Talk:Hà My massacre

Ref improve
I have read the Kwon online article and do not believe that it can be regarded as WP:RS. The article was a contribution to an online magazine in 2007 and so doesn't appear to have been subjected to editorial scrutiny. Many of the sources relied on are Vietnamese and so are inherently unreliable. There are no references given whatsoever for the account of the massacre itself, the entire account takes place between footnotes 27 and 28. The majority of the article is actually devoted to a more general discussion of the treatment of Vietnamese civilians in free-fire zones, discussion of the My Lai massacre, a lot of unverified personal accounts and a lot of implication and inference. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me you removed book citations, and again the fact is that you aren't qualified to rule out articles based on their sources. you aren't the judge of reliable sources. go take it up with WP:RS because you are WP:OWN articles. 66.229.17.212 (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No ownership here. My comments above were made in 2015 in relation to Kwon's article "Anatomy of US and South Korean Massacres in the Vietnamese Year of the Monkey, 1968" published in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. No new WP:RS have been provided since then. Mztourist (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just looked at Adams and Gillogly's Everyday Life in Southeast Asia, basically they just recite Kwon, so Kwon is essentially the only source for all of the claims on this page. That doesn't meet the requirements of WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"Purportedly" and inclusion of "Ha Gia massacre"
The word "purportedly" is correct because this is an alleged massacre based on minimal WP:RS and so may or may not have actually occurred. This issue has been tagged since May 2015. "Ha Gia massacre" should not be included on this page because such event lacks WP:RS and its inclusion here is an attempt to create guilt by association. Mztourist (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Look, I don't care whatever weasel words you want to use, but you have no discussion or consensus behind this issue. you are not right to remove cited works and academic publications because you don't feel it is wp:rs. go take it to the proper channels before you do such changes as remove content. 66.229.17.212 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was consensus on this page until A bicyclette came along and made these changes and then you took up the cause after A bicyclette was blocked. I am following "proper channels", you are the one not following WP:BRD. You can't just say that you disagree with me, you need to explain why you disagree and we then see if we can reach a new consensus. I have explained my position above. You now need to respond to that. Until then the page stays as it was. Mztourist (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

other factual inaccuracies
152mm was not a caliber used by Allied forces in Vietnam, other than on the M551 Sheridan, but it was a Soviet caliber. Also helicopters (other than the CH-47 and CH-54 which the Koreans didn't have) didn't drop napalm and in fact its unlikely that the ROK forces would have had any access to napalm as there were no ROK Air Force attack planes deployed in South Vietnam.Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)