Talk:Huan Nguyen

Perpetrator of Family's Death

There is a claim here that Nguyen Van Lem, the individual being executed in Eddie Adams's photograph, was specifically responsible for the death of Huan's family. However, the only source on this article does not indicate this. It looks like it's an inference made by editors based on some of the details, and it links back to a subject that appears to be hotly contested in the talk pages of all other related articles.

Can somebody provide insight or a source for this claim? 174.90.223.139 (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the article is even more confusing.

It says: "Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was the man who allegedly attacked the family, and was later summarily executed (which was captured in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph)"

But Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was not the person who was executed in the photograph. Nguyễn Ngọc Loan was the person who did the execution. 70.81.247.152 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Even after some searching, I've found nothing to verify those claims. I've removed them entirely. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

US nationality and Nguyen Van Lem

May I ask @Fourthords why are you reverting his nationality? Huan Nguyen is a US national, ipso facto of his position in the US navy. He is not a South Vietnamese national because South Vietnam ceased to exist in 1976.

Secondly, I don't see why would pointing out that Lem was only ever alleged to have participated in the murder of Huan's family be POV? Aren't all people presumed innocent until proven guilty? Lem was never proven to have participated, nor was there any trial. My proposition would be to remove the opinion of Moise because it is just an opinion that does not reflect Hastings' own conclusion. Hastings stated that the evidence is inconclusive which appears to follow scholarly consensus. This could be included as a note. We should follow wikipedia's own norm and the international norm of presuming innocence if there is no verdict or conclusive evidence. Andro611 (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Nguyen's US citizenship is subject to Wikipedia:Verifiability which says, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It's original research in this instance to say that "X" necessarily leads to "Y"; exceptions may have been made for any number of possible reasons, and it isn't our place to draw any conclusions or many any assumptions. As for Nguyen being South Vietnamese, his place/nation/culture of origin doesn't change because it doesn't exist anymore (he's South Vietnamese = he's from South Vietnam); truncatating it to "Vietnamese" is disingenuous as it implies his origin is the extant post-war nation.

Similarly, it's original research for us to use the word "alleged" when that equivocation isn't supported by all the cited sources. We instead cite the appropriate reliable sources, and when they say different things, we present and summarize them as such. Regarding Moise & Hastings, including prose saying "Max Hastings used the word 'alleged'" doesn't say anything more than "a historian used noncommittal language [all throughout his book]", while it's the latter man citing the former that gives actual and specific (if anemic) information. Lastly, Wikipedia doesn't presume anything, much less guilt or innocence; that's what Wikipedia:No original research is all about. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research to claim he needs US citizenship to attain the rank of rear admiral because no, exceptions may not have been made. The US Navy only grants such exceptions to nationals of countries in free association with the United States. If you have any source pointing to Huan being granted such an exception feel free to add it, but stateless people do not attain such ranks in the modern USN.

As described on this page, some legally documented non-U.S. citizens and immigrant aliens can join the military, but they may not be enlisted into any Navy job or program that will require a security clearance. They will, however, be afforded all the same military pay, allowances and benefits of U.S. citizen serving in the same billet (rank, location, assignment, etc.).[1]

it's original research for us to use the word "alleged" when that equivocation isn't supported by all the cited sources.

Neither is it his unequivocal participation supported by all sources. By your logic it is original research to present his as “one of the men who [did it]” when there is no scholarly consensus. To the point, it is misleading, while using “allegedly” leaves a fitting ambiguity in an unproven case that informs the readers that Lem's participation is inconclusive, which it is – not according to my research, but according Hastings stating himself that “the truth will never be known”. Including “allegedly” is WP:NPOV, not the other way around.

Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research to claim… You're trying to take one general source (some assertion about rank & citizenship) and applying it to this specific circumstance, lacking any verification of the conclusion you're drawing. Wikipedia:No original research instead says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source."

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says to "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." This article cites three sources: two state claims without any equivocation, while a third gives the same information while hedging itself. We have summarized them, and presented them neutrally for readers. If there is a reliable source which clearly says "academic consensus is XYZ", then we can summarize and cite that. If there's a reliably-published meta analysis of sources, and it shows that most favor one view or another, then we can summarize its findings in the article. At the moment, though, we don't have those, and it isn't our place to draw any conclusions one way or another. By your logic it is original research to present his as 'one of the men who [did it]' when there is no scholarly consensus. Your inference is partly an artifact of representing the article prior to the Hastings source. I've updated it with additional in-text attribution to parallel the book source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for updating[2] the article. It appears I haven't noticed it when writing my reply. That was essentially what I wanted to reflect in wikivoice.

Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)