Talk:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém

message: My main question, on having tried to clean up and make more readable this article, is about the name Bay Lop. History knows this man as Nguyen Van Lem, but little is commonly known about him besides his being the leader of a VC hit squad. A Google image search for "Bay Lop" does not return the Adams photo. Just my 2¢. - knoodelhed 06:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A search on google reveals the Bay Lop reference as the nom de gurre for Nguyen.  Lop was the first name of his wife.  One of the most common results for +"Bay Lop" is an AP article from 5/1/00, which states that fact.  Other websites also reflect that fact (some of which looks to have existed before the AP article).  As for the Adams picture, it's actually the first link on the google search, and is labeled Bay Lop.  I don't know much of this particular situation, but based upon the research I just did, I'd be inclined to accept it as "fact". -Vina 19:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me. Posted a redirect at Bay Lop. - knoodelhed 23:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: What are the sources for the reports about Nguyen Van Lem's crimes and for his boastfulness afterward?  These could easily be the self-serving cover stories of those responsible for his death without trial.
:The only source provided to support the claims he murdered, an article in VietCatholic News, civilians is clearly unreliable. Not only is the political bias clear, but the author doesn't appear to be an expert. Escaphist (talk) 07:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't you cite some sources? 

message: This article seems to be biased towards an American/RVN point of view - that the man executed was a murderer and somewhat implies that he "deserved" to be executed in the middle of a street without a trial.--FarQPwnsJoo 10:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: * Nguyen Van Lem in vi Wikipedia (Bay Lop)
* Le Cong Na in vi Wikipedia (Bay Na), and see 
* Film The Picture (Tu mot tam anh). (use:wikipedia; pass: wikipedia).
:Thank. 222.252.244.44 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The video, first of all, is not working for me, second of all, we should not use registration-required sites, third, we should not link to copyright infringement. The video is just an illustration of the article, thus not strictly necessary. As for "Lê Công Nà", a Vietnamese speaker will have to translate that. Certainly it returns 0 useful Google results. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, when I used the word "illustration" I meant something closer to "example". In any case, I have tried several times to watch the movie, and I cannot view it using Firefox or Internet Explorer. I always get the Windows Media error "C00D1197: Cannot play the file", which means that Windows Media Player "cannot connect to media". My guess is that I can't see it because the stream is distributed to a limited geographic region. This is another reason that an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia should not include it as a link. Since I cannot watch it, I cannot find out if it is a good source or a bad source, or whether it is biased. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should I do that? If the film is in Vietnamese, how could I evaluate it? Is there further information about this anywhere else? What important information is in the film? --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nguyen Van Lem or Le Cong Na  

message: Why is this that a citation is needed for this sentence: "However, even if he wasn't regarded as a POW, Loan's action still violated South Vietnamese laws at the time"? It's whoever added this tag who must provide evidence that South Vietnamese laws at the time allow the summary execution of VC prisoners. This is ridiculous, find me any source that say South Vietnamese laws allow their soldiers to kill people without trial whether VC or not. It doesn't matter how hard I tried, searching through all kind of South Vietnamese laws textbook, I couldn't find a single sentence that even go anywhere near as allowing soldiers to kill people without trial. It's common sense, get it? Get your head out of your ass and start thinking reasonably for a change.
Everything must be cited.  Deal with it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.24.165 (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: Why is the trivia section deleted? I don't see any reason why it should be. In fact, it is much more relevant to include his daughter name, especially considering it coincide with his executioner's name and she was born 2 years prior to the event than stuffs like LeMay and UFO, LeMay and Sports Car Racing, Mae West is a slang, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.201.179 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: :Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg

message: Explaining my reverts: Aside from lacking sources, this addition is POV ("an awful picture of war ... one must understand the duress [Loan] was under") and the entire second paragraph is irrelevant to this particular article. Nufy8 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Lee Nicholson

message: No mention this was a staged media event - that the execution was only carried out then & there because there was a group of journalists & photographers present? Quite significant when considering the footage or image, surely? I don't have a primary source, but it's mentioned at 7:10ish in this video:  & there's numerous other secondary sources easy to find on the net. In the unlikely event there are no primary sources, surely it's still worth a mention that there's a lot of conjecture about it? HuwG 203.208.86.101 (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A staged media event? It's far-fetched to think that even the South Vietnamese government could be that tone-deaf. While it's obvious that Loan, under the circumstances, didn't care about cameras being present, such a public relations disaster can hardly be believed to have been staged for public consumption.--
If the general decided to shoot they VC guy so that the cameramen would catch it on film - then its a "staged media event", right? Even if its a pretty lame one that defeats its purpose?
172.191.152.188 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staged media event 

message: "Though military lawyers have yet to definitively decide whether Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war (Lém had not been wearing a uniform; nor was he, it is alleged, fighting enemy soldiers at the time), where POW status was granted independently of the laws of war; it was limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations."
I'm I just having a thick spell, or is this sentence unclear?  It doesn't seem to make any clear sense to me, so I'm not sure how I'd re-write it....
Can anyone improve it so that it's meaning is more evident?  
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I'm not trying to be snarky.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkins (talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support, no evidence that Nguyen was notable by himself. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: * Photo source
* Interview
* Time (1993)
* People (2000)
* AP archive
Trying to compile sources for his widow. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widow: 

message: There's multiple sources discussing Lem's capture. These sources may be conflating information and may be unreliable. Some sources like the BBC, mention Lem being captured near a mass grave. However, this information may have been copied from Wikipedia, making it an unreliable source. This information is repeated by various tabloids as well. NPR refers to Adam's testimony, and makes no reference to any mass grave, instead saying "Adams saw a soldier drag a man in a checkered shirt out of a building." 
A caption of the photo of his wife says that Lem was "captured while attacking the Naval Headquarters in Saigon." This does not contradict NPR or Adams. 
Tabloids and the BBC indicate Lem was responsible or suspected for killing Tuan and his family. 
What to make of these seemingly contradictory sources? I think we should discount the BBC and tabloid accounts, as well as the right wing ones. NPR and Adams' eyewitness testimony seems most reliable. 
Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of this is conjecture. The BBC is a reliable source, so we compare and contrast what the reliable sources say, we don't pick winners. The article should explain that the circumstances of what he had been doing at the time of his capture are unclear, but there are two versions, then explain what they are and cite the sources for each one. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC is typically reliable, but if they're copying text and information from Wikipedia, then they're not reliable per WP:Circular. The more cautious RS seems to just say what Loan and Adams believed, and say nothing about any mass grave. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lem's capture: 

message: According to Friedman in "Covert Capital (page 199), Loan told Harper Magazine in 72:
We knew this this man was. His name was Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son. He was the commander of a sapper unit. He killed a policeman."
In 1976, Loan told a The Washington Post: 
It happened in a war on a street where there was fighting." "But this was no fighting man. He was a civilian who robbed and killed. We were under martial law. What could I do?" Source
According to Friedman (page 199)again, in 79 Loan told Esquire:
They tell me that he had a revolver, that he wounded one of my policemen.... They say that they know this man. His is not a nameless civilian, as the press says. He is Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son."
Then the 98 New York times obituary, as well as others, state that Loan felt he was justified in the execution because the man was head of a Viet Cong death-squad who killed a man and his family. So which is it? It seems that Loan changed his story over time. 
The sources that Friedman consults are hidden behind subscriptions, so I have not confirmed them up close. I can't confirm that the quotes are accurate. But assuming they are, this would mean that Loan changed his story over time, and this is something that should definitely be included. It could mean that at the time of the execution, Loan did not know the man's name at all, and later was passing on information that he was given. Later, it seems that by 88, Lem's widow was found, who identified him as "Nguyễn Văn Lém" with the alias "Bay Lop". This would mean that Loan's information about the man's name is incorrect, and he was mixing up Lem with another fighter. 
Complicating matters, Loan knows English but it's unclear how well he knew it. So it's possible he's mis-speaking. 
Is he presenting contradictory stories, or a more consistent story? Calling him a "civilian" doesn't contradict him being a Viet Cong correct? The above quotes could be read as a consistent narrative, provided you ignore him being wrong on the name. Alternatively it could be a changing story. 
Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loan's various explanations: 

message: This is "the vietnam execution photo". Why not call the page that? The name of the people involved isnt really interesting. Its a south vietnamese police general shooting a VC soldier. Rodnebb (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that something like Saigon Street Execution would make it easier to find. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam Execution Photo should be the title 

message: Im noticing the article takes it as a given that Bay Lop murdered the Generals family. Its only alleged and there is no citations from Hastings. ComLenBannari (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bay Lops crimes 

message: This article in my opinion needs a full rewrite. All of the content is based off of news sources when more than enough scholarly coverage exists, and said coverage has a far more sensible interpretation of the events:
* The idea the photo galvanized the anti-war movement has no actual evidence and might not be true
* It was a solider killing an enemy solider, not a "summary execution", only a few humanitarian organizations at the time called it that
* The one claim that the whole thing was staged was criticized by other scholars as being baseless
Most importantly though, coverage exists because of the photo. The photo is the only reason other facts about this event are known and have been researched. Therefore, the article should be on the photo, not the event. It can (and should) still provide info on the event itself.
Here's an idea of what this would look like. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A note to watchers that this is still being worked on. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 12:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided that because the film has actually gotten coverage too, the event is the appropriate thing to cover. Merging my rewrite over now. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposed reframing