don't be a dick.

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)

With due respect, I don't think that your argument supports your initial statement. That a number of international conventions (albeit ones which are typically largely Western-centric and Western-dominated) have defined "war crimes" in a manner of their choosing only goes to show that theirs is a widely held and politically dominant definition, not that it is an objective one. Others will have different opinions on this issue. To cite the Encyclopedia Britannica, "The term war crime has been difficult to define with precision, and its usage has evolved constantly, particularly since the end of World War I." Similarly, the BBC notes that "The concept of war crimes is a recent one. Before World War II, it was generally accepted that the horrors of war were in the nature of war." Statements such as these should make it clear that the concept of "war crimes" is innately subjective.

And once again, I should clarify that I am not trying to act as an apologist for events like the Chaplain-Medic massacre, but simply uphold Wikipedia's NPOV conventions, which I sincerely fear are being violated here. I have a lot of experience with controversial topics here at Wikipedia, having been largely responsible for the present state of the Nelson Mandela, Muammar Gaddafi, and Aleister Crowley pages (all of which I have pulled to GA status); for this reason, I have become particularly sensitive to the Western-centrism of much of Wikipedia. In this particular issue, I think that we should simply state that the event was "widely labelled a war crime" rather than "was a war crime". It's a subtle but important difference. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Midnightblueowl: Your work improving other articles is appreciated. However, since I see that you put the POV tag back. Disclaimer: I'm not personally familiar with the scholarship on this incident. However, Ed! who nominated this for FA presumably is, and claims above "All the scholarship describes it by that term" (war crime). To not mimic the sources and instead to use one Wikipedia editor's opinion would be the reason for a POV tag. Now, if you have sources that dispute this phrasing as "war crime" that were not presented at FAC or that Ed! missed, fine, we can discuss them. Maybe you're right! But if you can't provide any, then what kind of change are you seeking to the article that would allow the POV tag to be removed? Addition of some source (which might not even exist) to provide the "alternate view?" I think the onus is on you to find these sources, myself; it's not fair to ask some other editor to dig up material that you just think might be out there, maybe. If it turns out to exist and be non-fringe, and people refuse to add it to the article, then a POV tag might be warranted. A preemptive POV tag not backed by sources isn't merited.

Also, at risk of pointing out the obvious, the Korean War took place after World War II. (I'd agree with you that terming incidents pre 1900 or so as war crimes is on shakier grounds.) SnowFire (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello SnowFire, and thanks for your response; in the spirit of disclosure I too should clarify that I am no expert on the Korean War. First, I should address your concerns about the inclusion of an NPOV tag on the article itself. Granted, few Wikipedia editors want to see an NPOV tag on an FA, and I for one sure don't. It makes the whole endeavour look a little amateur when those articles which our community has declared to be the best that we have to offer are publicly exposed as having problems, however minor they may be; thus I can appreciate your desire for wanting that tag removed. Despite this, as a longstanding Wikipedia contributor it is my strong belief that in this particular case the NPOV tag is warranted and necessary. Both myself and 81.129.201.72 have come to this page and independently arrived at the conclusion that the lede is written in a manner that contains an intrinsic bias. That two separate individuals – one an anonymous reader and the other an experienced editor – can come to the same conclusion, and explain precisely why they think that, is the reason why (in my opinion) the NPOV tag is completely warranted. By extension to this, I feel that the tag should not be removed until the problems have been resolved here on the talk page.

Your second point is that I should provide reliable sources that testify to the fact that some individuals do not see the Chaplain-Medic massacre as a "war crime". However as a non-expert in the Korean War I cannot provide you with any such source. But I would argue that in this instance that does not matter. It is self-evident that some people are concerned about the statement that the Chaplain-Medic massacre was a "war crime" as if it were an unequivocal and objective fact; myself and 81.129.201.72 are visible proof of this. Furthermore, it is both self-evident and established by other sources that "war crimes" are a subjective term; what one group might interpret as a "war crime" is regarded as a legitimate and legal action by another. Besides this, Wikipedia does not exist to simply mimic sources. We can recognise that a source may well be reliable while at the same time carrying a bias (again I would point you in the direction of WP:BIASED); thus we can accept that the eight Western sources that we use here are reliable, but we must also accept that they are biased in favour of certain viewpoints and uses of terminology, i.e. those which predominate in the West. Quite simply, we are using subjective sources to back up a subjective term, and it is precisely that which has led us to push a (subjective) point of view in this article!

The change which I believe is necessary to bring this article back into the realms of NPOV is really rather minor, and I must admit to being a little surprised as to why there is such opposition to the notion. Anyway, best for now ! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:04, 21 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. —Ed!^(talk) 03:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey Ed!, thanks for your message; I should add that despite my disagreement on the NPOV issue here, you have done a great job in pulling this article up to FA, so congrats and thank you for that! Given that you are amiable to the idea of a minor change, might I suggest that we go with "The Chaplain–Medic massacre took place in the Korean War on July 16, 1950, on a mountain above the village of Tunam, South Korea. Thirty unarmed, critically wounded United States Army soldiers and an unarmed American chaplain were killed by members of the North Korean army during the Battle of Taejon. It was labelled a war crime by the U.S. government and subsequent Western scholarship on the conflict. Does this sound okay to those here ? I'd be particularly interested if 81.129.201.72 could return and offer us their opinion ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm amicable to that. I think it's a fair way of expressing that the sources all agree on this...but that's because one side in the conflict has not put out reliable information on it. —Ed!^(talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The proposed modification implies the North Koreans don't think it was a war crime, or that North Korea is ambivalent about the incident, when the truth is Wikipedia doesn't know what the official North Korean response was, if any. Moreover, if the problem is a general lack of North Korean sources on the incident, that should presumably apply as a disclaimer to everything in the article - the above modification makes it seems like the labeling as a war crime is particularly contentious, but the other details are not. When, again, the actual truth is that we don't know at all the North Korean side of the story, aside from the incident being seemingly played down / ignored.

If this is seen as an issue worthy of being tackled, I'd include a short section 'Historiography' at the end that discusses what scholars thought about the incident over time, and also explicitly notes that North Korean sources don't exist in accessible form. SnowFire (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe that the proposed wording inherently implies that the North Koreans (and we should be clear that there are many different North Koreans, who may have had very different responses to the incident) don't think of it as a war crime. We do not know if the North Korean government deems the incident to be a war crime or not; indeed, I am unsure as to whether they did, and/or still fo, accept the existence of "war crimes" to start with ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment On "I'd be particularly interested if 81.129.201.72 could return and offer us their opinion ?" ... I think that is sadly unlikely. People who use intemperate language like that seem less likely to engage in debate once they've blown off steam a bit. To then come back and express a (?more reasoned) opinion is almost going to feel like an apology or climbdown, which is a little difficult once you have told people their work is jingoistic garbage, high-school essay style in a so-called encyclopaedia, yadda yadda. An ting. It would be great if they did, and perhaps rediscovered their manners while doing so, but while I'd be pleased to be proven wrong on both counts I am not holding my breath. :( DBaK (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I sadly fear that you are correct, DBaK... Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:01, 28 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:

• The point of WP:NPOV is to represent all significant view points without bias (and WP:OR also states those POV must also be published), but it does not state that all significant parties must publish their view point to the world before it is deemed NPOV. As such, I believe enforcement of NPOV policy here without offering contrary published POV from North Korea is outside the intended scope of policy, and it is creating unnecessary road block that is counter productive to editing.
• As for the concern that editor did not try to seek out North Korean POV before writing the article, technically this is under the area of WP:AGF. However, if it is proven that an editor has access for North Korean POV and actively trying to exclude it, then we have a NPOV policy breech here.

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)

This is reasonable to me. —Ed!^(talk) 23:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chaplain–Medic 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111028051833/http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/VisitorInformation/MonumentMemorials/ChaplainsHill.aspx to http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/VisitorInformation/MonumentMemorials/ChaplainsHill.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)