Talk:Henry Kissinger and the Vietnam War

@A.S. Brown - Thanks for making this article, I think you're on track to having some great content here. I've already trimmed down (a lot) the Vietnam War section in the Henry Kissinger article - I kept a lot of details that you put in there - but feel free to give it a look whenever you're done. Sorry I did that before you were done with this article - I didn't look at this before. Best of luck QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oops, didn't tag you right. @A.S. Brown: QueensanditsCrazy (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@QueensanditsCrazy: Thank you so much! I was going to do in a day or two (I have a book I need to get to the library soon, so I want to focus on that). But you beat me down, so congratulations! The Vietnam section was a little long, so that needed to be done, so thank you! There is a veritable sub-genre of books about Kissinger and the Vietnam war. When I was an undergraduate, I had counted over 20 books in the university book where exclusively about Kissinger and the Vietnam war, so I think it is OK to spin this material into a sub-article. For those who want just a summary, they can read the Kissinger article and if they want more details, they can here to read this article. I don't like to attack other editors, most of whom are hard-working and good people, but some of the claims in the Kissinger article prior to January of this year were dead wrong. It made it sound like that Kissinger was in favor of Vietnamization, when he was actually opposed. If Kissinger had his way, then would had been no Vietnamization and instead the United States would had dropped a hydrogen bomb on North Vietnam in 1969. Melvin Laird is a kind of an overlooked and mostly forgotten figure in the American history, but he was the one who pushed the Vietnamization through in 1969 over Kissinger's opposition and blocked the plan about using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam. It has probably helps to know that in 1969 that Kissinger did not the same level of influence over Nixon that he did later on, which explains how Laird won the argument. I know the rules about OR, but I can back up everything with RS, so I thought I set the record straight on that. Thank you again for all your help and kind words, which are much appreciated here! Best wishes and cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A bit too detailed

I think this article, while thoughtful, is using a level of detail uncommon to Wikipedia’s normal standard. It is too detailed. A summarized version would be helpful. 2603:7000:8D40:63:24E4:E92:BAA3:D150 (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Overlapping years and lead section

@A.S. Brown Great article by the way! Currently, when looking at the index, some years are overlapping. For example, his arrival in Washington was in 1969, but also the Cambodian controversy. Please try to merge some stuff so they don't overlap anymore, or separate them on months level if you prepare to have it separate. Also, on Wikipedia, the first section of an article should be a summary of the rest, so that still needs to be added. Maybe I can try adding some stuff myself if I have time, but there is a lot of stuff going. PhotographyEdits (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I've just a few other things I need to do (library books will be due soon), but I take a swing at this tonight. I'm terrible about writing introductions, but I'll try. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Great! Note that it shouldn't be an introduction in the typical sense, like news article introductions who have an interesting anecdote. It should be a summary of the whole article. I personally think that a summary is easier to write. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I took a swing at it, for whatever it may be worth (no doubt not very much). Like I said, I'm horrible at writing these things. But I think the the Chennault affair; the divergence between him and Nixon; the way that Kissinger almost signed a peace agreement in October 1972 and the final deal that was signed in January 1973 should all be mentioned. I like to keep articles neutral, but it is a fact that the agreement that was signed in January 1973 is very close to the draft that was rejected in October 1972, which does make one wonder what was the point of the Christmas bombings-quite a historians would say there was no point at all. It is a bit unflattening, but I suppose it should be mentioned. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@A.S. Brown Looks fine to me! I added some more links, fixed a typo and removed the maintenance template. Would you mind if I nominated it for WP:GA? PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No, I'm actually very flattened. In my time here, there has only been one featured article, which was mostly my work, through not started by me. That one was a little outside of my areas of expertise (English was my second best subject in high school, but I've received a truly abysmal education from that worthless gang of teachers that were most charitably described as grossly incompetent, so that doesn't count.). I know most of this article is based upon the books by Stanley Karnow and A.J. Langguth. This was actually based upon a section I started on the Kissinger article back in January 2020, but I spun off into a separate article, which it got expansive for the article, which explains why there are only two books. I always feel there it is better to have a few excellent sources than a multiple of egregious ones. That said, this article could probably use a few more more sources. Books about Kissinger form a veritable sub-genre of diplomatic history, so it should be easy to find some sources. Thank you for your kind words and help! Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)