Talk:Thủy Bồ incident

Poorly written, biased and lacks WP:RS

This page is poorly written and referenced, terribly biased and lacks WP:RS of the purported massacre, relying largely on implication, Nick Turse whose methods have been shown to be questionable and Heonik Kwan's dubious research.Mztourist (talk) 09:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Stanley Karnow, Spencer Tucker and others are reliable sources. I suppose you assume "Official Marine History" by Gary Telfer on the war is the only reliable source?A bicyclette (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see bias. The article appears to be written in a matter-of-fact way, reporting what was said rather than stating anything was fact. It even opens with the word 'reported' in the first sentence. Sionk (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The bias is the lack of any detail regarding the purported massacre. There lots of background and innuendo but no hard facts. Vietnamese Government sources and Turse are not WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Or do you mean sources you don't like? Turse appears to be an investigative journalist and the book (with copious footnotes) is published by a major publisher. I can't even see the Vietnamese Government being used as a source. Sionk (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Spencer Tucker provides minimal detail of this supposed massacre - 3 sentences with nothing about casualties.

Look at the source again. There's substantive detail173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Um, no there's not, there's 3 sentences. Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph, that runs 6 sentences long. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Its 3 sentences: "Early in 1967 two marine companies advance on Thuy Bo expecting only token resistance. The engagement lasted for three days, however, resulting in heavy casualties for the Americans. Upon withdrawal of the VC, the marines entered the village and, by their account, began shooting anything that moved." That's it. Mztourist (talk) 11:44, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The first reports and apparently the only sources for the supposed massacre are a series of TV interviews conducted in 1981, 14 years after the supposed massacre and at a time when US-Vietnamese relations were very bad following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia and with the US supporting a proxy-war there against Vietnam. Interviews with Vietnamese civilians in that period (and even now) are inherently suspect due to Vietnamese Government control of the interview process and narrative which is reflected in numerous sources and the total lack of free media in Vietnam. For example see this [1] story of another purported massacre where the Associated Press states: "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations"

This is not only a different topic, it is irrelevant. Stanley Karnow reported the event according to the article, in the 1980s.

Its not a different topic. These interviews are the only claims of a massacre and interviews in Vietnam in 1981 are inherently suspect. Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It was reported at the time, by Tucker, and it was reported to US authorities but dismissed as per Tucker and that military history book. It was reported internally, and physically commemorated, in 1977 before any interview. This should be sufficient to establish that this isn't a conspiracy theory.173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Tucker's book was published in 2011! Not 1967! The Vietnamese erecting a monument is not WP:RS, you need to read WP:RS and understand what is required! Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Listen you can kick and scream all you want, but you are claiming that a) a documentary by stanley karnow is not WP:RS, and b) Everything that another country or government does is to be considered unreliable. The fact that it is referenced in secondary sources doesn't rule out the fact that its a conspiracy theory or hoax as much as someone like yourself believes it is. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the one doing the kicking and screaming. The Karnow interviews are being discussed at WP:RSN. No I am not saying "Everything that another country or government does is to be considered unreliable" I am saying that anything the Vietnamese Government and by extension its media says in relation to the Vietnam War is unreliable. What are the secondary sources that say there was a massacre? There's Karnow's interview, a description of the Thuy Bo Memorial in Kwon and whatever Turse says, which I have shown below is unreliable. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

If you take a look at Nick Turse you will see the critiques of his work and particularly this analysis of his flawed investigation methods: [2]. Kwon was apparently willing to report anything the Vietnamese told him as fact.

One source or document hardly constitutes a refutation. I don't think you understand the nature of academia.173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you even read it. Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I did read it. The author makes very valid points, but this isn't a refutation, at all. It looks at a few case examples, and ascribes issues with motive and so-on. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if you think that erecting a monument is WP:RS then I don't know what you think would be a refutation. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't quite think you understand. a monument isn't the sole claim of this, this is documented to have allegedly occurred. its not up to you to deny that it may have occurred, you aren't the judiciary on this as much as you want to believe you are. i get that you have nothing going on in your life and spend your time having to try to control the article but its unfair to both create drastic changes while at the same time denying the "truth" of other sources opposed to your own. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You are the one who seems to have nothing to do with your life putting up these fallacious arguments. I have addressed the lack of WP:RS already, if you want to discuss specific issues with my changes go ahead, but insulting me isn't advancing your case at all. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is there no contemporaneous reporting of this event? There were hundreds of reporters in South Vietnam by 1967 and there was a press center in Danang, but none of them heard anything? Even after My Lai no-one talked about this? It didn't come up in the Winter Soldier Investigation? This all strains credibility. If this really occurred I would expect a lot more WP:RS of the event than what is presented here. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Article states it was reported and dismissed. Just because it wasn't brokered by US news and so-on, doesn't mean it didn't occur.

Where does it say that it was reported and dismissed? The Marines investigated it, but if there really was a massacre it would have been uncovered by journalists and there would be more WP:RS, but there just isn't so it probably didn't occur as the interviews recount it. Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

It was reported, to US authorities, who had decided it was a corollary of fighting. Regardless, Not every incident or historical report is fully detailed or documented at that time and can be established post-fact. This is just silly. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

That just doesn't withstand any serious scrutiny. The Marines investigated and found that the deaths were collateral to the battle on 31 January, i.e. no massacre. 10 years later the Vietnamese build a monument and in 1981 allow some Government controlled interviews and we are supposed to accept that proves a massacre took place? WP is supposed to have higher standards than that. Mztourist (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

How serious the marine investigation was is not discussed or reported. they aren't the sole authority or historical account on this matter, given they have their own motivations to discredit an event fro occurring. you'd understand that if you read more than one or two books.

I'm not talking about how serious the Marine investigation was. My original point here is that there was no contemporaneous media reporting of this supposed massacre at the time and I would argue, no WP:RS since then. If this really occurred I would expect there to be media articles, books etc but there isn't, it isn't mentioned in the Winter Soldier Investigation or Vietnam War Crimes Working Group. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Not sure when or how "war crime" was added to the opening sentence. To be a war crime, wouldn't it require some sort of criminal investigation or conviction by a court? I've changed it back to "reportedly conducted". Sionk (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Coordinates wrong

The coordinates are wrong. Telfer states that Thuy Bo was "located immediately west of the north-south railroad". The railroad is approximately 5-6km east of the coordinates given. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

My recent edits summarized the official US Marine Corps account of what happened at Thuy Bo, without this detail the previous version gave the misleading impression that the Marines came rampaging into this village killing civilians:

• the USMC history states that there was a battle with VC (not NVA/PAVN) in the village on 31 January which led to the village being bombed and hit by artillery fire. On 1 February the Marines entered the village but the VC had withdrawn overnight.
• The USMC says the battle took place over 2 days - 31 January to 1 February, not 3 days as Tucker states
• The USMC history states Thuy Bo was located 15km southwest of Danang, immediately west of the railroad and so the coordinates given are wrong as they are 5-6km west of the railroad
• The USMC history states that on 1-2 February 18 wounded villagers and the bodies of 22 dead were brought to the Marine command post and that the Marines themselves investigated and found they had all been injured or killed in the battle, so they concluded there was no massacre

My other changes are to maintain NPOV (so the massacre was "purportedly" conducted by US Marines given the conflicting views that the civilians were collateral casualties of the battle) and remove repeated or irrelevant detail, such as a description and photo of the unrelated martyrs cemetery. Incidentally I have searched for any photos of the Thuy Bo Memorial but am unable to find any. I also gave names rather than numbers to refs as per policy as its easier to follow when editing. As noted above, I do not believe that there are sufficient WP:RS that a massacre occurred. Government-controlled interviews in Vietnam 14 years after the event and a monument are not WP:RS. I find it very strange that an IP with minimal edit history appears out of nowhere and starts reverting all my edits (without considering each change on its merits) and arguing these issues. Mztourist (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Both editors used the word unvert today which is suspicious since this is not a word I have ever seen before. KarlSmith667 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Strongly Opposed. You removed far more than what should have been removed, and it seemed just as clear the first-time. you are welcomed to breakdown and argue for what sections you find compelling to change, or create a consensus re-write, but you added unnecessary changes to the article as is. 173.64.109.152 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I have provided a breakdown of my changes above already. If you disagree then you need to specifically detail what you disagree with and why and we then attempt to reach a consensus. You can't just say you disagree with everything without providing and justification. You are the only User who has raised any issue with my edits. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Bear in kind government controlled accounts by the US Marine Corps (part of the US armed state apparatus) will be as one-sided as "Government controlled interviews in Vietnam". An interview of a villager by a trained journalist is as valid as an interview with a soldier. Mztourist gives away their personal world view by promoting one, while rubbishing the other. But the extracts from the interviews (which most participants at WP:RS seem to agree to be reliable enough) seem to be used in a balanced way without repetition. So I don't see any major issues with the recent re-wording. it wuld help if the IP/original author could sugest what they think needs adding back. Sionk (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that the USMC history is "as one-sided" as Vietnam, the US is a democracy with a free media, Vietnam is not and I have previously and repeatedly given examples of Vietnamese propaganda regarding the Vietnam War, examples here if you take the time to read them: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao based on this story: [3]; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To based on this story [4]; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là based on this story: [5]; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Đồng Dương based on these stories: [6] and [7] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hà Vy from this site: [8]. If the USMC history was propaganda it would be very apparent, however it clearly acknowledges issues and incidents as can be seen on Son Thang massacre. The fact is that there is minimal WP:RS of this supposed massacre which is surprising for a significant event, particularly in light of the various investigations into US war crimes. I obviously agree that my rewording is reasonable and call on the IP to detail exactly what they regard as problematic. Mztourist (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Images and use of words

Is there a reason for deleting images? Or making changes to the word purported from the original reported? [9] I'd rather the image be discussed before making such a bold edit. 125.192.86.52 (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

All discussed above already, if you have comments to make, make them here on the Talk page, until then stop edit warring this. Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Specifically in relation to the image deletion. As noted above, that is an image of a war cemetery that is stated to be adjacent to the Thuy Bo Memorial, it is not the Thuy Bo Memorial and therefore is not relevant to the page. "Reported" is changed to "purported" because there is real doubt as to whether or not there was a massacre given the lack of WP:RS as noted above. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

These re-wordings seem very POV and the sources provided are already reliable given they are books and not discussed on proper boards to justify removing them. you are also deleting way more than you are justifying and there isn't a proper consensus on removing images here. 125.192.86.52 (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

you also don't seem to think the event exists and are already editing with a clear bias. you should discuss this before making changes to the entire article as you did. 125.192.86.52 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes based on the limited reliable sources of this event I think the civilians were killed in the fighting not massacred, but there is no bias in my editing, as I have presented the available facts from a neutral point of view. I have discussed all these issues above if you bothered to read there. If you have specific comments/rebuttals to make please present them, rather than just attacking my supposed bias and edit-warring. If you refuse to discuss here and just keep reverting my edits you are not following policy and I will move to have you blocked. Mztourist (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

RSN of video interviews

I have opened an RSN regarding the reliability of the video interviews which are relied on for this page here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Video interviews as RS for Thuy Bo massacre Mztourist (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Isn't it time to remove the clean up templates now the article has been re-written/reworded? Sionk (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to have some clear resolution of the RSN and suitable changes made to reflect that before the clean up template is removed. regards Mztourist (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Above still seems to be outstanding. MPS1992 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

South Korean involvement

I thought it would be noteworthy to mention claims that it was actually South Koreans involved in the incident described by the villages and that it was totally different from the incident described by the Marines. Its even noted in Turse's book and by Heonik Kwon. The claims are summarized in the link [10].82.132.218.58 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Completely wrong. It was a USMC operation, not a South Korean one as shown by the existing sourcing which includes Turse and Kwon. Mztourist (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

30 October 2024

User:70.51.244.161 you have numerous changes: [11] to the page which I reverted as they are not improvements. I reverted your changes with the note "contested topic, discuss and agree any changes on Talk page". You ignored that note and rather than following WP:BRD you reverted me saying "Not contested, Nick Turse is fairly credible." A quick review of this Talk page and the revision history quickly disproves that this is "not contested". Addressing your edits:

• Firstly you changed "incident" to "massacre", this is incorrect, while Vietnamese government sources may claim there was a massacre, US government sources deny this.
• We don't generally put refs in the lede (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section) and we don't need to refer to Nick Turse saying that is what the Vietnamese government says. Turse is used as a source later in the page. Putting Turse as the only ref in the lede is non-neutral and gives undue prominence to his version of events.

Please revert your change or discuss here. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

User:70.51.244.161 blocked as a sock here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette, all edits reverted. Mztourist (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)