Talk:Nguyễn Ngọc Loan

Untitled

Somebody should put something in about the movie about this -- http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=4986 --Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.116.107 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Weapon

Tom Buckley who interviewed Loan before and after the shooting describes the weapon as a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson "Airweight." I am removing the previous reference as it is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff.R.Bowman (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This execution was in violation of the Geneva convention.

This assertion was added in an edit today, and I removed it as unsupported and POV. It appears the viet cong executed by Loan was conducting armed hostilities dressed as a civilian (in fact most accounts claim he was an infiltrator). Therefore, at most, the viet cong would most likely have been an unlawful combatant who would not have qualified for protection under the Geneva convention. —Ryanaxp June 28, 2005 17:49 (UTC)

BS. The unlawful combatant term was largely non existant until Bush found it and decided to use it. I warn you that if you accept the unlawful combatant term then you except that snipers and many other type of covert soldiers can be considered unlawful combatants. There is also no conclusive evidence for your claim of Nguyen's activities. I have copied the text from the Nguyen Van Lem article. Although I dislike such an extensive copying of text from one article to another, in this case it is needed. Nil Einne 06:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the date of the term, the concept has been around since before the Geneva Conventions. Spies have been executed in previous rules of war. Furthermore, I find this assertion of yours interesting: "I warn you that if you accept the unlawful combatant term then you except that snipers and many other type of covert soldiers can be considered unlawful combatants."

There's a major difference between snipers in uniform targetting an enemy, and terrorists in civilian clothes who target civilians. And if a U.S. military sniper ever does fight while wearing civilian clothes, there is no doubt he would not be granted rights as a legitimate combatant under the Geneva Conventions. Nor would I expect any third parties to be arguing strenuously on his behalf. So your warning is meaningless.

And what difference would it make anyway? The U.S. and its coalition allies are the only ones who do recognize the Geneva Conventions nowadays. With all the protests going on now, there are very few who even give a damn about Iraqi civilians being killed by terrrorists. And if they're not going to demand that little bit of decency, I see the odds that any of them will demand Geneva Conventions for uniformed soldiers is laughable.

In any case, I request that you revise your edits.

-- Randy2063 15:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide references to substantiate the circumstances of his capture, and his status under the Geneva Conventions. Thanks. Edison 22:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The same argument is over at Talk:Nguyễn Văn Lém, where I quoted this:

Terrorists, spies, and saboteurs were excluded from consideration as prisoners of war. Suspected Viet Cong captured under circumstances not warranting their treatment as prisoners of war were handled as civilian defendants.

I don't know all the circumstances of his capture, but he is now acknowledged to have been in the Viet Cong, and the picture shows him in civilian clothes.

He was due whatever rights a criminal civilian defendant got according to the laws of South Vietnam under wartime laws further complicated by the Tet Offensive. I'd guess that in many countries under such circumstances, a case like that might not even be taken to the authority of a general.

-- Randy2063 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Find me any source that say South Vietnamese law at the time allowed soldiers to execute prisoners, be it enemy soldier or civilian. It's a clear violation of Vietnamese law. To justify your edits, you also said that there was a tribunal prior to the execution. FYI, both South Vietnamese sources as well as North Vietnamese sources and every other sources I have come across said the prisoner was executed without a tribunal right after he was caught. Even Nguyen Ngoc Loan & Eddie Adams admitted to that fact. The only debate here is did he murder South Vietnamese civilians? Once again, find me a source that said otherwise.--lt2hieu2004 20:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You've got that backwards. I was challenging an allegation made in the article, and pointing out that it is quite reasonable to believe that it isn't true. Since you say there are sources available, I don't see a problem with you coming up with one.

It was absolutely not so clearly a violation of Vietnamese law. This happened during the Tet Offensive, and it is not at all unreasonable to think habeas corpus would be suspended during such an emergency, as well as other rights. (After all, Lincoln did it.) You cannot go by normal everyday Vietnamese law and assume that was in force during those times.

It's well known that looters may be summarily shot during a state of emergency. As the Looting article says, "even in Western democracies that otherwise ban the death penalty, extraordinary measures may be taken against looters, during times of crisis." -- and that's mere looting in Western democracies. I cannot imagine that South Vietnam would have been any less strident during one of their biggest times of crisis.

Furthermore, I did not claim in my comment that there was a tribunal. I said that the sources I've seen do not say there was none. If Eddie Adams said otherwise then I didn't see it. I did read that he was only brought in later, and I assumed he might not have known what happened beforehand. That's only one point, however. The looting example is more clear.

I'm putting back up my call for a source.

-- Randy2063 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase. Firstly, according to both North and South Vietnamese law at the time, the police were not allowed to execute prisoner without going through a trial. This is just common sense. Secondly, I don't know of any Vietnamese law which allows execution of handcuffed prisoner even in a state of emergency so AFAIK the first law still apply: no prisoner should be executed without going through a trial first. That's why I'm asking you to come up with sources that said Vietnamese law allowed execution of prisoners without trial in a state of emergency. As for proof that no tribunal took place, here is one: [1], every sources that I've come across told the same thing: ARVN soldiers regained control of the area, they found a VC guerrilla inside, they took him to Nguyen Ngoc Loan, Loan then shot the man. There was absolutely no time for a legal trial in just a few minutes between the time the first ARVN soldier entered the building and the time the VC guerrilla was escorted out. Again, please provide sources that said otherwise.--82.23.1.34 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The legal system was not very functional at that moment -- if at all. How could it be common sense for looters to be shot on the spot during an emergency in western Europe but not for shooting outright killers of women and children during the Tet Offensive?

Are you saying that South Vietnamese law and custom should be expected to be more respectful of human rights during an emergency than European law? That doesn't sound like common sense to me.

If I'm reading the right spot in your source, it does not say there was no time for a tribunal. It says, "two Vietnamese soldiers pulled a prisoner out of a doorway at the end of the street." That does not mean he had just been captured at that doorway. For all we know, that doorway may have been leading from Loan's office.

-- Randy2063 01:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dude, grow up, I'm sure you are more intelligent than that, just re-read what you've written before submitting. You're trying too hard to justify Nguyen Ngoc Loan's action. You must've realised you sounded a lot like some of those conspiracy theorists. If the prisoner was indeed Nguyen Van Lem, he is known to be still alive in the morning of Feb 1st because that morning he led an attack on an ARVN office where he was captured. By noon, he was executed. For the sake of argument, let's just say he was tried and found to be guilty. What kind of trial took place in such a short time with noone to represent the defendant? Must be a very fair & legal one. There are a lot of sources which said Nguyen Van Lem was executed without trial but I've never come across any source which said otherwise. So again, I kindly ask you to provide source.

Btw, both Nguyen Van Lem's wife and Le Cong Na's brother can not be sure if the prisoner in the photo was Nguyen Van Lem or Le Cong Na since he was beaten so badly that even his closest relatives couldn't recognize him.

As for your looters argument. You said "How could it be common sense for looters to be shot on the spot during an emergency in western Europe but not for shooting outright killers of women and children during the Tet Offensive?", the point is Nguyen Van Lem was only caught hiding in a ditch full of bodies. Moreover, whatever you choose to believe, it's still against Vietnamese law to kill a prisoner without trial even in a state of emergency. Again, please provide source if you think otherwise. Even in your country, it might be lawful to shoot looters but I'm sure it's not lawful to shoot a handcuffed looter being escorted to prison.--lt2hieu2004 03:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, you're trying too hard to condemn the man. I don't really doubt that you can find sources that say Lem was shot without a trial. You just haven't yet shown me one.

What I've shown you is that it's not at all unusual for police to be given extraordinary powers in a chaotic situation like this. In the U.S., the Constitution recognizes the possibility of such an emergency when it says, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It's not generally lawful for the police to shoot looters in the U.S. but that's because the system has been functioning in recent years.

Note that I didn't say I thought he got a good trial, nor even a civilian trial at all. I had earlier suggested that he could have had a military tribunal. It is known that Thieu declared martial law during the Tet Offensive. Regardless of whether or not there was a tribunal, normal everyday South Vietnamese law would not have applied on that day. Loan could very well have been acting under a presidential decree.

For it to be "not lawful to shoot a handcuffed looter being escorted to prison" assumes that a prison is secure, and that there are police available to take him there. That wasn't a sure thing during the Tet Offensive.

-- Randy2063 15:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that in the U.S, when looters are caught, even after you've handcuffed him (therefore deemed safe), you are allowed to shoot him on the spot just because he is not the only looter in town? If that is the case, I can assure you that South Vietnamese law in 1968 is much more civilized than U.S law today. I think what you meant is that if the looter posed a threat then he can be shot - I don't think anybody consider a handcuffed prisoner a threat.

I don't think I'm trying too hard to condemn the man. Firstly, all sources told the same story: He was caught in a ditch full of bodies. For the sake of argument, let's say he was given a military tribunal (albeit not a fair one at that). To this day, nobody even knows who the prisoner was, nobody has any further proof than he was caught in a ditch full of bodies. If there was proof, I would have supported Loan wholeheartedly because I would have done the same thing but there was none. Despite all that, you're still trying to believe he was justified to execute the prisoner, tell me who is trying too hard. I'm just curious, why do you think he was justified to did what he did?

8 a.m on Feb 1st 1968, president Thieu declared martial law. I didn't question that. But in Vietnam, even in a state of emergency, you are not allowed to shoot handcuffed prisoners. You are only allowed to eliminate threats (which a handcuffed Nguyen Van Lem is definitely not). Moreover, as I've said before, it's definitely illegal in South Vietnam to summarily execute a prisoner (as in most if not all other countries), the question is in a state of emergency does the police have extra power to execute prisoners? Maybe that was the case but I just couldn't find any source that claimed so, that's why I've been asking you to provide sources to back up your arguments.--82.23.1.34 20:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The situation isn't really "safe" if you've locked up one looter without discouraging the rest, particularly if one of your men is then occupied guarding him instead of catching others.

I'm not saying that's the current policy on looters anyway. I had said that would be during an extreme state of emergency. Regardless, the article on looting agrees that shooting them is a historically accepted practice in times of anarchy.

This was worse than looting. Thousands of civilians were killed by the Viet Cong during Tet. Devoting too much time to the maintenance of Lem's capture would mean others may die. It's also important to remember that the prisons were targeted by the Viet Cong.

I'm not saying he was justified in what he did. I'm saying that it could have been natural, given the personal circumstances, and authorized, given martial law, and therefore, entirely legal.

I don't know what powers the Saigon police were given either. Given the circumstances, it wouldn't surprise me at all if being found in possession of a gun was enough to get someone executed.

What kind of proof should there be that he was captured in that ditch? The police and ARVN soldiers didn't carry cameras around with them. Were they supposed to draw chalk marks around the bodies, and keep everything intact until the detectives arrive?

-- Randy2063 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

To be covered by the Geneva Conventions you have to be a soldier of a recognized army of a recognized state that wears a distinct uniform. If you were caught engaging in acts of war while out of uniform, you could indeed be shot at the discretion of the military personnel that caught you. While Roosevelt did not immediately have the German spies executed that landed on American shores to engage in acts of sabotage, he certainly did speed things along. If you understand the situation Gen. Loan and the South Vietnamese were facing at the time this event occured, with thousands of VC dressed in civilian clothes launching attacks all over the city, you can better understand why events unfolded as they did. In hindsight, the civil libertarian in all of us can argue from the armchair whether Gen. Loan made the 'right' decision. It should be borne in mind that the VC were not by any stretch of the imagination 'soldiers'. They were terrorists who engaged in deliberate acts of atrocity aimed at civilians. During this Offensive the VC in Saigon deliberately sought out civilians to slaughter, and counted on their civilian clothing to protect them from being caught. When one was caught, to immediately claim "This person is now a soldier protected by the Geneva Conventions" would merely demonstrate that one has not read the Geneva Conventions or, having read them, one did not understand them. Not only were the VC not covered by the Geneva Conventions based on their lacking a uniform, their deliberate acts violated just about every one of the Geneva Conventions. To be covered by the Geneva Conventions one had to meet certain qualifications. First, your government had to have been a signatory of the Conventions. Secondly, it was understood that only those military personnel who were fighting in uniform were covered by the Convention; those caught fighting clandestinely were not. Even if the VC had claimed a recognizable uniform, and been called a recognized army under the Conventions, it would have been pointless. To be under the Conventions, one would have to abide by them. The VC certainly did not. They deliberately targeted civilians. While there are a handful of instances that have come to light where American forces engaged in deliberate criminal attacks on civilians, with subsequent court-martials and convictions, such behavior was a common everyday occurance for the other side. American forces truly were held to a higher standard and rightly were called to task when they violated that standard. The VC, however, were held to no such standard, and made full use of that fact. After WWII, we could rightly hang and shoot most of the Japanese and German military leadership since their countries were signatories of the Geneva Conventions, and they most manifestly had violated them. Had we won the Vietnam war and been able to bring the butchers of Hanoi to justice, we would not have had that luxury in regards to the VC, since as a gureilla movement with no recognizable uniform, it was not under the Conventions. We would not have been able to say to them, "We are going to try you for all the civilians you killed and all the attacks you launched and all your atrocities that were in violation to the Geneva Conventions, which lay down the rules of war." Had we said it, the VC leadership could rightly have retorted, "Conventions? What Conventions? What rules of war are you talking about? Who said we ever signed it?" People who engage in acts of war on civilians or military targets while not wearing any uniform themselves are not covered by the Geneva Conventions,and this is the precisely the issue are facing in the War on Terror, since so many of those who blow up and kill our military personnel and civilans overseas are not members of any recognized army and do not wear a uniform. They cannot be treated as mere criminals, yet they are also not soldiers. That's why over 6 years after this latest conflict began the issue is still being debated between those who want to treat people like Al Queda as soldiers, and those who want to treat them as mere criminals. And instances like this one, where a South Vietnamese General was faced with a situation during a chaotic battle as to what to do with a person caught engaging in acts of war out of uniform, are going to be gone over again and re-examined.

As an addendum to the above, regarding the German Saboteurs caught during WWII, I refer interested parties to the Wikpedia article on Operation Pastorious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Note that the spies were caught on American soil in June 1942 and most were executed by early August of that same year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.210.46 (talk)

Although you're generally correct in principle, the Geneva Conventions don't require that your nation be a signatory. They do, however, require that it be a "High Contracting Party," which the VC were definitely not. It would be like members of the KKK being arrested and then trying to demand protection under the GCs. They'd simply have no standing to make that claim.

Since you mention the WWII German saboteurs, it's worth noting that they thought they'd be most vulnerable when first landing on the beach, and so they wore German uniforms until they thought they were safe on dry land. In other words, they did read the GCs.

-- Randy2063 14:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty cut-and-dried:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces. . .hors de combat by. . .detention. . .shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. . . . To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds. . . (Convention I, Art. 3.(1).(a))

It doesn't matter whether Lem was uniformed or not--notice this provision applies to "persons" generically, not just "members of armed forces" (which are "combatants" as per Protocol I, Art. 43.2)--at the time of the execution he was incapable of combat by reason of detention. Thus the murder was in violation of the sanction of humane treatment afforded by this article of the first convention. The simple fact is, by Loan's recognition of Lem as hostile, and subsequent detainment of Lem, Lem was de facto granted POW status (which meets the criteria for POW treatment given in Protocol I, Art. 45.1).

As to the question of whether he held POW status de jure, it makes little difference. Lem may have violated the convention by perfidiousness (see Protocol I, Art. 37.1.(c)), in disguising himself as a civilian and engaging in combat (assassinating police officers or their families), thus forfeiting his de jure right to POW status. Even so, he would still be entitled to the same humane treatment required for a sentenced war criminal prior to the execution of the sentence (Protocol I, Art. 44.4). Further, he would have been entitled to argue for his de jure POW status before a tribunal (Protocol I, Art. 45.2).

There is simply no denying that Loan murdered a person in cold-blood, contra the indications of the Geneva Conventions. He should have let a tribunal decide Lem's POW status, and if denied, Lem's sentence for war crimes. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Protocol I didn't exist in 1968, that's still not immunity for war crimes. The only question is whether he could have had a quick tribunal. I suspect if it was required then he probably did, as it's likely that Loan cared more about the laws of war than any supporter of the Viet Cong.

This isn't the place to convict him in absentia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The VC appears to have been bound by the conventions under Convention I, Art. 2, para. 3. But even if not, they were still bound under Protocol I, Art. 1.2: "In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from dictates of public conscience." All forms of international law and all bills of rights I'm aware of provide for some form of habaes corpus for civilians and combatants who are not a immediate threat (e.g., detained, wounded, pass). You do have a point that the Protocols were not drafted yet; however, my reading of Convention I, Art. 3.(1).(a) shows it to sufficiently reflect the Protocols (and international law, per above). Don't convict in absentia? As in, a person should have a right to defend themselves from charges...as in...don't summarily execute a person you capture and subdue without allowing them a fair hearing? Still...I can understand how Loan must have felt...and were someone gunning for my family and friends while trying to hide their malice aforethought by dressing as a civilian, and I had detained them...I can't absolutely say I would have taken the moral high road either. But even if I'm a hypocrite, it doesn't mean I'm wrong about what's right and wrong (follow what I say, not what I've done, heh). 64.234.1.144 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, that should have said the VC and RVN... 64.234.1.144 (talk)

Yes, I do mean this is similar to what Loan is being accused of.

It still doesn't matter. As I remember from examining this before, the VC were treated as POWs when captured in combat, but as civilians if captured in a civilian setting. Since martial law applied, and they were in a severe state of emergency that day, Lem could legitimately have been shot like any looter.

Besides that, we still don't know that Lem wasn't given a tribunal. Loan was of sufficient rank that he would have been able to hold one. For all we know, that may be why Lem was taken to Loan. That's another reason not to try him now on Wikipedia. We don't have the timeline.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair points. I guess what still hangs me up is the manner in which the execution was performed (viz., on international TV, in the middle of the street, with Lem subdued and beaten, wearing handcuffs). It leads the mind to jump to conclusions. But as you say, without all the details I guess that isn't really fair to take those conclusions as fact. Perhaps Loan just had a conversation with some bigwigs who had sentenced Lem to death, or even, as you say, under the circumstances, Loan was of sufficient rank to execute Lem on his own prerogative. I guess everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. So I withdraw my last comments, and hold that the incident was not really so "cut-and-dried"--however, I still maintain that under the circumstances I had (possibly incorrectly) assumed to be true, it would have been a breach of the conventions and-or international common law as it existed at that time. 64.234.1.144 (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that either version of events could be true. We just don't know.

One thing we do know is that the photographer did not think Loan was a war criminal.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Prugh and Lê Công Nà

This excerpt comes from a study of this incident by Major Gen. George S. Prugh, Vietnam Studies, Law at War 1975. This story fills in the blanks as to why Gen. Loan decided to execute VC prisoner Lem, what the film fails to capture is the bound and shot civilians and possibly the General's deputy and family. Some of the accounts differ, but all agree, Lem was a VC operative or agent who had a hand in killing these people. War is hell, and no one should blame Gen. Loan for his actions that day, especially these arm chair Generals, who no nothing of the horrors of War. K.Barry TAC 69-73

On the second day of Tet, amid fierce street fighting, Lém was captured and brought to Brigadier General Nguyễn Ngọc Loan, then Chief of the Republic of Viet Nam National Police. Using his personal sidearm, General Loan summarily executed Lém in front of AP photographer Eddie Adams and NBC television cameraman Vo Suu. The photograph and footage were broadcast worldwide, galvanizing the anti-war movement; Adams won a 1969 Pulitzer Prize for his photograph. South Vietnamese sources said that Lém commanded a Viet Cong assassination and revenge platoon, which on that day had targeted South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lém was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Loan's deputy and close friend. (In some accounts, the deputy was a victim as well; in others, the number of murdered relatives were as few as six.) Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution. Lém's widow confirmed that her husband was a member of the Viet Cong and she did not see him after the Tet Offensive began. Shortly after the execution, a South Vietnamese official who had not been present said that Lém was only a political operative. 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 fighting enemy soldiers in the alleged commission of war crimes), where POW status was granted independently of the laws of war it was limited to Viet Cong seized during military operations[1].

References

1. Vietnam Studies: Law at War: Vietnam 1964-1973, Major General George S. Prugh, , , US Army Center of Military History, 1975, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.143.230 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph above, "on the second day of Tet...," attributed to Gen. Prugh, appears no where in the document cited (http://www.history.army.mil/books/vietnam/law-war/law-fm.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff.R.Bowman (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I also did not see the above paragraph in the citation. Deleted per WP:verify. Additional unsourced material:

There is also some dispute as to the identity of the man who is being executed in the photograph. It has been claimed that he was either Nguyễn Văn Lém or Lê Công Nà, a similar looking man who was also a member of the National Liberation Front and died during the Tet Offensive. The families of both men claimed that the Viet Cong officer in the photo looks very similar to their relative though neither could say for sure.

was also deleted after I failed to find any supporting sources for these statements. — James Estevez (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing NPOV tag.

Article has an NPOV tag, added June 2012. I see no ongoing debate or listing in this page about what is NPOV. I'm not saying there is or is not POV content here, and don't have any kind of dog in this fight - while I can see things that an editor or reader might consider NPOV, there is not detail of it and I don't consider it that way. In action with WP:DRIVEBY, I am being bold and removing the tag. Feel free to revert or add it back in, but I suggest but please detail here specifically is considered NPOV. (Sorry if this seems like a drive-by untagging.) 23:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.89.149 (talk)

"We know who you are..."

I would like to have more reliable citation to verify that sentence. The current citation mentions a document film, but have no link, and does not clearly say which part of the film shows the sentence "we know who you are...". Therefore I will put the template "Request quotation" there. Thanks for helping. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Article violates NPOV

This article is full of POV content that seeks to justify the general's actions. This is completely unacceptable and reads as propaganda. The article needs to be rewritten from the ground up and marked as unreliable and POV until that time. 62.238.249.71 (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Images?

This article talks about and mentions the photo of Nguyễn executing a prisoner but doesn't include the relevant photo. However, the photo of the event is already uploaded to Wikipedia. Why hasn't it been added to this article? Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC) thumb|left

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050406180908/http://bgkq.net:80/hoiky/loan4.htm to http://bgkq.net/hoiky/loan4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

James S. Robbins as a source:

• James S. Robbins (2010). This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive. Encounter Books.

This book is cited twice in the article. I know little about Encounter books and this author. Checking their website, they seem to be a deeply partisan right wing publisher. We should avoid politically partisan sources, and try to stick to academic and newspaper sources. I think this source should be removed. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• James S. Robbins was an International Relations professor at National Defense University. He is WP:RS even though he is biased, and biased RS is still allowed. There's a Foreign Policy review here. Kges1901 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

When it comes to books, the quality of the publisher is the key element, and Encounter Books doesn't seem to be a high quality publisher with reliable peer review. Checking their site, they have books promoting Deep State conspiracies, and other partisan theories. One seems to be equating liberalism with communism. Academic publishers are generally considered the highest quality since they have strong peer review, and they tend to be ideologically neutral historical accounts. For Robbins, what if he made mistakes in his book, or promoted viewpoints that are a minority among academics, would his Publisher have spotted them? In that case, his opinions might be WP:UNDUE. I don't know a huge amount about this case, so I cant' state what the historical consensus is or is not.

Instead of using such sources, I would recommend using higher quality academic and media sources. Surely, these details have been covered b by them?

I have seen this page and the page for Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém cited as proof of certain details in this story, including that Nguyễn Văn Lém had just carried out mass murder of South Vietamese police officers and families. It made it to the front page of Reddit, and I decided to check the article out a bit. The sources for that claim were typically were questionable, right wing political sources, or not reliable. For instance, over a year ago], this page cited a book published by WorldNetDaily, which is a fringe source, as proof of the claim. I think the questionable sources, and right wing sources should be stripped from the articles, unsourced claims cited as CS, and then the article rebuilt and expanded with better sources. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, Robbins uses footnotes in his book, which is a characteristic of academic publishing. To cite that Lem was a VC captain, he cites captured VC pay records. Google books preview Additionally, Robbins is cited as an example of a revisionist viewpoint in Tet in this Oxford University Press published book. As for Encounter, I don't see how they are fringe or conspiracist - these are fairly run-of-the-mill conservative views. The idea that Nguyen Van Lem was actually VC appears generally accepted, see NYT, BBC, Willbanks who wrote the standard history of Tet, Lawrence O'Donnell's book. Interestingly, Lawrence O'Donnell, a self described socialist, repeats the conservative account of Lem's actions in his book - that Lem was committing atrocities (though he does not have inline citations visible; I will place a hold on it at my local library). Kges1901 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's literally not an academic source, since it's not published through academia (either as an article in an academic journal or as a book through an academic publisher). Most books, including non-reliable, and fringe books, have footnotes and citations, it doesn't mean the work is valid. Ann Coulter's books include tons of footnotes for example. Encounter books looks to be a deeply partisan right wing publisher, that appears to have no explanation of their peer review or quality assessment. I feel that they are a fundamentally inappropriate source to be used for history articles. And I'm not picking on right wingers at all, I'd also be against Marxist or other deeply ideological sources being used as well.

We need to stick to what has been proven and is strongly sourced. At least so far from what I've seen, the account about Lem's actions is pretty vague. The detailed stories of atrocities only occur in right wing sources, which I have no clue what they're using for evidence. They could simply be using South Vietnam's official statements on the issue, and taking it as fact without further corroboration. South Vietnam would have every reason to spin this incident since it was a PR nightmare for them. (btw, we currently don't have a source for South Vietnam claiming this, if they did claim this, it would be notable, but it should be stated as "South Vietnam claims that...").

Our fairness owed to our readers is to not advocate disproven or unproven viewpoints, and to treat opinions and speculation as if they were fact. The article should not be a simple "Conservatives say vs. Anti-war activists say" account. That's a false balance. Get to what actually can be proven with sources. This incident is a strong point of contention, and it came to define the Vietnam war. For that reason, I suspect defenders of the war have tried to engage in apologetics for the execution as a means of to defend the war as a whole. That's why it attracts so many right wing sources. That's a debate I'm not interested in at all. I'm interested in only what can be proven through RS and improving the article.

Now, why not use these other higher quality sources, and use the sources that Robbins cites directly instead of relying upon him as a secondary source? Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The captured VC Pay records aren't a reliable source? As for the atrocity reports, are you aware that Lawrence O'Donnell is not a right wing author? Encounter Books is distributed by Ingram Academic, which lists Princeton, Columbia and Stanford University Presses as among its clients. Kges1901 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Encounter Books, it boils down to their peer review, and the quality of their fact checking. Them being distributed by Ingram Academic is irrelevant. And I'm generally pretty wary of pop-history books in general, as they can be kind of sloppy. Academic published books tend to be more cautious, and conservative, thus higher quality, which is exactly what we need for history articles.

VC Pay Records are potentially a valid source, though it requires to double check the sources directly, or have a reliable source recount them. There is the possibility of forgery, exaggerations, or even multiple people with the same name.

Now, a quick look at the online sources I've seen so far described the man as either a "suspected member", a "member", a "prisoner", an "officer", or "Captain". The sources I can find for Captain are Time and Business insider. "Officer" and "Captain" seem pretty interchangeable descriptions of his rank, unless there's something I'm totally missing. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

National Review

National Review is conservative but surely this quote of an Eddie Adams interview is WP:RS for what Adams said about the photograph and Loan's backstory? This is presented as a news article, not an op-ed. Kges1901 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's an op-ed, NR isn't really a RS (especially for history), and it's entirely possible they're misquoting him. The original source is an NPR interview from 1999. Try to find that instead. I think this is it. However it says "Only Available in Archive Formats.", and the only link is a Real Media file. I tried opening it with everything, but nothing would open it. I bit the bullet and installed Real Media, and it worked. It's a 3 minute audio clip, which seems to be an abridgement of a longer interview, where Adams gives some backstory to the image, and states several quotes that appear in the NPR piece. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• In this case, citing Adams' interview directly is an acceptable compromise. Kges1901 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR uses an obscure file format for archives, but they are playable with real player. Also, this NPR page might list interviews that might be relevant, or might include more clips from the original 1998 interview with Adams. My suspicion is that the 3 minute clip is an abridgement of a longer interview.

This page has some audio clips, which I believe are originally from the NPR interview. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass atrocities by Nguyễn Văn Lém?

Several right wing sources claim he committed mass murder before his execution. These sources seem to be unreliable or fringe. I don't know what the truth to the story is, only that I haven't seen a RS for it yet. The RS that I've seen so far paint a milder picture, stating that one of Loan's aids had been killed that day by Viet Cong fighters, and Adams talking about how Lem may have killed American soldiers, and Adams relying a quote by Loan saying they had killed many Vietnamese and Americans. So far, no mention of any mass murder of civilians. I would think it rather odd that if this was a well established fact, that these sources would neglect to mention it, right?

What's the truth to this? Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"As Adams photographed the turmoil, he came upon Brigadier General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, chief of the national police, standing alongside ­Nguyen Van Lem, the captain of a terrorist squad who had just killed the family of one of Loan’s friends." Time 100

Potentially reliable source, though it's secondary, and doesn't list the source of this information. Another source had said that one of Loan's aids had been killed, this source says this squad had killed the family one one of Loan's friends. Is this referring to the same incident or separate people? Also included is an audio clip from Adams recounting what he saw, which I believe is from NPR originally. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

"The slain Viet Cong prisoner was captured after he reportedly killed a South Vietnamese officer, his wife and six children." - Washington Post

Robbins wrote that the account of Lem killing the family of one of Loan's friends was one of "some accounts". This is repeated in more detail by Mark Woodruff in 1999 [2], who cited it to Tim Bowden's One Crowded Hour, page 160. Edwin E. Moise wrote that this was a story that emerged years later. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The other page lists "Colonel Nguyễn Tuan" and his family as the victim here. So to clarify, it looks like aid's death, and the death of this man and his family are separate incidents. Searching for "Nguyen Tuan" and Tet offensive yields many sites, but few news sources. The one I found was from The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), which is an Australian taboid source, and not a RS. It recounts the story of how Lem killed Tuan and his family. However, it also includes blatant errors. It says that Adams "was stunned" by the execution. I had in fact just listened to an interview with Adams where says just the opposite. I think the author was making an assumption and attributing that to Adams. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The account about Tuan goes back to a 1972 Associated Press report. Earlier, an AP photographer took a photograph of the dead Tuan and his family, but that was not published. According to a captured document now online here pg 5, the VC admitted to killing the family of an armor colonel, which matches Tuan's position as reported by South Vietnamese sources/AP. Careful about news reports from 2018, they may be copying from Wikipedia or earlier work. Kges1901 (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what the Daily Telegraph has to say:

He captured Lieutenant Colonel Nguyen Tuan along with the colonel’s wife and six children. When Colonel Tuan refused to show Lem and his men how to drive a tank, Lem slit all of Tuan’s family’s throats. Lem was later captured near a grave with the bodies of Tuan and his family, and, on February 1, brought to police chief General Loan, who had been a close friend of the murdered colonel.

Since it's a tabloid, and I already spotted one error, I don't consider this RS at all. I saw the same story also repeated by the Daily mail, and a Jesuit magazine, which are also not RS. However, it's interesting to note that the above account seems to contradict the 1972 AP image. That image said the man was decapitated and the family was machine-gunned. The Daily Telegraph also says Lem was captured near a "mass grave", yet the image shows the bodies out in the open. Also note the image does not list the name of the man or his family.

NPR makes no reference to any mass grave, and says he was captured in a building in Cholon. BBC does not reference any Colonel, but mentions that Lem was captured near a mass grave.

"Heavy street fighting had pitched Saigon into chaos when South Vietnamese military caught a suspected Viet Cong squad leader, Nguyen Van Lem, at the site of a mass grave of more than 30 civilians.- BBC

What to make of these various accounts? Which is accurate? Are they all are? I am in fact afraid of modern sources using recursive sourcing, especially since 2018 is the 50 year anniversary of the execution. I wonder if journalists were skimming WP for info for their articles. BBC is typically considered a RS, but they're not without occasional errors. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The bodies of Tuan and his family being dumped into a mass grave is likely a combination of the two separate reported incidents, the first of the killing of Tuan and the second of Lem allegedly being caught in the act at the mass grave (which could theoretically have been near a house). The name of Nguyen Tuan first comes up on Google Books in English as from an interview by Robbins of the South Vietnamese local police chief, Colonel Tran Minh Cong. However, the entire murder account about Tuan was referenced by ARVN historian Pham Van Son in his account of Tet, published in 1968 (English translation), so the original source of this is South Vietnamese reports. A couple weeks before Tet, Tuan, as chief of the ARVN Armor School, commended an American engineer unit, in a citation that is now on Fold3, so he was definitely real and this matches with the South Vietnamese account. Kges1901 (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is me reading between the lines and speculating. Tuan and his family were killed, and then later Lem was captured as a suspected Viet Cong fighter, he is then executed. Later people linked these events, even though there was no direct proof of their linkage. It makes sense, and it makes a good story. That's my feeling. So around this incident there's some swirling rumors, speculation, and contradictory information.

The BBC source may have copied some or all of the information from WP. See below. The source said that Lem was found near a mass grave of 30 people, and that he was suspected of killing Tuan and his family. If that article cited WP, it calls that source into question, and another source has to be found linking Lem to the Tuan killings. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

NYTimes:

Mr. Loan insisted that his action was justified because the prisoner had been the captain of a terrorist squad that had killed the family of one of his deputy commanders.

Guardian:

Adams believed Loan's explanation that he knew the Vietcong prisoner was the same man who had earlier murdered a friend of his, a South Vietnamese colonel, his wife and six children.

NYTimes:

This interpretation long dismayed Mr. Adams, who accepted Brig. Gen. Loan's contention that the man he shot had just murdered a friend of his, a South Vietnamese army colonel, as well as the colonel's wife and six children.

NYtimes and The Guardian are reliable, and seems to be basing it on Loan's viewpoints. The tabloids, and less reliable sources seem to state these as verified facts, while NYTimes and Guardian are more cautious and say this is merely what Loan believed. Is there a direct source for Loan's viewpoints on the issue? These are obituaries, thus they wouldn't be original reporting but compilations of previous articles and sources. It'd be also nice to get a direct name on the man they're referring to. It's original research to make the connection ourselves and say it's Tuan. We need a RS making that connection. And remember of course that Lem was effectively lynched without any kind of trial. So it's probably impossible to prove anything at this point. Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

At least these three sources cannot be tainted by Wikipedia since they are old enough, and predate the article. Mark Woodruff in 1999 repeated the assertion about the man Loan shot being the man who led the attack on the South Vietnamese colonel. [3] As previously stated, Woodruff cited it to Tim Bowden's One Crowded Hour from 1988, which so far is the first explicit connection I've found. Again, none of these sources directly mention Tuan's name except for the [4] South Vietnamese report on Tet published in 1968, which also provided the information that Tuan's family was also killed. I don't think it is OR to link the name of Tuan with this and attribute it as a South Vietnamese report. Kges1901 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I've found a few more obituaries that include the claim: CBS, Washintong post. Also, these obits have some good biographical info that can be used to expand the article or fill in citations.

In terms of language, the article should use the cautious language these obituaries are using. So "Loan believed" and "Adams believed", rather than stating it as a fact. I'd also like to find the original interviews with Loan (who spoke English), and get a direct quote. So far the sources I've seen are obituaries stating what Loan believed, and a few sources saying what Loan Adams and Võ Sửu. But nothing direct.

Since this was a summary execution, there was none of that information gathering, and calling of witnesses, and statements, and a trial. So it's kind of messy, and I'm not sure what can be proved conclusively. We should just leave it as an account of Lem's capture, execution, and what Loan believed at the time. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Buckley, Tom. "Portrait of an Aging Despot", Harper's magazine, April 1972, page 69

Supposedly this is a direct interview and includes his account of the events and why he shot Lem. Online it requires a subscription to read however. Definitely would like a quote from Loan from that. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Those three newspaper items said that Loan had said Lem had murdered the family. I am pretty sure that was false. I have spent quite a bit if time tracking down statements by Loan, and none I have found said that. I think somebody simply assumed that if Adams believed the story, Adams must have gotten it from Loan. Ed Moise (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Names?

• Lê Công Nà (Bảy Nà)
• Captain Bảy Lốp
• Nguyễn Văn Lém
• Ew Tu

I'm totally lost for the various names for the executed man. The various articles list several names. ABC and Library of Congress call him "Nguyễn Văn Lém" so that's the name I'm going with. I'm not sure what the sources are for these other names. Presumably at least some of them would be a Nomme de guerre that he would be using right? What's the source for the other names?

Also, the naming convention of Asians places the family name first. This makes the both the executed man and the perpetrator have the same last name, Nguyen. Typically on Wikipedia the person is introduced with the full name, and then later addressed by the family name. That can't work for this page and would result in sentences such as "Nguyen executed Nguyen.". The article currently referrs to them as "Loan" and "Lem", which would be the equivalent of using first names like "John" and "Barry" correct? This would seem to be incorrect formatting. I'm not sure how to solve this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In English reliable sources Loan and Lem are referred to by their given names, which is reflected in the current state of the article. I think we should follow them in our usage, even if it is awkward. Kges1901 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

BBC source

I added a BBC news article from Jan 2018 to the article as a source. Upon first reading it, several sentences jumped out at me as sounding similar to Wikipedia sentences, but I dismissed it as I couldn't fathom that BBC would lazily copy from Wikipedia. Should have trusted my gut. I'm looking at this again, and several sentences do seem to have been lifted right from Wikipedia. If true, this calls into question the reliability of that article and it should be thrown out.

The WP articles cited are from before the BBC article was published.

BBC:

• "But upon Loan's arrival, US Immigration and Nationalization Services wanted to deport him, a move influenced by the photo. They approached Adams to testify against Loan, but Adams instead testified in his favour."

Wikipedia:

• He moved to the United States. When he arrived, the Immigration and Nationalization Services wanted to deport him partially because of the photo taken by Adams. They approached Adams to testify against Loan, but Adams instead testified in his favor and Loan was allowed to stay.

BBC:

• "...and photographing high-profile figures including Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro and Malcolm X."

Wikipedia:

• "...as well as his intimate portraits of such high-profile figures as Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, Malcolm X, Clint Eastwood, Bette Davis, Bill Cosby, and Jerry Lewis."

BBC:

• "Heavy street fighting had pitched Saigon into chaos when South Vietnamese military caught a suspected Viet Cong squad leader, Nguyen Van Lem, at the site of a mass grave of more than 30 civilians."

Wikipedia:

• "Lém was captured near a mass grave with 34 civilian bodies."

Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that at least the sentences 'They approached Adams to testify against Loan, but Adams instead testified in his favor' from the Loan article and 'high-profile figures as Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, Malcolm X' from the Adams article do seem to be copied verbatim into the BBC article. Googling for 'They approached Adams to testify against Loan but Adams instead testified in his' yields no other plausible sources besides Wikipedia, so it was probably copied from here and that supports Harizotoh9's argument. As for 'high-profile figures as Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, Malcolm X', theoretically, that could have also been copied from this page at the University of Texas at Austin, too. Perhaps Wikipedia copied it from that page as well (it is cited as a source in the article).

I agree that at present the available reliable sources do not justify presenting the claims of atrocities by Lem as established facts, and I agree with the edits made by Harizotoh9 to the articles about Loan, the execution of Lem and Adams to that effect. It seems that these are assertions of the South Vietnamese military and when a reliable source is found that explicitly reports that the South Vietnamese military has asserted this, it can be cited as assertions of the South Vietnamese military, as opposed to facts. It would also seem that Adams subsequently accepted the assertions of the South Vietnamese military as true (although nothing suggests that he personally had any particular empirical reason to accept it as true), and it should be possible to find a reliable source for that view of Adams's, too. --94.155.68.202 (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

That's definitely a copy-right violation. It looks like they copied the material to Wikipedia, which the BBC then copied. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources:

Here's a list of additional sources that I've found but haven't added to the page yet:

• Stanley Karnow's "Vietnam: A History." (1983)- The Washington Post obit on Loan is largely cited to this book. It seems like a reasonable book to use. It's already used once in the article, and it could be used more.
• NPR Obituary (1998)- In annoying Real media audio format. Likely the source for various quotes by Adams.
• The Villain of Vietnam - Esquire (1979) - A profile on Loan by Esquire and his new business. More information on his life in America, and likely a source of direct quotes from Loan.
• Time (1993) - Profile of Lem's widow.
• People (2000) - Profile on Lem's widow.
• Eddie Adams: Vietnam. New York City: Umbrage, 2008. Written and edited by Alyssa Adams. ISBN 978-1884167966.
• Eddie Adams: Bigger than the Frame. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2017. By Eddie Adams. ISBN 978-1-4773-1185-1.
• Ronald H. Spector (1993). After Tet. Free Press. ISBN 0-02-930380-X
• James R. Arnold (1990). The Tet Offensive 1968. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-98452-4.

Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Loan's retirement:

The article currently claims that he was forced into retirement in 1991 over publicity leading to a decline in business over his past. However, the Baltimore Sun says media first discovered him in America in 1976. And the 1979 Harper's piece is a profile on Loan and his business. So it seems that Loan and his business were operating in the open. So why would his business fail in 91 over his infamy? Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The article does describe him as "closing the failing restaurant", so could be because it wasn't profitable? Kges1901 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The link could have just been an editor making a sloppy inference (if his business closed, it must have been because of the photo). Based on the limited information I have seen so far, it just sounds more likely the business died on its own, like any other. Alternatively, there really was some spike in media in 1991. Or a combination of the two. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If an RS source for a link can't be found, we don't have speculate on why, just include what RS say on why it closed. Kges1901 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

"Time 1968" (2008) says it closed in 1991, and offers no reason. But it also identifies it as operating in Dale City, which seems wrong. Robbins says it closed in 1991, and that Loan retired to spend time with his family. He cites nothing about being forced. Harizotoh9 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The Dale City portion is likely from the NYT obit. The mall that the restaurant was described as being in was in Burke, which is 15 miles from Dale City. A 1992 directory shows Les Trois Continents as still being in the mall, so this is NYT's error. Kges1901 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh man, every step along the way there seems sources with mistakes or questionable information. I was hoping the obituaries would be all RS and we can rely upon them as a starting base for the article, but it seems even they contain a few errors! and then other sources just repeat those previous sources without question. Lots of caution should be used in this article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

BBC said the restaurant served a mix of Viet, French, and American food. That would make sense based on the name, but that article is questionable. What if they are just inferring based on the name? A 1978 profile on the business describes it as mostly selling pizza. Newspapers.com has a scan of a newspaper posting an AP story saying what they sold. Does AP have archives to search directly? Seems a bit odd to link to an AP story in such a roundabout way. Also I'm not sure on how to format refs to newspaper.com archives.

Also the story includes this tantalizing bit of info:, that Loan worked "full time" as a secretary in a Washington firm. Hadn't heard that before. Andrew Friedman mentions that as well in his profile on Loan in "Covert Capital". Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The AP text archives aren't online so far as I can see, so linking them that way is standard. Guidance on ref formatting can be found at Wikipedia:Newspapers.com. Kges1901 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I think I found the source of the discrepancy. Loan moved to Dale city to live, but he set up his business in Burke. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RVN National Police Flag.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)