The more research I conduct on my topic, the repatriation of Korean and Chinese POWs during the Cold War, the more information I obtain. This should go without saying. However, this leads to one of the major problems I have with my sources, namely too much information. In class I remember the emphasizes put on the importance of context. Context, which answers the big question, “So, what?”. Why is your paper relevant. My topic being part of the Korean War (that occurred during the early 1950’s) two other major issues that would give my topic some context came to mind: the Cold War and civil rights. The Korean War saw two different presidents in the White House. I found two books, one entirely devoted to President Truman and civil rights and the other Eisenhower and the Cold War. After reading through these I found that the Korean War did effect the Civil Rights Movement. However, the Cold War was the bigger issue on the minds of Americans at the time. So, I found another book by Gaddis (we read a book earlier this semester by him for class) entitled The Cold War. This is my problem at hand now. How much context is too much context? I feel as though I could right eight pages of my ten page paper entirely on events that were effected or affected by repatriation but not repatriation itself. This is a something Dr.Ward brought up in class, students have a problem cutting out information. This is very true. I found loads of awesome information that give my topic context. I know that I will have to cut the majority of this information out of my paper. I do not want to do it. But, it has to be done. Also, my arguments are becoming more focused and they seem to be multiplying. I know I will have to cut out many of my supporting arguments which will be hard to do as well. Basically, too much information. Now it is time to condense and pick out the best information possible,