Talk:1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt

Citations

Please edit the citations such that the full book reference appears in the references section first. You may want to have page references following, but please do not have it as it is, with the titles following the footnotes.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The titles are often put after the footnotes, eg see Italian War of 1542-1546, a FA written by the lead coord of the MILHIST project. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Lansdale, CIA, etc.

This comes across as very conspiratorial, and treating the CIA as a Dark Force. Please see CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific#Vietnam, especially the discussion and documentation of the Saigon Military Mission in 1954. You may want to go further into the relevant documents, which are online, to evaluate the role of Lansdale in the 1960 coup, and what power he actually had at the time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, the article doesn't say Landsale was involved in the coup not at all. It says that Landsale was a Diem supporter and criticised the US Amabassador's policy during the coup, which he felt was rotten twoards Diem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. Date autoformatting puts in a useless link. Links should go to related articles that the reader may be interested in visiting. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation links

I guess I should have asked here first, but I went ahead and modified the citation formatting to have links from the "Notes" section to the "References" section. Any comments about whether this change is wanted on this article or not? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, its good you consulted on talk, but I have to ask to what advantage was that edit. So that readers dont have to scroll a further quarter page down. Its just more blue links as far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Telegram

During the standoff, Durbrow ambivalently noted "We consider it overriding importance to Vietnam and Free World that agreement be reached soonest in order avoid continued division, further bloodshed with resultant fatal weakening Vietnam’s ability [to] resist communists."[3]

The grammar of this statement shows that this was in a telegram. Could someone with the source at hand verify this and mention that it's in a telegram (and mention who the telegram was sent to)? Otherwise Durbrow appears to be a Robot Diplomat Model 3000. Tempshill (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Death in absentia

The seven officers and two civilians who had fled the country after the failed coup were found guilty and sentenced to death in absentia.

Now that it's almost 50 years later, it'd be nice to have a followup on what happened to these nine individuals, if such information can be located. Tempshill (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222005518/http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3Aa76065a93a60f8dc3d2eebcd8e4ee8eebc078fff to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3Aa76065a93a60f8dc3d2eebcd8e4ee8eebc078fff

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)