Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Happy to userfy this to allow the editor to continue to work on that missing extra source. Spartaz Humbug! 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Vinh Xuan massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Page relies on a single source which has been deleted. I have searched for other WP:RS of this event but am unable to find anything other than copies of this page Mztourist (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I updated the dead link; it now goes to the article on Newsweek.com. I don't think it was popularly called "Vinh Xuan massacre" - I think also found some hits about it in Google Books (based on the search results), but unfortunately none of them had previews of the actual page. I'm wondering if, because it involved the South Koreans and Vietnamese and not the Americans, and this was apparently not an isolated incident, it has not been widely covered in the western press. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding a link, but one article written 33 years after the supposed event based on the account of a single Vietnamese villager cannot be regarded as WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oy. First, Newsweek, as a respected magazine, has fact checkers. They wrote about what happened to him, but no way would they publish that without verifying it without experts. Printing this article based on this one guy's story alone would be incredibly stupid and would defy all basic tenets of professional journalism. They would have at minimum one fact checker who verifies names, locations, dates, etc., and probably two for this type of story because of the history of atrocity propaganda. If that had turned out to be a hoax or stories from a delusional person, it would be a notorious goof like other cases and would have possibly destroyed careers (ie Sabrina Erdely). It's pretty obvious that English-language sources are going to be limited. The article has some clues to other sources - the Korean student whose investigation exposed the massacres, the Korean documentary in which former soldiers admitted to massacring civilians, and the human rights organizations demanding both governments stop covering it up. That it happened 33 years earlier is totally and completely irrelevant when you think about the context - governments have significant motivation to keep information secret. (The U.S. government refuses to declassify thousands of documents related to the Kennedy assassination and the Cold War.) Additionally there is no indication at all that "Vinh Xuan Massacre" is a WP:CommonName for this incident - I'm guessing that was just a title chosen by the article creator recently, because every reference I found with the English phrase "vinh xuan massacre" comes from the WP article. I'm going to see if I can get find some Korean sources - I hate to see an article deleted as unreferenced without due diligence.  —Мандичка YO 😜 00:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Vietnamese invent a lot of stuff about the war, I have been involved in the deletion of several articles about battles in the Vietnam War which were based on solely Vietbnamese sources and written 30+ years after the supposed battles took place. The article really says it all when it states: "Koo Soo Jung, who is pursuing a history degree at Ho Chi Minh University in Vietnam. Koo has spent nearly three years gathering government documents, many based on eyewitness accounts, from Vietnamese war museums" If the only sources she is relying on are Vietnamese then she is just repeating Vietnamese propaganda/POV which hasn't changed since the war. They invent battles and massacres that never happened and massively inflate casualty figures when it suits them. Newsweek isn't perfect and I seriously doubt they would have fact-checked to the extent that you believe. The article states "NEWSWEEK has found several villages like Thoi's, where witnesses readily recall South Korean horrors", witness reports 30+ years after the supposed events without any secondary sources is not WP:RS. The fact that the first account occurs 33 years after the supposed event is relevant because news of this would have leaked earlier particularly given the investigation of the My Lai Massacre. Compare and contrast this to the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre which was documented at the time. If you can find WP:RS for this event then obviously it should stay, otherwise it must be deleted as being based on non WP:RS or even WP:HOAX Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Vietnamese invent a lot of stuff about the war" ..... wow. I think you need to step away from these articles and let them be handled by people with a more WP:NPOV. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to do a bit more reading of Vietnamese sources to understand the fact that they continue to perpetuate the official narrative that the Communist Party of Vietnam were the patriots who reunified the country defeating the colonialists (US) and their puppets (South Vietnam) and mercenaries (South Korea) as that is the sole basis for the Party's continuing monopoly on power. Suggest you have a look at a few examples here of invented battles and losses: Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To, Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là and Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao Mztourist (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The references to Newsweek and an encyclopedia mean that this now has RS and should be kept. I accept that wartime propaganda is not an acceptable source, as it is liable to be invented or distorted, but that will not apply to stories that either side was telling against themselves.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia is further reading, not a source for this event. If you read the Newsweek article you will see that minimal detail is provided and it is all based on the claims of one eyewitness. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I share the nom's concerns about the sourcing of this. It would be preferable if something more neutral could be located if the article is going to be kept. Intothatdarkness 17:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Peterkingirons reasoning. I think this is a clear case of not falling under wartime propaganda.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The Newsweek story gives no indication that this story is anything more - or anything less - than the memory of an individual soldier long after the war ended. The Newsweek story, which is short, is about a South Korean graduate student working to recover the brutal side of war.  This story in the opening anecdote. What Newsweek claims to have uncovered is "a pattern of atrocities survivors say were perpetrated by South Korean soldiers."   It is not enough to base an article on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete One source is identified. More are necessary to establish WP:GNG.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, a valiant effort by to find the Newsweek source. That being said WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources that give significant coverage to the subject. Presently there is but the single source. Please notify me if more significant coverage is found elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.