Talk:Massacre at Huế

message: I have protected this page following a request by user:209.86.1.9 at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: "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)
thread_title: [[Uwe Siemon-Netto]]

message: User:TDC has enquired on my user page whether I am considering unprotecting this article. If others agree that this would not result in a resumption of the editing behaviour that got the article protected then please make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "behavior" in question is not mine, and I, once again, find it deplorable that you would reward the anon's 15 reverts by protecting his version of the article. TDC 18:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Following the questions on my talk page:
* Can you take a look at the Discussion Page and give me your opinion on whether "discussion has died down" or not?
**It doesn't to me look like any clear consensus has been reached here, hence my question above. If it was clear then I would unprotect (c.f. Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith#Credits
* Can you verify for us if you Page Protect an article version preferred by you, or do you do as most Admins do and protect the disputed page as you find it, regardless of your personal point of view?
**I protected this page on the version I found it at, as per Wikipedia:Protection policy. I do not have a personal point of view on this article, while my interests are wide ranging, wars in general and the Vietnam war in particular, are not amoungst them (for the record I am British and was born in 1980).  Contrast this to this diff, because in that situation I have a personal preference and as such I feel it would be impropper for me to protect the article on any version.
* Can you verify whether you consider it acceptable Wiki-practice to come to your User Talk page and stealthily delete someone else's comments addressed to you, such as was done [on your talk page] ?
**This is very bad ettiquete indeed, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Thryduulf 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotection

message: The first part states that: The NLF set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Hue, and was charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a revolutionary administration. Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack. 
and the las part states: There is considerable doubt that the NVA/VC had planned these executions beforehand.
How could there be such a large amount of pre-occupation planning of punitive actions taking place against citizens in Hue, and doubt that the executions were pre-planned?
:You are absolutely correct.  So you caught me before morning coffee, don't let it go to your head. 165.247.213.27 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: Please be serious and rigourous in Political Sciences of Military and Strategic Studies and take the "Military Review. Us Army" as a reference work.
The Têt Offensive deployed in 3 Battles: Battle of Khê Sanh, Battle of Saigon and Battle of Huê. Go to the French version where I've put down all these.
Takima 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Huê 

message: I recently added an image to this article that keeps getting removed by a user, supposedly because "its caption can not be verified".  The image description clearly links to the Library of Congress Country Study: Vietnam page. The picture is in the "Second Indochina War" section (can not be linked directly because it is a temporary link). DHN 18:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: So who are the aggressors who killed the people of Huế?  Or their identify a matter of dispute?
Who and what are the authorities that contend a massacre never occurred?  They aren't identified in the article.  There's one name, Gareth Porter, uncited, and it is the one place where the phrase propaganda and exaggeration are repeated.  What are Porter's sources?  However, the article text itself contradicts the suggestion made in the opening paragraph: the Porter doesn't have evidence there were fewer deaths than reported, or that the deaths were combat-related.  So this first paragraph claim is unsupported.   It's a mess. patsw 00:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could this article be any more vague? 

message: I'm pretty sure it's commonly referred as Hue not Huế in English, and for certain that at least one of the references listed is titled with "Hue" instead of "Huế", but listed as such in the section. Therefore, I think this is incorrect in general.
I respectfully disagree with your assertion.  Please see the article on Huế as a whole on Wikipedia, for example.  In addition, look at this from the Wikipedia Manual of Style- Foreign Words:  "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have common use in the English language. Use anglicized spellings for such words, or use the native spellings if they use the Latin alphabet (with or without diacritics)."  As such, this usage of Huế falls within the guidelines, even if it does use diacritics.  Huế has been spelled as it would have been in Vietnamese, which uses a Latin alphabet.  Also, consider the article title of El Niño, and countless others like it.  There is no reason not to preserve original spelling and accent marks (diacritics) from a language that uses a Latin alphabet.  Nam1123 18:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  accent in Hue 

message: Please may someone add more pictures, preferably the ones from the Vietnamese version of this article. I'm still new to Wikipedia so I don't understand how to image upload.
I believe more images will help convey the seriousness of the event.
Thank you! twinqletwinqle (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  May we have more pictures? 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class.  Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met.   With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher.   --dashiellx (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: In the part of Section 2 (Research) which reads, "There has been denial of the scale of the massacre by some 'anti-war' critics, such as ...", the placement of quotation marks around "anti-war" seems unnecessary and appears to compromise the neutrality of the article, as no clarification is given as to why the term "anti-war" should be considered only a nominal description for the critics that are subsequently described.
The use of the word "denial" in the sentence also compromises the article's neutrality by assuming the falsehood of the critics' claims without providing evidence as to why the claims are illegitimate.
An alternative wording would be, "Some anti-war critics, such as ... have suggested lower estimates of the scale of the massacre ...", preferably with a fuller explanation of the critics' reasons for their estimates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.41.50 (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Quotation Marks 

message: Historian David Hunt posits that Douglas Pike's study for the U.S Mission was, "by any definition, a work of propaganda".
This is opinion, not fact.  I think it should be striken. Txantimedia (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember, it's only your view. David Hunt, and a book is a realiable source, we can't remove it because a personal's view (if you want to removed it, please show the realiable sources, which wrote "this is opinion, not fact"MiG29VN (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A source that expresses an opinion is not fact.  Opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles.  The very fact that you had to write "posits" proves it's opinion and not fact. Txantimedia (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this phrase should be striken 

message: I think the Fallaci cite is incorrect.  It reads "The Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, citing a French pr[28] iest she spoke to in Huế, claimed at least 200 people, and perhaps as many as 1,100, who were killed following the US and ARVN reoccupation,"
What Fallaci wrote was "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 their sympathy for the NLF."
I'm going to correct the content to read 200 killed.  The 1,100 refers to the total dead, not total killed by ARVN. Txantimedia (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixedMiG29VN (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very well worded.  Unless you have an objection, I'm going to reword it. Txantimedia (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I quoted 100% in this book, and no reason to reword itMiG29VN (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fallaci cite 

message: ...has screwed up the formatting and removed the very sources he is requesting. His poor English, POV-pushing, and edit-warring is truly at an apex.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A few general points, even though it is hard for me to believe this article will be salvaged any time soon, and these should all be self-evident. MiGVN: We do not need links for a source to be verifiable, it is wrong to delete sources simply because you don't have access to them while shouting "FAKE!" and tagging the newly unsourced material, a Google Books search will miss plenty, and there is nothing wrong with combing the numbers cited in a reliable source with basic addition. Nguyễn Quốc Việt: English-language sources are preferable, even though Vietnamese-language sources can be reliable. Txantimedia: Notable opinions are acceptable as long as they are properly attributed and weighted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

text: SBTN's video isn't book, please! I only want to video's link, not quote. Only add the link, and this matter will finsishMiG29VN (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  MiGVN's recent edit... 

message: And what does he do?  Reverts a cite AGAIN!!! Txantimedia (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed this paragraph. Txantimedia (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I reported @MiG29VN for edit warring 

message: I just added several paragraphs citing orders that the VC/NVA received, prior to the battle, instructing them to annihilate people.  I wonder if those should be placed in a separate section?  Maybe titled Pre-battle Orders or something like that?
I also have several cites for communist documents celebrating the murders.  I wonder if these should be in a new section under Post-battle Documents or something similar?
Here's what I'm talking about:
Under Executions during the course of the Communist occupation, I added the following:
Their actions were based on a series of orders issued by the High Command and the Southern PRG. In a 3500-page document issued on Jan 26th, 1968 by the Tri-Thien-Hue Political Directorate, the political cadres were given specific instructions:[13] 'Operating in close support of the regular military and guerrilla elements, the political cadre were to: destroy and disorganize the Republic of Viet-Nam's (RVN) administrative machinery "from province and district levels to the city wards, streets, and wharves;” motivate the people of Hue to take up arms, pursue the enemy, seize power, and establish a revolutionary government; motivate (recruit) local citizens for military and "security” forces .. transportation and supply activities, and to serve wounded soldiers . . . ;" "pursue to the end (and) punish "spies, reactionaries, and "tyrants" — i. e . , government administrators, civil servants, police, and others employed by or notable adherents of the Republic of Viet-Nam; and "maintain order and security in the city" — i. e . , control the population'
Another section read[14] "“Annihilate all spies, reactionaries, and foreign teachers (such as Americans and Germans) in the area. Break open prisons. Investigate cadre, soldiers and receptive civilians imprisoned by the enemy. Search for tyrants and reactionaries who are receiving treatment in hospitals"
In June 1968 American 1st Cavalry troops captured top secret PAVN documents that included a directive written two days before the battle began. It included the following instructions:[15] "“For the purpose of a lengthy occupation of Hue, we should immediately liberate the rural areas and annihilate the wicked GVN administrative personnel.
Specific Mission …. We must attack the enemy key agencies, economic installations, and lines of communications. We must also annihilate the enemy mobile troops, reactionary elements and tyrants.”
On Feb 1st, the provincial administration, having taken control of Hue, issued a directive that ordered the troops, in part,[16] “To wipe out all puppet administrative organs of the puppet Thieu-Ky (President Thieu, Vice President Ky) clique at all levels in the province, city and town down to every single hamlet.”
On the same day, the Liberation Front radio announced,[17] “We tell our compatriots that we are determined to topple the regime of the traitorous Thieu-Ky clique and to punish and annihilate those who have been massacring and oppressing our compatriots…we ask our compatriots to…help us arrest all the U.S.-puppet cruel henchmen.”
Under post-battle documents I would have eleven separate communist documents that celebrate the victory with information like this:
“We exterminated one member of the Dai Viet Party Committee, one Senator of South Viet-Nam, 50 Quoc Dan Dang party members, six Dai Viet Party members, thirteen Can Lao Nhan Vi Party members, three captains, four 1st lieutenants…1892 administrative personnel, 38 policemen, 790 tyrants, six captains and many non-commissioned officers.”  
“We captured and exterminated thousands of people of the revolutionary network.  From province to village we broke the enemy’s administrative grip for the people to rise.”
“Troop proselyting by the VC/NVA forces was not successful because the troops had to devote themselves to combat missions.  Moreover, they were afraid of being discovered by the enemy.  It was very difficult for them to handle POW’s so they executed the policy of “catch and kill.”
These are all documented with appropriate cites.  Txantimedia (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff. Concerning organization, at its current state the "Occupation" and "Discovery" sections are too large, and content's mixed up everywhere. I propose this scheme of subsection for the Communist Occupation section: 
* Subsection 1: Communist Preliminary Occupation Plans & Orders (covering what the VC/NVA planned to do upon occupation, preliminary orders of who to arrest/kill etc.)(This section contains the 3500-page document and directives you mentioned above)
* " " 2: Course of the Occupation (round-ups, massacring, new regime etc.)
* " " 3: Eyewitness Accounts (includes individual incidents, Oberdorfer interviews etc)
* " " 4: Captured post-battle Viet Cong documents regarding the Massacre (VC/NVA documents of who and how many killed, each incident and in total etc.)(This section includes 11 celebratory commie files)
I'll resume heavy contribs to this article soon, after I feel better...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea. Txantimedia (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added the subsections, moved the material into the appropriate sections and added the communist after action reports.  I hope others will review my work and make improvements as warranted. Txantimedia (talk) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we create a new section 

message: There's a few places where this article could be improved by proper grammer and sentence structure.  For example:
Under Executions during the course of the Communist occupation
The Viet Cong set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Huế in the early hours of January 31, 1968, and was charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a "revolutionary administration." Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack. These included Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) soldiers, civil servants, political party members, local religious leaders, schoolteachers, American civilians and other international people.[11] Cadres called out the names on their lists over loudspeakers, ordering them to report to a local school. Those not reporting voluntarily were hunted down.[12]
I think this could be improved by doing the following.  Break the first sentence into two.
The Viet Cong set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Huế in the early hours of January 31, 1968.  The provisional authorities were charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a "revolutionary administration." Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack. These included Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) soldiers, civil servants, political party members, local religious leaders, schoolteachers, American civilians and other international people.[11] Cadres called out the names on their lists over loudspeakers, ordering them to report to a local school. Those not reporting voluntarily were hunted down.[12]
An alternative would be to replace the and with that.
The Viet Cong set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Huế in the early hours of January 31, 1968 that was charged with removing the existing government administration from power within the city and replacing it with a "revolutionary administration." Working from lists of "cruel tyrants and reactionary elements" previously developed by VC intelligence officers, many people were to be rounded up following the initial hours of the attack. These included Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) soldiers, civil servants, political party members, local religious leaders, schoolteachers, American civilians and other international people.[11] Cadres called out the names on their lists over loudspeakers, ordering them to report to a local school. Those not reporting voluntarily were hunted down.[12]
Under Course of the Occupation
According to Douglas Pike, these individuals, according to Viet Cong documents captured during and after the siege, were to be taken out of the city and held and punished for their “crimes against the Vietnamese people”. The disposition of those who were previously in control of the city was carefully laid out, and the lists were detailed and extensive. Those in the Saigon-based-state police apparatus at all levels were to be rounded up and held outside the city. High civilian and military officials were also removed from the city, both to await study of their individual cases.[13]:33
Move according to VC documents before these individuals or delete it.  The pronoun these has lost its reference since I moved things around, so I think that part needs to be reworded.  Perhaps "the individuals singled out on communist lists"?
Unless crimes against the Vietnamese people is a direct quote, it should probably be removed.
The reference supports the information in the paragraph but isn't a cite to Pike.  The Pike cite should be added. Txantimedia (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of grammer and sentence structure 

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

text: I don't think it's necessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your input. I will leave them as they are now. --Txantimedia (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for cites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Various edits I've made 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'd rather keep it chronological, but I am open to other opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me think about it some more. --Txantimedia (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Discovery be moved? 

message: 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.
#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
#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
#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
#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
#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)
thread_title:  Question about new sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Massacre at Huế. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150308220933/http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/hue.html to http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/hue.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050827134331/http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu:80/vietnamcenter/general/douglas_pike.htm to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/general/douglas_pike.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050728023414/http://www.vietquoc.com:80/0002vq.htm to http://www.vietquoc.com/0002vq.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041021083834/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp5_Block%20by%20Block.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp5_Block%20by%20Block.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reliability of Ben Kiernan source 

message: This article is might have been written by a right-winger, which doesn't have any neutral opinions at all. LongnamXL35 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right-wing written article