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

The result was keep. Consensus is that, whether or not it happened, reliable sources cover it, and therefore so should we. Any well-sourced doubts about the event should be discussed as part of the article. Sandstein 20:16, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre[edit]

Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was deleted previously in 2016, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre. It was reinstated in June 2018, based on new references and edits of User:A Bicyclette who has since been permanently blocked. I have critiqued those new references here: Talk:Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre#Restored, but no more WP:RS provided as I do not believe that they are any more reliable than what was there when the page was first deleted. I don't think there are enough WP:RS to say what went on at Bình An/Tây Vinh and certainly not enough to say that a massacre took place there. This page should be deleted as an unconfirmed event as WP:V applies Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions Mztourist (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is at least verifiable that there are allegations of a massacre and none of the sources are suggesting that it didn't happen, so this does not amount to a hoax. The sources are largely newspapers and press agencies, so the claim of PRIMARY does not really stand up. This AfD sounds to me very much like an attempt to whitewash the ROK army. In their critique of the sources, Mztourist says that they cannot access Clodfelter's book. Well I can, and this unarguably independent, secondary, reliable source has this to say,

The ROK Capital Division hunted Charlie in its AO in Binh dinh Province. Between September 23 and November 9, the Tigers of the South Korean division reported 1,161 enemy deaths in the course of operation Maeng Ho. A good many of the reported enemy KIAs may have been noncombatants, for the ROK had a reputation for brutality against the pro-VC peasantry of the region. On February 2, 1966, for example, 380 civilians were killed by ROKs in the village of Binh An, in Binh Dinh province. As many as 1,600 noncombatants may have been killed in the provinces of Binh Dinh, Phu Yen, and Quang Ngai in January and February 1966

— Micheal Clodfelter

SpinningSpark 20:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper accounts are interviews with villagers many years after the purported events and so they are PRIMARY. There is no photographic evidence or contemporary reporting of the purported events. The AP story shows proper journalistic investigation and indicates serious doubts as to what, if anything, occurred. In relation to Clodfelter, use of "Charlie", "Tigers" indicates a lack of standards in what you say is an "unarguably independent, secondary, reliable sources". What actual sources does Clodfelter give in relation to a massacre at Binh An? Or is he just repeating the same dubious stories that are included on this page? I am not attempting to whitewash anything, but a massacre is a serious allegation and it shouldn't be included on WP without very solid evidence. This page has been deleted once before for lack of evidence. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AP source does not express "serious doubts" of the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true. It is true that the journalist says "[t]he AP was unable to independently confirm their claims", in part because "[a]s is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the [local] officials' allegations." But that is hardly the same as actually casting doubt.

Clodfelter's book is published by McFarland, a serious, well-eatablished publisher specialising in academic and reference works. On sourcing, Clodfelter says,

Cross-checking and comparison of sources and, most of all, common sense have guided my research and results. i have employed official and supposedly authoritative sources wherever available, have sought statistics from both sides in each war to evaluate the inevitably conflicting claims, and have tried to verify the numbers reported on the battlefield with the records of the various medical corps and military surgeon-general reports.

This does not sound to me like someone with a "lack of standards" or "just repeating the same dubious stories". It is not for Wikipedia to assess the significance of lack of photographic evidence, contemporary reports, or the primary sources used by RS (although Clodfelter has a nine-page bibliography if you really need to know). That kind of assessment is the job of the reliable secondary sources. That's why we use them. SpinningSpark 11:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the low standards being applied here. A massacre is a very controversial accusation, but you seem willing to accept the existence of an event based on minimal details and very dubious sources. The lack of photographic evidence and contemporaneous reporting should be of concern, because that was available for other massacres, such as My Lai Massacre, Đắk Sơn massacre, Hue Massacre, Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre, Son Thang massacre etc. Re the AP, I don't agree that "the whole article is premised on the assumption that their stories are, in fact, true" what gives you that impression? Once again I am asking you specifically what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre, not general statements as to sourcing, so what are they? If all Clodfelter has done is copy details from WP or those same newspaper reports then it isn't any more reliable than those underlying sources. Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusations are dubious, it is down to you to find reliable sources saying that. The article can then be balanced with that material. Until then, your position is entirely WP:OR. SpinningSpark 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rubbish argument. WP:V and WP:RS are the pillars of Wikipedia. Vietnamese POV pushers have created a number of pages regarding purported massacres based on tenuous sources, I am simply challenging them to ensure that WP:V and WP:RS are met. You haven't answered any of the other issues I raised on the talk page and are refusing to answer the simple question of what Clodfelter gives as his sources for the Binh An massacre. Mztourist (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sources Clodfelter used. Presumably they are in his nine-page bibliography that I already pointed you to. There is no reason why I should be required to name Clodfelter's sources; Clodfelter is the source I am citing. If I were to name his sources, would you then ask what sources they used? Eventually, we would get back to primary sources which you have already made a big case of rejecting. I can only surmise that nothing will ever satisfy you. SpinningSpark 08:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another copout. If Clodfelter refers to WP or those articles then it becomes circular and he is of no value as a ref. Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that he used Wikipedia as a source is ridiculous. SpinningSpark 11:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources report that something (may have) happened; we report what the sources say. ——SerialNumber54129 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sets a very low bar for a very controversial accusation. The sources are minimal and IMO not reliable.Mztourist (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We need to cover what the sources say, otherwise, if the article is deleted, other mentions may creep in at other articles without a linked place to discuss what the sources say dispassionately. If Mztourist wishes to challenge the veracity of the sources, then there are other avenues for that (eg RS noticeboard, which I have repeatedly directed him to). Buckshot06 (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

read the refs, they're rubbish, particularly Tuổi Trẻ which is the official publication of the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union... Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I retain *serious* concerns about your complete disregard for anything but official U.S. DOD sources, whether that's the AP or Vietnamese sources (just because it's the other side doesn't *automatically* mean it was falsified). I remain also concerned as to whether this disregard may extend to your not being able to be neutral in these matters. My vote stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have history, I don't expect you to be objective wrt anything I write. Mztourist (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BLUDGEON should probably be mentioned at some point too... ——SerialNumber54129 12:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Whether the event happened or not doesn't seem particularly relevant. A hoax popularized by numerous sources could still be notable. If the information comes from multiple reliable sources (and the Associated Press, Globe and Mail, and Asian Human Rights Commission articles are sufficient, regardless of the others, for which I would need to look closer to make a determination), it meets WP:V. All of this is not to say that I don't believe the event happened--I am simply speaking to the reasons for opposing the article's inclusion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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