Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 24

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

"Result" Section of the Infobox

Quick question. Would it be appropriate to include "tactical stalemate" as part of the results of the Vietnam War in the infobox? The reason that I think this might be the case is because, from what I know, neither side could obtain an absolute military advantage over the other.

If not, could someone please provide an explanation? Thanks in advance.

BUjjsp (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

  • No. See discussion above. It was a long war, there were periods when and locations where it was stalemated, but the infobox should only deal with the final outcome which was entirely a Communist (North Vietnamese/Khmer Rouge/Pathet Lao) victory. Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

A stale mate is that neither side is able to win, it's hard to see how any one can claim that NV did not win (given teh fact thet drove the US out, took over SV and achieved their war aims). At the end of the day it does not mater who wins the battles, it's who wins the war that counts.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

    • I agree. A stalemate it was not. The Communists won the war. Smallchief (talk 10:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for your input. I was just slightly confused because there's a page for another war with similar circumstances that lists "tactical stalemate" as part of the result section. I'll be sure to mention the points you guys brought up on the talk page for that conflict. BUjjsp (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Which conflict?Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Change Start Date of War

This article claims that the US War in Vietnam began in 1955. However, American involvement consisted only in advising the South Vietnamese forces prior to 1965. The first combat troops did not arrive in the nation until Feb 9, 1965 (source: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/us-sends-first-combat-troops-to-south-vietnam). Clearly, the start date of the war should be adjusted to match the initiation of the American combat effort. (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC) USS Trieste (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Where does it claim that?Slatersteven
It doesn't. It does say "Date: 1 November 1955 – 30 April 1975" in the infobox and mantions the 1955 date in the lead section. It footnotes the 1955 date in both places with a link to a clarifying footnote which explains the sourcing and provides some info on other start dates asserted by other sources. Perhaps there is room for improvement there; perhaps not. Incidentally (a bit of WP:OR here), I myself arrived in Vietnam on 11 November 1964 as a civilian TechRep attached to the USAF 1964th Communications Group; as I recall the U.S. had a manning limit of 20,000 military personnel in Vietnam at that point, and was close to that limit. Also, take a look at the Farm Gate and 1964 Brinks Hotel bombing articles; those two just happen to come to mind at the moment -- there are probably other articles having similar relevance. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed at some length earlier. The date on which MAAG-Vietnam was established, the first US advisers were killed or the first US combat troops arrived does not mark the start of the Vietnam War. The war started and ended as a purely intra-Vietnamese affair. I personally believe that the start date was some time in 1957 which was when the Vietcong started assassinating representatives of the Diem regime.Mztourist (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The various start date that are later are the start date for the war for the Americans, and not the war itself. AFAIK the North vs South conflict was going on since the start of the partition, albeit with a much lower intensity than later on.--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps an additional page could be created about the "American War in Vietnam", or the "US Conflict in Vietnam", distinguished from the broader indochina conflict. USS Trieste (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
There's a page called Role of the United States in the Vietnam War that seems to cover that area. The American involvement was part of the larger war, and was the most intense part of it so a strong focus on the US in the Vietnam War article is not incorrect, IMO (although the involvement of other sides should of course not be ignored).--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

US casualties in the infobox

I wanted to ask for opinions on the number of US casualties in the infobox. At the moment we have the 58,220 figure cited with a really large reference and its been like that for years. However, that data is out-of-date by 5-8 years. The Vietnam war memorial is expanded each May of every year with new names. As of the last count, 58,299 US soldiers are on the Wall with another 4 scheduled to be added this May for a total of 58,303. Shouldn't we provide the references for the 58,303 figure and update the infobox from 58,220 to 58,303? EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Here source History only said that 58,000 Americans soldiers, were killed in the conflict but another source Encyclopaedia Britannica said that death toll of US soldiers is 58,200. Also here data from another source History.net which said that the U.S. suffered over 47,000 killed in action plus another 11,000 noncombat deaths; over 150,000 were wounded and 10,000 missing. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hanibal911: History only gives an approximation, not a specific number; same goes for History.net, which even did not note the 10,000 missing are actually regularly counted among the 47,000 KIA; as for Encyclopaedia Britannica it actually says that subsequent additions to the wall over the years have moved the count past 58,200 (so Britannica actually gives credence to my proposition). The point of me raising this issue is that all of the names (58,299) that are located on the wall are approved by the United States government and thus the 58,299 names on the wall are the official number considered by the US of the overall death toll among servicemen in the war. EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
EkoGraf You are absolutely right! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
EkoGrafThis site features records of 58,300 U.S. servicemen who were killed in action or non-combative circumstances during the Vietnam War.Vietnam War Casualties In addition,in this site have data on casualties and certified deaths during the periods before and after conflict for the dates 6/8/1956 through 10/10/2003. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
That's actually a great source Hanibal911, nice one! :) EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Not related to the infobox, but here I've tweaked figures in the Casualties section slightly and added some supporting cites. After having done this, I've noticed the clarifying footnotes linked from the infobox -- in light of this, my changes could probably use aa second look. Also, I noticed but have not tweaked contradictory information in the Vietnam War casualties article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Wtmitchell, one of the sources you provided is the same one as Hanibal provided so its excellent, confirming that the official death count has surpassed 58,300. EkoGraf (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Philippines was a direct belligerent

In accordance to Article 43 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, anyone who are members of an armed forces of a party to a conflict, with the exceptions of medic and chaplains, are combatants and have the right to directly participate in the conflict. As the Philippine combat engineer battalion was part of the Philippine Armed Forces, and are neither medics or chaplains, they are clearly combatants of the conflict, of whom the legal status is not different to that of either an American, Australian, Thai, Korean or New Zealandic soldier in the war, and the Philippines thus was a direct belligerent. Similar are the cases of the Chinese combat engineer and antiaircraft units, the Soviet military advisors, and the North Korean pilots. Dino nam (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a proxy conflict. The Philippines, Soviets, Chinese, and North Koreans did not participate directly in any battles, and are not the main combatants. Lucasjohansson (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Instead of using opinion and original research, use what reliable sources say who the belligerents were. (Hohum @) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, and they are already listed in the belligerents. There's also a section for them in the article. We're talking about the main combatants here though, and those forces also had no commanders. Lucasjohansson (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if I make any confusion in my words, but I don't mean to make original research. What I mean is not to use the article to make derivation concluding that the Philippines and those countries are belligerents, but to given a method to define what is a belligerent. The Philippines just simply meets the threshold. As there are virtually no reliable sources which give a definition of a belligerent or non-belligerent, or sources which overtly state that those countries are the direct belligerents or not, I think the conclusion that the Philippines is a non-belligerent may probably be an original research, and that Art. 43 of the Protocol should be used as a only definition. If you have any reliable sources that prove otherwise please tell me. Dino nam (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Lucasjohansson and Hohum @. Dino nam I have discussed this with you on other pages, you need to provide reliable sources for your edits. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no doubt that the Geneva Protocol is a reliable source. What Hohum means is that I use derivation, which is not what I intend to do. I just use it as a threshold to identify whether they are direct belligerents or not. In other words, based on the Protocol, any states that send troops other than medic and chaplains should be considered belligerents. In fact, no other reliable source determine that they are non-belligerents, so it is appropriate. If you can find any other reliable sources that claim so, then tell me. Dino nam (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, based on this source which is used in the article [1], the Philippines is a belligerent. They are part of the Free World Military Assistance Forces in Saigon. Dino nam (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
A blog is not WP:RS Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It distorts from reality to include countries as combatants or supporters whose participation was minimal. Smallchief (talk 10:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
So I guess that link should be removed from the article? Anyway, I think that as the Philippine troops in Vietnam were regarded as combatants under international law, the Philippines should be regarded as a belligerent. It is too attributable from Article 43 of Additional Protocol I. Dino nam (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course the Philippines is a belligerent, that's why it's already listed. They were not the main combatant however, and were not directly involved in any battle. Like Mztourist said, Filipino troops were mostly non-combat. Lucasjohansson (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

the casualities numbers must be updated,since further info are revealing new numbers.Alhanuty (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Change the Result to "American Military Victory" 

           AND

"North Vietnamese Political Victory" The United States did not lose a major conflict during its time in The Vietnam War and held the North Vietnamese at bay and destroyed the Vietcong while it was in South Vietnam, only after the United States left did the North Vietnamese take South Vietnam. The edit would more accurately reflect the result of the war and what took place. AS the North Vietnamese and communist forces did not defeat American forces, they instead defeated South Vietnamese forces. http://www.e-ir.info/2013/05/23/could-the-united-states-have-won-in-vietnam Laker4577 (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Issue has been discussed dozens of times over the years and every time with the same conclusion. We edit based on reliable sources, and reliable sources conclude it to be a North Vietnamese victory. Your assertion may have some credence if this was only about the period for up to 1973, but its not, its about the overall conflict that lasted until 1975 and ended with a communist victory. And even if it was up until 1973 it would be a bit far-fetched since the war still didn't end at the time so they could have hardly won something that hadn't ended. Thus we put the neutral wording in the results section simply titled Withdrawal of American-led forces. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Laker4577 a lot hangs on how you define "major conflict". I have seen this written as "major battle" or even "battle", but anyone who has read in any depth about the Vietnam War would know that the US lost numerous major and minor engagements throughout the war, however their ability to resupply and reinforce and the NVA and VCs disengagement tactics usually meant that the US controlled the battlefield when the fighting stopped and so could usually spin the engagement into a victory. The simple fact is that the US did not defeat the North Vietnamese and abandoned South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

JFK in infobox

I noticed that JFK is listed in the "commanders" section of the infobox, which is fine, but he has one of those little cross/sword things next to his name. Doesn't that generally signify the individual's death in relation to the war? There is certainly no proven connection between his assassination and the war in Vietnam. On the other hand, if it's just there since he died in office during the conflict, shouldn't Harold Holt have one of those symbols, too? Because didn't he disappear in the mid 60s? Just thought I'd bring this up.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a cross next to Diem, but not JFK or Holt. I note that on the World War II page there aren't crosses next to Hitler or Mussolini, who obviously did die as a result of the war or Roosevelt, who didn't Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Outcome

Currently the infobox states "Withdrawal of American-led forces". This is a mislieading description of the outcome as most forces were indigenous to South Vietnam and they did not withdraw but were defeated in detail, surrendered and were disbanded. -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

1972 election and Paris Peace Accords

The section heading "1972 election and Paris Peace Accords" does not say what the elections are and as this is about the Vietnam War without mentioning what elections one would assume that it means elections in Vietnam. As it is about American elections it should says so in the title. -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Free World Military Forces

Strenght in the table is:

Free World Military Forces: 65,000

but it had been almost 70,000. Almost nobody know how strong South Korea was involved... see further down. The South Korean Forces alone fought 1,179 battles in battalion size (!) and over 556,000 "small-scale battles"... 4,687 South Korean Soldiers died in these battles according to my source, but the article here has even higher casualty numbers...

South Korea: 5,099 dead; 10,962 wounded; 4 missing... that is almost 10% of the American dead...

The Free World Military Forces had a total of 69,864[citation needed] soldiers, over two thirds of them from South Korea. 

Taiwan – 50,029

South Korea – 312,853

Thailand – 11,568

Philippines – Around 11,000

Australia – 7,626

New Zealand – 552

Spain – 30 (10, 1966–1967; 20, 1967–1968) Medical and sanitary forces

Especially South Korea saw strong action...For nine years, from 1965 to 1973, a total of 312,853 ¡®dai-hans¡¯ (South Korean Soldiers) came to the tropical land of Vietnam, far away from home, as members of the Blue Dragon, White Horse, and Tiger Units. 4,687 of them never made it back home. A total of 1,179 battalion size battles and 556,000 small-scale battles were fought.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilon22 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:RS. There really isn't much reliable information in English on what the ROKs did in Vietnam, obviously they did conduct various operations, but apart from Operation Hong Kil Dong and a few other joint operations with the US Army and Marines they aren't well known. Mztourist (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Supporters of South Vietnam in the infobox?

The inclusion of countries such as the UK, West Germany, and Canada as supporters of South Vietnam is questionable. LBJ couldn't even persuade the UK to send "a bagpipe band" to South Vietnam as token support; Canada was a member of the ICC, an impartial monitoring organization, and West Germany did nothing to my knowledge to help South Vietnam. I think it is ludicrous -- and if I were a Brit, German, or Canadian I would object to the characterization of my country as a "supporter" of South Vietnam. Lip service to the interests and arm-twisting of the most powerful country in the world, the U.S., is far from being a supporter of the South Vietnam/US side of the war. Smallchief (talk 16:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd also question Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria. There's no mention of Bulgaria or Czechoslavia in the entire article, at all. Even Cuba is disputed. Lucasjohansson (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Although Taiwan was part of the Free World Military Forces, Taiwan apparently only sent 31 troops. I honestly think Taiwan should be removed. Military commandos being captured 3 times by communist forces is not enough to be included. Lucasjohansson (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I also believe the criteria for inclusion in the infobox for supporting nations is a bit too broad.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Rather depends on what you mean by Support, The UK did not send troops. Bu, as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. Over 2,000 British personnel were allowed to resign form the British armed forces, and re-enlist in the US, and then re join the British forces after their tours. In addition then Royal navy provide support for US operations in Cambodia.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the statement regarding British personnel? I have studied the Vietnam War for many years and have never heard of this before.Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a3TJ2TKBq-sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=british+in+the+vietnam+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6AK1VLqpL-_W7Qa7oYDoBQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=intelegence&f=false, https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=a3TJ2TKBq-sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=british+in+the+vietnam+war&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6AK1VLqpL-_W7Qa7oYDoBQ&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=intelegence&f=falseSlatersteven (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
All seems a bit thin and certainly not WP:RS, the History Today article is short on details and contains some rather unlikely claims: as far as I'm aware the UK has never had an airbase in Thailand and by 1970 when the US invaded Cambodia they already had years of riverine warfare experience so it seems unlikely they would require British support for this. It would be useful to see the recently declassified documents these claims are based on. I'm surprised also that none of these 2000 British soldiers has written a book about their experiences. The Ellis book seems to deal only with the political background and not with details of actual military support. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was not aware that history today was not considered RS.
The story is long on claims and short on detail and I have pointed out a few of the obvious shortcomings. Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

.....https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X2N3QgAACAAJ&dq=british+soldier+writes+about+vietnam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eci3VOGkAornatHUgMgL&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This might be useful if we could see what it actually says. I can believe that a few British troops joined the Australian or NZ forces in Vietnam, but will this confirm the claim that 2000 British troops fought in Vietnam? Mztourist (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Lyndon B. Johnson 'pleaded' with Harold Wilson to send a British contingent to Vietnam mainly to make the US involvement in the conflict look more like a UN one with wider international support. Wilson refused, confidantes of his later claiming that he refused to a large extent because of what the US had done to Britain at Suez.
Wilson's successor, Edward Heath, on entering power didn't change Britain's policy on involvement in Vietnam, i.e., that there would be none.
if there were any British troops involved then they would have been there without any 'official' British Government approval. What individual British citizens got up to OTOH was their own business.
The moral of this story is that if you want friends then it's not a good idea to s**t on them and then later come asking for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.220 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Operation Popeye

I wonder if Operation Popeye should be mentioned--this was the Top Secret cloud seeding over the Ho Chi Minh Trail to extend the monsoon season and to make the trail too muddy to use. It's being mentioned now in news reports, so there should be sources that meet Wikipedia's strict standards for RS. We dropped Calgon bath oil beads on the trail to make it slippery, but I haven't read any accounts of it yet, so there's a lot of information that has yet to be revealed. Who knows what really went on? For instance, 17,000 Russian troops were sent to Vietnam in 1965 to man the SAM missile sites. --Just like the Russians had MiG fighter pilots in the Korean War, we now know. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... this may be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:13, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
there is already a page on it: Operation Popeye since 2007. I don't think it is sufficiently material to warrant a mention on the main page, as it was just a small and reletively unsuccessful part of the US interdiction effort. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress and constitutes the end of the war for the USA. The USA ended the Vietnamese War as it did the Korean War with a division of the country between indigenous peoples and communist aggressors. South Vietnam lost its own short lived war with North Vietnam in 1975 but the USA was not involved after 1973 other than the evacuation of USA personnel and allies. 162.238.70.25 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/lurps-gallery/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

B-class

Shouldn't this be B-class? Milhist has this failed at "Referencing and citation" and "Coverage and accuracy", but reading this I think both of those are met pretty well. Any thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Unclear Wording? Vandalism? Jargon?

Hey folks!

I must admit I know next-to-nothing about the Vietnam War, but I was reading through the article and found this part a bit odd: under the heading "Insurgency in the South" is the sentence "Between 1954 and 1957 there was large-scale random dissidence in the countryside which the Diệm government succeeded in quelling". Random dissidence? Is this some kind of history jargon? If so, I believe it's unclear here. If not, is it just unclear wording? Guidance would be appreciated. Thanks!Ajpolino (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"Disorganized" might be a better word. Changing.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Vietnam War

Cyberbot II has detected links on Vietnam War which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/
    Triggered by \brobertankony\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"proxy war"

It is not accurate to describe the war in this manner.

This was a war of national liberation fought by Vietnam against French colonialism. While it is true that because the war against the French was fought by Communiists, it was opposed by the United States and the allies it led during the Cold War.

However, the failure of the USA to correctly identify this struggle as one against European colonialism, and to thereby mis-identify it as an attempt by a global communist conspiracy to take over the world does not justify calling it a "proxy war". Simply because we mistakenly viewed it as such does not mean that our error then has magically been converted into the truth today.

The Vietnamese were not acting as proxies for either the Soviet Union or China. Historically, the interests of Vietnam have always been in conflict with those of China.

With or without outside support, the Vietnamese would have fought to eject the French.

For Wikipedia to continue to disseminate this gross misperception is very unfortunates 99.65.200.192 (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The US and the other nations who supported South Vietnam for a very long time certainly viewed it as a proxy war against the Soviet bloc. It was only after Nixon became President and the Sino-Soviet split became evident that the perception began to change and US-China rapprochement was a key factor in the US' ability to disengage from the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Opium

I think the effects of opium on the national psyche of Vietnam should be mentioned. Opium was outlawed in Vietnam in 1993 but my Vietnamese friends tell me it is still smoked commonly--young people in Vietnam smoking opium, not doing anything, laying around, are similar to America youths smoking pot and drinking booze and having no motivation. Vietnamese smoking opium during the war would certainly cause them to do crazy things--tying satchel charges around their waists, for instance, and charging at the enemy and blowing themselves up. The matter deserves some investigation. I have never smoked opium and am not a druggie so I'm certainly curious of the effects on Vietnamese and the impact of opium on the war. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, opium doesn't really drive the user crazy, it makes the user blissful and it induces grand dreams of the future ("pipe-dream" comes from this). Besides that, you need a reliable source about the use of opium in Vietnam during the war and its effect on the people.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

USA Slant

Just looking at the introduction, over half of it is about US involvement in the war. I don't think that's the way it should be. 76.0.246.248 (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You can raise your concerns here for discussion or you can edit it yourself and see what other users say. Mztourist (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Troop strength lower than total casualties

This is probably a silly question but how can the North Vietnamese combined military strength be approximately 460 thousand if their total military dead figure starts at 400 thousand and goes up to a potential 1.1 million?

I understand that these figures are approximations but that's a massive discrepancy.

Perhaps a note should be added explaining the problem?

105.210.92.77 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Confusing, yes, because North Vietnam, while it may have had an army of only 461,000, constantly replenished that army, replacing casualties from its manpower pool. The actual number of North Vietnamese soldiers who served in the war over a period of 15 years was doubtless well over one million.
  • The parallel situation would be the United States. We had about 2.5 million military personnel who served in Vietnam, but the maximum in Vietnam at one time was 500,000-plus.
  • I'm not sure how to clear this up, but I'll give it some thought. Smallchief (talk 10:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Its a common issue across all Combat Infoboxes where the relevant conflict last more than a few months, as Smallchief correctly points out the strength numbers are peak troop strength, not total numbers who actually served in the relevant conflict which can lead to the somewhat bizarre consequence (for the untrained reader) of losses exceeding strength. I don't see any obvious fix, but nor do I see much benefit in purusing one. Mztourist (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Archived from Talk:Vietnam War/Comments

I have a problem with the following sentence (found in article summary): "Large quantities of chemical defoliants were sprayed from the air, in an effort to reduce the cover available to the enemy." Read by someone with no previous knowledge of the conflict, the distinction as to which side actually sprayed the defoliants might be unclear. Furthermore, who's to say that "the enemy" that is cited in this sentence should not be the US? It certainly was to the NVA, which, by emerging victorious, should probably be given the opportunity to write this article from their viewpoint. Or have we stopped believing that "it is the people who win the wars write the history books"? Perhaps the NVA won the battle, but the US won the war when Vietnam began privatization and free market economics. The war was, of course, fought for control of the rubber and aluminum, and the US wound up controlling these resources via the World Bank, et al. Any thoughts as to ways to assist in clarification would be appreciated. For now I will refrain from changing, but as wikipedia should not be driven by ethnocentric ideologies, it should obviously be changed from its current state of iffy-ness.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.162.27 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the US was not defeated in vietnam, in fact we won the "war", our policy is what lost.we defeated the north at almost every battle, take the tet offensive for example,that was suppose to drive us out once and for all,but the north ended up having thier army almost completly destroyed.After this we new that the north was a strong enemy, but they still couldn't defeat the United States.when we signed the peace agreement with the north that did end the war for us,we pulled our boys out and in 1975 without the US to support them the south fell to communism.to tell you the truth its incorrect to say we lost the war,because America proved she was far stronger than the north.In fact if we had stayed,the south would never have fallen to communism. saying that we were defeated really doesn't show the US the respect it deserves after all we may have lost 58,000 men over there but north vietnam lost hundreds of thousands if not millions of men fighting the US alone.besides if a country wins a war against one of your allies after you have already beat them and then made peace with them its not considered to be you losing the war.your alie did.And thatchildren is why the US has never and will never lose a war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.50.143.158 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ho chi minh trail graphic

This graphic is used in two sections: a) Insurgency in the South, 1954–60, and b) Tet Offensive. I think it should be removed in the first section since the graphic represents 1967. It can then be replaced at a later time with a more appropriate graphic. Thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HoCMT.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

POV

Clearly the article knows who the main aggressors were. "Japan invaded Indochina" "North Vietnam invaded Laos" ...And so on. "attacked" "invaded" or "invasion" appears numerous times in the article I counted about 20!

Only two involve the US 

-U.S. and ARVN forces launched an invasion into Cambodia to attack NVA and Viet Cong bases.
-"Bay of Pigs Invasion." which is a link to another article.

The article quotes establisment debates: "What is the fundamental nature of this war? Is it aggression from North Vietnam or is it basically, a civil war between the peoples of South Vietnam?"

good question! Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox edit war about casualties

Please discuss the contested changes here instead of edit warring. User:SyriaWarLato, please be aware of the method of Bold, revert, discuss. This means that you should discuss the edit you want to make. --Sus scrofa (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

all right. the information provided in the infobox is OTT. to many estimates, to many variables. i propose to cut down on estimates especially the ones that have been proven false. Ex Lewy's 65,000 civilian dead, is not only false but incomplete(it's from 69), also more recent data given by the vietnamese government also proves his NVA military casualties estimate wrong. although i'm not saying remove his estimates altogether, i would remove his estimates from the infobox. SyriaWarLato (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
i would also put the civilian casualties in the 3rd casualty section, keeping 1 and 2 casualtiy sections for military casualties, making it more easier to navigate. SyriaWarLato (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
(1) Levy's book was published in 1978, not 1969 as you claim, and it clearly labels its casualty estimates as 1965-1974.
(2) 65,000 is an estimate for the number of civilian killed in North Vietnam as a consequence of U.S. bombing. Not the number of civilian dead in the entire war. That seems a reasonable estimate given the evacuation of many people from North Vietnamese cities, the construction of air raid shelters, and U.S. avoidance, to a certain extent, of bombing near the China border and heavily populated centers. Smallchief (talk 13:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The info he got was from 69. also, putting the bombing casualties only as civilian casualties in the infobox gives the wrong impression of total civilian casualties. especially without specifying they're as a result of air strikes. Us air strikes. of course you can specify, but that would mean more fillers to an already OTT infobox. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Lewy clearly labels his estimates as covering the years 1965-1974. See his graphic on p. 453, plus all the supporting material in his text. Specifically, Lewy estimates 52,000 civilian deaths from U.S. bombing of North Vietnam from 1965-1968 and 13,000 in the years following. Smallchief (talk 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
no. lewy put 587,000 deaths for both sides. the 65,000 dead is from 69. Also the vietnam war didn't start in 65. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you read Lewy, p. 451. He gives his rationale for estimating 65,000 civilian deaths from US bombing of North Vietnam from 1965 to 1974. We are all aware that the Vietnam War didn't start in 1965, but Lewy's estimate for deaths in the Vietnam War is for that period -- and that period only.Smallchief (talk 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

i removed it. it gives undue weight for number, giving the impression that it is the total casualty report for NVA civilians. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: looking up the source it implies that the number is actually from 1968-69 intelligence report? Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I get it, but the vietnam war was between 55 and 75. the 65,000 is a partial research and gives the wrong impression if put in the infobox. it belong in the casualty section, but not in the infobox SyriaWarLato (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
But the war against North Vietnam DID begin in 1965, so this is not a good rationale. The figures for South Vietnam are more misleading in this regard, it was already getting bombed under Kennedy.Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The name of the page is vietnam war, the date is put between 55-75. SyriaWarLato (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
But the section is "North Vietnam Casualties". If it were up to me I would also drop this number from the infobox, because it is outdated and comes directly from a 1968 USG intelligence report (Lewy tacks on 15,000). Even Hirshman et al, who produced perhaps the lowest scholarly Vietnam War death toll estimate discount the underlying data as specious. But people like numbers in the infobox especially if it comes from an academic source, so there is nothing you can do aside from improving the article BY ADDING QUALITY SOURCES.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
and in this case (north vietnamese casualties) the best source is the vietnamese government. like it or not. they have no reason to falsify data 20 after their victory. SyriaWarLato (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
And where do they give give civialian casualtiues for North Vietnam?Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The Vietnamese government is not WP:RS, all of their facts and figures regarding the war must be approached with great skepticism given their POV as you will see from reading any of their texts. The Vietnamese government draws most of its legitimacy from winning the wars against the French and US and reuniting the country and so they continue to perpetuate their version of history. I have moved the deletion of several pages of North Vietnamese/Vietcong "victories" that don't exist anywhere other than in Vietnamese claims. The US only started airstrikes against North Vietnam in 1964 and contrary to North Vietnamese propaganda, they did not carpet bomb North Vietnam. The bombing was stopped in 1968, resumed in 1972 in response to the Easter Offensive and then ended in December 1972. 65,000 civilian deaths seems to be a reasonable estimate. Mztourist (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Should we not take the Soviet Union's casualties from WW2 seriously? history is written by the victors, we get that, but the fact that Vietnamese gov is not WP:RS is your personal opinion. there are no reliable sources to counter their claim. only estimates. at least when it comes to their own casualties. Also, what would be the propaganda value of saying 1,1 million of their fighters died in the war? they are not in a state of war anymore. SyriaWarLato (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I am not interested in comparing the reliability of different communist regimes. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources (of which there are many, contrary to your assertion), the Vietnamese government is a primary source and I have shown it to be unreliable on a number of occasions in relation to the Vietnam War. You obviously haven't spent much time in Vietnam, otherwise you would know that their propaganda really hasn't moved on much since 1975. Mztourist (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
no. you just said it's unreliable. you haven't provided any sources or proof. only your views on the Vietnamese government. which doesn't count for much in this case. SyriaWarLato (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Governments are reliable sources for internal demographic and economic data. If they were not, well you can go and delete all population and gdp data on wikipedia.

very well put. although i wouldn't trust the vietnamese government(or any commie government) with wartime reports. a quick google search gives this result. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war.

it seems to be the accepted official number, but it doesn't specify north south casualties separately Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the line that the Vietnam's govt main purpose in carrying out the survey was to defame the US, it's absurd beyond belief.
First, maybe the Vietnamese govt actually cares about assessing the damage to their country wrought by 20 years of war? Crazy theory, I know. And unfortunately they had to do the body count themselves, because Western scholars and journalists have been preoccupied with counting Cambodian corpses. And we really don't have that much recent scholarship on the Vietnam death toll. We have a BMJ study and a possibly flawed study by Hirshman et al. We also have a remark by Robert MacNamara. That's about it. Nobody seems to really care.
Second, western scholarship and journalism is heavily dependent on official USG sources, but that seldom causes raised eyebrows here. We all know American officials never tell a lie, unlike communist officials, who always lie. I don't remember anyone objecting when a single 1968 US State Dept estimate (50K civ deaths in the DRV) became transformed into an authoritative looking "range" of 50-65K in the infobox. Two secondary sources reproduced this official number, with one source (Lewy) prorating it to 65,000 to account for the year 1972. Naturally the numbers were sourced to these secondary sources, so readers could not even tell how the sausage was made. If propaganda is your concern, you'd do well to look for it closer to home.
Third, Vietnam's main goal since the war has been to normalize relations with its former enemy. Indeed Vietnam's goal was to NOT bring up the war in its dealings with the Americans (after it became clear that Kissinger's promise of aid would be broken and that Vietnam would receive no compensation whatsoever from the US).
Finally, the hypothesis that govts routinely inflate their own casualties for propaganda purposes sounds a little crazy. Governments may exaggerate individual "atrocity" stories. But governments generally don't inflate overall casualty figures. This is mainly because deaths are underreported. This is also because higher numbers actually DAMAGE the government's image. So, for example, the official Soviet casualty figures are widely considered to be an undercount. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Guccisamsclub and SyriaWarLato I suggest you read some Vietnamese published books about the war or Nhân Dân to see how reliable and non-POV Vietnamese sources are. Also take a look at these examples of events that the Vietnamese claim occurred but which were removed from Wikipedia as being unreliable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Mztourist Wartime Vietnamese (or those of any other country) publications are not reliable sources and need to be treated with caution. I would never argue otherwise. They do of course also vary in quality and blanket dismissal is not the mainstream approach among scholars. But as far as your examples are concerned, lets take "Battle of Chà Là". What dubious assertions did you find in Lịch sử chiến thuật Quân đội Nhân dân Việt Nam 1944 - 1975 - Tập 2 (History of Tactics of the Vietnam People's Army 1944 - 1975 - Vol. 2, People's Army Publishing House, Hanoi, 2005.? Also where do you find this stuff - I want a piece of the action ;).Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Guccisamsclub I haven't read the source you cited, what does it say about the "Battle of Chà Là"? The reason "Battle of Chà Là" was deleted was because there were no WP:RS to show that the "Battle" even took place. As shown by the other deleted pages, many of these battles only exist in Vietnamese claims and so it is dubious whether or not anything took place at the time and place stated. If you go to any war museum or memorial in Vietnam you will find the most outlandish claims, such as: "The gun of Kpakolong in Chu Prong District, Gia Lai-Kon Tum Province - used to kill 64 and Puppep troops." at the Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know either. The point is not to prejudge serious sources before examining them carefully. The "Battle of Chà Là" article was based on on articles in the PAV's ezine, stuffed with fanciful tales of bravery (kinda like Chris Kyle). These are indeed junk sources, and I cringe whenever I see them. But a silly news article is NOT the same as a published volume - even if it's People's Army Publishing House. As for statistics gathered by the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs and other bureaucratic agencies, this is another ball game entirely. What you are doing is essentially equivalent to finding a stupid article in Army Times and then using this fact to claim that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is unreliable propaganda and that state university publishers can't be trusted.Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
you seem hell bent on controlling what view points get added to vietnam discussions. also, AP wouldn't have posted an obivous propaganda piece. also, there is no propaganda value of admitting 1,1 million dead fighters dead during the war. check your bias SyriaWarLato (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have proven repeatedly that the Vietnamese Government is not WP:RS and so can't be relied on for casualty figures. You don't have consensus here, so stop changing the Infobox or you will be blocked (again). Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
obviously the consensus on Vietnamese government not being RS is against you. SyriaWarLato (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
also, your deletes, remove referenced data, ex US MIA, and keep original research and (overall troop numbers/casualties) also, you put a misleading addition to the casualty section, Lewy's proven false 65,000 NVA civilian casualties. SyriaWarLato (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Campaignbox Vietnam War

Why is Campaignbox Vietnam War no longer visible? Mztourist (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

lede written to be bashful?

The Tet Offensive failed in its goal of overthrowing the South Vietnamese government, but became the turning point in the war, as it persuaded a large segment of the United States population that its government's claims of progress toward winning the war were illusory despite many years of massive U.S. military aid to South Vietnam.

Am I the only one seeing this written in an unencyclopedic manner? progress toward winning the war were illusory, massive U.S. military aid it makes it sound like a cheap blog post. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, how would you write it? Those are the facts, even if poorly worded.--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
for example instead of massive military aid, i would write extensive military aid. you know... not to make it sound hyperbolic or like an emotional blog piece. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we could replace "massive military aid" with a more precise calculation. I'll have to look this up but I believe the U.S. contributed about 80 percent of South Vietnam's military budget for nearly 20 years and to the tune of many billions of dollars. Would that be "massive?" It's lot more than "extensive" in my opinion.
The word "illusory" seems perfect in this sentence. A large segment of the American people were persuaded that claims of progress were "illusory."Smallchief (talk 17:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Extensive-to-substantial military aid is what the DRV got from its allies. Massive military aid is what South Vietnam got, which involved almost 3 million American Troops and others from the American-cobbled "free world coalition". In this context, "massive" is an understatement. The article already explains what "massive" entails and it would be clumsy to replace one word with tons of figures.Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

it comes of a too blogish. I would do a the defeat of communism and conclusion of the war was far off, despite white house rhetoric Ameteurdemographer (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Its a matter of taste, I suppose. I don;t think that blogs have any monopoly on the words "massive" and "illusory". So I can't say I like your version better. Guccisamsclub (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
perhaps. maybe i'm just reading too much into it. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe that the existing sentence should be reworded along the lines of The Tet Offensive failed in its goal of overthrowing the South Vietnamese government. Despite being a military defeat for the Communist forces, it was a psychological victory and the turning point in the war, as it persuaded a large segment of the United States population that claims of progress toward winning the war were illusory despite many years of massive U.S. military aid to South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the original sentence was better. People can go onto the Tet Offensive page if they want to go into more in detail. Kiwifist (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong link on the word cadres

In the sentence beginning with "The Viet Minh left roughly 5,000 to 10,000 cadres in the south.." the word "cadres" linkes to the wrong page. It now links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism#The_vanguard_party

but the right link should be to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadre_%28military%29

I can not edit this article, so can someone able to correct this error?

Thanks /Mr T

PhotoboyX (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to Cadre (politics), which I think is what is meant by the source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016

Please add Hungary Hungary[2] and Poland Poland[3] in support of communist forces. LionofGod12 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The secret tragedy of Vietnam
  2. ^ http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/JCWS_a_00050?journalCode=jcws#.Vp_ybulFA5s
  3. ^ http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=36539&st=15 (in Polish)
  • The Hungarian source establishes Hungary as an intermediary and hints at participation which may stop well short of being combatants.
  • The Polish source is in Polish. I've requested assistance at WT:WikiProject Poland. Bazj (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Bazj: Polish source quickfail: it's an Internet forum, i.e. not a reliable source. User:LionofGod12, please provide a source that is better, and then we can review it. (Btw, the forum does contain a reprint of an article, among other things, but since you didn't format the ref, we can't know if this is what you had in mind). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 Not done for the reasons explained above - No reliable sources - Arjayay (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

Add on Kyle822 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wiae /tlk 02:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Allies of South Vietnam

It seems silly to list Canada, United Kingdom, West Germany, Spain and possibly some others as allies of South Vietnam -- and if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam. Sending a medical team or something similar to South Vietnam is not being an ally in a war. If we're going to list these countries as allies of South Vietnam, then we should list Sweden as an ally of North Vietnam as it had aid programs there.

Illustrating the lack of support of the United Kingdom for the war, I recall the story of Lyndon Johnson begging the UK to send troops -- "even a bagpipe band" -- to South Vietnam as a show of support. The Brits turned him down. I propose these countries be omitted from the list of allies.Smallchief (talk 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Excellent catch, and I couldn't agree more. Jusdafax 23:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just wondering, why is it offensive to be a South Vietnamese ally? The Philippines and Taiwan apparently sent a little bit of troops. Canada is also mentioned in the article. 30 Spaniards are also mentioned composing around 30 Free World Military Forces, and the source also mentions Spain composing up the FWMF too. I don't know about the others though. I never heard about Sweden taking a side, other than they were neutral or opposed to the war. Kiwifist (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose. The infobox doesn't need to be changed at all, it clearly distinguishes between "anti-communist forces" (i.e. those that were direct belligerents) and "supported by" (i.e those nations that provided non-combat support).That said, I think its arguable to what extent those countries listed under "supported by" actually supported the South Vietnamese war effort as opposed to maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam, though at the time one was probably indistinguishable from the other. Smallchief your opinion that "if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam" is just that, your opinion.Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Very well, then. I will add Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam. The Swedes gave more aid to North Vietnam than did any of the supposed West European supporters gave to South Vietnam.

If I were a Brit or a Canadian I would be offended to be considered a supporter of the war in South Vietnam because the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war. The Canadians were rigorously neutral throughout the war, serving on the neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord. To call them an "supporter" of the US side in the Vietnam war is a misrepresentation of their status.

The U.S. on occasion during the Cold War provided humanitarian aid to communist countries. That didn't make us a supporter of communism and the governments of those countries. Ditto humanitarian aid to South Vietnam. Smallchief (talk 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an argument over this, but saying "the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war" is unproven. As far as I am aware there was never any vote in the UK or Canadian parliaments nor any referendum in either country on participation in the Vietnam War. Rather I assume that support among the population for the war in each country essentially followed the same course as in the US, general vague support of opposing perceived communist agression in the early phases of the war, later moving to general vague opposition to the war. In relation to Canada's role in serving on the "neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord", it was not a "neutral commission" as the "force comprised troops and officers from Canada, Poland, and India representing the non-communist, communist, and non-aligned blocs respectively." as stated on the International Control Commission page.Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't want to get into an argument over this -- but the supposed support of many countries to South Vietnam was token and humanitarian. I continue to believe that it is misleading to list countries such as the UK and Canada as "supporters" of South Vietnam. However, using the present criteria for "supporters" I've added Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam and I'm considering adding Denmark which gave diplomatic recognition to North Vietnam in 1971. Also, the reference alleging that the UK, Canada, etc. were supporters of South Vietnam is a blog which is not usually considered a reliable source. Smallchief (talk 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said earlier maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War. One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary? I certainly agree that the sole reference does not not meet WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(1) "maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War"—source needed. (2) "One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary?"—what on earth does this mean? 81.168.45.105 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The UK probably evacuated their Embassy because of fears for the safety of their personnel. The US evacuated its Embassy in Afghanistan in 1991 when the Russians pulled out. That doesn't imply that we supported the Russian's war in Afghanistan. Smallchief (talk 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
User:81.168.45.105, I thought it was clear that this was my opinion, not something that I need to cite references for. The UK presumably perceived that they would be seen as an ally of the US/South Vietnam and there would be repercussions to this, despite the UK not having provided any combat support. Smallchief the Soviets pulled out in 1989, the Soviet-backed government in Kabul fell in 1991. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The UK's involvement in Vietnam ended when they handed Vietnam back to the French in 1945. This they had been legally obliged to do as France had been the legitimate governing power before the war with Japan occurred. With the ending of the war the previous status quo was required to be restored to a pre-war situation. This was one of the principles on which the war had been fought by the Allies, that no-one should gain from the Axis' aggression. Whether Vietnam then subsequently gained independence from the French was then their own business and not any responsibility of the UK.
After 1945 the situation within Vietnam could be seen to be slowly degenerating into what would effectively become a civil war, and this was one of reasons - amongst others - that the UK remained strictly neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.20 (talk) 10:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The UK did not participate in the Indochina War or the Vietnam War, but that does not mean they were "strictly neutral". The UK was part of the western alliance and provided at least tacit support to the French and later the Americans. The British gave counterinsurgency advice to the US forces in the early stages of the Vietnam War and maintained diplomatic relations only with South Vietnam. If any western nation could be said to have been "strictly neutral" during the Vietnam War it was France which maintained diplomatic relations with both North and South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm mostly neutral on this. I can probably see how Canada or the UK could be removed, but the Philippines and Taiwan, for example, should stay. Kiwifist (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm from Spain, and I'm ashamed about the suport Spain gave to South Vietnam. But we were under Francisco Franco's rule, so we hadn't had the chance of voting. Thank you "democracies" for suporting us during those times, by the way. --Gerhidt (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

Calculation of years since event is wrong. According to the page the event ended 19 years ago, when it should be 41 years Shredallfear (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The article does not give the time from the end of the conflict to the present day. It gives the time from the beginning of the conflict to its end. Documentation at neither Template:Infobox military conflict nor WP:MILMOS tells us if this is an acceptable use. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Although the original poster was answered, I'd like to know why we give the time of the conflict. Opinions? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

UK

There were rumors British SAS soldiers served in Vietnam wearing Australian SAS uniforms. (86.142.36.109 (talk) 23:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC))

Infobox inaccuracies

So, for "Strength" it lists the Communist side as under 500,000 and yet within "Casualties" very clearly depicts military deaths alone into the millions. The Strength section is understated then. Does someone know the exact number? DaltonCastle (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

North Vietnam and the Viet Cong constantly replenished their numbers by sending more soldiers south or recruiting for fighters among the South Vietnamese. The number given is the maximum strength for Communist forces in South Vietnam. Similarly, the United States had a maximum number of soldiers in South Vietnam of about 540,000 -- but about 2.5 million Americans served in Vietnam over a 12 or so year period.
However, I think this number should distinguish between Viet Cong (mostly Southerners) and North Vietnamese regular army troops. I'll look into that. Smallchief (talk 20:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Because currently it looks like it shows the total forces for the anti-communists, but only a snapshot of communist forces. If there's any way I can help feel free to ping me. DaltonCastle (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The stats shown are estimates of the maximum numbers of US, South Vietnamese, and Communist forces in South Vietnam at one time. In other words, you had about 1.5 million allies fighting against 500,000 communists at the height of the war in 1968. Smallchief (talk 20:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't the stats be of total forces used by both sides throughout the entire conflict? DaltonCastle (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Although I will accede that you have superior expertise in the history of the Vietnam War, my understanding is that in most conflict articles total figures are used. That said, policies were made more as guidelines, if its better to report it as the '68 snapshot. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
I tried to change the article to show that the numbers given for "strength" were "peak strength." For whatever technical reason, it didn't work. Smallchief (talk 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Odd. Let me take a look. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Foreign support

Poland also supported Vietnam with small arms, trucks, artillery tractors and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.239.59 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. Any sources we can use to add it to the page? DaltonCastle (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
http://www.vietnamembassy-poland.org/en/nr070521165956/news_object_view?newsPath=/vnemb.vn/cn_vakv/euro/nr040819110934/ns070919142436 - nothing about military aids, only "great contributions". http://historia.focus.pl/swiat/jozef-conrad-ofiara-wietnamu-1280 - this article tells a story about Polish cargo ship m/s Józef Conrad, bobmbed by US planes in Hai Phong in 1972. Military aid (AKM rifles, Star 660 and GAZ-63 trucks) is mentioned.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=rr7Ur3P1mNMC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=polish+helmet+vietnam&source=bl&ots=NVCAUl4kx3&sig=vDH-yxy-5lgIkmQCbpuW8JL60hE&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRzuGeveDLAhUDuRoKHej0BSk4ChDoAQgaMAA#v=onepage&q=polish%20&f=false - about Polish helmets of the NVA. Also some Polish tracked artillery vehicles (50 pcs) were delivered, but cannot find any photo nor referenc now. I think that all Warsaw Pact countries were obliged to help Vietnam (as well as Egypt, Syria, and others USSR-friendly countries) with (unoficially) military aids, and since Polish People's Republic got one of the largest arms industry during Cold War (among the Warsaw Pact countries, 3rd after USSR and Czechoslovakia) it's rather obiviou that was one of the suppliers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.96.239.59 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rename article to British-American invasion of Vietnam

The French Indochina Wars, including the 1964 war joined by the Americans were promoted by the British, and their cliaim to sovereignty eas the fact that afyer the war (World War II), they 'owned France' (in transcript, "we own the French"). -Stevertigo. p.h.s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mordoralpha (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMONNAME. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
You should provide some references, anyway. --Gerhidt (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
An absolutely ridiculous suggestion. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
It was not a USA invasion of Vietnam. It certainly wasn't a British invasion - there were never any British troops there.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"South Vietnamese Civil War"

Without regards to the popular term, can we call it "South Vietnamese Civil War"? Because the war is mainly the conflict between the National Liberation Front(Vietcong) and South Vietnamese Government forces occured predominantly in South Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs) 05:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The popular term is preferred precisely because it's the common term for the conflict. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
That isn't technically correct. The major players on the Communist side were always the NVA, not the Vietcong.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous US propaganda nonsense

"In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened"

Why is this not mentioned and why is the introduction just total US propaganda pretending the false flag invasion by the US was something it wasn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2843:9F00:CC3C:DDAE:166:E318 (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016

Please change "By November 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors" to "By November 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 600 advisors" The request is to change Eisenhower's 900 advisors to Eisenhower's 600 advisors when Kennedy took office in 1960

173.230.1.185 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done the cited source clearly states "Eisenhower's 900 advisors".
You will need to cite multiple/better quality reliable sources to "outweigh" this citation, before a change can be considered. - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sweden as belligerent?

Surely, a state that provides only half a million dollars worth of humanitarian aid (according to the one active citation) cannot be said to be a belligerent in this conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.120.206 (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree. Many nations provide humanitarian aid to countries in conflict, but that doesn't mean they're actively supporting one side. UaineSean (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War/Archive_24&oldid=1137297444"