Talk:Massacre at Hue/Archive 1

message: TDC: there was a massacre in Hue.
All the others: there is no proof, the only source is the South Vietnam government.
TDC:  All the others are lying leftist pieces of shit.
It is disputed. GhePeU 16:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Resumé of this talk page

message: "The 2/5th Marines took back Hue in February 1968, thats why the army had so little involvement in it."
::False.  I'm sure the 1st and 7th Cavalry divisions and the 2nd Battalion of the 501st Infantry would love to debate that with you.
"The picture was sent to me by someone in the 2/5th who took the photo."  
::Doubtful.  That same picture can be found at numerous websites, some describing, ironically enough, South Vietnamese attrocities.  Would it be possible to have this "someone in the 2/5th" verify that he took the photo, and more importantly, describe when and where it was taken?  I won't hold my breath.
"Gareth Porter did a hatchet piece on Hue, in which he basically calls it a lie, but he himself has quite a bit of reason to lie about it."
::Interesting opinion.  But wait, no actual specifics about what Porter may have lied about?  Of course not.
"It also took place around the time of Mi Lai, and was therefore overshadowed by the massive media attention around that."
::Ridiculous.  While both events did happen within months of each other, Mi Lai (or as the rest of us refer to it, My Lai) was successfully covered up for more than a year before it became a media event, while the details (facts as well as propaganda) of the battles of Tet went to press almost immediately, including the discovery of "mass graves" and "executed individuals."  Nice try, though.
"No “serious” source on what happened at Hue will deny that a massacre of several thousand took place. Former Vietcong Troung Nhu Tang admits to as much in his memoirs."
::Good ol' Troung Nhu Tang.  Perhaps we should look at the memoirs of his 2nd cousin, Truong Nhu Tang, where we see that he acknowledges that "some" locals were executed, and "thousands died" during the seige of the city, but not once does he suggest that "thousands were executed."  In fact, he also notes the horrible damage and death caused by bombing and close air support.  This "Troung" guy you mention sounds like an interesting character, however - can you quote him directly?
"This whole incident should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with NVA tactics. In December of 1967 the NVA wiped out the Degar of Dak Sok killing several hundred villagers."
::Anyone can play this game.  Is it my turn?  This whole incident should not come as a surprise to anyone familiar with American tactics. In March of 1968 the USA wiped out the hamlets of My Lai killing several hundred villagers.  Your turn!
:::(Question: Where exactly is Dak Sok?  Is it near Dak Sak, by chance?)
"Porter is a lying piece of shit apologist for any shade of Maoist under the sun...yada yada yada..."
::Again, you slam a source, while carefully avoiding addressing the actual information.  Need you be reminded that a fact is a fact, regardless of how you feel about the person presenting that fact?  Try confronting the information, not the person and his biases, and explain why you feel that information is inaccurate or incomplete.  You'll note that much of what Porter says in his "hatchet piece" is actually relayed information from numerous other sources, and not of his own creation.
"Where can I find particulars about this 1974 South Vietnamese documentary that was shown at Fort Benning? TIA."
::Inquiring minds want to know.  It is not surprising that this question has been totally ignored.  Anyone have the particulars?  Again, I won't hold my breath.
"History vs. the Left's "history" of disinformation at Hue, Tet, 1968"
::What follows this header are several humorous paragraphs where the editor rambles on about Porter's biases, and the scholarship of Porter's work regarding the unrelated topic of the Khmer Rouge -- again, without daring to touch the actual information presented by Porter regarding Hue.  I found it difficult to maintain a straight face once he cited right-wingnut David Horowitz's Discover The Network .  Yes, grasshoppah, your biased google is very strong, but my biased google is strongah!  What a riot.  
"Stop the drive-bys..."
::J. Michaels drives by several times to remind other editors not to "drive by."  I couldn't discern much more of this editor's postition, except that he feels information from the North must be biased, while information from the South couldn't possibly be biased.  After all, 20-20 hindsight has shown us all that the both the South Vietnamese government as well as the U.S. backing government are pristine examples of forthright and transparent governments that wouldn't dare stoop to propagandizing an event such as the Tet Offensives toward their favor.  Editor Michaels also appears to be fond of mischaracterising Porter as "your only source," when Porter isn't the source at all - just another editor.  Most of the actual sources are listed at the end of Porter's piece:
:::1 For a study of the earlier underpinnings of this strategy, see D. Gareth Porter, "Bloodbath; Myth or Reality?" Indochina Chronicle No. 19, September 15, 1973. 
:::2 Joseph Dees, "Survivors Relate Communist Mass Murders of 1,000 in Hue," IPS (USIS) dispatch, April 23, 1968. 
:::3 New York Times, May 1, 1968; Washington Post, May 1, 1968. 
:::4 Vietnam Press, May 1, 1968. The UPI story on the report indicated that it was based solely on information supplied by the police, failing to mention the role of the Political Warfare Battalion. Washington Post, May 1, 1968. The New York Times did not mention the source of the information. It is safe to say, therefore, that no American newspaper reader learned that the ARVN Tenth Political Warfare Battalion played the key role in compiling the story. 
:::5 New York Times, February 29, 1968. 
:::6 Le Monde, April 13, 1968. 
:::7 "Chronology of Graves Discovered, Vicinity of Hue (Civilian Deaths in Tet 1968)," obtained from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, February 1970. 
:::8 New York Times, March 28, 1968. 
:::9 "Chronology of Graves Discovered." 
:::10 New York Times, March 28, 1968. 
:::11 Vu Cuong Sat cua Viet Cong tai Co Do Hue (Communist Murder in Hue), Tenth Political Warfare Battalion of ARVN, 1968, p.13. 
:::12 Alje Vennema, "The Tragedy of Hue," unpublished manuscript, 1968, pp. 19-23. 
:::13 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," site 22. 
:::14 "Villagers Returning to Hue," UPI, in San Francisco Chronicle, December 8, 1968; "South Vietnamese Farmer Stoically Works Fields," Washington Post, January 4, 1970. 
:::15 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," sites 21, 13 and 14. 
:::16 Tien Tuyen, January 27, 1969. 
:::17 Tien Tuyen, May 3, 1969. 
:::18 Ibid. 
:::19 Vietnam Press, April 12, 1969. 
:::20 Washington Post, May 5, 1969. 
:::21 "Chronology of Graves Discovered," site 25. 
:::22 Douglas Pike, The Viet-Cong Strategy of Terror (Saigon: U.S. Mission, Vietnam, 1970), p. 29. 
:::23 Baltimore Sun, October 12, 1969. 
:::24 Tien Tuyen, October 17, 1969. 
:::25 Pike, op. cit., pp. 28-29. 
:::26 "Chronology of Graves Discovered." 
:::27 Embassy of Viet-Nam, Washington, D.C., Vietnam Bulletin, Viet- Nam Information Series, No. 28, April, 1970, p. 6. 
:::28 Agence France-Presse dispatch, February 15, 1968, in L'Heure Decisive (Paris: Dossiers AFP-Laffont, 1968), p. 153. 
:::29 Ibid. 
:::30 Vietnam Bulletin, loc. cit. 
:::31 This is what Pike told Benedict Stavis of Cornell University in an interview on September 10, 1973. Letter from Stavis to the author, September 10, 1973. 
:::32 Washington Post, November 25, 1969. 
:::33 Christian Science Monitor, December 1, 1969. 
:::34 "Tien Chien Thang Hue tu Ngay 31.1, 23.3" (Information on the Victory in Hue from January 31 to March 23), xerox copy obtained from the Combined Documents Exploitation Center, Saigon. The document, it should be noted, is far from being a high-level report or analysis of the Tet Offensive in Hue. It is handwritten, sketchy, and clearly done at the local level for local consumption. 
:::35 Nhan Dan, February 28, 1968. 
:::36 Tu Dien Tieng Viet (Vietnamese Language Dictionary) (Hanoi: Nha Xuat Ban Khoa Hoc, 1967), p. 927. 
:::37 Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1969; Washington Daily News, November 25, 1969. 
:::38 Pike, op. cit., p. 16; news articles cited above. 
:::39 The paragraph immediately preceding Pike's mention of the document refers to a whole class of villagers being "wiped out," op. cit. 
:::40 "15 Tieu Chuan Cuu Tap" (Fifteen Criteria for Investigation), xerox copy obtained from U.S. Embassy, Saigon. This document is reproduced in Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Document No. 97, August 1971, Part II. 
:::41 "Repressing Counterrevolutionaries: The Viet Cong System of Punishment," Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Document No. 5, October 1967. 
:::42 Washington Daily News, November 5, 1969. Chuyen gave the figure of three million in the Los Angeles Times, November 20, 1969. 
:::43 In the report on the interrogation of Chuyen, the interrogator pointedly put question marks after the rank and past assignments in the VPA claimed by Chuyen. U.S. State Department, Captured Documents and Interrogation Reports (1968), item no. 55, "Interrogation of Le Xuan Chuyen." 
:::44 Ibid. 
:::45 Speech by Tran Van Do, Troi Nam, No. 3, 1967, p. 13. 
:::46 Vo Van Chan, The Policy of Greater Unity of the People (Saigon: Minister of Chieu Hoi, Republic of Vietnam, 1971), p. 19. 
:::47 See Pike, op. cit., p. 18; Sir Robert Thompson, "Communist Atrocities in Vietnam," New York Times, June 15, 1972. 
:::48 "Letter from Vietnam," The New Yorker, March 23, 1968. 
:::49 Washington Daily News, March 1, 1968. 
:::50 "Status of Refugees," official report by Office of Refugees, U.S. Agency for International Development, May 2, 1968. 
:::51 Saigon Post, March 17, 1968. 
:::52 VC Carnage in Hue, Tenth Political Warfare Battalion, 1968, p. 8. 
:::53 Pike, op. cit., pp. 30-31. 
:::54 Saigon Post, March 17, 1968. 
:::55 Pike, op. cit., pp. 30-31. 
:::56 "Information on the Victory in Hue." 
:::57 Len Ackland and D. Gareth Porter, "The Bloodbath Argument," Christian Century, November 5, 1969. Reprinted in Paul Menzel, ed., Moral Argument and the War in Vietnam (Nashville: Aurora Publishers, 1971), pp. 141-46. 
:::58 "Ban Ke Hoach Con Kich va Khoi Nghia cua Mu A" (Plan for an Offensive and General Uprising of Mui A), xerox copy obtained from Office of Special Projects, JUSPAO, Saigon, June, 1971. 
:::59 Len Ackland, "Resist and They Die," unpublished manuscript, 1968, pp. 5-6. 
:::60 Ibid., pp. 15-19; Washington Post, December 7, 1969; and Don Oberdorfer, Tet (New York, Avon Books, 1971), pp. 216-53. 
:::61 Pike, War, Peace and the Viet Cong (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1969. 
:::62 Ackland, op. cit., p. 8; Christian Science Monitor, May 8, 1968; Vennema, op. cit., p. 10; notes from interviews in Hue by Francois Sully of Newsweek, March, 1968. 
:::63 Ackland and Porter, op. cit., p. 145. 
:::64 Agence France-Presse dispatch, March 3, 1968, in Vietnam Press Special Reports, March 5, 1968. 
:::65 Vennema, op. cit., p. 26. 
:::66 Vu Cuong Sat cua Viet Cong tai Co Do Hue, pp. 2, 18-21. 
:::67 The Chinese communists faced a similar situation in 1947, when they occupied a county seat and their shadow government and officials surfaced for the first time. David Gulala tells of asking the political commissar what would happen when the Red Army had to leave the town. "They will leave, too, and resume their clandestine work," he replied. "Are you not afraid that they will lose their value now that they have revealed themselves?" Gulala asked. The commissar said, "We have secret agents in this town who did not come out when we took it. We don't even know who they are. They will still be here when we go." Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (New York: Praeger, 1964), pp. 56-57. 
::The wiki-article as it now stands appears to be direct summary of Pike's analysis of the Hue battle, and lists very little in the way of sources ... with the exception of Pike himself.  While J. Michaels does acknowledge that the folks from Hanoi hold a differing opinion, he poo-poos it as an acceptable addition to the wiki-article.  At the very least, both positions should be expressed, regardless of which you believe.  Until this is done, the NPOV status of that article can most certainly be challenged.  Another fact that is overlooked in the wiki-article is that "mass graves" were commonplace in the battle zones of Vietnam, as the push and pull of troop movement prevented proper ceremonial individual burials, and religious superstition prevented the leaving of bodies where they fell.  While you are busy demonizing Porter for his analysis of the Hue battle, you overlook a few important points:
:::*Porter never claims there were no executions at all in Hue
:::*Porter never claims that thousands didn't die during the battle for Hue
:::*Porter specifically concludes, "The issue which historians must weigh in the NLF occupation of Hue is not whether executions took place but whether they were indiscriminate or the result of a prearranged "purge" of whole strata of society, as charged by political warfare specialists of the Saigon and U.S. governments. Equally important is the question of whether it was the NLF or U.S. bombing and artillery which caused the deaths of several thousand Hue civilians during the battle for the city.
::The fact that there is a differing opinion needs to be in the article, regardless of whom the most vocal proponent of that opinion is -- especially if no one has stepped up to show that opinion to be unfounded. 209.86.3.248 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cease with the personal attacks," you instruct, as you make personal attacks of your own.  "Argue more intelligently," you pronounce, while you ramble on for a full paragraph without even addressing the only outstanding argument.  The only thing missing is the admonition to not "drive by."  Your whole preceeding paragraph is completely lost on me. 209.86.3.248 03:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (As posted above, and reiterated here for the benefit of Michaels) The fact that there is a differing opinion needs to be in the article, regardless of whom the most vocal proponent of that opinion is -- especially if no one has stepped up to show that opinion to be unfounded. 209.86.3.248 21:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th point of view - Observations on all of the preceeding comments 

message: The following section was in the main article:
::The first thing they did was call all South Vietnamese soldiers, civil servants of all services, political party members, and college students, to report to the "revolutionary people's committee." Those who reported to the Communist-run committee were registered in control books and then released with promise of safety.
::After a few days, they were called to report again, then all were sent home safe. During three weeks under NVA units' occupation, they were ordered to report to the communist committee three or four times.
I don't doubt this happened, since it sounds like their MO -- but can we have a source for this?  Also, it doesn't quite mesh smoothly with the sentence that follows:
::During the Marine and ARVN attack, North Vietnam's forces rounded up those individuals whose names it had previously collected and had them executed or sent North for re-education.
The Marines and ARVN were attacking the whole three weeks, so when exactly were people executed or sent north if they were gathered and sent home "three or four times" during those 3 weeks?  Just a little confusing. 165.247.214.231 19:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying the way it was worded is confusing.  I am also asking for a source reference. 165.247.214.231 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Round-Up 

message: Following is partial listing of references recording first hand accounts of the Battle of Hue, including accounts of the civilian massacre of Hue by the VC/NVA forces of Hanoi. These include military and reporter accounts.
Bullington, James R. "And Here, See Hue," Foreign Service Journal, November 1968. Christmas, G. R. "A Company Commander Reflects on Operation Hue City," Marine Corps Gazette, April 1971. see also, "A Company Commander Remembers the Battle for Hue," Marine Corps Gazette, February 1977. Davidson, Phillip B. Vietnam at War: The History, 1946-1975. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1988. Secrets of the Vietnam War. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1990. Hammel, Eric. Fire in the Streets: The Battle for Hue, Tet 1968. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1991. Harkanson, John, and Charles McMahon. "USMC & Tet ’68: There’s a Little Trouble in Hue …," Vietnam Combat, Winter 1985. "Tet ’68/USMC in Hue: The Grunts’ War," Vietnam Combat, Spring 1986. "Tet ’68/USMC in Hue: The Second Week," Vietnam Combat, Summer 1986. "The Last Days of Tet ’68: Hard, Hungry, Horrible," Vietnam Combat, Winter 1986. Nolan, Keith William. Battle for Hue: Tet 1968. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1983. Oberdorfer, Don. Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War. New York: Doubleday & Company, 1971. Palmer, Dave Richard. Summons of the Trumpet: U.S.-Vietnam in Perspective. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1978. Phan Van Son. The Viet Cong Tet Offensive (1968). Saigon: Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces, 1969. Pike, Douglas. PAVN: People’s Army of Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1986. Smith, Captain George W., USA. "The Battle of Hue," Infantry, July-August 1968. Stanton, Shelby L. Anatomy of a Division: 1st Cav in Vietnam. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1987. Vietnam Order of Battle. New York: U.S. News and World Report, Inc., 1981. Tolson, Major General John J., 3rd. Airmobility: 1961-1971. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1973. Truong Sinh. "The Fight to Liberate the City of Hue During Mau Than Tet (1969)," Hoc Tap, December 1974.
I'm sure the above is just a fraction of the accounts that are available in print.  Even so, it appears in the article as a convoluted mess.  Perhaps trim it down to 2 or 3 significant entries under a "Further reading" catagory? 165.247.214.231 00:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Bibliography or Further Reading section is the least of the troublesome problems with the present article - we can trim it in due time.  More importantly is the fact that the article is treading in Copyvio territory, with much of it having been obviously cut-n-pasted from here.  I'd like to work to keep the same general content and information, without having it be a verbatim rip-off.  165.247.214.231 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal problems with Porter, whatever they may be, aren't part of the topic under discussion in this article.  Feel free to do whatever "qualifying" of Porter you wish in an article dedicated to Porter.  Pike, or Porter, or Karnow, or Minh can be 3-headed lepper pig farmers, but that is not our concern here, as long as the facts derived from their ramblings are substantiated.  Keep the article factual, well sourced and neutral, and it may yet be salvageable. 165.247.214.231 02:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography of First Hand Accounts

message: The segregation of "enemies of the people" are from several documents referenced by both Pike and Porter, and I don't think they have been proven non-authentic (please correct me if I am wrong).  The primary source is "Tien Chien Thang Hue tu Ngay 31.1, 23.3" obtained from the Combined Documents Exploitation Center, Saigon.  Porter does attempt to qualify the document as "handwritten, sketchy, and clearly done at the local level for local consumption."  You can find the full transcripts of the documents reproduced and translated in the Viet-Nam Documents and Research Notes, Documents No. 95-98, August 1971.  I believe they are also referenced, but only summarized, by M. Young, The Vietnam Wars, 1945-1990, page 218.  The LA Times, 11-20-69 might also have segments, but I'm still trying to verify that. 209.86.1.9 22:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captured Documents 

message: Editor removes and edits substantial portions of text yet only cites "expanded Pike's intro" along with two minor edits, another minor comment on the film previously cited and removing a link.  In fact much more substantial edits were made and the link, while a general description, nonetheless provides suitable and warranted context for these types of contentious discussions relative to Vietnam. J. Michaels
::I'll assume the above was entered by J. Michaels?  As I am sure you are aware, the Edit Summary is a very small field.  It is generally good Wiki-practice to enter in some description of the edits being made, but please don't assume that an editor is required to squeeze in complete sourcing, citations and full quotes into such a confined space.  That most certainly is not the requirement -- and that is precisely what the discussion page is for.  If you observe an edit with which you disagree, or one for which you would like to see additional source material, by all means raise the issue here on the Discussion page.  But please do not expect me to come running to this page prior to each and every edit I make with an essay explaining what I am doing.  
::I see you have a very short edit history.  If you are a new editor, I apologize if I'm coming off a little harsh with you.  You are astute is deducing that I am "not God" (thank you, by the way).  I too would like to get along, but I'll settle for you just following basic wiki-etiquette.  As I look at the repetitive reverts you are doing, I see you trashing edits that don't belong to either of us.  I also see you deleting the "disputed" tag, when the accuracy of the article is obviously still under dispute (your first clue should be the simple fact that we are still aguing over it...duh).  I also see you twisting simple facts to suit your purpose, such as changing the number "100" to "200" after it has been corrected and cited.  You trash reasonable edits like the removal of "html" that was (for some silly reason) tagged on to one link description, but not to any of the other links.  The list goes on.  
::Again, I reiterate - if you see an edit with which you have issues, bring it up here and we'll hash it out. Even in the paragraph you just entered above, you don't cite any editing issues. Give it a try. 209.86.1.9 01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you are asking.  It is certainly possible to have an article that accurately presents all valid views and counter opinions, without needing to present just one view as the "correct" one.  In such a situation, the Dispute-Tag should be removed.  As for "superior tones," I knew you could appreciate that... Mr. "Don't Drive By"  ;)  209.86.1.9 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You were brave enough to broach the "Dispute-Tag" issue that I mentioned above.  Can we agree to let it remain so tagged ... at least until we hammer out any remaining controversial issues?  Or do we still have disagreement on this?  If we can agree, will you be moving on to the my next mention above, regarding you inflating 100 deaths to 200 deaths without explanation?  (Only 27 more similar edits of yours among your rampant revert spree...) 209.86.1.9 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: And this from a person that spent all day (according to the edit history) mindlessly reverting an article that several other people were editing?  Heh, good one. 209.86.2.115 08:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Reversions Documented 

message: "If we're to make any progress perhaps it would be more fruitful to discuss/change one thing at a time.  In that respect discussing the concept of the massacre per se, as is noted in a section above (see "Katyn Massacre," etc.) is even more fundamental." -quoted from J. Michaels above.
::I'm not sure what Katyn Massacre has to do with this, but I see it in only one paragraph above.  In that paragraph, you say that the Massacre at Hue deals with the civilian executions.  Fine, and...?  Can you be more specific about what changes you wish to discuss? 165.247.208.72 21:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you misunderstood the question per se.  We want to know per se what changes you think should be made to the introductory paragraph per se.  If, per se, you could transcribe the words or sentences that concern you here per se, perhaps we could discuss them and modify them per se, to something mutually acceptable.  209.86.2.115 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Massacre's per se

message: I have returned to this article to find the last 6 edits were made by a user J. Michaels, beginning with a massive revert that deleted the contributions of several editors.  As I normally operate under the assumption of good faith, I figured this could have been an accident.  Upon closer examination of the changes made by these edits, I have to conclude it was vandalism.  The damaging edits are too numerous to list here, but include:
* You removed the wiki-link from the Vietnamese NLF and stealthily replaced it with a link to a general page describing various other national liberation fronts.
* You removed the word "estimated" from after several instances of numeric information, and replaced it with the vague abreviation: "est." (more commonly intended to mean 'Established')
* You edited the lead paragraph that previously summarized both major points of view (Mass premeditated execution of civilians -vs- propaganda built on a fraction of the casualties and fabricated circumstances) and completely deleted the opposing view summary.  Nice POV there.
* You rearranged paragraphs, putting conclusions under "Background," putting statistics under "Aftermath," and completely deleting the statistics header altogether.
* Etc., etc.
There is a lengthy list of general article [style] violations implemented by these edits as well.  "(See link)" has been inserted many times - the reader knows there is a link section.  Silly assumptions like "two minutes or more to download" are inserted after external links (It takes me 6 seconds, by the way, and may take others 30 minutes...)  The editor seems fond of inserting complimentary mini-biographies ("...he was also a widely recognized scholar, holding positions as the Univ. of California at Berkeley and Texas Tech, who "produced an extensive body of writings about Communist doctrine, strategies and tactics in Vietnam" (see link).") with every mention of sources he finds compatible with his POV, and derogatory insertions with every source not in alignment with his POV.  Spelling errors that were previously corrected, he has re-mispelled.  Formatting and spacing that was previously corrected has been screwed up.  And the list goes on.  The vandalism is being reverted. 209.86.2.115 08:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism

message: The following link Liberation of Giai Phong Dan Toi from Communist Viet Cong by Army of the Republic of Vietnam: Photos has me a little curious.  My Vietnamese is a bit rusty, but I believe Giai Phong means "liberation," so the description is a little redundant.  Can someone tell me exactly where this "Dan Toi" is, and what is its relationship to the Massacre at Hue? Thanks, 209.86.2.115 09:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is meant to be ironic.  "Giải phóng dân tôi" literally means "Liberate my people".  "Liberation" is what the communist forces have always promised.  Thus the page meant to imply this is what communist "liberation" means. DHN 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mysterious Links