Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 19

Date of and definition of "... last American troops withdrew from Vietnam"

I'm about to revert this edit. I tried to revert it earlier with WP:Twinkle, but the revert didn't do what I intended (due, possibly, to WP sever lag), and I backed it out. The assertion at issue says "... by the time the last American troops withdrew from Vietnam in [year]. (Holm, 206)", with the [year] asserted being changed from 1973 to 1975, and with an edit summary saying, "Women in Vietnam: if Holm wrote 1973 then Holm is wrong". I have a number of issues with this change, including the following:

• re correctness or lack thereof of a cited source as perceived by WP editors, see the initial paragraph of WP:V.
• if the cited source is in conflict with other sources on this point, see WP:DUE.
• it makes no sense to make such a change, explain the reason for it in an edit summary which will be invisible to the general readership, and leave the article assertion in presumed conflict with the source cited in support.

I have not seen the cited source and don't know what it says, but I suspect that this change grows out of a difference in presumption about what the article assertion describes as ""... last American troops withdrew from Vietnam". Note the final sentence in the article's 1972 election and Paris Peace Accords section. That sentence reads, "The Paris Peace Accords stipulated a sixty-day period for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. 'This article', noted Peter Church, 'proved... to be the only one of the Paris Agreements which was fully carried out.'", citing a supporting source. Yes, American troops were physically present post-1972, but the troops present during the 1972-1975 period were associated with the International Commission of Control and Supervision activity (at least that's my understanding -- I left VN in 1972).

I'm going to change the date at issue from 1975 back to the 1973 date presumably supported by the cited supporting source. Perhaps the wording of the assertion needs a tweak, or a clarifying footnote is called for. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like clarification from someone who has the source to verify if 1973 is what is written. I do find it confusing considering that the troops didn't fully withdraw until April '75. Alternatively, the text may be rewritten to pull the confusing bit out without changing the context that the sentence is meant to convey...for example, "By 1973, approximately 7,500 women had served in the Southeast Asian theater."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. combat units departed Vietnam during the spring of 1973, however Marines remained to guard the U.S. Embassy. It should be noted that there was 1 U.S. military death (from accident) during 1974, and during 1975 eighteen (18) U.S. military personnel were killed in action, 3 were declared dead (either from missing in action or captured) and 41 died from accidents. See comments above in section titled, Article Is All Wrong.72.197.57.247 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Holm's exact quote is: "By the time the U.S. forces were withdrawn, some 7,500 military women had served in Southeast Asia." I added the 1973 because I assumed that after the Paris Peace Accords were signed, no more women were being sent to Vietnam. I think that Berean Hunter's suggested phrasing accurately represents what I was trying to say ("By 1973, approximately 7,500 women had served in Vietnam in the Southeast Asian theater.") Or, if my assumption is too presumptuous, then perhaps it could be replaced with something like, "By the end of the war, approximately 7,500 American women had served in the Southeast Asian theater." Goldsphinx (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Browsing around, I stumbled over some details which might be of interest at

• http://www.armywomen.org/wacHistory.shtml (search for "vietnam")
• http://www.illyria.com/vnwomen.html
• http://www.army.mil/women/newera.html#newera4
• Mary T. Sarnecky (1999), "The Era of the Vietnam War", A history of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 9780812235029
• Kara Dixon Vuic (2009), Officer, nurse, woman: the Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War, JHU Press, ISBN 9780801893919
• Karen Zeinert (2000), The valiant women of the Vietnam War, Twenty-First Century Books, ISBN 9780761312680
• Rosemarie Skaine (1999), Women at war: gender issues of Americans in combat, McFarland, pp. 58, ISBN 9780786405701 (re Sharon Lane)

I didn't do much searching around. The ease with which I stumbled across the above probably indicates that there is a lot of other stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

American Women in Vietnam

Hello! As part of a gender equity project for my college course, I would like to add a section to the Vietnam War article entitled "American Women in Vietnam." While the existing article as a whole is very rich in detail, I think that Wikipedia users would benefit from my contribution. After conducting extensive research, I have prepared a section that I feel is appropriate. The section includes information about the jobs that women held in Vietnam while on active duty and also briefly explores the dynamics between men and women serving in Vietnam. I feel the addition of a women’s section would complement the existing article and provide a more complete picture of the Vietnam War. Goldsphinx (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why just American women?Not going to bother with Vietnamese women? I do not agree with just a section for American women. If you want to put a section in about women then include them all or do not bother.This article already suffers from too much from the American side and does not need any more I believe.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldsphinx, I would suggest that you place the material here on the talk page so that we may see what you are talking about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but if it's original research it might not belong here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but the mention of "active duty" suggests that this is limited to American Women serving in the military. I'm not female, but I spent the years of '64-'72 in Vietnam as a US govt contractor and can observe from my experience there (though I can't presently cite reliable supporting sources for this) that a fair number of nonmilitary women from the US and elsewhere also spent time in Vietnam in various capacities during the VN War years. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. You had women from the Red Cross, USO, USAID I think had some, embassy staff, and missionaries working in SVN, and that's just from the US.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If this can be writen in a NPOV manner and covers all sides of the story then yes (but it might be better as a seperate lined articel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that women held a variety of positions during the Vietnam War, and that they all deserve to be covered. However, my hope is that my addition to this article may serve as a starting place to open up discussion rather than act as an end-all authority. I now see that my title may be misleading- my section is specifically about female nurses serving in Vietnam, so I will change the title to clarify this. As for the role that Vietnamese women played in the war, I agree that it too is deserving of recognition. However, as I am not an expert on Vietnamese women, I will leave it to others better informed than myself to make their own contributions regarding this topic. Goldsphinx (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Show us what you've got.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to put your piece in then go ahead but title it like women in the Vietnam war or something like that then people can add stuff about Vietnamese women as well.Good luck.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to be locked. Could someone please tell me how I can add my section? Thanks! Goldsphinx (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have to be autoconfirmed, you have to be a member for 4 days and edit wikipedia as well then you can post your piece or otherwise post it on the talk page and someone can add it for you. Owain the 1st (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Here is my section. Would someone mind adding it for me? Thanks!

American Nurses in Vietnam

During the Vietnam War, women served on active duty doing a variety of jobs. Early in 1963, the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) launched Operation Nightingale, an intensive effort to recruit nurses to serve in Vietnam. Most nurses who volunteered to serve in Vietnam came from predominantly working or middle class families with histories of military service. The majority of these women were white Catholics and Protestants. (Norman, 7) Because the need for medical aid was great, many nurses underwent a concentrated four-month training program before being deployed to Vietnam in the ANC (Vuic, 5). Due to the shortage of staff, nurses usually worked twelve-hour shifts, six days per week and often suffered from exhaustion. 1st Lieutenant Sharon Lane was the only female military nurse to be killed by enemy gunfire during the war. She died on June 8, 1969. (Norman, 57)

At the start of the Vietnam War, it was commonly thought that American women had no place in the military. Their traditional place had been in the domestic sphere, but with the war came opportunity for the expansion of gender roles. In Vietnam, women held a variety of jobs which included operating complex data processing equipment and serving as stenographers. (Holm, 214) Although a small number of women were assigned to combat zones, they were never allowed directly in the field of battle. The women who served in the military were solely volunteers. They faced a plethora of challenges, one of which was the relatively small number of female soldiers. Living in a male-dominated environment created tensions between the sexes. While this high male to female ratio was often uncomfortable for women, many men reported that having women in the field with them boosted their morale. (Holm, 213) Although this was not the women’s purpose, it was one positive result of the their service.

Because most field commanders in the Southeast Asia theater of operations preferred men to carry out their missions, they did not readily accept women. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act had been passed in 1964, discrimination based on sex was still prevalent in the military during the Vietnam War. Despite this adversity, approximately 7,500 women had served in the Southeast Asian theater by the time the last American troops withdrew from Vietnam in 1973. (Holm, 206) In that same year, the military lifted the prohibition on women entering the armed forces. However, women were gradually granted greater mobility within the military, and by the end of 1978, the Coast Guard removed all limitations on assignments based on sex. (334) However, it was not until 1993 that Congress allowed women to serve in combat units in the air force. Women in the army today are still prohibited from serving in combat positions.

American women serving in Vietnam were subject to societal stereotypes. Many Americans either considered female in Vietnam mannish for living under the army discipline, or judged them to be women of questionable moral character who enlisted for the sole purpose of seducing men. (Vuic, 8) To address this problem, the ANC released advertisements portraying women in the ANC as “proper, professional and well protected.” (26) This effort to highlight the positive aspects of a nursing career reflected the ideas of second-wave feminism that occurred during the 1960s-1970s in the United States. Although female military nurses lived in a heavily male environment, very few cases of sexual harassment were ever reported. (Norman, 71) This does not mean that harassment never occurred; rather, there are few cases that have been officially documented by the military. In 2008, by contrast, approximately one-third of women in the military felt that they had been sexually harassed compared with one-third of men. ^{citation needed}

Works Cited

Holm, Jeanne. Women in the Military: an Unfinished Revolution. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1992. Print.

Norman, Elizabeth M. Women at War: the Story of Fifty Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1990. Print.

Vuic, Kara Dixon. Officer, Nurse, Woman: the Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2010. Print.

Goldsphinx (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ok done that just have to add your references.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Will have to edit that piece down I think as it goes off past the Vietnam war into the 1990's, that is if it does not get kicked.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that there is an Operation Nightingale that is not related to the one mentioned above. Also, to state that there was discrimination is an anachronistic approach. This is looking at things in hindsight without realizing that this was status quo and just simply operational procedure. Discrimination would occur if there was an expectation of deploying women in roles they had not previously held but someone interferes with that. That part is revisionist.

The refs aren't formatted yet. I stopped editing when I thought that Owain might be doing that and I would accidentally cause an edit conflict for him. Should we discuss text alterations before formatting or after?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination is discrimination, it was then and it is now.Just because they did not say anything about it at the time does not make it something different it was still discrimination.Anyway take that up with the editor who wrote it.The article needs some cleaning up as it wanders off into the 1990's.You can format the refs if you like.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the right place to discuss. This was not discrimination. Moreover, if you read Title VII#Title VII which is the rationale cited in the text, you will see that it does not in any way apply to the Federal government including all branches of the military. To assert that there was sex discrimination, we would need reliable sources stating that women were trying to get into combat roles circa Vietnam era and being rejected. If they weren't trying, there could not be discrimination. (I've got some things to do and will be back after a bit...I'll work up the refs then if someone else hasn't done it already)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've worked up the refs and have highlighted three things in the above text (in green) that need stipulated to the cited works so I can finish.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed if RS do not say that women were rejected for combat rols and that as such they were being disciminated against then to say that is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is good, although everybody worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, not just nurses. Of course the grunts in the field worked 24 hours a day, there's no escaping war. Sharon Ann Lane was awarded a slew of medals, I think she got the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Vietnamese Military Medal, etc. but I assume all this would be mentioned in her own article. The last three paragraphs are SOAPBOX and biased, although the statement that 7,500 American women served in Vietnam is useful, and that very few cases of sexual harassment were reported. I don't think the term "sexual harassment" was even invented yet. I should like to point out that women were everywhere in Vietnam, it was a war without a front, and in many areas business went on as usual. A lot of American military men married Southeast Asian women, preferring them over American women. Some data on the number of these marriages would be helpful. Trying to impress a post-modernist feminist interpretation onto military nurses in Vietnam 40 years ago is all wrong. A different approach should be tried. These women nurses were officers and enlisted men were not allowed to fraternize with them. 69.104.55.118 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• While this is good work, there are some problems. It is an argumentative essay, and not an encyclopaedic article. In addition there are some assumptions, "Their traditional place had been in the domestic sphere" which are inappropriate to make (as they are wrong—traditional isn't expanded out) and unnecessary to the article section. You really need to work on your anachronistic judgements. Women workers and officers serving in the US armed forces weren't making wide spread public political claims along these lines in 1959 or 1963. Also the length is a serious problem for the article Vietnam War. This would suit a section in Women in the Vietnam War or an article American women in the Vietnam War. ( I'm not going to mention the misweighting problem here, as it isn't a problem with your text, but with the absence of coverage of South Vietnamese women of all political alignments and North Vietnamese women. ) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with the comment above. Women were at this time restricted to a small number of military occupation specialties (MOSs). It didn't have anything to do with field commanders preferring men to carry out their missions; it had everything to do with the fact that women were prohibited from entering into combat-oriented MOSs. And if you're going to discuss workloads, you'd have to look at the workloads of the military doctors as well as field medics in addition to nurses (although this was mentioned above as well). It's an interesting aspect of the war, but it's not really as obscure as you might think (remember "China Beach"?). Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

possible mistakes in covering the 2nd battle of Hue

i am working on a project on the vietnam war, and currently have it written that in the final offensive Hue fell after 3 days of fighting, as this article indicates. however, other more reliable sources, such as David Butler's The Fall of Saigon indicate that Hue was abandoned without a fight, and show beyond doubt that the chaotic boat incidents mentioned happened somewhat later in Da Nang, as opposed to Hue. complicating the situation even more is the fact that there is no wikipedia article on the 2nd battle of Hue. i am not a regestered user and so cannot edit this page, but i recommend that someone write in the fact that the boat incidents happened in Da Nang. also i ask that someone please tell me which of the versions of the fall of Hue is correct, and possibly adjust the page to reflect the correct story.if you know the answer please inform me, it would be a great help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.39.205 (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in the Vietnam War. As for Hue, after Ban Me Thout fell, President Nguyen Van Thieu ordered the northern region to be abandoned to the enemy. There was widespread rout, but at Hue the South Vietnamese Marines dug in and held, and at Phu Bai just south of Hue, the North Vietnamese lost a lot of men. On March 25, as discipline fell, Hue was evacuated by sea. Most refugees and troops went to Danang, then they were ordered by HQ in Saigon to board ships and head to Saigon. About half of them escaped before the NVA entered Danang. Thieu continually ordered troops to fall back, with no plan to use them cohesively, and so the "fallback" strategy became a rout, with South Vietnamese units occasionally making a stand. This allowed the North to roll through the South very quickly. Thieu should have made a stand, his constant "retreat and regroup" strategy simply made it easy for the North to conquer the South. Thieu should have invaded the North if he himself wanted to win. Thieu thought the US would save him, which it always had before. But the Case Church Amendment kept the US out of the war--it took an Act of Congress to get the US out of Vietnam. Hope this gives you some help. 64.163.110.25 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

= possible mistakes in covering the 2nd battle of Hue

- i am working on a project on the vietnam war, and currently have it written that in the final offensive Hue fell after 3 days of fighting, as this article indicates. however, other more reliable sources, such as David Butler's The Fall of Saigon indicate that Hue was abandoned without a fight, and show beyond doubt that the chaotic boat incidents mentioned happened somewhat later in Da Nang, as opposed to Hue. complicating the situation even more is the fact that there is no wikipedia article on the 2nd battle of Hue. i am not a regestered user and so cannot edit this page, but i recommend that someone write in the fact that the boat incidents happened in Da Nang. also i ask that someone please tell me which of the versions of the fall of Hue is correct, and possibly adjust the page to reflect the correct story.if you know the answer please inform me, it would be a great help. 68.50.39.205 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

M 16 Jammimg

Under the "Weapons" section it states that the reason the M16 jammed was lack of cleaning. This is not entirely correct. The M16 jammed primarily because of the gunpowder being changed. DuPont couldn't make enough gunpowder so Olin Mathieson manufactured it, but it was a different variant (WC 846), which caused the rate of firing to increase from around 750/850 rounds a minute to 900/1,000 rounds a minute. This increased rate of firing caused the extractor claw to shear right through the lip of the brass cartridge, leaving the spent shell stuck in the gun ("failure to extract"). A buffer system was emplaced to lower the rate of firing back down, the firing chamber was chrome plated and cleaning kits were provided, all to prevent jamming. Any weapons experts out there care to tackle this issue? Also, the AK47 was not used by our troops (although Special Forces might have on occasion)--it was reliable but very inaccurate (the bolt is off center which causes the barrel to wobble when fired) and US troops were prohibited from using it because the sound signified "enemy" and battlefield confusion was to be avoided. Our troops were also instructed to fire in bursts of 2 to 3 shots to further help distinguish friend from foe. 63.207.239.220 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re jamming, I'm not a weapons expert, but see this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

President Nixon's Plan to Assassinate Jane Fonda

A neighbor of mine who is an Army veteran told me there were two attempts by President Nixon to assassinate Jane Fonda using Black Ops teams when she was in North Vietnam collaborating with the enemy. Apparently they were unable to get close enough to her to complete the mission. I haven't been able to find any info on this on the Internet to confirm or deny it. Anybody else heard about this? Anybody got any RS? Is this just another urban legend or another Top Secret mission that nobody's ever supposed to talk about but somebody did? 71.148.53.59 (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Randytaylor, 22 June 2011

RE: Vietnam War page A reference to NSAM 273 is made without a link to the document that should be included at: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/NSAMs/nsam273.asp Please change that text to include the hyperlink.

Thank you. Randytaylor (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Randytaylor (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Added in as second link for the document Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Southeast Asia War Games--it appears they really were "war games"

I've heard accounts, from South Vietnamese and others, that the US was in Vietnam to develop new weapons and tactics. So I gleaned this RS from "Air Commando One", 2000, Warren A. Trest, Smithsonian Institution Press, pg. 152: "General David M. Shoup, who retired in December 1963 after four years as commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, later wrote that the chiefs of the armed services before 1964 had 'deemed it unnecessary and unwise for U.S. forces to become involved in any ground war in Southeast Asia.' Shoup, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for heroism in the Battle of Tarawa in 1943, held strong opinions against the involvement of U.S. forces in the war. He blamed the escalation in part on the race among the four services to build up combat strength in Southeast Asia and on 'the same old interservice rivalry to demonstrate respective importance and combat effectiveness.' Once the force buildup began, few senior military officers dared challenge it." Hmmm...so it looks like American generals knew better than to get bogged down in Vietnam, but after 1964 there was a race amongst the four US services to get involved in Vietnam. If you have a large military, there is the strong inclination to use it. Perhaps this matter could be mentioned in the "build-up" section, and correlate it with President Johnson's desire to escalate the Vietnam conflict for his own personal reasons--whatever they were. 63.207.239.43 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If his can be verified I se no reason to objuect to a breif mention.Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

General Shoup's opinion on the war is noted in his article, but there is nothing there, or in the quotation from Trest's book, that states "that the US was in Vietnam to develop new weapons and tactics." Building up combat strength and wishing to demonstrate the importance/effectiveness of their own services doesn't necessarily have anything to do with developing new weapons or tactics. So, while it might be appropriate to note that a retired Commandant of the Marine Corps was a vocal critic of the war, I think we'd need more than one source for the assertion that the chiefs of the armed services before 1964 had "deemed it unnecessary and unwise for U.S. forces to become involved in any ground war in Southeast Asia." If it's true, I'm sure other retired general officers published their recollections (though it would be far better if there were sources from 1964, when things had not yet gone badly). --Habap (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This quote has nothing to do with anything, really. A fair number of generals opposed a ground war in that part of the world, but the strength of that opposition always grows stronger in retrospect. The pattern of services jockeying for position once commitment has occurred can be seen in just about every conflict the U.S. has been involved in since World War I, so it certainly isn't unique to Vietnam. New weapons were tested in Vietnam, along with some new tactics, but that can also be said about Korea, World War II, World War I, the First Gulf War, and so on. And I'd be very suspicious of "recollections" published after 1968 or so. Opposition to something that didn't work as planned always seems stronger in hindsight.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know ,when did the Vietnam Conflict ,Became a WAR. ????

I would like to know when did the VIETNAM CONFLICT became a WAR? As a Vet of the Vietnam conflict ,I wonder when it was decided to be called a WAR. Alot of fellow VET's lost alot because we fought in a Conflict not a war. So could somebody let me know when was this decided to be called a WAR? Thank You 69.97.158.227 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) states, “The Congress shall have Power to declare war.” However this was not done in the case of Vietnam, as President Johnson had all the power he needed to escalate the “Vietnam Conflict” (the term used in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report and other government documents), due to his expanded authority under the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and thus he had no cause to go back to Congress for a formal declaration of war. The last time Congress declared war was during 1941 against Japan.72.197.57.247 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One interesting consequence of taking this approach is that there could be no prisoners of war in Vietnam. No war - no prisoners of it. This would in turn lead to some sweeping changes in wikipedia articles dealing with the Vietnam and Korean war etc.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can attribute the naming of this event to the news media. The US Government never officially named this conflict a war but the US and other non communist news media around the world put it into print and then all the "I want to write a book" guys jumped on the bandwagon with the tag. So it is a "pop culture" thing that through use and reuse has been accepted as an "official" title. A lot like using 'Kleenex' for tissue paper.Meyerj (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who makes a google search of the .gov and .mil domains will find more hits for the term "Vietnam War" than "Vietnam Conflict" so I don't think the use of the name is in serious dispute.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The American Heritage College dictionary definition of war simply reads, “A state of open, armed conflict between nations.” Whether or not Congress declared war, those of us who fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, certainly considered ourselves in the midst of a war.72.197.84.216 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say the U.S. involvement with Vietnam became the "Vietnam War" sometime between 1966 and 1968 when the American mass consciousness came to recognize it as a war because of the massive influx of American troops there at this time. Officially the U.S. has declared war only 5 times. Declaring war in the U.S. drastically alters the structure, methods, objectives, rules, regulations, goals, etc. of the U.S. 209.77.230.226 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Also, check your clear nationalist bias at the door please. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He's speaking or seems to be speaking from the US perspective, so you should expect some "nationalist bias" because it's from that collective perspective. And what exactly do you want secondary sourced? There is the official state of "declared war", which is a legalistic construction, which follows the dictionary definition quoted above, and the conflict version of war. I'm sure there's some pop culture explanation of the change in language, but most serious historians of the American involvement have been calling it the "Vietnam War" for many years now (going back to at least the early 1980s).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the IP wishes to modify the article, I want to see their sourcing basis for change. If they're not seeking to modify the article, then WP:SOAPBOX applies and they should really not be editing this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Code, or U.S.C., is the compilation of the federal laws of the United States, containing 50 titles of which Title 10 pertains to the armed forces and exceeds 2,000 pages. This compilation frequently makes reference to “declaration of war or the declaration of a national emergency by the President.” It does not appear to differentiate substantially between a declared war (by Congress) or a national emergency declared by the President. Title 10 refers to the “Korean conflict” and occasionally to the “Korean War.” It refers to the “Vietnam conflict” and the Persian Gulf conflict (First Gulf War). It refers to “Operation Iraqi Freedom (Second Gulf War)” and Operation Enduring Freedom (the official name used by the U.S. Government for the War in Afghanistan). I found it interesting that over time, the “Korean conflict” additionally came to be referred to as the “Korean War” within Title 10 of the United States Code.72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S.

If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S. If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was simply trying to express the view that the Wikipedia article, “The Vietnam War,” is accurate as written and does not require any changes insofar as terminology is concerned.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume the Vietnam War was termed the 'Vietnam Conflict' within the US for legal reasons. The same thing occurred in the Malayan Emergency where the British Government termed the war officially an 'Emergency' so that Lloyds of London would have to pay out insurance claims by the MNLA-targeted British-owned mining industries and rubber plantations. These insurance policies usually specifically exclude 'acts of war'. The soldiers on both sides knew it was a 'war' though.

BTW, in the section; Vietnam_War#Background_to_1949 there's no mention of the British ever leaving Vietnam - presumably they did at some point so it might be a good idea for someone to add it, otherwise it's rather puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.176 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I added info on the British departure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.44.121 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 because of congressional concerns about prolonged military conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam. In my opinion using the term "Vietnam War" detracts from the historical significance of this concern. If it wasn't a declared war then don't call it one. Who cares what the journalists called it? Doktat (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)doktat

Within Wikipedia articles, we use the most common name for the article subjects. In this case, there is no comparison...searching from 1940 forward we can see that Vietnam War is common whereas Vietnam conflict is not. Please see this comparison.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Vietnamese consider it a war and not a conflict.So therefore the Vietnam war.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The word war is usually avoided in post-WW2 geopolitical and diplomatic discourse because wars, in the traditional sense, are outlawed in Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, except to repel an invasion of ones home territory. S_peakF_ree (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote Heinlein's Glory Road, "It wasn't a war, not even a 'Police Action.' We were 'Military Advisers.' But a Military Adviser who has been dead four days in that heat smells the same way a corpse does in a real war." There was never officially a "war" declared in the constitutional sense of the term. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the quacking sound that let's you know it's a duck. Jrgilb (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The role of East Germany

What was particularly the role of participation of East Germany during the Vietnam War. Are there any evidence or just general suspicion caused by the vicinity of GDR and USSR? 87.154.238.100 (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

They probably delivered arms or some such, removing it as unsourced for now.--Sus scrofa (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Vietnamese perspective

This article seems to be heavily based on the perspectices which are prevalent in the anglosphere (english speaking world), and consequently misses the nuances present in other literature. Thisis best demonstrated by the Vietnamese version of this wikipedia article, translated into English, which reads in part:

[1]

"For most Vietnamese, after 2000 years of fighting against foreign invasion forces, the U.S. is simply the latest in the presence of foreigners in the country of Vietnam. [26] [27] [28] These people strength contributed to strong nationalist movement by the Ho Chi Minh leadership. [29] Movement of the Vietnam Workers' Party , with a reputation among the people gain from the Front organized a Vietnamese Minh won the exclusive up to the country and perseverance to fight the return of French colonialism, and held by the party establishment as the National Front for Liberation of South pioneer, has gained wide support of People. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Meanwhile, the Republic of Vietnam is increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid and did not maintain their independent role in the eyes of the people (especially after President Ngo Dinh Diem was murdered) - especially when most of the character of their leaders were in government Tran Trong Kim , formed under the protection of of fascist Japan , or have worked for the National Vietnam , a lot of people can be seen as lackeys of the French. [35] The former Republic of Vietnam Army is the regular military units and local under the Vietnam National Army , later the Republic of Vietnam to the American organization. In the view of many historians, war, therefore, highly nationalistic: [36] [27] [37] [30] the independence and unity of the country has become a decisive factor helped the Communists win, not because of ideological or military superiority. Apart from those sympathetic to the belligerents, the vast majority of Southerners did not care about political ideology. They just want to be safe to eat. [38]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Confusedmiked (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of propaganda. I visit YouTube sites about the South Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese hated the North because of its despotic rule, and still do. Many South Vietnamese are hoping for another war to get rid of the Commies, but they don't want to see a lot of people killed. To Southerners, Ho Chi Minh was a hypocrite. He was a bootlicker and couldn't have defeated the South without the massive influx of arms from Russia. They hate his guts and get quite virulent about it. So no, things are not all "okay" in Vietnam. 63.207.238.112 (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we end the sopboxing now?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's all soapbox. The whole article is soapbox because it is imbued with subliminal politics.63.207.238.112 (talk) 13:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I thought about this and here's my solution: since wars are going to have totally different versions depending on whose side you were on, why not have the Vietnam War article presented from three perspectives? The American view, the South Vietnamese view, and the North Vietnamese view. All three perspectives will be different of course, but it could provide insight. I mean, c'mon, this article has a section on feminism/women in the Vietnam War. Feminism is just Cultural Marxism, so just in that one section alone we've got a Commie slant. Wars are personal, it's just between the soldiers but every two bit politician tries to claim a part in it, thus obfuscating the event. 63.207.238.112 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a neutral viewppoint?Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's probably impossible to have a neutral viewpoint about a war. 63.207.238.112 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

So we present all sides of any controvesal facts, but we do not (in effect) create seperate versions.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Section 11 - Other Countries Involvement

Although the UK was not directly involved with the war I found this article very interesting

http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/Wilsonjohnson.htm

and think maybe it's worth adding the above in a subsection for the UK in Section 11

As a 56 year old brit I remember walking up the road on a hot summers day with a mate wondering if we'd be called up and being pretty worried that we would. In reality, I suppose in hindsight, we were too young (aged 14 in 1969) but the war had been going for some years by then and as far as we knew, what with tens of thousands of US civilians being drafted, the UK could be just a matter of time. We owe Harold Wilson for not getting us involved in what looked a horrific conflict. (Whilesteps (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC))

It was Eisenhower who kept the UK out of the Vietnam War. (92.10.130.158 (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC))

Spain?

Spain is listed in the infobox as supporting the anti-communist side, but there is no reference to what type of support was provided. A short reference in the text and/or a cite would be helpful. Thanks. 68.116.112.204 (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Communist / anti communist divide

Okay, the idea that the Kahmer Rouge were on the communist side is wrong and offensive. Pol Pot split with his Vietnamese sponsors between 1962 and 1970. March 1970 US backed Lon Nol seized power from the United Front (Sihanouk), fought the Khmer Rouge and lost. By 1977 conflict between Kampuchea and Vietnam flared up. 1978, December 21, a full scale Vietnamese invasion with 100,000 troops plus 20,000 United Front troops invade Kampuchea and expose to the world the killing fields.

1979, Pol Pot, "with the backing of US, Chinese and British Governments" returned to the jungle where he continued to exercise considerable political influence while Vietnam was embargoed by the outside world in an attempt to make them withdraw their troops.

Nigel Cawthorne "VIETNAM: a war lost and won" p224

The problem is the notion of two "Beligerents" as opposed to opportunistic cooperation. Nice article though.

143.167.9.245 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Can somebody include the following quote by Walter Cronkite?

"For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer’s almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster."

His pronouncement had a tremendous effect on the support for the conflict. He is often credited with turning public opinion. 12.161.81.154 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Cronkite's speech did have an effect on the public but the statement was just rhetoric. Tet was devastating to the North, they suffered over 30,000 KIA. What's more important, Tet was the beginning of the end for the Viet Cong. Of the 80,000 Viet Cong who survived Tet, most were later decimated by the Phoenix program, leaving South Vietnam relatively free of Viet Cong, which forced the North to resort to conventional warfare tactics which they were no good at when fighting the USA. The article doesn't address the Phoenix program and how it eradicated the Viet Cong and changed the face of the war. I think a paragraph or two about the CORDS/Phoenix programs would illuminate the war considerably and improve the article. 66.122.185.232 (talk) 02:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Just as a quick example, Cronkite said that the Viet Cong had infiltrated the American embassy in Saigon and were inside the building during Tet, but the Viet Cong never got inside the building, they were all killed in the yard. America did not lose the war, the press said America lost the war and everybody believed the false press reporting. I think a section on false press reporting during the Vietnam War would be very useful. 69.228.116.252 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Did he say this, or did he say they had enterd the embassy grounds?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

He said the Viet Cong got on the first floor of the embassy building, maybe more. I think there were 19 Viet Cong, and I seem to recall all of them got killed in the yard. I heard there were only 3 US Marines guarding the embassy.63.207.227.47 (talk) 07:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On a related note about false reporting on Vietnam, I think we should also note that, contrary to what is being taught, America didn't lose Vietnam. When we were leaving, we had effectively won the war, and we were actually making a few negotiations between the North and South Vietnamese, but then after the Watergate incident, certain members of Congress decided not to uphold their end of the bargain, somehow deciding that to prove that Vietnam was "unwinnable", they should cut all relief funding to the South Vietnamese when the North proceeded with the Ho Chi Minh Campaign. I also have two sources, in case anyone's wondering: A Patriot's History of the United States, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Vietnam. I'll even supply the page and chapter on the former source where this was documented: Chapter 19: The Age of Upheaval: Page 716. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Actualy is was AP who reported this, if Cronkite said it he was only reporting what others had said, and I have so0 far not found any reference to his saying it. In fact the only reference I can find to broadcast new is the Huntley-Brinkley Report repeating the story, but Cronkite worked for CBS, not NBC.

By the way there were (initially) 4 Vietnamese police, 3 Marines and two MP’s reinforced latter by 6 American civilians and the Marine Security Guard detachment and the 716th MP Battalion, and troops from the 101st.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vietminh/Vietcong

As far as this edit goes, the Communist forces in the South were called "Vietminh" in the early 1950s, "Vietcong" by the late 1950s. To list these groups separately is misleading since it's the same group of people and what they are called depends on the author's taste. All the communist forces in the South were under Hanoi's command anyway. The official Vietnamese history doesn't distinguish between Vietminh, VC, and NVA. Everybody's "PAVN." Kauffner (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have taken the liberty of reverting.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualites and Losses

Why are the NLF force's casualties listed in with North Vietnamese force's casualties, but not in the strength of their troop numbers? YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"North Vietnamese victory" is wrong

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DISRUPTION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Vietnam 'war' had been fought in several stages, but ended with the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. In this treaty the North agreed to all of the US's war aims, including the recognition of the South and an official peace treaty with them. However in 1975 the North launched a massive offensive after US ground forces had left as par the agreement, thus violating the peace treaty and starting another war. However the Vietnam war from 1963 to 1973 ended with an agreement of the status quo. To say it was from 1955-1975 would be to say the current war in Afghanistan started in 1976 and lasted until 2011+ Your combining several wars, all be it they had the same causes and participants into a single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC) The North Vietnamese did not "agreed to all of the US's war aims". In contrast, the U.S. government was forced to recognised the defacto rule of the National Liberation Front in several regions of South Vietnam that were captured during the 1972 offensive, and approximately 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers were allowed to stay in those areas under the provisions of the Paris agreement. Thus, the Americans had to pick up and run whereas the North Vietnamese stayed where they were. In fact, the U.S. government was so desperate to retreat from Vietnam that they completely disregarded South Vietnam's objection to the Paris agreement, which South Vietnamese leaders believed was their regime's death warrant. Behind the scenes Nixon even promised to pay war reparations if North Vietnam signed the Paris agreement, which never materialised due to the Watergate Scandal. To sum it up, the North Vietnamese benefited much more from the Paris agreement, because U.S. military forces retreated from Vietnam with their tails between their legs with nothing to show after more than a decade of military intervention.Canpark (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC) To help the discussion along, I think persons claiming that the USA lost the Vietnam War are going to have to provide RS to support their claim: for instance, do US citizens now speak Vietnamese, do they work in communes, is the ruling political party in the USA the Communist Party, did the USA surrender its forces and all its armaments to the North Vietnamese in 1975, etc., etc. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC) You need to learn history, kid. The Vietnamese Communists fought to reunify their country, and they achieved that objective. They did not try to conquer anyone's country. Now stop spewing trash like a clown.Canpark (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mythologies of the Vietnam War

I think a section on the different war myths of the Vietnam War would improve the article. People interpret the war in terms of contemporary rhetoric, and since the war was a decades-long conflict in both Vietnams, Cambodia, Laos, etc. involving many groups and factions there exists much confusion. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean by war myths? Do you mean this sort of thing [2]Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, well, no. Just Google "Vietnam War Myths" and you'll find article after article about myths about the Vietnam War. For instance, it's a commonly held belief that it was a draftee American military in Vietnam, when in fact 75% of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. Or the myth that black men were disproportionately killed in Vietnam, when they weren't. Etc., etc. These different articles replicate the data in a consistent manner, so it seems quite credible. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But are these articels RS? The few I haqve checked look like they mihgt not be.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the sites have referenced sources. Also, I've read similar data from other sources (which provides credibility), and am familiar with a lot of the sources sited. For instance, throwing VC prisoners out of helicopters--I've never found any credible source that confirms that. Our troops being attacked by tigers in the jungle seems iffy--I did find one account of a jungle tiger attack, but just one. More Vietnam Vets committing suicide than were killed in the war--there was a rate increase after the war (as might be expected) for five years, but then the suicide rate for Vietnam veterans went below the national average. A lot of these myths are left over from the Vietnam War years, when they were prevalent, and should be debunked. They fit into the "urban myth" category. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An abundance of sources does not mean its true (but does mean if verifiable), there are a ton of sources that say fairys exist I would not expect those to be included in a list of living creatures. In the saem way, whilst its true that there seem to be a lot oif sources (some it culd be argued hardley neutral) its also true they have nothing to do with the actualy history of the vietnam war. Moreover if we start to clutter the articel with rebutals of facts that are not even in he articel we will ake an already lengthy article unwieldy (and also we would have to have full balabce, thus also citing those who claim the oriogional myth, care to do that work as well?Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider getting rid of inaccurate information to be a "burden" on Wikipedia. I looked for a Wiki site on Vietnam War myths but couldn't find one, so perhaps a separate site for myths could be started. But the major prevalent myths aren't a large amount, so they could easily be included in the Vietnam War article. In fact, it should be easy and quick to do since various sites already exist on Vietnam War myths, and referencing them should be easy. This article has a section on women and "sexual harassment" in Vietnam, for instance, which is nonsensical--sexual harassment wasn't even invented until sometime into the 1970's after the Vietnam War ended (it's like saying there were Fords and Chevrolets in the American Civil War). Wiki must be careful not to pander to current political fads. Anyway, the data on Vietnam War myths is already out there--we don't have to go hunting for it, and it's mostly statistics, so what is there to dispute? 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's the scholarly source that says that mythology is significant to a top level article? Until then, find your sources and Mythology of the Vietnam War. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles listed under "Vietnam War Myths"--it should be simple to transfer the info over to a Wiki site, or include it in this article. I think scholarly research dictates that accurate information should be sought out--inaccurate information constitutes "myths". 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we use a different process on wikipedia to what we think. We look at what is contained in the best scholarly sources, for the Vietnam War this means histories. If the histories mention the myth, regularly (given the publication level), then we include a section. But before that, someone who can find "high quality" reliable sources: academic journal articles, book chapters, scholarly books, discussing myths, then they can make a Mythology of the Vietnam War. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a scholarly history, for instance, from the history book "Eyewitness Vietnam" by Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling publishing, New York, 2006, pg. 10--"Other data defy the common media myths...such as that fully 23 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam came from 'privileged' families...Of the men who actually served in 'Nam', 88.4 percent were Caucasian...and 10.6 percent were African American, even though black Americans of military age made up 13.5 percent of the U.S. population." "...just less than 25 percent were draftees, a figure far below the 66 percent of World War II." --So there we have data from a scholarly history book which states that blacks did not serve in disproportionate numbers, that 23% of Vietnam vets came from privileged families, and that it was not a 'draftee' army, in fact it was mostly a volunteer military. The info is out there, I read it constantly whenever I'm at Barnes and Noble perusing history books. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This Sterling press, "Sterling books cover a broad range of subject areas including: current events, diet and health, parenting, popular culture, reference, history, art and artists, music, and everything in between." ? They're not an academic publisher. There are no academic reviews of Gilmore and Giangreco "Eyewitness Vietnam." I'd suggest that as a popular press work, it would be useable in the sub-article; but, it doesn't substantiate inclusion of the section here. Build the sub-article, get to know the Military History project who will provide support and reviews. You may also want to consider historiography books, as they discuss "deeper" myths. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. Could the title be changed to "Vietnam War Myths", since it would get more hits from folks interested in the war rather than mythology? Also, I did a quick Wiki search and "sexual harassment" was invented by women at either Cornell or MIT in the early 1970's, after the war ended, so including "sexual harassment" in an article on the Vietnam War is anachronistic. It's late, I'm burning out, time to catch some sleep. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, welcome to the project. You may like to create a user account, and Vietnam War myths is snappier— but I'm a sourcing and source quality expert, not a naming expert on wikipedia. Remember to include myths from the ARVN, NFL/PRG, DRVN, South Korean, and Australian war experiences, and civilian war myths, if you find them in reliable sources of course. If you can find a scholarly book, preferably history, sociology or political science that discusses war myths, use that to structure your article and your reading—it'll help make your article higher quality earlier! My suggestion is to use scholar.google.com as your first search engine of choice, and follow the advice at WP:HISTRS for choosing sources. To start you off, I've made a little stub article you can expand (which should survive deletion). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have set you up a very small article, sourced out of a scholarly review article. I strongly advise you read the books listed there, and search for other books by academics as the first point of call. By doing that you'll find the more "popular" works that academics actually think are good. Remember: historiography and myth are deeply connected. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a FORUM nor a tutorial in primary source analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm looking at different sources as you suggested, but I think I should point out that the book "Eyewitness Vietnam" is a collection of first person accounts of the Vietnam War by Vietnam War veterans, including some Medal of Honor recipients. I'd believe a Medal of Honor recipient before I'd ever believe some acadamic pedant. I've taught at university and I don't think people realize the tremendous amount of academic backstabbing, lying, incompetence, etc. that goes on at our universities. Certainly, there are subjects that only pedants involve themselves in, but things like wars involve many people from all occupations--and these different people are the reliable sources, not academic types who were never in the war but rather sequestered in their ivory towers instead, relying on tertiary sources. And of course our universities are filled with Cultural Marxists (feminism, political correctness, multiculturalism--these are all communism) so relying on academic works lends a Marxist bias to a history of the Vietnam War. Since Wiki is to be objective, I thought I should mention this academic bias, in an effort to illuminate the matter. By the way, I was talking to an Air Force veteran on the phone the other day who had been with the F-105's early on in the war and he said the books by Jack Broughton ("Thud Ridge", "Going Downtown", etc.) were quite accurate. I like Wikipedia, I use it all the time, but I think special cases like the Vietnam War need a special dispensation, otherwise editors get mired down in pedantry and lose their way. 66.122.182.241 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry 66.122.182.241 but we don't give out dispensations. Nor do we rely upon personal communication, or personal experience. In areas of history we rely upon scholarly, high quality sources for the core of the article. Where non-scholarly secondary sources fill in details, we use them. We only use primary sources like we use pictures: to illustrates points already made in secondary sources, and according to the weight present in the secondary literature. If you want to overturn the scholarly historiography of the Vietnam war, I strongly encourage you to publish in high quality forums off of wikipedia. The articles I've read on the historiography of American experience of the Vietnam war note that there is an active scholarly debate—in fact one reason why wikipedia trusts scholars is that they backstab each other, they deliberately attack weak scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC) And bravery is not an indicator of honesty either. Just because some one has received a decoration for something unrelated to education, academic achievement or honesty does not maker them more reliable then someone else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, you have to have a university degree to be a fighter pilot in the Air Force. And many of these guys got graduate degrees, taught at the War College, the Air Force Academy etc. In fact, one of them, Robin Olds, was head of the Air Force Academy. So it turns out fighter pilots are academic pedants after all. 63.192.101.105 (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I think the unique problem with the Vietnam War is that the government lied and the liberal press both lied back then, so historically citing liars is not conducive to a good Wikipedia article. Going back to primary sources seems to be the only way to find out what really happened. I read compilations of first hand accounts and they give a totally different picture than what's in the history books.... 69.104.54.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How Many U.S. Vietnam Veterans Are Still Alive?

Well, here's something the "academic pedantry" of Wikipedia would be uniquely suited for: How many U.S. Vietnam veterans are still alive? The matter is further compounded in that about ten million guys claim to be Vietnam veterans who aren't (which brings up another issue, why would anyone claim to be a Vietnam veteran who isn't, since it normally carries a stigma?). And the U.S. Air Force, from what I've read, only had 300,000 men in Vietnam, so if half of them have died (Viet vets would be in their 60's and 70's now) then maybe only 150,000 U.S. Air Force vets are still living. Academia usually lags by about 20 or 30 years, so by the time information is filtered down to tertiary sources Vietnam vets may have mostly died off.... 63.192.101.105 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

NLF Vs VC

The common naming policy applies to artciel titles, not artciel content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong or NLF in Infobox

I have restored Viet Cong to the infobox because common name policy mandates the usage of the common name in english over the official name. What do other editors think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking historical literature, it tends to depend on when a book was written and (to a lesser degree) the political slant of the author. Viet Cong was common early on, but writers like Douglas Pike tended to use PAVN and NLF. Over time, at least in US historical works, both terms came to more or less replace NVA and VC. I've also seen a distinction made between the NLF and VC as the political and military parts of the organization, respectively. I'd be inclined to go with NLF if you're referencing the flag, as it's more of a political marker and thus appropriate. We should also remember that the term VC was invented by the GVN and US and was intended to be at least slightly offensive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sum of reliable sources hold that Viet Cong is the prevalent term as seen here. Moreover, the infobox should be consistent; the section above declares victory for the Viet Cong...why confuse things by changing from one section to the other? The article already states the alternate name for the VC so there is no need to pontificate that in the box. The majority of english speakers use "Viet Cong".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet your own graph shows that Viet Cong peaked during the war years (which is only to be expected when you consider the origin of the term VC and the fact that the usage search is based on English publications) and has steadily declined since then, while NLF has remained constant. Not quibbling, just pointing that out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the decline has more to do with the whole subject declining in the media. There is still a prevalence of VC over the NLF by about 2 to 1 on the current trending. That said, the contemporary sources fall under the large blue envelope and represent the mass of sources. Current trends shouldn't necessarily supersede the bulk but that is neither here nor there as VC comes out on top either way.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why open it here? The spike you're talking about in contemporary sources is to be expected, given that VC was the approved US government term and figured in all their releases and military journal articles of the time. Might as well make the change, since that sounds like what you want to do. I don't have a marked preference, actually, but I'm just not sure how appropriate it is to use an invented term for an organization that had its own name.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See the thread above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias VC is more common the NLF because it is the US given name, But we should be trying to avoid such cultural bias, and as the common name policy applies to article names and not content is not a justification for not using the correct name.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the initial change...R41 did but I felt it was a reasonable change so when I saw it reverted I decided this should be discussed. (re Steven) I saw your thread above and tried to blend them during the edit conflicts but after Intothatdarkness replied, I just went with this thread. I have already accounted for your response within this thread. The logic on titles remains although we are not discussing changing any article titles. Arguably, we are preventing unnecessary redirects. Again, there should be consistency for the infobox (call them the same thing throughout the box). (re Intothatdarkness) It is entirely appropriate to have a different name for a group or organization than they seek to represent themselves with. We use Japan and not Nippon; we use Apache (a Zuni word) and not what they call themselves. The article here already states the NLF name so this isn't depriving our readers of anything. Steven what policy are you citing for trying to have NLF?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy (as far as I am aware) that requires us to call them by a given name, but neither is there one that does not allow is to. But I would point out that Japan is the westernise version of Japan (and has always been), but VC (which is not even English) is not the westernised version of NLF (that national liberation front), it a propaganda name. The same with Apaches, it’s the only English name, there are no toerh English language names for the group. We are asked to try and avoipd obviouse westernise culterual bias.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It will likely confuse the average reader - our audience, if Viet Cong is replaced by NLF throughout the article. Noting what they called themselves would seem enough. Even if Viet Cong was intended to be offensive, I doubt more than a handful of readers know this - and if they already do, probably know more about the conflict than is in the article. (Hohum ^@) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the usage for NLF is on Mondays during the U.S. football season, which suggests that it is mainly people mistyping "NFL". "NLF" is not "what they called themselves", but an unofficially translated and shortened form. The whole concept doesn't exist in the official Vietnamese literature. If you look at Victory in Vietnam, they do not recognize any distinction between northern and southern communist forces. U.S. policymakers had traumatic memories of Korea and didn't want to invade the North. So they created the fiction that the U.S. was at war with someone other than Hanoi. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a different issue. During the conflict the North maintained that the NLF was a distinct organization that wasn't controlled or directed by Hanoi.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the part of what Kauffner is pointing out is that from a common name perspective, there are few hits on WP for National Liberation Front (3047) whereas their are substantial hits for Viet Cong (40689). I only used December as a sampling but I think these proportions are roughly consistent across time. Also, the NLF page is a DAB and actually represents many other organizations that bear that name. In short, people call them Viet Cong and but a few scant folks use the other name.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I get 8,650 post-1990 English-language Google book hits for "Vietnam War" NLF OR National-Liberation-Front, 33,000 for "Vietnam War" Vietcong OR Viet-Cong. This scholarly preference is misleadingly close. Vastly more readers are searching for Viet Cong/Vietcong than for "National Liberation Front", according to Google Insights. Kauffner (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again it seems like the decision has been made. Why waste the time going through the talk page stuff?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting discussion. The North Vietnamese referred to themselves by various names such as the bo doi of the Viet Minh, the Chu Luc of the regular army, and each division had its own name such as Nam Dinh, Viet Bac, Ben Tre, Bien Hoa and even the humourous Dong Bang...it would be interesting to know what the North actually considered naming themselves, I wish some North Vietnamese would contribute to this article but I assume they have censorship problems in their "liberated" country. It seems to be all a matter of perspective. While the Americans would consider themselves "Americans" yet at the same time they would consider themselves Air Cav or Brown Water Navy or Wild Weasels or whatever their mission or unit was. What did the North collectively call the Americans? I'm sure it was something disparaging--in WWII we called the Germans Krauts and in Vietnam we called the North "zipperheads" so it's probably something quite colorful. I'm sure the North hated the Americans. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC in Vietnam

There's a 1995 BBC Timewatch programme showing some of the BBC's reporting of the Vietnam War on YouTube here: [3]] - it include contemporary reports by, amongst others, Julian Pettifer, Martin Bell, Charles Wheeler and Brian Barron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Participants

Why does DPRK stay as participant, while Soviet and even CHINA stays as supported by? DPRK sent only 300 troops there while China sent 170 000! This is vandalism. It seems to be one supporter of the war that want to give the illution that no nations supported Vietnam with troops, except from the North Korea prison! Here's a message to the vandal: If you can't edit seriously, or objective, you may just find something other to do than editing Wikipedia! Cuba was the only to give humanitarian support to Vietnam without participating military! The REPUBLICAN BUSHIST that did this is the worst idiot I've MET on Wikipedia. And I think the use of the propaganda word "Viet Cong" shall be removed, if you want to call yourself neutral. Wikipedia is not unlike CONSERVAPEDIA! And vandalism KEEP STAYING in long time because most articles about politics is written from an imperalist view. That a war killing 2,5 million or more innocent civilians is becoming a place for political views seen from the killing machine (it had been more OK if it had been pro-Vietnamese than pro-American, because NVN/FNL didn't committed any war crimed and killed only 2000 civilians, though I prefer neutrality), that is pretty HORRIBLE! --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that a vandal removed this, but please don't remove others' inlays because you don't agree with them. --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay...your point being? And your RS is...? 69.236.142.194 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Women in Vietnam section totally inaccurate

The bit about American women serving in Vietnam, sexual harassment, etc. is totally bogus. Enlisted men were not allowed to fraternize or become "overly familiar" with officers (nurses), according to military law. If they did, they'd go to the brig. There was even an entire movie made about the quandry of enlisted men not being able to go with female officers called "Operation Madball" in 1957 with Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs. The person who wrote the women in Vietnam paragraph obviously was never in the military and attempted to implant some sort of contemporary feminist overlay to the war, implying sexual harassment of women, portraying women as victims of societal prejudice, etc. --Totally bogus. Contempory rhetoric stamped onto a war that happened 40 years ago. Ridiculous. It discredits the entire article on the Vietnam War. Somebody didn't read the UCMJ. 69.228.116.96 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

we repeat what RS say, not what films do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the RS: Article 92 (unprofessional relationships) and Article 134 (fraternization) of the UCMJ are taken quite seriously and Courts-Martial may result. If nurses (who were officers) in the Vietnam War were engaged in the slightest impropriety heads could roll. The person who wrote the paragraph about women in Vietnam obviously had no knowledge of military courtesy, military law or military history and probably wrote the paragraph based on some feminist course he took or somesuch nonsense. The paragraph should be amended to at least contain references to Articles 92 and 134. This would give it some degree of historical accuracy. Apart from dating, sexual relationships, etc., officers and enlisted personnel can not have business dealings together, loan money to each other, share living quarters, go on vacations together, etc. The erroneous paragraph starkly delineates the problem with letting "pop history" political fads worm their way into Wikipedia. 209.77.229.65 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources, sources related to the subject are not WP:RS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."). Regulations only tell us what the regulation says, not how well they were followed. Given that the US military doesn't have a handle on rape within the ranks even today, it beggars belief that no sexual contacts occurred between nurses and other soldiers during Vietnam.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could find laws saying that murder is illegal, does that mean we can't have material about Jack the Ripper because its impossible for some one to break the law. However we can say that such liasons wee illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the last sentence on American women in Vietnam says that few cases of impropriety were noted in the Vietnam War, compared to a startling 1/3 rate of sexual harassment of BOTH men and women in today's military. --Has there been a paradigm shift? This might be a matter worth investigating. In Vietnam, there were plenty of Oriental women around since the US was an occupying country, and US men dated and married South Vietnamese women. There was no shortage of eligible women. There's even a YouTube video of the Cam Ranh Bay Meat Market where the girls are lined up alongside a metal fence, waiting to date GI's. If they landed a GI, they could get married and then go live in the USA. (So there was a lot of THAT kind of hanky-panky going on). A lot of guys dumped their girlfriend back home and married a girl from SEA, since women in this sphere of the world were brought up to respect men. Nurses you would not want to annoy, since they might have to save your life someday. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably should mention the "Candy Stripers", who were nice, civilian American girls who went to Vietnam to, um, "help" the troops. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Weapons List?

I'm a little confused about the weapons list, is it supposed to be inclusive or just representative? For instance, it lists the AC-130 gunship of which we only had about a dozen or so operating out of Ubon, Thailand with the 16th SOS (Special Operations Squadron) which was part of the 8th Wing. In reality, we had hundreds of C-130's of various models (C-130A's, C-130B's, C-130E's) performing a multiplicity of missions (C-130's were used to drop the world's biggest bomb (at 15,000 lbs.) by pushing it out the back of the airplane for Commando Vault missions--and they got the highest bombing accuracy rate of any "bomber" in the course of the war!) C-7 Caribous were used extensively, in fact they were used to relieve the siege at Dak Seang, and almost all of them received battle damage there and as I recall at least three of them were shot down, two Congressional Medals of Honor were handed out at Dak Seang, along with a bunch of Silver Stars, etc. and the 834th Air Division received the Presidential Unit Citation. The only other time the 834th got the PUC was for helping to relieve the siege at Khe Sanh. So Dak Seang was Hot City. The reason Dak Seang is so little known is that it was primarily a South Vietnamese camp. So should the list be an all-inclusive list or just list "some" of the aircraft? There might be some old pilots out there who will feel slighted ("According to this here Wiki list I wasn't even in the Vietnam War, I guess I got my Purple Heart by slipping on a beer bottle in Wichita and falling down the stairs"). So if it's just a "starter list", it would be easy to add to. 69.238.198.15 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article listing the Weapons of the Vietnam War, the "Weapons" section in this article could conceivably be pared down so that it only talks about new/decisive developments relating to the course of the war, and not a list that already exists in full form elsewhere. --Sus scrofa (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request about Kennedy

In the section "During John F. Kennedy's administration, 1961–1963" it says of Kennedy :-

"He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"

On the grounds that we judge a person as much as by his actions as by his words, can we make clear that he was most definitely in favour of sending more troops there. We know this because this is exactly what he did. I do not see the benefit of making Kennedy out to be against the use of military force in Vietnam when he most defintely was. A retrospective lionising strips the dead of their dignity : the dead were entitled to make mistakes too.

Can we clarify this statement and source it and then, if sourced properly, state that he "Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam, but subsequently changed his mind". That at least would more accurately record the events as they actually were, rather than some would like it to be. Jackd1000 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact a better (more accurate rendition) would be

"Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam. Whether or not he believed this, he subsequently substantially increased the US's military participation in South Vietnam"

Jackd1000 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this gets iffy. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy couldn't back away from the Laotians and their fight with the Pathet Lao, since this would alarm President Diem in South Vietnam. And way back in 1961 the Soviet Union was against the Chinese regime over Laos and Cambodia. The Vietnam War encompassed all of Southeast Asia--Laos, Cambodia, etc., not just North and South Vietnam. Kennedy had to try and balance a lot of situations. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor had visited Vietnam and in 1963 had advised President Kennedy to phase out American troops by 1965. In 1962 Kennedy had sent over some 5,000 US Army Special Forces as "advisors". It was Johnson who ramped up the war and sent over massive amounts of troops. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanted a war in Laos (it was landlocked) so Kennedy put his emphasis on Vietnam. Then Johnson escalated it. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The questionable phrase is currently sourced against a primary source. It should really be sourced against scholarly history, or rather, Kennedy's position on the war if infact notable, should be sourced against scholarly secondary sources based on what they say, not what Kennedy actually said. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just cannot be said to be in dispute that Kennedy substantially escalated the use of armed forces in South Vietnam. He did it, and that's that. That Johnson escalated it to a greater extent subsequently is irrelevant, as are the geopolitical considerations that were connected to it. This contrasts with the wording of the article, which says that Kennedy was against the deployment of troops in South Vietnam. If indeed he did say this, his behaviour contrasts with his words, not exactly untypical behaviour for politicians - in which case it is important to record this fact, rather than simply echo a traditional line whose intention may be to minimise the actions of a now venerated figure. I'm absolutely sure Kennedy would not have been happy about this editing of the truth.

Jackd1000 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that if Kennedy had not been assassinated, then he would have extricated the US from Vietnam, pulling out troops rather than escalating, and the Vietnam War would have been averted. --This is usually the point that "historians" argue over. 209.77.230.59 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is one problem with the latter poin - there is not one shred or scrap of evidence from Kennedy's words or writings that this was the case. In which case the above point is mere speculation and part of an attempt to change the legacy of Mr Kennedy Jackd1000 (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it goes a little something like this: the NLF starts their armed campaign; South Vietnam starts to falter; Kennedy sends an influx of US troops; the NLF are pushed back; Kennedy states that things are looking up in Vietnam so he's going to withdraw the US troops; Kennedy is assassinated. Kennedy apologists ignore the fact that Kennedy condtioned the envisioned withdrawal on the fact that the US/South Vietnam were winning. Had Kennedy not been killed, he would have done exatcly the same thing as LBJ: escalate when things got worse. There is no evidence to the contrary AFAIK.--Sus scrofa (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)