Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Nick Turse

Hello, I just wanted to know why can't his potential findings be included in this article. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Who? Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nick Turse. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Who? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

How about telling us who Nick Turse is and what it is that they found - with a link if possible, to the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Nick Turse has written several books critical of the US in the war, particularly Kill Anything That Moves... where he argues that US forces systematically killed civilians. I regard him as WP:FRINGE. I would note that User:Volume2KWestOG is arguing on Talk:United States war crimes that US bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, in the Korean War and in the Vietnam War should be listed as war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I would also note that Volume2KWestOG's account was only created on 30 June 2023 but they seem very keen to push some controversial edits. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how you qualify his scholarship as "fringe" when multiple peers have praised his work on the american war in Vietnam. Indeed, some have disagreed with him but you're going too far. On the question of war crimes, this is another debate that has no place here. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

OK now we know who he is, what do you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of 15 images

Hi all

Recently 15 (if I have counted correctly) images were removed in a single edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168990200 I just wanted to flag this edit as it seems like a rather large change to make on such an established article.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The article still has lots of images, the editor gave a valid reason for removal MOS:SANDWICH " avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other; or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar." If you think some of the images removed where key to the article and should have been retained, you could ask the editor in question for their rationale. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Iran

Iran was also a supporter of South Vietnam and United States in the War. Why isn't that included in the belligerents part of the infobox? Aminabzz (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Use of "Supported by" in the belligerent parameter is deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict. So, the obvious answer to this query is to remove all such entries here - which I have now done. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There are so many "supported by"s in so many war articles. So all of them need to be removed? Aminabzz (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

WP is a work in progress and there is no rush. So, sooner or later. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Length

This article is quite long (18k words) and very detailed in places, making it potentially overwhelming for a reader. Some of the details present would be better relocated to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said in my edit summary: "That an article exceeds some arbitrary length guideline is insufficient justification for adding this tag." As WP:SS says: judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up. Can you be specific about which "details present would be better relocated to subarticles"? It also looks as if you've been placing this tag on many articles in rapid succession. So I have to ask, did you read and considered each such article individually, taking into account breadth of the topic being covered, or did you place this tag simply because of word length? Paul August ☎ 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I placed this tag because, as it states, the article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As to how to approach fixing that problem, I'd suggest starting with Aftermath and the unsourced content in Legacy, but really the whole article would benefit from a thorough going-through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you didn't answer my question:

did you read and considered each such article individually, taking into account breadth of the topic being covered, or did you place this tag simply because of word length?

I do not consider that the breadth of topic of any of the articles I tagged justifies its length. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

So did you tag the articles simply because of their word length? Paul August ☎ 13:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I tagged the articles because they are too long to read and navigate comfortably; I don't share your belief that word count is completely irrelevant to that consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that they are too long to read and navigate comfortably? (By the the way I never said that "that word count is completely irrelevant to that consideration". What I said was that word count alone is "insufficient justification for adding this tag".) Paul August ☎ 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

We've already had this conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Vietnam War lasted TWENTY YEARS and has EXTENSIVE media coverage and firsthand accounts. You know what's "overwhelming"? Being drafted as an 18 year old kid into one of the most brutal and futile wars of all time. Why SHOULDN'T it be exhaustive? 2603:6010:8C01:257C:E192:8A78:24AC:5E47 (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, but I think you should know that your apparently one-size-fits-all approach to article length is inappropriate per the part of WP:SS quoted above. In addition when you add this template to an article you should explain, on the talk page, why that article is too long, giving reasons (other than just article size) tailored to that specific article, and including details about where and how the article would be made better by shortening it. 14:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Terminology of the Vietnam War into Vietnam War#Names. This article is very short and should be merged. Parham wiki (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

yea, does seem rather pointless. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Belligerents

The article states that the 'Vietnam War' started in 1955, yet France is not listed as one of the belligerents. 58.7.168.178 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says they were still, involved in conflict after october 1955? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

The State of Vietnam was a French backed state that existed from 22 July 1954 to 26 October 1955. It was part of the French Union. Officially, French troops were only required to leave by 1956, under the provisions of the Geneva Accords. This is easy information to find.

The problem here is that the entire wiki page has the wrong name. It should be named "Second Indochina War" and the term "Vietnam War" should redirect to a page on the Second Indochina War, for the sake of accuracy. The "Vietnam War" under the American understanding of the term, begins well AFTER 1955, which is why the page should be renamed.

We go by what RS calls the war. If RS called it the "ham sandwich war".....that's what we'd call it. And most RS I am familiar with call the Vietnam War exactly that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

By a degree of technicality, France WAS a belligerent in the Second Indochina War, although that status quickly changed in 1956, when French troops were forced to leave the south in April of that year. JaLikei (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just linking this discussion @ Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as it might affect this article. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the United Kingdom be added under the Belligerents section, perhaps with a "minor involvement" or "supported by" header. Declassified documents suggest that the UK sent SAS teams into Vietnam, as well as providing MI6 intelligence and covert arms supply flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskyCriminologist (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not an wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not. However, this book is: https://nuspress.nus.edu.sg/products/the-british-and-the-vietnam-war-their-way-with-lbj. JaLikei (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2023

I would like to write about Diems Persecution against as it is not written more then it should of. ForeheadSavingSorry (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please put your edit request in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

NATO was involved in the Vietnam war 203.95.196.244 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023

change -> the M60 still could fail to fire at crucial times – spent casings could get stuck inside of the chamber, meaning the barrel would have to be replaced before it could fire again. to -> the M60 still could fail to fire at crucial times – spent casings could get stuck inside of the chamber, meaning the barrel would have to be service before it could fire again. I want to change this because replacing the barrel would be inaccurate as it would more than likely to have the separated or stuck shell removed. look up stuck case extractor for proof most gunsmiths or armorers would have this tool. Jrmhwatkins (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing wrong here. Do you know how to change an M60 barrel? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The picture of a monument

Hello, the picture of a Memorial with a tank in the front seems to have a wrong caption. It says it's T-54 tank, while the tank looks more like T-55. It has a barrel ejector - those were only on T-55. Also the turret of T-54 has an additional "cap" for the ventilation hole and it's not on the picture. Vladroot (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Dead link in reference 45, the citation for how many New Zealanders died in the war. Gwquinn (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

End of the war date May 7,1975

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the US government a Vietnam war Veteran is anyone who was in Vietnam waters, air space or on the ground being evacuated until May 7, 1975. Your claim is biased on the faulty end date of April 30, 1975 when the last troops left the embassy. They were not the last troops in Vietnam just the last ones shown on TV. Please change your phony end of war date to May 7,1975 so it matches official US government records.  2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The war ended on 30 April 1975 with the Fall of Saigon. A date set by the US Government doesn't change that. The Marines at the Saigon embassy were the last American troops in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

You Are WRONG. they were not the last troops out of Vietnam. American ships were offshore even past May 7, 1975 evacuating troops in remote locations and members of the CIA. The war DID not end when the cameras were turned off and the embassy was left wide open for the enemy.  Thats why the official end date of the Vietnam war using official government records is May 7, 1975. you just don't have access that is still sealed by the US government of evacuations between April 30,1975 and May 7, 1975. The last guy out was a member of the CIA and a Marine spotter who were in a remote location. they got out on May 7,1975 at approximately 3 pm Vietnam time.  You need to correct your end date as it is Wrong. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide recognized RS for any change of this nature. That's how this works. Your claiming something does not make it so. Intothatdarkness 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, IP user we don't indulge conspiracy theories here. If RS aren't available it doesn't belong here. Mztourist (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The US government is in a conspiracy to get the end of the war date WRONG buy saying it did not end until May 7,1975????. IF Vietnam veterans are recognized to May 7, 1975, that means they were in Vietnam up until May 7, 1975. IF the war ended on April 30,1975 when the TV cameras were shut off when the embassy was evacuated why are men classified as Vietnam war Veterans for another week?  Because the war did not end clean and tidy men trying to get to the embassy could not as the enemy encircled the city. They had to find radios and contact the ships offshore to get evacuated. That went on for another week. Your ludicrous claim there was a government conspiracy  is beyond belief but no surprise from the children running Wikipedia.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If you don't have any actual sources (Reliable Sources), nothing will be added to the article. Many of the dates chosen by the US government to demarcate awards are arbitrary and not always grounded in historical reality. Just look at the various Vietnam "campaigns" for an example. The so-called "Comanche Campaign" is another. No historian uses the term, but the Army invented it for unit lineage purposes.

Bottom line: no RS, no change. Intothatdarkness 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is this proving Vietnam war operations did not stop and continued until May 7, 1975. if you wiki idiot editors can read and not think it a government conspiracy.

Huge text dump of a transcript of an NPR broadcast, hyperlinked later in the discussion

At War's End, U.S. Ship Rescued South Vietnam's Navy : NPR At War's End, U.S. Ship Rescued South Vietnam's Navy SEPTEMBER 1, 20105:45 PM ET HEARD ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED By Joseph Shapiro , Sandra Bartlett 12-Minute Listen Download Transcript The South Vietnamese fleet follows the USS Kirk to Subic Bay in the Philippines. The Kirk's final mission at the end of the Vietnam War was to bring the remnants of the South's navy to safety in the Philippines. Hugh Doyle Last of three parts On April 30, 1975, North Vietnamese troops entered the deserted streets of Saigon. Tanks crashed through the gates of the presidential palace and soldiers hoisted the yellow and red flag of the Viet Cong. Just hours before, the last Americans had been evacuated, rescued and flown on Marine helicopters to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers waiting off the coast. The Vietnam War was officially over. Now those Navy ships were steaming away from Vietnam. There was one exception. That night, the captain of a small destroyer escort, the USS Kirk, got a mysterious order to head back to Vietnam. Sponsor Message South Vietnamese Navy: 'We Forgot 'Em' Paul Jacobs, the captain, received the directive from Adm. Donald Whitmire, commander of the evacuation mission — Operation Frequent Wind. He was aboard the USS Blue Ridge, the lead ship of the Navy's 7th Fleet. The Kirk reached Con Son Island, off the southern coast of Vietnam, on May 1, 1975. There, it was met by 30 South Vietnamese navy ships and dozens of fishing boats and cargo ships — and as many as 30,000 Vietnamese refugees. Hugh Doyle Jacobs recalls Whitmire's surprise message: "He says, 'We're going to have to send you back to rescue the Vietnamese navy. We forgot 'em. And if we don't get them or any part of them, they're all probably going to be killed.'" The Kirk was being sent to an island off the Vietnamese mainland — by itself. And there was one more odd thing, the admiral told Jacobs: He'd be taking orders from a civilian. Richard Armitage came aboard the Kirk late at night, wearing a borrowed sport coat. Years later, Armitage would become second in command to Colin Powell in the Bush administration's State Department. But on that last day of April 1975, he was on a special assignment from the secretary of defense. He'd just turned 30 that week. Video: A War, A Baby And Lasting Ties Volume 90% Credit: Heather Murphy/NPR Armitage recalls coming aboard the ship and quickly being escorted to the officer's mess where he met with Jacobs and Commodore Donald Roane, commander of the flotilla of Navy destroyers. "Commodore Roane said something like, 'Young man, I'm not used to having strange civilians come aboard my ship in the middle of the night and give me orders,' " Armitage recalls. "I said, 'I am equally unaccustomed, sir, to coming aboard strange ships in the middle of the night and giving you orders. But steam to Con Son.' And so they did." Sponsor Message Secret Plan To Rescue More Than Just Ships The Kirk and its crew of about 260 officers and men were ordered to Con Son Island, about 50 miles off the coast of South Vietnam and not yet occupied by the North Vietnamese. Con Son was the site of a notorious prison. Now, its harbors were the hiding place for the remnants of the South Vietnamese navy. Armitage had come up with the plan for them to gather there. Armitage, a graduate of Annapolis, had been a Navy intelligence officer, assigned to Vietnamese units. He gained respect for the South Vietnamese as he worked alongside them and became fluent in the language. Then he resigned his commission and left the Navy in protest when the Nixon administration signed the Paris peace accords. That 1973 agreement between all warring parties in Vietnam ended direct U.S. military involvement in the war. Armitage felt the U.S. had sold out the South Vietnamese. But as it became clear that the South Vietnam government was about to fall, a Pentagon official asked Armitage to fly back to Vietnam with a dangerous mission. His assignment: to remove or destroy naval vessels and technology so they wouldn't fall into the hands of the Communists. In 1975, Richard Armitage was a 30-year-old civilian charged with a dangerous mission: to remove or destroy South Vietnamese naval vessels and technology so they wouldn't fall into the hands of the Communists. Later, Armitage would serve as deputy secretary of state from 2001 to 2005, under Secretary of State Colin Powell in the administration of George W. Bush. Courtesy Richard Armitage A few weeks before Saigon fell, Armitage had shown up at the office of an old friend, Capt. Kiem Do, deputy chief of staff for the South Vietnamese navy. Together, they came up with the secret plan to rescue the Vietnamese ships when — as was becoming clear would happen — the South Vietnamese government surrendered. Do remembers warning Armitage that they'd be saving more than ships. "I told him, I said, 'Well, our crew would not leave Saigon without their family, so therefore there will be a lot of people,' " Do recalls. He says Armitage remained silent. "He didn't say yes; didn't say no. So I just take it as an acknowledgement," Do says. Sponsor Message Armitage didn't tell his bosses at the Pentagon there would be refugees on those ships. He feared the American authorities wouldn't want them. Neither Do nor Armitage, though, could predict how many refugees would turn up in Con Son. Chaos At Con Son Island The Kirk steamed through the night to Con Son and reached the island just as the sun came up on May 1. There were 30 South Vietnamese navy ships, and dozens of fishing boats and cargo ships. All of them were packed with refugees, desperate to get out of Vietnam. The ships "were crammed full of people," says Kent Chipman, who in 1975 was a 21-year-old machinist's mate in the ship's engine room and today works at a water purification plant in Texas. "I couldn't see below deck, but above deck the people were just as tight as you could get, side by side." There was no exact count of how many people were on those ships. Some historical records say there were 20,000 people. Other records suggest it was as many as 30,000. Jan Herman, a historian with the U.S. Navy Medical Department, who is documenting the story of the Kirk, uses the higher number. ESSAY Saigon, The Last Day NPR Senior Foreign Editor Loren Jenkins witnessed the fall of Saigon. He wrote this essay in 2005 to mark the 20th anniversary. The Kirk sent its engineers to some of the boats to get them started. "They were rusty, ugly, beat up," says Chipman. "Some of them wouldn't even get under way; they were towing each other. And some of them were actually taking on water and we took our guys over and got the ones under way that would run." One cargo ship was so heavy it was sinking. People below deck were bailing out the water with their shoes. Stephen Burwinkel, the Kirk's medic — in the Navy known as a hospital corpsman — boarded that ship to check on the sick and injured. He saw a Vietnamese army lieutenant helping passengers leave the sinking ship, crossing to another ship, over a narrow wooden plank. As people pushed to get off the sinking ship, one man knocked a woman who stopped in front of him. She fell off the plank and into the ocean. Sponsor Message The woman was quickly rescued. But Burwinkel worried that the others on the ship would panic. He says the lieutenant acted quickly. "This Vietnamese lieutenant did not hesitate, he went right up the back of that guy, took his gun out and shot him in the head, killed him, kicked him over the side. Stopped all the trouble right then and there," Burwinkel recalls. The shooting was shocking, he says, but it very likely prevented a riot. Leading The Way Toward The Philippines After fixing what could be fixed on the seaworthy vessels and transferring people from the ships that would be left behind, the Kirk led the flotilla of naval ships, fishing boats and cargo ships toward the Philippines. The USS Cook, another destroyer escort, like the Kirk, helped out as the ships were leaving Con Son. The Cook's crew provided rice, and its corpsman helped Burwinkel and his assistant from the Kirk attend to the sick and injured, too. As the flotilla headed out to sea, on the way to the Philippines, other Navy ships came in and out of the escort, according to Herman. Among those other ships were the USS Mobile, USS Tuscaloosa, USS Barbour County, USS Deliver and USS Abnaki. But it's clear from the daily logs from the Kirk and the other ships that the crew of the Kirk took the lead. A boat brings Vietnamese refugees to the Kirk near Con Son Island. The U.S. ship undertook one of the greatest humanitarian missions in the history of the U.S. military. Hugh Doyle "For me, the Kirk was ideal," says Armitage, who moved from the Kirk to the Vietnamese navy's flagship. "It could communicate with the rest of the U.S. fleet. They would go with us across to the Philippines and would be able to rescue any of the folks who might be in harm's way. Some had been wounded. Some were pregnant. All were sick after a while. And we needed a way to take care of those folks." The Kirk's sailors kept busy providing food, water and medicine to people on the South Vietnamese ships. Sponsor Message Burwinkel spent his time moving from ship to ship treating the sick and injured. With thousands of people — many of them babies and children — he had to work almost nonstop. "When they gave me the meritorious service medal over all this, I quite frankly referred to it as my 'no-sleep' medal," says Burwinkel, who made a career in the Navy and is now retired and living in Pensacola, Fla. "I would go out there and do my thing and at dark we would come back to the Kirk and try to get a little bit to eat and make some rounds — gather my wits about me, resupply myself and get ready for the next day." 'Last Sovereign Territory Of The Republic Of Vietnam' Of the some 30,000 refugees on vessels escorted by the Kirk over six days, only three died. But as the flotilla approached the Philippines, the Kirk's captain got some bad news. The presence of South Vietnamese vessels in a Philippine port would present the government in Manila with a diplomatic predicament. Finding The Kirk's Story The USS Kirk carried out one of the most significant humanitarian missions in U.S. military history. Yet the story went untold for 35 years. Correspondent Joseph Shapiro and producer Sandra Bartlett of NPR's Investigative Unit interviewed more than 20 American and Vietnamese eyewitnesses and participants in the events of late April and early May 1975. They studied hundreds of documents, photographs and other records, many never made public before — including cassette tapes recorded at the time by the ship's chief engineer. Shapiro first learned of the Kirk from Jan Herman, historian of the U.S. Navy Medical Department, who says the Kirk's heroics got lost because, as the Vietnam War ended, Americans were bitterly divided over the war's course and cost. There was little interest in celebrating a mission that saved the lives of 20,000 to 30,000 refugees. Herman is working on a book documenting the story and a film documentary, which was shown when the Kirk crew met for a reunion in Springfield, Va., in July. "The Philippine government wasn't going to allow us in, period, because these ships belonged to the North Vietnamese now and they didn't want to offend the new country," Jacobs, the captain, recalls. The government of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos was one of the first to recognize the Communist rulers now in control of a single Vietnam, and Jacobs was told the ships should go back. Armitage and his South Vietnamese friend, Capt. Do, came up with a solution that Marcos had to accept. Do recalls the plan: "We will raise the American flag and lower the Vietnamese flag as a sign of transfer [of] the ship back to the United States, because during the war those ships are given to the Vietnamese government as a loan, if you want, from the United States, to fight the Communists. Now the war is over, we turn them back to the United States." Sponsor Message There was a frantic search to find 30 American flags. Two officers from the Kirk were sent aboard each Vietnamese ship to take command after a formal flag ceremony. Rick Sautter was one of the Kirk officers who took command of a Vietnamese ship. "That was the last vestige of South Vietnam. And when those flags came down and the American flags went up, that was it. Because a Navy ship is sovereign territory and so that was the last sovereign territory of the Republic of Vietnam," he says. "Thousands and thousands of people on the boats start to sing the [South Vietnamese] national anthem. When they lower the flag, they cry, cry, cry," Do remembers. 'High Point Of My Career' On May 7, the ships flying American flags were allowed into Subic Bay. For the refugees, it was just the beginning of their long journey, which took them to Guam and then resettlement in the United States. For the sailors of the Kirk, ending the Vietnam War by rescuing 20,000 to 30,000 people was very satisfying. "This was the high point of my career and I'm very proud of what we did, what we accomplished, how we did it," Jacobs says. "I felt like we handled it truly professionally and that was kind of a dark time." Armitage says he "envied" the officers and men of the USS Kirk. The ship had not seen combat on its tour to Vietnam. But it ended with the rescue of tens of thousands of refugees, one of the greatest humanitarian missions in the history of the U.S. military. Says Armitage: "They weren't burdened with the former misadventure of Vietnam."

2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

So, the US government is not the only thing in the world, what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

There you go. The whole thing printed out for you simpletons known as wiki editors. My brother was on the USS Kirk and he was inside the 12-mile limit of Vietnam doing rescue operations past your crazy war is over end date of April 30, 1975. The article even tells you the exact day the South Vietnam flag was lowered as May 7, 1975. Thats the day the US government says the war is over. The end of that military evacuation. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The source url, which would have been more useful than a badly formatted text dump:

• https://www.npr.org/2010/09/01/129578263/at-war-s-end-u-s-ship-rescued-south-vietnam-s-navy

Also, it doesn't say the war ended on May 7.

Additionally, calling other editors simpletons and idiots is not helping you. (Hohum ^@) 23:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. IP user you were claiming that there were still CIA agents and a Marine spotter on the ground in Vietnam after 30 April 1975, but all you have provided is information about the USS Kirk (which is already on that page). The evacuation of people and ships from an island that wasn't occupied by the North Vietnamese hardly counts as continuation of the war. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Because idiot the military evacuations of Cia operatives and spotters are still classified. Thye will not be unclassified as long as the people named are still living.  Do you know anything not related to a computer or wiki? 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This just shows your lack of knowledge and competence. Declassification decisions rarely involve named people still being living. If it did, nothing regarding MACV/SOG (for one example) would exist in a declassified version. Yet it does. Intothatdarkness 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I dumped it because you simpletons could not find it another way.  And it says right in the Article that it appears you can't read. ON May 7 the ships now flying the American flag entered Subic Bay. When a country lowers it flag that when the war is over.  Even a wiki idiot should know that. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, throwing insults doesn't help your argument, read WP:NPA. Your US-centric arguments have no merit, the fact that US Navy ships arrived into Subic Bay on 7 May doesn't mean that was when the war ended. The US wasn't even a combatant at that time and hadn't been since 28 January 1973. The war ended with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on 30 April 1975. As you're clearly WP:NOTHERE go find somewhere else to push your POV. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again you are full of shit. Once the Paris peace accords were broken by the North Vietnam invasion of the South Vietnam the US was an active participant in the defense of South Vietnam. Obviously, you are 14 or 15 years old and have no idea what you are talking about. This is no surprise as most Weki editors have the brain power of Communist traitor Joe Biden.  2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Mztourist (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

We need sources saying the war ended, not wp:or of sources that just say that some kind of operation occurred after that date. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of no RS for this spurious claim. Just a NOTHERE IP pushing a particular viewpoint. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for the 1975-05-07 date. 1975-04-30 was the Fall of Saigon, but an actual end of an era was proclaimed by Gerald Ford. Here's a contemporary source:

Gerald Ford officially declared America's anguished adventure in Vietnam a thing of the past. In a proclamation ending benefits to veterans in time of war, the President formally designated May 7, 1975 as "the last day of the 'Vietnam Era'".

— Steele, Richard; Norman, Lloyd (1975-05-19). "Ripples from Saigon". Newsweek. Vol. 85, no. 20. p. 36.

And another encyclopaedia:

The South Vietnamese managed to continue their struggle for two more years, but as American aid dwindled, they saw their capital, Saigon, fall on April 30, 1975. It was left to President Gerald Ford to issue a proclamation stating that May 7, 1975, was the last day of the 'Vietnam Era'.

— Girard, Joylon P.; Miller, Randall M., eds. (2008). "Daily Life in the United States 1960–1990". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Daily Life in America. Vol. 4. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 227. ISBN 9780313065361.

You can even read the proclamation in the National Archives at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04373.html .

In the following year, Congress enacted yet another piece of legislation extending all veteran's benefits to Vietnam veterans serving between 5 August 1964 (later adjusted to 28 February 1961) and, as was later determined, 7 May 1975. A major difference between Vietnam-era veterans and [...]

— Hamowy, Ronald (2008). "The Veterans Administration". Government and Public Health in America. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 305. ISBN 9781847204257.

So yes, reliable sources exist for what this date specifically is, and this article should mention the Vietnam Era. Ronald Hamowy was an emeritus professor of history, so can be relied upon.

Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

These are not necessarily the same thing. The Vietnam era is not the same thing as the Vietnam War (Second Indochina War, what have you). The IP was claiming the May date as the end of the war, while you're talking about something different. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Intothat is correct. The US wasn't a combatant in 1975 and so whatever arbitrary date they chose for veteran's benefits isn't relevant to the actual end date of the war. The fighting ceased on 30 April 1975 with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam as thoroughly documented by RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The US was a combatant after the phony Paris peace agreement was broken in December of 1974 when the North launched a massive attack on the south. The US lost many men before the war ended on May 7,1975. And many men listed on the wall were put on it for war service between January 1973 when the phony peace treaty was signed and May 7 ,1975 when the war ended.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Prove it. The Case–Church Amendment prevented any renewed US involvement in the war, so the US was not a combatant in 1975, rather the US strictly observed the Paris Accords until almost the Fall of Saigon. How many names listed on the Wall between 28 January 1973 and 15 May 1975 [1] were killed in combat in Vietnam? Almost none, they're from operations in Laos and Cambodia (where the air war continued until 15 August 1973 under Operation Freedom Deal, JCRC losses like Cpt Richard Morgan Rees, crashes in Thailand, men lost at sea in the Gulf of Tonkin, non-combat crashes like the 1975 Tân Sơn Nhứt C-5 accident, Operation Frequent Wind and the Mayaguez Incident. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, the USA was not at war with NV. The war was between SV and NV. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The US was not at war with North Vietnam? Then the 58,000 men who died in Vietnam were killed by magic bullets that just appeared and then killed them north Vietnam had nothing to do with their deaths. Just another 15-year-old wiki editor being stupid.  2600:1015:A004:52AD:A0C4:A107:6A6E:14DE (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

So you can't even read then. The US was not a combatant from the date the Paris Peace Accords went into effect on 28 January 1973. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope, the US was a combatant, but it was not (officially) at war with NV. SO the war ended when SV fell. Also read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor I suggest you two cool down. There is no need for personal attacks. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Soetermans read the preceding conversation, the IP is making constant personal attacks to push their WP:FRINGE POV and has already been blocked. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggesting someone "can't even read then" isn't helping the conversation either, right? Cooler heads prevail. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I have maintained a cool head for a long time, while dealing with a barrage of insults from this IP. No-one asked you to get involved in this discussion, so unless you have a view on the issues you're free to leave. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I understand your frustration, but the IP editor isn't going to win this argument anyway, so why not take the high road? Kill 'em with kindness. Now you're being snarky to me for no particular reason. Try to keep a cool head for a little while longer, please. I don't have to remind you that civility is a policy, do I? It's not good for this discussion and you're not getting any sympathy if you start insulting people. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you as an experienced editor feel the need to come in and "both sides" this discussion between an insulting IP and me (another experienced editor)? I don't need to "get any sympathy" here because its obvious to everyone that the IP is a pushing a FRINGE view. I also have no wish to get into a debate with you on civility, so please DTS. Mztourist (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I had been following the discussion for a little while now (long live the watchlist!). You didn't need any help, but maybe I should've voiced my support. Perhaps I'm a Monday morning quarterback in that regard, just now jumping in when you said something. For that I apologise. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Oh, and what does DTS mean here?

I'd say @Mztourist means Drop The Stick, but I could be wrong. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness is correct Mztourist (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

result parameter in infobox

MOS:MIL gives voice to the template documentation in respect to populating the result parameter. The guidance is quite specific about what is permitted. Multiple dot points are not supported. This is also consistent with a more minimalist approach advocated by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is a terrible infobox that needs to be more focused. The misuse of the result parameter is just one issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where MOS:MIL says you can't have multiple dot points. Nor does WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE prohibit multiple points in the result parameter. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MIL would state: ... should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" .... The template documentation is similar. These explicit restrictions are not permissive of populating the parameter with multiple dot points. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't see where in MOS:MIL it says that, please advise where exactly. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

At WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and/or search using the quote. See also the template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say that at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and searching using the quote doesn't bring up any result, please provide a direct link to it. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The nearest shortcut is to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Then look for "infobox military conflict" in curly brackets (like this - {{infobox military conflict}}). If one copies the quoted text (less elipses), goes to MOS:MIL, uses Ctrl-F to search the page and pastes the copied text, it will find the text. I just did exactly that. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. On that basis I'm happy for the result to be simply "North Vietnamese victory" or "See Aftermath". Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

History

The Vietnam war 41.116.139.173 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

yes, what do you want us to say about it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Add Taiwan and Francoist Spain

Taiwan should be added to the combatants list in the Anti-Communist grouping. Taiwan sent air support to aid the South Vietnamese and Laotian and small number of troops to help train South Vietnamese soldiers and conduct reconnaissance operations and small raids on the NVA and VC. Taiwan also supplied South Vietnam with rice and machinery. There were at least 250 soldiers from Taiwan who served in The Vietnam War.

Francoist Spain should be added as Supported By under the Anti-Communists in the combatant lists. Franco sent a force of 100 doctors, nurses, and officers to Vietnam to provide medical aid to the American and South Vietnamese forces in Saigon. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Pat J. McCarthy, welcome to Wikipedia! One of the guidelines of this online encyclopedia is verifiability: can you provide reliable sources that support that claim? Historians, research papers, declarations, international treaties, that kind of stuff. Thanks! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Both Taiwan and Spain are mentioned in Vietnam Studies Allied Participation in Vietnam [2]. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan

Has a Wikipedia article already about their involvement but here are some sources I found

- Chinese article by Xinhua News Agency in March 2007 台湾曾秘密参加越战 (Taiwan was secretly engaged in the Vietnam War) detailed the air support and mentioned advisors were sent to South Vietnam

- Leaflet that was dropped by American forces depicts Taiwanese people planting food to be sent to Vietnam and machinery that was produced for Vietnam

- Article in The Free World in Vietnam details how Taiwan sent a "POLWAR group" to assist the South Vietnamese in developing successful political messages and psychological warfare.

Spain - Article in The Free World in Vietnam in 1969 briefly mentions Spain

- Leaflet 2727 was dropped by American forces in 1968 depicts Spanish Doctors in Vietnam

- Spanish documentary called Españoles en la guerra de Vietnam

- Article called Spain's secret support for US in Vietnam written by Paloma Marín

There is more sources on line but their credibility is not as esteem as these. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Using "Supported by" in the infobox is deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure if you've noticed but the source you've used for Taiwan is PRC state media, perhaps not the best source for this case. Considering the subject I wouldn't consider that a good enough source. Originalcola (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 12 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rreese9515 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ak0124.

— Assignment last updated by Ak0124 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

May 15, 1975 end of vietnam war.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to the department of defense the last 41 deaths of the Vietnam war are those personnel killed in the Mayaguez Incident ending May 15,1975. The last 41 names listed on the Vietnam war memorial are those military people. IT time to dump your phony end of war date of April 30, 1975 as it is wrong. 2600:1015:A026:2AD9:16AA:2EA4:F206:6A7E (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Didn't we just kick this around a few months ago? Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We did. Consensus was to leave it as is since the vast majority of RS use the date used by the article. Intothatdarkness 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be the same IP user as previously, now wanting 15 May rather than 7 May. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

As usual you three idiots never respond to the statement. The statement is the department defense considers the Vietnam war is over on May 15,1975 as the last 41 deaths of the Vietnam war are those personnel killed in the Mayaguez incident ending May 15,1975. The 41 are listed on the Vietnam war memorial. 2600:1015:A026:2AD9:16AA:2EA4:F206:6A7E (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The US was not the only participant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

A clear case of NOTHERE, as usual. Intothatdarkness 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

As usual? I didn't even participate in this conversation the last time it came up. Knock off the personal attacks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the IP, which should be clear if you look at the threading. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That's who I was talking to....not you. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems both myself and the IP used "as usual." Apologies. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

no problem. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ending-vietnam. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

They have been blocked for a couple of days for PA's so let's close this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which year was 28 January?

In the sentence "In the lead-up to the ceasefire on 28 January", which year is that? I would assume that it refers to the Paris Peace Accords from 27 January 1973. Except, the day doesn't seem to match... although... it might be the same day in different timezones, or something like ceasefire was signed on 27 January 1973, and came into effect on 28 January 1973? 2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

America

The defeat of North Vietnam, after the American operation Linebacker II. Then the North Vietnamese signed a non-aggression pact with South Vietnam, thus ending the American campaign. The North Vietnamese defenses were completely broken. North Vietnam signs a non-aggression pact on January 27, 1973 Legionar123 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

And broke it, from day 1. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions to trim article to within size guidelines

Hello everyone, I and AI (ChatGPT4o) believe we can streamline the content to make it more accessible without losing essential information. Here are targeted strategies to reduce word count while maintaining informative quality:

• Consolidate Similar Events: Group similar events, such as minor battles or operations with common outcomes, under unified subheadings to avoid redundancy and streamline the narrative.
• Focus on Key Figures and Events: Limit detailed discussions to pivotal figures and major events, reducing coverage of less influential figures or lesser-known skirmishes unless they contribute significantly to the overall understanding of the war.
• Streamline Background and Prelude Sections: Condense the background and prelude to focus on essential causes and geopolitical contexts, avoiding excessive detail on minor events leading up to the war.
• Reduce Details on Military Hardware and Tactics: Summarize military technology and tactics briefly unless they are central to a key event, and consider linking to specific articles for those interested in in-depth details.
• Trim the Aftermath and Legacy Sections: Focus on summarizing the main consequences and broad impacts, avoiding detailed discussions of various interpretations and long-term impacts unless highly relevant.
• Use Summary Style for Subsections: Employ summary style for detailed sections. For example, sections on the home front or anti-war movements can be summarized with links to their detailed articles.
• Edit for Clarity and Brevity: Revise the text to remove passive constructions, redundant phrases, and verbose language to improve clarity and reduce word count.
• Check for Overlap: Ensure information repeated across different sections is consolidated to improve coherence and avoid redundancy.

We believe these changes will make the article more concise and focused, enhancing readability without compromising on the depth of information. I would appreciate any feedback or additional suggestions from the community, Tom B (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2024

{{subst:trim|1=

Kumar Republic is missing a visitation for casualties. {{}} 64.189.18.48 (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2024 (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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2024

Sources required for casualties for khmer and laotian republics remove or add them. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Khemer is listed as Unknown, so there is no need to remove it Loas is soruced. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

British army involvement

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The UK should be listed as a combatant, as the Heath government sent British troops to Vietnam in 1971-72. 86.131.66.247 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC) Source (please read wp:rs)? Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) The Queens Highlanders spent twelve months in Vietnam in 1971-72. (2A00:23C5:C416:A601:1DCC:635A:5352:D795 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)) There is no WP:RS supporting that. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC) Source (please read wp:rs)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

FAQ

Do we need a FAQ with

Q was there any British involvement in Vietnam

A No, and any such question will be deleted unless backed with a source?

Yes or no? Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The most important British involvement was that the Americans listened pretty carefully when Sir Robert Thompson gave them advice about what to do in Vietnam. Ed Moise (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As thuis block evasion while not often it is wasting a lot less time than just deleting these silly season questions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• Did a quick search of archives and in the first 20 hits for British I picked out one that related to British involvement? Also, I don't recall seeing it before as an issue. So, probably not. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)