Talk:Phan Thi Kim Phuc

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography[edit]

What did she study in Cuba. What is she now doing for a living?--75.53.203.253 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources seem to be mixed up and in the wrong order This post is not meant as an edit but as a comment to correct something I noticed. I'll leave it up to others to make any changes warranted. In the article about the young girl, it says that she sought asylum in Canada on a stop on her way to Moscow to celebrate her honeymoon. In the book about her life, which seemed to be well documented, it said that she sought asylum on her way home from Russia. The plane stopped in Canada for refueling and it seemed that the passengers would be required to stay on the plane, thwarting her plans to ask for asylum. Once they'd landed, however, the Canadian authorities required the plane be empty for the refueling process. Her new husband, who supposedly was not aware of Kim's intention, was surprised when she told him she'd like to ask for asylum from the Canadian authorities. Once inside, she looked through a glass partition and saw another couple who'd been on the flight with them. Kim mouthed to them what was happening, and they indicated that they were going to appeal to the Canadian authorities for asylum, then motioned to Kim where the door was to enter. Kim and her husband elected to join them, and the rest is history. In the book, Kim related how they had sought asylum without their luggage which was still on the plane, which meant that they entered Canada with literally the clothes on their backs. Adding credence to this version is the fact that in the book Kim mentioned that they'd left all the presents they'd bought in Russia for friends in Cuba in their luggage on the plane. Why did I come back to this story? Well, for our library book discussion in a couple of weeks, we are reading a book entitled, "The Mountains Sing." It's about the wars, both the Second World War and the Vietnan War, from the perspective of a Korean family. I wanted to mention to the group about the story of this remarkable young lady, child, really, when it happened. Looked at from whatever perspective one takes, war is terrible. There's not much good to be said about it. It's just my opinion, but man's nature seems to make him want to go to war. Sorry about how I've run on in my post, but it's all so interesting. The best to all of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2829:5300:4942:6EE3:892A:3907 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Phan Thi Kim Phuc's family name is Phan. Her personal name can either be Kim Phuc or Phuc, and her middle name can be Thi or Thi Kim. The naming of this article doesn't follow the naming convention of either Vietnamese names nor Western names. DHN 09:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put at the begining that she is known as Kim Phuc. I would not object to someone else changing her name in the rest of the article as long as we leave in that note.--Gbleem 05:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The real question about her name[edit]

How is the Phuc part pronounced? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. That question was already answered below. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Involvement[edit]

You call this incident without any American involvement? How could Southern Vietnam and Nothern Vietnam go to war without the involvement from America and USSR? Big fat liar

There was no American involvement in this strike. The article falsely states that "In 1996, she met with (and expressed forgiveness for) the American officer who ordered the strike;" This is not accurate. The article must be changed to reflect the truth, any reversion without evidence would be highly POV.

"There was no American commander at the scene of the fighting, no American commander involved in supporting the battle, and no American commander in the entire country who ordered that strike. It was an all-Vietnamese fight, conducted and controlled by Vietnamese. The Methodist minister who came forward to accept Kim Phuc's forgiveness at the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day 1996, is a former American officer, but was not a commander, and had no command authority. He was a low level staff officer on the staff of the American advisors, in an assignment without authority even to directly coordinate actions with VNAF, much less command, order, or direct any activity. As the battle raged, he was working in a bunker more than 80 kilometers from the fighting. His own Commanding General and the Operations Officer of the unit, both now retired General Officers, have clarified that he had no authority, capacity, or capability to order any Vietnamese aircraft to do anything." http://www.warbirdforum.com/vphoto.htm http://www.vietquoc.com/jul24-98.htm Kaltes 08:38, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, but I don't think this sentence "Contrary to some news reports portraying this speech as expressing forgiveness to Americans, Americans neither ordered nor carried out any of the air strikes that day." really expresses that view too well. The second half of the sentence seems unrelated to the first, or sounds rather confused, at least. Perhaps it could be reworded? I don't feel qualified to change it though. --bodnotbod 21:33, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I fact check this article against a printed source. According to a 2000 Buffalo News interview: "Phuc was fleeing that day because an American commander gave the order to drop napalm bombs on her village." lots of issues | leave me a message 00:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You will find lots of printed versions of the story. I first heard in on NPR. It was such a moving story that no one bothered to check the facts. People don't expect someone to lie about being responsible for such a horrible accident. However I'm not so sure I trust all the refuting websites. I added what I could confirm. --Gbleem 05:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Film or photo?[edit]

I have seen the film of this moment. I thought that the image is a still from the film. -- Fplay 04:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The famous photo that was published in newspapers in the U.S. was taken by Nick Ut with a 35mm still camera. I don't think anyone else got that shot.--Gbleem 04:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't seen film of that moment. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fplay - You are correct, however two different people were involved: Nick Ut (from the Associated Press) took the still and Christopher Wain from the BBC took the actual film footage.Romanmosaic (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation?[edit]

How is her name pronounced? One of her names sounds like a profanity! --Shultz 17:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name "Phúc" literally means "fortune"? I see most of Chinese media translated her name as "潘金淑", but I've used nomfoundation.org to lookup, the term "淑" should be "Thục".--Wrightbus 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw her in a presentation at my school where she was a guest and spoke about her life and experiences. I heard her name said many times... It's pronounced like "Kim Fook".--Matt0401 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim (pronounced keem) means new or metal. Phuc (pronounced phook) means happiness as in "hanh phuc" or in the three wise men "Phuc-Loc-Tho", translating Happiness-Fortune-Longevity.--75.53.203.253 (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created her page at the IMDb when I set up the "cast" list for Hearts and Minds (1974) in the late 1990s. And at that time, and for the past 25 or 30 years, I have pronounced her name Kim Fuck. Kim Fuck, one of the many victims of a war I was worried about being drafted to fight in when I was a little boy.
So I am glad to know what a better way of saying it is.
But is Fook pronounced like Book or like Moon?
Regardless, this information properly belongs in the lead paragraph in IPA style to handle the "oo" issue.
An inspiring person, she not I, Varlaam (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another picture[edit]

Is there another picture of her that can also be on the page to show her later in life? HighInBC 15:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered the same as I believe I saw her once in a TV broadcast. I then found an excellent picture here holding her baby (click to enlarge). A wonderful contrast in the future unscarred life and the past. There are others more ordinary ones available too, but unfortunately, the usual image-on-Wikipedia problem seem to be compatible licensing. :-( So the search continutes, but I'm less hopeful about that. :-/ I guess one could try get hold of and ask copyright holder Joe McNally about that picture and try receive relaxed usage rights for Wikipedia though... -- Northgrove 00:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were many photos taken at my school's presentation that featured her as a guest. If I could get a hold of one (which I probably can) the main page would have an excellent quality picture of her as of Nov. 7 2006.--Matt0401 19:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video warning[edit]

Although, I, a seasoned buff of military media, was not particularly fased by the video of Phan and the child badly burned, I thought it was important to place a warning about the video. If anyone has a better format in which to warn viewers, please feel free to edit.PowderedToastMan 06:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Memorial speech[edit]

Footnote #24 links to a blog article. This section contains a charge that a Reverend John Plummer "lied" about this or that. All of that should be removed. The subject of this article is Kim Phúc.


This section strays away from the article subject completely, to discuss whether or not Plummer ordered the attack. None of it seems especially relevant, particularly given that Kim Phúc was not aware of this at the time of the meeting. I would propose that the last 3 paragraphs of the section be removed. Kevin 11:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by 'paragraphs'. I've removed

After the speech, Reverend John Plummer, a Vietnam War Veteran, talked to some of his old friends and got them to ask Kim if she would like to meet him, for he stated that he was the one who ordered the bombing. She accepted and they met briefly and Kim forgave Plummer. The news story of Kim Phúc forgiving the American who ordered the bombing was reported on a special report by the American television network, ABC. Parties who were present at the time of the attack have refuted Plummer's claim that he ordered the bombing, and Plummer subsequently admitted he had responsibilities of coordinating with the South Vietnamese forces but did not order air strikes. According to the Washington Post, 19 December 1997, Plummer says he received a call from an American military adviser working with a South Vietnamese army unit, who requested an air strike on the village of Trang Bang. He relayed the request for a strike to U.S. Air Force personnel, who asked the South Vietnamese air force to launch it. Later, he saw the photo in Stars and Stripes, and recognized the bombing as one in which he was involved.

and added

One Reverend John Plummer, a U.S. Vietnam War Veteran, had seen the photo and believed that he had a part in co-ordinating the raid with the South Vietnamese air force. He met Kim briefly and she publicly forgave him. A Canadian film-maker, Shelley Saywell, made a documentary about the reconciliation.

NPOV enough ? Even those that regard Plummer as fraudelent are not consistent in denying US presence at Bang Trang - maybe there were 'informal' arrangements ?
The Myth of the Girl in the Photo by Ronald N. Timberlake, November 1997

The only Americans involved were two advisors, one an infantry officer with the troops at the scene of battle, and the other [Plummer] in an assistant coordination assignment more than 80 kilometers away. Both officers were in positions with no command authority, and absolutely no authority over Vietnamese troops or aircraft.

There also seems to be evidence that the two meeting was not spontaneous and the forgiveness had been established before that day.
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity[edit]

The 'famous photo' was utilised in a print and television campaign to promote the photo journalism school and associated degrees offered at Griffith University. On 20 August 2004, Griffith University also hosted 'an evening with Kim Phúc' where she raised attention to the Kim Foundation.

I've taken the bold step of removing these - I'm sure the photo has been used thousands of times - are any of them relevant to the person ?
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videos[edit]

--StYxXx 09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THere is a color video of her running down the road and getting treated by Americans. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't; it's a different girl. -- 71.102.128.42 (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version?[edit]

How come we have a cropped version of the image? The original shows both more of the soldier on the right, rolling his cigarette or whatever he's doing there [1] and the scared boy on the left [2]. If Associated Press have given permission, why don't we have the whole thing? Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child Porn Censorship[edit]

You should consider, to cut out the picture of naked Kim Phúc too, if the scorpions album Virgin Killer is child porn, then this picture is child porn too! When the picture was taken, the girl was 9 years old, so even junger than the one of the album. And she is totally naked, without a broken mirror hiding her privates. Sorry, I am not registered here, just at Wikipedia germany (Wurgl), and sorry for my sure bad english. --84.60.186.120 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this picture to protest the removal of a different picture would be against policy. See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kingturtle (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should ask the Internet Watch Foundation if the picture of Kim Phúc is the same category, just to be very sure. I think that album is just a matter of taste, good taste vs. bad taste -- child porn is something very different. (Wurgl) --84.60.148.47 (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late but the Virin Killer albub cover was never ruled to be child porn by any court. The IWF acted because they thought it might have been illegal. Unless there is an official court ruling declaring this picture to be illegal it should stay. --70.24.182.130 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image featuring a naked child needs have an obvious intention to create sexual arousal to be considered child porn. This image is not, there is nothing arousing about it. It is used to illustrate a historically-significant event. --209.148.184.67 (talk) 08:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points[edit]

  1. If I understand correctly that Phuc or Kim Phuc is the equivalent of an American given name, and Phan is the equivalent of an American surname, shouldn't the text of the article refer to her as Phan? (In the same way that Will Smith refers to him as Smith, and not Will.)
  2. I came to this article looking for confirmation on whether Phuc was naked in the picture because the napalm burned her clothes off, or if she had been naked before the napalm fell, but the article doesn't address why she was naked, which seems a weird omission since I'm sure this has been documented.
  3. Is there any good reason to locate all the information about the photo and the woman here, instead of separate articles or even including the info about Phuc herself as a subtopic of an article about the photo? I don't see that there's ever been discussion about this, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the photo itself is notable enough for its own article, and it would avoid any dispute over whether details about the military attack are relevant to Phuc's biography. (There's not even a redirect in place for Vietnam Napalm right now, which is pretty silly.) Propaniac (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can We Get the Real Photo Please?[edit]

Can we get the real photo, please, instead of the cropped, retouched Soviet school of photography version? It's outrageous that this historically important photograph is being circulated only in a modified, retouched version. The real photograph shows a napalm wound on the girl's left leg.

US involved or not?[edit]

Our article currently seems a bit conflicted about whether the US Airforce was involved. The first paragraph says it wasn't but later we have "Rev. John Plummer, a Vietnam veteran ... took part in coordinating the air strike". Earthlyreason (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to raise the issue of this edit here. The text is referenced, shoud it be reinstated? Mjroots (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs editing in a serious way. This and a number of other Wikipedia article places the South Vietnamese at the center of attack. That simply is not factual, or at-best at "half truth". In-fact, Kim Phuc has met with the aforementioned Vietnam veteran involved with the bombing. See the 39:58 mark in this Youtube video -- [[3]] Bloggerken (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. and South Vietnam were working together, disputes over which military branch specifically did what are somewhat irrelevant, except as a minor historical note. Even if this attack was done specifically by South Vietnam, it was just one of many similar ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choichnayus (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Radio 4 programme[edit]

Here [4] a half hour prgramme with a conversation between Kim and ITN reporter Christopher Wain. He says that all the reporters were dressed in military fatigues and it was he who gave Kim water ie they are not soldiers as previously mentioned in this article. 81.129.135.62 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the above as correct. The programme will be available on the iPlayer for a week in the UK only for those who missed it first time around. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Napalm used by the South Vietnamese were provided by the U.S. and were made in the U.S.[edit]

The very napalm that burned her skin was manufactured in the United States of America. Not only did the U.S. show, provide, train and teach the South Vietnamese on how to use napalm, high ranking U.S. generals also helped their South Vietnamese counterparts with strategic moves and intelligence. There are tons of sources documenting that all napalm given to the South Vietnamese were provided by the U.S., here are two that verify that only U.S. napalm were used and the U.S. training:

Vietnam War Weapons ISBN 13: 978-1156807989 Controlling the Weapons of War: Politics, Persuasion, and the Prohibition of Inhumanity by Brian Rappert ISBN 13: 978-0415386678

The main supplier of Napalm to the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces was the Dow Chemical Company. Not only did they supply napalm but also agent orange

How you guys can't find sources is unbeleivable, pick up a book for God's sake. Anyway, most people know most Wikipedia article's are garbage and change tones like lizards change colour to suit the present political climate. So i'm not going to bother editing this article nor waste my time, let it be a bad article. Just thought I'll settle the matter for you guys.

Also, as most photographers and journalists know, you don't just hang around somewhere and wait for something random to happen, you are always tipped off, and surely, the journalists present that day were aware of such an strike and I doubt the sources were South Vietnamese but more so U.S. but that matter will only be settled with the release of classified documents held by Pentagon. --94.195.194.144 (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, the village was occupied by Communist forces, and the South Vietnamese were going to drive them out, that means a battle, enough reason for journalists and photographers to be there. Second, why converge on a place just because a napalm bomb is going to be dropped? You make it sound as if this was a rare and newsworthy event in its own right. In fact napalm attacks were common in the Vietnam War, obviously the newsmen were there for the wider battle rather than just one bombing. Thirdly, the attack itself apparently occurred when the pilot saw movement, thought they were enemy troops, and bombed them rather than the coordinates he was given (apparently we don't know who the pilot was to corroborate this). This attack is famous because of the power of the image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc, and bringing home to people what a napalm bombing really meant, and the suffering of the innocent in that War. There were doubtless many, MANY others who suffered similarly, but the image of Phuc showed the immediate effect. That is why it became such an iconic image out of the millions taken during that conflict.

Regarding your other points. Yes of course the napalm would have been manufactured in the US. As would the South Vietnamese aircraft that dropped it. The South Vietnamese relied heavily on US training and aid (military and financial). So there is certainly indirect US involvement to that extent. But, the actual attack itself was by South Vietnamese forces, and not US ones. If accuracy is important this has to be stressed. The belief, or should I say mythology, is widespread that it was a US attack, and an American pilot dropped the bomb. The truth of this should be stated. As for Rev. Plummer, his role, at most, was to relay information. He says he was told the forces at the scene needed an air strike against a set of bunkers, and passed the information along. A rather minor role, but a part nonetheless, even if it is disputed. What is important? Phuc's suffering and the true story, or just trying to make the US look as bad as possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.255.228 (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a war only started and expanded because of U.S. intervention, so complaining about how the U.S. is singled out is just silly, the specific details on which military force dropped that specific bomb is completely irrelevant except as a minor historical note. The truth is, there were a number of attacks and bombings in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia that were unjustified and caused a large amount of civilian casualties that were done either by the U.S. or, at the very least, with the U.S.'s knowledge and implicit consent, so there is obvious culpability. The picture is meant to use her suffering as an argument against military action in general, much of which was caused or exacerbated by the U.S., it's not just to highlight suffering for suffering's sake. Choichnayus (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ut is not the name of the village - Nick Ut was the photographer[edit]

"Kim Phuc and her family were residents of the village of Nick Ut, South Vietnam"

No, Nick Ut was the photographer, as stated in the same paragraph. 67.112.120.18 (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern photo of Kim Phuc[edit]

Why isn't there more recent a photo of Kim Phuc? I understand that she's best known for an event that took place in the 70s, but she's not a child anymore. --216.165.254.97 (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The girl in the woman's arms[edit]

The girl in the woman's arms badly burned, what became of that girl, did she live or die? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted due to literal garbage.

New Source[edit]

New source on CNN.--v/r - TP 18:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the photo?[edit]

This woman is famous because of a famous photograph taken of her during the Vietnam war. Why isn't that photo included on this page? Is there a problem with the copyright?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be there. I'm guessing the Americans had a problem with it just because she was (unintentionally) naked. NorthernThunder (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image still exists, FWIW. File:TrangBang.jpg. Picture is still in use at Nick_Ut. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applied bisect search by hand.

  • Found diff: [5]

Reasoning provided was : "WP:NFC#UUI§7 ".

--Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the photo and left the edit summary above. To spell it out: Wikipedia sometimes uses non-free images for reasons outlined in the non-free content guideline. There are roughly two ways in which a non-free image can be used: to identify a subject (e.g. a portrait of a person in an infobox at the top of an article), and for critical commentary (e.g. a photograph of a painting in an article about the painter, that is accompanied by text that describes the visual style apparent in the artwork). All uses of and non-free images must meet all 10 non-free content criteria.
One of those criteria is "respect for commercial opportunities". When the image is a photograph of a news or photo agency, very few uses are acceptable, because their commercial business is to sell those photos for illustration. WP:NFC#UUI§7 says that in effect, their photos can be only used in the critical commentary sense as outlined above, and not for mere identification. The photo in this article is by a photographer of AP (a news/photo agency) but it's used in the infobox to identify the person, which the guideline explicitly forbids. In order to meet the criteria the appearance of the photograph needs to be critically discussed, with reliable sources in a way that make it necessary for the reader to see the photo. The bar is fairly high for such commentary, and it's better suited to the article about the photographer than here. Because Phan Thi Kim Phuc is a living person, a free photograph to identify her can be created for use in this article instead. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On reading the article, I find (summarizing) that it discusses that her claim to fame is a specific AP photograph that was taken of her when she was 9 year old, and the victim of a united states napalm attack. Said photograph is said to have influenced the course of the Vietnam war. The photo certainly won a Pulitzer Prize. This means that it is specifically *that* photograph that is the actual important thing.
I take it that if that specific photograph were not in the infobox, and placed instead in the section Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc#Vietnam_napalm , which specifically discusses the photo, then that would start to go in the right direction of meeting the criteria? (give or take some extra work perhaps still?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC) (correction) The napalm attack was by the South Vietnamese --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
That would be a step in the right direction, yes. In order to pass, it isn't enough that the photograph is discussed. The visual aspects of the photograph have to be discussed, in such a way that the reader needs to see the photo in order to make out what is being said. This is critical commentary, and has to be sourced to reliable sources. For an example, see the Featured article Jean Bellette#Australia and its discussion of the work Chorus without Iphigenia. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Phan Thi Kim Phuc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article with acute accent?[edit]

Why is this article not named Phan Thị Kim Phúc with the acute accent? Instead that is a redirect to the article without the acute. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New source NYT[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/06/opinion/kim-phuc-vietnam-napalm-girl-photograph.html

Paranoid Android1208 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo caption erroneously attributed the napalm bombing to the North Vietnamese Air Force[edit]

I changed "North" to "South" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.190.18.5 (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phan_Thi_Kim_Phuc&oldid=1194332159"