Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

President Kennedy

The article says that U.S. involvement escalated in 1960 under President John F. Kennedy, but Kennedy was not president at that time. TahaGhassemi (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Good catch. Kennedy's term began on January 20, 1961. I've removed mention there of the year 1960. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"North Vietnam had also entered Laos in the mid-1950s in support of insurgents, setting up the Ho Chi Minh trail to supply and reinforce the Việt Cộng and increased in 1960." The last part is unclear. TahaGhassemi (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical errors I wish to correct

Hi, I wish to correct many weird grammar/punctuation inconsistencies in this article but cannot edit the page.

(See: "U.S.", "US", "U.S", etc.)

May I gain access to this? I don't wish to vandalise, just reading and wishing to correct :)

EDIT: sorry, I derped and forgot to sign my post. Tsdotca (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsdotca (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC) 

Point them out and others can do it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Length considerations under WP-TOOLONG

This article was flagged as too long in January 2019, under WP:TOOLONG. The readable prose size is 133 kiB as of 2019-09-09; the guideline suggests that articles over 100 kiB should be split.

The article consists mainly of a detailed chronological narrative of the war. Sections 9 (Opposition to US involvement, 1964–73) through 15 (Weapons) are the only ones that might be split into new articles. In most cases, those sections link to a main article on the same subject, suggesting that this article already has the content in condensed form. Using MS Word's word count on cut-and-pasted content, the article is 40,273 words and sections 9 through 15 are 7,127 words, or 18% of the total. Cutting out those sections would leave about 109 kiB, which is still "too long".

Now, WP:TOOLONG is a guideline, not a policy. The policy WP:NOTPAPER states: "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic [...]" This article covers a complex subject and it appears that, for the most part, it does have adequate summaries linking to longer articles. I added "see also" references in the section on women. The section on involvement of other countries could, possibly, be split; the most logical way to do this would be to place supporters of the Hanoi and Saigon governments in different articles. I haven't removed the flag, but I did want to state my opinion that the article is not in need of being split. Roches (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

As you say WP:TOOLONG is a guideline, not a policy and many other less significant articles are overlong. I believe the growth has come from various editors wanting to add in special interest topics with no concern for the length of the article. The issue then becomes what should be retained and what should be separated, I agree that Sections 9 (Opposition to US involvement, 1964–73) through 15 (Weapons) should be targeted, but no doubt any attempt to reduce those will presumably create controversy with various editors who will regard them as an essential component of the war that should remain on the main page. Mztourist (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

As a start two charts could be removed. First, the chart about types of military engagements in section 6.4 and secondly the chart under Chinese assistance in 10.1.1. Both these charts are way too much in the weeds for a general article. Smallchief (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Tidying up the leader section of the infobox

I hate to bring this up again, but I really think that the infobox doesn't need as many leaders as it does currently, especially if there are separate articles that talk about the leaders on both sides. In the Wikipedia guidelines, it says that the infobox should not have 'excessive length', which includes excessive use of statistics. By including what seems to be all the high commanders and leaders in the Vietnam war - even ones that are not very significant (Harold Holt), I believe this article's infobox is breaking this guideline. I think, therefore, that we make the infobox more like the ones in the WW2, WW1 or Korean War articles, which only include the names of prominent national leaders; the names of one leader per country (such as the leader that presided over the longest period of time during that conflict); or only include the names of the most prominent leaders of the entire conflict, as is the case with the WW2 infobox.

To disclaim my own point, I understand that by removing some of the names, you are removing the visibility of that individual's contribution. You are also running the risk of removing the visibility of that country's contribution. If this is not something that people are willing to do, then I'm okay with keeping the infobox the way it is. However, if it's acceptable, I believe making a more succinct infobox - that doesn't bombard you with a smorgasbord of names - would be preferable for the sake of readability and accessibility. Tawdaya (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree one leader per nation, Maybe two (political, military for major participants).Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. For the US at a minimum you would have to include Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, McNamara, Kissinger, Westmoreland, Abrams and Weyand and similarly long lists for South Vietnam and North Vietnam. For belligerents (like Australia) that played a smaller role who assesses who the 1-2 leaders should be? Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

This is where the problem lies. In other articles, there are only one or two leaders per country. I understand that it is tricky with this particular war, since it spanned many changes in presidency, and there were many SecStates that had a huge influence over the war. There is no other fair criteria for the infobox than time in office/power. I believe that there should only be one or two leaders per belligerent in the infobox - based off the length of their time in power. The question from that is, however, will this change people's perception of history to an undesirable extent? I think not. Look at other war articles - they're more refined. I know it's hard to cut down the number of leaders because you're removing the visibility of some very important names, but it is the most fair way of doing it. Tawdaya (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

If only 1-3 leaders were included from each belligerent, who would those leaders be? I'm thinking of only including heads of state from each belligerent, or in the case of north/south vietnam; the most prominent leaders. What do you guys think? I'm keen to make an edit soon. Tawdaya (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot agree with the approach that there "should only be one or two leaders per belligerent in the infobox - based off the length of their time in power" all the US persons I mentioned above were significant and need to be there. I do not agree that your proposal is "the most fair way of doing it", it was a long war and there were many important leaders during the course of it. I also don't understand why you regard this as urgent ("I'm keen to make an edit soon"), there is no urgency here and it needs to be properly discussed and considered. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

The Vietnam war was started because America was scared of communism. 134.50.14.120 (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

True end date of the Vietnam war July 2, 1976

When North Vietnam reinvaded South Vietnam in December of 1974 the Paris peace accords were violated this immediately makes the US on an active war footing against all forces attacking South Vietnam. This means that the Vietnam War did not end until South Vietnam no longer existed. That happened when North Vietnam Merged with South Vietnam on July 2, 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.120 (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not supported by WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I would argue it ended when Saigon fell.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

In the United States, it ended the day President Ford went on television and told us it was over, and, "it was time to put the tragedy behind us". That happened on July 4, 1976. The July 2nd date (above) is something we had never heard of.

Shouldn't this page be called, "The Vietnam Conflict"? Who made the determination to call it a war? It certainly wasn't the United States Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.237.153 (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A lot of RS.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

Change Vietnam War to American Vietnam War because it will be less America-centric and more globally inclusive. RainbowMehry (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

We use the most commonly used & recognizable term – Thjarkur (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Cambodian genocide" and "Cambodian-Vietnamese War" from the result section

While it is true that America's failure to protect its allies in Indochina indirectly led to the Cambodian genocide and Cambodian-Vietnamese War, it's important to note that the Vietnam War per se did not directly play a role in this. The reason why the Cambodian genocide happened was due to the Khmer Republic's decline and fall to the Khmer Rouge in 17 April 1975, 13 days before the Vietnam War concluded. Likewise, the Cambodian-Vietnamese War began in 1978, over 3 years after the Vietnam War. This info should be in the Cambodian Civil War article, not here.🥖Virtuous ^❔ 20:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Cambodian genocide started immediately after the Fall of Phnom Penh on 17 April 1975 and border conflicts between the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese began almost immediately after the North Vietnamese victory on 30 April, accordingly both were direct results of the Vietnam War which refers to the entire conflict in Indochina, not just the war within the borders of Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your point of view. I'm not denying that the Vietnam War had an indirect impact toward Cambodia and Laos, but there's a reason why the Cambodian Civil War and Laotian Civil War articles exist as separate articles to begin with, not to mention that this article alone is already too long to read through and navigate as you can see right on the top of the page. Let me reiterate again: The Cambodian genocide began solely because of the results of the Cambodian Civil War, which ended in the fall of the Khmer Republic in 17 April 1975 to the Khmer Rouge, as mentioned by you. After the Khmer Rouge had taken power, they immediately sent their citizens to the countryside in an effort to turn the country into a socialist agrarian republic. As for the Cambodian-Vietnamese War, it had began in 25 December 1978, three years after Democratic Kampuchea and Socialist Republic of Vietnam had taken power, because of Kampuchean massacres of Vietnamese villagers and invasions in Southern Vietnam prior, a territory that the Khmer have always considered to be rightfully theirs. However, by writing that the results of the Vietnam War started both the Cambodian genocide and Cambodian-Vietnamese War, you are implying that the Vietnam War was the sole factor in beginning those respective events, which is not true. Moreover, the Vietnam War does not refer to the entire conflict in Indochina, as I had explained in the beginning. Perhaps "Start of Cambodian-Vietnamese War" should be renamed to "Lead-up to Cambodian-Vietnamese War" to specify that the Cambodian-Vietnamese War did not begin immediately after the Vietnam War, but rather the beginning of Cambodian encroachment on Vietnamese territory. "Start of Cambodian genocide" should be completely removed and left in the Cambodian Civil War article as it had already begun before the fall of Saigon. In short, specify "Start of Cambodian-Vietnamese War" and remove "Start of Cambodian genocide" for reasons above. 🥖Virtuous ^❔ 00:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

2 lines in the Infobox make no difference to the length of an overlong article. I know the history and I don't agree with your arguments. As these results have been stable for a while you need to establish a new consensus for these changes. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

In that case, they should be reworded to better reflect the results of the war, as simply putting "Start of" implies that those were consequent events of the Vietnam War. My point is that the article is already too long to read to begin with, and providing vague and/or unnecessary information may throw readers off. 🥖Virtuous ^❔ 03:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Correct link for Australian casualties

Change link for Note 45 from http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/vietnam/statistics.asp to https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/vietnam/statistics Valeriuk (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Interstellarity (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Parade Unification.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image seems a bit one sided. It only shows pictures of US soldiers, South Vietnamese (ARVN) soldiers and South Vietnamese civilians. It should at least feature the most recognizable picture of the war, that of Phan Thi Kim Phuc. There could certainly be a non-free use rationale provided for this article. Similarly, a picture of the My Lai massacre could be used. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde: I agree. It is particularly surprising that the Phan Thi Kim Phuc picture is not present. --MarioGom (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That photo would probably not satisfy non-free use. A picture of PAVN or VC soldiers should replace one of the ARVN photos in the montage. Mztourist (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree. A My Lai photo would be appropriate, given that there is a photo of the Hue massacre. Smallchief (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox 'Results' section

I've reverted this WP:BOLD edit. Please treat this as a this a WP:BRD revert. I think that this change was probably intended as a clarification, but I also think that it introduces confusion. Perhaps links to clarifying footnotes would help, or perhaps it is too much of a reach to pack all of this stuff into this infobox section. Please see the description of the result parameter at template:infobox military conflict/doc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I had discussed about this in a previous discussion up above. I had originally intended to remove two clauses from the results section as I found them to not be relevant to this specific article, but having been reverted multiple times I resorted to just elaborating on them. Please read "Removal of 'Cambodian genocide' and 'Cambodian-Vietnamese War' from the result section" for some more context. Thank you. VirtuousVirtuoso🐲 ^❔ 20:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

As previously discussed I believe that "start of" is correct and so I reject your changes. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

For clarification, \the description of the result parameter from the {{infobox military conflict}} documentation is as follows:

* result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nixon "secret plan"

"… Richard Nixon who claimed to have a secret plan to end the war": He did not claim that. It was a press embellishment, as grudgingly admitted here. He promised an "honorable end" to the war, and that is what the article should say. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No, if you read the story it does on to say that Nixon never corrected it and it has entered the history of the conflict, no correction is required. Mztourist (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Whether he corrected the claim (of the press) or not, it wasn't his claim, and that makes the text inaccurate. Why is it a problem to change the article to accurately reflect what he said? 73.71.251.64 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Yes, Nixon never used the phrase, "I have a secret plan", but given that the plan was (a) secret, (b) never revealed, (c) never detailed to his closest confidants (see p.198 of Johns (2010) Vietnam's Second Front), it's reasonable that the article utilises the phrase that became synonymous with Nixon's announced policy, and became widespread through the election campaign and after.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Unification of Vietnam

As I mentioned in my edit note, Vietnam was *re*unified, North Vietnam and South Vietnam were not reunified because as separate countries they had never been unified...so cannot be reunified. They were, however, unified. They same applies for Germany - the East and West were unified, not reunified. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. North and South Vietnam were two halves of what had, until 1954, been the same country, so reunification is correct. The same applies for West and East Germany which is why the page is called German reunification and the page for Korea is Korean reunification. Mztourist (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We are in heated agreement regarding the use of the word reunification when speaking of Vietnam and Germany (or Korea). But that is not what is being discussed. North Vietnam (the state, the DRV, not a geographic location) and South Vietnam (the state, the RVN, not a geographic location) did not reunify, they were unified to create the SRV. It is two different processes. Hence, one can speak of either the reunification of Vietnam or the unification of the DRV and the RVN. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why you responded here and opened a separate section below. All comments should be kept in one thread.Mztourist (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was writing my comment after I had left a second message on your talk page indicating I would move things here; before I had finished writing my comment on this talk you had moved my first comment from your talk page here. As I was using the new section tab, it created a second discussion. I would prefer sticking to the discussion in the section below. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reunification or unification

With this edit I changed the sentence "Reunification of North and South Vietnam into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam" to "Unification of North and South Vietnam into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam" with this edit summary: Vietnam was reunified, North and South had not existed before bifurcation, hence cannot be reunified, only unified. Mztourist then reverted with this edit summary: reunified is correct as in two halves being put back together. The trouble with the reverted language is that it is incorrect – bifurcation of Vietnam created two states never previously in existence, a process combining those two states is a new process (ie the first time for it to occur), hence those two new entities cannot be reunified, but rather unified. One could say the divided states of Vietnam were reunified, one could state Vietnam was reunified into the SRV, but one cannot state something has happened again (reunification) which has not happened before (as DRV and RVN were never unified previously). The confusion here is amplified because of the use of geographic terms to denote states actually existing at that time. So, "reunification of the north and the south into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam" would also be correct.--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reunification is correct because it is referring to the whole thing already existing beforehand. The combined entity is not something that is now existing for the first time. Reunifying was not saying that component parts previously existed. Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reunification refers to Vietnam (the entity as a whole), unification refers to the process of combining the North and the South. Two different processes. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's fine because SV and NV were previously in one piece. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bumbubookworm and stand by my earlier comments regarding Germany and Korea. Mztourist (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

From what I see in the Vietnam article:

• VN was unified as a monarchy or an imperial dynasty from the 10th century onwards
• until it was fragmented by European colonialism in the mid 19th century
• after which it was reunited in 1945 as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (see Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam)
• until it was partitioned into two parts in 1954 (see 1954 Geneva Conference#Provisions)
• until the two parts were merged back together in 1976

From that, "Reunification of North and South Vietnam into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam" seems OK to me unless the difference between "Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist Republic" is an issue to be explored. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The essential issue is that there were two Vietnamese states, the DRV and the RVN, which underwent unification into a single state, the SRV. Vietnam as a single state was reunified (ie brought back together as a single state). The DRV and the RVN (not some former colonial or precolonial structures) were not reunified since that implies those states had previously been brought together and then split. This is a semantic difference, that's all, but it matters in that we should be using correct terminology. --Goldsztajn (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Goldsztajn consensus is against you. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you are conflating consensus with voting here; nevertheless, I've presented my case, I leave it at that. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The subcategories need to be fixed.

What the hell this article is in list of "War involving Nicaragua" and "War involving Spain"? These countries didn't involve anything in the war. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:FD73:3D1C:E7F2:94D7 (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

LAOS HAD BEEN PART OF VIETNAM/VASSAL STATES TO IMPERIAL VIETNAM SINCE LATE 15TH CEN.

"North Vietnamese invasion of Laos" is baseless no cluepoint. Laotains and all ethnic in Laos had willing be under Vietnamese control. We are sisters people to the Fatherland. Any imperialism attempt trying to separate our sisters are all ILLEGAL.

It was independent at the time, unless you have RS that contradict this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

They are always belong to Nguyen Dynasty's reign until the French illegal made them independent for separatists!

Not quite, as the world is rather more than 700 years old.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

You need an RS saying this was not an invasion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Map of Indochina in 19th century.
• 
  Vietnam 1838's administrative divisions, Laos and Cambodia were parts of Vietnam, later in 1893 and 1897 the French illegal ceded them to rebel separatists!
• 
  Map of Dai Nam until 1893.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change sidelined as PAVN forces begun more conventional to sidelined as PAVN forces began more conventional

and begun almost immediately in a series of border to began almost immediately in a series of border VagueWhelk (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it is be but I am not seeing any difference.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done began is correct form in this context, begun needs to appear in the form "had begun".--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Communist forces

China, North Korea and the Soviet Union we're supporters of North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge. I don't think China, North Korea and the Soviet Union we're involved in the Vietnam war. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also what the heck is Sweden doing in the communist side? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Swedish Chilliness Toward U.S. Is Limited to Vietnam New York Times, 8 January 1973. More reliable source than those presently used for the infobox and gives a fuller background. --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

ColorfulSmoke China sent military advisors, North Korea sent a fighter squadron and the USSR sent fighter pilots and SAM operators so all three were combatants. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Sweden provided humanitarian aid, that's why it is included.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

May be putting Sweden under "humanitarian aid" would reduce controversy? --Horus (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Why is the Khmer Rouge listed as a North Vietnam/Viet Cong ally? It doesn't seem like they were a real participant in the "Vietnam War" between Vietnamese Communist forces and their allies and American forces and their allies as much as N. Vietnam/Vietnam fought in Cambodia, initially in favor of the Khmer Rouge and then against the Khmer Rouge. They should really get their own column if they're included at all, in the same way that the Iraq War article lists the Mahdi Army, Ba'ath Party and ISIS as co-belligerents against the United States but not as allies of each other. Did the Khmer Rouge ever even fight in Vietnam against anti-Communist forces? N0thingbetter (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Because it was part of the conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agent Orange Death 58,319

On May 25, 2020 The deaths from Agent orange exposure in Vietnam surpassed the death toll from the Vietnam war itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.81.237 (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Presence and Participation

An umpire or referee is present on the sports-pitch or in the ring, but is not considered to be one of the pugilists or players or a member of either team.

The Laws of War were sufficiently well-understood by say 1599, that a playwright could make them a feature of a play ('Henry V', Act IV, Scene vii) without explanation to ordinary members of the theater-going public. As Shakespeare nearly said: 'if you aren't armed, you are not an army...'. That was even before Dunant, the Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions (& Hague Conventions) and the modern corpus of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC/LAC) and International Humanitarian Law. Quakers are famously abjured not to bear arms but most have bravely joined the (Religious Society of -) Friends' Ambulance Units [FAU] in time of war. Non-signatories such as the Waffen SS and the Imperial Japanese Army committed massacres but have also observed many of the conventions. This is not the place for a general discussion, but suffice to say the principles are known to all cultures, and for centuries: non-combatants are not combatants.

A Spanish medical unit of 30 men is not the same two divisions of ROK marines and soldiers. A Swedish medical unit is not the same as an NLF combat-assault team. British Red Cross Land-Rovers are not the same as British SAS Land-Rovers. Etc.

On that basis, can we agree that the following are Official Neutrals/Non-Belligerents:

• India: ICC-ICSC (including a full, armed battalion of the IA...)
• Canada: ICC-ICSC/ICCS
• Poland: ICC-ICSC/ICCS
• Hungary: ICCS
• Indonesia: ICCS
• Iran: ICCS

That there is as yet no evidence of combat support from the following, and that medical assistance - so long as administered impartially - is allowed by the custom of centuries and by the modern corpus of LAC and IHL, so these are also Non-Belligerents:

• Spain: medical team in SVN
• Sweden: medical team in NVN
• Britain: British Red Cross medical team in SVN.
• etc. (a helmeted actress looking through the sights of an AA gun is technically and legally more belligerent, albeit ridiculous).

Thoughtful observations would be actively welcomed.

Sorry, this was unsigned and undated.14:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Problems with your edit, one neither Sweden or Spain are British. Two the British Red Cross are an NGO thus do not represent official British support.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Now make a case, you have been undone by multiple editors.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't really need to include countries such as India, Indonesia, Hungary etc. These are merely poltical and if we add them we open a can of worms where people will argue for every country to be added that affirmed their poltical support to USA or Republic of Vietnam. Remember this article is too long as it is & this is why I have removed them. As mentioned above, the Red Cross is an organization of many countries & again should not be put into individual countries, certainly not with the UK involvement (already disccussions in talk page). Poland Im having doubts with but will leave it there for moment. I do believe however that Combat medical teams should be included such as Spain and Brazil. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you -- and I'm reminded of a story that Lyndon Johnson begged British PM Harold Wilson to send something to Vietnam "even a bagpipe band" to show support for the U.S. Wilson declined. Smallchief (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

There are a few grammatical errors that need to be addressed. Mainly spelling errors. Vazsherwin (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

I would like to edit because there is a typo on one of the photos, it says a bombed Buddha in Laos, then it says it has made Vietnam the most bombed country in the world but the most bombed is Laos. RPG2428 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: On reviewing the page history, it appears that this discrepancy is intentional rather than being an error. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It does however seem a bit of a contradiction, we use a picture from Laos to illustrate how bombed Vietnam was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The assertion in the caption there is not directly related to that image, and might fit better with this image localized in its description to "southeast asia" and located in the Extent of U.S. bombings article section. For sources re the context of the buddha, which is apparently well known as the "Enduring Buddha", see e.g., here and here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Agent Orange & M-16 Industrial SNAFU

Has anyone mentioned that the M-16 was originally a good weapon until they changed the gunpowder? Or that Agent Orange was originally safe until they increased the manufacturing temperature (making it toxic) to increase profits? 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really a subject for this article. Too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, wherever mentioned in Wikipedia articles, WP:BURDEN would apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There's a good article in the Atlantic Monthly June 1981 by James Fallows entitled "M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story" relating how changing the gunpowder from DuPont's IMR 4475 to Olin Mathieson's WC846 ball powder caused the guns to jam due to bureaucratic incompetence. A few lines in the Wiki article should suffice. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources with a bit of info here, here, and probably elsewhere. Offhand, it seems to me that technical details about the M-16 and its ammunition should first be run through discussion at Talk:M16 rifle and reflected in M16 rifle#Reliability before being added to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I read the Wiki article on M-16's and they actually cover this matter, the M-16 was praised when they sent over test rifles in 1961 and 1962 BUT they changed the gunpowder to ball powder in 1964 and this fouled the guns and caused them to jam. Also, the new powder increased the firing rate which caused the extractor claw to shear through the lip of the cartridge, jamming it in the chamber. The M-16 was excellent, it was the ball powder that was the problem all along. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a little more than ball powder. There's the totally unneeded "manual bolt closure" added by order from on high, probably General Earl Wheeler.[1] And there's the fiddling with the rifling twist rate. But ball powder was a big factor. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that the Agent Orange article mentions a temperature issue, citing this report; that is dated 1978, though, and the specifics of the issue are different.There might be some useful info re the toxicity vs. temperature issue raised above here, but I've forgotten too much of what I learned in long-ago Chem classes to follow it. If it is relevant, it probably ought to be mentioned in tthe Agent Orange article before it is mentioned here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's an article on the Internet entitled "Monsanto, Agent Orange, Dioxins and Plan Colombia" from SOURCEWATCH. 2nd paragraph down they talk about the temperature. To cook up a batch of Agent Orange safely took 12 hours but they could cook up a dioxin-laden batch at a higher temperature in only 45 minutes. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I should point out also that it took 2 weeks for DuPont to make a batch of IMR 4475 gunpowder but it took Olin Mathieson only 40 hours to make a batch of their ball powder. War Profiting killed our own troops in Vietnam. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2020

I believe the term "built-up" in the following sentence in line 6 of the third paragraph - "Despite little progress, the United States continued a significant built-up of forces." should be changed to build-up. Theycallmeeditman (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting. Mztourist (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2020

In the fifth paragraph of the introduction, I believe "advisers, and materiel shipments." should be changed to "advisers, and material shipments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:86A3:A100:2527:D222:52B2:3BC7 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly not an error, see materiel – Thjarkur (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I learnt something new today! - 2A01:4B00:86A3:A100:590F:4BF4:E2D0:5E52 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

I want to edit cuh can you please let me edit cuh Riagob (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

What do you want to add or change?Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Agent Orange deaths 1975-2018

Does not include deaths that happened as a direct cause of US military persons being exposed to Agent orange. The estimated deaths caused by Chemical warfare weapon Agent Orange from 1975 to 2018 after Vietnam Exposure is 35,000 to 44, 000.

         Was this added? Shadowrvn728 (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Tunnel rats (to be added with new section mentioned In to do list)

In the early stages of the war against the French colonial forces, the Viet Minh created an extensive underground system of tunnels, which was later expanded and improved by the Viet Cong. By the 1960s, the tunnel complexes included hospitals, training areas, storage facilities, headquarters, and barracks. These diverse facilities, coupled with sophisticated ventilation systems, allowed VC guerrillas to remain hidden underground for months at a time.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. and ANZAC troops uncovered a great number of enemy tunnels while patrolling or conducting larger operations. The men of the 3 Field Force, an Australian combat engineering unit that served in Vietnam from 1965-1966, have made a convincing argument that they were the first allied troops to enter the tunnels.[3]

Source: Tunnel rat

Some more stuff that can be added (prob needs to be edited for context):

To maintain a full scale guerrilla war in Southern Vietnam, camouflaged bases were used capable of supplying the guerillas for a long period of time. Throughout Southern Vietnam there were secret underground bases that operated successfully. There are reports that every villager was obliged to dig 90 centimetres of tunnel a day. The largest underground base was the tunnels of Cu Chi with overall length of 200 miles. To combat the guerillas in the tunnels the US used special forces-tunnel rats.

Part of the Ho Chi Minh Trail was based in caves made of karst.

When Vietnam became a French colony again after the Second World War, the Communistic Vietminh started to dig tunnels close to Saigon. After the French army left (they were defeated at Dien Bien Phu) the tunnels were maintained in case the plausible war with South-Vietnam would start. Ho Chi Minh, leader of North-Vietnam, ordered to expand the tunnels after the Americans entered the war between the North and the South; the tunnels would be used by the Viet Cong. Systems of tunnels were not occupied temporarily for military purpose, but began to contain whole villages of people living permanently underground. The tunnels were a complete underworld, it was all there; kitchens, hospitals, workshops, sleeping areas, communications, ammunition storage, even some entertainment. The tunnels eventually became a target for American forces because the enemy could hide in it and strike everywhere in the range of the tunnel complex (hundreds of miles) without a single warning and then disappear again.

These tactics were also applied against the Chinese during the Sino-Vietnamese War.

Source: Tunnel warfare

Shadowrvn728 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the use of tunnels is rather overrated, based on some of the early books about the war such as The Tunnels of Cu Chi. I would support the addition of the following: "During the First Indochina War, the Viet Minh created an extensive underground system of tunnels, which was later expanded and improved by the Viet Cong. By the 1960s, the tunnel complexes included hospitals, training areas, storage facilities, headquarters and barracks. These diverse facilities, coupled with sophisticated ventilation systems, allowed VC to remain hidden underground for months at a time. The Củ Chi District was well known for its extensive tunnel network. Allied forces trained volunteers, commonly known as "Tunnel rats", who would explore and destroy VC tunnels." Mztourist (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

minor formatting thing for the page. you know how there's a giant blank spot under the chart with all the Vietnam War details? is there any way to remove it because it looks weird.TL9EB (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, what minor format change?Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — IVORK _Talk 23:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Facts and citations to improve accuracy of Vietnam War article.

Some facts with citations exist that would improve the accuracy of the Vietnam War article. Should I enter them by editing the article, or discuss them first in a forum somewhere? I entered some, but they seem to have disappeared. Thanks for any help! Bird Flier (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Your changes to the lede were reverted as they went against long-standing wording. I do not agree that any of the changes you proposed "would improve the accuracy", particularly the "so-called" before South Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand. Is there a procedure by which I could show citations for the points I was making? I realize it can be controversial. But some more citations help establish what actually happened.Bird Flier (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the citations. The points that you are making do not need to be in the lede as its covered in the Names section. Vietnam War is the WP:COMMONNAME for the conflict. Mztourist (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again. This is a welcome discussion. In the lede, some inaccuracies exist, not corrected in the Names section. For example, no nation ever existed that called itself North Vietnam. But the second sentence of the lede names a "North Vietnam" as fighting the American War. The fact was that in 1945, Viet Nam came back into existence as one nation from the northern border with China to the southern tip in the sea. It declared its existence as the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam. It was composed of the overwhelming majority—north to south—as US Army planners, French generals, and observers like Paul Mus said. The 1954 Geneva Agreement said that Vietnam was one nation, independent and sovereign. “North Vietnam” never existed.Bird Flier (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a common shorthand for the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and to differentiate it from the Republic of Vietnam. But I think you may have a valid point and we should change (in its first use) both North and South Vietnam to Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Republic of Vietnam.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that the niceties of formalizing the separation of SVN from the DRV following the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum were never done. There's some more info and perhaps some leads to cites in that article and in in 1954 Geneva Conference#Indochina, Operation Passage to Freedom and North Vietnam. I have not dug deeper than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds correct to differentiate the two with those names, as you point out. "North Vietnam" was a shorthand, but it created a North-South inference that didn’t fit the DRV. So, differentiating as you suggest will remove the North-South inference and will recognize that the conflict was between DRV with its large majority throughout the country, and whatever entity opposed the DRV. That’s an interesting point you make about the niceties not being done, of separating SVN from the DRV following the 1955 referendum. I’ll have to look further at that. Another fact exists in the large majority of people north and south who composed the DRV: They were angry at the French invasion before 1954 (As Mus and others establish), and they stayed angry in 1954 when US leaders put US soldiers in the south against the DRV, starting a month before Geneva was signed. That US action went against what would be the specific Geneva prohibition against foreign soldiers and alliances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bird Flier (talk • contribs) 11:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Along with naming the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam (no North Vietnam existed), much more evidence shows that much of the rest of the official US version is also incorrect. Potential corrections, if carefully discussed, could make a strong Wikipedia article. But in drafting it, controversies could arise. It seems that such an approach would be best, but might it be best if this evidence is presented in a separate Wikipedia article? The evidence starts with declassified US consular reports in the National Archives, never mentioned to the public: US consuls and corporations opened in Viet Nam during 1875–1890s, enabled by French invasion violence. So, that was the origin of war for US corporations in Viet Nam. It never stopped. The overwhelming majority opposed this invasion. Finally, the DRV defeated France in 1954, but overall the 1945–1973 war was an attempt by some US leaders to re-establish Western colonial control to extend their decades of corporate operations.Bird Flier (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(added) from First Indochina War and Battle of Điện Biên Phủ:

At the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, the Combined Chiefs of Staff decided that Indochina south of latitude 16° north was to be included in the Southeast Asia Command under British Admiral Mountbatten.

and

the French gradually retook control of the South and North of Indochina. Hồ Chí Minh agreed to negotiate the future status of Vietnam, but the talks, held in France, failed to produce a solution. After over one year of latent conflict, all-out war broke out in December 1946 between French and Việt Minh forces as Hồ Chí Minh and his government went underground. The French tried to stabilize Indochina by reorganizing it as a Federation of Associated States. In 1949, they put former Emperor Bảo Đại back in power, as the ruler of a newly established State of Vietnam.

and

The Battle of Điện Biên Phủ was decisive; the war ended shortly afterward and the 1954 Geneva Accords were signed. France agreed to withdraw its forces from all its colonies in French Indochina, while stipulating that Vietnam would be temporarily divided at the 17th parallel, with control of the north given to the Viet Minh as the Democratic Republic of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh, and the south becoming the State of Vietnam, nominally under Emperor Bảo Đại, preventing Ho Chi Minh from gaining control of the entire country.[15]

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not accept that US "corporate operations" played any material role in the Vietnam War, nor that "the large majority of people north and south... stayed angry in 1954 when US leaders put US soldiers in the south against the DRV" this seems like POV pushing to me. Mztourist (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Use of fact or POV is key, as you mention. I respectfully submit an example of a key fact in the Geneva Agreement, misstated in the Wikipedia article. The Agreement says: “Article 14 Political and administrative measures in the two regrouping zones . . . (a) Pending the general elections which will bring about the unification of Viet-Nam, the conduct of civil administration in each regrouping zone shall be in the hands of the party whose forces are to be regrouped there. . . .” That means France administers the south zone, and the DRV administers the north zone. But without mentioning that fact, the Wikipedia article says, “The south, meanwhile, constituted the State of Vietnam, with Bảo Đại as Emperor and Ngô Đình Diệm (appointed in July 1954) as his prime minister.” That statement has no support in the Geneva documents. The Wikipedia article should show how that Geneva provision for French administration was not followed: US leaders illegally inserted US soldiers (in violation of another Geneva prohibition against military), and backed the State of Vietnam in violation of the provision that France do the administration. The US had zero right to do that. On a second point, the view that US corporate operations did not play a major role, US leaders withhold thousands of consular reports 1889–1954, so people form a POV without knowing basic facts about corporate operations.Bird Flier (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The State of Vietnam was created in 1949 and was the party nominally controlling southern Vietnam, it rejected the Geneva Accords. If we are getting into illegalities then we would also need to discuss how the DRV didn't regroup all of its troops from the South or from Laos... "US leaders withhold thousands of consular reports 1889–1954, so people form a POV without knowing basic facts about corporate operations" WP:PROVEIT. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if the facts show the Vietnam War was illegal, Wikipedia should state facts, not unsupported conclusions. The Geneva Agreement says: “Pending the general elections . . . the conduct of civil administration in each regrouping zone shall be in the hands of the party whose forces are to be regrouped there. . . .” That was France in the south zone. With great respect for writing in this difficult area, I point out that from that Geneva fact, it is an unsupported leap (a) for Wikipedia to say “The south, meanwhile, constituted the State of Vietnam. . . ,” and (b) to say that the State of Vietnam “was the party nominally controlling southern Vietnam.” Geneva said the opposite, giving control to France in the south. At the war’s end, only the DRV and France controlled various parts of the south. The State of Vietnam controlled nothing. In fact, the US in 1949 had requested that France create such a state as a smokescreen for US military aid, but during 1950–54, this new State of Viet Nam was so sham that the French said it did not even have the ability to receive military aid, so the French continued receiving the aid directly from the US. Wikipedia should start with the fact that the July 1954 Geneva Agreement named France, not the State of Vietnam, to administer the south. No conjecture should be allowed as to how that was not followed. (Another set of facts shows how the US illegally installed the State of Vietnam. Likewise, only documented facts should be considered on this.)Bird Flier (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

The State of Vietnam claimed control of all of Vietnam and had control over much of the South, it did not agree with the Geneva Accords and so was not bound by them, end of story. Mztourist (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

On what you describe as the State of Vietnam having nominal control, how about the Wikipedia article state the facts behind that? 1] The July 20 Geneva Agreement said that France is to administer the south zone. 2] The State of Vietnam’s king lived in France, frequenting the French Riviera as a playboy with wine and women, its chamber of deputies had no constituency, and few Viet people were loyal to it. (playboy in France, constituency, loyalty. Bernstein, Marc D. (April 2010). “Ed Lansdale’s Black Warfare: How the CIA legend engineered the birth of South Vietnam.” Vietnam 22, 6 ProQuest p. 44–51, espec p. 45, Leesburg, VA: Weider History Group.) 3] The US government sent US soldiers beginning June 1 (various citations available) under a US policy of taking over the war despite and against the duties of France under Article 14 to administer the south zone, and of France under Article 19: “the two parties shall ensure that the zones assigned to them do not adhere to any military alliance and are not used for the resumption of hostilities or to further an aggressive policy.” 4] Because the DRV and France, the two warring parties, together held control of virtually all the south zone, the State of Vietnam didn’t just magically get nominal control. 5] The only power that allowed the State of Viet Nam to claim to have power was the insertion of soldiers by the US, operating as a superpower with no rights in Viet Nam. 6] That power was exercised by the US and the State of Vietnam claiming not to be bound by the Geneva Agreement.Bird Flier (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Your arguments are the same as those used by the DRV since 1954 to delegitimise any opposition in the South and I do not accept them. The State of Vietnam was not simply a puppet of the French and then the Americans as you assert. The State of Vietnam did not accept the Geneva Accords and was not bound by them, any agreement by France relating to the South was not binding on the State of Vietnam. Where is your point 1 stated in the Geneva Accords? What relevance is point 2? Mztourist (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

My friend, you ask for my cite on point one; my 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC) post cited Geneva Agreement Article 14 and 14(a). And, the relevance of point 2 (king in France, playboy, chamber no constituency, few loyal) is that with those weaknesses, the State of Vietnam had no power to seize control from France or the DRV, which together held control with armies in the field. If the Wikipedia article claims that the State of Vietnam gained control, the article needs to state facts of how that control was gained over the control by the French and DRV. Having said that, my friend, the facts show that the US as a superpower gained control over some of the south, by inserting soldiers starting June 1 with orders to prepare to fight a war. The US asserted that it was not bound by the Geneva Accords. This is how a change in control happened, rather than the State of Vietnam just claiming control. Citations are available on this.Bird Flier (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Article 14 doesn't state France, rather it is vague presumably because the State of Vietnam refused to participate in the Accords. While you try to deny its existence/legitimacy, the State of Vietnam controlled much of the South and it, not France, was in charge of the civil administration in the South. Bao Dai's personality flaws are of no relevance to the legitimacy of control of the State of Vietnam. The State of Vietnam controlled the Vietnamese National Army which fought alongside the French Far East Expeditionary Corps. Prove that "the US as a superpower gained control over some of the south, by inserting soldiers starting June 1 with orders to prepare to fight a war." If your arguments had any validity then why did the French leave South Vietnam in 1956? As I said previously, you are just repeating the same arguments used by the DRV since 1954 to delegitimise any opposition in the South. Mztourist (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The Pulitzer Prize-winning Embers of War reports the opposite of your uncited statement, which said “The State of Vietnam controlled the Vietnamese National Army which fought alongside the French Far East Expeditionary Corps.” Embers of War says, “General Marcel Carpentier, the new French commander in Vietnam, told The New York Times that if military equipment went directly to Bao Dai, “I would resign within twenty-four hours.” The Vietnamese “have no military organization which could effectively utilize the equipment. It would be wasted, as in China, and the United States has had enough of that.” Carpentier’s civilian counterpart, High Commissioner Léon Pignon, echoed these sentiments, patiently telling a reporter that only France had the technical capability to accept and distribute weapons and other equipment. Bao Dai was lazy and had few followers, Pignon confided to a British diplomat, and though Vietnamese troops fought reasonably well when brigaded with French forces, they were apathetic and undisciplined when left to their own devices.” (Embers of War, Kindle Location 4135–4143.) With all respect, Wikipedia should base this issue on what the Pulitzer Prize winner reports, rather than the uncited assertion of the opposite.Bird Flier (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read Embers of War and neither it nor Bao Dai's personality contradicts the fact that the State of Vietnam existed and controlled the South. The French wanted to retain their influence over the VNA while the US increasingly sought to replace the French in training the VNA. Mztourist (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not only that, a Pulitzer doesn't give a source automatic trump over everything else. I find myself in agreement with Mztourist. Polite POV pushing is still POV pushing. Intothatdarkness 17:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Politeness is a virtue. On POV itself, the underlying question is: What happened? For, on two contending explanations, each has a POV. Which one actually happened is shown by documents and sources. So, on our discussion, here are 4 points. 1] You make a valid point that after the Geneva Agreement, “the US increasingly sought to replace the French in training the VNA.” That is established by sources, so it should appear in the Wikipedia article. You said that the State of Vietnam considered itself not bound by the Geneva Agreement. I agree, so that should also appear, with citations. The US also stated that it was not bound (Embers of War, KL 10733), so that should also be included. 2] The Geneva Agreement and Final Declaration contained an express prohibition against foreign military. That is a basic document, so it should be included. It established, for those Viet people who thought the Geneva Agreement was valid, a reason to believe that US soldiers could not legally enter. Citations exist on that. 3] The Pulitzer Prize-winning Embers of War statement stands, so far, without a citation against it, where the French had said that the State of Vietnam has “no military organization which could effectively utilize the equipment . . . Bao Dai was lazy and had few followers . . . and though Vietnamese troops fought reasonably well when brigaded with French forces, they were apathetic and undisciplined when left to their own devices.” So, those facts should appear in the Wikipedia article. While winning a Pulitzer does not guarantee accuracy, it does show a high standard of quality, so if no citation exists to rebut it, it is believable. 4] A declassified 1943 State Department report is “The Future Status of Indo-China as an Example of Postwar Colonial Relationships,” (I could attach it for you, if Wikipedia has a mechanism for that.). It shows that the real reason for the war 1945–1975 was that US leaders wanted the pre-World War II western colonial control to continue. That document should appear in the Wikipedia article. Its existence is a fact.Bird Flier (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Vietnam War page is already too long and adding in the level of detail that you suggest is unnecessary as it is already covered on the Geneva Accords page. You haven't convinced me or User:Intothatdarkness that this is anything more than POV pushing. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmas break time. Will have to pick up this discussion next week.Bird Flier (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You haven't managed to gain a consensus for any changes, so I suggest that you find somewhere else to direct your energy. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Invasion of the North

Overall the article is pretty good....but I think one really big omission here is the lack of discussion as to why the war was largely limited to the south: the threat of direct Chinese and/or Soviet intervention. Within the LBJ White House, there were numerous discussions about how to keep the war limited in this way and even the bombing campaign was designed so. (In fact, for example, when a Soviet ship was hit in a harbor in the North...it caused all sorts of worries in D.C.)

Obviously the war was trying to stop an insurgency early on....but as it progressed and became a war largely of the USA/SVN vs. personnel largely from the North....this question (I would think) would cross the readers mind. This was only about a decade after the Korean War. And the memories of what happened when we pushed to the Chinese border then were very fresh in many minds.

I can write it up if other editors think it is worth including.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this would be useful, but it would need support from more than one reliable source (this turned up some apparently relevant sources). How it would fit into the article is unclear -- perhaps fragmented by country in the Involvement of other countries section(?), perhaps major opposition players need to be separated into a separate section from other countries(?), In any case, I don't think that Invasion of the North would be a good section heading. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth a entire section. But perhaps a brief discussion as we begin to discuss the selection of the seek & destroy strategy. (Or maybe later as the conflict shifted to a conventional one.) Probably one of the best summaries of the political situation I've seen comes from Michael Lind's 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' (p.83-89). (A book which is already cited in the article.) Lind (by the way) argues against such a invasion strategy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Plague and the Vietnam War

I think a good section to include within this article would be to talk about the plague outbreak that was created from the deforestation throughout the war. How it impacted on the locals, on the war overall, etc. Just seeing what people would think of this first before I did anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamzze (talk • contribs) 10:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

What sources do you have for it? I was looking for details about it recently but couldn't find any. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Put an "and" after "French" to be grammatically correct. Jigglypuff1231 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Article size

This article is a massive 328kB, which is WP:TOOBIG. I see in the archives this has been brougt up before, but some serious consideration needs to be given to addressing this, but either splitting, reducing or both. - wolf 22:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Splitting off some sub-articles seems to be the only way forward, but what to split off without reducing its relative importance is the problem. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2021

"MACV rarely made a distinction between unarmed civilians and combatants, leading to counting of civilians killed as enemy casualties since it was directly tied to promotions and commendation" cites to this "BDM Study." Nowhere in this BDM Study does it talk about killing civilians. Thus, this is an unsupported claim. "Declassification of the BDM Study, "The Strategic Lessons Learned in Vietnam"" (PDF). Defense Technical Center. pp. 225–234. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 April 2019.

This citation 75.118.15.37 (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It does discuss it, but it doesn't mention the MACV directly. I've merged it with the sentence beforehand. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

There needs to be " before and after the statement. 72.197.185.92 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a long article, can you be more specific with what you're referring to? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Too short is just as good as too much: please be precise where quotations marks are required. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thailand as a location of fighting in the Vietnam War

I recently came upon a vanity video detailing how the North Vietnamese countered attacks by US bomber planes coming from bases in Thailand by launching raids against these bases to destroy the planes on the ground. This is the YouTube video that sparked it (linking the video is not in any way an endorsement or promotion of it and its makers, nor of the video platform, not even a sign that I like that video). Now the video isn't sourced, but briefly searching on the theme yielded results (again, I searched it very briefly, as that was just mean to justify the inclusion of one word to the article).

First thing I came upon were some newspaper mentions¹² of raids in the US bases in Thailand. These preliminary reports I looked upon report that the US attributed the raids on "Thai communists" but also state that the Thais disputed this and said that the raiders came out from North Vietnam. Now looking on the articles relating to these attacks (Ubon Royal Thai Air Force Base#Sapper attacks & Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base#Sapper attacks) there is further information on them, including mention of "16 armed Vietnamese" carrying one of the attacks.

I don't know the criteria, but Thailand is listed as a belligerent in this conflict, the fact that there was action and direct clash of arms inside its territory on matters pertaining the Vietnam War seems enough in its own to indicate Thailand as a location in which the conflict took place. Not to forget the fact that there was significant US military presence inside its territory, carrying direct intrusions into Vietnam (and later in the war, aiding in the evacuation from South Vietnam). Most of the information I have briefly looked upon state openly that North Vietnamese forces carried these attacks. Such direct action between US and North Vietnamese forces (which included casualties from both sides and material destruction) taking place in the territory of Thailand would merit the inclusion of Thailand among the various places the war took place on. Some of the sources, US newspaper reports, I linked state that the US government claimed that some of the attacks were carried by Thai Guerrillas. But, even in that case, these were done to carry a deliberate North Vietnamese goal and strategy to counter US bomber raids. So they can be said to have been carried by forces fighting for the North Vietnamese cause.

These raids are a rather obscure part of the war, but they were documented. I looked upon them and the information available in a very preliminary manner (again, just to back the inclusion of a single word in the article). If someone wishes to further ellaborate, I'm sure they will find enough information to justify the inclusion of Thailand among the locations the conflict took place on. (Talk section as request by User @Mztourist:) CaptainKaptain (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I had just watched the Mark Felton video and wondered if that was what had prompted your insertions. As you note he provides no sources, but claims that these multiple attacks were done by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong, many of his videos are somewhat sensationalist and not always completely true. By this edit [2] I added all the details of the sapper attacks on Ubon and by this edit: [3] I cleaned up the details about sapper attacks at Udorn. If I had identified any reliable information in the sources that definitively stated they were carried out by PAVN/VC I would have added that in, but I didn't, there's just that one NYT report by a Thai villager that the 12 January 1970 attackers were Vietnamese. If you can find reliable sources that confirm the attacks were carried out by PAVN/VC then your edits can be reinstated, if not then Thailand should not be listed as a location of fighting. Mztourist (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Very understandable. I will probaby not look further into more information about these attacks, but others may do it (and probably better than me), especially considering the spark of interest generated by vanity videos such as the one mentioned. But, just to finish my contributions here and leave out a thought, wouldn't the addition of the Thai Communist Guerrilas as a belligerent force on the side of North Vietnam (since they carried out attacks to support North Vietnam, and deliberate North Vietnamese goals and strategy - to disrupt the US bombing campaign on Indochina), wouldn't that solve all of these questionings and better represent the reality? It would mean the inclusion of Thailand as a place of the conflict and wouldn't require additional sourcing, as the involvement of the Thai Guerrillas is properly sourced beyond doubt and attributed by the US government itself? I will not edit that and look into information about the Thai Guerrillas to properly add mention of them, but others may follow on that suggestion. CaptainKaptain (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think these attacks should be included under the Vietnam War as we already have a page for Communist insurgency in Thailand. Thai communists were fighting their own war against the Thai government and so presumably attacking "Imperialist" bases on Thai territory was part of that struggle. Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand your reply and the point about attacking Imperialist bases being part of the struggle of the Guerrillas in Thailand, but thinking about it, these US bases and the forces stationed there weren't really taking action against the Thai Guerillas. The raids, sapper attacks, were directed at US planes, specifically bombers, which were directly involved in the US bombing campaigns in Indochina. The attacks on these bases, and specifically on the bombers, were of little strategic value to the Thai Guerillas, but, it seems, were rather carried out specifically to aid the North Vietnamese forces and as a part of a general North Vietnamese strategy of countering the US bombing campaign by disabling the bombers on the ground.

The conception about "attacking Imperialists" also seems rather vague (attacking just for the sake of attacking? With nothing to be gained from it?), there were several ways to attack US forces stationed in Thailand if they so wanted (the Guerrillas could have killed US forces and personnel in Thailand, etc. Which would have made a bigger point and bolstered the morale and image of the Thai Guerrillas much more than sapping a few military equipment), the attacks on these specific targets, which were directly involved in the Vietnam war, and the aim of North Vietnamese strategy, and who were of little gain for the cause of Communism in Thailand, seems to merit distinguishing between the actions carried by the Guerrillas for the Communist Insurgency and the actions carried out by the Guerrillas directly for the carrying out of North Vietnamese strategy, in order to aid them in the Vietnam War (rather than it being an action carried out to "attack Imperialists" just for the sake of attacking and coincidentally majorly help the North Vietnamese struggle and carry their strategy goals).

Again, this would merit the inclusion of Thailand as a place where the fighting in the Vietnam War took place on, without requiring any addition of sources. Thailand is already listed as a belligerent in the conflict, a conflict which had several spillovers, it would make sense for the Thai Communists to also be included among the belligerents. I don't know the criteria well enough to be sure about the edit, it is really a big debate for the inclusion of a single word on the article (which seems to speak against it, just to be safe), and others may add information directly mentioning North Vietnamese forces fighting in Thai territory later, making the whole discussion pointless, but I will leave this here for the moment. CaptainKaptain (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

dying father has stuff to contribute 75.168.136.5 (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

edit requests need to ask "can I add this", we cannot answer general requasest, they must be specific.Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021

The Vietnam War was between the USA and Vietnam and thus was from 1965-1973, however, the Second Indochina War was from 1955-1975 as those were the Western allies fighting against Vietnam. Hence, the date for the Vietnam War should not be 1955-75, it's factually incorrect. For the Vietnamese, it was not the Vietnam War, it was the Second Indochina War. 103.252.202.233 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The dates here are well sourced and explained. To get them changed you'd need to argue your case here, with reference to reliable sources, and establish consensus for the new dates. It's not something that can be achieved through a simple edit request. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

July 2, 1976 end of the Vietnam war.

Whereas the north Vietnamese breached the Paris peace accords, the US was at a state of war when Saigon was evacuated in 1975.No peace treaty was ever signed ending the Vietnam war. The date of the ending was actually July 2,1976 when South Vietnam ceased to exist and the US obligation ended.

Read wp:or, we need wp:rs saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Type in July 2,1976 in your little computer and you will see that is the day South Vietnam ceased to exist ending the war. US had a treaty with South Vietnam to defend it. The fake Paris peace accords were broken in December 1974 when North Vietnam invaded the South. That means the US was at war with north Vietnam until South Vietnam ceased to exist. That date is July 2, 1976. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.77.154 (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Reliable Sources don't support that. There was no South Vietnam after 30 April as Dương Văn Minh had surrendered the government and the military and the North controlled the entire country. Some legalistic argument doesn't change that. Mztourist (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

RS have to say it, we cannot infer it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The merger is well documented in many reliable sources. When they merge that ends the war period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.77.154 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No when RS say the war ended is when the war ended, policy.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven is correct. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Commanders and leaders" in the infobox

Listing the names of over thirty people on both sides in the infobox doesn't really gel with the purpose of infoboxes as a summary. Any objection to paring this down a bit? If so what criteria should be used? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree, lets limit it to national leaders and the overall commanders of each side (not each contingent).Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Cut the number down -- before someone adds Forest Gump.Smallchief (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've boldly removed 3 less important Allied figures, but after that it becomes more difficult especially for the US. Obviously we should keep Presidents and COMUSMACVs, but what of Defense Secretaries and chairmen of the Joint Chiefs? I would say we have to keep the former and could lose the latter. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would say none of em. At the end of the day it should be major field commanders and the political head.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how we couldn't list McNamara, Clifford and Laird as they made the policy as much as, if not more than, the Presidents. Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

One could reasonably state that McNamara had more to do with the conduct of the war than many major field commanders. Laird also had a major impact on how Nixon conducted aspects of the war.Intothatdarkness 00:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree. Mztourist (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your criteria. Why did you keep Nguyễn Hữu An (Colonel General: three-star rank), but remove Lê Trọng Tấn (Army general: four-star rank), Huỳnh Tấn Phát (Chairman of Government of Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam - equivalent to Prime Minister), Nguyễn Hữu Thọ (President of Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam), Võ Chí Công (Deputy Chairman of the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam and Deputy Secretary of the Central Office for South Vietnam),... Ltn12345 (talk) 04:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the relative role each was reported to have played in the war, not their final rank. As the VC was part of the PAVN and the PRG was just a fiction created by North Vietnam I don't regard seniority in either to be material unless they clearly played a significant role. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That did not explain why you removed Lê Trọng Tấn. He was involved in several military engagements, including: First Battle of Quảng Trị, Hue–Da Nang Campaign, 1975 spring offensive. You can read more detail in the article about Lê Trọng Tấn. Ltn12345 (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Highly debatable whether he should be listed, he wasn't the overall commander at any point. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

He was commander of PAVN in the First Battle of Quảng Trị, commander of the Hue-Da Nang Campaign in March 1975 and second commander of the 1975 Spring Offensive. Ltn12345 (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I read all that, so not the overall commander of the PAVN at any point, so not worthy of inclusion. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Being involved in campaigns or battles isn't the same thing as having an impact on policy or the overall conduct of operations. I support including SECDEFs in many cases because they DID have a major impact on the US conduct of operations and strategy on the whole. Not all field commanders did. Harry Kinnard, for example, may have pioneered the concept of airmobility (along with many other 1st Cav Div commanders), but his impact on overall operations wasn't as great as Julian Ewell's. Not advocating for adding either of them to the infobox, just using them to illustrate a point. Intothatdarkness 14:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The World War II article lists the heads of states of the major participants in the War, a total of seven people. I think that's a better model than the laundry list that now exists in this article. Smallchief (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted, but while WWII has an understandable need to limit to the main leaders of the main belligerents, Vietnam only had a few belligerents but many leaders over its much longer term, so I'm not sure who you would think should stay and who would be consigned to the less visible linked Leaders of the Vietnam War. Mztourist (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

There are very few supporters of both sides when there really should be more

I was looking at the Spanish Wikipedia page for the Vietnam War, and I noticed that there were far more supporters of both sides in said page than in the English Wikipedia. The question at the moment is: why aren't all of those sides in the English Wikipedia too? Here are some nations to add for the South Vietnam supporters area: (The entire source for all of them is this one: http://www.psywarrior.com/AlliesRepublicVietnam.html) Iran Spain

I hope I did something good for this article, and if I didn't, feel free to remove it. Yours, Vulcan300 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Vulcan300

I think we would need a better source than that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Once the war finished, it was done.

What was?Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Photo taken by Phillip Kemp from cockpit after sling-loading water drums to outpost..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)