Talk:Massacre at Huế

Protected
I have protected this page following a request by user:209.86.1.9 at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 16:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Battle or Occupation
The specifics of this massacre have to do with the events of the occupation and not the battle, which should be dealt with in a nother article, not this one.


 * A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities contended the discoveries were proof that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out during Hue's occupation. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occured, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.

This is factualy incorrect as well as POV. Other sources besides South vietnames and US have argued that this was a premeditated slaughter. The other authorities who defend the NVA should be specificly named.


 * Those in the Saigon-based government 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. Ordinary civil servants working for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the revolution, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed.

Hanoi's version bieng presented as fact, needs re wording with qualifiers.


 * It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue,

Hanoi's version bieng presented as fact, needs re wording with qualifiers. And sources. TDC 19:53, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * You can not completely seperate the specifics of the battle from the specifics of the occupation, since the battle was ongoing throughout the occupation of Hue. To attempt to say, "No, no, this article should focus on the brutal executions and not the other casualties of the conflict" would be a misrepresentation.  Since the earliest reports of mass grave discoveries were publicized, there was concern that the numbers being generated were being inflated by misrepresentation of casualties caused by battle or other non-execution related deaths.


 * I have no issue with mentioning, and giving a brief account of the battle in its relationship with the NVA’s purge but you are attempting to confuse the two main battles and the events of the occupation. The two are separate and distinct; casualties and collateral damage during the capture and then counter attack (two separate and distinct operations) and the purge which took place in the middle and towards the end of the NVA’s occupation. The article should not blur the two and should rightly focus on the purge. If you want to discuss the civilian casualties that occurred as a result of the battle, there is a place in the article for it, but not the opening paragraph.TDC 15:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see that anyone is attempting to confuse battle casualties, collateral casualties and execution casualties in the main article -- but it has long been contended that such confusion was indeed perpetuated when the reports were first being generated. By claiming in the introductory paragraph that a couple thousand civilians were summarily executed, as part of a premeditated "purge," as if it were documented fact, without mentioning that such allegations are highly contested (and even disproven in some instances) -- THAT is confusing the issue.  You also seem to be confused about when the witnessed executions (yes, actual executions happened, as that was a terror tactic known to be used to sway the masses) occured.  First hand accounts by eye-witness residents prove there were executions of high-profile individuals from the very first day of occupation (not just "middle and towards the end" as you contend).  The anti-communist police chief of Hue tallied the total executions at 200, and the total civilian casualties as close to 4000.  Reporters that personally viewed the mass graves and observed the exhumations cited not many thousands of executions, but numbers in the low hundreds.  And those aren't "Hanoi's version of the facts," those are American and British journalists.  Hanoi's version (yes, documented) is that they mass-buried 2000 civilians that were killed by American bombing and artillery.


 * The opening paragraph should stick with the undisputed facts, and leave the allegations, disputes, suspicions, and perceived propaganda to the body of the article for further discussion. The facts are that thousands of civilians perished, at least a couple hundred by intentional and selective execution.  If you want to inflate premeditated executions into the thousands, that should be done in subsequent sections, as there is weighty evidence to the contrary.  If you want to blame the NVA instead of the NLF for executions, that too appears to be a popular line to blur, and should be attempted later in the article.  If you wish to blur the distinction between the initial show-executions in Hue of "enemies of the people" during the first days of occupation with the subsequent hasty elimination of captives as the remaining forces fled ... this too is material for presentation later in the article. 209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you not read your opening paragraph and the differences between the two?:


 * The Massacre at Hue was the name given to describe the civilian casualties that occurred during North Vietnam's capture and occupation of the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. The civilians killed during the battle can be broadly categorized as: 1) those killed as a result of the battle itself, and 2) those killed as a result of summary executions committed by communist cadres. The Massacre at Hue focuses on the latter category, though estimates vary greatly from a few hundred to several thousand executed. ... A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities contended the discoveries were proof that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out during Hue's occupation. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occured, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.
 * The Massacre at Hue is the name given to describe the summary executions or mass killings that occurred during North Vietnam's capture and occupation of the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War.


 * These are the undisputed facts, there were mass killings and executions (even by yuor own admission), and that is the subject of the article, not civilian casualties, which as you can see is described by wikipedia as something compeltely different.


 * As far as the numbers go, once again, it is open to dispute, but the proponents of the few hundred are drastically drowned out by the proponents of the few thousand. But the facts remain, thousands of civilians perished, and thousands were disappeared by the NVA, never to bee seen again. TDC 00:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You left out a relevant portion of the present opening paragraph, so I added it above for clarity. Can you not read the opening paragraph?  It clearly indicates the FACT that many civilians died (even by your own admission), and also clearly indicates this article focuses on which of those casualties were (proven or alleged) executions.  As for the term civilian casualties, it appears to support your view more than others, in that you seem to contend the executions were part of the planned direct military action rather than the result of revenge, rage or panic killings by a lunatic fringe subset.


 * You think the "proponents of the few hundred are drastically drowned out by the proponents of the few thousand?" I'm sure with a little digging, I could come up with at least two leftist windbags for each proponent you could cite.  As it stands now, most of your proponents just paraphrase and recite Pike's hypothesis.  It was Pike that said about the analysts and pundits, looking back 30 years, "...none of us had it right back then. Fifty years from now, we’ll probably see the issues clearly. But we still won’t know the truth." 209.86.1.200 18:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If as your own version contends: The Massacre at Hue focuses on the latter category, why exactly does the opening line mention only the former?
 * It doesn't (and it's not my version, the "2 catagories" is a Michaels thing). You'd best read the first 2 sentences again.


 * Well, let us delete the "two sentences" and modify the first. TDC 17:06, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * As for other verification of what happened, independent of Pike, lets hear from the VC:


 * The accounts I read of Hue’s experience with revolutionary rule, were unsettling to say the least.


 * Large numbers of people had been executed, most of them associated with the government or opposed to the revolution. But others had been killed as well, including some captured American soldiers, and other foreigners who were non combatants. I had questioned Huynh Tan Phat in private about these atrocities. He had expressed his sorrow and disappointment at what happened, and explained that discipline in Hue had been seriously inadequate. Fanatic young soldiers had shot people and angry local citizens sympathetic to the cause had taken justice into their own hands. 


 * Troung Nhu Tang- A Vietcong Memoir


 * Or from Don Oberdorfer


 * Dr. Horst Gunther Krainick was a German pediatrician and professor of internal medicine who had worked for seven years with teams of Germans and Vietnamese to establish a medical school at Hue University. Krainick stayed in his university apartment after the fall of the city, believing he and his wife would not be harmed. Unknown to them, they were on the original target list. On the fifth day of the occupation, an armed squad arrived and put the Krainicks and two other German doctors into a commandeered Volks-wagen bus. Their bodies were found later in a potato field, all victims of an executioner's bullets.


 * The same day, North Vietnamese troops came in force to the Roman Catholic cathedral, where many people had taken refuge from the fighting. Four hundred men were ordered out, some by name and others apparently because they were of military age or prosperous appearance. When the group was assembled, the political officer on the scene told people not to fear; the men were merely being taken away temporarily for political indoctrination. Nineteen months later, three defectors led U.S. soldiers to a creekbed in a double canopy jungle ten miles from Hue where the skulls and bones of those who had been taken away had lain ever since. Those killed included South Vietnamese servicemen, civil servants, students, and ordinary citizens. The skulls revealed they had been shot or brained with blunt instruments.


 * After Hue was retaken, the South Vietnamese authorities were reported to be guilty of some of the same practices. I learned from a U.S. team that "black teams" of South Vietnamese assassins were sent in to eliminate those who were believed to have aided the enemy during the occupation. On March 14, three weeks after South Vietnam regained control, more than twenty prisoners, including some women and schoolboys, were brought to provincial military headquarters with burlap bags covering their heads and hands tightly wired behind their backs. After being taken into a stone building that was reputed to be a place of execution, all the prisoners disappeared.


 * Or from first hand accounts from US armed forces:


 * Sargent Dye was standing in front of a pit in an area recaptured by the 2/5. Other grunts stood by muttering “Jesus Christ”. An incredible stench rose from it, a stomach turning putrid smell, that seemed to press down on them all the more with all the clouds and drizzle. There below their boots were hundreds of bodies. They were South Vietnamese civilians, all tangled and twisted, as if they clung to each other when the machine guns were turned on them. Dye had heard the rumors of Communists massacring civilians in Hue- but he had never expected to see anything like this.


 * It was a scene Dye never forgot, and he though about it one year later when the My Lai killings hit the paper. It was incredible he thought that the press made such a fuss about My Lai, but never said much about the NVA massacre in Hue.


 * Battle for Hue : Tet 1968 by Keith Nolan


 * Pike also confirms this account, with North Vietnamese sources:


 * ''The official Communist view of the killing in Hue was contained in a book written and published in Hanoi: "Actively combining their efforts with those of the PLAF and population, other self-defence and armed units of the city (of Hue) arrested and called to surrender the surviving functionaries of the puppet administration and officers and men of the puppet army who were skulking. Die-hard cruel agents were punished."

Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, Douglas Pike''


 * According to this, Hanoi knew what was going on and ordered the PLAF to facilitate local VC death squads.


 * Interestingly enough, I doubt you will be able to come up with even one “left wing windbag” who can produce anything but bluster and ad hominems to refute this statement.


 * TDC 20:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting my assertions. As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report.  You prove this by citing Oberdorfer.  Go ahead and compare what you pasted here with what Pike reported.  Much of it is identical.  You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact.  In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publically ... truly an atrocity.  You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested.  Are you trying to make my points for me? 209.86.1.200 20:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither Tang nor Nolan cite Pike's study. Nolan does not cite Pike in his work, it is based off of interviews with veterans. So that would mean it is "independent corroboration not connected with Pike’s work". Tang also only mentions "executions", not "trials and executions". Just because Tang and Nolan's work mathces that of Pike's does not mean Try again. TDC 17:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * These are not simply “rehashes” of Pike’s report, unless by rehash you mean independent corroboration not connected with Pike’s work. Earlier you claimed that “As it stands now, most of your proponents just paraphrase and recite Pike's hypothesis.”, but clearly these are independent and separate from Pike’s work. The fact that they converge on the same findings is most telling. You, however, are going to have a hard time finding people that do not reference the pseudo-academic work of Gareth “I never found a commie I could not apologize for” Porter.


 * You are correct, I meant independent corroboration. Tang, Oberdorfer and the exerpts from Nolan's book, as you have quoted above, all corroborate my assertions.  (Oberdorfer's book came out in 1971, AFTER Pike's report, and even cites Pike.)  Can you find even a single source that can independently support Pike's hypothesis, without merely parroting Pike? 165.247.212.52 08:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, Neither Tang nor Nolan cite Pike's study. TDC 17:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, that may be true. And both support my assertions completely. 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your assertion: “As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report”. Neither Nolan nor Tang rehash Pike’s work, the three are (say it loudly me with so you can understand this concept) “completely independent”. The fact that Nolan and Tang do not cite Pike’s work is not an issue that may be true, it is completely verifiable with no ambiguity about it. Unless, that is, you can come up with something to counter this. So your "assertion" has been show to be completely groundless. TDC 18:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong assertion, TDC. My assertion:  Mass graves were indeed examined, and many civilians (at least a couple hundred) were executed.  What you quoted from Tang and Nolan supports this.  What you quoted from Tang and Nolan does not refute my assertions.  (reading comprehension, remember?) 209.86.3.116 00:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Dont play games little man: Thank you for supporting my assertions. As I noted above, most of your citations will just rehash Pike's report.  You prove this by citing Oberdorfer.. And they did not rehash pike, independent corroboration. Game, set, and match. But if your assertion was that only a "few hundred" were found, perhaps I can read you some more from Tang and Nolan, no? TDC 02:22, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed your misquote, little girl. Oberdorfer did indeed rehash Pike.  Game, set and match.  Now would you like to move along to my actual quote about Tang and Nolan?  You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact.  In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publically ... truly an atrocity.  You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested.  Are you trying to make my points for me? Read much? No? It kind of sucks trying to prove your point by misquoting a person when the accurate, complete quote is just inches above in the very same page, eh?  Gee, maybe next you'll try to secretly delete my posts, and claim I never made any assertions?  209.86.3.213 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Care to move on to your proposed introduction paragraphs, or do you want to lose another match? 209.86.3.213 10:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You prove this by citing Oberdorfer.


 * I proved nothing by citing him. You were the one apparently trying to prove something, I just cited him for fun.  His citation of Pike's work was the only relevant proof here. 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * After initially looking into Oberdorfer, I was under the impression that his estimation of what happened in Hue was based off of Pike’s work, but it now turns out it was only based in part on Pikes work. It seems that some of Oberdorfer account is based on Pike, but the vast majority is based off of interview he conducted and a Rand study by Stephen Hosmer. And then again, there are the others which you continue to ignore, and if you want to work him into the article, you left out some relevant info from your cut and paste job:


 * Hue was occupied for twenty-five days before the North Vietnamese were ousted. During that time, the troops and the political officers who came with them ruled over large parts of the city. One of the central objectives of the occupation, according to a written plan prepared in advance, was to "destroy and disorganize" the administrative machinery that the South Vietnamese regime had established since Vietnam was divided by international agreement in 1954. The effort to root out "enemy" functionaries, according to the plan, was to extend "from the province and district levels to city wards, streets and wharves." The political officers arrived with a carefully prepared "target list" of 196 places, organized on a block-by-block basis, to be given priority attention, including U.S. and South Vietnamese offices and the homes of the officials who worked there, as well as the homes of those who were deemed to be leading or cooperating with their efforts, including foreigners. Once in charge, the occupation forces set about expanding its target lists with the assistance of local sympathizers 


 * The same day, North Vietnamese troops came in force to the Roman Catholic cathedral, where many people had taken refuge from the fighting. Four hundred men were ordered out, some by name and others apparently because they were of military age or prosperous appearance. When the group was assembled, the political officer on the scene told people not to fear; the men were merely being taken away temporarily for political indoctrination. Nineteen months later, three defectors led U.S. soldiers to a creekbed in a double canopy jungle ten miles from Hue where the skulls and bones of those who had been taken away had lain ever since. Those killed included South Vietnamese servicemen, civil servants, students, and ordinary citizens. The skulls revealed they had been shot or brained with blunt instruments.


 * And then there is also this from Oberdorfer


 * Two American graduate students, one who had previously live in Hue, and visited there after the battle, wrote that the killings in the Gai Hoi area “were not the result of a policy of the victorious VC government, but rather the revenge of the NVA in retreat”.


 * You like digging holes for yourself, don’t you?


 * I'm sorry, you lost me. What is it you are trying to prove now? 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You quoted Tang, who corroborates the execution of prominent political enemies - never a disputed fact. In fact, at least a couple hundred were tried and executed publicly


 * But from Tang


 * ''Large numbers of people had been executed, most of them associated with the government or opposed to the revolution. But others had been killed as well, including some captured American soldiers, and other foreigners who were non combatants.


 * Tang cites people “associated with the government or opposed to the revolution” as well as civilians, not “prominent political enemies”. He also credits the NVA for this, not just the VC, and he most certainly never mentions trials.


 * You quote someone from the U.S. Armed Forces that verified the discovery of mass graves - this also was never contested. Are you trying to make my points for me


 * Mass graves of Civilians, not South Vietnams governmental officials, as you continue to claim. TDC 16:44, July 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * I consider government officials to be civilians too, don't you? I'd also be willing to wager that political enemies of Hanoi would qualify as 'opposed to the revolution.'  Once again, you've lost me...  165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good luck trying though, you will need it. TDC 20:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * You have stated, "This is factualy incorrect as well as POV. Other sources besides South vietnames and US have argued that this was a premeditated slaughter. The other authorities who defend the NVA should be specificly named." Actually, all sources should be named, whether they defend Saigon or not, as a general rule of good editing practice.  And the line you quoted is more than POV, it is double-POV.  It establishes both of the predominant points of view regarding what is being called the massacre.  If you consider the line "incorrect" because it attributes one of those views primarily to "US and South Vietnamese authorites," then perhaps we should reword the line to be less specific: Some authorities contend (one view).  Other authorities contend (opposing view).  Simple enough, but not as informative to the reader, in my opinion.


 * Once again, no one outside of the North Vietnamese and Gareth Porter, are arguing that a wide scale and planned purge of civilians took place. One statement is attributed and another is not.


 * I'll assume you meant to say, "...aren't arguing that a wide scale..."
 * Obviously false. Even Pike, in his report, acknowledges that several other explanations for the killings are frequently heard, although he personally disagrees with them.  Mind you, this was before Porter's examination of Pike's analysis.  You also fail to mention Ackland, though you might consider him and Porter to be partners in crime.  Young, mentioned above, has more neutral conclusions, but then she has access to evidence that wasn't yet available to either Porter or Pike during their writings.  And there are more.  You should also keep in mind, much of Pike's presentation is mere hypothesis, and he warns the reader of such within his writings.  Some of his assertions are presented in the wiki-article as facts when they aren't.  209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 *  The mass graves within Hue itself were largely of those who had been picked up and executed for various "enemy of the people" offenses. There is some doubt that the NVA/VC had planned all these executions beforehand but unquestionably it was the largest communist purge of the war.


 * Nicely sourced by the way. TDC 15:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I checked the link you provided. There are no sources at that link. Oversight?  209.86.1.123 22:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding the other exerpts you cited above, you state they "Present Hanoi's version as fact?" Can you direct me to a Hanoi source that presents these facts, or are you just making an assumption?  The information you cited comes from Pike, by the way, (that the captives were to be re-educated and returned was his own conclusion, in fact - see his Da Mai Creek expln.) but if you have a Hanoi source for the same thing, perhaps that should be covered in the article as well. 209.86.0.73 16:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Uwe Siemon-Netto
"Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there. Those of us who had wanted to find out knew of the evil nature of the Hanoi regime. We knew that, in 1956, close to 50,000 peasants were executed in North Vietnam. [As Nguyen Manh Tuong stated at the 1956 National Congress in Hanoi: 'It is better to kill 10 innocent people then let one enemy escape.'] We knew that after the division of the country nearly 1 million North Vietnamese had fled to the South.

"Many of us have seen the tortured and carved-up bodies of men, women and children executed by the Viet Cong in the early phases of the war. And many of us saw, in 1968, the mass graves of Hue, saw [take note, Mr. Patterson] the corpses of thousands of civilians still festively dressed for Tet, the Vietnamese New Year. Why, for Heavens sake, did we not report these expressions of deliberate North Vietnamese strategy at least as extensively as of the Mai Lai massacre and other such isolated incidents that were definitely not part of the U.S. policy in Viet Nam? 

"What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre? Why did we ignore the fact that the man responsible for the executions of 50,000 peasants, Truong Chinh, was — and still is — one of the most powerful figures in Hanoi? What made us think that he and his comrades would have mercy for the vanquished South Vietnamese? What compelled, for example, Anthony Lewis shortly after the fall of Saigon to pat himself on the shoulder and write, "so much for the talk of a massacre?' True, no Cambodian-style massacre took place in Vietnam. It's just that Hanoi coolly drives its ethnic Chinese opponents into the sea. That's what Nasser threatened to do to the Israelis, no massacre intended, of course.

"Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive? Did we not turn public opinion against them, portraying them, as one singularly ignoble cartoon did in the United States, as a bunch of pimps, whores, war profiteers, corrupt generals or, at best, outright reactionaries?

"Considering that today's Vietnam tragedy may have a lot to do with the way we reported yesterday's Vietnam tragedy; considering that we journalists might have our fair share of guilt for the inhuman way the world treats those who are being expelled by an inhuman regime which some of us had pictured as heroic, I think at least a little humility would be in order for us old Viet Nam hands, Mr. Lewis included. And if I did not strongly believe in everybody's right of free expression at any time, I would even admonish him to keep quiet about Indo-China, at least for a while".

How can this be worked into the article? TDC 19:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Should this even be worked into the article? It would be largely redundant, and fit better in a biased news article than a (theoretically) neutral wikipedia page. Lucydesu (talk) 09:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Unprotection
User:TDC has enquired on my user page whether I am considering unprotecting this article. If others agree that this would not result in a resumption of the editing behaviour that got the article protected then please make a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Thryduulf 14:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The "behavior" in question is not mine, and I, once again, find it deplorable that you would reward the anon's 15 reverts by protecting his version of the article. TDC 18:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Following the questions on my talk page:
 * Can you take a look at the Discussion Page and give me your opinion on whether "discussion has died down" or not?
 * It doesn't to me look like any clear consensus has been reached here, hence my question above. If it was clear then I would unprotect (c.f. Talk:Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
 * Can you verify for us if you Page Protect an article version preferred by you, or do you do as most Admins do and protect the disputed page as you find it, regardless of your personal point of view?
 * I protected this page on the version I found it at, as per Protection policy. I do not have a personal point of view on this article, while my interests are wide ranging, wars in general and the Vietnam war in particular, are not amoungst them (for the record I am British and was born in 1980). Contrast this to this diff, because in that situation I have a personal preference and as such I feel it would be impropper for me to protect the article on any version.
 * Can you verify whether you consider it acceptable Wiki-practice to come to your User Talk page and stealthily delete someone else's comments addressed to you, such as was done [on your talk page] ?
 * This is very bad ettiquete indeed, thank you for bringing it to my attention. Thryduulf 21:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda?
I object to this article's contention that "others" believe that the number of victims in the massacre was exaggerated for "propaganda" purposes because the government never used it as a major rallying point for the war. In fact it should probably be mentioned how underreported the incident was in comparison to My Lai. If the government did use the incident in a manner that roused public opinion, please correct me. The same could be more aptly applied to My Lai by saying "some believe the anti-war left exaggerated the number of victims for propaganda purposes during major anti-war rallies". I also think it is wrong to state the number of victims ranged from hundreds to thousands because the generally accepted historical figure has been 3,000, again correct me if I'm mistaken. CJK 26 July 2005
 * You object that the article notes the view that numbers were exaggerated for propaganda purposes? Objections or not, that doesn't change the fact that the contention exists, and is well sourced.  That is why it is in the article.  Please note that nowhere in the article is it stated that the propaganda was successful.  Just out of curiosity, where do you suppose the "generally accepted figure of 3,000" came from? 165.247.212.52 08:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well sourced? Please give me this mysterious source as I failed to find it, or at least say how this "propaganda" was conducted. CJK 27 July 2005
 * You want sources that contention exists? Besides Ackland, Pike, Young, Porter and (if I understand TDC's allegations) the whole Hanoi government?  You are joking, right?  Very plainly:  Conflicting views of the numbers and nature of the deaths have been expressed since the very first grave mass grave was examined.  You object to the "others" views being mentioned in the article.  Object away, they are going to be mentioned anyway, as long as they are established enough to warrant inclusion in the article.  I'm also interested in your opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are deliberately confusing the question posed by CJK: please find one instance where the government used the massacre as propaganda, dont just parrot someone who "thinks" it did and who provides no example themselves. TDC 18:10, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Once again, your reading comprehension has failed you. No one "confused the question," it was completely ignored.  There is no question that several sources assert that the numbers and causes of death were misrepresented.  (Note: I did not say "several sources PROVE the numbers...", I merely said the assertions exist.  We can deal with proofs down the line.) 209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"No one "confused the question," it was completely ignored." Well that clears things up. "...whole Hanoi government..." The Hanoi government is cited as a viable source? Okay... "You object to the "others" views being mentioned in the article." "Others" believe the Holocaust never happened too. "I'm also interested in your opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from" The book Vietnam: A History which is a highly respected work cites 3,000 along with The Atlas of American military history. You still have not cited a confirmed incident where the government deliberately exaggerated the claim or used the massacre for recruitment or in rallies. CJK 28 July 2005
 * "The Hanoi government is cited as a viable source? Okay..."
 * Good. I'm glad we are finally in agreement.  (And as a clarification, I never said other views were "viable" or not, I only said they will be mentioned in the article if they are well established opposing views.) 209.86.3.116 01:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, some people believe that the Holocaust was an allied propaganda invention against the Nazis. Views that aren't backed up by reality should not be in an encyclopedia. CJK 29 July 2005
 * Yup, no argument there. 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "The book Vietnam: A History which is a highly respected work cites 3,000..."
 * From the "Notes on Sources" in that highly respected work, page 738, "Apart from my own notes, I have relied on two outstanding books on this period: Don Oberdorfer, Tet! and Herbert Schandler, The Unmaking of a President." And from the Acknowledgements section on page 742, "The views expressed in this book are mine.  However, I could not have completed a work of such magnitude without the help of many people, including those who assisted me in years past. ... I also owe particular thanks to ... Douglas Pike..."  I asked for your opinion on where the 3,000 figure came from, not for a list of subsequent publications that parrot the "generally accepted historical figure" of 3,000. 209.86.4.211 15:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * And do you have a "better" source in mind? Is Pike's estimate somehow "flawed"?CJK 30 July 2005
 * Do you have an opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from? 209.86.4.211 21:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I just want to know what is so wrong about Pike's study. But a compromise could be 400-5800 which is what Encyclopedia Encarta claims in addition to 2,000 missing, which would replace the vague "few hundred to several thousand". Where exactly is the study that estimated only a "few hundred" by the way? My points about the propaganda still stand. CJK 30 July 2005
 * Do you have an opinion on where this 3,000 figure came from? I can't find it in your last several responses.  209.86.4.211 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It came from a study which you claim was from Pike and others. I'm not sure if I'm grasping your point. Are you asking for the specific study? I don't have an opinion where the figure came from besides that and some publications. CJK 30 July 2005
 * The point being made was that most western accounts (including fine works like the afore mentioned Atlas and Karnow's work) cite Pike, or can be traced ultimately back to Pike. The problem is, Pike isn't a "source."  Pike relied on information given to him second hand by the Saigon government officials.  In addition, most of the numbers obtained by Pike were rough estimates, and furthermore, Pike even notes in his monograph that the cause of death could not be ascertained for a great many of those numbers.  You speak of "generally accepted figures," but I'd like to track this back to actual sources - for the sake of accuracy. 209.86.1.211 04:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

New Proposed Introduction
The Massacre at Hue is the name given to describe the summary executions and mass killings that occurred during North Vietnam's capture, occupation and withdrawal from the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive, considered one of the longest and bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. During the months that followed the battle, dozens of mass graves were discovered in and around Hue containing nearly 3000 civilians. In some of the mass graves victims were found bound together; some appeared tortured; others were even reported to have appeared buried alive. Estimates vary on the number executed, with a low of a couple hundred to a high of several thousand.

A number of US and South Vietnamese authorities took the discoveries, along with other evidence, as proof that a large-scale communist atrocity had been carried out in and around Hue during its four-week occupation. Some of these same sources also contended these killings were premeditated, and part of a large-scale purge of a whole social stratum. Other authorities contended a 'massacre' never occurred, and the numbers and circumstances of the casualties were exaggerated or fabricated for war propaganda reasons.


 * I've slightly modified your proposed two paragraph intro above. Here is my reasoning behind the changes.  Paragraph one:
 * changed or to and -- more accurate; use of 'or' might lead reader to assume only mass killings, and not actual executions, occured
 * changed discovered to unearthed and examined -- since "discovered" implies graves were hidden, when most were not, although some have conjectured that the couple sites located in dense jungle were chosen to prevent discovery
 * Most were not hidden, that is true, but some of the largest, namely Da Mai Creek and the Sand Dunes were done in locations as seclude an inaccessible as possible
 * Actually, the largest was within Hue itself. Do you have a source (other than hypothesis) that supports those graves were intentially hidden?  Regardless, I'll leave it as it stands now ... but I'd like to see your sources.
 * No the largest single finds were the sand dunes (about 15 miles from Hue) at 809, and Da Mai creek (10 miles south of Hue) at 428.
 * changed were found were to were found -- somehow an extra 'were' slipped in there
 * changed number to number executed to differentiate from the number of overall civilian casualties, about which estimates don't vary all that much
 * changed few hundred to couple hundred to represent Police Chief Lap's estimate of 200 executed
 * The Doan Cong Lap initial estimate for civilian executions in Hue, is for one aree, Gai Hoi, found immediately after the NVA were driven from Hue.


 * Paragraph two:
 * changed These same sources contended the discoveries were evidence that a premeditated, large-scale communist atrocity and purge had been carried out during Hue's occupation. to Some of these same sources also contended these killings were premeditated, and part of a large-scale purge of a whole social stratum. to clarify contention and eliminate redundancies


 * Please let me know if the changes I've made are acceptible. Also, I noticed you omitted this info from the intro paragraph:  For example, forty percent of the city was destroyed during 26 days of intense combat, and 116,000 of the Hue's 140,000 population were left homeless. The U.S. and South Vietnamese forces claimed over 5000 communist forces were killed within the city, and another 3000 in the immediately surrounding area.  Would you have any objection to that information appearing in the "Background" section of the article?  209.86.4.174 18:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No comment? 165.247.212.55 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, one issue at a time. TDC 15:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oberdorfer Redux
It would appear that I was completely wrong in my prior assessment of Oberdorfer’s work on Hue. Oberdorfer made three visits to Hue-one during the battle, another just after, and a third in December 1969. While there he examined graves, spoke with relatives of the victims, city officials (those who survived), church leaders, and captured VC. His work on Hue was not drawn from Pike in any way shape or form, and is in fact an independent corroboration of Pike’s assessment. TDC 16:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It pains me to interrupt while you are babbling on about how wrong you are, but unfortunately I must. From Oberdorfer's book, Tet!: The Turning Point in the Vietnam War, in his source material citations:


 * "...Bernard-Joseph Cabanes of Agence France-Presse, Donald Rochlen of the U. S. Information Agency, William Bundy, Wilfred Burchett, Sven Kramer, Douglas Pike, Frank Sieverts, and to the two former Viet Cong officers, Colonel Tran Van Dac and Ba Tra.
 * "...Viet Cong Plans for 1967-1968 Winter-Spring Campaign," February 13, 1968. The Liberation Army Order of the Day was published in Douglas Pike's paper, "The 1968 Viet Cong Lunar New Year Offensive in South Vietnam," distributed by the U. S. Mission, Saigon, February ..."
 * "... Viet Cong target lists and other documents, and Donald Rochlen was invaluable, as ever, in obtaining and declassifying them. Douglas Pike's monograph, The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, privately published in Saigon in February 1970, contained important data on the Hue Massacre ..."
 * "...on pp. 21 and 28-29. The Phu Cam story was told by residents of the area. An account is published in Pike's The Viet Cong Strategy of Terror, PP- 49-50 (215) The story of Father Buu Dong and a copy of his three ..."


 * (the bold emphasis is mine) You know, Pike is even among the initial reviewers of Oberdorfer's book before its first publishing.  It's not difficult to actually open the damn book and scan for footnotes, TDC.  If you don't have a copy, any reasonably stocked library should have a copy.  It's been reprinted several times. 209.86.4.17 03:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am speaking of a series of articles he wrote for the Washington Post in 1968 and 1969 on Hue, not his book Tet. TDC 14:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * Also please provide a page# for the following:


 * There is considerable doubt that the NVA/VC had planned these executions beforehandTDC 16:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

New Subsection Brakdown
I suggest breaking down the new subsection into three additional subsections along Pike's study and differentiation of the three major finds of graves. TDC 16:28, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Contradiction
The first part states that: ''The NLF set up provisional authorities shortly after capturing Hue, 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. ''

and the las part states: There is considerable doubt that the NVA/VC had planned these executions beforehand.

How could there be such a large amount of pre-occupation planning of punitive actions taking place against citizens in Hue, and doubt that the executions were pre-planned?


 * You are absolutely correct. So you caught me before morning coffee, don't let it go to your head. 165.247.213.27 17:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions on insertions
You added the following content, "Philip W. Manhard, US province senior advisor in Hue, was taken to a POW camp by the NVA held until 1973. Manhard recounted that during the NVA withdrawal from Hue the NVA summarily executing anyone in their custody who resisted being taken out of the city or who was too old, too young, or two frail to make the journey to the camp." Since I know at least some of this to be true, I won't remove it for now, but may I have a source citation please? (Also, I see several typos... two -> too, executing -> executed, NVA held -> NVA and held) 165.247.213.27 18:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs Oral History Project (Georgetown University) - 1974 interview TDC 18:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oberdorfer info: Washington Post; Dec 4 1969 A21, Dec 7 1969 A13

I've moved the following exerpt here for verification: "The mass graves within Hue itself were largely of those who had been picked up and executed for various "enemy of the people" offenses, or resisted the occupation."


 * Pikes statement seems to refute that, "The other nearly 600 (bodies found in Hue) bore wound marks but there was no way of determining whether they died by firing squad or incidental to the battle."
 * Burchett's report in the Dec 6 Guardian seems to refute that too, citing the NLF claims that 2,000 victims of the American bombardment were buried in mass graves.


 * What page is the Pike citation from. And you must mean KGB agent Burchett. Considering his Burchett's credentials, I think we can safely dismiss his comtributions. TDC 18:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

The Pike citation is from the page where he discusses the initial mass grave that was examined, the one in Hue containing almost 1200 bodies. As for "considering Burchett's credentials," I don't. I only consider facts, as should you. If a talking dog says, "John Smith claims Bush is President," you should not dismiss what John Smith says, nor should you discount the alleged fact that Bush is president, simply because you have issues with talking dogs. 165.247.200.210 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice strawman, but unfortunately it does not apply. TDC 19:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Oberdorfer account
What is your source for this account? It differs greatly from mine, including the quotes? My insertion is based off of two articles he wrote for the Post on December 4th and 7th of 1969, and the quotes are direct, are there two versions of the story, and if not what is your source for the change of material. TDC 15:24, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * My source is pages photocopied directly from the Post's archives, at a cost of $3.95 per article -- but hey, no price too high for accuracy. I replaced your quote with an exact word for word transcription. 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thats funny, because I got mine on microfische over at the library, is there a revision # on the Post archive? TDC 18:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strange indeed. Why not hop over to washingpost.com, click on "Archives" and request copies for comparison?  That way you can eliminate the chance of errors as you attempt to transcribe from microfiche to paper to wiki-article. 165.247.200.210 19:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because I am not going to pay $4 for the copy. but as I asked earlier, was there a re# or correction notice on your copy from the Post? TDC 19:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Source for Paragraph
''It was determined by piecing together bits of information from several sources that a large number of people had taken sanctuary from the battle in a local church. Several hundred of these people were ordered out to undergo indoctrination in the "liberated area," and told afterwards they would be allowed to return home. After marching the group south 9 kilometers, 20 of the people were seperated, tried, found guilty, executed and buried. The others were taken across the river and turned over to a local communist unit in an exchange that even included written receipts. It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue, but many were apparently shot days later when American or ARVN units came too close.''

I have not found this in Pike’s study. TDC

Check pages 28-29 of his report and hypothesis to the US Mission in Saigon. 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Text as it appears in the article


 * Several hundred of these people were ordered out to undergo indoctrination in the "liberated area," and told afterwards they would be allowed to return home. After marching the group south 9 kilometers, 20 of the people were separated, tried, found guilty, executed and buried. The others were taken across the river and turned over to a local communist unit in an exchange that even included written receipts. It is probable that the remaining captives were to be re-educated and returned to Hue, but many were apparently shot days later when American or ARVN units came too close. Local authorities later released a list of 428 names of people they claimed were identified from the bones found over a 100 yard area of the Da Mai creek bed.


 * Now for what Pike actually wrote.


 * They were marched nine kilometres south to a pagoda where the Communists had established a headquarters. There 20 were called out from the group, assembled before a drumhead court, tried, found guilty, executed and buried in the pagoda yard. The remainder were taken across the river and turned over to a local Communist unit in an exchange that even involved banding the political commissar a receipt. 'It is probable that the commissar intended that their prisoners should be re-educated and returned, but with the turnover, matters passed from his control.


 * During the next several days, exactly how many is not known, both captive and captor wandered the countryside. At some point the local Communists decided to eliminate witnesses: Their captives were led through six kilometres of some of the most rugged terrain in Central Vietnam, to Da Mai Creek. There they were shot or brained and their bodies left to wash in the running stream. 


 * This is one of the grossest misrepresentations of a source I have ever seen. Pike mentions nothing about the victims bieng shot “when American or ARVN units came too close”. I don’t know where this particular phrase came from, but you cannot mix an match sources like this without indicating so. Also, it is disingenuous, at best, to use some of Pike’s work, while failing to include the most important and relevant sections. TDC 18:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

''These individuals, according to VC documents captured during and after the seige, 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 government 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. Ordinary civil servants working for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the revolution, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed.''

I have also not found a source for this. TDC 15:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * from the Rochlen papers, and also referenced by Young, Oberdorfer and others 165.247.204.125 18:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * More specific please. TDC 18:35, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Hard to Read
These sections are bundled into really long paragraphs loaded with long sentences, many of the sentences containing two or three separate points. It all needs to be seriously revamped and broken up for ease of reading.

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) (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 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:


 * the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
 * it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
 * there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 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. 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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.

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:

I'll resume heavy contribs to this article soon, after I feel better...Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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 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)

My add
Some details, which i revert:

ARVN repeatedly refused to journalist's demanded to see the graves, for example, a French photographer Marc Riboud, when he travelled to the alleged site, the helicopter's pilot refused to land, claiming that the area was "insecure." Riboud never saw the site, and he claimed the map coordinates of the grave sites was not resembling the one described by South Vietnamese officer.

Moreover, many of the ARVN reports have contradictions on the number of bodies that were uncovered. At the Gia Hoi High School sites, Stewart Harris, of the London Times, reported the total bodies between 66 and 150, instead 200 bodies as American officer's report. ARVN's Tenth Political Warfare Battalion said there were 14 graves at the high school instead of 22, which would have reduced the total still further. Harris had taken the trouble to look at some of the graves and see the mutilated bodies. However, Harris claimed the number executed - only 200. In 1974, Porter wrote a detailed criticism of U.S. Information Agency official Douglas Pike's account of the "Massacre at Hu? during the Tet Offensive." Porter claimed that Pike manipulated official figures to make it appear that over 2,800 civilians were murdered by the Viet Cong, and the numbers and causes of death were actually much different. He asserted that Douglas Pike was a "media manipulator par excellence," working in collusion with the ARVN 10th Political Warfare Battalion to manufacture the story of the massacre at the direction of Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker. Additionally, he claimed that Pike overestimated the number of those killed by the VC cadres and that "thousands" of civilians killed in Hue "were in fact victims of American air power and of the ground fighting that raged in the hamlets, rather than NLF execution." His conclusion: "The official story of an indiscriminate slaughter of those who were considered to be unsympathetic to the NLF is a complete fabrication.".


 * Porter is completely unreliable. I have proven this.  Go back and read what I wrote.  He cannot be used as a source in Wikipedia. Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

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..."


 * This account is completely contradicted by the manifest evidence developed by serveral writers, including Alje Vennema. It's nothing but communist propaganda.  It should not be in the article. Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

All of them have a reliable source (U.S. goverment's Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress, New York Times, WGBH's link), and no reason to remove them113.190.46.114 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they are not reliable sources. Porter is not reliable.  Hoang is not reliable.  Stewart Harris' report doesn't dispute anything.  His report predates the vast majority of the discoveries of bodies.  There were 2.5 times that many bodies at Da Mai Creek alone, and those are, without dispute, all murders by PAVN/PLAF troops.  Clearly Harris' early report has no place in an article that attempts to define the history of the event.


 * You've reverted a great deal of work without discussion, without any explanation and without justification. Please do not do it again, or you will be reported.  Txantimedia (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

dig +short -x 113.190.46.114 dynamic.vdc.vn. has started reverting without discussion
He has added all of the cites I removed after discussion in talk. He did this without any warning or discussion with anyone.

First of all, Porter is not a reliable source. There are multiple verifiable lies in his articles, which I have documented previously and may be read in previous talk discussions. No cites for Porter should appear in this article due to the proven unreliability of his information.

Secondly, the section on writer Hoang Phu Ngoc Tuong is clearly communist propaganda that is in disagreement with all of the major sources. It should not be included. you are invited to discuss these issues before you make any more changes. Txantimedia (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will add a new source, it is George Mason University's History News Network (see that http://hnn.us/article/23641)42.113.103.248 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * New source for what? If you're referring to the no massacre myth, Laderman provides no new evidence and merely quotes and cites previous writers like Porter and Young in his works. In this article he does neither. He simply claims, without evidence, that the bloodbath stores were false.  That's not evidence worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I am opposed to this addition, certainly without further discussion from other involved editors. --Txantimedia (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "He simply claims, without evidence" - Now, we see that:

5 Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, The Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam, 2-3. Excerpts from Hosmer and Honey’s studies were reprinted in the document; their estimates appeared on pages 62-63 and 112, respectively. Eastland’s statement that “virtually every serious student of Vietnamese affairs” was in agreement about the “bloodbath” hypothesis was and is demonstrably false. While the word “virtually” admittedly lent the statement a certain degree of ambiguity, many academic scholars of Vietnam and Asia had challenged, in the years preceding the senator’s allegation, the likelihood of a massive bloodletting following an American defeat. '''In May 1970, for instance, the Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars issued “Twelve Questions on Vietnam,” a document intended to respond to some of the basic questions about the war that the organization believed were being clouded by official misinformation. One of the questions specifically addressed the bloodbath theory; the scholars concluded that, “looking at the question in historical perspective, there is reason to doubt the likelihood of a bloodbath.” The same section of the document also took issue with the Nixon administration’s statements about the “Hue Massacre.” Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, Cornell University, “Twelve Questions on Vietnam,” May 1970, Folder 06, Box 08, Douglas Pike Collection: Unit 03 – Antiwar Activities, V.A., T.T.U. - See more at: http://hnn.us/article/23641#sthash.QSCleqeR.dpuf'''

That our evidences. So, your reason was gone?113.190.46.114 (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not evidence. It's Porter's testimony before Congress.  I have already shown that Porter lies about his sources and mistranslates documents.  Furthermore, Porter is referring here to the bloodbath in North Vietnam during land reform, not the Massacre in Hue.  As such, it belongs in that section, not here, if it belongs on Wikipedia at all.  The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars is a Marxist organization that was clearly pro-Hanoi and biased in their presentation of "evidence".  Porter was Chairman of the Cornell chapter.  That should tell you something about his supposed neutrality.  Porter lied about the North Vietnam land reform, lied about Hue and lied about the bloodbath theory. --Txantimedia (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * We are telling about The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars's document. It's a Marxist organization, maybe, but it isn't a reason. "that was clearly pro-Hano" - it's only your view. Their works are verifiable and reliable and shouldn't be discounted just because they don't fit a certain point of view. Ok113.190.46.134 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If that's true, then all of Hanoi's opinions should be included in the article. Does that make any sense to you?  I thought wikipedia articles were supposed to be about facts, not propaganda.  If Hanoi's opinions had any relation to the truth, with regard to this article, then they should certainly be included.  But time and evidence have proven (in my opinion conclusively) that Hanoi lied about the massacre.  Therefore, their POV is not NPOV and should not be included. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see that: http://hnn.us/article/23641. Is this a reliable source?


 * You should be aware, if you aren't already, that the IP with whom you are engaging is MiG29VN logged-out.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that. So long as he doesn't arbitrarily revert without discussion, I have no problem with him wanting to engage on the details of the article.  --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are free to engage an indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer, but the only reason he has continued to edit Tet Offensive while making no edits here is because this page was protected.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't actually need administrative help with this - any editor can comment on the reliability of sources. If you just need a third opinion, the best template to use is just - or better yet ask for a third opinion directly or (for an issue like this) file a notice at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. However, since you asked: I would say that the HNN article meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. It is published through a medium with editorial oversight, hosted by a recognised educational institution, and written by a professional historian with appropriate academic qualifications.
 * That said, my opinion in this is no more valid than any other editor's, and the admin bit is entirely irrelevant to both the question and my response. Yunshui 雲 水 11:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. I agree that HNN is a reliable source.  The problem I have with this particular article is two-fold.  First, the author is relying on Porter for his information, and Porter is clearly an unreliable source.  Secondly, the article is about the North Vietnam land reform not the Hue Massacre.  I fail to see its relevance to this article. --Txantimedia (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking for cites
I added citation needed to these two paragraphs under Course of the Occupation:

Ordinary civil servants who worked for "the Saigon enemy" out of necessity, but did not oppose the communists, were destined for reeducation and later employment. Low-level civil servants who had at some point been involved in paramilitary activities were to be held for reeducation, but not employed. There are documented cases of individuals who were executed by the VC when they tried to hide or otherwise resisted during the early stages of Huế's occupation.[citation needed]

Within days of the capture, US Marine Corps (USMC) and US Army as well as ARVN infantry units were dispatched to counterattack and recaptured the city after weeks of fierce fighting, during which the city and its outlying areas were exposed to repeated shelling from US Navy ships off the coast and numerous bombing runs by U.S. aircraft. It was reported that during the USMC and ARVN attack, North Vietnam's forces had rounded up those individuals whose names it had previously collected and had them executed or sent North for "reeducation".[citation needed]

I'll try to find supporting cites, but I wasn't comfortable with these not being cited. Txantimedia (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I found cites for both and added them. --Txantimedia (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the quotes of communist orders and after action reports be bolded? Or is that not NPOV? --Txantimedia (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. I will leave them as they are now. --Txantimedia (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Various edits I've made
I edited the 4th paragraph of the eyewitnesses section. The original read "In an interview with Ho Ty, a VC commander who took part in the advanced planning of a general uprising, Oberdorfer reported Ty's statement that the Communist party "was particularly anxious to get those people at Phucam... The Catholics were considered particular enemies of ours." It was apparently this group whose remains were later found in the Da Mai Creek bed.[12] The murders of 500 people at Da Mai were authorized by PRG command "on grounds that the victims had been traitors to the revolution." I thought it was awkwardly worded so I changed it as follows: "Oberdorfer interviewed Ho Ty, a VC commander who took part in the advanced planning of a general uprising. He reported that Ty recounted that the Communist party "was particularly anxious to get those people at Phucam..." --Txantimedia (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved some things around. I put the Bui Tin paragraph in Dispute and Denial, moved the two paragraphs about NVA documents into the Documents section and removed a sentence about Radio Hanoi that was cited again later in the same section. Hopefully all of this work will make the article more readable and easier to understand. --Txantimedia (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Should Discovery be moved?
I'm thinking that the Discovery section should precede the Executions and Dispute and Denial sections. Make sense? --Txantimedia (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Discovery" already precedes "Dispute and Denial". Why would it come before the killings (and "communist preliminary occupation plans") themselves?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that Discovery tells about how the story first unfolded. Then the Executions section reveals everything that's been learned; from captured documents, from public communications, from defectors, from eye witnesses, from exhumations, etc;  Then Dispute and Denial describes those who disagree with the findings. --Txantimedia (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd rather keep it chronological, but I am open to other opinions.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me think about it some more. --Txantimedia (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Question about new sources
In my research I have found convincing evidence that Oriana Fallaci's account of "at least 200 people, and perhaps as many as 1,100, who were killed following the "liberation" of Huế by the US and ARVN." is most likely a false story planted by a communist agent.

She writes "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 there sympathy fro the NLF.”

There are several problems with this story.
 * 1) The Marines never took the Imperial Palace. That job was given to the 2nd Battalion 3rd Armored Regiment ARVN.  They took the palace on the morning of February 24th.  The Battle for Hue, 1968,  08 March 1965, Folder 02, Box 01, James Willbanks Collection, The Vietnam Center and Archive, Texas Tech University. Accessed 10 May. 2014. . 34
 * 2) On Feb 21 the NYT reported that the Mayor of Hue had announced that there would be executions of VC collaborators within 2 days. HUE CHIEF ISSUES EXECUTION ORDER: Mayor Says Some Enemy Agents Face ... By The Associated Press New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 21, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 1
 * 3) On Feb 22 the NYT reported that the Mayor had been overridden by General Lam, who stated that there would be no executions without military tribunals first. They also reported that there were 200 collaborators in custody, 30 of whom they suspected of being high-ranking communist officials. Court Planned in Hue To Try Enemy Agents New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 22, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 11
 * 4) On Feb 23 the NYT reported that Brig. Gen. Loan had arrived in Hue to interrogate the prisoners. Gen. Loan Off to Hue To Question Suspects New York Times (1923-Current file); Feb 23, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2010) pg. 3
 * 5) On March 28 Stewart Harris of the London Times, reporting in the NYT reported that the authorities had 477 VC and NVA in custody and "nearly 300" collaborators. In Hue, Graves Disclose Executions by the Enemy New York Times (1923-Current file); Mar 28, 1968; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851 2010) pg. 4

So the executions supposedly began two days AFTER orders had been given that no one would be executed without a military trial. After an extensive search of the NYT, WaPo and the Dallas Morning News, I found no corroborating evidence to support Fallaci's story. A review of existing literature uncovered three mentions of the story; in Karnow's Vietnam (pg. 519), Marilyn Young's The Vietnam Wars (pg. 219) and Scott Laderman's Tours of Vietnam. Neither Karnow nor Young provide any corroborating evidence or cite any source for the claim. Laderman cites Fallaci, Karnow and Young.

I also contacted someone, who wishes to remain an anonymous source and so cannot be used here, who was in a position to know if assassinations of collaborators were being conducted in Hue by the South Vietnamese. He told me that he was not aware of any such action and doubted that it had occurred. He said that the snipers that he captured where turned over the Provincial Interrogation Center. He was one of the people who searching for missing Americans and was an eyewitness of the disinterment of Stephen Miller, the US A.I.D. employee who was murdered by the VC/NVA.

This looks for all the world like a self-sustaining rumor that was never adequately investigated. The single source is Fallaci's interview of a supposed priest. Nothing else corroborates the story, and existing evidence refutes it.

The problem I have is that I don't know what to do with it. Fallaci's report is a legitimate cite. Is it appropriate to provide refutation along with it? That seems a little odd given that the Fallaci quote is in the Dispute and denial section.

Should I create a new article that deals with it? It seems a side issue to the massacre, but OTOH, it is part of the article.

Any advice would be appreciated. --Txantimedia (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Massacre at Huế. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150308220933/http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/hue.html to http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/HIUS316/mbase/docs/hue.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050827134331/http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu:80/vietnamcenter/general/douglas_pike.htm to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/general/douglas_pike.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050728023414/http://www.vietquoc.com:80/0002vq.htm to http://www.vietquoc.com/0002vq.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041021083834/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp5_Block%20by%20Block.pdf to http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/Block/chp5_Block%20by%20Block.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliability Of Counterpunch
Is Counterpunch reliable? I don't think it is. This recent article denies the massacre ever happened, even though it is widely documented that it did. It seems to deny atrocities committed by the Viet Cong. 173.67.106.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Its clearly WP:BIASED regards Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The post is short of North Vietnam opinions. Most of them comes from perspective of USA and South Vietnam authorities, make this like a anti-NVA propaganda post. At least add the controvesary opinions. Actually there're documents about this event, but none of them are really reliable and prove that all the victims die from NVA butcher. There are tons of causes could leads to these deaths, especially US bombing and the gun fights between two armies. No one, even the witnesses (as they could lie), could be reliable source to generalise a vast region and event. Need more opinions besides USs and SV authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.229.168.85 (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to present facts,not opinions. The facts in this article are well documented and from multiple eye witnesses. The claim that the causes were US bombing or gun fights between the combatants have been thoroughly disproven and have no place in a Wikipedia article. Additionally, disagreements from credentialed scholars are presented in the article, without comment, to demonstrate that there is disagreement on the number of victims. There is no disagreement among scholars that a massacre occurred. The only disagreement is regarding the size of the massacre.


 * People who are unearthed from graves with rags stuffed in their mouths and no visible wounds, as well as hands tied behind their backs, are not evidence of death from bombing or firefights.


 * If you have factual evidence to present, provide it. Opinions are not evidence. Txantimedia (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Added talkref. Please place any additional discussion topics above the below line.

Txantimedia (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this source usable?
This I found this book by Noam Chomsky claimed that the whole thing was American propaganda. Is it okay to be used as a source for additional information in the Dispute section? Nmphuong91 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Chomsky is not a reliable source. Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Nmphuong91 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * He's not a historian, and he is a proven liar. Txantimedia (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Avram Noam Chomsky (US: /ævˈrɑːm ˈnoʊm ˈtʃɒmski/ (About this sound listen) av-RAHM NOHM CHOM-skee; born December 7, 1928) is an American linguist, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist." So say our own Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia shouldn't contradict itself. What is your source to back up your claim? Beside, I would like to discuss reliable source according to Wikipedia's policy Identifying reliable sources. Currently, I haven't found any rule that claim "proven liar" is not a reliable source. Nmphuong91 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Noam Chomsky is a linguist, not a historian. That is his profession. He has written books that purport to be history, but historians have demonstrated that his books are not accurate and no credentialed journal has ever reviewed his books. More to the point, his claim that the massacre was propaganda is proven false by the facts. The Dispute section includes historians who disagree on details of the massacre but not on the proven fact that the massacre occurred. Chomsky claims it never happened, which is provably false. Txantimedia (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "The Dispute section includes historians who disagree on details of the massacre but not on the proven fact that the massacre occurred.". Then adding Chomsky's view would be a great improvement to the section and the article? Nmphuong91 (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. If it makes sense to you, then ask for consensus, per Consensus. I vote no to adding it. Txantimedia (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote." Consensus is not a vote. You haven't really pointed out why would it doesn't make sense, according to Wikipedia policy. What you said about Noam Chomsky is unsourced, nor it would in violation of Wikipedia policy even if that were true according to Identifying_reliable_sources and Identifying_reliable_sources. It would be impossible to reach consensus if the dispute is I_just_don't_like_it. Can you try to make your point again, this time point out what exactly is the problem according to Wikipedia policy with source to properly back up your claim? Nmphuong91 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You are the one proposing this. The onus is on you to demonstrate why it should be added. Wikipedia is built on facts and reliable sources. Chomsky is neither. He is no more reliable than Counterpunch, which, if you read previous talk page discussions, has been rejected because it's not a reliable source. See WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:BIASED and WP:RS/AC. Chomsky fails every one of those tests. As for facts, it is a fact that the massacre occurred. No reliable scholar disputes that. Chomsky does. That should be sufficient to reject his opinions for this article. The dispute system includes scholars who agree with the academic consensus but disagree on details. Chomsky disagrees with the academic consensus. Do a Google search for Chomsky on Wikipedia. You won't find one article where he is cited as a source, except for articles about him. Read this: Political positions of Noam Chomsky Either ask for consensus or give it up. Txantimedia (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be added because it met Wikipedia policy, isn't that enough demonstration? If both you and I do not demonstrate anything, I will just go ahead and add it in. Therefore, it's up to you to demonstrate why I shouldn't do that. Now, I will try to answer your concern.
 * 1. He is no more reliable than Counterpunch. [citation needed]
 * 2. WP:RSCONTEXT. A book published by South End Press in 1979. That shouldn't be a problem.
 * 3. WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Met the condition "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable
 * 4. WP:BIASED. "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
 * 5. "As for facts, it is a fact that the massacre occurred. No reliable scholar disputes that. Chomsky does. That should be sufficient to reject his opinions for this article." [citation needed]
 * 6. "The dispute system includes scholars who agree with the academic consensus but disagree on details. Chomsky disagrees with the academic consensus." A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. So, [citation needed]
 * The few last sentence are not concern to be addressed, is that right? If they are, I will address it the next time. Nmphuong91 (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Bias Article?
Why does the main editor of this article disapprove any articles or sources claiming that's the size of the massacare was way less or no massacre happened? Please provide pictures instead of adding up and making up numbers.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.160.26.207 (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There are numerous reliable sources that a massacre of several thousand South Vietnamese took place. If you can find any WP:RS that contradicts this please feel free to add it. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As @Mztourist states, there are many reliable sources that document the massacre. Those who disagree must find eqaully weighted proof that no massacre occurred. The doubters are noted in the article. And their arguments have all been disproven by the evidence. There is photographic proof of the victims of the Dai Mai creek massacre and that alone disproves many of the doubters. Txantimedia (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

But when there are sources, you claim those to be false? You use sources from US Armies but denied other sources that claim the opposite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.160.26.117 (talk) 04:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to show that they are WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The massacre is a fact, with or without publication of numbers of massacred people, with or without the publication of pictures. Any doubt/denial about the existence of the massacre at Hue would mean ultimately an affont to the victims of the massacre as well as to the loved ones of the victims. Beautiful Bavaria (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Someone recently anonmyously edited the Infobox, using an IP address based in New Jersey, to include, under perpetrators, "ARVN (alleged)" and claimed that the reason for the edit was "(according to dispute section)". There is nothing in the dispute section alleging that anyone has credibly claimed that the massacre was conducted by the ARVN. I have reverted the change. Please do not change it again without first discussing the reason for the change here in the talk section and providing supporting documentation as well as agreement from other editors. Any further attempts to deface the article will be reported. Txantimedia (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Mztourist (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

3/29/2022 - 2402:800:6114:22D8:C034:B526:E6DD:77FE - This IP is based in Hanoi

Whoever this is, please stop changing the infobox on this page without first discussing it on the talk page with the editors who maintain this page. Your change has been reverted because it contained false information. Txantimedia (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of Ben Kiernan source
In the introduction there is a reference to the book "Việt Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present" This book has been heavily criticized for its sources, and has all red flags of a propaganda piece. I don't think it has any place on this website. Lucydesu (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of those criticisms. You would need to raise that on the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Mztourist (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I too was unaware of those criticisms. I read the Wikipedia article on Kiernan, and there seems to be some justification for criticism of this specific book. Given that the quote taken from the book agrees with the known facts of the massacre, I'm not sure it's worth quibbling over. The only thing I would take issue with is the use of the word "probably". I think it is the largest atrocity of the war - at least the largest known and documented. Txantimedia (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems that there is one negative review of the book noted on the Ben Kiernan page and so that doesn't seem to justify discarding it as a source especially when it is only used once for a frankly undeniable, assessment of the massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Authenticity of information
There is no credible evidence that it was carried out by the North Vietnamese Army or the US Army. But the opening content firmly asserts that it was made by the North Vietnamese, making it look like anti-North Vietnamese propaganda in particular and the Communists say they are American and anti-Communist. Even on the website in Vietnamese, only mention is detected and not exactly which party is mentioned. on sensitive issues like this should be written in a neutral way rather than trying to push the blame on one side. And if you value freedom of speech, don't ban others if they disagree with you Thtruth (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The credible evidence is sourced throughout the article. There is no question that the massacre was conducted by the NVA nor is there any question that it was planned in advance or celebrated afterward. How do you write "in a neutral way" that a massacre occurred and was planned to occur by the actors who did it without identifying the actors?
 * The Vietnamese Wikipedia is controlled by and written by the communist party of Vietnam, and they, of course, want to deny that the massacre happened and that they were responsible for it. But their own documentation and statements by their own party members, as documented in the article, admit to, describe, and celebrate the massacre. Truth is not propaganda.
 * You write "and the Communists say they are American and anti-Communist". What is the they that you refer to? The massacre? Txantimedia (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Txantimedia is absolutely right, the massacre was perpetrated by the PAVN/VC, multiple WP:RS confirm this. Vietnamese sources are not reliable given the Censorship in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, The are no censorship for that and literally everyone in Vietnam knows what happened, so you and Txantimedia are wrong. LongnamXL35 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not right. Both sides did it, not just the North, the South and The US also did it. The South and the US just deny it and blame to the North and the North also denies it and blames to the South and The US. Both sides make their own propaganda to tell everyone they didn't did it, that means both sides have no reliable sources at all. LongnamXL35 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is ONE paragraph from the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of the Hue Massacre.
 * "So far, documents from both Vietnam and the United States have been responsible for each other for the cause and authenticity of this event. Meanwhile, the opposition to the war (such as Gareth Porter) and many Western scholars affirmed that the number and circumstances of the killers were amplified by the US and Vietnam Republic to serve to serve to serve Purpose of propaganda during the war. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The source from the Liberation Army, noted that they had buried many civilians dying due to heavy fire of the US and their soldiers died. [9] [10] There are also many other sources that the number of deaths in Hue in this campaign is due to firepower in the effort to recapture the US and the revenge of the Republic of Vietnam on the supporters of the Liberation Army. . [11] [12] [13]"
 * Now all you have to do is overcome the massive amount of documentation from all of the PAVN, NLF, RVN, and US sources used in this article that demonstrate that a massive planned massacre was perpetrated by the communist side. Txantimedia (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both sides did it, both sides deny it, both sides make propaganda to blame each other. LongnamXL35 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Both sides committed massacres. Both sides do not deny it. The Hue Massacre was committed by the North Vietnamese communists, as the article proves. If you have reliable evidence that can overcome all the reliable evidence cited in the article, then post it here, and we can discuss it. Txantimedia (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop just blame the communist, both side did it, you can't just support the South like that. LongnamXL35 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide reliable sources to show that both sides did it. Otherwise this conversation is futile. Unless you can provide reliable sources to demonstrate that both sides were involved in the massacre at Hue, I'm not going to respond to you again. But you have a high hill to climb considering how much evidence already exists demonstrating that the communists committed the massacre. Txantimedia (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Txantimedia, provide WP:RS otherwise there is no change. Mztourist (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a magazine like this, it's not related but it proves that the Liberator is not that bad.
 * https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DVqM6K8UQAARS6D.jpg:large LongnamXL35 (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That proves absolutely nothing. Frankly they were lucky they weren't executed also. Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * you just talking like a reactionary would talk. LongnamXL35 (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They have a reason to kill, and already knows it's bad but they have no choice because those people resist them. LongnamXL35 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "reactionary"? that's hilarious. Unarmed people resisted them so that's "a reason to kill"? That's the definition of a massacre/war crime. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. People resists to following the communist are deserve to be cleansed. The North will not kill anymore if they accept to live with the communist. Also, you don't even understand what's reactionary means, right? LongnamXL35 (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Right-wing written article
This article is might have been written by a right-winger, which doesn't have any neutral opinions at all. LongnamXL35 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)