Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 26

"Crazy Vietnam Veteran"

In American popular culture, the "Crazy Vietnam Veteran", who was suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder, became a common stock character after the war.

Is the use of the word "crazy" necessary to convey the information contained in this sentence? Wouldn't it be sufficient to simply state that "In American popular culture, Vietnam War Veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder became a common stock character after the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.184.5 (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as that is what the trope was, often there was no deep analysis of the trauma, just a mad man with a gun. The portrayal was that of a mad man.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Many of those so called "crazy Vietnam Veteran's" Are suffering from cancer of the brain caused by the US Government dumping Agent Orange on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:DB7:6186:AD7F:28 (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

June 4, 1975 end of Vietnam War for America.

The end of the Vietnam war is not May 7, 1975 when the South Vietnam government lowered the flag for the last time in Subic bay. It is when Americans stopped fighting In the Vietnam combat Areas. When North Vietnam breached the Paris peace Accords the US is back into an Active war with North Vietnam again. As America did an active war Attack on May 12- May 15 1975 to try to rescue top secret documents from the Embassy in Saigon in the Mayaguez battle or ( Incident) as it is sometimes called. The war ends when active battle soldiers PFC Gary Hall and PVT Danny Marshall in a POW status are murdered on June 4, 1975 after the US government refused to pay ransom for their release. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:85D9:5D62:E14A:ADFD (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The fighting did not stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• The IP is clueless or intentionally trying to make a mess of things. The Mayaguez Incident does not have anything to do with the above and has nothing to do with documents in Saigon.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"North Vietnamese, Viet Kong, Khmer Rouge Atrocities" section - These should not be grouped into one section

This heading seems a little disingenuous, although related, the Cambodian Civil War is hardly covered in this page, and thus I don't think there should be two paragraphs dedicated to the war crimes they perpetrated. I think the connection to the North Vietnamese is also a bit tenuous, considering the fact that shortly after the American War in Vietnam ended, the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese fought one another for well over a decade. As it stands, the way the article is framed creates a sense of cohesion where there probably shouldn't be one. I've opted to move this entire part of the article to the Cambodian Civil War page, and will simply add a 'see also' under the header. Rockandrollherold (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2018

Change "After repeated border clashes in 1978, Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and ousted the Khmer Rouge," to "After the Khmer Rouge repeatedly raided the border of Vietnam in 1978, with the attempt to retake Mekong River Delta , Vietnam invaded Democratic Kampuchea (Cambodia) and outed the Khmer Rouge,". I think this piece of information needed more clarification of which side started the conflict first.

Also, adding Vietnam' bombing to the Aftermath heading, with the bombing of Laos:

"There were a total of 7.85 tans of explosive dropped by the US in Vietnam during the war, this amount of explosive is equal to 3 times the amount used in War World 2, 250 times the force of the nuclear bomb dropped in Hiroshima. It is estimate that the residue explosive will not be remove entirely until the next couple century." Nguyentuonglan98 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure about the history online source.Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2018

"However, in the years following the end of the war, up to 300,000 South Vietnamese were sent to reeducation camps (not including "dissidents detained in the many prisons of Vietnam")". There were multiple sources on how many people were held in re-education camp and the number varied by a large margin, simply providing a "300,000 people" figure from a single source is not the way I think this should be done. This is my edit:

   However, in the years following the war, a vast number of South Vietnamese was sent to reeducation camps. According to Amnesty International Report 1979, this figure varied considerably depend on different observers: “ included such figures as "50,000 to 80,000" (Le Monde, 19 April 1978), "150,000" (Reuter from Bien Hoa, 2 November 1977), "150,000 to 200,000" (Washington Post, 20 December 1978), and "300,000" (Agence France Presse from Hanoi, 12 February 1978).” These large variation may due to “Some estimates may include not only detainees but also people sent from the cities to the countryside.” According to a native observer, there were 443.360 people had to register for a period in re-education camps in Saigon alone, some of them was released after a few days, while others stayed there for more than a decade. Nguyentuonglan98 (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please establish a consensus for this proposed change. LifeofTau 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Viewpoints and goals

The primary military organizations involved in the war were, on one side, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the U.S. military, and, on the other side, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (more commonly called the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, in English-language sources), and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, more commonly known as the Viet Cong in English language sources), a South Vietnamese communist guerrilla force.

Communist side:

+ The People's Army of Vietnam (PAV): the front line force of the Democratic Republican of Vietnam, or North Vietnam army. They fought in the conventional warfare with the South.

+ The National Liberation Front (NLF): also known as the Viet Cong, is a resistant group based in the South, and a guerrilla style army. They received large support from the local peasants, "75 percent support for the NLF, 20 percent trying to remain neutral and 5 percent firmly pro-government" ^[119].

• Viewpoints and goals: North Vietnamese and those who support the NLF in the South refer the war as “Kháng chiến chống Mỹ” (The resistance war against America) because they see America as another foreign invader that threaten their independence and national reunification. The common mission of the PAV and the NLF is, therefore, to stop the US’ influence in the South, overthrow the Republic of Vietnam and finally achieve national independence and unification under the communism government of the North.

Anti-communist side:

+ The Army of the Republic of Vietnam: the main military force of the South. Facilitated by the US, the ARVN fought both the conventional warfare against the PAV from the North and the guerilla warfare against the NLF from the South.

+ The US: The US’s involvement in the war started when they invested in the French war effort during 1950s, they offered military support to the South and directly involved on the battle field during 1960s until they completely withdrawn their force in 1973 .

• Viewpoints and goals: US government saw this war as the war between two ideas: communism or socialism and anti-communism. The US feared that a communist government will spread throughout Asia with the support of the Soviet Union and China (see Domino Theory), so they wanted to turn South Vietnam into their anti-communism foothold in South East Asia ^[65]. Between North Vietnam supported by the Soviet Union and China and the South supported by American, the war, therefore, can be viewed as a Cold War-era proxy war.

The US and the State of Vietnam (the Republic of Vietnam in the future) refused to sign anything in the 1954 Geneva Conference, including the agreement for a national election for the re-unification of the country. This further showed the contrast of interest between the two sides. Nguyentuonglan98 (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I really don't understand what change you are proposing. regards Mztourist (talk) 06:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Jumping in uninvited from the sidelines, I will guess that Nguyentuonglan98's objection re viewpoint is generally against the characterization put forth in the second paragraph of the lead as:

The Viet Cong (also known as the National Liberation Front, or NLF), a South Vietnamese communist common front aided by the North, fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region, while the People's Army of Vietnam, also known as the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), engaged in more conventional warfare, at times committing large units to battle.

and that his understanding is that, from the NLF and NVN viewpoint, the war was not a war against anti-communists but rather a war of liberation against what they considered to be foreign invaders. Also, I'm guessing that it appears to Nguyentuonglan98 that the article does not give due weight to that viewpoint of the war as a war of national liberation. He cites this source which says, continuing from a previous page not viewable online, "... States was the foreign invader, and the U.S. ally -- the South Vietnamese Government -- was therefore also the target of the resistance. Opposing the foreign invader, Hanoi and the NLF could be seen as ...".

Nguyentuonglan98, please correct me if I have that wrong, explain your objection(s) more clearly, and suggest cite-supported specific improvements. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My first intension is to clarify some information from the overview, because many of my peers seem to confuse between the PAV and the NLF, their goals is similar but they are two different organizations and have different characteristic. And so at first, I only intended to put the paragraph from the article overview into its own subheading, and changing the format a little bit so it can be clearer for the readers. However, I then realized that the article was missing the viewpoint from the other side (the North Vietnam side), the war is not simply to stop the communist from taking over the South like the majority believe. Therefore, I, as a legit Vietnamese, thought that this information should have more weight than it had, to prevent biases when reading the article. I also made a mistake when putting the PAV and the NLF into the "Communist side", because in their view, this is not the war between communism and anti-communism, but the war between a nation and a foreign invader. So, "Wtmitchell" was right about my intension to emphasize on the goals of the PAV and the NLF in the war, thank you for chiming in. If you think that the article already have enough attention into this matter then my edit would not be needed, of course, I can have a biased opinion on this article too, that is why I put this into the talk page. Tell me what you think.

Nguyentuonglan98 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please establish a consensus for this proposed change. LifeofTau 13:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

There were 4 military organization in this war, each has their own characteristics and goals in this war, therefore, to prevent confusion for the readers (I saw a lot of people mistaking the PAV and the Viet Cong when reading this article), I suggest a subheading to clarify these information.

Also moving "The primary military organizations involved in the war were, on one side, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the U.S. military, and, on the other side, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (more commonly called the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, in English-language sources), and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, more commonly known as the Viet Cong in English language sources), a South Vietnamese communist guerrilla force." to the beginning of this new subheading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nguyentuonglan98 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Supported by

What purpose does cluttering the infobox with dinky countries standing in solidarity with either side serve? It’s ridiculous and makes the page seem unserious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D85:68F0:4099:979C:23BB:42DA (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

An edit from May 1st, broke the navbox at the bottom. Add "}}" underneath "{{Cuban conflicts}}" to fix, I think. 66.229.71.134 (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2018

Lukasbarrie (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add extra information that has not been included in this, such as more of the causes of the war, and why JFK though it was urgent and important

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Combatants

In its current state, the infobox equals East Germany and South Korea as belligerents in the Vietnam War. This should be fixed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's make a clear distinction between combatants (i.e. countries that were involved in combat) and supporters (countries that were not involved in combat). Apart from the scope, there is no difference between US involvement and Australian involvement, but there is a huge difference between Australian and East German involvement. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Looks like that was changed recently. I know the Soviet Union and North Korea sent some troops to certain operations, I would have to take a closer look at the others. I wouldn't say that involvement qualifies as a main combatant though. Kiwifist (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

North Korea was definitely a combatant, as it sent fighter pilots to defend Hanoi. The Soviet Union is a bit of a gray area, as Soviet personnel manning North Vietnamese anti-aircraft guns fired at American planes, but other than that, its involvement was through intelligence aid, material support and advisors on the ground. I'm leaning towards leaving the Soviet Union as a non-combatant, while including North Korea. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Kiwifist (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I just somehow happened to see this and don't want to argue either way, but a little googling re soviets turned up: "soviet+military+advisers", "soviet+advisers". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties

I have raised the issue of the WP:RS of a purported Vietnamese Government document detailing North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties at WP:RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties together with a suggestion as to how such document, if accepted, should be presented. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

User:A bicyclette the RSN discussion above is ongoing, so you should not be making edits like this: [1]. You cannot just decide that the 1995 AP story should be deleted. Again, if you have a problem with that AP story take it to WP:RSN. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Current edit war

Please discuss the changes under dispute instead of reverting edits back and forth. User:A bicyclette and User:Mztourist. --Sus scrofa (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I already honestly justified it. I can read the actual figures that it cites, released on casualties by Hanoi. People can run translators on it too. MZtourist is too racist to believe anything from a vietnamese source is credible even if its witness testimony. He has literally petitioned deletions of massacres pages before, because they were "vietnamese government sources".A bicyclette (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A, Lay of the PA's, B, NO you have not justified it, if so where?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

When I changed the figures, I stated in the summary about the badly translated original figure. The actual AP article that MZTOURIST cites, cites the document. The AP article mistranslates the numbers and wording. A bicyclette (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You are supposed to justify it on the talk pages really. And no your edit summery does not justify it, as you have not made a policy based case as to why your edit should stay. Once an objection was raised you should have made your rational here, not edit wared.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Sus scrofa and Slatersteven, I agree and I have already complained about A bicyclette edit-warring rather than seeking to resolve issues like this in the appropriate forums: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Declined). A bicyclette is making changes here and elsewhere without proper justification.

In relation to the casualty figures the AP report states 1.1m VC/PAVN dead, A bicyclette insists that this is a mistranslation of a Vietnamese Governemnt statement without providing any proof that this is the case. Separately in a discussion on his talk page: User talk:A bicyclette#Your recent changes I have provided several other WP:RS confirming those figures: Geoffrey Ward's and Ken Burns' recent book confirms over 1m PAVN/VC killed. Lewis Sorley in a Better War (page 384) cites Douglas Pike with a figure of 900,000 dead by 1973 and cites (footnote 34 on that page) that during a 1974 visit by Admiral Zumwalt to North Vietnam, General Giap advised Zumwalt that the North had 330,000 missing and that James Webb confirmed Vietnamese losses of over 1.1m soldiers. Instead A bicyclette expects us to rely on a single Vietnamese document with unclear provenance (when I try to open it I get various requests to run programmes so I can't even read it), which he claims in his Talk page is "compiled in a national survey of their veterans, veterans families and other compensation boards that deal with giving money to survivors families" as I can't open it I can't assess its reliability but would have initial concerns regarding when it was issued, whether it reflects all the dead and missing or just those who have survivors who claim compensation etc. Whereas we have multiple published WP:RS who endorse the 1.1m figure, so why am I having to argue this very obvious point?

On the other point A bicyclette keeps adding in a photo of a UH-1D/H out of the timeline and with incorrect captions. Firstly the photo description states that this is an ARVN UH-1, not a US piloted helicopter. Secondly the "big cabin" UH-1D/H was first delivered to the US Army on 9 August 1963 and it wasn't sent to Vietnam until 1964 at the earliest. The photo looks to me like it was taken during Operation Lam Son 719 or later, i.e. 1971 or after (it is featured in the USMC history of the Vietnam War 1973-5), not 1954-60 with the caption "South Vietnamese forces in the early phase of the war would make use of US-piloted helicopters, being among the first forces to widely adopt air-mobile doctrines of war" or 1961-3 with the caption "During the Kennedy escalation, South Vietnamese forces would make increasing make use of US-piloted helicopters in dealing with the growing guerrilla insurgency. This would culminate in the Battle of Ap Bac in which Viet Cong fighters would shoot down 5 helicopters and damage all 15" the only UH-1s at Ap Bac were UH-1B gunships. I would also ask User:Hohum to comment as they have also had to revert numerous edits by A bicyclette. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sus scrofa and Slatersteven I took note of your comments, stopped edit-warring the page and set out my position on the issues above, however A bicyclette has completely ignored this and continues to revise Vietnam War casualties with his most recent edit here: [2] - where are the sanctions? regards Mztourist (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

My main issues were:

• the addition of totally irrelevant images
• relevant images in the wrong sections
• images with lengthy editorial captions beyond describing the image - and without referencing (and possibly soapboxing in too much granular detail for an article on the entire war)
• image overcrowding.

(Hohum ^@) 14:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

.. and now, the repeated reintroduction of fixed px based image sizes contrary to WP:IMAGESIZE policy. (35+ corrections made) (Hohum ^@) 18:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Đặng Thùy Trâm image

I have removed the image of the memorial for Đặng Thùy Trâm. This is an overview article on the entire war, and this detail is far too granular for inclusion. (Hohum ^@) 17:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hohum I agree. I also think many unnecessary images were recently added which need to be removed. Before A bicyclette started expanding the article a month ago there were 57 images in it. Now there are 87! EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing Major Heading Topics

Like alot of things about the history of this war, it is way too American Centric. I'm recommending we change the titles of each heading, and place the "American" reactions on each. For example the final campaigns should not be about "US EXIT", neither should the early phase be about "Kennedy's Escalation" given there was independent decision-making on both sides. This makes it out to be an entirely American affair, like so much with the history of the conflict it becomes terribly one-sided. Likewise with calling it "Johnson's Escalation, and "nixon's doctrine and vietnamzation. A bicyclette (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to add, the "war of the flags' period is relevant to the time period. This shouldn't be based on just what's known, given much of the history until recent years has been entirely US-centric. Likewise the "Diem-era" should be re-written given the war had its origins in several events by North Vietnam, e.g. on the invasion of Laos and war-planning which goes again, less covered by US-centric sources.A bicyclette (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

While you have a point, this is the English language wikipedia and the U.S. participation in the war is the point of most interest to editors and readers. Moreover, South Vietnam would have ceased to exist in the early to mid 1960s had it not been for the intervention of the United States. Thus, the US military intervention and the communist response seems to me to be the most important focus for the article. Smallchief (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

It's fantastic that you decided all English-speakers are interested in only one perspective though by the way or only what the US was doing. This is flatly an ignorant assessment. A bicyclette (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Smallchief properly explained it and I agree with him. EkoGraf (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This is an ignorant assessment, given that it indicates US forces only, was the central decision-maker despite the main period of US involvement being 1963 to 1969. This is horribly misguided to believe since "SVN would have ceased to exist", that they therefore had no role or had minimal ones. Again this is objectively bad history and based on conjecture. Given that there has been additions to Hanoi's perspective, which was sorely lacking before I had made contributions, and before recent (last 5-10 years) scholarship has been done, these labels are antiquated for the same reason we don't write about WW2 with labels based on what Germany was doing at that time. This is bad history if it doesn't have a shared conception of it. A bicyclette (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think there are two separate issues here, one relating to the "Free word" (yes the USA was the dominant force and unquestionably kept the war going for far longer then it would otherwise have done). The other is the over concentration of the article on one (the USA) combatant when in fact the NV's were as important to the war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this and I'll add, there has been almost minimal usage of South Vietnamese sources or documentation here as well, given they did most of the fighting from 59-64/65 and 68 to 75. There are actual historical documentation from people involved in the GVN/ARVN and they did function as an independent entity. I'd recommend Bùi Diễm and David Chanoff's book In the Jaws of History as an example. A bicyclette (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We write accordingly per most reliable sources and name the periods per its most defining points (per those sources), which is ok currently in my opinion. We also don't name periods per lesser known terms, like the "war of the flags" thing for which I have seen no sources nor have I found even one result when searching on the Internet. I have no objection to adding to the main body of the article the POV of the NVA/VC, but we should also keep in mind that the article has now bloated really badly contrary to Wiki policy. Also, A bicyclette, both you and KarlSmith667 have engaged in a heated edit war at the moment, so it would be best that you both stop for now and try discussing the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette, you have continued changing the subsection titles and canceling other editors' actions while the discussion here is still ongoing and no consensus has been reached. You also violated 3RR, despite being warned. Please cancel your actions or you will need to be reported again. EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Constant Changes In War Crimes Section

I'm seeing alot of revisions to the war-crimes section in which there is almost complete reliance on RJ Rummel, despite emerging evidence that emerged after Rummel, and which uses wider sources. There is also deleting points that I made qualifying Rummel, e.g. when "democide" is attributed to shelling during combat. Furthermore, Appy and Turse overlap, yes, but they do have different points each make differently. There is also no reason to truncate massive amounts of this very important section, given its severity, just because "its too long", as USER:KarlSmith667 is doing. Or shifting and removing sections of it, because "it fits with casualties" and so-on. The entire article is too long but this topic is quite major and massive already and there are less important sections to truncate (e.g. weapons section). A bicyclette (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What is the "emerging evidence that emerged after Rummel"? Turse is not WP:RS due to poor research standards.Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette, please stop edit warring, you have again made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours. One more and you will violate 3RR a third time in a week. Instead of constantly reverting, discuss the issue on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

"Resistance War against America"

There is no reliable source for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.57.6 (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, now it is.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A self-published book with no references is not a reliable source. Most likely the author copied that info from this Wiki article.

Anglican Church not Catholic

In the first episode, one of the reference to the Catholic church is accompanied by a photograph of a church with a long cross on it. The long cross is the Anglican symbol, not Catholic. -Bromadroßis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:9A1C:DE47:BDBA:957:A89C:8FE2 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

First episode of what?Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

NVA/VC casualties

A bicyclette, I agree with you on the removing of the Rummel estimate. Too disproportionate in comparison to the other estimates. As for the information you added in the column in brackets, its redundant. Please check the note links a and b that I added last night. I note-linked the very same information/text at the bottom of the infobox so to stick to Wikipedia's policy on avoiding infobox overinflation. Info is also in the main body of the article as well, so no need to state it three times. I agree with you that the info needs to be mentioned in the infobox, but the notes section is the most appropriate place. If you think the text in the notes section of the infobox needs changing please proceed. I now added the periods/dates to the notes section as well (forgot to move that part from the column last night). Between, thanks for all your hard work on improving the Vietnam-related articles! Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The qualifiers must be placed in a more prominent position EkoGraf , because there are very, very strong distinctive issues here. The fact that the other casualties are not listing noncombat deaths is one, but the other fact that one figure doesn't distinguish civilians from combatants is a significant issue. It is important to leave that there. A bicyclette (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not how Wikipedia infoboxes are arranged. The standard Wikipedia infobox template has the notes section at the very bottom of the infobox. Please stick to the Wiki template and procedure on avoiding overcrowding. I totally agree this info is highly relevant and that it should be mentioned in the infobox, but due to the nature of the text being too long, the standard procedure is to link it to the notes section. If it was shorter we could find some accommodation of including it in brackets and not a notes section. EkoGraf (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Made an attempt at a compromise. I have removed the notes section and cut down on the text to the most significant, which I have again moved back to the brackets. The info I left is the following: US estimates are for the 1964-75 period (significant since not the whole war is covered), US estimates possibly include civilians (also significant since it points to possible over-counting), Vietnam estimate includes 1/3 non-combat deaths (significant indicating how many combat deaths there were). Info I left out is the following: the part about the initial 30% US inflation (two reasons - we are already presenting a lower and upper estimate, and we linked the see body count part which goes into more detail about the inflation), the part about Vietnam estimate including casualties in Laos and Cambodia (two reasons - its already stated elsewhere in the main body of the article, and US/ARVN casualties also include Laos and Cambodia casualties but we aren't signifying it in the infobox). I really hope this compromise is satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw your last edit. I have no objection to listing the Vietnam claim first. However, with the rest of your edit you again reinserted some redundant info I cut down in the US estimate, once again re-inflating the infobox, and you also put two sets of brackets side by side which is not according to Wikipedia's policy on proper writing styles or grammatically correct. Also, I am obligated to warn you that with that last edit you made a 3rd revert of my actions in less then 24 hours. If you would make a 4th revert it would be a violation of Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy which can get you blocked. Thus, I would ask that you stick to the discussion pages and let us try to find a solution to the problem instead of edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Made a further attempt at compromise, reintroduced some of the info you were constantly insisting on, but trimmed some other redundant info. At this point, I would like to ask other editors involved on this article to possibly come into this discussion Mikrobølgeovn Mztourist Hohum (sorry if I left someone out). As can be seen by the talk page and the article's edit history, A bicyclette has been overinflating the infobox with too much info (some of which is redundant in my opinion). Some of the info is significant and should be included in the infobox, but a way needs to be found to cut down so the infobox is not overbloated and messy. I initially attempted to move A bicyclette's info to the notes section, with proper note links. However, he objected to this and removed the info back to the column. I then attempted to simply cut down on the info, removing text that was already mentioned elsewhere. But it would seem A bicyclette still would like to keep a large part of the text. So I would like to ask our fellow editors if they have any suggestions on how to deal with this situation. EkoGraf (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Just dropping in here to point up "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." in WP:INFOBOXUSE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette You again ignored my attempt to compromise by again re-introducing redundant info to the infobox with your edits here [3][4]. Furthermore, with these edits, you violated Wikipedia's 3RR policy by making a fourth revert of me. Reverts that take place just outside the 24-hour time frame, like the second I linked, also count towards 3RR. I would please ask that you cancel your edits and engage in a constructive discussion instead of constantly pushing your own version of the infobox without discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

A bicyclette, here is a new proposal on the text in the infobox (since 950,765 is no longer the officially claimed US figure) - 666,000 dead (per US; 1964-75, initially inflated to 950,765, includes miscounted civilians; see body count). EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf 3 things: Firstly the Vietnamese document that A bicyclette places so much reliance on is of questionable reliability, as has been discussed at WP:RSN. Second where does it say that 950,765 is no longer the officially claimed US figure? Third given that Lewy's figures are less than the US claim or what Vietnam apparently admits, do we need to include it? I certainly agree that the Infobox detail on this needs to be substantially shortened, which is presumably now possible...Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I read a source, if I remember correctly, that the State Department (at a later time) stated the initial figure of 950,765 was inflated by a third. That makes it official. I will have to look up the exact source and provide you with a link sometime next week because at the moment I'm on vacation and have limited internet access, sorry about that. But if you insist on the 950,765 figure, we can present it as an upper estimate, no problem. As far as I see it you could say the Vietnamese document is the best we will get as an official figure by Vietnam regarding how many losses they incurred during the war. I think the note that the figure is according to Vietnam is enough and we let our readers decide on their own if they trust it or not. Providing a US claim, while excluding a Vietnam claim of the figures would be unbalanced. As for Lewy, I really need to think about it. But if we leave the balanced out figures by both the US and Vietnam then I think we can leave Lewy's figure in the main body of the article only (beside Rummel's), and not in the infobox. Lets wait to see how the situation with A bike develops before doing anything, and when I get back from vacation. Since A bike will probably object to any changes and just revert us if he gets unblocked. EkoGraf (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think its the Vietnam War Casualties page that says the 950,765 figure was believed to be overinflated by a 3rd. I have no problem with discounting it, just wondered if you had another source. I don't object to the Vietnamese figure and document being there along with the other figure(s), my objection was always A Bike's assertion and edits that this was the only correct figure and everything else was wrong. Obviously if the Vietnamese figure is correct then the original 950,765 figure wasn't actually so far off. Lewy's figure was too low by comparison to the Vietnamese and US figures so I think it must come out of the infobox. I think you and I have consensus on this issue. Enjoy your vacation! regards Mztourist (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that its not clear whether or not A bike's Vietnamese document includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing in action. I have raised this repeatedly with A bike and he has never answered it. Obviously its a big number that needs to be resolved. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I also think we have a consensus and thanks! :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Mztourist Made the changes to the infobox and moved the too expanded info to the notes section. Despite objections earlier raised by A bicyclette, this is the exact reason the notes section in the infobox actually exists. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, but this edit excluding figures judged by WP editors to be "too low" caught my eye. It appears to me that this flouts WP:DUE. Quoting: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, ..." -- or is Guenter Lewy's book America in Vietnam adjudged not to be a reliable source? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Lewy's figures are lower than those officially acknowledged by the Vietnamese Government and so the consensus was that they shouldn't be included in the infobox. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

End of US military involvement, in lead but not in article text

This line is in the lead, with an inline citation: All U.S. forces were completely withdrawn in 15 August 1973.

However, it is not mentioned in the article anywhere, not the precise date, or a clear sentence on what exactly is meant by "complete withdrawal". Is that when we saw images on television of helicopters ferrying out the last people? Or did that happen in 1975 at the fall of Saigon? I hope someone better versed in this history can clarify this point. And the basic point, that the lead is summary or highlights of the article, so no facts should be found only in the lead. Even with a source. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

That wording is a result of wikimorphing; see [5][6][7][8]. I have changed it back to an earlier version (better IMO). The source cited in the lead in support of the 15 August 1973 date is not viewable online and I don't know what it might say. I see that https://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War/The-fall-of-South-Vietnam asserts: "In the summer of 1973 Congress passed a measure prohibiting any U.S. military operations in or over Indochina after August 15." That britannica.com assertion does not seem to me to be precisely equivalent to "All U.S. forces were completely withdrawn". Perhaps the US exit and final campaigns, 1973–75 section ought to have a subsection titled something like End of U.S. involvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The end of US military involvement in the Vietnam war is Not April 30,1975 when the US embassy in South Vietnam was evacuated .It is also not May 7, 1975 when South Vietnam official's lowered the South Vietnam flag in Subic bay. It is June 4, 1975 when two Marines who were Pow from being captured in the Mayagues Incident were murdered b y the Khmer Rouge. The last two killed and the last two POW's of the Vietnam War are PFC Gary Hall and Pvt Danny Marshall. The war ends When the US ceases Military involvement in the Vietnam combat areas.

What is the WP:RS for that and in particular that date? Mztourist (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

When North Vietnam started the spring offensive in December of 1974 that was a breach of the Paris peace accords . In effect North Vietnam was re declaring war on South Vietnam and the United States. The war does not end when South Vietnam stops fighting . It ends when the US stops fighting. The war ends when the last two men in the last battle are killed on June 4, 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.41.249 (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical Revisionism regarding the Viet Nam draft

In 1970 and 1971, the percentage of new Army recruits going to Viet Nam that were drafted was in excess of 98% if you exclude transfers from the National Guard, etc. They had to discontinue most of the deferments, including college deferments, in order to get enough soldiers, since practically no one was volunteering to go there. In order to clean up the image of the federal government and the US military, numerous efforts have been made to REVISE the historical draft records for the war. Even some college professors are completely ignoring the horrible situation that existed in 70 and 71, and teaching that throughout the war most of the new inductees were volunteers. This grossly adds insult to injury to the poor soles who fought under those conditions, who died, who went to Canada and ended up as male prostitutes, etc. To many, it is on a par with saying the holocaust never happened.

RS please?Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Revisions

There is an error with the infobox in that Total Military Dead for Combatant One is placed in the wrong box. Additionally, I'd suggest removing Park Chung Hee as a commander as he had virtually no impact on war policy or course and moving the Korean commanders/unit numbers just below Laos and Cambodia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccadillysquare (talk • contribs) 08:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I have moved the Total Military Dead to the correct side. Park Chung Hee stays as is, he was the President of South Korea throughout so should be there just as much as Diem, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon etc. Mztourist (talk) 10:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Except he was at home, governing his own country and did not actively participate in strategy or any other matter regarding the war. The figures you removed in blindly reverting my edit included people who actually headed South Vietnam for a period or were four-star generals during the war. I don't see why you would think this is justifiable.Piccadillysquare (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Park Chung-hee listing in Infobox

As leader of the 2nd largest contributor of forces to the war in South Vietnam, Park should be listed in the infobox, however User:Piccadillysquare has arbitrarily decided to delete him and edit war when I reinstated him.Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. Neither were they the 2nd largest contributor of forces, gives that Cambodia and Laos were larger, and their leadership directly involved. By the same extension there isn't a reason to include every Australian PM or the King of Thailand. Or should we also include Mao and the PRC? The best option is to restrict it to leaders with substantive influence on its progression, in the same way that for example the Korean War fails to list the PM of Canada and Turkey. Piccadillysquare (talk) 03:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Read what I said: "2nd largest contributor of forces to the war in South Vietnam". Park was directly involved in the decision to commit troops and keep them in South Vietnam throughout the war. Yes the leaders of all Belligerents and their key generals should be listed. Korean War is completely different as the involvement there was under the UN and so only UNC commanders should be listed.Mztourist (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

They should be listed on the follow-up page linked by "and others", if they were not arguably directing the war strategy in any capacity. Some are obviously but that list is seriously out-dated.

Park was dictator of South Korea, he directed everything the South Korean military did.Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Ia Drang, Courtwright

The narrative becomes sparse between March 1965 and 1967. I am adding some discussion of the Battle of Ia Drang, condensed from that article, and using an article by Galloway as a source, also from that article. Moore & Galloway (1992) is surely a better source, but I only have access to the article.

On another note, I have been looking for the source of the quote "We were not in Vietnam for 10 years but for one year 10 times”. I found a source that attributes it to Courtwright (2005), which is listed in the references here. I cannot find the quote on Google Books, but it may be on a page that is unavailable. So I am adding the cite with a "page needed" tag. Please improve the citations if you have access to these works. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: US involvement

There is an edit war regarding what should be stated in the Results section. Should it simply state Withdrawal of U.S. forces (1973) or Withdrawal of U.S. forces and Expulsion of U.S. civilian/military staff from Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam? As fond as I am of Operation Eagle Pull and Operation Frequent Wind, having largely drafted them, I don't believe they need referencing in the Infobox and to refer to them as "expulsion" is incorrect, as the US withdrew its Embassy personnel and citizens from Cambodia and South Vietnam before the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese victories, while the situation in Laos is less clear. Mztourist (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it should simply state "Withdrawal of U.S. forces". The "(1973)" is unnecessary and not entirely accurate has there were U.S. personnel past 1973. I don't really care about the other stuff. Lucasjohansson (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

1973 was when all US combat forces were withdrawn, the only "personnel" that remained after that date were Embassy staff and guards, which do not qualify as "forces". The insertion of 1973 was presumably meant to indicate that the war carried on without US involvement for a further 2 years after US forces were withdrawn. Mztourist (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure the reasoning for the insertion of 1973, but Operation Frequent Wind, Operation Eagle Pull, the Mayaguez incident, and Fall of Saigon shows that U.S. forces and involvement were still present, as well as the names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial past 1973. Lucasjohansson (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that is a misleading perspective. The US stopped fighting the PAVN/VC in 1973 and all combat forces were withdrawn, they did not engage the PAVN/VC again. 2 Marine guards were killed by PAVN artillery fire during the evacuation and 2 Marine crewmen were killed in an accident during the evacuation. As User:MarkMcCain noted earlier, Operations Frequent Wind and Eagle Pull were not combat operations, they were evacuation operations. The Mayaguez Incident (which I also largely wrote) is a little murkier, US ground forces hadn't been engaged in Cambodia since 1970 and all combat operations, which consisted almost entirely of air support, ceased in August 1973, so there were no US forces in Cambodia from that time. The Mayaguez Incident was the only known engagement between US and Khmer Rouge forces and were it no so close in time to Operation Eagle Pull and the Fall of Phnom Penh would be regarded as an event completely separate from the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

There was still combat regardless as shown with the 70 names listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial past 1973. The article has done fine simply stating "Withdrawal of U.S. forces" for years. This is also suppose to be listing the result of the war's conclusion, so if we're only focusing on the events of 1973, then that whole bullet point should be removed as it's not part of the aftermath. But obviously that's not the case. Lucasjohansson (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mztourist's perspective on the edit, the Mayaguez Incident was also triggered initially at sea and not within any nation's sovereignty. Once again, the casualties listed post-Paris Peace Accords are not related to the initial combat role ended in 1973. Just because it's been this way for a significant amount of time doesn't mean it's not wrong and subject to change. Frankly, there are more people who disagree with you and that constitutes a consensus. There is also no "expulsion" of U.S. troops if they withdrew gradually over the course of 5 years (1968-1973). MarkMcCain (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm finding the whole thing a bit excessive and unnecessary, but this is meant to be informative and the current bullets are misleading. MarkMcCain (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

That is not how consensus works, see WP:CONSENSUS. You were also reverted by User:Smallchief (who thanked me after I reverted you). It should simply state "Withdrawal of U.S. forces" as it has been for years or remove the bullet altogether if we're only focusing on 1973, as this is about the aftermath of the war. Lucasjohansson (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We were both thanked for our edits, unfortunately Smallchief hasn't weighed in on this talk page so his opinion is not yet accounted for. That's acceptable, though if that's the case the additional "expulsion" bullet is to be removed. You don't sign a ceasefire agreement with a country if you've expelled them. Right then, so that's the compromise. We should alter the dates a bit then to signify American involvement in the conflict. MarkMcCain (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll weigh in. The result in the info box should read "Withdrawal of U.S. forces." No date is needed or desired. In the World War I info box regarding results, we don't mention that Russia left the war early; in the World War II info box we don't mention that Italy was defeated in 1943, or that Germany was defeated before Japan. Thus, precedent. A date on U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War in the info box would complicate what is already an overly detailed and complicated info box, and, of course, raise debatable questions. Smallchief (talk)

Fair point. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not just "US withdrawal from the country".Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me. Smallchief (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This makes sense. People could quibble all day about what constitutes forces in country and so on. Intothatdarkness 20:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2001

50.226.189.182 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Wrong crosses

There are crosses beside the names of people like Kennedy or Hồ Chí Minh who didn't die because of war, these crossed are irrelevant, confusing and wrong. Nochyyy (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation suggestions

Hi there--I don't think my account is old enough to edit this article so leaving this in Talk. https://tools.wmflabs.org/citationhunt/en?id=47d0d347 led me here with hopes to provide some citations for the quote "Failure of the war is often placed at different institutions and levels. Some have suggested that the failure of the war was due to political failures of U.S. leadership." which needs citation

Doing some research I found the following sources that could suffice.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/vietnam-was-unwinnable.html Reasoning: The quote "In contrast, the revisionist case rests largely on the assertion that our defeat in Vietnam was essentially psychological, and that victory would therefore have been possible if only our political leadership had sustained popular support for the war." indicates the war's failure was placed on political leadership failure (at least in a revisionist sense).

Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a601702.pdf Reasoning: this paper cites a failure of leadership to commit to one war strategy (changes from Kennedy, Johnson, to Nixon) hurting the war effort, leading to a weakened bargaining position for Nixon and a dissatisfied US population causing the ultimate failure. ArlJJAS (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Last sentence of first paragraph of description, questionable sources

Howdy. I've noticed the last sentence of the first paragraph in this article, which is a relatively new addition, is a bit exaggerative and propagandist. Furthermore, the information is based on the opinions of editorial columnists rather than historians, causing the viewer to question its legitimacy. I feel it should be reverted to its original form. Am I alone on this though? Much obliged. MarkMcCain (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. A "Vietnam syndrome/complex" affected US foreign policy until well into the Reagan era. Refs can be improved. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

That would be a discussion of US foreign policy though, policies typically alter a bit anyway after lengthy or bloody conflicts - regardless of their outcome. My point is a columnist is not a historian, and I wouldn't think a news article based on personal opinions would be a legitimate historical reference. MarkMcCain (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It was a direct outcome of the war. Numerous nations revised their foreign policy based on the perceived US humiliation. As I said, I agree that references can be improved. Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Countries typically revise their foreign policy after an armed conflict. The British change to foreign policy following the failed rebellions in Canada, the American change to foreign policy following the Spanish-American war. I don't have any objections in that regard. It's context and sources I'm focusing on, I don't agree with a columnist article being a legitimate source. These articles would be in constant contradiction if they were. Not to mention the sentence strikes a strong far-right sympathetic tone, and I believe it should be a neutral standpoint. But that's just my two cents. MarkMcCain (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Think I agree with MarkMcCain here, the sources are not up to snuff, the NY Post is a tabloid, so if better sources can't be found the sentence in question should be removed.--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I have added a new WP:RS sentence to the end of the intro that I think adequately addresses the issues. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

USSR

The USSR's large contribution to the conflict (& continuous compared to China) and that fact they took part in active combat warrants their stay as a 'combatant' rather 'military support'. Where do we stand with this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

they're listed as a Belligerent, don't understand what more you are asking for. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

They keep being placed in 'military support' rather than as a belligerent - thats the issue. It is correct as of now. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

They are listed as a belligerent, I am not sure what you are talking about..Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

.. and that's where they'll stay. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

When was the last time they were moved, what is your point?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User Havsjö had placed USSR in military support here but he hasn't argued his case yet. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ahh OK.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan noted thanks, the USSR should be kept under Belligerents, will keep an eye on this. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2019

The Flag you have on the right over the the Prime Ministers are for New Zealand and not Australia. They need to be updated 202.56.61.2 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done with this edit: [9], Thank you for spotting that. Begoon 03:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong date / president

This article currently says that "U.S. involvement escalated in 1960 under President John F. Kennedy . . ." Of course, this is impossible, since JFK wasn't president until 1961.2604:2000:EFC0:2:955E:3B23:F160:E881 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That's right He became president in 1961 William MMXCVIII (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Obeluses (crosses) in Infobox

User:Havsjö has added [10] Obeluses (crosses) in the Infobox next to JFK and Creighton Abrams. My understanding is that these are only used on military pages to indicate someone being killed in action during the underlying conflict, indeed the abbreviation used is KIA. JFK was obviously assassinated for reasons unrelated to the war, while Abrams died of cancer in 1974, accordingly I don't believe that the Obeluses should be there as they do not convey any relevant information. Thoughts please. Mztourist (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there another symbol which can be put after these people (which links to "JFK assassination", for example) that isnt the KIA symbol?--Havsjö (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

No and in any event its irrelevant to the Vietnam War. Why do you think its so important to include that? Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Mztourist. In fact, I'm wondering why we have a cross after Ho Chi Minh's name. He died a natural death, not related to the war. Smallchief (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Smallchief, I removed it from Ho. regards Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2019

The Vietnam War did not start in 1955 107.135.209.196 (talk) 05:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot of RS say it did.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Australian Leaders

I vote for the removal of Australian Prime Ministers from the infobox, they are not at all relevant to the infobox as leaders or commanders of the Vietnam War and creates unnecessary bloat, 4 people(!) with no impact or noticeablee influence on the war. Thoughts?--Havsjö (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yet Henry Kissinger, who was not a leader of anything is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Even his introduction on his article how he negotiation the end of the US involvement in the war. I dont mind if he is removed from the infobox as I can agree that is a bit "unnecessary" too, but certainly has a better case for his inclusion than the Australian PM's. What relevance do they have? --Havsjö (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

They committed Australia to war, and kept them in (or withdrew them)? They led their nations in war (as much as Lyndon-Johnson or Nixon did).Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

With a very small presence in the big picture, only 7,600 combat troops at peak, to include 4 extra leaders for such a small presence..? And with only the "overall" leader like PM, without any particular note in the war, it is not relevant to include in the infobox, their leadership was not directly involved in the war, especially considering such a minor belligerent. --Havsjö (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

For consistency Australian leaders should remain. Mztourist (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The docs for {{Infobox military conflict}} say: "commander1[-3] ... For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended. ...".

I see that commander1 and commander2 are used here, creating two columns for commanders of opposing combatant forces.

Compare with Seven Years' War, World War II, Korean Conflict, First Indochina War

OTOH, compare with World War I, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), Soviet–Afghan War

I'm not a regular editor of articles along this line and don't know what to recommend, but I thought that the info and examples here might be useful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

While I am okay with a large amount of leaders being displayed in the infobox. Listing four PM's, without any note or relevance to the war itself, for a minor belligerent with only around 7,600 troops at its peak, is quite overcrowding! Instead of saying "well, why is Kissinger there?", what is the argument for the inclusion of the individual PM's? Only that "well, they were the PM right then and Australia had a combat force in Vietnam at the time..."? This seems more like an arugment to have Kissinger removed than to include the 4 PM's --Havsjö (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You are right, it is. But the point is if someone who was only a minister is worthy of inclusion why not actual leaders of counties?Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Then it sounds like we should remove both Kissinger and the Australian PM's for the irrelevancy to be included in the infobox --Havsjö (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

And how about deputy PM's, secretaries of defense, PM's of other nations? There are a hell of a lot of none national, field (or even military commanders) on that list. Why has Australia been singled out for attention? I move that only heads of state and military commanders be included in the list.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to beat down on Australia, but why it should be fairly obvious why North & South Vietnam, Viet Cong and USA have inclusions of, for example, both their main political and military leaders (although I agree Kissinger could be removed...). Other countries like Cambodia and Laos had their leadership included since whole countries deeply involved in the conflict and their whole country was a war zone. However, Australia just sent a "small" force to far away area and thats it, they are not as entrenched in the war as South Vietnam, Cambodia, and (to a lesser extent) the US. While they are of course listed as belligerents and the amount of soldiers they sent are included, the leaders..? The PM's of Australia were not even ceremonial commanders-in-chief... (I guess some more dubious cases like China or South Korea are there since their leaders are absolute dictators with full control when they sent their respective troops to participate, but they could be trimmed too.) --Havsjö (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not talking about their national or military leaders, but secretaries of defense or deputy PM's. Also how do you determine commitment, numbers of men, or percentage of armed forces (or even population)?Slatersteven (talk)

What already included leaders is it you have a problem with? And what exactly is your point, you seem point out leaders and have arguments for why they are unfit for inclusion, why also "defending" the 4 PM's just to show how unfitting the other leaders inclusion are as well? Which do you feel should be removed? --Havsjö (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven, what should be the cut-off? Australia provided the 3rd largest Allied contingent and was present for much of the war, due to the length of the conflict and Australian democracy there were obviously several leaders during the course of Australia's involvement. I think that Kissinger should be retained due to his major influence in the conflict. Mztourist (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I am not the one arguing for exclusion of leaders, I am just asking why Australia has been singled out when other nations have people who were subordinates (not leaders) in it. Size is subjective (as was also pointed out above it was in fact the third largest). Before we start removing people I want to know what the inclusion criteria are, lets thrash that out.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mztourist:@Slatersteven: Indeed Australia was the 3 biggest allied contingent (compared to USA and S. Korea. Thailand (and Laos/Cambodia) were in bigger in number of combat troops, otherwise). But, again, what relevance do their listed leaders have? All listed leader for the Asian countries are, of course, their political and military leadership, rather obvious why these countries leadership is there. The US, the by far most major "outsider" belligerent lists, aside from their military commanders in Vietnam, their presidents and McNamara, which are the very key people in both the US involvement and course of the entire "Resistance War Against America". What is the reason for inclusion of the AUS PM's? While they were PM's during the war, what reason do they have to be included in the infobox? Why do uninitiated people who see this page need to see the 4 PM's of Australia together with the important leaders of the conflict? I could have agreed if there was a single "main commander" of an "Australian Expeditionary Force", or something. But its four extra leders, who were just PM's in the country, who are listed just because they were PM's of the "outsider" belligerent, Australia, while it had a force in Vietnam (in size after South Vietnam, USA, South Korea, Laos, Cambodia and arguably Thailand) during the war. As I mentioned before, when I ask for this, it seems I only get comments on how some other listed leader is totally unfit as well, isnt this an argument against the PM's (and that other leader)?? With these "arguments" from you people, I suggest that instead of including them, Henry Kissinger (an apparent point of contention) and the leaders for countries in similar positions (South Korea, North Korea and China), should be removed for irrelevance to the war, instead, together with AUS PM's. --Havsjö (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Then (as I said) lets have an inclusion discussion, why should deputy PM's or some officer who was not CIC or regional commander, commander be there?Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven. Havsjö there wasn't one overall military commander of Australian forces throughout the entire period of Australian involvement in the Vietnam War, so the PMs are the most relevant people to mention. Kissinger deserves inclusion as much as, if not more so, than McNamara.Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

There is still not given reason why the Australian leaders should be there at all, again just "why should X and Y be there then?", what warrants the PM's inclusion to the main infobox? If they can only be argued for inclusion by referring to other leaders "equally unfit", then dont include the PM's and then argue why those other leaders should be removed! (and even then, I could definitely see how a "deputy PM" of (although I am not sure to who you are referring) some major belligerent, such as (example!) South Vietnam, could have a bigger role than the PM of Australia). I say remove the, in regards to the war, totally irrelevant country-leaders of minor "outsider" belligerents, Australia, South Korea, North Korea and China. --Havsjö (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes there has been, they were the heads of state of the third largest contribute. That is why I am asking for an inclusion criteria, rather then an exclusion one.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Although this is only my opinions, and not an "authoritative source". I would say the leaders to be listed should be of the major belligerents (North Vietnam & Viet Cong, South Vietnam & USA), and the "second tier" of belligerents "involvement-level" and "size-wise" (Cambodia & Laos and their respective guerrilla organisations). I would also argue the inclusion for Chae Myung-shin (and/or Park Chung-hee), since South Korea also contributed several hundreds of thousands of troops, and since Park Chung-hee was a dictator with "direct control". After that, it gets more muddled. I think minor belligerents who send comparatively quite small (in comparison with previously mentioned belligerents) without a "unified commander", and whos only applicable leader would be the "overall leader" of the country, are more uncertain and need to be considered on a more case-to-cases basis. China, North Korea and Thailand (Thanom Kittikachorn) were all controlled by dictators with "direct control", who can much more easily be pointed as as a single leader with authority, who could be argued to be included. But their real relevance for an uninitiated reader, to be featured in the infobox? Im not so sure. (also, China did send a lot of men in total, but these were mostly engineers and AA-gunners in the north, rather than front line soldiers, such as for South Korea). ...and then of course there is Australia. They had much fewer combat troops compared to the others on their side (S.Vietnam, US, S.Korea, Cambodia, Laos and arguably Thailand), they had no unified commander for all AUS troops, such as aforementioned Chae Myung-shin, and their "overall country leader" is "just" a PM, who is not even ceremonially commander in chief. So while the "supreme" dictatorial powers of the other leaders can be argued to warrant them some merit for inclusion despite being "minor" and "outsiders", I dont think this row of PM's, uninvolved directly with the war itself, and I dare say, for more irrelevant to the war (and their relation to their countries troops) than some people mentioned, such as Thanom Kittikachorn.

This is of course, only my opinion, so please dont come at me with "Who are you to decide??", since i only share this "criteria" after being asked to share them. But I hope it illustrates perhaps more why I think the democratic PM's of Australia are particularly unsuitable for inclusion (not from mention at all in the article, but from the infobox), even compared to some leaders in "seemingly" equal situation, such as South Korea, Thailand and maybe even China. --Havsjö (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Whats that supposed to mean? --Havsjö (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

It means do not assume to know what objections I will raise and then use those as an argument against me.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Well then I apologize, but I have in another similar discussion to this one had the other person want a critera which is not just the feelings/opinions of editors. I put the "disclaimer" at the end since I was a bit reluctant to share my "personal criteria", lest i be accused of just trying to force the infobox after my opinion. But what do you think about the critera I have suggested and written? --Havsjö (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think is is far too subjective, by that I mean that (as I have already said) what constitutes a major combatant has an number of different interpretations based upon what set of parameters you use (for example China had the same number of men in the war then South Korea, and a dictatorship the same argument applies about who was leader). That is what I meant, we need a clear cut definition of what we mean by major belligerent (size of committeemen in raw manpower, or by number of combat troops, or by percentage of combatants, or by percentage of the nations armed forces dispatched, or percentage of GDP spent on the war, or god knows what else).Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Then the infobox now should be reverted to the "last stable version", without Aus PM's or simply cut all minor "outsider" leaders (i.e. not "fully involved countries", such as Cambodia/Laos which are fully engulfed in the flames of war). Then leaders be agreed on, based on different factors. But keep in mind that what you are talking about now is the total % etc of commitment, look instead of the individual person. I am talking about the leader and its about the leaders relevance, not the country itself (already included in both, presence, strength and casualties). Even if those same-sized Australian units troops had been the very key troops in the war, wouldnt their commander be listed instead of the PM? Even when you say "he was only deputy PM", that might have been someones position, but did you look at the persons relevance? It can stil be far higher to the war than even person sitting as "full PM" of Australia. --Havsjö (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course their filed commander should be mentioned (and I find it odd they are not), but we (again) list other nations heads of government. So we go back to "what should we include?" And again, what is "relevance", Many national leaders have no more relevance to their nations war fighting then the Auzzy PM. So again we need a set and definitive criteria, a head of state (or at least the head of the government)? I think this may need an RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree on the RFC, but I almost think its a bit unnecessary. Of course the PM who led the Khmer Republic, which was total war zone and in the end totally overrun, has a more warranted spot in this as a "relevant" leader than many other people, despite being a political leader (although, in that example, he was also a general..). Aside from them its just the absolutely largest/most important belligerents, which of course, should have their most important (war related) political leadership and military commanders listed. Other than that, its just the "contentious" leaders of the smaller foreign contributors. Even South Korea has clear names you can point at as the clear (and relevant to the war) leader Chae Myung-shin (and then maybe also Park Chung-hee). While of course their large size in commitment (which you bring up can be argued) is a reason why they should even be considered to have their leaders listed at all, but the point is we have a specific, relevant to the war person to include as "commander and leader". The PM's are not such persons to Australia and whatever commander to be listed is not even leading all Australian forces, and the most "significant" unit, is then just a small part of a small belligerent (which had 7 different commanders(!)) --Havsjö (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• Female Vietcong Guerrilla.jpg
• Parade Unification.jpg
• T4 Vietcong Tet Offensive.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Australian (and "minor") leaders RFC

There is no consensus. There is no prejudice against rewording and starting a new RfC as suggested by Mathglot.

Cunard (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Australian Prime Ministers be included as commanders and leaders in the infobox? Please see and read the above discussion thread "Australian Leaders", for previous discussion --Havsjö (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This RfC is malformed. It doesn't address the issues raised by Slatersteven above, and appears aimed at pushing a particular result without providing any criteria by which such a decision should be made. There ought to be some criteria for inclusion, in terms of force size or impact, casualties, combat soldiers committed per population, or something. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Well, I tried to refer to the discussion above so everyone could read the previous arguments of both sides. But I think people look at this to "rigidly" in regards to, as you mention, force size, % committed, etc. or in terms of "position", "X is just just a deputy PM, but Y is a full PM". What should be looked at is the specific person of to be included. As I said in the above discussion, a person who is only "regional commander" of the most intensive and heavily contested region of the war or a holder of the position "deputy PM" who is one of the most important people of the war, can be far more relevant to include than just looking at some much more unrelated person, just because he was PM of a country which had a (comparatively) small force in the country at the time. This is not talking about the "casualties, combat soldiers committed per population", that is referring to the country, not the person, and is already covered in the infobox (inclusion, strength, casualties). This is about specific, "key" people to the conflict. The only war-related thing the last listed Australian PM's even did was that he called back a training team, all other AUS troops had left before, that person is just included for the "static reason" of, he "happened" to be PM during that time Australia was still in the conflict. He has no relevance to the war. The same can be said for the others too, why are these specific people included? Just because they "happened" to be PM during that specific time, a role which are not even ceremonially commander-in-chief, while they certainly approved sending an Australian force to the conflict, what do that person bring to the infobox? Chae Myung-shin of South Korea has a 100% more reason to be included, despite being a "lower level leader" than PM, since he was commander of all ROK forces (several hundreds of thousands) in Vietnam for the whole war. A clear, specific leader who is relevant to be included in the infobox of the Vietnam War. The several brief head-of-state of South Vietnam during the unstable government are not all "blindly listed" because of their (irrelevant to the infobox of about Vietnam War) "top-position" as head of state. There is a reason Mikhail Kalinin (although that may be an "extreme" example) is not included in WW2 infoboxes despite being "head of state", even for a major belligerent like the USSR. What relevance does he have, "as a person", to be included in the infobox of the war? Like, think through what we are actually discussing, its not Australian involvement, its about the specific people. --Havsjö (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the commanders list in this article infobox is ridiculously long and should be considerably trimmed. Also, I am unconvinced by your assertions about the importance of individuals who, by dint of being dictators, held power in their respective country for a longer period than a democratically elected PM in Australia, whose tenure may have been affected by his support for the war. The wider political influence of a leader and their decisions also needs to be included; obviously the Australian PM that committed troops to Vietnam or escalated Australian involvement is more important to the article than the one that withdrew them. There needs to be a proper criteria developed, not an attempt to pick off people you don't personally think warrant it in favour of ones you do. That is entirely subjective. You would be better off trying to fashion some criteria. For example, in a much shorter conflict, the invasion of Yugoslavia, it was decided to include only those that had an influence on war plans and the outcome of the war, in that case, the overall chief of staff, army group commanders, independent army commanders and the heads of navy and airforce, noit subordinate army commanders and lower commanders, or the titular head of state or ineffectual defence minister. Now, it may be that Australian PMs didn't have an influence on war plans or on the outcome of the war, but this would also apply to many other people listed in the infobox. Some criteria should be established and then enforced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I even agree with a lot of what you say, but I just wanted to squeeze in that I support the inclusion of dictators because they held power longer is not really what I mean, I dont really feel they should be included either, but I can atleast see a "better argument" being made to include the "overall leader" in the form of the dictator of China or Thailand (especially if there is no overall commander of country-X's forces, such as aforementioned Chae Myung-shin), since they are "all-powerful" and have full control over their country and army of which they sent soldier. As a specific person/name, they can in that way be argued to have more relevance than the, for example, PM of Australia. But again, I am not "for" their inclusion (China dictator etc), since I dont think that is fully relevant/"accurate" for the infobox, but I think pointing to them for "consistency" with all of Australian PM's through the course of the war, just based on the position, is not accurate at all. --Havsjö (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• No - as Australia was an insignificant participant in the war (7,672 combat troops - less than a division). We should mention Australia as a belligerent, however there is no need to mention heads of state that exerted some influence (and not all that much - as the troops were under theater command) on less than a division. Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• No – My opinion on infoboxes is that they should note only the most important details. I don't agree that the Australian leaders should be mentioned, and in fact I would not even support mentioning Australia as a belligerent in the infobox. The Australian contribution was significant, but I really think that the infobox should be concise. The rest can go into the body of the article. My personal criteria would be to use relative numbers rather than absolute. For instance, we could include as belligerents the top-five countries on each side in terms of troop numbers committed.Homemade Pencils (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Australia was a belligerent and so should be included in the Infobox, deleting it would make it less, not more concise. As noted above this RFC is malformed, it should be about agreeing the criteria for inclusion of leaders of belligerents so that people aren't applying their own personal criteria. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
• No opinion (Summoned by bot) – malformed, per Mztourist et al. Too many votes already in the can to reword it now. Consider withdrawing the Rfc per WP:RFCEND bullet #1 and trying again. Mathglot (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References 1 to 9

Hello! Where in the text are references 1 to 9? The first one seems to be the 10th reference. -Theklan (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

They're cited from lists inside the infobox which have been hidden unless the [show] links are clicked. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SVN

The introduction mentions the SVN without saying what it is. TahaGhassemi (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

TahaGhassemi:  Done. SVN stands for South Vietnam. I have changed it. --MarioGom (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)