Talk:Phan Thi Kim Phuc

message: What did she study in Cuba. What is she now doing for a living?--75.53.203.253 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography

message: Phan Thi Kim Phuc's family name is Phan. Her personal name can either be Kim Phuc or Phuc, and her middle name can be Thi or Thi Kim.  The naming of this article doesn't follow the naming convention of either Vietnamese names nor Western names. DHN 09:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I put at the begining that she is known as Kim Phuc. I would not object to someone else changing her name in the rest of the article as long as we leave in that note.--Gbleem 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: How is the Phuc part pronounced? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real question about her name 

message: You call this incident without any American involvement? How could Southern Vietnam and Nothern Vietnam go to war without the involvement from America and USSR? Big fat liar
There was no American involvement in this strike. The article falsely states that "In 1996, she met with (and expressed forgiveness for) the American officer who ordered the strike;" This is not accurate. The article must be changed to reflect the truth, any reversion without evidence would be highly POV.
"There was no American commander at the scene of the fighting, no American commander involved in supporting the battle, and no American commander in the entire country who ordered that strike. It was an all-Vietnamese fight, conducted and controlled by Vietnamese. The Methodist minister who came forward to accept Kim Phuc's forgiveness at the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day 1996, is a former American officer, but was not a commander, and had no command authority. He was a low level staff officer on the staff of the American advisors, in an assignment without authority even to directly coordinate actions with VNAF, much less command, order, or direct any activity. As the battle raged, he was working in a bunker more than 80 kilometers from the fighting. His own Commanding General and the Operations Officer of the unit, both now retired General Officers, have clarified that he had no authority, capacity, or capability to order any Vietnamese aircraft to do anything."
http://www.warbirdforum.com/vphoto.htm
http://www.vietquoc.com/jul24-98.htm
Kaltes 08:38, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but I don't think this sentence "Contrary to some news reports portraying this speech as expressing forgiveness to Americans, Americans neither ordered nor carried out any of the air strikes that day." really expresses that view too well. The second half of the sentence seems unrelated to the first, or sounds rather confused, at least. Perhaps it could be reworded?  I don't feel qualified to change it though. --bodnotbod 21:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I fact check this article against a printed source.  According to a 2000 Buffalo News interview: "Phuc was fleeing that day because an American commander gave the order to drop napalm bombs on her village." lots of issues  | leave me a message 00:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: You will find lots of printed versions of the story. I first heard in on NPR. It was such a moving story that no one bothered to check the facts. People don't expect someone to lie about being responsible for such a horrible accident. However I'm not so sure I trust all the refuting websites. I added what I could confirm. --Gbleem 05:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Involvement 

message: I have seen the film of this moment.  I thought that the image is a still from the film. -- Fplay 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The famous photo that was published in newspapers in the U.S. was taken by Nick Ut with a 35mm still camera. I don't think anyone else got that shot.--Gbleem 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You haven't seen film of that moment. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Fplay - You are correct, however two different people were involved: Nick Ut (from the Associated Press) took the still and Christopher Wain from the BBC took the actual film footage.Romanmosaic (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film or photo? 

message: Is there another picture of her that can also be on the page to show her later in life? HighInBC 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wondered the same as I believe I saw her once in a TV broadcast. I then found an excellent picture here holding her baby (click to enlarge). A wonderful contrast in the future unscarred life and the past. There are others more ordinary ones available too, but unfortunately, the usual image-on-Wikipedia problem seem to be compatible licensing. :-( So the search continutes, but I'm less hopeful about that. :-/ I guess one could try get hold of and ask copyright holder Joe McNally about that picture and try receive relaxed usage rights for Wikipedia though... -- Northgrove 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There were many photos taken at my school's presentation that featured her as a guest. If I could get a hold of one (which I probably can) the main page would have an excellent quality picture of her as of Nov. 7 2006.--Matt0401 19:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another picture 

message: Although, I, a seasoned buff of military media, was not particularly fased by the video of Phan and the child badly burned, I thought it was important to place a warning about the video. If anyone has a better format in which to warn viewers, please feel free to edit.PowderedToastMan 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video warning 

message: The 'famous photo' was utilised in a print and television campaign to promote the photo journalism school and associated degrees offered at Griffith University. On 20 August 2004, Griffith University also hosted 'an evening with Kim Phúc' where she raised attention to the Kim Foundation.
* Griffith
:I've taken the bold step of removing these - I'm sure the photo has been used thousands of times - are any of them relevant to the person ?
:--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity

message: * http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=8680472
* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0
--StYxXx 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THere is a color video of her running down the road and getting treated by Americans.  — Rlevse • Talk •  19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No there isn't; it's a different girl. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Videos 

message: How come we have a cropped version of the image? The original shows both more of the soldier on the right, rolling his cigarette or whatever he's doing there  and the scared boy on the left . If Associated Press have given permission, why don't we have the whole thing? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cropped version? 

message: You should consider, to cut out the picture of naked Kim Phúc too, if the scorpions album Virgin Killer is child porn, then this picture is child porn too! When the picture was taken, the girl was 9 years old, so even junger than the one of the album. And she is totally naked, without a broken mirror hiding her privates. Sorry, I am not registered here, just at Wikipedia germany (Wurgl), and sorry for my sure bad english. --84.60.186.120 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing this picture to protest the removal of a different picture would be against policy. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kingturtle (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should ask the Internet Watch Foundation if the picture of Kim Phúc is the same category, just to be very sure. I think that album is just a matter of taste, good taste vs. bad taste -- child porn is something very different. (Wurgl) --84.60.148.47 (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late but the Virin Killer albub cover was never ruled to be child porn by any court. The IWF acted because they thought it might have been illegal. Unless there is an official court ruling declaring this picture to be illegal it should stay. --70.24.182.130 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An image featuring a naked child needs have an obvious intention to create sexual arousal to be considered child porn. This image is not, there is nothing arousing about it. It is used to illustrate a historically-significant event. --209.148.184.67 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Porn Censorship 

message: #If I understand correctly that Phuc or Kim Phuc is the equivalent of an American given name, and Phan is the equivalent of an American surname, shouldn't the text of the article refer to her as Phan? (In the same way that Will Smith refers to him as Smith, and not Will.)
#I came to this article looking for confirmation on whether Phuc was naked in the picture because the napalm burned her clothes off, or if she had been naked before the napalm fell, but the article doesn't address why she was naked, which seems a weird omission since I'm sure this has been documented.
#Is there any good reason to locate all the information about the photo and the woman here, instead of separate articles or even including the info about Phuc herself as a subtopic of an article about the photo? I don't see that there's ever been discussion about this, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the photo itself is notable enough for its own article, and it would avoid any dispute over whether details about the military attack are relevant to Phuc's biography. (There's not even a redirect in place for Vietnam Napalm right now, which is pretty silly.) Propaniac (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few points 

message: Our article currently seems a bit conflicted about whether the US Airforce was involved. The first paragraph says it wasn't but later we have "Rev. John Plummer, a Vietnam veteran ... took part in coordinating the air strike". Earthlyreason (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just going to raise the issue of this edit here. The text is referenced, shoud it be reinstated? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The U.S. and South Vietnam were working together, disputes over which military branch specifically did what are somewhat irrelevant, except as a minor historical note. Even if this attack was done specifically by South Vietnam, it was just one of many similar ones.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choichnayus (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  US involved or not? 

message: Here  a half hour prgramme with a conversation between Kim and ITN reporter Christopher Wain.  He says that all the reporters were dressed in military fatigues and it was he who gave Kim water ie they are not soldiers as previously mentioned in this article. 81.129.135.62 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can confirm the above as correct. The programme will be available on the iPlayer for a week in the UK only for those who missed it first time around. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC Radio 4 programme 

message: The very napalm that burned her skin was manufactured in the United States of America. Not only did the U.S. show, provide, train and teach the South Vietnamese on how to use napalm, high ranking U.S. generals also helped their South Vietnamese counterparts with strategic moves and intelligence. There are tons of sources documenting that all napalm given to the South Vietnamese were provided by the U.S., here are two that verify that only U.S. napalm were used and the U.S. training: 
Vietnam War Weapons ISBN 13: 978-1156807989
Controlling the Weapons of War: Politics, Persuasion, and the Prohibition of Inhumanity by Brian Rappert ISBN 13: 978-0415386678
The main supplier of Napalm to the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces was the Dow Chemical Company. Not only did they supply napalm but also agent orange
How you guys can't find sources is unbeleivable, pick up a book for God's sake. Anyway, most people know most Wikipedia article's are garbage and change tones like lizards change colour to suit the present political climate. So i'm not going to bother editing this article nor waste my time, let it be a bad article. Just thought I'll settle the matter for you guys.
Also, as most photographers and journalists know, you don't just hang around somewhere and wait for something random to happen, you are always tipped off, and surely, the journalists present that day were aware of such an strike and I doubt the sources were South Vietnamese but more so U.S. but that matter will only be settled with the release of classified documents held by Pentagon. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Napalm used by the South Vietnamese were provided by the U.S. and were made in the U.S. 

message: "Kim Phuc and her family were residents of the village of Nick Ut, South Vietnam"
No, Nick Ut was the photographer, as stated in the same paragraph.
67.112.120.18 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nick Ut is not the name of the village - Nick Ut was the photographer 

message: Why isn't there more recent a photo of Kim Phuc? I understand that she's best known for an event that took place in the 70s, but she's not a child anymore. --216.165.254.97 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern photo of Kim Phuc  

message: The girl in the woman's arms badly burned, what became of that girl, did she live or die? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The girl in the woman's arms 

message: New source on CNN.--v/r - TP 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mcjonline.com/news/98/news2344.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/senate/Sep22_05/HDfall05.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608134423/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010395 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010395
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220175316/http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng_intro.htm to http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0008/ng_intro.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is this article not named Phan Thị Kim Phúc with the acute accent? Instead that is a redirect to the article without the acute. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article with acute accent? 

message: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/opinion/kim-phuc-vietnam-napalm-girl-photograph.html
Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  New source NYT 

message: I changed "North" to "South"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.190.18.5 (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo caption erroneously attributed the napalm bombing to the North Vietnamese Air Force