Talk:Massacre at Huế/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Battle of Huê

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)

Image

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)

Could this article be any more vague?

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)

accent in Hue

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)

May we have more pictures?

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)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

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)

Unnecessary Quotation Marks

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)

Hopelessly biased

This article is hopelessly biased and not structured at all like any of the reasonable, historical pieces on wikipedia. Pike was predominantly a secondary and largely irrelevant source since his figures and the alleged NVA documents he produced completely disagreed with all other reporters in the South. The only Western journalist to actually photograph the graves was a Frenchman, with American's only getting second hand accounts from the South Vietnamese, either through their officials in Saigon or Hue itself. The governor of Hue claimed some 200 government workers executed along with 300 civilian casualties, during the course of the entire battle. Days later Saigon claimed 1,000 dead. And then later still Pike claims 6,000, with no additional evidence. This is what the majority of primary sources agree on, with only constant and spurious attempts at propaganda and self justification by the US Press afterwards. The people responsible for making this wikipedia article should probably avoid contributing to historical topics from this point forward because if this is the sort of result you get, than your methods are quite broken.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be great for the article if you can present sources on this matter--Zeraful (talk) 04:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Plese show me: Why Gareth Porter's sources can't use (who said, what document said... and why said?). And don't use "Doubler standard POV" to threat me, The Time. My source is valid, and you haven't reason to remove it (excluding the true reason: you don't like this information) (Wikipedia:Sources)Special:Contributions/113.190.46.130|113.190.46.130]] (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Porter as an expert on translations because he can't speak Vietnamese.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

HA, Douglas Pike is too, and almost Western historian are too (other help them on translations). Why you don't remove their source? "he can't speak Vietnamese" - it not reason113.190.46.130 (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

History.net is valid source (it was publishing by the Weider History Group, the world's largest publisher of history magazines). Don't remove it because you don't like it, @Quoc Viet113.190.46.134 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC).

Please show me: Why PBS's documentary film is not valid sources?MiG29VN (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The objection was that the primary source NLF officer's quote, in which he claims Kissinger concocted the massacre, has little demonstrable notability and including it at length lends undue weight to his personal theories.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I remove this details. But other details (etc: body with NLF uniform)?MiG29VN (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you be a little more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed 1/2 detailsMiG29VN (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Since this has been reverted again, I advise everyone involved in this dispute to try to reach consensus about the NLF officers' quote before risking a full-blown edit war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This is new account. I don't known why he do that, may be he hate me. I will wait 12 hours, if Ten Huy don't tell his reason, i will revert againMiG29VN (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wait 24 hours, in respect of time differences and some time for response. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The NLF officer is disillusioned, unable to have an objective and unbiased view. This make such a testimonial invalid. Tên húy — Preceding undated comment added 23:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Remember, if "The NLF officer is disillusioned", Douglas Pike's source is too (he is an U.S officer), Ngo Quang Truong's source is too (ARVN general). PBS's documentary is valid sources. If you haven't other reason, i will revert again113.190.46.114 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course all sides will have some element of bias, the matter is you obtain the ones that have less bias and are more accurate and more matching with the actual events and details, more matching with other accounts. The VC interview and the stories from the few biased, partisan "historians" and political analysts clearly show an apologist, denialist stance and indicate an attempted cover-up for the communist side, to advance their own political opinions. Just because it's a PBS interview, it doesn't mean it's "the truth" or even credible. Media outlets like news agencies interview all sorts of people, even extremist political groups/members get interviewe, like neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust, and communists with their utopic "anti-imperialist" proletarian paradise rhetoric, but it doesn't mean it automatically becomes a valid reference to be used in an encyclopedia or academic research paper. If you used a source that says something like "media manipulator par excellence" as a basis of an academic research paper/report, you'll automatically get a D or F for using non-credible, clearly biased, sources. No wonder Gareth Porter isn't taken seriously by the academic community, and the people who ever interview him were his magazine and the biased Russia Today TV. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In history.net's source, have not "The official story of an indiscriminate slaughter of those who were considered to be unsympathetic to the NLF is a complete fabrication.". Yet, translation of the official Vietnamese campaign study of the Tet Offensive..." - This is the synthesis, i will removed these line to "Discovery"MiG29VN (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The main reason the inclusion of the Hue Massacre "Dispute/Denial" section in the Tet Offensive article is unacceptable, is because the Tet Offensive article provides an over-arching summary of all military operations and events that occurred around and during Tet 1968, including a short summary of the Hue Massacre, but, the denial of the Massacre's existence is only held by a very small minority of historians - the overwhelming majority accepts that the Hue Massacre was committed by the Viet Cong - even captured Viet Cong documents record precisely how many people they killed and they've admitted to perpetrating it! By MiGVN inserting that large Massacre denial paragraph, which only few, fringe, partisan historians/political analysts hold like Young and Porter, it is completely disproportionate to the rest of the Hue Massacre section in the article, since the massacre paragraph is already short (~several lines), and therefore, a minor subtopic such as Massacre denial, in particular a fringe subtopic, should be even shorter (1 - 2 lines maximum ), or absent altogether, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight (see 1st paragraph and Jimbo Wale's 3 points). Also, apparently MiG29VN considers using captured Viet Cong records of the number of people they killed as "POV", and using Douglas Pike's Hue Massacre report to a US Government hearing as "POV". Even user Eyesnore responded that my edits were constructive and achieving NPOV, after MiG29VN falsely and deliberately claimed I was a vandal, in attempt to mislead Eyesnore in removing my edits and MiGVN evading any accusations of edit warring and blocks. MiGVN claimed i was removing his Gareth Porter/Marilyn Young section, even though it is clearly still there. Following MiG29VN's logic, academic who rely on secondary information sources - second-hand info, such as Porter and Young, which deny any wrongdoing from the Communists in all or part, are "reliable", "valid", "neutral" sources, while first-hand data from the Viet Cong's very own documents, Douglas Pike's report to Washington, and investigative data from South Vietnam which prove the Massacre's existence, as "invalid" and "biased".Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

For Alje Vennema's sources, please read: http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=NNdWAAAAMAAJ&q=alje+Vennema+477&dq=alje+Vennema+477&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=8v8_U5uSC4qZiAec2ICAAQ&redir_esc=y http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=vv_67_p2Ds8C&q=alje+Vennema+477&dq=alje+Vennema+477&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=8v8_U5uSC4qZiAec2ICAAQ&redir_esc=yMiG29VN (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That Ramparts article, by Porter, is filled with lies. Porter cites Vennema as claiming 14 "graves" at Gia Hoa Secondary School with "20" bodies in them. Vennema writes 14 "trenches" with 101 bodies (page 129) and then goes on to state that after 3 days of digging the body count had risen to 203. (page 131) Porter also lies about Da Mai Creek, claiming 250 skulls when there were 500 and claiming Pike said 428 "skulls" when what Pike actually said was 428 "identified". Porter is completely unreliable on this subject and should never have been used. Txantimedia (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Plesea, Quoc Viet. History.net was qouted by you more than 10 times, and i didn't see you said that "undue weight". Don't used to "double standard"MiG29VN (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In WP:BALANCE, it said: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.". Massacre denial IS A FRINGE VIEWPOINT that very few "historians" hold. The vast majority? Everyone else? THEY AGREE that the massacre DID HAPPEN, under the VC. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In WP:UNDUE, it said: "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views".

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In wikipedia's law, and we agreed History.net and xxx.edu are the reliable sources. Don't do that, The Time. Do you think I don't follow this article?MiG29VN (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I add two new sources (these books were published by Duke University and Columbia University). Don't remove the reliable sourcesMiG29VN (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Add new source: http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=t3XO6FkWmEMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=vi#v=onepage&q&f=falseMiG29VN (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is vlink not a valid source? It's an eyewitness account from Hue. How is that not valid simply because it's hosted on vlink? Where it the rule that vlink cannot be used as a source?

Unreliable sources?

Please show me Vennema's figures in his book (27 graves, 2,397 bodies). I used google book but can't see them (I only see "203 bodies") http://books.google.com.vn/books?hl=vi&id=A2ZuAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=2%2C397MiG29VN (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies. I added them up from his accounts of each grave site. I have the book in my possession, and I'm citing directly from it. I don't understand why my citations keep getting removed without even bothering to ask me. Google books is unreliable, because it skips sections, so you can't see everything that's in the book. Txantimedia (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies" - As you said, So, WHY did you have that EXACT NUMBER in there (27, 2,397, etc...). So, Is it FAKE?MiG29VN (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Vlink is not valid source. I removed this "ref", please add new source. If nobody replace, i will remove these line MiG29VN (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is vlink not a valid source? The article is written by an eyewitness in Hue. Where is the wikipedia rule that says vlink is not valid? Txantimedia (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules state: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The vlink article qualifies under this exception. The article is about the author's experiences and activities in Hue during the time of the massacre. I'm going to add the cite back in this evening, along with the others citing Vennema. Please do not remove them again without first posting here and explaining a GOOD and VERIFIABLE reason why you think it should be removed. Crying "Fake" isn't going to fly since I'm citing directly from the work which I have in my hands.

And, BTW, -Andreas Philopater is not the one posting these cites. I am. So speak directly to me and stop removing my cites unless you can PROVE they are fake (which they are not.) Google books isn't a good source since they don't even display all of the hits and you can't even view the pages. I repeat. I have the book in my possession and I'm citing directly from it, including page numbers. Txantimedia (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Remember, as sources of information about themselves (diaries, pesonal's life, etc...) Hue massage is HITORY's battle, not "themself"MiG29VN (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: please stop your "Fake Flag"MiG29VN (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This is rather entertaining. You introduced Oriana Fallaci as a source. Now you don't like Wikipedia reflecting what she actually says. That does rather undermine my assumption that your edits are in good faith. Still, I'll do my best. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does Fallaci say 5,000 to 8,000 were killed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The exact words are: "five thousand, eight thousand, who can say? And for this we can thank both the Americans and the Vietcong". She goes on to liken the Vietcong round-ups to Nazi atrocities, but that doesn't fit so well in the "dispute" section. I suppose it could be worked in elsewhere in the article. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"Where does Fallaci say 5,000 to 8,000 were killed" - It's matter (fake sources)MiG29VN (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@The Time: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/deniers/vietnam/turner.pdf. HAVE NOT "Hue massacre" in this document (it's about North VN land reform in 1958), but it was used in this article to show "Porter clearly did not understand the specialized language used by Vietnamese communist". Is this synthesis?MiG29VN (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC) - Yes, that is synthesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC) - We agreed this synthensis, so, I will remove these linesMiG29VN (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And see http://books.google.com.vn/books?hl=vi&id=A2ZuAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=2%2C397. I can't see Andreas Philopater's figures ("27 graves", "2,397 bodies"). I only see "203 bodies", so, is that fake???MiG29VN (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: If you can't show me your figures (27 graves, 2,397 bodies) in Venemma's book, after 24 hours, I will remove these FAKE figures.MiG29VN (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear MiG29VN, Wikipedia is a collaborative work. Random accusations and ultimatums seem an odd way of seeking co-operation with others. Could you explain in what sense these are my figures? I understand that you've chosen an aeroplane as your username, but there's no need to zoom about roaring. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative work, it's OK, but remember: We need THE RELIABLE SOURCE, and I can't see some figures (27 graves, 2,397 bodies) in this book, and may be it's FAKE. Show the figures 2,397 bodies (quote in sources), pleaseMiG29VN (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

And now, see Nguyễn, Minh Công. "Nhân Chứng Sống Kể Lại Cuộc Thảm Sát Tết Mậu Thân 1968 Tại Huế". Video Interview. WGBH TV Boston. Retrieved 5 April 2014.. So, anybody can tell me: Youtube is reliable source???MiG29VN (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Smart child, it's a WGBH INTERVIEW VIDEO DAMN IT! Just uploaded on! Stop lying to everyone already - YOU using fake references, YOU lying about others of "vandalizing" when you're the only vandal around here, YOU contesting things that you don't like simply because it doesn't conform with your bias...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

WGBH is reliable, IF this video was uploaded on WGBH's website. Now, this video was reuploaded on Youtube. Maybe it was modified, Ok. So, we need the link on WGBH's websiteMiG29VN (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Even if the info was RS there is way too much Porter and other disputers. Its undue of the minority opinion. Some should be here but its too much right now regardless of whether it is RS or not. 88.104.216.130 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@QuocViet: Please stop your vadalism. I didn't remove your information, I removed the unreliable source. If you add the relibale source, i will not removeMiG29VN (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, we now have the link on WGBH's website. Ok, i will not remove this information. Please add other sourceMiG29VN (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@MiGVN: The vandal cries about other people being vandals. Oh the irony! And someone guilty of making fake references altogether, comes along and blames others of "unreliable sources". Fake references which don't even contain the content claimed to be cited, like this one: http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=t3XO6FkWmEMC&printsec=frontcover&hl=vi#v=onepage&q&f=false. Theatres of violence: massacre, mass killing, and atrocity throughout history. Philip G Dwyer; Lyndall Ryan. New York : Berghahn Books, 2012. P. 216

Please read Page 216 (see 12nd quote), okMiG29VN (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

@Quoc Viet: Please add the link or video clip (Nhung, Kim (28 February 2013). "Sự Thật Thảm Sát Mậu Thân 1968 - Nguyễn Lý Tưởng". Đài Truyền Hình SBTN TV News.). We can't confirm these information if you don't add the linkMiG29VN (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The video uploader was incredibly smart to split the newscast episode into 3 parts, and i cannot possibly include 3 links in 1 ref. But, i encourage you to search it yourself in a search engine, and guaranteed you'll find it. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

So, add link of 3 parts in here, and i will see themMiG29VN (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this phrase should be striken

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)

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)

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)

MiGVN's recent edit...

...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)

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)

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)

The Fallaci cite

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)

I fixedMiG29VN (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

I quoted 100% in this book, and no reason to reword itMiG29VN (talk) 02:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE stop screwing up the cites

@MiG29VN I have done a lot of work getting all the cites correct. Now you have screwed them up AGAIN. Leave the damn cites alone!! Txantimedia (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please add the SBTN's link, and this matter will finsishMiG29VN (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, you fixed the cities. Now we need the link of video. Please addMiG29VN (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I added it previously. Then you removed it AGAIN. PLEASE stop removing the cites. If there is something wrong with them, TELL ME. I'll fix it. Txantimedia (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Plese add the video's link. We can't confirm this infomation if we haven't a link (I doubt some details are FAKE)MiG29VN (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, you jerk, I am citing directly from Vennema's book. Get that? I have the book in my possession. It is NOT an unreliable source, and because you can't find the information on Google Books means NOTHING. I should not have to (and Wikipedia does not want us to) quote lengthy sections of the book to prove to you that it's accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) 15:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please scan (or use camera) this page, which have this details and show them at here (I don't think you have not Smart phone, table computer, digital camera, etc...)MiG29VN (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This MiGVC is clearly an online công an troll employed by the Hà Nội regime to be an online propagandist and polemic.

All references to Porter and his "work" should be removed

Even though there is a section for dispute, I don't think Porter's work is worthy of being included. Scholars such as Marilyn B. Young may have a bias, but at least they attempt to provide evidence supporting their positions. Porter simply makes his evidence up. For example, (as I've written elsewhere), he lies about what Vennema writes in his book (14 graves with 20 bodies rather than 14 "trenches" with 101 bodies.) He claims the GVN's Political Warfare division concocted the Hue Massacre story out of whole cloth without providing any evidence to support his claim. Porter claims 250 bodies were found at Da Mai Creek, but 500 skulls were found. Porter claims that Pike claimed there were 428 bodies, but Pike merely stated that the authorities had "identified" 428 of the victims. I could go on (and I will in an article that I'm working on), but Porter is so unreliable that his work should have no place in Wikipedia.

In his IndoChina Chronicle article Porter writes "Another major discovery of bodies at Da Mai Creek, a heavily wooded area ten miles south of Hue, in September 1969 remains shrouded in vagueness and contradictions. Even the number of bodies found remains something of a mystery. The official Pentagon account of the discovery shows that the number was approximately 250.21 But when Douglas Pike, the U.S. Information Agency's Vietnam specialist, reported the find a few months later, the figure had grown to 428.22"

I am working on obtaining a copy of the Pentagon report that he cites (his endnote 21), but the fact is that there were 500 skulls uncovered at Da Mai Creek (see Vennema 139-140 and the official GVN report), 428 of which were identified. Furthermore, his claim that the "figure had grown" to 428, citing Pike, is false. Here's what Pike wrote "Local authorities later released a list of 428 names of persons whom they said had been positively identified from the creek bed remains. The communists' rationale for their excesses was elimination of traitors to the revolution. 11 The list of 428 victims breaks down as follows: 25 percent military: two officers, the rest NCO's and enlisted men; 25 percent students; 50 percent civil servants, village and hamlet officials, service personnel of various categories,and ordinary workers. "

Porter also writes "The elusiveness of Saigon's figures is significant in the view of the testimony of Alje Vennema, a doctor working for a Canadian medical team at Quang Ngai hospital, who happened to be in the Hue province hospital during the Tet Offensive and who made his own investigation of the grave sites.12 Vennema agreed that there were 14 graves at Gia Hoi High School but said there was a total of only 20 bodies in those graves. Vennema also stated that the other two sites in Gia Hoi district of Hue held only 19 bodies rather than the 77 claimed by the government, and that those in the area of the imperial tombs southwest of Hue contained only 29 bodies rather than 201 as claimed in the official report." Which is clearly false, because Vennema (129) cites 101 bodies in his very first mention of grave sites, then expands the count to 203. Vennema (140) also cites 500 skulls at Da Mai, which Porter should have known since he had access to Vennema's unpublished work.

Unlike, Mr. MiG29VN, who seems to think he can arbitrarily remove any cite or content he can't personally prove or doesn't agree with, I will leave it to those who are working on this article to decide whether or not the section needs to be reworked and all mention of Porter's work removed. Txantimedia (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There's been no response to this. Unless there is objection, I intend to remove all references to Porter and all refutations that I have added from the Dispute and Denial section. Porter is not only not a disinterested source by a biased one who chose to lie to support his viewpoint. In my view, that has no place in an article that attempts to protray a NPOV. Txantimedia (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Remove. Porter's "evidence" looks like some bad attempt at data fabrication to support his baseless stories.

• Porter is a questionable source, with views and claims considered extremist and opposed by vast majority of historians, scholars and witnesses and thus are in absolutely no position to make any contentious claims about the Massacre. WP:QUESTIONABLE
• His opinions are held by an extremely small number of people in the academic community, so it doesn't belong on Wikipedia altogether , yet alone devoting a whole section for him. WP:WEIGHT, and WP:BALANCE

I will remove it. Txantimedia (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Porter and his work as well as the refutations of his work that I had added. Txantimedia (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I reported @MiG29VN for edit warring

And what does he do? Reverts a cite AGAIN!!! Txantimedia (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Should this be included? "Writer Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong describes the events of the Hue massacre. He said: "The majority of these people who got killed and buried in this city, first of all, had been killed by the American bombing and strafing during the counterattacks... Bodies of Liberation soldiers whom we did not have time to retrieve were also taken to the mass graves... During the period from 1975—1977, we discovered that in the mass graves of the so-called massacre victims there were full of people who were wearing the lotus-shaped hats and wearing Liberation forces’ uniforms..."[35]"

His version is clearly at odds with the manifest evidence of bodies with arms and legs tied, shot in the back of the head etc. ISTM if the purpose of an article is to present a NPOV, this section does not qualify. Txantimedia (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph. Txantimedia (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Should we create a new section

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)

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)

I like that idea. Txantimedia (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

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)

Clean up of grammer and sentence structure

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)