Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Signing Off

WP:TALK WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's Memorial Day and as a disabled Vietnam veteran I'll just say that the US certainly did not lose the Vietnam War. I also think I won't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. It's pointless when you have editors like OrangeMike prowling Wikipedia making personal attacks against people and threatening them. Being an editor on Wikipedia seems to induce megalomania in people and invalidates Wikipedia. This is why so many people think Wikipedia is a joke. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC) 108.237.241.88, last year I wrote about Memorial Day. In part, it went something like this: The Memorial Day weekend signals the advent of summer, and many families have been out at the beach enjoying the warm weather as they tuned into yesterday’s centennial running of the Indianapolis 500, one of America’s great love affairs, open to the greatest drivers throughout the world, where the winner drinks milk instead of Champagne. However today is Memorial Day; it is a solemn day, for this is the time we honor those who have given their lives for our country. Earlier this morning I was thinking back to our War of Independence and the noble sacrifice of Nathan Hale, a young Patriot soldier who, while serving as an Army captain under General George Washington, was captured by the British in New York City less than three months after the signing of our Declaration of Independence. The British sentenced Nathan to death the next morning, and, as he was not in uniform when captured, he was to suffer death by hanging. On the morning of his execution (22 September 1776), Nathan was marched out under an armed guard to an apple tree where he stood calmly erect while the noose was placed around his neck. Before the noose was tightened, Nathan was asked if he had any last words? To which Nathan Hale, at barely twenty-one years of age, immortally declared, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” What a statement! -- “for my country – I only regret that I have but one life.” -- Betsy Ross had just created the first American flag only four months earlier, shortly before the “Representatives of the united States of America” assembled together to sign the Declaration of Independence, declaring that “these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, . . . that . . they have full Power to do all . . Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” When did we become a country? Was it in 1789 when our Constitution was ratified? Was it in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed and Great Britain recognized our independence? Or was it during July of 1776 when we declared our right to be free by signing the Declaration of Independence? I prefer to believe that we became a country when Nathan Hale pronounced his immortal words; I believe that his selfless sacrifice gave him that entitlement. Some of our country’s wars have sparked controversy, which will invariably be the case in a free society, such as our wars against Mexico and Spain back in the nineteenth century, but those issues are in the realm of politics and the decisions of our elected leaders, which should in no way detract us from expressing our appreciation for our young men and women in uniform presently in harm’s way, serving with the unshakeable conviction that they are safeguarding our country and protecting the many rights and advantages we are so privileged to enjoy as Americans. Over just the last ten days, six of our young Americans have been killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, the youngest being Ramon Mora, Jr., serving with the 1st Infantry Division, age nineteen, the same age as most of the soldiers in my platoon in Vietnam -- they gave everything, nothing more could be asked. Their sacrifices must not be forgotten. I ask that, on this solemn day, we take a moment for remembrance of those who have bravely given their lives for our country. Here’s to you 108.237.241.88.72.197.86.130 (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam Did Not Claim 5 Million Deaths

The estimate from Hanoi actually claimed that 2 million Vietnamese civilians, 1.1 million North Vietnamese soldiers, and an unknown number of South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war--as the New York Times reported. It was mistranslated as 2 million Northern civilians and 2 million Southern civilians--or more than 5 million total. In addition, the mistranslation cited here uses a broken link. The high figure should be changed to over three million. If you can find a higher estimate in a peer-reviewed journal like Population and Development Review or British Medical Journal, then feel free to add it. I doubt you will.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The source also does not say htat each sode sufferd 1,000,000 civilan deaths, that would be OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's the problem--the Vietnamese government did not divide the civilian deaths between North and South. I wasn't sure what to put for the high figure as a result. It might be 800,000 and 1.2 million, but again--the Vietnamese were just giving a rough approximation without specifics for either country.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Then don't and have a foot note.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Listing it as unknown might upset the total dead estimates offered in the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That is why you have a foot note, and explan that only the total is known not a breakdown.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to use Rummel's high figures (he gathers data for low and high estimates in addition to his mid-value estimate). But, if you would prefer, I am willing to alter the overall totals.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems that even Rummel's high is only 70,000 North Vietnamese civilians. I cannot seem to find any estimate that would even approach one million.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully it's fixed now. I just used the estimate of 182,000 North Vietnamese civilians mentioned elsewhere in the article, although I don't know if it's the best source. I added an explanation that Vietnam hasn't estimated the toll per country.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really as this is no where near the 2 million total that the North has estimated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the validity of using primary sources, in this case government statements, in the casualties box. Hanoi did not estimate military deaths for South Vietnam, so how did it estimate 2 million civilian deaths? By any standard, most of those must have been South Vietnamese civilians. The press release gives no indication that the figure is anything but an educated guess, that could possibly be exaggerated. The problem is, precisely, that even the highest estimates from other sources are several hundred thousand less. Thus, I just kept the Vietnamese estimate in the footnotes. But, certainly, I can understand using these official statistics for the high-end total.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

All of teh casualty figures are gueses, Thus I wuld use both sides arbitary numbers.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I tend to prefer what Stanley Karnow wrote in his book: “A senior officer in Hanoi later confided to me [Karnow] that nearly a million Communist troops had died and millions more were wounded. When I asked him to calculate the civilian total, he replied. ‘We haven’t the faintest idea.’” Source: Stanley Karnow, Vietnam: A History. (NY: Penguin Books, 1983), p. 23.72.197.86.130 (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Kronkite Quote

I added in a quote from Walter Kronkite from an editorial of his after the Tet Offensive. The quote is notable in that some scholars believe it helped move public opinion against the war. It is well sources by viable, notable, third party sources. If some one can think of a valid reason not to included it (aside from personal opinion), please post it here. --Korentop (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Then cite the bloody scholars, not gutter press. Read WP:HISTRS about appropriate sources, because the last time I checked F Moore isn't a historian, nor News Observer a scholarly journal; this "Who, What, When, Where, Why: Report from Vietnam by Walter Cronkite" is a primary source, and Broadcast News is published by a newspaper. These sources are grossly inappropriate, and are original research from primary sources. Revert yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are used in other articles on wikipedia, including Mr. Kronkites own biography. Why would they be ok there (been there for quite a while), but not ok here? --Korentop (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is widely recognised as an invalid argument. Besides Cronkite may be WEIGHTy in his own biograrphy, and as a journalist a biographical obit published in a newspaper may be relevant to WEIGHT an incident in Cronkite's life. It does not necessarily develop any weight in relation to an article about the entire Vietnam war. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The cited sources seem notable and reliable. I lean toward including it as relevant. Please, Fifelfoo, can we discuss this without the "bloody", "gutter", etc.? It's doesn't seem civil, nor does commanding someone to "revert yourself". — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that with a little effort it would be possible to find a scholarly source that backs up the "some scholars" line above. The subject of journalistic bias in the Vietnam War has been well-covered. Try Peter Braestrup for starters. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have quite frankly seen enough of people using trashy sources to support personal narratives regarding this article. This is a peak article regarding a long term war, and the article has been seriously distorted by people misusing appallingly low quality sources to support their personal opinions. Show me the contemporary, scholarly, accounts of the totality of the war (not just the "American experience") that place any WEIGHT on this journalist's particular mewlings. The editorial conduct suggested by using newspapers in a historical article against years of consensus on the appropriate sources for historical and military historical articles is absurd and purile. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are violating Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPOV. You have removed validly sourced material based on your personal opinion and have made personal attacks against me by twisting my words, making false accusations and insulting my character. New York Times is a valid source on wikipedia. The material I added is notable and has valid, third party, notable sources. --Korentop (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced the Cronkite ref with a third party source - Tet! by Don Oberdorfer. Mztourist (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense. If it's notable for the reasons given by Korentop, then it needs citing to such sources. Otherwise it's just an editor's opinion that scholars think something about it and thus it's notable. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

And now Jane Fonda against WP:HISTRS

Seriously, it isn't that hard. If you are citing non-scholarly sources, or scholarly sources that don't countenance the entire war as a whole, then your sources are shite. This is not US pop culture responses to being at war in Vietnam. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, not only did you violate Wikipedia:Civility and WP:NPOV, you deleted my comment from the talk page, which is another violation. I think we need to elevate the issue. -- Korentop (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS states, "Publications that are held in multiple academic libraries may be scholarly. The more libraries holding the work, the greater the implication that the work is held by academic libraries for its scholarly value; rather than as an example of popular opinion or fallacious scholarship." As I previously stated, New York Times fits the bill. -- Korentop (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

New York Times is shite as no NYT editor is a historian; and, your selective quoting of HISTRS is obvious indication of your tendentiousness. I apologise for giving the impression that I deleted your comment deliberately, it occurred as a result of an edit conflict, where the edit conflict window did not display that your edit had been committed to the database; I would never delete your comment deliberately. I propose that we take both of these diffs to WP:RS/N the reliable sources noticeboard. As I am a regular at WP:RS/N my taking the incidents there could bias the outcome, as users familiar with my reputation could comment based on my consistent history of RS/N rulings. I propose that you take the issue there (though I suggest that you supply full and academic citations). If you feel uncomfortable doing so, I suggest that we take it there together, editing a proposed RS/N query together. Please let me know how you would like to proceed so we can solicit the best uninvolved opinion from the reliable sources experts. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo the New York Times is regularly and widely used as a source on Wikipedia, what makes it unacceptable here and now? Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source for news obviously. That's not the main issue - which is should we be using this? If we do, it probably should be sourced from the academic literature. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I will not answer your personal attacks. I have already requested assistance from other administrators. -- Korentop (talk) 12:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify this: you are ignoring the reliable sourcing standards for this article WP:MILMOS#SOURCES and WP:HISTRS, you are soliciting, and you are avoiding the natural noticeboard escalations for this topic? I enjoin you to reverse the trajectory of your editing now. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If your going to keep the celebrity opposition sections (which I don't think is really needed), could there be celebrity opposition from other celebrities, not just jane fonda. You might call Opposition from Jane Fonda. And anyway there is no need for so much of her opinion. Her opinion less important than that of generals, politicians and historians. I don't really think comes to this page to learn about the Vietnam war and have to read a paragraph about what Jane Fonda thinks. So at very least have some info about other people who visited or opposed the vietnam war and replace some of the words regarding Jane Fonda with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.191 (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I don't like the ongoing demonisation of Jane Fonda because of her opposition to the Vietnam War, as I recall she has apologised to Veterans and POWS on a number of occasions, but that hasn't been put in the article. I think Jane Fonda and other celebrity opposition deserves some kind of mention, but the current section is too long and too specific to Jane Fonda. Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fonda's only "notable" (and I use that term very loosely) because of the picture of her with an anti-aircraft gun (IMO, anyhow). There were numerous celebrities during the later 1960s who opposed the war, many with far more eloquence than Fonda ever demonstrated (Country Joe and the Fish, anyone?). Still...it would most likely be better presented in a separate article. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion Request: It has been removed because Third Opinions are only available when only two editors are involved in the dispute. If you still wish to request dispute resolution, please use the dispute resolution noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Jane Fonda stuff has to go; there are three paragraphs on the entire anti-war movement, having an entire paragraph about Fonda is a clear weight problem. In comparison, Kent State and My Lai each get what, a sentence? As for the sources, Snopes has to go, and who is Andersen? There isn't a corresponding full citation to go with the short-form footnote. Parsecboy (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a full paragraph regarding Fonda. If you are gonna have something under "Celebrity Opposition" then maybe along the lines: "Many celebrities including Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Fonda etc travelled to North Vietnam to voice opposition to US involvement" Have something along those lines and maybe a couple sentences regarding more specific descriptions of these visits such as a quote by Jane Fonda. Although there is really little need for the section at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.215.191 (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see a moral hazard with the earlier quote, but this entire section on Fonda belongs in her biography and should obviously be removed entirely. At best, one sentence mentioning celebrity opposition might be acceptable--not a paragraph about Fonda alone.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Fonda stuff seems hopelessly American-centric. While some Americans continue to obsess about her activities during the war, it doesn't have any actual relevance to the war and is of little interest in the other countries which were involved (grumpy old right-wing Australians sometimes still obsess over the fact that some protesters flew North Vietnamese flags at anti-war rallies, and this obviously doesn't belong in this article as it has no wide significance). Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's American-centric, because her opposition is usually framed with reference to its impact on the U.S. public's support of the conflict. While the impact of her personal activities are clearly debatable, I do think there's reason to have a separate article regarding Celebrity Opposition to Vietnam. Jane was simply one of many (and not the most notable by any stretch), and if you frame it that way you could include other protestors. Celebrity opposition played a role in anti-war narratives both at the time and after (and also in the pro-involvement dialogs), so I honestly don't think we can push it aside as having no actual relevance to the war. It just most likely doesn't belong in this article in any detail. Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Intothatdarkness; a topic may be notable in and of itself, but WEIGHTless in terms of a much broader topic. We don't discuss "Australian small arms of the Vietnam war" in Vietnam war, nor should we. The content, structure, weight and opinion present in an article needs to reflect the scope of that article as found in the preponderance of relevant sources (for a history article such as this) that's scholarly sources. Celebrity opposition to the Vietnam war sounds like a great article. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there any special reason the existing article on the subject, Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, couldn't be expanded with this material? BusterD (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd depend on WEIGHTing amongst the most significant texts in the field for Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fairly sprawling article as it is. I'd suggest possibly taking the Popular Antiwar Music section out and merging it with a Celebrity Opposition article. The bulk of the Opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War is focused on political opposition so it might make sense to "spin off" the popular culture element. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Although I expect that it was not an easy or painless business, I am not sure that the casualty figures quoted here for the immediate aftermath of the Vietminh takeover in North Vietnam are based on reliable sources. The references quoted seem like a scrappy and difficult to read sheet of figures, or a broken link, or what form its title looks like a rather partisan source. PatGallacher (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I just added Turner's Vietnamese Communism, RAND's "On the Question of Communist Reprisals in Vietnam," Lam Thanh Liem, and the US government's "Human Cost of Communism in Vietnam." Thank you for pointing out that the Radio Free Asia link was broken; I have fixed it. I think Steve Rosefielde does qualify as a reliable source, although I don't know for sure.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hoang Van Chi could be another source, if anyone has read From Colonialism to Communism. Or Tongas, if anyone can read French.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that the estimates cited here vary widely because there were several different "reforms" in the fifties (often modeled on those of China, such as Mao's "Hundred Flowers" campaign): "Rent reduction," "political struggle," and "land reform." There were several rebellions suppressed, along with camps, slave labor, executions, famine, ect. Not all estimates cover the same time period or causes. And then there's the fact that the numbers were manipulated for partisan reasons by those who supported and by those who opposed US involvement in Indochina. President Nixon even claimed that half a million people died in concentration camps from 1953 to 1956--whereas Rummel put the figure at a conservative 24,000.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Canada?

This page is in the category 'wars involving Canada', but wasn't Canada very pointedly neutral in this conflict? 94.193.234.10 (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

They're included because of their involvement with the International Control Commission. Don't know how justified it is to have that category though, since they didn't actually fight in it.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Third parties" are relatively common in the post 1945 environment. I would suggest discussing this at WP:MILHIST's talk page as a matter of policy formation? Fifelfoo (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

5 Million dead and RJ Rummell?

First of all why was there a removal of the AFP source that said there were 5 million dead? Agence France Presse was also cited online (that online citation is also cited in this and other articles). AFP said that there were 2 million civilians killed in both North and South making the civilian toll 4 million in addition to the 1.1 million military deaths.

The other issue is regarding RJ Rummell; his estimates on Vietnam have not been cited anywhere outside of this article making it an issue of WP:Undue; his estimates are very low considering most low estimates put total Vietnamese dead at about one million, not in the tens of thousands. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Grover Furr is not an adequate archivist or translator of AFP news wires. AFP may be adequate (if the original is located, or reported in an appropriate newspaper) if it is accurate to what the government of Vietnam reported. The government of Vietnam's opinion is of course relevant, and AFP is an adequate source regarding the Government of Vietnam's opinion, if such an AFP wire existed. Regarding Rummel's adequacy, Rummel does not publish his death estimates in a peer reviewed forum. I would suggest you take Rummel's estimates to the reliable sources noticeboard and follow their question format guide. The reliable sources noticeboard is good at answering complex sourcing questions regarding potentially scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, the source you provided is a self-published website that uses a "rough translation" to denounce "US imperialism" and mourn "5,000,000 Vietnamese workers". It's a blatantly unreliable source. As I mentioned before, reputable outlets like The New York Times translated the figure as 2 million civilians. To my knowledge, the claim of 2 million in the north and another 2 million in the south is widely known to be a mistranslation popularized by a random guy on the Internet. Certainly, the source provided doesn't inspire confidence. You can add a higher total if you have a better source. Rummel's sources vary in credibility, but his estimate of 1.7 million deaths in the war isn't out of the ordinary. Off topic: CD, could you comment here and explain where the source you added to Rudolph Rummel originates, and if it was ever published?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

5 million?! That's too high of a death toll. I remembered the death toll in the war, and only the war (excluding those killed in North VN land reform and purges of reactionaries and South VN purges of communists), North to South, was around 2 - 3 million, including foreign troops. Rummel's claim of 1.7 million is more realistic, however I believe its slightly higher than that. Don't use blogs for sources please, usually they're biased onto one side. Statistics from the communist Vietnamese government is NOT reliable at all, as with other communist sources and stats and info from communist governments, they often downplay or exaggerate actual events and facts to their benefit, and don't often publicize the true reality. In this case, exaggerating the death toll to 4 million from the actual 2 million benefits the communist regime in blaming America for a war they claimed is made by America, of which they called the ""American" War", which they blamed kill many people. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The Vietnamese government is probably not a reliable source in the sense of being trustworthy, but most editors seem to agree that its POV merits inclusion here. I'm just surprised that Hanoi's official estimate wasn't high enough for some people, so they decided to double it using a mistranslation. It's not as though 3 million soldiers/civilians isn't tragic enough, or even 1 or 2 million. Blogs are frowned upon for many reasons, and you don't need to remind us of the problems they tend to have.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go read WP:V and WP:IRS Nguyen1310. Your assessment of reliability differs radically and fundamentally from Wikipedia's consensus, and is not the way forward here. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen1310 certainly doesn't hide his POV. He should be careful not to let it prejudice his edits.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Good advice, however, that advice should be addressed to most WP editors. Meanwhile, the work cited by CartoonDiablo (Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston and Vu Manh Loi) looks quite reliable. It was published in a Population Council journal, and this publication has been cited 38 times. Interestingly, the figures provided there do not contradict to Nguyen1310's assertion that the number of 1.7 million is reasonable. Therefore, Nguyen1310's "non-neutral" views seem to be closer to what reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I completely agree that Nguyen1310's number is a sound estimate--I was the one that first mentioned the estimate! And most of his edits have been, I believe, helpful. I just wanted to reprimand him less harshly than Fifelfoo did. On your other point: CartoonDiablo didn't add Hirschman. Again, I added Hirschman to this article (about 2 years ago). His estimate is actually far lower than Rummel's. Population and Development Review estimated that fewer than one million Vietnamese soldiers/civilians died in the war. Currently, that is mentioned in the lede as a low estimate. The high estimate of over 3 million is the Vietnamese government estimate. CartoonDiablo tried to add a blog that mistranslated the Vietnamese estimate as 5 million, and I reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I remember very well that a former editor by the name of "YellowMonkey" deleted this low estimate as "right-wing POV pushing". He had a real vendetta with me. He got banned for other reasons, but I was blocked for a week after edit warring with the guy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert above, as most people have their own POVs, its just a matter of of being more milder or stronger than others, and how much it impacts you, and yes we should not let our views go to our edits, so I wish to thank Paul for that. Yes I have my own POV, but I don't try to let it get to me, and the content I add into articles are true, and whenever I can, add proper citations for it. Oh yes, YellowMonkey often came into conflict with me a few years ago for trying to make Vietnam War articles more one-sided (you can see their POV on their user page, that says in Vietnamese, to "not listen to what reactionaries [overseas] say", with a hammer-and-sickle sign under it). I remembered that Rosefielde of Uni. of North Carolina said it was 2 - 3 million for a death toll in the war, that I read on the web a while back, so I'll try to find that back and add the link here. And to Fifelfoo, you need to address that message to blatantly pro-communist editors that Ive seen on Wiki, there's 2 of them and I'm watching them, as I caught them adding their POV into articles and blanking whole sections of things that they just didn't like, which are things that I DON'T do. Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a warning regarding Battleground. It is not appropriate to claim that other editors are "blatantly pro-communist." I don't need to address anything other than ensuring historical articles are written out of scholarly historical sources. You seem to believe that you have a personal and extraordinary capacity to evaluate the worthiness of scholarly history based on what you believe to be its political content. You don't. We write based on the preponderance of academic sources in wikipedia's voice, and we note the existence of scholarly positions as well. We exclude opinion and fact drawn from unreliable sources, or sources which are not scholarly. This is all we do. If the historical scholarship becomes RVN revanchevist over night, and all historians agree this is the truth, then this is what we write. If all historians become US nationalists over night, and all historians agree this is the truth, then this is what we write. If all historians lionise the DRVN, then guess what wikipedia does? We don't make decisions about neutrality—neutrality is representing what the common scholarly opinion is. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm sorry if I'm being harsh. It is incredibly frustrating to have people attempt to relive tired political debates, over and over again. We don't do that. We're an encyclopaedia. We report what the experts agree on, and when experts disagree. Experts agree that the Vietnamese Government's opinion regarding mortality attributable to the US phase of the wars in Vietnam is notable. If they discuss it at depth then we probably need an article on Estimates of deaths during the Vietnam War where we discuss how experts agree that one source is good, and another bad, or disagree about a third source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is so. YellowMonkey did indeed decorate his page with a hammer and sickle.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Uh, YellowMonkey concentrated strongly on the history of the RVN, and edited primarily "admirable" RVN figures and dissidents. YellowMonkey did not concentrate on DRVN or NFL figures. It is curious to accuse him of having edited with an anti-RVN bias. YM edited based on broad and deep reading of reliable sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarifying the 5 million and Rummell

Sorry for not being a part of the discussion for a while but let me clarify; looking back the figure is closer to 4 million. As far as I can tell, there is no archived AFP release for that day that indicates that number, most casualty figures (including those by Chomsky) are lower. The best highest estimates are by Tucker (>3,100,000) and Obermeyer (3,812,000).

By that same token however, the Rummell figures are self-published and not peer-reviewed. The best lowest estimate of the war is by the Correlates of War Project which put it at 1,021,442.

Anyways I hope that helped clear things up as this requires attention for the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not using Rummel for the low figure. His figure is around the average. The low figure is from Population and Development Review. Thank you for pointing out these sources for higher estimates. This article's current high is somehow even higher.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

what does the MOS say on this point? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

This kind of discussion doesn't belong here, but at the talk page of WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), which I linked to above. But since you asked, here are the guidelines:

• "For foreign names, phrases, and words generally, adopt the spellings most commonly used in English-language references for the article, unless those spellings are idiosyncratic or obsolete. " (MOS:FOREIGN)
• "Spell a name consistently in the title and the text of an article." (MOS:FOREIGN)
• "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)" (WP:DIACRITICS) Kauffner (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Error in data table

The western ally forces had South Korean soldiers, but in data table there is an error that shows 50k North Koreans fought for them. It should be change to South Koreans. North Koreans fought for communists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.125.249.166 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I'll change it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, this was actually fixed by one editor but I reverted it thinking he'd changed "South" to "North". I dun goofed. Sorry, Eper1709.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Weapons table wrong

There are few errors in weapons table for NVA and Viet Cong. BTR-60 and BMP-1 were introduced in Vietnamese army post-war in late 1970's. There are no Chinese-made weapons listed, as Type 59 MBT, Type 62 light tank, Type 63 APC and S-75 Divna (SA-2) SAM is wrongly put as air-to-surface missile. That should be corrected.--Kos93 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Won, Nobody Lost

I think the confusion about who won in the Vietnam War can be explained: there was no surrender document, just the peace treaty, the Paris Peace Accord. All the participating countries were still extant when the US pulled out of Vietnam. The Japs signed a surrender document in WWII, so they obviously lost. In Vietnam nobody lost. So everybody's all trying to figure out who won. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don’t know if it serves any purpose to get into semantics. WW I ended with an armistice between the Allies and Germany, though not technically a surrender, most everyone agreed it represented a clear defeat for Germany.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

We go with what the bulk of RS say, and they say the north won, and the USA lost.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The USA brought North Vietnam to its knees with the Christmas bombing and forced the North to sign the Paris Peace Accords, thus ending the war for the USA, so I don't think anybody can claim the USA lost. Three years after the USA left Vietnam the South lost. And I think we can say that Laos and Cambodia lost although it was a very confusing situation. The Viet Cong certainly lost since they were mostly wiped out. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If you just look at the wikipedia page for Linebacker II you'll see that North Vietnam wasn't "brought to his knees". The terms of the Paris Peace Accords were the ones already agreed on in October, all new US proposals (the reasons of the breakdown of the talks and of the bombing campaign) were cancelled. No removal of North Vietnamese troops from South Vietnam, no recognition of the DMZ as the actual border, no all indochina wide ceasefire. The idea the bombing succeded to bring the North Vietnamese to the diplomatic table was just a spinning story of the Nixon government to avoid telling the Nation that, after years of war, billions spent and the death of thousands of American young men, the US were going to sign a treaty hugely favourably to North Vietnam and that everybody knew was a death sentence for South Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.86.34 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

There is also a susgerstion that NV allowed the USA to make this claim because the Paris accord so favourd them that they wanted to save the US's face to make it more likely the US legialature would find it acceptable.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, USA have lost, and I will tell you why. The objective of this war was to prolong the exsitence of South Vietnam, which was almost overrun before the USA involvment. America had withdrawl from the war - whatever the reason was it is irrelevant, they have simply lost the political will to fight. After that North conquered South, and of the story. So, was the objective achieved? No. Had the USA retreated? Yes. I believe that the current section of war result is a proper one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.255.2.148 (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the USA lost. It is clear the North won but not at a complete victory. USA losing is no different than saying Germany lost during WWI. USA withdraw at a time when it believed it was not going to win, S. Vietnam lost at there own accord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.194.1 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about this persistent and recurring question as to whether or not the U.S. lost the war. Perhaps we can refer back to Carl von Clauswitz who argued that war must necessarily serve a political purpose, and say that in the United States the military serves under civilian political leaders, because fighting and war must necessarily serve a political purpose, for war without a political objective would be irrational; it would simply be war for war’s sake, and therefore utterly senseless. Once the political goals are achieved there is obviously no longer any rational purpose in continuing with the fighting. It is for the political leaders to determine when the political objectives have been achieved, or when victory is no longer attainable, and it is for these leaders to decide when hostilities are to cease. I contend that the U.S. did determine that victory was no longer attainable, and though this might not be construed as a clear defeat, it was certainly something less than victory.72.197.86.130 (talk) 05

39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The claims that the USA did not lose are pure semantics. North Vietnam, throughout, aimed to hurt the Americans until they agreed to leave, then defeat the South Vietnamese, and that's exactly what happened. America aimed to preserve the capitalist nation of South Vietnam. Blaming the South Vietnamese is clearly unfair when you remember that the Paris Peace Accord allowed North Vietnamese soldiers to stay in South Vietnam, on the grounds that the North Vietnamese did not accept it was not their country. That had been the sticking point in the negotiations for years, and it was the Americans who were forced to concede the point. Mankytoes (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The US never went to war with North Vietnam, and the Paris treaty fulfilled most of its demands for a withdrawal from Vietnam. Yet 2 months after the US withdrew the North violated the ceasefire and invaded the South once again, a tactic that was very reminiscent of what they did to the French backed treaty. The US intervention was successful in bringing about the desired result that US sets out to do, get a ceasefire between North and South, stabilize the region, and enforce the French treaty, but a new war broke out as soon the US left.

There are two ways of looking at the war(s) in Vietnam. As a single war, or a series of wars. I belive a single war viewpoint is very flawed because it involved a series of peace treaties, multiple countries, and stretched from since before WW2 to the 1980s.

From the Us standpoint, Vietnam was a victory. Yet the victory was not lasting because North Vietnam's violations which can easily be seen as a calculated manipulation, relaunched the war soon after the US withdrew and over-ran the South 3 years later. Yet the insurgency of the South lasted for quite some time, resulting in North Vietnam invading Cambodia and China intervening. The situation is infinitely more complicated and confusing if one views it as a single war, rather than a series of wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The US went to war in South Vietnam to remove North Vietnamese forces and remove comunist influence, the Paris accords allowed for both. Also the P{aris accors required US intervention if NV violated them, the US did not intrevene again. At best the Paris accords put the conflict into the saem status it has been before US ground intervention, at worst it gave NV everything they coud want and the US a few months in which to save faceSlatersteven (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Gulf of Tonkin resolution - date is wrong

Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution on 7 August, 1964 - not 4 August as indicated in the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.119.190 (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

yep looks like an error http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=98Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the date, conforming info here with info in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution article, citing the supporting source cited there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of the war in Vietnamese

In Vietnamese, the usual name of the war is Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War). My English-Vietnamese dictionary gives this translation and only this translation. Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resist America war) is a propaganda name. Chiến tranh cứu nước (war of national salavation) is far less commonly used than either of the others and is more a description than a name. The "Names for the War" section gives a pretty good explanation. There is no reason for the footnote in the opening sentence, which should be uncluttered. So I have removed it. Kauffner (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that putting that that information doesn't need to be in a footnote (it seems to me that this is just a way of mimicking "real" academic writing that puts large chunks if text in footnotes for editorial reasons that don't apply to us) I would like to remind editors not to edit war but work out a consensus on the talk page first.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where was this English/veitnamese doctionary published?

Ho Chi Minh City. This is the Lac Viet dictionary. Kauffner (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While working in Hanoi for 3 years, in every reference and discussion with both government persons and ordinary individuals, the war was referred to as The American War. There are countless books referring to it either as The American War or one of the more formal names used above. I will find some references next time I am there.RayTayMiht (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kauffner in keeping the name of the war used on this article to only "Vietnam War", as it is the name by which the war is most commonly referred as in the English-speaking world, coinciding with English Wikipedia. Adding a slew of names that only (communist) Vietnamese use to refer to the war would make this article inconcise and too long, and this topic is already covered in another article about the war naming. I also disagree with the idea of adding a bunch of POV-laden, propagandized names that communist-supporting/-sympathizing Vietnamese refer to the war; people in the former South (and even to a degree among Southerners today), and most Overseas Vietnamese refer to the war as "Chien Tranh Viet Nam", not "American War", "War of national salvation and liberation" and others. I'm not surprised that Hanoians refer to the war as the "American War", that's the name they have been indoctrinated to use for many years and it's now a habit for them. As well, the term "American War" is wrong, since not all, not even most, Vietnamese banded together to fight the US, in reality, its the Soviet and Chinese-backed North and its Vietcong counterpart fighting the US and Free World-backed South. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree in keeping the name in the article Vietnam War, I do object to the claim that the Vietnamese call it The Vietnam War, particularly when this is referenced on a misunderstanding of how most Vietnamese dictionaries come about. What the Vietnamese in America call the war is also different from the Vietnamese in the UK. It is enough to leave the name unmentioned, except for a single line saying that in Vietnam it is known as The American War. Accordingly, I am rewriting the section on names.RayTayMiht (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In Saigon, it's "the war." Every English-speaking Vietnamese I have met calls it that. Usage for Chiến tranh Việt Nam is about five times that of Kháng chiến chống Mỹ, according to Insights. Kauffner (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Olson and Roberts source

I removed it because aside from it being a possible unreliable source given the context of the origins of the war (in contrast to Arthur Schlesinger, Pentagon Papers etc. but that's debatable) it's not used in the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there some kind of rule that says if a source isn't used elsewhere in the main text, it should just be removed?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I added it to the main text, right alongside some sources that disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Weapons section reduced to summary and link to Weapons of the Vietnam War section views?

How about less detail here and more summary style in the Weapons section with the Weapons of the Vietnam War article specified as {{main|Weapons of the Vietnam War}}? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree,I see no point having all these details of the weapons used in the main article. You would never see all this info in any history book of the Vietnam War. I think the article should cover what actually happen not the weapons that were used.I would support just a very small summary with a link to the section Weapons of the Vietnam War. The article is pretty long as it is.Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur. It's mostly clutter in the article as is. Andrew Gray (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Are there anymore views on this? I count 3 for summary and removal.Zrdragon12 (talk) 02:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also for summary and removal. --Sus scrofa (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal, makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have removed most of the article and moved it to the weapons of the Vietnam war page. I deleted one section which was basically a list of weapons because they are already listed on the other page. I have left a summary which might need editing or re jigging.Zrdragon12 (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

USA won

USA won the Vietnam war. Why doesn't it say that in the article?--109.246.40.108 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's because they didn't. AutomaticStrikeout 21:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What we think of this is irrelevant. What matters it what the mainstream academic consensus is, as found in reliable sources. AFAIK, Vietnam is known as the "first war America lost" etc., and I believe this is in line with what most historians think too. I might be wrong on what the mainstream consensus is, but the Wikipedia way is to post sources that say otherwise, not endlessly debate the meaning of the word "winning". It might be that the view that the US won the war is a significant minority view among the academia, and then that view can get its own section, but shouldn't be included in the article proper. Notable, non-academic opinion can be mentioned, but should be clearly marked as not coming from experts. We base our edits on reliable sources, or otherwise we'd have to include all sorts of wild ideas (such as the John Birch society's idea that Vietnam was so badly handled that it had to be started by secret Communist agents in the US government to promote Communism).--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Viet Cong founded

I don't have a problem, with this edit, but it not true that the Vietcong was founded in 1960. The first citation for this word in OED is dated 1957. The thing has to exist before there can be a word for it. The Vietcong leaders traced the origin of the group to the Saigon-Cholon Peace Committee, which was founded in 1954. The group did change its name in 1960, but it also changed its name on several other occasions. Kauffner (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, there were anti-Diem resistance forces since day one of the partition. I think a source of confusion is the fact that the name "Viet-Cong" for these forces predates the founding of the National Liberation Front in 1959 or 1960. AFAIK, the National Liberation Front was new in that it was a common front meant to gather all resistance to the South Vietnam government, not just communists (though still under the command of the Vietnamese Communist Party). But IIRC there was non-communists fighting alongside the communists against Diem even before that (some religious group whose name escapes me at the moment that had its own militia) so the situation is a bit confusing.--Sus scrofa (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

North Korea in support role

This is arguing more techical lines than anything. Should North Korea be counted as taking direct action rather than support? Because there is evidence that the NKAF took direct action against allied forces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.24.73 (talk • contribs)

Could you provide an example and a source for this?--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Right on the page of nation who took sides, it clearly says North Korean sent 200 pilots with fight squads and AA crews in North Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.24.73 (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should of course had checked the article first, before asking for sources. You are correct and I'll change NK from "supported" to "active" momentarily.--Sus scrofa (talk) 17:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Spain?

Hello,

I've seen that Spain was added as supporter on the side of the anti-communist forces and the note says: "Spain sent a medical team to Co Gong Province in 1965." with this source: http://www.history.army.mil/books/Vietnam/allied/

The same source also says that the following countries sent medical teams to Vietnam: Japan, Iran, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Canada

Should they be added? Else Spain should also be removed.

What do you think?

Best Regards

91.45.24.67 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's a source and it says these countires were there too, yep they should be added.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

can someone add them? The article is protected, so I can't.

Thanks and Regards

91.45.19.196 (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

OK take this to ANI or another notice board. If the pair of you (Mig an Times) don't resolve this I will report it to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the dispute correctly, the main problem is with this sentence:

"In the north, the Viet Minh ruled as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and engaged in a drastic land reform program in which more than 100,000 perceived "class enemies" were executed.[94][95][96]"

and subsequent information. Unfortunately, this text is based mostly on non-peer-reviewed sources. I would recommend to look at three articles:

1. D. Gareth Porter, The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam's Land Reform Reconsidered (Ithaca Cornell University IREA Project, 1972). A shorter but more reliable version of this paper was published in The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. V, No. 2, September 1973, pp. 2-15.
2. Edwin E. Moise. Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam. Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 70-92.
3. Balazs Szalontai. Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56, Cold War History, vol 11, no 2, May 2005, pp. 155-195.

These sources are top quality reliable sources, and the information from them would allow us to resolve the dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I re-wrote the disputed paragraph using the sources listed above and Margolin's chapter from the Black Book of Communism. I removed odd web sites, Cold war era sources, and conservative sources (such as Hoover Institution). In my opinion, the sources used by me are best quality reliable secondary sources that reflect contemporary mainstream viewpoint. I hope that will stop the edit war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am puzzled with this revert, especially with the edit summary ("There needs to some discussion on the talk page Siebert, before such drastic changes to the paragraph like these can be done.") If discussion is needed, why didn't Stumink join the discussion I started. In particular, it would be interesting to see the reason why best quality peer-reviewed secondary sources appeared to be replaced back with highly questionable and obsolete non-peer-reviewed sources. I am waiting for explanations, otherwise I'll restore my edits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The normal figure for land reform is in hundreds of thousands and is common and reliably sourced. You cannot just completely remove all mention of this range of figures and only mention some incredibly low figure. Why is this mathematician Edwin E. Moise's 5,000 figure more reliable than all the other estimates from University professors, analysts or defectors etc. Also you say you removed cold war era sources but two of the sources above mentioned are from the 70's. Stumink (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We should mention the range of figures.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A range could work. Stumink (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's review some of the evidence for mass killings.

• According to Lam Thanh Liem, a major authority on land issues in Vietnam: "Vo Nhan Tri, at the request of the Hanoi government, wrote a book, Croissance économique de la Répubique démocratique du Vietnam (Economic Growth in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam). Having been given this task, the author was allowed to access the documents in the Prime Minister’s archives, where he "found and read a top-secret report on the number of communist cadres falsely accused and executed: 15,000." Ho Chí Minh, in an attempt to hide the truth, reduced this number to 10,000 when he addressed an assembly of Party members, confessing to having killed a number of “innocent victims." "Of course, this number of so-called ‘innocent victims’ would be much greater," according to Vo Nhan Trí.

In South Vietnam, Nguyen Van Canh, a former Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Information and Amnesty (1969-70), sought an answer to this problem by interviewing returnees from Chieu Hoi programs and interrogating POWs, including communist cadres, soldiers, and officers from the North. These interviews and interrogations produced a great deal of valuable and reliable information. Ultimately Nguyen Van Canh was able to generate an estimate of 200,000 victims, which he divided into 2 main categories:

— 100,000 accused and murdered during the period before 1955, excluding another 40,000 victims who were sent to various concentration camps in the mountain areas. Here most of them died of malaria or other epidemic diseases.

— 100,000 killed during phase 5, the last phase of the reform campaign, known as the Dien Bien Phu General Offensive, which ended in summer 1956. Thousands of others, most of them rich farmers and land owners, were sent to concentration camps for "reeducation."

Of more than 200,000 victims executed, 40,000 (20%) were communist cadres, according to Nguyen Van Canh."

• Liem also notes: "According to official statistics, the outcome of the land reform was an award of more than 800,000 hectares of land and rice paddies, plus 100,000 cows and water buffalo, redistributed to 2 million farmers. Nearly 150,000 houses and huts were allocated to new occupants. These estates had been in the possession of people classified as "indigenous oppressors, reactionaries, or traitorous elements." These figures are quite significant in relation to the number of murdered victims. Another estimate for the period 1952-6 was about 150,000 executed."
• According to RFA: "More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show."
• According to Anita Lauve Nutt and Gerard Tongas, 10 people per village were designated as guilty in advance.
• "To set [the] ratio at 5.68 percent of the population as landowners is ‘far too high to compare with the actual situation,’" according to an official publication, The History of the Vietnamese Economy, Vol. 2, edited by Dang Phong of the Institute of Economy, Vietnamese Institute of Social Sciences, and published in 2005. The book describes eight phases of mass mobilizing and five phases of land reform launched in 3,314 communes with a total population of 10 million. It says 700,000 hectares were confiscated from landowners and distributed to about 4 million farmers: a total of 44.6 percent of total cultivated land.
• PaulSiebert has some nerve to attack serious historians like Robert F. Turner for being conservative, while citing actual communist genocide deniers in his rebuttal. Still, even some left-wing experts, like Douglas Pike, have acknowledged a death toll in six digits.

What is PaulSiebert's evidence that this massacre never took place? After all, dissident publications, communist defectors, and foreign witnesses are all in agreement as to what occurred. In short, PaulSiebert is attempting to combat reality with official reality:

• Gareth Porter is a communist genocide denier who praised and enthusiastically supported both the North Vietnamese communists and the Khmer Rouge. If he is accepted as a credible source in this instance, then we must also accept his "estimate" that the Khmer Rouge killed a few thousand people. I have read Porter's denial propaganda (the Stalinist crank Grover Furr posted it online), and--like Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution--it relies almost exclusively on communist sources (such as Nhan Dan newspaper) to challenge the claims of a bloodbath. Porter also denied the Hue Massacre and called Hoang Van Chi a CIA agent for accepting a grant from the Congress for Cultural Freedom. He could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating.
• Edwin E. Moise relied on official sources such as the Communist Party newspaper. These sources, he wrote, were "extremely informative" and showed "a fairly high level of honesty" (Moise, "Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam," Pacific Affairs, Spring 1976, pp70-92). His approach – comparable to writing a study of Soviet crimes based on reports in Pravda–resulted in massive blunders such as denying the Chinese role in the land reform. (On the Chinese role, see Qiang Zhai, China and the Vietnam Wars, 1950-1975, University of North Carolina Press, 2000.)

This is what passes for scholarship on the "anti-imperialist" left.

• Finally, there is MiG29VN, who persists in adding large chunks of material selectively copied from other Wikipedia articles while refusing discussion, and who I will soon revert. Please read Nutt's article for a thorough debunking of MiG's main argument.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think, the sources are unreliable raise it at RSN.Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll note that MiG has continued to make large changes without engaging in discussion. Regarding the reliability of Moise and Porter: Porter has no training as a historian and no expertise on Vietnam. However, the more important point is notability. Moise might technically be a reliable source, and he does not hide the fact that he relies on official communist sources; he actually defends this practice. However, I'm not convinced that his views are particularly notable, much less that they supersede all other sources entirely.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And it appears that others disagree, take it to appropriate notice boards. No one has a right to state that a source is wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"supersede all other sources entirely" - Remember, I didn't remove any TheTimesAreAChanging's source. The reader will decide to belive who's source. May be you don't belive them, but you haven't authority to remove valid sources (sorry i can not speak Eng good)MiG29VN (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No one owns a page, and no one user has a right to determine what are and are not acceptable sources. I have asked you both to stop editing and one has refused by actions and one by words, I have now reported this to ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"No one owns a page, and no one user has a right to determine what are and are not acceptable sources" - I agree, and i will stop if TheTimesAreAChanging will not remove my valid sourceMiG29VN (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stumink writes: "The normal figure for land reform is in hundreds of thousands and is common and reliably sourced." I would like to see those sources, because the source provided by me (Moise) say that

"Most accounts published in the West have described the land reform as a bloodbath, though there has been a great range of estimates of the number of people killed. The highest, by Richard Nixon, is that 500,000 were executed and another 500,000 died in slave labor camps. What might be called a "standard" estimate, by Bernard Fall, was that about 50,000 were executed."

In other words, we have an authoritative opinion (I believe noone doubts the article published in peer-reviewed scholarly journal is a top quality reliable source) that 50,000 was a standard estimate by 1976 (the date of publication). BTW, the same figure is provided by Margolin (who, along with Werth, is considered the best contributor to the Black Book of Communism). The same figure is reproduced by Szalontai (see above). All those sources are good quality reliable sources, and all of them (except Margolin) have been vetted by scholarly community. In addition, we have a good article authored by Porter, whose conclusions are supported by Moise and Szalontai, and who confirm that the most plausible number of executions was below 10,000.

In connection to that, let's compare these sources with the sources the article is currently based on.

1. Rummel's personal web site
2. Turner's old book published by Hoover Institution, which is known to be "influential in the American conservative and libertarian movements." (i.e. politically non-neutral)
3. RAND corporation (non-peer-revieved) report. This organisation is financed by the US government and it is hardly neutral.
4. Radio Free Asia article. The radio station was founded by the US Congress, its publications may reflect (or be affected by) US official viewpoint, and they are not peer-reviewed.
5. Rosefielde is a good scholar, but he is a specialist in Soviet history[1]. His data on Vietnam seem to be taken from publications of others.
6. Documents prepared for the US government (from [2]). A non-peer-revieved publication that seem to reflect US viewpoint.
7. Turner's article in American conservative magazine.
8. Lam Thanh Liem's opinion (I would like to see the same opinion in some peer-reviewed publication, or to see neutral review on Lam Thanh Liem himself).
9. Rummel's personal web site again.
10. An article from the popular magazine Life - hardly too reliable.
11. Porter's article (meets RS criteria)
12. Christine Pelzer White's book (meets RS criteria)

In connection to that, I have to ask three questions:

1. Why the claims about 100,000+ executions are supported mostly by popular magazines, politically biased publications of the sources having more or less tight connection to the US government or Congress?

2. Why really good sources provided by me appeared to be removed?

3. Why criticism of Porter is added to the article, whereas two articles that provide strong support for his thesis have been deleted (that seems to be especially weird taking into account that the article supporting Porter were published in scholarly journals, whereas the criticism was published in the magazine having a bias towards a right side of opinia spectrum)?

Regarding the sources provided by me, TheTimesAreAChanging argued "However, I'm not convinced that his views are particularly notable, much less that they supersede all other sources entirely". Firstly, the very fact that these sources are peer-reviewed publications implies notability. Secondly, Porter's conclusion was supported at least by two independent peer-reviewed publications (one of them is very recent). Thirdly, these sources are arguably the only peer reviewed sources used in this sections: other sources are garbage as compared to them. However, if you disagree, you may ask the same question at WP:RSN.

Regarding usage of Communist data, that argument is weak: we cannot decide by ourselves which methodology is correct or not. If you have any reliable good quality source that criticises Moise or Szalontai, please, present them, otherwise, your argument is totally unsupported. I would say the opposite: the US official sources are much less reliable, because the US were a party in the war, and they needed some arguments to justify their intervention. In contrast, classified Communist sources, which were not intended to be used for propaganda purposes, are much more trustworthy, simply because NV authorities needed to know a real picture.

And, last but not least, I strongly object against providing a range of estimates from various sources, because the data from good quality publications have much more weight than questionable or biased sources.

Please, address this criticism properly, otherwise I'll have to restore my edits.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS Re "The reader will decide to belive who's source." It is incorrect. We are not doing our job well if a reader has to decide which data are more trustworthy. Out policy requires us to indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, classified communist sources state that 6% of the North Vietnamese population was targeted for persecution, that quotas for killings were set in advance, that 172,000 people were executed, and that roughly the same number of houses were given to new occupants. This is supported by foreign witnesses, communist defectors, and dissident publications. Porter and Moise relied on propaganda in official communist party newspapers, a novel approach that also led Porter to deny the Cambodian genocide and Moise to deny the Chinese role in the land reform. Are you intentionally lying? Or did you just skim what I wrote? Fall's conservative estimate was by far the lowest common at the time and referred only to executions (not camps, slave labor, suppression of rebellions, or famine), and Turner's "old" book came out after some of the sources you are citing.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Before noticing the edit war about NV executions, and I had no idea about their scale (so you may assume I was unbiased: it was equally ready to learn 1,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 were executed). To familiarise myself with the subject, I did simple things: (i) I opened google scholar; (ii) in the dialogue box, I typed "north vietnam" "land reform" executions and (iii) I looked at the sources published in peer-reviewed journals. The results were as follows:

Moise's article was first in this list. The next relevant article (#4 in the list) was Gavin W. Jones (Population Trends and Policies in Vietnam. Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp. 783-810 ) it says:

"According to Fall, probably close to 50,000 North Vietnamese were executed in connection with the land reform, and at least twice as many were arrested and sent to forced-labor camps: Bernard B. Fall, The Two Vietnams: A Political and Military Analysis (London: Pall Mall Press, 2nd rev. ed., 1967), p. 156. A more recent analysis, however, concludes that executions could not have been above 2,500 and may have been as low as 800; excesses were the imprisonment of the inno- cent and the unjust distribution of property and bureaucratic status"

(you can see the same figures: 50,000 earlier estimates and less the 2,500 according to the newer data).

The next relevant reference was Porter (my university has no subscription for The Washington Quarterly, so I skipped J Desbarats, KD Jackson's article).

The next relevant article in the list was Szalontai.

As you can see, the procedure I used to select sources was absolutely neutral and transparent. Gscholar gave me no references to Life or politically biased sources, and it would be quite natural to use the above listed sources. In contrast, I have no idea about the procedure you used to find sources, and I have some reason to suspect that procedure is far from perfect, so the set of sources you rely upon is very biased (that they are of questionable quality is obvious). In future, try to avoid throwing accusations you cannot support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul Siebert: This is the second time you have alleged that one of the bloodbath sources includes Life. Please stop repeating this false claim. The initial edit war was caused by me repeatedly deleting the reference to Life. If we are in agreement, I will gladly attempt to remove it again. Moise and Porter might be the two references that came up first for you, but to suggest that they are "non-political" is an absurdity. (On Porter’s record as a communist propagandist, see Stephen J. Morris, "Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot and Cornell," The National Interest, Summer 1989, pp56-60.) Porter based his estimate of 2,500 executions on propaganda in communist party newspapapers and concluded with a paean to the Vietnamese communist revolution! That Moise wrote after 1967 does not make him the most recent, up-to-date, irrefutable source. (In fact, new information about the land reform has come out of Vietnam since the 1990s.) Both Moise and Porter wrote as anti-war activists intent on promoting the North Vietnamese cause. Porter had no historical training, no experience with Vietnam, could barely speak Vietnamese, and relied entirely on communist party propaganda: He only gained prominence by telling many people on the far left exactly what they wanted to hear! We now know that the Chinese were heavily involved in the land reform, contrary to Moise's out-of-date scholarship with its massive blunders. I assume you agree with Porter's arguments in Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution and "The Myth of the Hue Massacre"?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this "more recent analysis" by Gareth Porter was written in 1973. So let's keep that in mind whenever Paul Siebert claims that Robert F. Turner's Vietnamese Communism (1975), or any of the other bloodbath sources, is "too old." Almost all of the bloodbath sources are actually more recent.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sigh) I thought you would at least apologise...

I did not allege that the bloodbath source was Life, my point was that Life, along with other sources listed by me, is hardly as reliable as the sources added by me.

Regarding Stephen J. Morris, his article seems to be almost ignored by scholarly community. The only good source discussing him (B Kiernan, Bringing the Khmer rouge to justice - Human Rights Review, 2000, p. 92-108) says the following:

"The Wall Street Journal attack on the CGP was begun by Stephen J. Morris, who had met Julio Jeldres in Bangkok a decade earlier.49 Throughout the 1980s, Morris, like Jeldres and Bunroeun Thach, devoted himself to political activism in support of Cambodian factions who were allied to the communist Khmer Rouge, but whom Morris praised as “anti-communist.” In 1989, Morris complained that the democratic government of Thailand was selling out the Khmer Rouge. “It has now gone so far that Thai commanders have provided Phnom Penh’s artillery commanders with precise intelligence on the location of Khmer Rouge units.”50 In the winter of 1990, Morris addressed a meeting of Cambodians in Brighton, Massachusetts. According to witnesses, Morris “took the floor and in an impassioned speech warned Cambodians in the room that they should not do anything that would appear to support the Vietnamese backed government of Cambodia, including bringing attention to Khmer Rouge atrocities. He did not support a trial of the Khmer Rouge and attributed his inside information about the Cambodian situation to having dined with Khmer Rouge leaders.” Morris wrote, “The real Khmer Rouge military aim...is to force Phnom Penh to accept a comprehensive political settlement such as the UN peace plan.”"

"Morris had once described Cornell University’s Southeast Asia Program (America’s most distinguished such institution) as “a comfortable milieu for those fond of totalitarian dictatorship.” Morris attacked Heder, a former Cornell student, for his “pro-Khmer Rouge views” and for “propounding the moral virtue” of communism (Stephen J. Morris, “Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, and Cornell,” National Interest (Summer 1989): 60). But in 1995, Morris shamelessly recommended Heder as one of a team he suggested should have been awarded the State Department grant that I received to document the crimes of the Khmer Rouge (Asian Wall Street Journal, April 17, 1995)."

"This close look at the failed efforts to impede the task of the CGP enables us to see firsthand how denial and suppression of information about genocide work. Both the creation of historical memory and its erasure depend upon contemporary politics as much as history itself. Bunroeun Thach, Julio Jeldres, Stephen Morris, Congressional Republicans, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page all considered their own political agenda more important than documenting the crimes of the Khmer Rouge and bringing the criminals to trial for genocide. This agenda reflected the anti-Soviet alliance between the United States and China during the later stages of the Cold War, an alliance which often brought together conservative anti-communists and Maoist radicals."

Therefore, I doubt such author as Morris can be considered as devoid of strong political (especially, anti-Vietnam) bias.

And, more importantly, you seem to totally ignore my major thesis: the sources provided by me are the only sources that meet all best quality secondary sources criteria. In contrast, you provide mostly your speculations. I suggest you to stop and accept reality: the viewpoint you defend contradicts to what good reliable sources say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re "Almost all of the bloodbath sources are actually more recent." Probably, but you provided no references to recent peer-reviewed publications on that subject (RAND reports, conservative journals or state sponsored radio stations do not count). In addition, all "more recent" sources just cite old data. I would like to see fresh studies devoted to that issue. So far, I am aware only of one 2011 publication in Cold War Studies (cited above) on that subject. In the introduction, the author lists three scholars who made major contribution into the studies of negative effects of early North Vietnamese domestic policies. They are Edwin E. Moise, Georges Boudarel, Neil L. Jamieson. He also summarised our knowledge about the scale of executions (I already described that). I have no reason to suspect this description of the state of our knowledge is unadequate, and we have no reason to add some dubious sources and authors to that (especially if they make some outstanding claims). A bloodbath theory is outdated, and it is not supported by serious scholars any more. I think we can stop our dispute (unless you come out with some fresh peer-reviewed publication that refutes the Cold War Studies article.

Again, if you disagree, please, go to WP:RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you'll have to go to RSN to remove all of the sources that don't shamelessly regurgitate communist propaganda. I don't think pro-communist Porter, writing for the communist-leaning "Bulletin of Concerned Asia Scholars" while advocating for the Viet Cong, with no historical training, no experience with Vietnam, little ability to speak Vietnamese, and no independent sources, is more reliable than every other source. Nor do I think Porter is a “serious scholar”! We may as well quote Moise, and make clear that communist party newspapers are his source of information, since he insists that they are more reliable than Western accounts, yes? I’m not sure why you quoted Kiernan's libelous personal attack on Morris. You do know that Kiernan, like Porter, originally enthusiastically praised and supported the Khmer Rouge, right? Your "scholarly" kin attempted to sweep the Cambodian genocide under the rug, just like the land reform, before suddenly, abruptly, and dramatically rewriting the "Khmer Rouge canon" in 1979. Kiernan is still trying to minimize his past sins through wishful thinking.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, remember that currently my sources appeared to be removed. However, if you want, let's go that way. Could you please do me a favor: please, list the sources that you believe are reliable, mainstream and relevant to this issue. I would like to make sure I fully understand what your opinion is based on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were in favor of replacing all of the currently used sources with the three you listed at the beginning of this discussion. Was that an incorrect assumption? If you instead agree with Slatersteven's suggestion that we briefly describe the range of estimates, then we could trim the text and add your sources in place of MiG's. We would need to compromise on what estimates to use and how to describe what the sources say. The main difference between Moise/Porter, and the other sources, is that Moise and Porter tend to believe what the North Vietnamese newspapers have to say. I think that distinction should be stated frankly. However, you seemed to imply that everone from Morris to Rosefielde to Liem to Turner to Pike to Rummel is a CIA-sponsored Cold War era anticommunist reactionary. If that is your view, then compromise is not possible and you will need to disqualify these sources at RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am certain the sources such as Rummel's personal web site or Life should be removed. With regard to others, most of them are either obsolete or politically biased. In a situation when we have reliable secondary sources that explain what was a "standard estimate" during 1960s-70s, and which figures are currently accepted as most plausible, to provide a range, where Cold war era data are combined with newer estimates, would be unacceptable and redundant original research. I still cannot understand what reliable sources the alternative figures are based on: the only more or less reliable source is Rosefielde, but I already explained the problems with him. Therefore, I think it is premature to speak about any compromises: show your sources (I mean, really good sources), and then we can speak about compromises.

You write: "I thought you were in favor of replacing all of the currently used sources with the three you listed at the beginning of this discussion." Actually, this text listed five good quality sources. To that, I would add Gavin W. Jones (Population Trends and Policies in Vietnam. Population and Development Review, Vol. 8, No. 4 (Dec., 1982), pp. 783-810 ), so I am not sure don't fully understand you. Six sources (plus, probably, Rosefielde) would be pretty sufficient. However, if you have really good sources that express alternative opinion, please, provide them.

To avoid misunderstanding, let me clarify that I do not "imply that everone from Morris to Rosefielde to Liem to Turner to Pike to Rummel is a CIA-sponsored Cold War era anticommunist reactionary." Each of them has his own issues. Rummel is a libertarian who is known to provide inflated figures. Morris seems to be politically biased. Turner's publication is hardly peer-reviewed (and seems to be ignored by scholarly community), RAND corporation or Free Asia radio are government sponsored, and so on. However, if you disagree with that, let's continue this discussion at WP:RSN, the only think I would like you to do is to create a list of sources that you believe are really good mainstream sources (I don't want to waste our time discussing garbage sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not add Jones, because he is just mentioning what Fall and Porter say. We would be better off citing them directly. You have attacked Turner's book for being published by Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and for being written in 1975. But Turner clearly has far more experience and knowledge of Vietnam than Porter (1972), and far less political bias. Porter's book is pure trash: He notes that communist newspapers deny the atrocities, takes them at face value, and concludes with a paean to the Vietnamese communist revolution! Again, I presume you agree with Porter that the Cambodian genocide was simply "a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Reader's Digest book"? Porter could barely speak the language he was accusing others of mistranslating!

The History of the Vietnamese Economy, Vol. 2, edited by Dang Phong of the Institute of Economy, Vietnamese Institute of Social Sciences, and published in 2005, states that 6% of the population was targeted for persecution. If even a small fraction of them were executed, we would easily have over 100,000 dead. What do you think happened to the 150,000 people who lost all their property and mysteriously disappeared? Why is there not a single foreign witness who disputes the claims of a bloodbath? I think all of the bloodbath sources are more reliable than Porter. We could add Hoang Van Chi's book and his response to Porter (where he demonstrates the dangers of amateur translation), but I'm sure you'll object to them, too. And it goes without saying that witnesses like Tongas wrote before deniers like Porter. So, yes, you should probably try to disqualify all of the sources you don't like at RSN.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Jones does not cite Fall or Porter. He refers to Frances FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), pp. 299-300. The author who cites Porter and Moise is James P. Harrison (The Endless War: Vietnam's Struggle for Independence. Columbia University Press, 1982, ISBN 023106909X, 9780231069090, p. 149). However, if we agree not to use the sources that just mention what other secondary sources say, then Rosefielde should also be removed: being a specialist in Soviet Russia he didn't do his own studies of Vietnam. Similarly, Margolin just reproduces what other sources say.

I didn't attack Turner, I just pointed your attention that his book was published by the publisher having some political bias. If he is a good and unbiased author, he probably published some of his works in some politically unbiased scholarly journal or university press. However, another his work was published in Human Events magazine, which is also politically biased. Can you provide a fre to his work published in some politically neutral journal? In that case I would support its usage in the article.

Regarding Dang Phong, all of that have too many "ifs". The fact that considerable part of population was affected by the reform does not imply any concrete number of executions. That is purely your speculations. Regarding "150,000 people who lost all their property and mysteriously disappeared", do you know what was life expectancy in NV during that time? If it was similar to that in rural China (ca 30-35 years), the very fact that 6% of population (i.e. 0.06*16,000,000≈1,000,000) was persecuted means that non-coercive deaths of persecuted population would amount hundred of thousand even if we assume that mortality rates for them were the same as for remaining population. Of course, that is just my speculation, and I by no means propose to add that to the article. The only reason I presented them is to demonstrate falseness of your attempts to connect the scale of persecutions with the scale of executions.

BTW, I am still waiting for the list of sources you believe are reliable. Do you imply Porter and Dand Phong are the only sources you propose to use here?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Spencer Tucker, Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (ABC-CLIO, single volume from 2001) states on pg. 1,243 that up to 100,000 "landlords" were executed. I would use either Nutt or Turner along with Porter's book--Porter is far more politically biased than either of them, and they challenge his arguments. I've already said that we could use Moise. I would also consider using Liem for a Vietnamese perspective.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War is a tertiary source that reproduces what others say. We should rely on secondary sources when possible. Regarding Nutt or Turner, could you be more specific? Can you please provide concrete references?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the work by Nutt and Turner already cited in the article, because I am still not convinced by your assertion that they are unacceptable sources. Porter's book is a pseudo-scholarly polemic based on propaganda--just like Cambodia Starvation and Revolution. You are trying to discredit Nutt and Turner by their associations with the RAND corporation and Hoover institution (respectively), but neither of them ever argued that the Cambodian genocide was simply "a myth fostered primarily by the authors of a Reader's Digest book." When Porter made that claim before Congress, one Senator present correctly compared him to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. I guess the Cambodian state propaganda wasn't as "extremely informative" as its counterpart in Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing not people, but sources. The argument "this author denied genocide in Cambodia, therefore his work about Vietnam is wrong" does not work. We discuss sources based on their own merit, and Porter's work on Vietnam meets all RS criteria. I can admit his methodology worked poorly in Cambodian case, so his conclusions about KR were wrong, however, that is not a reason to reject all his writings. His conclusion about Vietnam have been used by many authors, and, importantly, they were confirmed independently. That is sufficient to trust it. BTW, during KR rule, the US tacitly supported them, despite the fact that their genocidal nature was obvious, simply because KR had anti Vietnamese and anti-Soviet orientation.

RAND corporation is a US government funded organisation that works for US Army. During the time when Nutt was preparing her report, this army was directly engaged in hostilities against NV. Without any doubts, that had significant impact on the overall tone and conclusions of the report. Interestingly, modern scholars seem not to trust this report.

Regarding Turner, I found only two relevant publication in gscholar: ROBERT F. TURNER. Myths and Realities in the Vietnam Debate World Affairs, Vol. 149, No. 1 (SUMMER 1986), pp. 35-47. In this article, he simply reproduces the thesis from his 1975 book. The second publication is Robert F. Turner. Myths of the Vietnam War: The Pentagon Papers Reconsidered. Southeast Asian Perspectives, No. 7 (Sep., 1972), pp. i-iv, 1-55. In this article he contends:

"Although no official figures were made public, the best estimates are that about fifty thousand people were executed, and several hundred thousands more died as a result of the "policy of isolation."

He further discloses the source of this information:

"The most extensive study of the land reform was made by Hoang Van Chi, a former Viet Minh official who lived in North Vietnam during most of the period. He concluded that during the program, "half a million Vietnamese (four percent of the population of North Vietnam) were sacrificed." Chi, op. cit., p. 72. The present author has interviewed a number of individuals who were involved in the campaign-including some "people's court" judges - and believes Chi's estimates to be accurate."

Therefore, his estimate adds nothing new (the figure of 50,000 has already been cited by me). Regarding his hearsay evidences, do not forget that Turner was in Vietnam as a US army officer, so the information he obtained could be significantly affected by his status. I doubt Turner, who himself wrote "After nearly a decade of daily involvement with Vietnam, I left that country during the April 1975 evacuation with a deep sense of anger and dishonor" (Turner 1986) can be considered as an absolutely neutral observer.

In any event, the only source from your list that we can use is Turner 1972, however, it does not add much to what my sources say. Interestingly, this source was cited only one time, by Michael A. Hennessy (Strategy in Vietnam: the Marines and revolutionary warfare in I Corps, 1965-1972. Greenwood Publishing Group), and not in a context of land reform. That does not adds credibility to Turner's estimate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Well, it adds an estimate for causes of death besides execution, although the figures are very uncertain. There was a "policy of isolation" which meant that entire families of targeted individuals were socially ostracized and often starved to death. Turner, at least, had actual experience in Vietnam--unlike the armchair intellectuals who denied the bloodbath. (BTW, Turner mentions estimates of "up to" 100,000 executed on pg. 142-4 of his book).

The issue is not with your sources but your proposed text. I suggest we use the following text and sources:

"In the north, the Viet Minh ruled as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and engaged in a drastic land reform program. Reports from some journalists, defectors, and foreign witnesses suggested that 50-100,000 North Vietnamese were executed and an unknown number were starved to death or sent to prison camps.[1][2][3][4] However, Gareth Porter and Edwin Moise argued that the death toll was probably in the low thousands and had been inflated for propaganda purposes, while communist newspapers provided a more accurate account.[5][6] Their conclusions have been supported by other scholars.[7]"

• [1]Tongas, Gérard, J'ai vécu dans l'enfer communiste au Nord Viet-Nam, (Paris, Nouvelles Éditions Debresse, 1960). For a foreign witness.
• [2]Robert F. Turner, "Myths and Realities in the Vietnam Debate," World Affairs, Vol. 149, No. 1 (Summer 1986), pp. 35-47. See also Turner, "Myths of the Vietnam War: The Pentagon Papers Reconsidered", Southeast Asian Perspectives, No. 7 (Sep. 1972), pp. i-iv, 1-55.
• [3]Jean-Louis Margolin, "Vietnam and Laos: the impasse of war communism" in The Black Book of Communism, edited by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, and Jean-Louis Margolin (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 1999), p.567.
• [4]Lam Thanh Liem, "Chinh sach cai cach ruong dat cua Ho Chi Minh: sai lam hay toi ac?" in Jean-Francois Revel et al., Ho Chi Minh: Su that ve Than the & Su nghiep (Paris: Nam A, 1990), pp179-214.
• [5]D. Gareth Porter, "The Myth of the Bloodbath: North Vietnam's Land Reform Reconsidered" (Ithaca Cornell University IREA Project, 1972). A shorter but more reliable version of this paper was published in "The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars", Vol. V, No. 2, September 1973, pp. 2-15.
• [6]Edwin E. Moise. "Land Reform and Land Reform Errors in North Vietnam". Pacific Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 70-92. See also Moise, Land Reform in China and North Vietnam, (University of North Carolina Press, 1983).
• [7]Balazs Szalontai. "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56", Cold War History, vol 11, no 2, May 2011, pp. 155-195.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Do we need this huge paragraph in what is already a large article I propose this

"In the north, the Viet Minh ruled as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and engaged in a drastic land reform program in which perceived "class enemies" were executed.[94][95][96] Estimates For the number killed range from range from 1,500 [107] [104] [103] [105]to 100,000 executions[94][95][96] , with an upper limit of 900,000 deaths from executions, camps, and famine.[97][98][99][100][101][102] ."Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be fine with that as well! However, to avoid conflict, I preemptively conceded the point on the majority of Paul Siebert's objections. Thus, I eliminated the use of editorials that responded to each of Porter's arguments on a step-by-step basis because Siebert said that they were "conservative and therefore biased." (Never mind that Porter is a communist and "The Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars" advocated for the communist cause during the war). Regarding the 200,000 to 900,000 figure, it comes from our "Three Rs" (RFA, Rosefielde, and Rummel). They all appear to meet RS criteria, and if not should be taken to RSN, but I just removed them to compromise with Siebert. The question of RFA's reliability is an interesting one, however, and perhaps the question has come up before? In any case, the mid-value of the range they cite would be roughly equal to the 50,000 executed and 500,000 dead from forced starvation mentioned by Turner and Chi. If we do use RFA, we should note that they quote communist officials who estimate 172,000 executions (comparable to Liem's 120,000-200,000 executions). Siebert feels confident that Porter's pseudo-scholarly polemical book is the final word on the subject, so I thought my paragraph was a compromise--but I would be more than happy with yours.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Something like Slatersteven's version would be good, although the highest number in the range for estimated executions would be 200,000, if that is the highest reliable estimate for just land reform excecutions. I really don't think Porter is needed. Use Moise or Clark Clifford for the lower estimates. Stumink (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Porter's book is the key "no-bloodbath" source. There's no reason to use Clifford's article in Life as opposed to Porter's book.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough but I don't see much point using books that are not credible (like Porter's) there are other lowish estimates that are more credible like Moise.Stumink (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In the book Political Violence In South And Southeast Asia, is it mentioned that some of the event in North Vietnam during the 50s was extraggated by the US and South Vietnam in order to alienate the nation. I think it should be mentioned in the article.--Zeraful (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No it shouldn't since that would be Undue. It could however be mentioned on the Land Reforms page but not here.Stumink (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TheTimesAreAChanging for your good faith attempts to achieve consensus. Nevertheless, I cannot agree with your arguments. The reasons are as follows.

1. You propose to use Margolin, who just reproduces what others say, but you preferred to omit Jones, although he uses neither Moise nor Porter (Instead, he cites Frances FitzGerald, Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), pp. 299-300, a book that was characterized as "influential and highly praised" by GR Hess (The unending debate: historians and the Vietnam War - Diplomatic History, 1994, p 240.)) I am not sure I understand a reason for such a selective approach to the choice of sources.
2. You propose to use Lam Thanh Liem. However, this is English Wikipedia. Do you have English equivalent of this source?
3. You insist on usage of Turner, whereas he simply reproduces the 50,000 figure from Bernard Fall (The Two Viet-Nams: A Political and Military Analysis, revised edition (New York: Praeger, 1964), p. 156). The latter source was considered as a "standard estimate" in 1960s, and many early sources, including Turner himself, Nutt, Jones and others cite this estimate. Why did you decide to ignore Fall?
4. Finally, you seriously misinterpreted my viewpoint, as well as the sources I use. You write: "Siebert feels confident that Porter's pseudo-scholarly polemical book is the final word on the subject," which is simply not true. I don't know if you read Moise (I have serious reasons to suspect you didn't), but this author, despite agreeing that the bloodbath myth is just a myth, disagrees with Porter in many details. (By the way, you, for some reason, decided that Moise built his arguments based on Communist newspapers, however, it is clear from his article that that is not true) Briefly, his arguments are as follows:

(i) Hoang Van Chi, a major proponent of bloodbath theory (and, simultaneously, a major Turner's source of information, see above) should be treated with cautions, because he builds his arguments just based on his own observations during a 1.5 years period, mostly in his home village. However, his own early interviews he gave in Saigon contained no mentions of any bloodbath, he started to tell this story only after 1956.

(ii) Saigon officials and mass media were unaware of any bloodbath even in late 1956. As Moise notes:

"When Truong Chinh announced his resignation as General Secretary of the Lao Dong Party at the end of October, Saigon's official press agency had difficulty understanding the fact that this had been caused by the crisis over land reform. If there had in fact been a bloodbath, Saigon would have known about it, for during the first half of the land reform, the DRV had been allowing large numbers of refugees to go to the South."

These, and other facts support the following Moise's conclusion:

"The land reform lasted roughly from December I953 to July 1956. Throughout this period, the Saigon government was pouring out anti-Communist propaganda, yet it contained remarkably little about the land reform. In November 1956, Saigon learned from international press agency dispatches that the North Vietnamese were admitting that serious land reform excesses had occurred. It was only after this that Saigon's anti-Communist tracts became filled with supposed eyewitness accounts of mass slaughter."

Therefore, your assertion that Moise relies too much on Communist newspapers is simply incorrect. He did use them, but used them with cautions.

Again, whereas Moise supports Porter's main thesis, he disagrees with him in many details. Thus, he points out that Porter misunderstood many documents, and that the number of executions was greater then Porter asserted (although it was lower then Turner claims). Therefore, by no means Porter is a last word, and I don't remember I ever claimed that.

Moise also reports about his interview with David Marr, who visited Thanh Hoa province early in 1975. Marr's data are also in accordance with Moise's estimates.

5 You also preferred to ignore a new source, Balazs Szalontai. This author uses quite different evidences (declassified archives), and he comes to the conclusion that Moise's estimates are correct. Coincidence of estimates made using different sources of information usually serves as a very good argument in science.
6 And, last but not least. The sources listed by me do not mention famine in a context of land reform. In contrast, Balazs Szalontai mentions 1954-55 famine in Mekong river delta (i.e. South Vietnam), as a result of extensive floods and scarce rainfall, as well as destruction of irrigation system during the war with the French. Therefore, I would treat the information about famine with great caution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, let's not use Margolin. I only added him because you had done so originally. I included Szalontai.

"However, his own early interviews he gave in Saigon contained no mentions of any bloodbath, he started to tell this story only after 1956." Moise was being less than truthful, and you shouldn't have trusted him. In his 1955 interviews, Chi described North Vietnam as a terrorist state where "the village guards would dig tombs" before every trial; where "ghastly" and "barbarous" torture was used; where the communists "starve the people in order to enslave them more surely"; where dissidents were either "in the other world [i.e., dead] or in the concentration camps"; and where non-communists had been "classified as landowners" and either "sentenced to hard labour" or "shot on the spot."

Because Porter is a communist apologist and his book is unreliable, Slatersteven has proposed a different version, and you haven't gone to RSN; I'm increasingly thinking we should just mention the range of estimates.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, if we cannot use Nutt's work because RAND is supposedly biased (based on Paul Siebert's original research), then perhaps we shouldn't use Porter either. According to its Wikipedia article: "The Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars (CCAS) was founded in 1968 by a group of graduate students and younger faculty as part of the opposition to the American war in Vietnam. They proposed a "radical critique of the assumptions which got us [The United States] into Indo-China and were keeping us from getting out."[1] The caucus was held at the Association for Asian Studies convention in Philadelphia, but was a radical critique of that professional association's values, organization, and leadership....Critics of CCAS claim that its anti-establishment stance had a polarizing effect on the field, that its early members promoted Maoist doctrine uncritically, and that it made ludicrous claims such as all U.S.-government funded academic pursuits were being manipulated by the U.S. government if they were not outright forms of espionage."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about Margolin.

Moise, simply wrote that Chi didn't mention land reform. Regarding "ghastly" and "barbarous" torture, I heard similar stories about Diem's South Vietnam, as well as about many other Asian states.

I object against RAND because it is a non-peer-reviewed source, sponsored by the state that was a party in this conflict. Such an objection is not original research (you seem not to understand what original research means). In addition, Nutt's report is not being cited by serious authors: as you can see, gscholar shows only self-citations. And, finally, it is not a secondary source at all: Nutt just reviewed what other author say. In contrast, Porter seems to be cited by others [3], and that is the proof that he is reliable. Thus, in his Pacific Reviews paper, Jonathan London cites only two authors, Moise and Porter, whom he seems to regard as two experts in Vietnam land reform (The Pacific Review, Vol. 22 No. 3 July 2009: 375–399). In addition, Porter published a whole book (Porter, G. (1993) Vietnam: The Politics of Bureaucratic Socialism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.) devoted to this issue, and you must agree that Cornell University press is among the most reliable sources according to all possible standards. Of course, I can go to RSN, but I prefer to use it as a last resort, when my opponents demonstrate blatant unwillingness to accept the obvious. I think you are prone to arguments, so we can resolve the issue without distracting other users from their usual activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion since it was posted to ANI. I believe the use of Porter should be brought to the RSN board as he is not a reliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)