Talk:Massacre at Huế/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

My add

Some details, which i revert:

ARVN repeatedly refused to journalist's demanded to see the graves, for example, a French photographer Marc Riboud, when he travelled to the alleged site, the helicopter's pilot refused to land, claiming that the area was "insecure." Riboud never saw the site, and he claimed the map coordinates of the grave sites was not resembling the one described by South Vietnamese officer.

Moreover, many of the ARVN reports have contradictions on the number of bodies that were uncovered. At the Gia Hoi High School sites, Stewart Harris, of the London Times, reported the total bodies between 66 and 150, instead 200 bodies as American officer's report. ARVN's Tenth Political Warfare Battalion said there were 14 graves at the high school instead of 22, which would have reduced the total still further. Harris had taken the trouble to look at some of the graves and see the mutilated bodies. However, Harris claimed the number executed - only 200. In 1974, Porter wrote a detailed criticism of U.S. Information Agency official Douglas Pike's account of the "Massacre at Hu? during the Tet Offensive." Porter claimed that Pike manipulated official figures to make it appear that over 2,800 civilians were murdered by the Viet Cong, and the numbers and causes of death were actually much different. He asserted that Douglas Pike was a "media manipulator par excellence," working in collusion with the ARVN 10th Political Warfare Battalion to manufacture the story of the massacre at the direction of Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker. Additionally, he claimed that Pike overestimated the number of those killed by the VC cadres and that "thousands" of civilians killed in Hue "were in fact victims of American air power and of the ground fighting that raged in the hamlets, rather than NLF execution." His conclusion: "The official story of an indiscriminate slaughter of those who were considered to be unsympathetic to the NLF is a complete fabrication.".

Porter is completely unreliable. I have proven this. Go back and read what I wrote. He cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia. Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Writer Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong describes the events of the Hue massacre. He said: "The majority of these people who got killed and buried in this city, first of all, had been killed by the American bombing and strafing during the counterattacks... Bodies of Liberation soldiers whom we did not have time to retrieve were also taken to the mass graves... During the period from 1975—1977, we discovered that in the mass graves of the so-called massacre victims there were full of people who were wearing the lotus-shaped hats and wearing Liberation forces’ uniforms..."

This account is completely contradicted by the manifest evidence developed by serveral writers, including Alje Vennema. It's nothing but communist propaganda. It should not be in the article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

All of them have a reliable source (U.S. goverment's Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress, New York Times, WGBH's link), and no reason to remove them113.190.46.114 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No, they are not reliable sources. Porter is not reliable. Hoang is not reliable. Stewart Harris' report doesn't dispute anything. His report predates the vast majority of the discoveries of bodies. There were 2.5 times that many bodies at Da Mai Creek alone, and those are, without dispute, all murders by PAVN/PLAF troops. Clearly Harris' early report has no place in an article that attempts to define the history of the event.

You've reverted a great deal of work without discussion, without any explanation and without justification. Please do not do it again, or you will be reported. Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Various edits I've made

I edited the 4th paragraph of the eyewitnesses section. The original read "In an interview with Ho Ty, a VC commander who took part in the advanced planning of a general uprising, Oberdorfer reported Ty's statement that the Communist party "was particularly anxious to get those people at Phucam... The Catholics were considered particular enemies of ours." It was apparently this group whose remains were later found in the Da Mai Creek bed.[12] The murders of 500 people at Da Mai were authorized by PRG command "on grounds that the victims had been traitors to the revolution." I thought it was awkwardly worded so I changed it as follows: "Oberdorfer interviewed Ho Ty, a VC commander who took part in the advanced planning of a general uprising. He reported that Ty recounted that the Communist party "was particularly anxious to get those people at Phucam..." --Txantimedia (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved some things around. I put the Bui Tin paragraph in Dispute and Denial, moved the two paragraphs about NVA documents into the Documents section and removed a sentence about Radio Hanoi that was cited again later in the same section. Hopefully all of this work will make the article more readable and easier to understand. --Txantimedia (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should Discovery be moved?

I'm thinking that the Discovery section should precede the Executions and Dispute and Denial sections. Make sense? --Txantimedia (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Discovery" already precedes "Dispute and Denial". Why would it come before the killings (and "communist preliminary occupation plans") themselves?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking that Discovery tells about how the story first unfolded. Then the Executions section reveals everything that's been learned; from captured documents, from public communications, from defectors, from eye witnesses, from exhumations, etc; Then Dispute and Denial describes those who disagree with the findings. --Txantimedia (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather keep it chronological, but I am open to other opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me think about it some more. --Txantimedia (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about new sources

In my research I have found convincing evidence that Oriana Fallaci's account of "at least 200 people, and perhaps as many as 1,100, who were killed following the "liberation" of Huế by the US and ARVN." is most likely a false story planted by a communist agent.

She writes "After the ‘Liberation,’ at least 200 who were suspected of being Vietcong or of having collaborated with the Vietcong were killed by the South Vietnamese. Without even a summary trial, without any exact accusation. Some machine gun bursts and that was that. The massacre began as soon as the Marines had taken the Imperial Palace, and it’s only the corpses of those 200 that have been recovered.. Altogether, there have been 1,100 killed. Mostly students, university teachers, priests. Intellectuals and religious people at Hue have never hidden there sympathy fro the NLF.”

There are several problems with this story.

1. The Marines never took the Imperial Palace. That job was given to the 2nd Battalion 3rd Armored Regiment ARVN. They took the palace on the morning of February 24th. The Battle for Hue, 1968, 08 March 1965, Folder 02, Box 01, James Willbanks Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 10 May. 2014. <http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/virtualarchive/items.php?item=3400102005>. 34
2. On Feb 21 the NYT reported that the Mayor of Hue had announced that there would be executions of VC collaborators within 2 days. HUE CHIEF ISSUES EXECUTION ORDER: Mayor Says Some Enemy Agents Face ... By The Associated Press New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 21, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 1
3. On Feb 22 the NYT reported that the Mayor had been overridden by General Lam, who stated that there would be no executions without military tribunals first. They also reported that there were 200 collaborators in custody, 30 of whom they suspected of being high-ranking communist officials. Court Planned in Hue To Try Enemy Agents New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 22, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 11
4. On Feb 23 the NYT reported that Brig. Gen. Loan had arrived in Hue to interrogate the prisoners. Gen. Loan Off to Hue To Question Suspects New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 23, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 3
5. On March 28 Stewart Harris of the London Times, reporting in the NYT reported that the authorities had 477 VC and NVA in custody and "nearly 300" collaborators. In Hue, Graves Disclose Executions by the Enemy New York Times (1923-Current file); Mar 28, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851 2010) pg. 4

So the executions supposedly began two days AFTER orders had been given that no one would be executed without a military trial. After an extensive search of the NYT, WaPo and the Dallas Morning News, I found no corroborating evidence to support Fallaci's story. A review of existing literature uncovered three mentions of the story; in Karnow's Vietnam (pg. 519), Marilyn Young's The Vietnam Wars (pg. 219) and Scott Laderman's Tours of Vietnam. Neither Karnow nor Young provide any corroborating evidence or cite any source for the claim. Laderman cites Fallaci, Karnow and Young.

I also contacted someone, who wishes to remain an anonymous source and so cannot be used here, who was in a position to know if assassinations of collaborators were being conducted in Hue by the South Vietnamese. He told me that he was not aware of any such action and doubted that it had occurred. He said that the snipers that he captured where turned over the Provincial Interrogation Center. He was one of the people who searching for missing Americans and was an eyewitness of the disinterment of Stephen Miller, the US A.I.D. employee who was murdered by the VC/NVA.

This looks for all the world like a self-sustaining rumor that was never adequately investigated. The single source is Fallaci's interview of a supposed priest. Nothing else corroborates the story, and existing evidence refutes it.

The problem I have is that I don't know what to do with it. Fallaci's report is a legitimate cite. Is it appropriate to provide refutation along with it? That seems a little odd given that the Fallaci quote is in the Dispute and denial section.

Should I create a new article that deals with it? It seems a side issue to the massacre, but OTOH, it is part of the article.

Any advice would be appreciated. --Txantimedia (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

dig +short -x 113.190.46.114 dynamic.vdc.vn. has started reverting without discussion

He has added all of the cites I removed after discussion in talk. He did this without any warning or discussion with anyone.

First of all, Porter is not a reliable source. There are multiple verifiable lies in his articles, which I have documented previously and may be read in previous talk discussions. No cites for Porter should appear in this article due to the proven unreliability of his information.

Secondly, the section on writer Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong is clearly communist propaganda that is in disagreement with all of the major sources. It should not be included. User:113.190.46.114 you are invited to discuss these issues before you make any more changes. Txantimedia (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will add a new source, it is George Mason University's History News Network (see that http://hnn.us/article/23641)42.113.103.248 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

New source for what? If you're referring to the no massacre myth, Laderman provides no new evidence and merely quotes and cites previous writers like Porter and Young in his works. In this article he does neither. He simply claims, without evidence, that the bloodbath stores were false. That's not evidence worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am opposed to this addition, certainly without further discussion from other involved editors. --Txantimedia (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"He simply claims, without evidence" - Now, we see that:

5 Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam, 2-3. Excerpts from Hosmer and Honey’s studies were reprinted in the document; their estimates appeared on pages 62-63 and 112, respectively. Eastland’s statement that “virtually every serious student of Vietnamese affairs” was in agreement about the “bloodbath” hypothesis was and is demonstrably false. While the word “virtually” admittedly lent the statement a certain degree of ambiguity, many academic scholars of Vietnam and Asia had challenged, in the years preceding the senator’s allegation, the likelihood of a massive bloodletting following an American defeat. In May 1970, for instance, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars issued “Twelve Questions on Vietnam,” a document intended to respond to some of the basic questions about the war that the organization believed were being clouded by official misinformation. One of the questions specifically addressed the bloodbath theory; the scholars concluded that, “looking at the question in historical perspective, there is reason to doubt the likelihood of a bloodbath.” The same section of the document also took issue with the Nixon administration’s statements about the “Hue Massacre.” Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, Cornell University, “Twelve Questions on Vietnam,” May 1970, Folder 06, Box 08, Douglas Pike Collection: Unit 03 – Antiwar Activities, V.A., T.T.U. - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/23641#sthash.QSCleqeR.dpuf

That our evidences. So, your reason was gone?113.190.46.114 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not evidence. It's Porter's testimony before Congress. I have already shown that Porter lies about his sources and mistranslates documents. Furthermore, Porter is referring here to the bloodbath in North Vietnam during land reform, not the Massacre in Hue. As such, it belongs in that section, not here, if it belongs on Wikipedia at all. The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars is a Marxist organization that was clearly pro-Hanoi and biased in their presentation of "evidence". Porter was Chairman of the Cornell chapter. That should tell you something about his supposed neutrality. Porter lied about the North Vietnam land reform, lied about Hue and lied about the bloodbath theory. --Txantimedia (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We are telling about The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars's document. It's a Marxist organization, maybe, but it isn't a reason. "that was clearly pro-Hano" - it's only your view. Their works are verifiable and reliable and shouldn't be discounted just because they don't fit a certain point of view. Ok113.190.46.134 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

If that's true, then all of Hanoi's opinions should be included in the article. Does that make any sense to you? I thought wikipedia articles were supposed to be about facts, not propaganda. If Hanoi's opinions had any relation to the truth, with regard to this article, then they should certainly be included. But time and evidence have proven (in my opinion conclusively) that Hanoi lied about the massacre. Therefore, their POV is not NPOV and should not be included. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see that: http://hnn.us/article/23641. Is this a reliable source?

You should be aware, if you aren't already, that the IP with whom you are engaging is MiG29VN logged-out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that. So long as he doesn't arbitrarily revert without discussion, I have no problem with him wanting to engage on the details of the article. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to engage an indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer, but the only reason he has continued to edit Tet Offensive while making no edits here is because this page was protected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't actually need administrative help with this - any editor can comment on the reliability of sources. If you just need a third opinion, the best template to use is just {{helpme}} - or better yet ask for a third opinion directly or (for an issue like this) file a notice at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. However, since you asked: I would say that the HNN article meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. It is published through a medium with editorial oversight, hosted by a recognised educational institution, and written by a professional historian with appropriate academic qualifications.

That said, my opinion in this is no more valid than any other editor's, and the admin bit is entirely irrelevant to both the question and my response. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I agree that HNN is a reliable source. The problem I have with this particular article is two-fold. First, the author is relying on Porter for his information, and Porter is clearly an unreliable source. Secondly, the article is about the North Vietnam land reform not the Hue Massacre. I fail to see its relevance to this article. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking for cites

I added citation needed to these two paragraphs under Course of the Occupation:

Ordinary civil servants who worked for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the communists, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed. There are documented cases of individuals who were executed by the VC when they tried to hide or otherwise resisted during the early stages of Huế's occupation.[citation needed]

Within days of the capture, US Marine Corps (USMC) and US Army as well as ARVN infantry units were dispatched to counterattack and recaptured the city after weeks of fierce fighting, during which the city and its outlying areas were exposed to repeated shelling from US Navy ships off the coast and numerous bombing runs by U.S. aircraft. It was reported that during the USMC and ARVN attack, North Vietnam's forces had rounded up those individuals whose names it had previously collected and had them executed or sent North for "reeducation".[citation needed]

I'll try to find supporting cites, but I wasn't comfortable with these not being cited. Txantimedia (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I found cites for both and added them. --Txantimedia (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the quotes of communist orders and after action reports be bolded? Or is that not NPOV? --Txantimedia (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will leave them as they are now. --Txantimedia (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliability Of Counterpunch

Is Counterpunch reliable? I don't think it is. This recent article denies the massacre ever happened, even though it is widely documented that it did. It seems to deny atrocities committed by the Viet Cong. 173.67.106.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Its clearly WP:BIASED regards Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The post is short of North Vietnam opinions. Most of them comes from perspective of USA and South Vietnam authorities, make this like a anti-NVA propaganda post. At least add the controvesary opinions. Actually there're documents about this event, but none of them are really reliable and prove that all the victims die from NVA butcher. There are tons of causes could leads to these deaths, especially US bombing and the gun fights between two armies. No one, even the witnesses (as they could lie), could be reliable source to generalise a vast region and event. Need more opinions besides USs and SV authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.229.168.85 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present facts,not opinions. The facts in this article are well documented and from multiple eye witnesses. The claim that the causes were US bombing or gun fights between the combatants have been thoroughly disproven and have no place in a Wikipedia article. Additionally, disagreements from credentialed scholars are presented in the article, without comment, to demonstrate that there is disagreement on the number of victims. There is no disagreement among scholars that a massacre occurred. The only disagreement is regarding the size of the massacre.

People who are unearthed from graves with rags stuffed in their mouths and no visible wounds, as well as hands tied behind their backs, are not evidence of death from bombing or firefights.

If you have factual evidence to present, provide it. Opinions are not evidence. Txantimedia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Added talkref. Please place any additional discussion topics above the below line.

References

Txantimedia (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this source usable?

This I found this book by Noam Chomsky claimed that the whole thing was American propaganda. Is it okay to be used as a source for additional information in the Dispute section? Nmphuong91 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Chomsky is not a reliable source. Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Why? Nmphuong91 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

He's not a historian, and he is a proven liar. Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Avram Noam Chomsky (US: /ævˈrɑːm ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/ (About this sound listen) av-RAHM NOHM CHOM-skee; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist." So say our own Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia shouldn't contradict itself. What is your source to back up your claim? Beside, I would like to discuss reliable source according to Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Currently, I haven't found any rule that claim "proven liar" is not a reliable source. Nmphuong91 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a historian. That is his profession. He has written books that purport to be history, but historians have demonstrated that his books are not accurate and no credentialed journal has ever reviewed his books. More to the point, his claim that the massacre was propaganda is proven false by the facts. The Dispute section includes historians who disagree on details of the massacre but not on the proven fact that the massacre occurred. Chomsky claims it never happened, which is provably false. Txantimedia (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"The Dispute section includes historians who disagree on details of the massacre but not on the proven fact that the massacre occurred.". Then adding Chomsky's view would be a great improvement to the section and the article? Nmphuong91 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. If it makes sense to you, then ask for consensus, per Wikipedia:Consensus. I vote no to adding it. Txantimedia (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." Consensus is not a vote. You haven't really pointed out why would it doesn't make sense, according to Wikipedia policy. What you said about Noam Chomsky is unsourced, nor it would in violation of Wikipedia policy even if that were true according to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship. It would be impossible to reach consensus if the dispute is Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it#Because_I_say_so. Can you try to make your point again, this time point out what exactly is the problem according to Wikipedia policy with source to properly back up your claim? Nmphuong91 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You are the one proposing this. The onus is on you to demonstrate why it should be added. Wikipedia is built on facts and reliable sources. Chomsky is neither. He is no more reliable than Counterpunch, which, if you read previous talk page discussions, has been rejected because it's not a reliable source. See WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:BIASED and WP:RS/AC. Chomsky fails every one of those tests. As for facts, it is a fact that the massacre occurred. No reliable scholar disputes that. Chomsky does. That should be sufficient to reject his opinions for this article. The dispute system includes scholars who agree with the academic consensus but disagree on details. Chomsky disagrees with the academic consensus. Do a Google search for Chomsky on Wikipedia. You won't find one article where he is cited as a source, except for articles about him. Read this: Political positions of Noam Chomsky Either ask for consensus or give it up. Txantimedia (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It should be added because it met Wikipedia policy, isn't that enough demonstration? If both you and I do not demonstrate anything, I will just go ahead and add it in. Therefore, it's up to you to demonstrate why I shouldn't do that. Now, I will try to answer your concern.

1. He is no more reliable than Counterpunch. [citation needed]

2. WP:RSCONTEXT. A book published by South End Press in 1979. That shouldn't be a problem.

3. WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Met the condition "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable

4. WP:BIASED. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

5. "As for facts, it is a fact that the massacre occurred. No reliable scholar disputes that. Chomsky does. That should be sufficient to reject his opinions for this article." [citation needed]

6. "The dispute system includes scholars who agree with the academic consensus but disagree on details. Chomsky disagrees with the academic consensus." A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. So, [citation needed]

The few last sentence are not concern to be addressed, is that right? If they are, I will address it the next time. Nmphuong91 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bias Article?

Why does the main editor of this article disapprove any articles or sources claiming that's the size of the massacare was way less or no massacre happened? Please provide pictures instead of adding up and making up numbers.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.160.26.207 (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous reliable sources that a massacre of several thousand South Vietnamese took place. If you can find any WP:RS that contradicts this please feel free to add it. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As @Mztourist states, there are many reliable sources that document the massacre. Those who disagree must find eqaully weighted proof that no massacre occurred. The doubters are noted in the article. And their arguments have all been disproven by the evidence. There is photographic proof of the victims of the Dai Mai creek massacre and that alone disproves many of the doubters. Txantimedia (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But when there are sources, you claim those to be false? You use sources from US Armies but denied other sources that claim the opposite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.160.26.117 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to show that they are WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The massacre is a fact, with or without publication of numbers of massacred people, with or without the publication of pictures. Any doubt/denial about the existence of the massacre at Hue would mean ultimately an affont to the victims of the massacre as well as to the loved ones of the victims. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits

Someone recently anonmyously edited the Infobox, using an IP address based in New Jersey, to include, under perpetrators, "ARVN (alleged)" and claimed that the reason for the edit was "(according to dispute section)". There is nothing in the dispute section alleging that anyone has credibly claimed that the massacre was conducted by the ARVN. I have reverted the change. Please do not change it again without first discussing the reason for the change here in the talk section and providing supporting documentation as well as agreement from other editors. Any further attempts to deface the article will be reported. Txantimedia (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

3/29/2022 - 2402:800:6114:22D8:C034:B526:E6DD:77FE - This IP is based in Hanoi

Whoever this is, please stop changing the infobox on this page without first discussing it on the talk page with the editors who maintain this page. Your change has been reverted because it contained false information. Txantimedia (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Uwe Siemon-Netto

"Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there. Those of us who had wanted to find out knew of the evil nature of the Hanoi regime. We knew that, in 1956, close to 50,000 peasants were executed in North Vietnam. [As Nguyen Manh Tuong stated at the 1956 National Congress in Hanoi: 'It is better to kill 10 innocent people then let one enemy escape.'] We knew that after the division of the country nearly 1 million North Vietnamese had fled to the South.

"Many of us have seen the tortured and carved-up bodies of men, women and children executed by the Viet Cong in the early phases of the war. And many of us saw, in 1968, the mass graves of Hue, saw [take note, Mr. Patterson] the corpses of thousands of civilians still festively dressed for Tet, the Vietnamese New Year. Why, for Heavens sake, did we not report these expressions of deliberate North Vietnamese strategy at least as extensively as of the Mai Lai massacre and other such isolated incidents that were definitely not part of the U.S. policy in Viet Nam?

"What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre? Why did we ignore the fact that the man responsible for the executions of 50,000 peasants, Truong Chinh, was — and still is — one of the most powerful figures in Hanoi? What made us think that he and his comrades would have mercy for the vanquished South Vietnamese? What compelled, for example, Anthony Lewis shortly after the fall of Saigon to pat himself on the shoulder and write, "so much for the talk of a massacre?' True, no Cambodian-style massacre took place in Vietnam. It's just that Hanoi coolly drives its ethnic Chinese opponents into the sea. That's what Nasser threatened to do to the Israelis, no massacre intended, of course.

"Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive? Did we not turn public opinion against them, portraying them, as one singularly ignoble cartoon did in the United States, as a bunch of pimps, whores, war profiteers, corrupt generals or, at best, outright reactionaries?

"Considering that today's Vietnam tragedy may have a lot to do with the way we reported yesterday's Vietnam tragedy; considering that we journalists might have our fair share of guilt for the inhuman way the world treats those who are being expelled by an inhuman regime which some of us had pictured as heroic, I think at least a little humility would be in order for us old Viet Nam hands, Mr. Lewis included. And if I did not strongly believe in everybody's right of free expression at any time, I would even admonish him to keep quiet about Indo-China, at least for a while".

How can this be worked into the article? TDC 19:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should this even be worked into the article? It would be largely redundant, and fit better in a biased news article than a (theoretically) neutral wikipedia page. Lucydesu (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Ben Kiernan source

In the introduction there is a reference to the book "Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present" This book has been heavily criticized for its sources, and has all red flags of a propaganda piece. I don't think it has any place on this website. Lucydesu (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not aware of those criticisms. You would need to raise that on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I too was unaware of those criticisms. I read the Wikipedia article on Kiernan, and there seems to be some justification for criticism of this specific book. Given that the quote taken from the book agrees with the known facts of the massacre, I'm not sure it's worth quibbling over. The only thing I would take issue with is the use of the word "probably". I think it is the largest atrocity of the war - at least the largest known and documented. Txantimedia (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it seems that there is one negative review of the book noted on the Ben Kiernan page and so that doesn't seem to justify discarding it as a source especially when it is only used once for a frankly undeniable, assessment of the massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)