This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 22 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém to Saigon Execution. The result of the discussion was moved. |
My main question, on having tried to clean up and make more readable this article, is about the name Bay Lop. History knows this man as Nguyen Van Lem, but little is commonly known about him besides his being the leader of a VC hit squad. A Google image search for "Bay Lop" does not return the Adams photo. Just my 2¢. - knoodelhed 06:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What are the sources for the reports about Nguyen Van Lem's crimes and for his boastfulness afterward? These could easily be the self-serving cover stories of those responsible for his death without trial.
This article seems to be biased towards an American/RVN point of view - that the man executed was a murderer and somewhat implies that he "deserved" to be executed in the middle of a street without a trial.-- FarQPwnsJoo 10:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If his widow confirmed that he was in the VietCong, why the weasel word? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I decided to correct the point about the Geneva Conventions. It had previously said:
The Geneva Conventions are a hot subject nowadays. But back then it was decided to treat Viet Cong as POWs only if they were captured in legitimate combat. (Note that the picture shows him in street clothes.) I don't know if Lem should have been given a trial, but it would have been a civilian one and they were likely under martial law at the time. In any case, the Geneva Conventions don't apply.
Here's a reference.
-- Randy 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link to of Nguyen Van Lem's execution because YouTube had already deleted it due to use violation. Perhaps someone can clarify this reference.
Film The Picture (Tu mot tam anh) is "illustration" ?.
It is "Film Documentary".
Please see it. Thanhk. 222.252.248.143 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Using "Internet Explorer" and "Windows Media Player". If you cannot view it, please contact chungcudntt@gmail.com; I'll send email and attch this film for you . Thank. 222.252.244.196 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this that a citation is needed for this sentence: "However, even if he wasn't regarded as a POW, Loan's action still violated South Vietnamese laws at the time"? It's whoever added this tag who must provide evidence that South Vietnamese laws at the time allow the summary execution of VC prisoners. This is ridiculous, find me any source that say South Vietnamese laws allow their soldiers to kill people without trial whether VC or not. It doesn't matter how hard I tried, searching through all kind of South Vietnamese laws textbook, I couldn't find a single sentence that even go anywhere near as allowing soldiers to kill people without trial. It's common sense, get it? Get your head out of your ass and start thinking reasonably for a change.
Everything must be cited. Deal with it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.146.24.165 (
talk)
08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is the trivia section deleted? I don't see any reason why it should be. In fact, it is much more relevant to include his daughter name, especially considering it coincide with his executioner's name and she was born 2 years prior to the event than stuffs like LeMay and UFO, LeMay and Sports Car Racing, Mae West is a slang, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.201.179 ( talk) 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Explaining my reverts: Aside from lacking sources, this addition is POV ("an awful picture of war ... one must understand the duress [Loan] was under") and the entire second paragraph is irrelevant to this particular article. Nufy8 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No mention this was a staged media event - that the execution was only carried out then & there because there was a group of journalists & photographers present? Quite significant when considering the footage or image, surely? I don't have a primary source, but it's mentioned at 7:10ish in this video: [2] & there's numerous other secondary sources easy to find on the net. In the unlikely event there are no primary sources, surely it's still worth a mention that there's a lot of conjecture about it? HuwG 203.208.86.101 ( talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If the general decided to shoot they VC guy so that the cameramen would catch it on film - then its a "staged media event", right? Even if its a pretty lame one that defeats its purpose?
172.191.152.188 ( talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Though military lawyers have yet to definitively decide whether Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war (Lém had not been wearing a uniform; nor was he, it is alleged, fighting enemy soldiers at the time), where POW status was granted independently of the laws of war; it was limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations."
I'm I just having a thick spell, or is this sentence unclear? It doesn't seem to make any clear sense to me, so I'm not sure how I'd re-write it....
Can anyone improve it so that it's meaning is more evident?
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I'm not trying to be snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkins ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement that "The execution was explained at the time as being the consequence of Lém's admitted guerrilla activity and war crimes, and otherwise due to a general "wartime mentality"." is a peculiar and pointless thing to say. Why not say that Lem was summarily executed without trial (which is true). And that the photo of his execution was widely disseminated and used against the South Vietnamese government and American involvement in Vietnam (which is also true).
There is also a mention on the page of the General Ngoc, that VC Van Lem was accused of stabbing to death a south vietnamese officer, his wife, his six children and his 80-year old mother. That is also interesting background, not?
I would be very surprised if any real military lawyers have ever said that Lem's summary execution did not violate the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war. Of course it did - if he was a prisoner of war. If he was not a POW then the Geneva Convention would not have been violated, but civil law would have been. Summary execution is not legal, it should not be necessary to add. Royalcourtier ( talk) 23:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: MOVED — UY Scuti Talk 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Nguyễn Văn Lém → Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém – The title doesn't reflect the article's subject, Nguyen's execution in Vietnam War. Also, the article weighs more on Nguyen's execution than on the person himself. More is explained at Discussion section. George Ho ( talk) 03:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.More likely the execution is more notable than the person himself. The iconic image of Nguyen's execution during Vietnam War went worldwide via the media. The present title may meet criteria of an article title and may meet WP:Common name per sources. However, the name of the person might violate the spirit of WP:AT. The policy's spirit is naming an article to reflect the significance of the article's subject. The article's subject may not be reflected by the title. Not one of core content policies, like WP:verifiability, can adequately handle this either. The guidelines instead might. WP:BIO1E (not WP:BLP1E) should apply; the person himself is not as notable as his own execution. Also, WP:notability (events) and WP:notability might apply as well. Of course, WP:POLCON says that we can use an appropriate advice page, especially when policies and guidelines conflict, like WP:AT and WP:BIO1E. However, it also says that changes to any rule are recommended. For now, we are deciding on the naming of this article. We can discuss the rules at another time. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Daniel, can you move your vote to Survey section? Or the separation of Survey and Discussion is annoying? George Ho ( talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The main source for all the gruesome details about the alleged war crimes of the victim on the photo is an article by a former South Vietnamese judge and former professor of South Vietnam's National Police Officer Academy, on the site vietcatholic.net. The article doesn't even try to conceal the fact that its main point is to defend the US engagement in Vietnam and to attack Communist Vietnam. This is as biased a source as it could possibly get. You only hear one side, namely the executioners (or their apologists) and what they assert about the confessions of the victim and the circumstances of the victim's capture. At the same time, the author does not explain where he got his information about the victim's actions; the Horst Faas article gives several contradictory stories told about the same person ("Lt. Colonel Loan had said that the man had killed many South Vietnamese and even Americans. Vietnamese photographers said that he was a traitor, working for both sides - the Vietcong and the South Vietnamese police. Others said he was a small-time Vietcong who had put on a fresh shirt hoping to slip away."). Note that even Loan isn't quoted as talking specifically about women and children here. Even if Adams tells the same story as the judge's article, he could only have got it from the South Vietnamese executioners again, as he didn't witness it. Since the victim was never tried, anything his executioners can say about him can be regarded as hearsay or self-justification at this point; yet it is presented as the doubtless truth. The only fact that is quite obviously true and for which the man is notable is being summarily executed in public in front of journalistic cameras; yet the lede begins, instead, with what (some of) his executioners assert about his prior actions.-- 94.155.68.202 ( talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Vietcatholic is a reliable source. I've seen many sources repeat the claim that Lem had committed mass atrocities, but they are typically right wing or tabloid sources. What if they are simply repeating what they've been told? I would say these claims are contentious as of now, and they need to be challenged, and we need to restrict ourselves to academic and newspaper sources. In the article for Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, similar claims were cited to Richard Botkin's 2009 book "Ride The Thunder". I then noticed the book is published by " Worldnetdaily", a far right organization that is now a reliable source. For this reason, I removed the Vietcatholic site. This information needs a reliable source first. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Trying to compile sources for his widow. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
There's multiple sources discussing Lem's capture. These sources may be conflating information and may be unreliable. Some sources like the BBC, mention Lem being captured near a mass grave. However, this information may have been copied from Wikipedia, making it an unreliable source. This information is repeated by various tabloids as well. NPR refers to Adam's testimony, and makes no reference to any mass grave, instead saying "Adams saw a soldier drag a man in a checkered shirt out of a building."
A caption of the photo of his wife says that Lem was "captured while attacking the Naval Headquarters in Saigon." This does not contradict NPR or Adams.
Tabloids and the BBC indicate Lem was responsible or suspected for killing Tuan and his family.
What to make of these seemingly contradictory sources? I think we should discount the BBC and tabloid accounts, as well as the right wing ones. NPR and Adams' eyewitness testimony seems most reliable.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Friedman in "Covert Capital (page 199), Loan told Harper Magazine in 72:
We knew this this man was. His name was Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son. He was the commander of a sapper unit. He killed a policeman."
In 1976, Loan told a The Washington Post:
It happened in a war on a street where there was fighting." "But this was no fighting man. He was a civilian who robbed and killed. We were under martial law. What could I do?" Source
According to Friedman (page 199)again, in 79 Loan told Esquire:
They tell me that he had a revolver, that he wounded one of my policemen.... They say that they know this man. His is not a nameless civilian, as the press says. He is Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son."
Then the 98 New York times obituary, as well as others, state that Loan felt he was justified in the execution because the man was head of a Viet Cong death-squad who killed a man and his family. So which is it? It seems that Loan changed his story over time.
The sources that Friedman consults are hidden behind subscriptions, so I have not confirmed them up close. I can't confirm that the quotes are accurate. But assuming they are, this would mean that Loan changed his story over time, and this is something that should definitely be included. It could mean that at the time of the execution, Loan did not know the man's name at all, and later was passing on information that he was given. Later, it seems that by 88, Lem's widow was found, who identified him as "Nguyễn Văn Lém" with the alias "Bay Lop". This would mean that Loan's information about the man's name is incorrect, and he was mixing up Lem with another fighter.
Complicating matters, Loan knows English but it's unclear how well he knew it. So it's possible he's mis-speaking.
Is he presenting contradictory stories, or a more consistent story? Calling him a "civilian" doesn't contradict him being a Viet Cong correct? The above quotes could be read as a consistent narrative, provided you ignore him being wrong on the name. Alternatively it could be a changing story. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
NY times says the photographer, Adams, claims Lem murdered the family of one of his subordinate officers plus the officer. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/vietnam-execution-photo.amp.html Rodnebb ( talk) 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Andy Dingley:, this is your opinion that this statute applies to this case. Effectively acting like a legal scholar analyzing the case, and offing your opinion of what laws apply to it. This is however, your opinion. Your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. We need third party sources. What you are doing is engaging in WP:Original Research. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist, you have not cited a single source connecting this case to any statutes. What you are doing is acting as an amateur legal analysist and giving your own personal legal analysis. What I can find in the Geneva conventions is utterly irrelevant. That would be my personal legal analysis, and my analysis, including yours, is irrelevant.
Also, the fact that I am challenging this means that this isn't WP:BLUE, but in fact something that can be challenged. It may seem "obvious" to you, but it does not seem obvious to me. I genuinely am not sure which treaty or provisions this falls under. I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I believe it right to add my amateur legal analysis to this page. This means you need sources. Third party sources. You have produced no such sources. And since you have produced zero sources, then this information as it stands should be removed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Found this on the net, from some True Crime outfit named Gloomy House.
The Most Misunderstood Picture in the World
Their main thesis is that the victim here was essentially a serial killer hiding within the Vietcong. ( And if that is true, he indeed got what he deserved. )
Since none of their sources are given, it is probably not fit for the article, trhough. Wefa ( talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That's the common online narrative about this event. My take is that a lot of Vietnam war apologists have dominated the narrative on this story for years. And it's repeated by "did you know" online blog style sites. They present Loan as some nice guy, and Lem as a killer. Dig deeper than that. Loan is a pretty shady authoritarian character. There was no investigation, and it looks like Loan and others didn't even know the name of Lem until years later when Lem's wife was located. I've yet to see any proof linking Lem to the death squads. What we know is that Vietcong squads carried out killings, including some people Loan knew. Lem seems to have been a member of the Vietcong. He was executed by Loan. That's kind of as far as I can prove right now. Now, we have lots of sources that SAY that Lem was a member of the death squad that carried out killings of South Vietnamese officials. I don't know what they're basing it on though. It just seems to be a game of telephone where one source cites another source, and "Everybody knows" that it's true. The more partisan right wing sources that defend the war all assert this as completely true. The more cautious academic sources are more cautious.
These sources completely leave out loan's corruption, authoritarianism, and other issues. They leave out that Library of Congress and INS concluded it was a war crime. Indeed, I didn't even find this out until someone else added it to one of the WP articles. I feel these sources give a very slanted and incomplete view of the event.
A counter narrative that fits all the evidence is that Loan found the first Vietcong member he came across, and as revenge for vietcong killings executed him. Then he and others in the south Vietamese government simply said he was connected to the killings as a means of minizing it since it blew up so badly in their faces. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, some conclusions that should be easy to get to:
- Lem was in civilian clothes, and a General (Loan) says Lem is Viet Cong and has killed people
- Loan obviously cannot execute Lem without a trial, that's against south-vietnamese law
- If Loan had brought Lem to trial, it would have been legal to execute him if he had broken the law and the law specified death sentence, for instance for shooting at the police. Lem was not required to get protection as a POW. Also, even as a POW he could have legally been executed if his crime was to kill the family members of an officer.
- If Lem had been brought to trial, it is very likely that he would have been found guilty if a General had vitnessed against him. The standards of proof would probably not have been that high. Lem might have lived a few weeks longer.
- It is alleged that Lem was accused of murdering a south vietnamese officer and family members. This may or may not be true, but it is relevant if the south vietnamese officers believed this to be true. Also, if they had continued to believe this after a trial of Lem, he would have been executed.
- The problem with the execution is that it was carried out without a trial, and that it turned US opinion against the US war effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodnebb ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is "the vietnam execution photo". Why not call the page that? The name of the people involved isnt really interesting. Its a south vietnamese police general shooting a VC soldier. Rodnebb ( talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Im noticing the article takes it as a given that Bay Lop murdered the Generals family. Its only alleged and there is no citations from Hastings. ComLenBannari ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Beyond any problems with Hastings as a source, he wrote in the cited book that Lem is only "alleged to have captured" and murdered Tuan and his family. He further cites Edwin Moise that the whole story is a post hoc invention to justify the shooting, concluding that "the truth will never be known." This clearly calls for a rewrite of these parts of the article to reflect Hastings's uncertainty or else the addition of alternative sources. Shane Lin ( talk) 04:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This article in my opinion needs a full rewrite. All of the content is based off of news sources when more than enough scholarly coverage exists, and said coverage has a far more sensible interpretation of the events:
Most importantly though, coverage exists because of the photo. The photo is the only reason other facts about this event are known and have been researched. Therefore, the article should be on the photo, not the event. It can (and should) still provide info on the event itself.
Here's an idea of what this would look like. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Queen of Hearts talk 00:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém → Saigon Execution – This event is notable because of the photo. The photo itself is subject to focused academic study, the photo appeared everywhere on the news and had arguable effects on public opinion, and the photo is the reason anyone even knows this happened. In addition this is a title that is commonly circulated, easier to find than the current descriptive title written ourselves. I'm also not really a fan of the article's use of the word "execution".
Sources and draft replacement lead
@ Ceoil Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 18:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
In the Photograph section, there is a problem with a quote from Eddie Adams:
"Adams later stated he regretted he was unable to get a picture 'of that Viet Cong [Lém] blowing away the [Tuân] family'."
Hastings' insertion of [Tuân] into the quote was misleading. Adams was talking about the earlier version of the story, in which Lem was said to have murdered the family of a major in the National Police. Adams' endorsement of that version of the story was probably the main reason it was widely accepted. I don't like Adams being made to seem to endorse the story about Tuân's family, which as far as I can tell was not invented until after Adams was dead.
Dealing with this seems likely to be messy, and should not be done in haste. I don't have time right now; I have major surgery scheduled for Wednesday. Ed Moise ( talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Anyway, when I did this story for Parade on my return to Vietnam, I got a lot of letters. One came from a former Air Force colonel. It turns out that the Viet Cong lieutenant who was killed in the picture had murdered a police major—one of General Loan's best friends—his whole family, wife, kids, the same guy. So these are things we don't know at the time. Everyone condemns Loan for shooting this guy. But I tell everyone: "If you were General Loan and there was a war going on, and your people were getting killed, how do you know you wouldn't shoot him, too?" Cold-blooded execution? Bullshit. He was doing what he was there for—to win the war. I just happened to be there. How many times did this happen that we didn't see?
There were things a hell of a lot worse that happened in Vietnam. We had pictures that we never released. There were pictures of Americans holding heads of Viet Cong they'd chopped off. I talked to one soldier who said "Oh, you should have been here a little while ago. I cut me a heart out of one of them Viet Cong. I just buried it." Very gruesome, but this is a war. People are dying, your friends are getting blown away. In the next two minutes you could be dead. Everything is fair in love and war. There aren't any rules. It's just war.
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 22 June 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém to Saigon Execution. The result of the discussion was moved. |
My main question, on having tried to clean up and make more readable this article, is about the name Bay Lop. History knows this man as Nguyen Van Lem, but little is commonly known about him besides his being the leader of a VC hit squad. A Google image search for "Bay Lop" does not return the Adams photo. Just my 2¢. - knoodelhed 06:53, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
What are the sources for the reports about Nguyen Van Lem's crimes and for his boastfulness afterward? These could easily be the self-serving cover stories of those responsible for his death without trial.
This article seems to be biased towards an American/RVN point of view - that the man executed was a murderer and somewhat implies that he "deserved" to be executed in the middle of a street without a trial.-- FarQPwnsJoo 10:14, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If his widow confirmed that he was in the VietCong, why the weasel word? -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I decided to correct the point about the Geneva Conventions. It had previously said:
The Geneva Conventions are a hot subject nowadays. But back then it was decided to treat Viet Cong as POWs only if they were captured in legitimate combat. (Note that the picture shows him in street clothes.) I don't know if Lem should have been given a trial, but it would have been a civilian one and they were likely under martial law at the time. In any case, the Geneva Conventions don't apply.
Here's a reference.
-- Randy 20:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link to of Nguyen Van Lem's execution because YouTube had already deleted it due to use violation. Perhaps someone can clarify this reference.
Film The Picture (Tu mot tam anh) is "illustration" ?.
It is "Film Documentary".
Please see it. Thanhk. 222.252.248.143 04:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Using "Internet Explorer" and "Windows Media Player". If you cannot view it, please contact chungcudntt@gmail.com; I'll send email and attch this film for you . Thank. 222.252.244.196 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is this that a citation is needed for this sentence: "However, even if he wasn't regarded as a POW, Loan's action still violated South Vietnamese laws at the time"? It's whoever added this tag who must provide evidence that South Vietnamese laws at the time allow the summary execution of VC prisoners. This is ridiculous, find me any source that say South Vietnamese laws allow their soldiers to kill people without trial whether VC or not. It doesn't matter how hard I tried, searching through all kind of South Vietnamese laws textbook, I couldn't find a single sentence that even go anywhere near as allowing soldiers to kill people without trial. It's common sense, get it? Get your head out of your ass and start thinking reasonably for a change.
Everything must be cited. Deal with it. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
131.146.24.165 (
talk)
08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is the trivia section deleted? I don't see any reason why it should be. In fact, it is much more relevant to include his daughter name, especially considering it coincide with his executioner's name and she was born 2 years prior to the event than stuffs like LeMay and UFO, LeMay and Sports Car Racing, Mae West is a slang, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.201.179 ( talk) 17:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
Image:Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Explaining my reverts: Aside from lacking sources, this addition is POV ("an awful picture of war ... one must understand the duress [Loan] was under") and the entire second paragraph is irrelevant to this particular article. Nufy8 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No mention this was a staged media event - that the execution was only carried out then & there because there was a group of journalists & photographers present? Quite significant when considering the footage or image, surely? I don't have a primary source, but it's mentioned at 7:10ish in this video: [2] & there's numerous other secondary sources easy to find on the net. In the unlikely event there are no primary sources, surely it's still worth a mention that there's a lot of conjecture about it? HuwG 203.208.86.101 ( talk) 11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
If the general decided to shoot they VC guy so that the cameramen would catch it on film - then its a "staged media event", right? Even if its a pretty lame one that defeats its purpose?
172.191.152.188 ( talk) 21:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
"Though military lawyers have yet to definitively decide whether Loan's action violated the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war (Lém had not been wearing a uniform; nor was he, it is alleged, fighting enemy soldiers at the time), where POW status was granted independently of the laws of war; it was limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations."
I'm I just having a thick spell, or is this sentence unclear? It doesn't seem to make any clear sense to me, so I'm not sure how I'd re-write it....
Can anyone improve it so that it's meaning is more evident?
Sorry if I'm being obtuse, I'm not trying to be snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adkins ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement that "The execution was explained at the time as being the consequence of Lém's admitted guerrilla activity and war crimes, and otherwise due to a general "wartime mentality"." is a peculiar and pointless thing to say. Why not say that Lem was summarily executed without trial (which is true). And that the photo of his execution was widely disseminated and used against the South Vietnamese government and American involvement in Vietnam (which is also true).
There is also a mention on the page of the General Ngoc, that VC Van Lem was accused of stabbing to death a south vietnamese officer, his wife, his six children and his 80-year old mother. That is also interesting background, not?
I would be very surprised if any real military lawyers have ever said that Lem's summary execution did not violate the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war. Of course it did - if he was a prisoner of war. If he was not a POW then the Geneva Convention would not have been violated, but civil law would have been. Summary execution is not legal, it should not be necessary to add. Royalcourtier ( talk) 23:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: MOVED — UY Scuti Talk 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Nguyễn Văn Lém → Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém – The title doesn't reflect the article's subject, Nguyen's execution in Vietnam War. Also, the article weighs more on Nguyen's execution than on the person himself. More is explained at Discussion section. George Ho ( talk) 03:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.More likely the execution is more notable than the person himself. The iconic image of Nguyen's execution during Vietnam War went worldwide via the media. The present title may meet criteria of an article title and may meet WP:Common name per sources. However, the name of the person might violate the spirit of WP:AT. The policy's spirit is naming an article to reflect the significance of the article's subject. The article's subject may not be reflected by the title. Not one of core content policies, like WP:verifiability, can adequately handle this either. The guidelines instead might. WP:BIO1E (not WP:BLP1E) should apply; the person himself is not as notable as his own execution. Also, WP:notability (events) and WP:notability might apply as well. Of course, WP:POLCON says that we can use an appropriate advice page, especially when policies and guidelines conflict, like WP:AT and WP:BIO1E. However, it also says that changes to any rule are recommended. For now, we are deciding on the naming of this article. We can discuss the rules at another time. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Daniel, can you move your vote to Survey section? Or the separation of Survey and Discussion is annoying? George Ho ( talk) 05:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The main source for all the gruesome details about the alleged war crimes of the victim on the photo is an article by a former South Vietnamese judge and former professor of South Vietnam's National Police Officer Academy, on the site vietcatholic.net. The article doesn't even try to conceal the fact that its main point is to defend the US engagement in Vietnam and to attack Communist Vietnam. This is as biased a source as it could possibly get. You only hear one side, namely the executioners (or their apologists) and what they assert about the confessions of the victim and the circumstances of the victim's capture. At the same time, the author does not explain where he got his information about the victim's actions; the Horst Faas article gives several contradictory stories told about the same person ("Lt. Colonel Loan had said that the man had killed many South Vietnamese and even Americans. Vietnamese photographers said that he was a traitor, working for both sides - the Vietcong and the South Vietnamese police. Others said he was a small-time Vietcong who had put on a fresh shirt hoping to slip away."). Note that even Loan isn't quoted as talking specifically about women and children here. Even if Adams tells the same story as the judge's article, he could only have got it from the South Vietnamese executioners again, as he didn't witness it. Since the victim was never tried, anything his executioners can say about him can be regarded as hearsay or self-justification at this point; yet it is presented as the doubtless truth. The only fact that is quite obviously true and for which the man is notable is being summarily executed in public in front of journalistic cameras; yet the lede begins, instead, with what (some of) his executioners assert about his prior actions.-- 94.155.68.202 ( talk) 02:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Vietcatholic is a reliable source. I've seen many sources repeat the claim that Lem had committed mass atrocities, but they are typically right wing or tabloid sources. What if they are simply repeating what they've been told? I would say these claims are contentious as of now, and they need to be challenged, and we need to restrict ourselves to academic and newspaper sources. In the article for Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, similar claims were cited to Richard Botkin's 2009 book "Ride The Thunder". I then noticed the book is published by " Worldnetdaily", a far right organization that is now a reliable source. For this reason, I removed the Vietcatholic site. This information needs a reliable source first. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 22:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Trying to compile sources for his widow. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 19:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
There's multiple sources discussing Lem's capture. These sources may be conflating information and may be unreliable. Some sources like the BBC, mention Lem being captured near a mass grave. However, this information may have been copied from Wikipedia, making it an unreliable source. This information is repeated by various tabloids as well. NPR refers to Adam's testimony, and makes no reference to any mass grave, instead saying "Adams saw a soldier drag a man in a checkered shirt out of a building."
A caption of the photo of his wife says that Lem was "captured while attacking the Naval Headquarters in Saigon." This does not contradict NPR or Adams.
Tabloids and the BBC indicate Lem was responsible or suspected for killing Tuan and his family.
What to make of these seemingly contradictory sources? I think we should discount the BBC and tabloid accounts, as well as the right wing ones. NPR and Adams' eyewitness testimony seems most reliable.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
According to Friedman in "Covert Capital (page 199), Loan told Harper Magazine in 72:
We knew this this man was. His name was Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son. He was the commander of a sapper unit. He killed a policeman."
In 1976, Loan told a The Washington Post:
It happened in a war on a street where there was fighting." "But this was no fighting man. He was a civilian who robbed and killed. We were under martial law. What could I do?" Source
According to Friedman (page 199)again, in 79 Loan told Esquire:
They tell me that he had a revolver, that he wounded one of my policemen.... They say that they know this man. His is not a nameless civilian, as the press says. He is Nguyen Tan Dat, alias Han Son."
Then the 98 New York times obituary, as well as others, state that Loan felt he was justified in the execution because the man was head of a Viet Cong death-squad who killed a man and his family. So which is it? It seems that Loan changed his story over time.
The sources that Friedman consults are hidden behind subscriptions, so I have not confirmed them up close. I can't confirm that the quotes are accurate. But assuming they are, this would mean that Loan changed his story over time, and this is something that should definitely be included. It could mean that at the time of the execution, Loan did not know the man's name at all, and later was passing on information that he was given. Later, it seems that by 88, Lem's widow was found, who identified him as "Nguyễn Văn Lém" with the alias "Bay Lop". This would mean that Loan's information about the man's name is incorrect, and he was mixing up Lem with another fighter.
Complicating matters, Loan knows English but it's unclear how well he knew it. So it's possible he's mis-speaking.
Is he presenting contradictory stories, or a more consistent story? Calling him a "civilian" doesn't contradict him being a Viet Cong correct? The above quotes could be read as a consistent narrative, provided you ignore him being wrong on the name. Alternatively it could be a changing story. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 18:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
NY times says the photographer, Adams, claims Lem murdered the family of one of his subordinate officers plus the officer. www.nytimes.com/2018/02/01/world/asia/vietnam-execution-photo.amp.html Rodnebb ( talk) 20:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Andy Dingley:, this is your opinion that this statute applies to this case. Effectively acting like a legal scholar analyzing the case, and offing your opinion of what laws apply to it. This is however, your opinion. Your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. We need third party sources. What you are doing is engaging in WP:Original Research. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist, you have not cited a single source connecting this case to any statutes. What you are doing is acting as an amateur legal analysist and giving your own personal legal analysis. What I can find in the Geneva conventions is utterly irrelevant. That would be my personal legal analysis, and my analysis, including yours, is irrelevant.
Also, the fact that I am challenging this means that this isn't WP:BLUE, but in fact something that can be challenged. It may seem "obvious" to you, but it does not seem obvious to me. I genuinely am not sure which treaty or provisions this falls under. I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be one. Nor do I believe it right to add my amateur legal analysis to this page. This means you need sources. Third party sources. You have produced no such sources. And since you have produced zero sources, then this information as it stands should be removed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 03:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Found this on the net, from some True Crime outfit named Gloomy House.
The Most Misunderstood Picture in the World
Their main thesis is that the victim here was essentially a serial killer hiding within the Vietcong. ( And if that is true, he indeed got what he deserved. )
Since none of their sources are given, it is probably not fit for the article, trhough. Wefa ( talk) 18:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
That's the common online narrative about this event. My take is that a lot of Vietnam war apologists have dominated the narrative on this story for years. And it's repeated by "did you know" online blog style sites. They present Loan as some nice guy, and Lem as a killer. Dig deeper than that. Loan is a pretty shady authoritarian character. There was no investigation, and it looks like Loan and others didn't even know the name of Lem until years later when Lem's wife was located. I've yet to see any proof linking Lem to the death squads. What we know is that Vietcong squads carried out killings, including some people Loan knew. Lem seems to have been a member of the Vietcong. He was executed by Loan. That's kind of as far as I can prove right now. Now, we have lots of sources that SAY that Lem was a member of the death squad that carried out killings of South Vietnamese officials. I don't know what they're basing it on though. It just seems to be a game of telephone where one source cites another source, and "Everybody knows" that it's true. The more partisan right wing sources that defend the war all assert this as completely true. The more cautious academic sources are more cautious.
These sources completely leave out loan's corruption, authoritarianism, and other issues. They leave out that Library of Congress and INS concluded it was a war crime. Indeed, I didn't even find this out until someone else added it to one of the WP articles. I feel these sources give a very slanted and incomplete view of the event.
A counter narrative that fits all the evidence is that Loan found the first Vietcong member he came across, and as revenge for vietcong killings executed him. Then he and others in the south Vietamese government simply said he was connected to the killings as a means of minizing it since it blew up so badly in their faces. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 01:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey, some conclusions that should be easy to get to:
- Lem was in civilian clothes, and a General (Loan) says Lem is Viet Cong and has killed people
- Loan obviously cannot execute Lem without a trial, that's against south-vietnamese law
- If Loan had brought Lem to trial, it would have been legal to execute him if he had broken the law and the law specified death sentence, for instance for shooting at the police. Lem was not required to get protection as a POW. Also, even as a POW he could have legally been executed if his crime was to kill the family members of an officer.
- If Lem had been brought to trial, it is very likely that he would have been found guilty if a General had vitnessed against him. The standards of proof would probably not have been that high. Lem might have lived a few weeks longer.
- It is alleged that Lem was accused of murdering a south vietnamese officer and family members. This may or may not be true, but it is relevant if the south vietnamese officers believed this to be true. Also, if they had continued to believe this after a trial of Lem, he would have been executed.
- The problem with the execution is that it was carried out without a trial, and that it turned US opinion against the US war effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodnebb ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This is "the vietnam execution photo". Why not call the page that? The name of the people involved isnt really interesting. Its a south vietnamese police general shooting a VC soldier. Rodnebb ( talk) 20:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Im noticing the article takes it as a given that Bay Lop murdered the Generals family. Its only alleged and there is no citations from Hastings. ComLenBannari ( talk) 16:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Beyond any problems with Hastings as a source, he wrote in the cited book that Lem is only "alleged to have captured" and murdered Tuan and his family. He further cites Edwin Moise that the whole story is a post hoc invention to justify the shooting, concluding that "the truth will never be known." This clearly calls for a rewrite of these parts of the article to reflect Hastings's uncertainty or else the addition of alternative sources. Shane Lin ( talk) 04:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
This article in my opinion needs a full rewrite. All of the content is based off of news sources when more than enough scholarly coverage exists, and said coverage has a far more sensible interpretation of the events:
Most importantly though, coverage exists because of the photo. The photo is the only reason other facts about this event are known and have been researched. Therefore, the article should be on the photo, not the event. It can (and should) still provide info on the event itself.
Here's an idea of what this would look like. Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 17:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Queen of Hearts talk 00:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém → Saigon Execution – This event is notable because of the photo. The photo itself is subject to focused academic study, the photo appeared everywhere on the news and had arguable effects on public opinion, and the photo is the reason anyone even knows this happened. In addition this is a title that is commonly circulated, easier to find than the current descriptive title written ourselves. I'm also not really a fan of the article's use of the word "execution".
Sources and draft replacement lead
@ Ceoil Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 18:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
In the Photograph section, there is a problem with a quote from Eddie Adams:
"Adams later stated he regretted he was unable to get a picture 'of that Viet Cong [Lém] blowing away the [Tuân] family'."
Hastings' insertion of [Tuân] into the quote was misleading. Adams was talking about the earlier version of the story, in which Lem was said to have murdered the family of a major in the National Police. Adams' endorsement of that version of the story was probably the main reason it was widely accepted. I don't like Adams being made to seem to endorse the story about Tuân's family, which as far as I can tell was not invented until after Adams was dead.
Dealing with this seems likely to be messy, and should not be done in haste. I don't have time right now; I have major surgery scheduled for Wednesday. Ed Moise ( talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Snowmanonahoe ( talk · contribs · typos) 02:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Anyway, when I did this story for Parade on my return to Vietnam, I got a lot of letters. One came from a former Air Force colonel. It turns out that the Viet Cong lieutenant who was killed in the picture had murdered a police major—one of General Loan's best friends—his whole family, wife, kids, the same guy. So these are things we don't know at the time. Everyone condemns Loan for shooting this guy. But I tell everyone: "If you were General Loan and there was a war going on, and your people were getting killed, how do you know you wouldn't shoot him, too?" Cold-blooded execution? Bullshit. He was doing what he was there for—to win the war. I just happened to be there. How many times did this happen that we didn't see?
There were things a hell of a lot worse that happened in Vietnam. We had pictures that we never released. There were pictures of Americans holding heads of Viet Cong they'd chopped off. I talked to one soldier who said "Oh, you should have been here a little while ago. I cut me a heart out of one of them Viet Cong. I just buried it." Very gruesome, but this is a war. People are dying, your friends are getting blown away. In the next two minutes you could be dead. Everything is fair in love and war. There aren't any rules. It's just war.
References