Jump to content

Talk:Fall of Saigon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Remaining issues

This article has a number of problems, one of which is the idea that people were falling out of American helicopters. The Frequent Wind helicopter evacuation was a very rapidly implemented airevac, but I unaware of any source claiming people fell out of copters. Moreover, this evacuation was for the remaining Embassy personnel and other Americans. The White Christmas song was a code for remaining Americans to get to the US Embassy for evacuation, not the entire population of Saigon. There was never any intent to evacuate the city by helicopter (a physically impossible feat). Moreover, the C-130 airlift that preceeded the helicopter evacuation and ended on April 29th did not evacuate all Vietnamese seeking departure from Vietnam. This airlift was restricted to certain Vietnamese and others who had been helpful to the US (such as local base and embassy personnel). There was a also a Vietnamese evacuation using VNAF aircraft, and some people may have fallen from those. Businessdr 04:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No mention of Văn Tiến Dũng?

This article is flawed. It is not NPOV - and not because it is biased - but because there is little mention of how the North Vietnamese took Sài Gòn.

One starting point is to bump up Văn Tiến Dũng's role in the thing. As commander of the North Vietnamese troops, he needs some mention, at least. Frank Snepp (who wrote Decent Interval about the event, and was actually present) based a lot of his work on Văn Tiến Dũng's Great Spring Victory.

--Tphcm 04:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Caption

Said "iconic image" in the article speaks of U.S. Civilans being airlifted out of South Vietnam. However, during reseach for a paper on Vietnam I came across an article by the photographer. While only being able to read the byline (it was a guest editorial for the New York Times, but only available to Times Select subscribers) I did read that according to the photographer, those were not civilians, but American intelligence (I believe CIA was named) personnel. Does anyone know any more about this? Might be worth looking into.--Nate 10:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoever they worked for, they are civilians in that they did not work for the military or wear uniforms. There were a variety of people in the embassy and in Vietnam at the end. It would be wrong to label everyone in the photo as CIA or intelligence.64.12.116.72 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
The photo caption says "US Navy" chopper, however isn't the chopper in fact a CIA Air America chopper? From the Air America page on Wikipedia: The photo that most people relate as the end of the US involvement in the Vietnam war, showing a white helicopter taking people off of the CIA apartment bulding, was actually an Air America aircraft. First in and last out in many cases. Also I remember seeing a interview of the Air America pilot who was flying that mission that that photo was in fact of a CIA and not US Navy chopper, also the photographer interviewed in the article http://www.mishalov.com/Vietnam_finalescape.html states it was an Air America not a US navy chopper. I have changed the caption. Limitedexpresstrain 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Plan

A general plan for this article:

  1. North Vietnamese approach to the city
  2. Evacuation of Saigon
  3. Attempts at a negotiated solution
  4. Last days
    1. Operation Frequent Wind
    2. Capitulation of South Vietnam
  5. Aftermath
    1. North Vietnamese takeover
    2. American and world reaction

Christopher Parham (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Two things:

1/ I am the author of Butler, David; The Fall of Saigon, Scenes from the Sudden End of a Long War; Simon & Schuster, 1985.

2/ I have been unable to create an account. Are there rules for styles of User ID and Password? I tried to use the ones I prefer and the system didn't accept them, or close variations.

In other words, what are the rules for creating an account? Thanks, David Butler in Bangkok.58.9.71.165 12:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To prevent "imposter" accounts, the system won't allow you to create usernames that are similar to an existing username. Combined with the fact that 2 million accounts have already been created, a lot of usernames are already taken up. Sorry about that, but hopefully this inconvenience won't stop you from contributing to Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is David Butler in Bangkok again. Sign-in problem is now solved. Thanks.

When I mentioned my book in my first message, I forgot to say that I hope it can be included in the bibliography for this article. I realize that this may not happen until I add something to the article.

Is that the case?Davidvbutler 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would make more sense to add your book if you were citing a specific fact to it. Feel free to add material to the article, some sections are in definite need of expansion. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Time

According to Bui Quang Than, the man who raised the NLF flag above Independence Palace, the flag was raised at 10:30 a.m. However, since at the time North Vietnam uses GMT+7 timezone while the South uses GMT+8. The time should have been 11:30 a.m, not 12:15 p.m.--lt2hieu2004 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

EXPLANATION OF MY EDITS

My name is Mr. Talley Griffith. I am the cousin of Ambassador Graham Martin (deceased) and the family representative concerning his legacy and history (and the holder of many of his papers). I spent many years talking with Graham about the "Fall" and living at his residence. I have interviews with him never before published, and represent him (and his story) within contexts of the media and relative to his point of view in historical record. I am also a published author and screenwriter; and a musician who has recently retired from the field of government/military intelligence.

I apologize for my lack of "Wikification" if I have committed any formatting errors in my edit. However, as is necessary to give a complete perspective on the events, I have injected the Ambassador's points of view where applicable. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss these. I have a great deal of documentation along with my personal accounts directly from Graham's mouth. Another source is from my friend, Ambassador Ken Moorefield - the U.S. Ambassador to Gabon (recently retired who at the time was an assistant to Graham during the evacuation).

Two additional points: 1. Frank Snepp, the CIA Analyst/Officer in Saigon (and his book) have been proven extensively to contain many factual errors and outright fabrications. Snepp had personal axes to grind with many at the Saigon Mission, and Snepp is known as a callous and self-involved promoter of all things Snepp. So much so that he was involved in several lawsuits concerning his books. These are easily identified from a basic Google search about Snepp. According to Graham, Snepp's accounting of the "Fall" was written from the p.o.v. that only Snepp himself could have won the Vietnam War(!). Thus, although his book IS a source...it is not definitive and many (including two sitting Ambassadors) consider Snepp's reccollections as inaccurate.

  • Oh no, not another "Frank Snepp was a self-serving liar" jibes. Yes, Snepp did lose a court case with the CIA over the publication of his book, but that was over the legality of violating his secrecy agreement, not over the legitimicy of his claims. RM Gillespie 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2. The BEST and most authoritative resource for what really happened during the "Fall" is best gathered from a video that was produced by/for the Discovery Channel. Titled "The Fall of Saigon", it contains interviews and perspectives from all key players in the final days. It even contains Snepp, Pres. Ford, Kissinger, Gerry Berry (the pilot), and many NVA officials. I worked with the producer's to offer Graham's perspective. I have it on video, but I imagine it is still available for purchase from Discovery or the History Channel. I advise it as the ultimate source and stand by its declarations as a testament to history.

I have MANY photos of Graham, before - during - and after the Fall of Saigon. Including many of his own personal photos (along with media photos). If anyone is interested in posting these, please advise and I'll email them to you at an appropriate email address.

SHOULD ANYONE desire to contact me, please do so at the following email address: milspook at yahoo dot com (which I hope you can figure out - trying not to set myself up for "death by spamming"). Again, that's Talley Griffith - milspook at yahoo dot com.

Also, someone may wish to LINK Graham's name (properly formatted) to the single entry for Graham Martin on Wikipedia. He has a short blurb, but no link back to the "Fall" page. Again, my apologies for not being a professional Wiki person. I appreciate the hard work and great job you folks do to present truth and history as accurately as possible. If I may be of any help, let me know. Thank you again, and best wishes to each of you. I would "sign" this post if I knew how (lol). (Vaproman 23:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Ambassador Martin

I would like to insert the following, probably without reference to my name:

Some analysts, including David Butler, argue that Martin's insistence to the end that all was normal helped prevent the murderous mayhem that had occurred in Hue and Danang from recurring in Saigon.

If this sentence is included in some form, I would then greatly appreciate it if my book was included in the bibliography:

The Fall of Saigon, David Butler, Simon and Schuster 1985Davidvbutler (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing Part of Article

The entire section: Political movements and attempts at a negotiated solution is unclear and confusing in the extreme.

Any attempt to discuss the political movements and negotiated solution needs to provide some context. The Paris Peace Accords were already negotiated and signed in Jan of 1973. That might be the logical place to begin this discussion.

The article states: As the North Vietnamese chipped away more and more of South Vietnam, internal opposition to President Thieu went on accumulating. For instance, in early April, the Senate which Senate? USA or Vietnamese. Unclear from reading.

The article Continues: " unanimously voted through a call for new leadership, and some top military commanders were pressing for a coup. In response to this pressure, Thieu made some changes to his cabinet, and Prime Minister Tran Thien Khiem resigned.[23] This did little to reduce the opposition to Thieu. On 8 April a South Vietnamese pilot bombed the presidential palace and then flew to an PAVN-controlled airstrip; Thieu was not hurt."

Again, no context here. A attempted assassination is not usually considered a "political movement or negotiated solution" so perhaps a seperate section should be created on this.

The article continues: "Many in the American mission—Martin in particular—along with some key figures in Washington believed that negotiations with the Communists were possible, especially if Saigon could stabilize the military situation."

Discussion of negotiated settlements would do well to start with basic information about the Paris Peace Accords, which were designed to let the South vote on their future. These accords were violated by the Vietnamese and America ignored the violations. The Wikipedia article on "Paris Peace Accords" is a fine place to get a write up of this. (The following 4 paragraphs are taken from that article)

In December 1974, North Vietnamese military forces attacked Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam, in violation of the peace treaty. The President of South Vietnam has been forced to resign accusing the United States of betrayal. In a TV and radio address, outgoing President Nguyen Van Thieu said his forces had failed to stop the advance of the Vietcong because of lack of funds promised to him by the Americans.

In a scathing attack on the US, he suggested US Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger had tricked him into signing the Paris peace agreement two years ago, promising military aid which then failed to materialise.

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis," he said. "But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days?" He continued, "The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men." [2]

On December 13, 1974 North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty and tested the United States resolve by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam. The U.S. promised Thieu that he would use airpower to support his government. On January 14, 1975 Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger states that the U.S. is not living up to its promise that it would retaliate in the event North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty. In the most serious violation of the Agreement, more than 30,000 North Vietnamese army personnel are known to have continued moving into South Vietnam after the cease-fire on January 27. These combat replacements have greatly increased the capability of North Vietnamese army units in the south.

My criticisms continues:

Also, the fact that the USA, led by the Democratic congress in the wake of the post-Watergate election sweep, had cut off funding and support for the South is a critical component in the story, is it not? Yet it is not mentioned in the article. That is a large oversight. Certainly, as the quotes above demonstrate the leaders of South Vietnam thought it was.

At some point I'll try to get back in and fix these things if no one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.253.17 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Role of US

The US was not a combatant at this stage in the conflict (check our definition of combatant: direct participant in the hostilities of an armed conflict), with its role limited to evacuation of US civilians and refugees. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article the U.S. is still technically involved in the Vietnam War even though things were winding down. Things could have escalated again and Operation Frequent Wind is considered part of the war, luckily hostilities were not major as only two or three U.S. soldiers died after this operation. Surely they died serving part of the Vietnam War and not in vain, which is what you are suggesting. I suggest you read this page: belligerent. Sea888 (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

First Section

Why in the world is it the standard welcome message for new wikipedians? Th 2005 (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

United States as a belligerent

I've just reverted the inclusion of the US as a 'belligerent'. For this to be included it needs to be supported by references to published books on the battle, and not individual editor's interpretation of the laws of warfare. By the way, Australia also mounted a significant evacuation exercise from Saigon, which included RAAF Airfield Defence Guards being deployed to protect the embassy and RAAF transport aircraft operating out of Tan Son Nhut airport. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sea888, please stop it. Three people have explicitly disagreed with you and a fourth person here Wikipedia_talk:MILHIST#Fall_of_Saigon:_What_is_a_belligerent.3F YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Make that five. I see Christopher Parham has said the same thing right above YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Saigon's Finale" - The New York Times link is redirecting to main page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.99.84 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

VPA

The Vietnam People's Army had an acronym of NVA. I changed it to what it should be VPA.... I don't know why it was NVA. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.193.221 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 April 2007

- NVA is North Vietnamese Army. Few people including myself understood PAVN. The US military and Press and movies all call it the NVA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMalax (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberation

I doubt most people in Siagon viewed the entry of the communist army as a liberation. Sagon was mostly anti-communists -- plus, thousands were either executed or sent to reeducation camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.186.128 (talk • contribs) 25 July 2006

A majority in Sàigòn viewed the liberation as a loss, as they had had American influence and propaganda exerted on them for so long. But, remember, many closest to the Americans were evacuated. Most Vietnamese in all, at least 80% viewed it as a Liberation, at least at the time. It would be biased only to say "Fall of Sàigòn", as many, including myself, recognize it as a liberation. It is only sad that the government would wander so far from Hồ Chí Minh Thought, and still claim to follow it. --Ionius Mundus 03:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ho chi minh was a genocidal monster the only people who would consider it a liberation are brainwashed fanatics in truth it was an enslavement try reading something that isnt propoganda for once02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishfrisian (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the addition of "liberation" to the title. The historical context of the Fall of Saigon is the loss of the south vietnamese capital. Sorta like the fall of the berlin wall wouldn't be called the liberation of berlin, it was the collapse one one item and the beginning of another, or the fall of the soviet union, the liberation of the russian federation. By all means one can certainly say that "the fall of saigon" led to the unification of vietnam under communist rule. But the title context is the "fall of saigon" in my opinion. If we were to go by wikipedia google test of popular useage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Google_test and do a rough scan, the "fall of saigon" entered into google yeilded 265,000 results, while the of "liberation of saigon" yeilded 693 results.Limitedexpresstrain 21:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Try searching for the Liberation of Saigon in Vietnamese. "Sài Gòn Giải Phóng" returns 363,000 results. It would be POV to erase it. I don't think they use 'Fall of Saigon' in Việt Nam. Again review my above comment. --Ionius Mundus 23:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberation or loss depends on the point of view. Saigon was under anti-communist government for over a decade, not to mention many people living in Saigon at that time were South Vietnam's personnel and/or their relatives. That could explain the term of "loss". But in spite of that, many others are pro-communist or just spolied by the corrupted government of South Vietnam, so they can see the fall as liberation. Anyway I agree with Ionius Mundus about what the communists did in South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon. Ho Chi Minh's ideas were great, but his cadres made it all wrong, ever since the Land Reform which left a deep wound. Luckily things are changing now, with the new leaders of the CPV and the government.Hawkie 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're certainly right. --Ionius Mundus 20:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"Sài Gòn Giải Phóng" means Liberated Saigon and is the name of a newspaper published there, hence the overabundance of results. The event itself is called by most Vietnamese speakers as "April 30". Other less common names are "Giải Phóng" (Liberation) and "Sài Gòn sụp đổ" or "Sài Gòn thất thủ" (Fall of Saigon). The "Fall" here refers to the fall of the Saigon government, which is a fact, and is not viewed as POV in Vietnamese. DHN 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Find me an example of a Việtnamese Communist who does not call the Liberation of Sàigòn as such. --Ionius Mundus 02:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well Ionius, not ALL Vietnamese (even nowadays) are communists. But since the government uses the term "Liberation of Saigon" or "The day of Unification" so much (propaganda or not I don't care) it has become widely accepted in Vietnam, especially among the youth. It's no harm to refer to it as "the Fall of Saigon" but I think it should be "Saigon" in the sense as a government, not a city (sorry if my English is bad). Oh and about the "Sai Gon Giai Phong" or whatever, it is actually a common newspaper so the fact that Google returns more results doesn't mean much here.(anyone teach me how to sign I don't know how)Hawkie 16:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Sign with four tildes (~). I am perfectly aware that not all Việtnamese are Communists. You don't need to point that out, as it is quite obvious. The point is that it is used by a significant number of people. Not all Việtnamese are non-Communists. --Ionius Mundus 08:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh thanks Ionius, now I can have a name. Anyway friend, I'm discussing about the term "liberation" or "fall". To me "fall" is neutral enough, as Saigon appears in this article as a government, not a city. As for the significant of number, I agree, but this is a free encyclopedia which everyone around the world can read, so it should sould reflect the most common term used universally, not only in Vietnam. For me, I agree to keep it as the "fall". Yes not a shot was fired and not a drop of blood when they take over the country, but the aftermath.Hawkie 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly a number of people outside Việtnam also use the term 'Liberation of Sàigòn'. If only people inside Việtnam did, we wouldn't be having this debate. --Ionius Mundus 17:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I certainly know that. But you know, the Vietnamese exile comunnity, especially those of close relation to the South Vietnam government even call this day what means "the day of national resentment" in Vietnamese. So Ionius if you want to change it into "Liberation of Saigon" then some will want to change it into "Loss of Saigon" or something worse. So to me "Fall of Saigon" is a reasonably neutral enough. Personally I prefer "Liberation of Saigon" but that would be POV in my opinion.Hawkie 18:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Though I use 'Liberation of Sàigòn', I think we should change it to the more neutral 'Fall/Liberation of Saigon', not 'Liberation of Sàigòn'. --Ionius Mundus 19:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia call the Soviet defeat of German troops in Eastern Europe, and these nations absorption into the communist polity, a liberation? --

If they do, it because the people who wrote that perceive it as such, you can disagree if you think it isn't correct, we're all Human, as for Saigon, Fall seems to be more a United States media term, I doubt anybody will listen, but in my observant opinion, the most neutral title for this page is "Battle of Saigon"--99.141.176.247 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly not a liberation, but using the term fall isn't neutral either (it implies that before the North Vietnamese caputered the city it was free). Why not the more neutral Capture of Saigon? Emanuele de Pinto (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the hyperlink from 'National Hatred Day' (30 April) is to the WRONG date and place - 20 May, the National Day of Remembrance (formerly known as National Day of Hatred) in CAMBODIA. I've no idea how to change this, but it certainly needs changing!62.194.121.250 (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy and POV

This article seems like it was written by the US State Dept and Voice of America. Is there evidence of massive killing of civilians by NVA and VC forces as the article claims? is this the fall or liberation? this article needs serious work--even the title is debatable. EdwinHJ | Talk 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

An American documentary I've seen on the subject claims "[the residents of Sàigòn] had expected a bloodbath but ... not a shot was fired that day, and not a drop of blood spilled", with regard to the day after the Liberation. --Ionius Mundus 03:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a complete lie thousands of anti communists were rounded up and murderedIrishfrisian (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Fall" is neutral in that obviously both sides recognize that the city was taken over. "Liberation" is POV in that the word makes a political judgement about one side in the conflict. 64.12.116.72 04:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope. "Fall" implies "loss;" eg, the "loss of Saigon." Neither term is neutral; the title of the article violates NPOV policy. KenThomas (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fall and Liberation depends on the person you talk to. I'm sure all the refugees that moved to other countries after the war don't consider Vietnam liberated. 4.233.125.20 07:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Communist state" oxymoron?

From what I understand, communism is a form of anarchy and socialism. To refer to Vietnam being reunited as a "communist state" is an oxymoron, isn't it? Shouldn't it be "a state under communist rule" or "socialist state"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.100.227.2 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Communist state is a contradiction simply because communism is a classless and moneyless society whereas a state must have a vertical hierarchy. For clarity, the term should be Marxist-Leninist state as Vietnam's principle ideology is Marxist-Leninism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.94.77 (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Role or non-role of General Giap

Giap has just died, and is currently in the Recently Died section on Wikipedia's Main Page. The well-referenced article on the 1975 Spring Offensive currently has only one mention of Defence Minister (and Vietnamese national hero) Vo Nguyen Giap (referring to 1973) and this article on the Fall of Saigon currently has no mention of him (and neither of the Talk sections of these two articles mentioned him before now). Giap's biographical article has a 'Fall of Saigon' section with 3 or 4 unreferenced claims implying that he more or less directed the entire campaign. I think these claims are wrong or at least rather misleading, and I have put in citation requests in the article and a comment on the matter in that article's Talk Page. But I'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps some of you experts out there might be able to supply reliable citations to either confirm or deny or qualify those claims. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not close enough

  • "Martin announced that only Americans were to be flown out, due to worries that the North Vietnamese would soon take the city and the Ford administration's desire to announce the completion of the American evacuation".(Todd, p.366)

After the ambassador was ordered by the US administration to only evacuate Americans, that's when (and why) he announced that only Americans were to be flown out. --20yardsaway (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "Originally, the ambassador had fully intended to effect the evacuation by use of fixed-wing aircraft from the base. This plan was altered at a critical time when a South Vietnamese[citation needed] pilot decided to defect, and jettisoned his ordnance along the only runways still in use (which had not yet been destroyed by shelling)." --20yardsaway (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Reports came in from the outskirts of the city that the North Vietnamese were moving.(Tanner, 313) "

Movement is not a problem; capturing land and projecting military power is. --20yardsaway (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fall vs. Liberation and edit warring

Since the anniversary is today, it's not really surprising that this article has been subjected to a lot of edits recently.

Of note is the edit war occurring over "Liberation" vs. "Fall," last discussed in 2012. I agree that both terms violate NPOV, but if a change is made it should be made to the entire article, including the title. Until then, we should stick with "Fall" since that is the article's title. -- GeneralPericles (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I put a note for "liberation depending on context" as an accurate reflection of the fact that many people, including the policymakers of Vietnam (unsuprisingly) call it "liberation", whilst a substantial portion of the expat community call it the "fall" or "defeat" of saigon. BrxBrx (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Some more sources using or discussing both alternative names.
  • Morey, Roy D. (2013). The United Nations at Work in Asia: An Envoy's Account of Development in China, Vietnam, Thailand and the South Pacific. McFarland. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-7864-7871-2.
  • Nguyen, Viet Thanh (2015). The Sympathizer. Grove/Atlantic, Incorporated. p. 319. ISBN 978-0-8021-9169-4.
  • Lockhart, Bruce McFarland; Duiker, William J. (2010). The A to Z of Vietnam. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 460. ISBN 978-0-8108-7646-0.
There are other sources out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no issue with it as long as references are provided (as they have). Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Did all the Americans get out?

One thing I have not been able to ascertain from the article (and other sources) is whether all Americans, particularly civilian contractors, journalists, and so forth, managed to get out of Saigon (and out of Vietnam, per se) during the fall of Saigon. There was a lot of turmoil and I can imagine that there may have been some American (and perhaps Australian/Thai/Korean civilians) that couldn't get out. Is anything known about this? It is an angle that would be worth adding to the article. -Rolypolyman (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly the article opens with: "The fall of the city was preceded by the evacuation of almost all the American civilian and military personnel in Saigon".... so what happened to the rest? -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I would assume that those who stayed (if there are any) married and got stuck in Saigon, although I'm wondering why they didn't return back to the United States, because I doubt they'd enjoy living in Communist Vietnam. My father was a Saigon native and explained that they left gradually, so if there are any Americans still living in Vietnam, they're either very few or dead, and some mixed up with the people who still live there. 75.4.252.249 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

-A not insignificant number of Western journalists (among other people) stayed behind. This is mentioned in the Vietnam War documentary "The Last Days in Vietnam", among other places. It's pretty common for journalists to do this -- ie, not relying on a military force to get in/out of a conflict zone, and not relying on them for the "schedule"/"timetable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.234.255 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Symbolic picture of the event

I think this the symbolic picture of the fall of Saigon. The current imagine describes the US' activites, not of Vietnam's ones. The current picture is not symbolic because it describes the evacuation of Americans, not the fall of Saigon regime. The new one really described the fall of Saigon regime.

File:Các chiến sỹ Quân Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam cắm lá cờ Chính phủ Cách mạng Lâm thời Cộng hòa miền Nam Việt Nam trên nóc Dinh Độc lập, đánh dấu kết thúc chiến tranh.jpg

People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam Lieutenant Captain Bùi Quang Thận planted Viet Cong's flag on the roof of the Presidential Palace at 11:30 am on April 30th, 1975 that is the symbol of the war ends an the fall of Saigon regime

I think we should change the pictureHonglienhoa (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose While the picture is indeed representative of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam, the Van Es picture is the iconic photo of the Fall of Saigon and known worldwide. I would also note that your proposed photo is nominated for deletion for potential breach of copyright. Whatever the decision on the notability of your proposed photo, we can't use it if it is a copyvio. Mztourist (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Black April

Deleted "many other countries" as it's unsourced and possibly misleading. for example France has a substantial Vietnamese expat community and fr:Chute_de_Saïgon only cites American sources, most of which talk explicitly about Vietnamese Americans. I may be wrong, but I see no evidence of an Avril Noire being commemorated in France, for example. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath

Done Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Don't understand what you mean. Mztourist (talk) 11:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
In 1977, National Review alleged. The world has changed since 1977.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't understand what you are trying to say. The world changes constantly...Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Either the subject is important and discussed or totally unimportant and forgotten since 1977. Xx236 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I really don't see the point you are trying to make. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Mztourist: Xx is probably saying that the National Review allegation is outdated and not taken seriously, which it correct. Or he is being sarcastic or something. I recommend deleting it. Go ahead and insert info about re-education camps, just don't make it too long and don't use Desbarats or OC Register's 1-2.5 million. These figures are a fringe hoax/citogenesis. A good overview of the camp numbers is provided here on page 305, the range is 200-300K based on official and exile sources. It is not necessarily clear what percentage of the inmates were "politicals", but the camps in question are "re-education camps" and not common prisons.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Porter is repeating official communist statistics as gospel truth, as is his modus operandi. As The Black Book of Communism states: "Pham Van Dong, the prime minister at the time, admitted in 1980 that 200,000 had been reeducated in the South. Serious estimates range from 500,000 to 1 million out of a population of 20 million. The victims included a large number of students, intellectuals, monks (both Buddhist and Catholic), and political militants (including Communists). Many of these people had been in sympathy with the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, which revealed itself to be no more than a cover for Northern Communists and which almost immediately broke all its promises to respect the wishes of the people of the South." I'm not aware of anything that would allow us to confidently proclaim the indisputable accuracy of the official Vietnamese government statistics over the numerous independent sources that arrived at far higher figures.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Nope, read Porter's footnote. Jstor is free and BBoC is a crap source, though by no means the crappiest. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Porter's sources are all from 1976 or 1977. That 200,000 to 300,000 individuals were imprisoned within the first two years of communist rule is, indeed, widely repeated in sources from that period. However, the Black Book and OCR are referring to the total number of people who passed through the camps for a period of time extending more than a decade after those figures were published. The ORC is clearly a RS, though you may question its weight, and the Black Book is published by Harvard University Press, and therefore cannot simply be dismissed as "crap." There appears to be a growing consensus favoring some mention of the camps, so your total deletion is not warranted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
You'll note that I was the first one here who said "go ahead and add info about the camps, BUT...(ignored)."The BBoC is a simple compendium of Communist crimes, assembled for political effect, containing little unbiased original research. But it's certainly superior to the OCRegister, I'll lend you that! It is not the ultimate authority for any contentious claim. What sources does it cite? I see you've changed your argument from "Porter cites commie stats" to "Porter cites outdated stats". This ignores the fact that it's perfectly possible that the vast majority of reeducation-camp-proper internees (as opposed to people routinely jailed in Vietnam, from Various parts of the country and for various reasons) were sent there immediately after the fall of Saigon. This also ignores the fact that Porter cites Truong Nhu Tang (1985) for 300,000 and "A former member of the National Assembly of reunified Vietnam who also escaped from the country" (1977) for "not under 200,000." Now we are supposed to believe that re-education camp imprisonment accelerated after 1977 to create 1 million victims? Or that Truong Nhu Tang writing in 1985 was a secret commie propagandist? When you've actually checked Porter's sources and found his footnotes to be wrong, you can come back and tell us about it. But for now, all you've done is misinterpret Porter (and whoever co-wrote his article). Guccisamsclubs (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Re: OCRegister. Debarats misquotes a Vietnamese official (see Porter) and takes 1M as the number of camp prisoners, then OCR takes Desbarats' 1M and reproduces it as an unsourced estimate, giving no reference to any sources or data of any kind as backup. If that's not citogenesis, I dunno what is.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that this discussion should be taking place on the Reeducation camp page rather than here. I simply added in a short para regarding reeducation camps in the aftermath section because obviously that was a direct effect of the end of the war. There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the camps existed and that numerous South Vietnamese military and government members were sent for reeducation. The argument seems to be solely about how many were sent for reeducation, which I have attempted to address in the paragraph. I'm happy to consider rewording but you can't just keep blanking it. I will check my reference books later but am sure I can add some more WP:RS on this are. Mztourist (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, the Orange County register asserts "over a million" in a caption to a photograph, which is as good as no source at all. But be that as it may, the info you put in has nothing in common with the OCR source.
I'd be wary of blindly cross-posting stuff anything from Reeducation Camps. Some of the info there does not reflect any real consus, just reflects what some pov-pushing pro-Saigon editors have been able to get away with.
The only real source ATM is Porter (linked above and free from Jstor). I'll look into the BBoC to see if there is anything there.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Update on The Black Book of Communism figure of 500K-1M brought up by TheTimesAreAChanging. I took a look at that source and was immediately reminded of just how sloppy and tendentious it really is. There is no footnote and no explanation of the claim at all. It just says a range of "serious" estimates. I guess they has so many "serous" estimates that they could not figure out which one to cite. Or perhaps they just pulled the number form Desbarats and mixed it in with some other shit they heard somewhere. More citogenesis, figuratively speaking. The only figure the BBoC actually deigns to attribute is 200,000, to Pham Van Dong, from 1980.
  • I should also add another point on Desbarats. It is she not Porter, who relies exclusively on "official" Vietnamese sources—unfortunately those sources did not say what she thought they said. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • FWIW, here's a source that refers to a "conservatively estimated 250,000". Like the BBoC it cites no sources, but unlike Porter, it can not be accused of having any sympathy for the Vietnamese govt.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's what Ginetta Sagan and Stephen Denney came up with in late 1982:
Over one million Vietnamese have been re-educated and returned to society since 1975, according to the Hanoi government. However, this would seem to contradict another official statement from Hanoi which said that 40,000 is the total number of Vietnamese who have gone through the reeducation camps since 1975, and that 26,000 remained in the camps as of 1980. So if we are to take these figures seriously, and try to reconcile them with each other, then we might assume that the one million figure includes those who attended "short-term, on-the-spot" re- education, in which Vietnamese would come to the "classes" during the day and go home at night, while the 40,000 figure refers to those who underwent long-term re-education, meaning internment in the camps. With regard to the latter, we must note that the estimates of foreign observers of those detained in the camps since 1975 are much higher, ranging up to 300,000. Our own estimate is that 100,000 Vietnamese are still in the camps. It would be more difficult for us to estimate the total number detained in the camps since 1975, and we will not attempt to estimate the number of dissidents detained in the many prisons of Vietnam.
During the 1980s, we see that the remaining 100,000 gradually declines to tens of thousands and then mere thousands, until the camps are abolished. So while Porter's 200,000-300,000 is probably somewhat conservative, it is nevertheless in the right ballpark. In contrast, it is more difficult to see how the higher numbers cited by the Black Book et al. could be consistent with these earlier reports (particularly the high estimate of 1 million, shocking and conveniently round though it is). In the absence of any new, compelling evidence, we should certainly go with the earlier figures. (Note as well that it would be original research on our part to add the 300,000 detained and the 100,000 remaining for a total of 400,000, as we have no basis to assume that the latter were not part of the former group.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@TheTimesAreAChanging:It may be somewhat conservative if it can shown that Truong Nhu Tang's 300,000 pertains only to the first year or two after the fall of Saigon. But I am sort of wondering now how to reconcile the 40,000 cited in Sagan with 200,000 cited in Porter. The obvious explanation is that Vietnamese figures are crap: for example, Desbarats identified two figures for the number of people "returned to civilian life" (which she interpreted as the "the number thrown into labor camps"). One was 1 million and the other was 2.5 million. But there is a one in a hundred chance that Porter himself misinterpreted his source, just like Desbarats misinterpreted hers. p.s.: as usual, props on your research. Guccisamsclubs (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
George Veith in Black April on page 495 refers to "hundreds of thousands" undergoing reeducation and states that many ARVN officers holding a rank of major or above were not released until 1987, while the last 4 ARVN Generals were not released until 1992. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Larry Engelmann's Tears before the rain contains several individual accounts of Vietnamese who were sent to reeducation camps for periods of between 3 and 17 years but doesn't provide any numbers of these who underwent reeducation. Mztourist (talk) 10:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I am sure you know this already, but a thing to keep in mind is that re-education is not the same as camps.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Mztourist, would you mind replacing the ORC cite with Engelmann? If the ORC is as inaccurate as we currently believe it to be, then it should really be dropped—otherwise, I can guarantee it will turn up again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
(Commenting from the sidelines) I haven't been following this, but the addition of this talk page comment caught my eye. I had some difficulty figuring out what "ORC Cite" you were saying that "we" think is inaccurate. My guess is that you may be referring to this piece from the Orange County Register which the article currently cites twice (the cite is duplicated). Regarding whether or not "we" think the piece is inaccurate and whether or not that opinion ought to bear on its mention here, please see WP:DUE. Regarding mention in an earlier comment of page 495 of Veith's Black April book referring to "hundreds of thousands" undergoing reeducation, I don't see that here and a search within the book fails to find the string "hundreds of thousands" fails (there are lots of hits on "reeducation", though). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Our arguments here may not be explicitly couched in WP policy because the priority was to explain the source material in human-speak, so we at least know what we are talking about. But replacing OCR and Desbarats with the other sources is consistent with policies on fringe, due, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and probably others I am too lazy to think about.Guccisamsclubs (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fall of Saigon. 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:

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) 23:12, 27 September 2017 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Collaborators

User:Mconnor1967 by this edit [1] changed South Vietnamese to Collaborators with the comment "Collaborators" is the term for those cooperating with an occupying power targeting locals for assassination". That change and comment is POV as the implication is that the US was an occupying power in South Vietnam. I reverted this change with the comment "no consensus US was an occupying power and so collaborators is POV, they were South Vietnamese who supported the South Vietnamese government", Mconnor1967 undid my edit and I reverted them and brought this issue to the Talk Page for resolution. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Interesting file Suggestion

You might find this file interesting or useful for this page File:Helicopter Pilot Radio Transmissions during the Saigon Evacuation - NARA - 7367506 (page 7).jpg Gbawden (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Collaborators

User:Mconnor1967 by this edit [2] changed South Vietnamese to Collaborators with the comment "Collaborators" is the term for those cooperating with an occupying power targeting locals for assassination". That change and comment is POV as the implication is that the US was an occupying power in South Vietnam. I reverted this change with the comment "no consensus US was an occupying power and so collaborators is POV, they were South Vietnamese who supported the South Vietnamese government", Mconnor1967 undid my edit and I reverted them and brought this issue to the Talk Page for resolution. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User talk:Mztourist objects to the use of "collaborators" referring to those Vietnamese who assisted the US CIA in assassinating ~30,000 Vietnamese in the [Program]. The objection is founded on the notion that since there is no "consensus" that the US occupied Vietnam, the term collaborator is POV.

First, the notion that we must have consensus is confusing. There is no consensus, for example, that South Vietnam was in fact a country, though it is listed as a country in its Wiki entry; its application for membership in the United Nations was rejected, for example, and it was not recognized by dozens of countries.

Moreover, [the US history of the war establishes], by the time of the Phoenix Program, "South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States." The Pentagon Papers continue: In a sub-section titled "Special American Commitment to Vietnam", the papers emphasized once again the role played by the United States:

"Without U.S. support [Ngo Dinh] Diem almost certainly could not have consolidated his hold on the South during 1955 and 1956." "Without the threat of U.S. intervention, South Vietnam could not have refused to even discuss the elections called for in 1956 under the Geneva settlement without being immediately overrun by the Viet Minh armies." "Without U.S. aid in the years following, the Diem regime certainly, and an independent South Vietnam almost as certainly, could not have survived".

We might ask: were Vietnamese who cooperated with Japanese and French invaders and colonizers referred to as "collaborators"? The answer is yes: here ([[3]]) and here, here, here (France).


Most importantly, those involved in the conflict on both sides openly refer to Vietnamese who "worked with" the Americans as "collaborators". In Valentine's history of the Phoenix Program, for example, the term is common: Milberg, who directed the program, describing how Vietnamese communists got ahold of lists those who "worked with" the Americans: ""Next," said Milberg, "I confronted what the North Vietnamese had done in the city of Hue and probably elsewhere. They had lists of all the people who had collaborated with the Americans and apparently had lined a lot of these people up and summarily shot them."

"The VC had come in and got a couple out that were accused of collaborating with the government, and they'd shot them in the ears. Their bodies were lying out on a cart. We drove out there, and I looked at that ... and I had my first awareness of what those natives were up against. Because during the night, the damn VC team would come in, gather all those villagers together, warn them about cooperating, and present an example of what happened to collaborators."

According to Frank Snepp, four hundred Special Branch and four hundred CIO officers were left behind, along with "files identifying defectors, collaborators, prisoners, anyone who had helped us or seemed likely to."

Collaborator is the correct term to refer to those targeted for assassination in the Phoenix Program, as those who studied and directed the program state openly. To object to this term, on the other hand, is POV.

the suggestion that South Vietnam wasn't a country is WP:FRINGE/North Vietnamese WP:PROPAGANDA as is the suggestion that the US was an occupying power in South Vietnam, so your changes have no merit.Mztourist (talk) 06:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

infobox selection and POV characterization

This edit, changing the conflict= infobox parameter from Fall of Saigon to Saigon Liberation caught my eye. My initial reaction was concern about WP:POV, and that needs discussion. That aside, though, I see that the infobox used in this article is {{infobox military conflict}}, and I wouldn't call either of those designations appropriate for naming a military conflict. I note that the Vietnam War article gives the ending date of that conflict as 30 April 1975 and that this article is about events in that conflict on that date. Therefore, I suggest that the infobox used in this article ought to be {{Infobox military operation}} with the name= and partof= parameters set appropriately. With regard to the name= parameter, perhaps alternative namings from both POVs could be given there, with that being clarified in the article lead paragraph. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(addition) Alternatively, perhaps the article ought to be renamed to the more neutral name Capture of Saigon, with that term used in the infobox and both arguably more POV names Fall of Saigon and Saigon Liberation made WP:redirects to this article with that naming. The term Capture of Saigon was introduced into the lead section of this article as a characterization of the article content in this 2007 edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Fall of Saigon is WP:COMMONNAME, it indicates the capture of Saigon and the end of South Vietnam. It was a military conflict because fighting went on in Saigon right up until Duong Van Minh's surrender speech.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand that. It struck me that the fall term seems to be from the POV of the side loosing control and the liberation term seems to be from the POV of the side taking control (and I think that the term liberation suggests wresting more than taking there). I spent the years 1964-1972 in Vietnam, and I am perhaps a bit more sensitive about NPOV here than most. I'm not obsessed about it, though; this response grew out of my seeing this recent edit (note the comment re liberation vs. military takeover in the cite item added there), after which I took a look at this talk page and noticed your comment above which I had previously missed seeing. I'll stand by my comment above, and I'll renew my suggestion about changing the infobox in this article from {{infobox military conflict}} to {{infobox military operation}}. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:59, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox ordering of belligerents, etc.

This is currently

Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam Viet Cong and PRG
Supported by:
 North Vietnam 		vs  South Vietnam
Supported by:
 United States

However, it is clear in the article that, militarily, this was predominately an NVN operation.

The infobox docs say: "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command.". By those criteria, the ordering ought to be:

 North Vietnam
Supported by:
Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam Viet Cong and PRG 		vs  South Vietnam
Supported by:
 United States

or perhaps some variation of that indicating alliance rather than support on the NVN side.

However, the infobox docs go on to say: "If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." Also, the article points out that the SVN government surrendered to the PRG (not to NVN) on April 30. Perhaps this needs discussion here.

Re the "etc." in the header of this section ...

The infobox says as one point under Results:

That would have been on and following April 30, 1975. However, the PRG article says: "The Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (PRG), or the Republic of South Vietnam for short, was formed on June 8, 1969, by North Vietnam as a purportedly independent shadow government ...", giving an establishment date of June 8, 1969, not April 30, 1975 or some time subsequent to that.

That point clearly needs a rewrite.

In the article body, it says, "[Minh] ordered all ARVN troops 'to cease hostilities in calm and to stay where they are', while inviting the Provisional Revolutionary Government to engage in 'a ceremony of orderly transfer of power so as to avoid any unnecessary bloodshed in the population.'" (emphasis mine). However, "Saigon's Surrender Texts", in translation here say: "I ask the brother soldiers of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam to cease hostilities. We wait here to meet the provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam to discuss together a ceremony of orderly transfer of power so as to avoid any unnecessary bloodshed in the population. ...", which sounds to me like a unilateral capitulation while looking to formalize that as a surrender to the PRG (pointedly not as a surrender to NVN).

How about rewriting that infobox Results point to something like:

  • Capitulation of SVN government and transfer of power to the PRG.

with, possibly, "North and South were merged as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in July 1976 and the PRG was dissolved." either following that, stated as an additional bullet point, removed to a footnote, or omitted. I would favor the third or fourth option there, as that information is outside of the topic of this article.

This may seem like nitpicking, but I think these nits need to be picked. Comments/discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:44, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that they needed to be reordered but have changed it to North Vietnam and the Viet Cong/PRG, because the Viet Cong played an active, if secondary, role in the fighting, that amounted to more than just support for the PAVN. I agree with your comments on Results but will leave it to you to make the changes.Mztourist (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made that further change here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional/continued discussion

After completion of the above, this edit was made by Mztourist, with a summary saying Undid revision 933988311 by Virtuous09 (talk)you are wrong, it was a North Vietnamese offensive, take it to Talk Page. Looking back, I see that the edit reverted here was this one by Virtuous09., with a summary saying Undid revision 933620414 by Mztourist (talk) The order of the belligerents are already correct, no need to reorder them. Looking at editor stats, I see that Virtuous09 is relatively new as a registered editor, though the 09 portion of that username makes me wonder. In any case, the issue is now on the talk page -- here and above -- please gain consensus through discussion here rather than edit warring with article revisions. I will follow this up with messages on the talk pages of both other editors. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing more to add than what I said above. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That is completely fine with me. 🧧Virtuous🧧 ❔ 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
However, I am more or less concerned about the strengths section as seen in this [4]. This article denotes specifically the strength of both belligerents at the time of the fall of Saigon, not the entire war in which this piece of information was extracted from. In this revision, it already shows the strength data of the North and South at 120,000 and 31,000, respectively. I later replaced that information with the info added in a later revision as a momentary solution to avoid an edit war and to keep the section organized, as the entire list was placed in the "South Vietnam" side. A more reliable and precise source should be found to replace it. 🧧Virtuous🧧 ❔ 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't follow your point. Are you saying that the forces engaged around Saigon were only 120,000 (North) and 31,000 (South)? Do you have a WP:RS that supports those figures? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I am not saying that there were 120,000 North and 31,000 South in Saigon; I am merely pointing out the fact that that piece of information had already been there for a while prior to the addition of what had been entirely extracted from the Vietnam War article. My point is that there should be more precise and reliable statistics, as in "x number" of North Vietnamese and "x number" of South Vietnamese forces at the time of the fall of Saigon, not "x number" of North Vietnamese forces in 1966 for example.🧧Virtuous🧧 ❔ 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If you can provide WP:RS of the strength for the PAVN and VC and the South Vietnamese at the time of the Fall of Saigon then go ahead and add them in.Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

infobox 'Result' section

I have reverted this WP:BOLD edit, but more needs to be done to fix pre-existing problems which led up to this edit. Please see the description of the result parameter at template:infobox military conflict/doc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fall_of_Saigon/Archive_1&oldid=1171942286"