Talk:Nguyen Van Lem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disputed

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)

A search on google reveals the Bay Lop reference as the nom de gurre for Nguyen. Lop was the first name of his wife. One of the most common results for +"Bay Lop" is an AP article from 5/1/00, which states that fact. Other websites also reflect that fact (some of which looks to have existed before the AP article). As for the Adams picture, it's actually the first link on the google search, and is labeled Bay Lop. I don't know much of this particular situation, but based upon the research I just did, I'd be inclined to accept it as "fact". -Vina 19:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Posted a redirect at Bay Lop. - knoodelhed 23:12, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Can't you cite some sources?

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.


[edit] Biased?

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)

[edit] Suspected?

If his widow confirmed that he was in the VietCong, why the weasel word? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider it a weasel word; he was executed as a suspected war criminal. Nevertheless, a) it's hearsay, b) it applies to the word "guerrilla" as much as "Viet Cong", and c) it's almost certain that the war crimes allegedly committed were wildly exaggerated given the inconsistency among sources. Given the lack of any legal proceeding it's unlikely the truth will ever be fully known. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to say he was suspected of the war crimes, fine... but I think there's a better way of wording it than this. The way it reads now, you might imagine that he was just some guy, not even affiliated with the VC. I'm making a change that should clarify things. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Don't be too hard on me, dude. Look into the history and see how horribly POV this article was before I cleaned it up. I thought the wording I had was a reasonable way of stating the truth, as well as being concise. The wording you've chosen certainly makes for more clarity but is much less readable, in what's a short article to begin with (i.e. you don't read much farther before it's explained).
As far as the "some guy" issue, I'm struck by the fact that there isn't a Nguyen Van Lem Day in Vietnam or a Nguyen Van Lem State Memorial celebrating his killing all those policemen and capitalists. If he were really everything that the ARVN said he was, you'd think that he'd be more celebrated by the Communist government. Certainly, I can't believe 100% the differing and highly melodramatic accounts given even in the reliable sources out there. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I'm just trying to have an article that's as clear and factually accurate given the information that we have. It seems undisputed that he was a member of the VietCong, so I made sure that it was clear from the intro that this was the case. As for the war crimes and active combat, as you rightly point out, we only have the word of the people who summarily executed him... not the most unbiased sources. Sorry if you felt I was being "hard on you", I don't really have a strong opinion on this or anything. I don't typically hang around the Vietnam War articles looking to start controversy. :) I just happened across this page through some links and thought that the intro sounded weird, that's all. If you think my new intro is too kludgy, by all means edit it. This is a wiki after all. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:38, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I edited the intro a bit for readability. Also, I referred to him as "Lem" (keeping in line with the rest of the article). Is this appropriate? Is Lem a surname? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:45, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's better now, but I may mull it over a bit. No guarantees. ;-) There's a problem with the names -- both men's last name is Nguyen (a very common Vietnamese name). Lem and Loan are given names. It should be fixed but it's going to be awkward. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured as much. We had several kids in my school named Nguyen. I suppose we could refer to him as Bay Lop in the article body, having introduced that name in the introduction. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geneva Conventions

I decided to correct the point about the Geneva Conventions. It had previously said:

Though Loan's execution of Lem violated the Geneva Convention's norms for treatment of prisoners of war, the execution had been attributed to war crimes committed by Lem.

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)

One reason to make the point is to underline why people found it shocking. Legal or not, it violated expectations. Note the debate over battlefield combatants or whatever we're calling them from Afghanistan. There probably were thousands of martial law executions, but they weren't on television in broad daylight. --Dhartung | Talk 01:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it's more important that people not find it shocking. If they're unwilling to demand that terrorists respect the actual laws of war then those laws become unworkable. It may very well be that the public's high tolerance for atrocities by the Viet Cong is what led to the current situation. -- Randy 15:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Dude, welcome to Wikipedia. You'll want to read up on Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, which is official policy around here. I have no problem with you bringing the facts to the table, but if you're going to color them with what should be, you're going to run into a lot of brick walls around here. Also, chill. These editing Talk pages deal with serious matters and lots of attitude gets in the way. --Dhartung | Talk 16:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to get sidetracked so I appreciate the thought very much. You should note that I'm not the one who brought up the subject of current events. The edit I made to the topic page (with a reference in this section) was an attempt to correct a misperception while recognizing that the misperception was too common to ignore. Like you said, people did find it shocking. -- Randy 17:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The South Vietnamese and to a lesser extent the American soldiers also committed many atrocities so your claim of atrocities is kind of irrelevant. Also, perhaps you misunderstood the Geneva convention but the Geneva convention does not require the parties involved to actually respect the Geneva convention to be subject to legal rights offered under the Geneva convention. The simple fact is, atrocities by one side does not justify atrocities by the other. If you claim to be civilised and you claim to respect human rights and the Geneva convention then show it. Don't claim you don't have to simply because the other party doesn't. This is childish and just proves you are not civilised and don't respect himan rights or the Geneva convention. You should note there is no clear evidence Nguyen commited any atrocities. Just as there is no evidence many of the people detained as unlawful combatant have committed any acts or terrorism let alone even been combatants of any sort. Indeed there is strong evidence to suggest a number of them were misidentified, perhaps because the people who detained them didn't realise Muhammed is actually a very very common name Nil Einne 06:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
The atrocities may or may not be relevant, as it's beside the point. This is not really about human rights either, no matter how much we could argue about which side actually respects them. In this case it's about the Geneva Conventions, and whether or not they legally apply. You haven't shown any reason why they would. Wishing will not make it so.
Your POV is ironic given that one of the complants about Bush is that we're not giving full constitutional rights to terrorists captured elsewhere.
Lem was captured in civilian clothes in a city of South Vietnam. Clearly, South Vietnamese law would have applied. That would include their laws of evidence under (at the time) martial law. Comparing it to western standards under peacetime would be ludicrous. Geneva doesn't do that either. (It demands legal standards equivalent to a country's own military justice system -- not necessarily an Anglocentric one that you seem to be asking for.) But if you want to make such comparisons, I'd suggest looking at North Vietnam.
-- Randy2063 13:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference material

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.

[edit] Nguyen Van Lem or Le Cong Na

Thank. 222.252.244.44 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The video, first of all, is not working for me, second of all, we should not use registration-required sites, third, we should not link to copyright infringement. The video is just an illustration of the article, thus not strictly necessary. As for "Lê Công Nà", a Vietnamese speaker will have to translate that. Certainly it returns 0 useful Google results. --Dhartung | Talk 16:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm sorry, when I used the word "illustration" I meant something closer to "example". In any case, I have tried several times to watch the movie, and I cannot view it using Firefox or Internet Explorer. I always get the Windows Media error "C00D1197: Cannot play the file", which means that Windows Media Player "cannot connect to media". My guess is that I can't see it because the stream is distributed to a limited geographic region. This is another reason that an international encyclopedia like Wikipedia should not include it as a link. Since I cannot watch it, I cannot find out if it is a good source or a bad source, or whether it is biased. --Dhartung | Talk 05:56, 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 should I do that? If the film is in Vietnamese, how could I evaluate it? Is there further information about this anywhere else? What important information is in the film? --Dhartung | Talk 09:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/g/u/Talk%7ENguyen_Van_Lem_57d3.html"