Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

American War

The Vietnamese name on the infobox is Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ, looks like a badly translated name from English. When you search the term on Google, most of the results are Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ–Anh Quốc (1812) (War of 1812). Searching the term on Google Scholar returns 10 results, only 1 of them is about the Vietnam War it's from...Wikipediam(?).

What about Chiến tranh Mỹ then? It's the same. Most of the results are talking about contemporary issues like potential Chiến tranh Mỹ-Trung (American-Chinese War), Chiến tranh Mỹ-Nga (American-Russian War), Chiến tranh Mỹ-Iran (American-Iranian War), etc. Searching on Google Scholar returns 62 results, and most of them are just "...chiến tranh. Mỹ..." such as "...để tiến hành những bước leo thang chiến tranh. Mỹ đã trắng trợn vi phạm Hiệp định đình chiến về Việt Nam..." (...to escalate the war. America violated the armistice in Vietnam...).

On the contrary, searching Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (resistance war against America) on Google Scholar returns 1000 results, and on Google 1 million results.

The Vietnam War article on Vietnamese Wikipedia never mentioned the terms Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ or Chiến tranh Mỹ once.

In conclusion, there is no American War in Vietnamese, only Resistance War against America (to Save the Nation). The name American War seems to be Resistance War against America shortened by English writers, rather than a direct translation of the native Vietnamese name (Kháng chiến chống Mỹ).

--KomradeRice (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I will check some of my reference books and revert here, however I note that the Vietnamese Wikipedia article is Chiến tranh Việt Nam and that gives 126 million Google results excluding Wikipedia. Also Resistance War against America (to Save the Nation) is very much propaganda. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I have looked back over the Talk archives and note that this issue has been raised several times previously, with American War apparently in common usage amongst Vietnamese, particularly in the former North Vietnam, presumably as a contraction of Resistance War against America (to Save the Nation) or the even wordier Anti-U.S. resistance war for national salvation. Pierre Asselin's Vietnam's American war states on page 2 "the American War to today's Vietnamese". Mztourist (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Mztourist Resistance War against America, while sounds wordy in English (10 syllables) is not that long in Vietnamese (only 4 syllables), so there doesn't need to be a contraction for it. As a Vietnamese, I've never heard of Chiến tranh Mỹ or Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ. Even when I search these names on Vietnamese internet forums, where people use a more colloquial languages, these names are never used to call the Vietnam War. The only two names to call the Vietnam War I've heard are Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War) and Kháng chiến chống Mỹ (Resistance War against America). My [unfounded] theory of how American War came to be is that someone translated Kháng chiến chống Mỹ to Resistance War against America, then contracted it to American War so it's shorter to say and to be antithetical with Vietnam War. --KomradeRice (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Hmm...Maybe it's just me but I have lived in Hanoi since I was born and never in my life have I heard anyone around me mentioning the war as Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ (lit. American War). I asked some people around me, and nobody seemed to aware of "Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ". I have heard Chiến tranh Việt Nam (Vietnam War) and Kháng chiến chống Mỹ many times, but I have never heard of Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ. I first knew about this phrase from Wikipedia. Of course as Mztourist said above, the phrase is used in a publication and Britannica, so somebody must have used it, but I just don't know. The closest thing I can think of is chống Mỹ, which literally means against America. This is the shorter version of Kháng chiến chống Mỹ. But, that does not sound like American War at all. And all the source I found maybe mentioned American War but not "Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ". "Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ" seems to be original research. Ltn12345 (talk) 14:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that, we can keep "American War", because the phrase is used in many reliable sources, and I myself have heard of "American War", but in English, not Chiến tranh Mỹ or Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ in Vietnamese. It doesn't seem to be a common name, and I think not many people in Vietnam will recognize this war when you say Chiến tranh Hoa Kỳ. Ltn12345 (talk) 14:14, 17 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:

• Xuanloc 18th.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Role and aftermath of Hmong culture in Vietnam

I'm baffled that there's only four instances of the word "Hmong" in this article. The US didn't declassify what is called the "Secret War" until the 90's, but from the Hmong's assistance and aid to help the US in indirect military engagement in the neutral countries of Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, to which persecution fell on after US withdrawal and were hunted down. After a few years of multi-country genocide, the US held up their agreement with General Vang and allowed them unrestricted migration to the US. The king of Laos even decried them to be eradicated. Any Hmong with the last name of Vang were specifically sought and to be immediately killed because of that personal vendetta.

The Hmong people are one the cultures with no homeland now. Even the expiration of the Immigration Green Cards issued to the refugees from there won't lead to a deportation. I've been told that around 10% of their race died just trying to get to, and then crossing, the Mekong River. The ones that stayed lived in hardship, if they weren't killed. In Thailand there still are "camps" they must live in, with the last major systematic killing happening there in the mid 2000's. To this day there still is rebel groups of Hmong that live in the wilderness of SE Asia who still think that they will be killed for their race and not accepting communist ideology. The malice for them has cooled down though, but they are still persecuted. One of their sacred areas that is historically relevant internationally, the Plain of Jars, is littered with land mines and unexploded cluster bomb ordinance. A possible UNESCO site, ruined by people not of their land.

The angle of this is that I, or someone, could add a section or paragraph(s) with reference, better grammer and less paraphrase than I am putting here, with full knowledge that the mods have final say. If what I'm saying is trivial, meet one of the million plus refugees that live here and then make that call. Right now the first generation of US-soil born Hmong-American are in getting in their 20's. I wonder what they think when doing school reports and explaining their culture to others just to find that the biggest event to their heritage isn't even a sentence in the 'Vietnam War' article on Wikipedia, the largest collection of humanity's story? The Tonkin incident is mentioned and that was revealed in the same public disclosure! The devastation of a culture isn't as kitsch as possible false flags, I suppose.

Cynicism and sarcasm aside, the Vietnam War article is incomplete here until the Hmong's expulsion from their homeland and systematic slaughter as a direct result of their US recruitment for covert military engagement is included, with emphasis on expulsion. Personally, I'd be honored to do it as nod of respect to my Hmong friends, especially for their parents and the stories they shared with me. L'appesl i du vide 10:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the war, not the Hmong, who do not appear to have been major players.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is an article covering the entire war. It necessarily can't go into detail about every granular aspect due to length considerations. Fuller coverage should be elsewhere, either the Hmong_people article, which is already linked to (which currently skims the issue), Laotian_Civil_War (which has more detailed coverage), or, if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, it's own article - assuming someone (including the original poster) has the time, sources and enthusiasm. (Hohum ^@) 11:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Hmong were indeed major players, but in Laos...so if they were to be included it should be in an article relating to events in Laos where more detail could be added. I would also add that the plight of the Montagnards is often shortchanged as well, along with the Nung people. Still, in a wide overview article it's not often possible to get in the level of required detail. Intothatdarkness 16:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021

Alexi Bin aswa (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

plz add Imperial State of Iran, Israel, Spain andref

 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. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

National Museum of Vietnamese History

The name used here is "Local War in South Vietnam".

When looking through my old photographs (2018) I took at the National Museum of Vietnamese History in Hanoi (a government-owned institution) I found a number of peculiar terms at an American-looking military uniform belonging to the Sài Gòn Government, at it the inscription of the informational sign refers to this war as the "Local War in South Vietnam" (Chiến tranh Cục bộ ở miền Nam Việt Nam). Is this name something uniquely used by this museum or is this a new term that Vietnamese historians now use? A simple Ecosia search returns some results but not many exact matches. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that I am not suggesting anyone to add it in, just if someone happens to own a modern book where this term is mentioned in that they could, I actually do not own any books about this war so I can't add it, but if someone happens to own a reliable work that uses this term it could be used. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I think "Chiến tranh Cục bộ ở miền Nam Việt Nam" refers to a part of the war from 1965 – 1967/68, not the whole war. There is article about this period in Vietnamese Wikipedia and English Wikipedia. A quick Google search with "chiến tranh cục bộ" returned nearly 97k exact matches. And I myself have heard this term many times before. It has been used in national textbook for years (particularly Lịch sử 9 and Lịch sử 12). It is also used in many reliable sources like Nhân Dân, Vietnam Government Portal, Vietnam News Agency and Ministry of Defence's website. "Local War in South Vietnam" might be rarer, I think there are many different translations for "Chiến tranh Cục bộ". English Wikipedia used Joint warfare in South Vietnam, 1963–1969 Ltn12345 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

And this term is not new. After 2 minutes of searching, I found 6 publications from 1975, 1976, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1993 mentioning "chiến tranh cục bộ". Ltn12345 (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

And what is it supposed to mean? The PAVN were there by 1965 as was the US, so what is it trying to convey? Mztourist (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021

Dear editors,

I would like to offer a suggestion of revision to the following sentence line under "Diệm era rule: 1954-1963": "The North Vietnamese government claimed that, by November 1957, over 65,000 individuals were imprisoned and 2,148 were killed in the process.[99] According to Gabriel Kolko, 40,000 political prisoners had been jailed by the end of 1958.[68]: 89".

According to historian Ngo Vinh Long from his article: "Commentary: From integration to polarisation in Vietnam (2009) in Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 39, No. 2, May 2009, pp. 295–304" https://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economies%205430-6430/Long-Polarization%20and%20Integration%20in%20Vietnam.pdf, the anti-communist denunciation campaign under Diệm (tố Cộng, diệt Cộng) killed around 70,000 southern Vietnamese communists and jailed and tortured another 90,000 southern communists and civilian collaborators between 1955-58 alone. There is another source, a diplomatic cable of correspondence between Mao Zedong and Lê Duẩn, in which the latter admits and claims that at least 160,000 south Vietnamese communists were exterminated under Diệm: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/113033.

The claim in the Wikipedia entry that only 2,148 were killed in the process of Diệm's anti-communist denunciation campaign is way too low, and I suggest this figure to be upgraded to at least 70,000 if not 160,000. 182.30.53.196 (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? Mztourist (talk) 13:24, 26 November 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. - The article doesn't say that the death toll was 2,148. It says that the North Vietnamese government CLAIMED that that was the death toll, and this assertion about the statements of the government is backed up by a reference. If you'd like to see the article adjusted to describe the source you cite, please suggest specific language. PianoDan (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"'nam" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 'nam. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 9#'nam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ☢️Plutonical☢️ᶜᵒᵐᵐᵘⁿᶦᶜᵃᵗᶦᵒⁿˢ 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

'Nam redirects here. The disambiguation page should be indicated, since there are other uses besides this war.

Please add

{{redirect|'Nam|other uses|nam (disambiguation)}}

"'Nam" redirects here. For other uses, see nam (disambiguation).

-- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I don't foresee a large number of people searching for 'Nam that are looking for other uses. Nam itself is a disambig page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Red

Transition period has a big problem, Ho CHi MInh did not wishes to atack and over 130,000 "Revolutionary Regroupees" went to the north not for "regroupment" they're force to.I think the editors are in favour of one side rather than the other. Redblib (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Add more belligerents

I think we should add sercret societies of Vietnam into the belligerent list on a separate list. Laney145 (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The purpose of the infobox is to supplement information in the article body. If it isn't discussed in detail in the article with plenty of reliable sources, it should not be in the infobox. CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal or reduction "Black servicemen" section

The section should be removed and then summarized to a paragraph within another section about the US' involvement in the war. It shows a possible bias and it's American-centric to emphasize that in an article that involves many countries. The section itself contains only two paragraphs and three sources, not enough to warrant an entire section. 186.48.142.166 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It is there as (as the section says) the war had a direct impact on both black people and the civil rights movement in a way that did not affect other (out of country) combatants.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

Can I remove the template pages on here? 207.148.176.88 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking? Which templates? CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Image neutrality

I have added a neutrality disputed tag: The first images used (in the infobox) as examples are exclusively from an American/South Vietnam pov, there are the celebrations of the ARVN Rangers - a south vietnamese force, there are civilians fleeing a viet cong victory and a funeral of a massacre by North Vietnam, but no images of napalm or vietcong troops or celebrations. This leads the reader to conclude that the article or at least the editors are in favour of one side rather than the other.

Here is the photo and original caption.

https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/4/43/VNWarMontage.png

Caption: Clockwise, from top left: U.S. combat operations in Ia Đrăng, ARVN Rangers defending Saigon during the 1968 Tết Offensive, two A-4C Skyhawks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident, ARVN recapture Quảng Trị during the 1972 Easter Offensive, civilians fleeing the 1972 Battle of Quảng Trị, and burial of 300 victims of the 1968 Huế Massacre.

Aquataris (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Image choice is not specifically discussed in WP:NPOV, which discusses Wikipedia's aim for an equal representation of all prominent views in the article body. However, image choice is definitely affected by editors' biases and perspectives regarding the topic. Regardless, the addition of the POV tag to the top of the article is not warranted because the grievances you raised are with the primary image in the infobox specifically, not the article as a whole.

Furthermore, the point of adding maintenance tags is to identify the issue(s) and then propose a solution(s). Maintenance tags are not to be added when a discussion is started but then later abandoned. It has been over two weeks, and there have not been any significant proposals or support from other editors regarding this supposed issue. CentreLeftRight ✉ 00:59, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I mean, there’s not really too many photos of the north Vietnamese perspective to my knowledge Mets2015WorldSeries (talk) 03:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022

Oliver-M5C (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)The Vietnam War was fought between North Vietnam and the United States, with help from the Soviet Union and China. After WWII, a large-scale local battle erupted in Southeast Asia in November 1955. Global politics has a big influence [1].

The Vietnam War pitted South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) against North Vietnam (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and the "South Vietnam National Liberation Front" sponsored by communist nations like China and the USSR. During the Cold War, it took place in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The conflict claimed the lives of an estimated 1.1 million North Vietnamese and 300,000 South Vietnamese combatants, as well as 2 million civilians. [130] After WWII, the Vietnam Conflict was the war in which the US engaged in the most wars and had the most influence. In the end, the US lost Vietnam. Later, the Vietnam People's Army and the Southern Vietnam National Liberation Front united Vietnam.

 Not done Please put your edit request in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

End of war

Did the Vietnam War end in December 1969 peace conference after Nixon's "Christmas" bombings? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The Hanoi peace conference started on December 26, 1969. Six days later January 1, 1970 a peace agreement was signed. Is this correct? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Or was this the Christmas bombings of December 1972. Also did Nixon ever threaten to drop a nuclear bomb on Hanoi? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction The Hanoi Peace conference started December 26, 1972. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Read the page, its all there. Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Operation linebacker or the Christmas bombings ended the war. More clarification is needed. Also Nixon may have threatened to use nuclear bombs. Cmguy777 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

No, read the page. Its all there. Mztourist (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

North Vietnamese and Viet Cong losses

Why was the data for 1995 removed from the article about 1.1 million Vietnamese killed on the side of the communists http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html#press — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.143 (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Please provide a diff so that we can see what you're referring to. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html#press 37.145.61.143 (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The difference in the Wikipedia article revisions like so, not the source which was removed. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Template bloat

@Rja13ww33: In response to this edit.... A general issue with Wikipedia articles on big subjects, especially the desktop version, is too many templates. The end result is that they have to be hidden and folded into a gigantic "More articles" which greatly reduces their value - very very few readers bother to expand such sections. As such, ideally, only the very most important templates are included, and then those relevant templates don't have to be in a collapsible section. Judging by Vietnam_War_casualties#Other_nations'_casualties, there just weren't that many Chinese casualties comparatively, and very few Soviet casualties. If we're including their templates, then we should also include {{Military history of New Zealand}} and {{Military history of Australia}}. But what for? The vast majority of all the links on these templates are irrelevant. Navbox guidelines are basically intended as an extended "See also" and few of these links are truly the kind of link that would be tempting to stick in "See also" due to being too distantly related. Honestly, I'd say to remove all of them, including the US one, but at least the US was a major player in the war. SnowFire (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I quite agree with SnowFire on this particular issue and more broadly on the issue of template bloat in this article and more generally. Often, less is more. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying (as far as the template issue goes). But the fact is: the Vietnam War is widely seen (with most RS) as a proxy war. This is not to mention the vast amount of material aid by both China and the Soviet Union and the presence of large numbers of Chinese military personnel in Vietnam. It's just about impossible to discuss the conflict (as a whole) without mentioning the involvement of those two nations (militarily). New Zealand and Australia didn't play anywhere near as critical a role.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not this was seen as a proxy war involving the Soviets and China (as covered in the article) really isn't relevant to justifying these templates. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How so? And furthermore, when you consider the fact they had boots on the ground there (in the case of the PRC, hundreds of thousands of them), I think it makes it quite evident as to why this template belongs. (Also considering the fact that without the USSR & China's aid, it would have been over very quickly.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your comments go directly to the content of the article and links made in the articles body, including see also hatnotes and the section see also. Links through the templates being discussed are a comprehensive list, most of which have little or no relevance to the Vietnam War. MOS:SEEALSO and WP:NAV provide guidance on what is appropriate. The argument you make that they had boots on the ground there does not address the relevance of templating unrelated conflicts. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

How are the conflicts "unrelated" when they are (during this period) just about all part of the Cold War?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

(de-indent) Rja13ww, let's back up to first principles here. The idea behind a navbox is basically a standardized list of "See also" stuff. See WP:NAVBOX, in particular the line that "If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." In articles on core Russian military matters, the navbox is fine, because it's a link to genuinely related stuff. But on this specific article? If someone added Fifth Muscovite–Lithuanian War to "See also", they'd be trolling. Hell, even the other Cold War conflicts like Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia are also too distant, and would surely be reverted if someone tried to add them to the "See also." Basically, it's just far too distant a relation - of course it's loosely related, but so are literally thousands of other articles at that degree of separation. No template is "owed" a spot - they have to earn it in each specific article. Nobody is contesting that there were a few Soviet boots on the ground, but that doesn't mean anything for if the Russian conflicts template is appropriate here. SnowFire (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the "distant" relationship when the participation of the Northern communists in the war would have been basically impossible without Soviet & China's support. And in the case of China, it was more than just a few boots on the ground, it was hundreds of thousands. In the case of the Soviets, they had ships in North Vietnamese bays and "advisors" manning equipment they provided. The WP:OTHER argument in relation to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in '68 is a interesting one but I don't agree. This was part of a foreign policy (world-wide) for those nations during this period....dealing with a renegade Warsaw Pact member wasn't.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We're going in circles here, but again, that is not the thrust of my argument. You keep bringing up boots on the ground but that's irrelevant to what I'm talking about - which is the relevance of other Wikipedia articles on the template. If someone added {{Modern US Infantry Weapons}} to this article, and when challenged, kept talking about the number of M-14s and M-16s in the war, how important they were, etc., they're dodging the issue. When somebody disagrees with that addition, they're not saying that the M-16 was unused in the war: they're saying that the relevance of the links on the navbox is too distant. To repeat one more time, I am not saying that the USSR and China were irrelevant in the Vietnam War (although I do think you're greatly overstating their troop contribution compared to military & economic aid). I am saying that all those other links to Wikipedia articles in the added navbox are not very close (regardless of how many Soviet or Chinese or Australian troops there were). A few thousand Soviet advisors in Vietnam does not mean that every single other Russian conflict throughout history is suddenly relevant enough to be linked. Also, either I'm not understanding your point, or you didn't understand my point with the reference to Fifth Muscovite–Lithuanian War & Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Links to both of those conflicts (and many more) are in {{Russian Conflicts}}, so by adding this template, you're essentially claiming that they are relevant links that would be tempting to place in "See also." But it sounds like you're acknowledging some major differences, which makes the case for including those links questionable. SnowFire (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, they are relevant (for the reasons I have already stated).....but you are right that we are going in circles to a degree.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, you are offering an opinion, to effect, that because they were there, we should link through the template every conflict these players were engaged in. I would observe that in the lead and the body of the article, this was a Cold War-era proxy war the Cold War is linked from the body of the article and the main relevant link is made from the article without need of a see also link. It is also in another template and there is also Category:Cold War conflicts. SnowFire is making a case for the removal based on WP:P&G - a case which is not based solely on their opinion but which has objective criteria through the P&G referred to and which (because of the basis in P&G) reflects the broader community consensus on this matter. Now, I am quite certain that both SF and I have heard and understood the case you would make but conclude that it doesn't carry much weight when compared to the P&G and the broader community consensus on the matter. You don't appear to be acknowledging the P&G. It appears to be a matter of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and that would be why this matter is going in circles. Guess it might be time for an RfC. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

When you get right down to it: everyone is giving their opinion. The rules here are very open to interpretation. (And this is no exception since there is no P&G guideline that specifically excludes this.) It's not a matter of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's just that (no offense) I didn't buy the arguments. First the point was made that the USSR & China didn't have many casualties. When I countered that China had large numbers of troops there and without China & (especially) the USSR's logistical & material support...it would have been over quite quickly....the argument then shifts to the link includes irrelevant wars....I reply that the wars linked included Cold War era policy. We also have the template "Armed conflicts involving the United States Armed Forces" (which no one has tried to remove). That includes the War of 1812 and the Whiskey Rebellion. The point was also made about a collapsible section, but even with that edit, the section was still collapsed. So yes, all this seems pretty arbitrary to me.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

... there is no P&G guideline that specifically excludes this. But the P&G indicates what is and isn't appropriate and in consideration of the P&G, this should not be included. Furthermore, both SF and I would indicate the removal of the US template too. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't be included as per your (and SF's) interpretation of the rule. If you eliminated the US template as well (and this (IIRC) is the first time I've specifically heard that mentioned) you'd be down to a single topic in that section (i.e. the Cold War).Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, and that'd be great! I think the Cold War template is the most important one. The relevant related conflicts to Vietnam are stuff like the First Indochina War, the Malayan Emergency, the Korean War, maybe even the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Cold War stuff, in other words. The Whiskey Rebellion has got nothing to do with this.

For what it's worth, I do grudgingly acknowledge that some Wikipedians clearly think adding lots of templates to each article is a net positive, and that the optimal number of navboxes is not an issue with a firm consensus. That said, I do think it's acknowledged that the more templates are on an article, the higher the standard there is for each new addition, lest we end up with something like the giant useless list at the end of Hank Aaron.

Anyway, I went ahead and removed all three as an example of my preferred version, if consistency between Russia-China-US-Australia-NZ is the issue. Feel free to revert - I don't want to start an edit war - but if you still feel strongly against this, let's solicit a WP:3O or Wikiproject talk page discussion to build a better consensus. SnowFire (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

For now, I won't mess with it to see what others think of this version (I am out voted 2-1 currently on these changes anyway). I have to admit to being confused as to (if this was the ultimate objective) why it wasn't done in the first place. (Feels sort of like "scope creep" as we say in my business.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you might re-read the first two post. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2022

State that is it also called "American War" in Vietnam. 203.166.241.41 (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Please make your edit requests in a clear "Change X to Y" format. Loafiewa (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

End of Vietnam war July 2,1976

The actual end of the Vietnam war is July 2, 1976. When North Vietnam did a full-blown attack in December of 1974 that breached the Paris peace accords. That put the US back in a state of war with North Vietnam. Under our agreements with South Vietnam until South Vietnam no longer existed, we were at war. The war ended when South Vietnam did not exist. That happened on July 2,1976 when North and South were merged. 50.102.147.20 (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No. Your unique interpretation is unsupported by Reliable Sources. The breach of the Paris Peace Accords did not "put the US back in a state of war with North Vietnam", the US was technically never at war with North Vietnam as no formal declaration of war was ever made, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was repealed in January 1971, the US had no formal obligation to defend South Vietnam (there were no "agreements with South Vietnam"), the Case–Church Amendment of 1973 prohibited further US military action in Indochina and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 prevented the President from taking military action without Congressional approval. While the North Vietnamese invasion was a breach of the Paris Peace Accords, if the US wished to respond militarily then Ford would have had to have sought Congressional approval, which he did not do. The unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on 30 April 1975 was the end of the war. Mztourist (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyedit badly needed

Issues include inconsistent use of VN alphabet, almost every word in the "Types of Engagements, From Department of Defence Study 1967" (sic) being capitalized, and insufficient illustration captions including but not limited to dates. 5.173.41.12 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

JFK didn't escalate the # of advisors in 1964. For fairly obvious reasons.

I feel like this sentence is a bit deceptive: "U.S. involvement escalated under President John F. Kennedy, from just under a thousand military advisors in 1959 to 23,000 in 1964." Just decouple the two statements, and we are fine. "U.S. involvement escalated under President John F. Kennedy" and "By 1964, we had 23K advisors." Know Einstein (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

The decision to increase the number of advisers was taken by JFK in 1963, I think. These things take a while to go into effect and JFK was killed in late '63.Sus scrofa (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

By year, the number of "advisors" in Vietnam were about a thousand in '61, 11,000 by the end of '62, and 16,000 by 1963.[1] So perhaps it makes more sense to leave those two things connected, but change the 23,000 to 16,000. (And note this was by '63)Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Article still too long

Readable prose size is 134 kB. This is far beyond what is normally accepted. Yes, the Vietnam War was long and complicated, but that is beside the point - it's necessarily an overview. I believe that many of the sections that have a main article link could be cut down to a paragraph or two. (Hohum ^@) 18:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Go for it. Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Gonna go ahead an move the "Involvement of other countries" section into its own article in an attempt to curb the length. In my view, it is not super relevant information to the war as a whole.Sus scrofa (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how it isn't very relevant considering virtually all the weapons and so forth used in the war were manufactured outside of Vietnam. I know length of the article is a concern....but at minimum, I think in the main article we should note the overall contributions of the USSR and China. I would suggest much of the 2nd paragraph in the Chinese section & the 2nd and 3rd paragraph in the USSR's section (of "Involvement of other countries") remain. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• VNWarMontage.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@Finnusertop I see you've put this file up for deletion at Commons. Do we have an alternative photo that could be made ready to go? This photo is very widely used. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

File:SVNciv.jpg

On Commons but under an unidentified filename, ask an admin

File:QT1.jpg

The problem image, deleted as no source

Clockwise from top left:

• U.S. combat operations in Ia Đrăng
• ARVN Rangers defending Saigon during the 1968 Tết Offensive
• Two A-4C Skyhawks after the Gulf of Tonkin incident
• ARVN recapture Quảng Trị during the 1972 Easter Offensive
• Civilians fleeing the 1972 Battle of Quảng Trị
• Burial of 300 victims of the 1968 Huế Massacre

@CaptainEek: I don't. I'll leave it up to the content editors of this particular topic. But here is a gallery to remind what images were used in case it gets deleted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 29 October 2022 (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:

• VNWarMontage.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"American invasion of Vietnam" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect American invasion of Vietnam and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 21#American invasion of Vietnam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Including Star Wars in "In popular culture" section

The Vietnam War was the thematic influence on Star Wars, or as George Lucas put it: "It was really about the Vietnam War" [2] While obviously not about the Vietnam War directly, Lucas and various works on Star Wars' history and filmmaking regard it as a parallel or conversion of the Vietnam War with the Rebel Alliance representing North Vietnam and the Galactic Empire representing the United States. Emperor Palpatine is meant to represent former US President Nixon. Is it worth mentioning the Vietnam War's influence on Star Wars or should the "In popular culture" section stick to media directly about the war? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That's pretty fringe trivia and not worthy of inclusion. "In popular culture" should only be for media directly about the war. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I've also seen Lucas state that the first movie at least was loosely based on the American Revolution. Very fringe and not needed in the article. Intothatdarkness 13:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, Lucas said the battle on Endor (in ROTJ) was sort of based on the Vietnam War. But I agree this is pretty fringe.Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Labeling as trivia makes sense, but calling the Vietnam War's substantial influence on it "fringe" is a massive stretch when it's the mainstream consensus across published works on at least the original trilogy, and you know, from the creator himself and his well-known aversion to the Vietnam War. To give a few examples [3][4][5][6] It isn't our place to label what we don't like, or are ignorant about being a norm, as fringe. I agree with it being trivia and on including media only directly about the war nonetheless, but wanted to point out the "fringe" label is going too far. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this is trivia and it seems it is less about the war, and more about US domestic policies of the period. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Change 'and continued significantly building up it's forces' to 'and continued significantly building up its forces' Oligarchs0 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Loafiewa (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

7 December 2022

User:Cucthanh I have reverted your edits [7] which changed basic facts about the war. It seems from your changes that you are trying to push a particular WP:POV regarding the war which is not acceptable. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I only worte some details from these source. 320,000 Chinese troops are air-defense and logistics troops, Chinese didn't send the other units (bomber, aircraft, tank, artillery unit...)Cucthanh (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But that isn't the only change you made is it [8]? Why did you change the order of US and South Vietnam? Why did you move China, USSR and North Korea from combatants to support, when they all sent military personnel and suffered casualties? Why did you revise the PAVN/VC casualties to lower figures? Those changes go against consensus and you pushing them amounts to WP:EDITWARing. Revert your changes and discuss your proposals here. Mztourist (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And then, I found Moyar was wrong. 849,018 dead are INCULDING the number of missing. I'm Vietnamese, and I see he was wrong when translated Vietnamese source. See this Vietnamese government's data, which Moyar translated - http://datafile.chinhsachquandoi.gov.vn/Qu%E1%BA%A3n%20l%C3%BD%20ch%E1%BB%89%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A1o/Chuy%C3%AAn%20%C4%91%E1%BB%81%204.doc

---> In page one, "Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Mỹ: 849.018 liệt sĩ". In Vietnamese, "liệt sĩ" = dead + missing, not only "dead" (in Vietnamese, "dead" = "liệt sĩ đã tìm thấy hài cốt", "missing" = "liệt sĩ cần tìm kiếm quy tập"). "Theo số lượng thống kê, đến nay số hài cốt liệt sĩ cần tìm kiếm quy tập còn khoảng 207.000, tập trung ở những địa bàn vùng sâu, vùng xa, hiểm trở, việc tìm kiếm rất khó khăn do thiếu thông tin..." - 207,000 are number of missing, and they were counted in "liệt sĩ" (849.018 total)Cucthanh (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

That has all been extensively discussed previously here and on Vietnam War casualties where you have made similar changes against WP:CONSENSUS. The competing claims are both presented, its not up to you to decide that one is correct or incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Add lower estimate

I will add the lower estimate of the PAVN/VC deaths (666,000). In October, this infobox have this figure, but someone removed it (and now, infobox have only higher estimate)Cucthanh (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Then, I will add the lower estimate of PAVN/VC wounded (463,000) in Moyar's book. This infobox aleady have this sourceCucthanh (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No need to debate for my change, because all of which have already been in this infoboxCucthanh (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Moyar is talking about figures from 1960 to 1975; about five years' worth of data is not counted in the estimate cited by Moyar.

“ Communists provided further corroboration of the proximity of their casualty figures to American figures in a postwar disclosure of total losses from 1960 to 1975. During that period, they stated, they lost 849,018 killed plus approximately 232,000 missing and 463,000 wounded. ” — Moyar, Mark. "Triumph Regained: The Vietnam War, 1965-1968." Encounter Books. Chapter 17 index.

Obviously an estimate which uses a shorter timeframe will be a lower number. Contrary to your last comment, there is a need for a debate, or more precisely a discussion, to catch errors like these. Yue🌙 09:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You should also be more clear with your sourcing when you added new material. Add the citation next to the added content; do not immediately attempt to explain yourself in the edit summary and talk page instead, as it is more of a hassle for you and other editors. Just follow the common procedures. Yue🌙 09:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"estimate cited only covers the period from 1960 to 1975" - ok, but lower estimate ARVN casualties (254,000 killed) only covers the period from 1960 to 1974, too (about six years' worth of data is not counted in the estimate, total ARVN killed must be 313,000). If we don't count PAVN/VC lower number, thus, we must remove the ARVN lower number, tooCucthanh (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Cucthanh stop changing the page! Don't you understand how this works? If you want to make changes you need to reach consensus here first, you don't just make your changes to the page and then justify your actions here. Mztourist (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems it's moot now in any case. Blocked as a sock according to the user's talk page. Intothatdarkness 18:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mrnachos121 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lukebbaldwin (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2022 (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:

• Viet Cong002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Huong river

I am a Vietnam war veteran. I was the CO of the 515th truck company, based at Phu Bai.

Much of the Wikipedia discussion of the war talks of the Perfume River. I did. But that is only a nickname for the Huong River. To call it the Perfume is to insult all Vietnamese, just like calling Vietnamese “gooks”. Please change Perfume to Huong.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Poley, Commanding Officer, 515th Transportation Company, Vietnam War Rpoley (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Soruce (please read wp:or)? Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

He is correct it is the Huong river. Calling it the perfume river is like calling all Vietnamese women prostitutes. Just not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:A001:E9DE:345E:6FA5:9997:6F59 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Chemical warfare weapon Agent orange deaths

Why no listing of the Agent orange deaths? It is estimated that over 80,000 Vietnam vets have now died of agent orange. Agent orange was classified in 1978 by the UN as a banned chemical warfare weapon.  As a warfare weapon all those who have died after 1975 should be listed as Vietnam war deaths. Just like the men who were gassed by chemical warfare weapons in WW1.p 2600:1015:A001:E9DE:345E:6FA5:9997:6F59 (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

We need sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Soviet Union as belligerent

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.

---

The infobox includes the USSR and the USA as belligerents. So at a glance, one could reasonably conclude that the two nuclear powers USSR and USA were at war against each other. This is obviously wrong.

I’m aware USSR sent observers and antiaircraft gunners. But as far as I know no one including the USA considers the USSR to be a belligerent in this war.

The last discussion on the topic seemed to have been in August 2016 at Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 25#Infobox: Soviet Union and North Korea - belligerents or supporters?, where the consensus looks to me like USSR is not to be listed as belligerent.

So if there’s no objection, I will move USSR down to the supporters subhead.

I am not very familiar with other states’ involvement, so please chime in if anything else needs adjustment here. —Michael Z. 19:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the USSR couldn't be listed as a belligerent. They lost military personnel in the war, provided training, weapons, and logistical support for the North Vietnamese, and so on.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, the article doesn’t say USSR is a belligerent, so the infobox should reflect the content, and not make such a leap.

I don’t believe Soviet forces were in Vietnam openly, fighting under a Soviet flag.  —Michael Z. 20:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A belligerent is a nation engaged in war or conflict. I don't see how the USSR doesn't fall into that category as clearly they were part of it. Soviet ships were hit in North Vietnamese harbors. They manned anti-aircraft weapons they supplied (and were killed in the process in some cases). I don't know if it happened under a flag or not....but their involvement is pretty clear. More important was their material aid (without which the North Vietnamese didn't stand a chance).Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Belligerent has a specific meaning in international law. I don’t believe the label is supported by reliable sources.

Giving a country aid does not create a state of war or involve a state in a state of war.  —Michael Z. 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So what definition is that (under international law)?Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See belligerent. —Michael Z. 01:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So the definition of belligerent here is: A belligerent is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.....[and later]....."Belligerency" is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war.. I don't see the issue with calling the USSR a belligerent in the war based on that since they engaged in the war/combat.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that’s not the definition under international law: that’s a copy-paste from a Wikipedia article.

The issue is reliable sources don’t say that.  —Michael Z. 03:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a article you linked me to when I asked for the definition. So I ask again: What is the definition under international law?Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

user:Mzajac The Soviets didn't just give aid to North Vietnam. Soviet troops operated the first SA-2 systems that engaged US aircraft, that makes them a belligerent: [9]. Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I already addressed that.  —Michael Z. 04:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Not much of a address. You just called it "Giving a country aid". When your soldiers are operating your equipment in combat (and inflicting casualties)....that's more that just "aid".Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay. What sources call the Soviet Union a belligerent in the Vietnam war?  —Michael Z. 05:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The USSR became in effect a co-belligerent, even suffering some casualties; Soviet officials much later said “more than a few hundred” Soviet citizens died in Vietnam during the war.[34]"(From: ‘Vietnam and the Soviet Union’, by Douglas Pike)Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s not bad, but with several qualifiers. Lind calls the war a proxy war, and much about it appears to talk about aid and supply. There’s a little bit from page 120 about advisors, training, assistance, and supply. But is that the only sentence in the whole book actually about Soviets fighting in Vietnam?  —Michael Z. 06:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No it's not the only sentence. But lets don't move the goal posts here. You asked for a RS calling the USSR a belligerent in the war....and now you've got one. (Via a pretty good RS: a source by a academic from a well regarded publisher.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I didn’t think it needed to be spellEd out, but Wikipedia’s goalpost is whether the majority of sources on this subject, the Vietnam War, consider the USSR to be a n unqualified belligerent. Now we have one that says so with qualifications.

1) That doesn’t demonstrate that it is a “majority and significant minority view,” per WP:RS.

2) It isn’t such a view represented in the article, and therefore doesn’t belong in the infobox per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. —Michael Z. 19:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What is your source to claim what "the majority of sources on this subject, the Vietnam War, consider the USSR to be"?Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on you to show verifiability in the majority of RS. Then the WP:ONUS to find consensus.

(And then to incorporate that into the article text before it appears in the infobox.)  —Michael Z. 21:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well you have disputed the RS I have posted/found by saying "But the majority of RS do not say it [the USSR] was a belligerent." And I am just curious what source(s) you have to say that. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I already listed three good ones to you below.  —Michael Z. 21:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Only problem is: the ones you list do not come anywhere close to the majority of the RSs out there, nor do these sources state what the majority of scholars or other RS believe. (At least that you have quoted.) Ergo, I see no foundation for you claim that "the majority of RS do not say it [the USSR] was a belligerent".Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Another good source on this is from one already cited in the article. In Michael Lind's 'Vietnam: The Necessary War' (p.89) He states: "According to Darin and Dvoretsky [authors of 'Alien Wars: The Soviet Union's Aggressions Against the World, 1919 to 1989'] "Although the truth about the Vietnam War was being carefully concealed, the fact of Soviet military participation in this region was becoming more widely known....It became apparent...that Soviet pilots were participating actively in flights of the Vietnamese Air Force in countering American raids into North Vietnam."[26] Soviet antiaircraft teams on the ground in Indochina downed dozens of U.S. planes during the Vietnam War. On March 30, 1968, when a Soviet Dvina antiaircraft complex near Hanoi shot down a USAF F-111, Soviet Minister of Defense Andrei Grechko considered the event important enough to merit a direct phone call to General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev.[27]." Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

But the majority of RS do not say it was a belligerent. The NY Times article Mzourist cited doesn’t say the USSR was a belligerent. Lind says it was a proxy war between the USA, USSR, and China. For example, Britannica, van Dijk (2008) Encyclopedia of the Cold War, or Tucker (2011) Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War do not name the USSR as a belligerent state. At best, they say that the USSR was involved in a proxy war.  —Michael Z. 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like semantics to me. I can think of RS on the war that don't specifically use the word "belligerent(s)" with any of the sides of the Vietnam War.Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone could probably teach a course on the subject, but not I. Just cite the sources that support your view.  —Michael Z. 04:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Already added to the page. Saying the Soviets weren't a belligerent is as absurd as saying the Chinese weren't a belligerent in the Korean War. Mztourist (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What sources say that?  —Michael Z. 05:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The USSR should only be listed as a belligerent if reliable sources say it was one. (Hohum ^@) 20:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. To assert that they are a belligerent because of X is OR/SYNTH. Show me the sources! Unsourced material can be removed at any time. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Clearly a belligerent, there are numerous RS of this. Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Where are they?  —Michael Z. 05:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Several are given above. All RS.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No. No quotation above says the USSR was a belligerent. No quotation says the Vietnam war was a war between North and South Vietnam, the USA, and the USSR. Pretty sure none of the quoted sources say that at all. —Michael Z. 05:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So you have multiple RS telling you that the USSR's military personnel was entering into combat against American forces in Vietnam....but because they don't specifically use the exact word "belligerent".....that negates the fact they were indeed....belligerent. Interesting.Rja13ww33 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, not the exact word. Words with broadly the same meaning about the war for the infobox about the war. Sources do not define this as a war with the Soviet Union as a party.

“Military personnel was entering” might support including all sixteen of them in the casualties field, and maybe units and strength.  —Michael Z. 06:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The material by Pike and Lind seems quite adequate. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

More than adequate. Mztourist (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think a good comparison is the Korean War which lists the USSR as a belligerent. It even has its own article Soviet Union in the Korean War. In the lede it does say 'Though not officially a belligerent during the Korean War (1950–1953), the Soviet Union played a significant, covert role in the conflict.' I'd say it was the same for the Vietnam War. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

That literally says it was not a belligerent. A covert role is support of some belligerent party, at best.  —Michael Z. 17:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The Korean War article lists the USSR as belligerent, the whole point is they were 'unofficially' a belligerent ie.. it was a covert war.Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russo-Ukrainian War articles don’t list Iran as a belligerent for sending technicians to make drones work.

If the whole point is to list unofficial belligerents, then why is the field marked for “Belligerents” and not “Unofficial and covert belligerents”? It should be moved under a “Supporters” subheading, at best. Better yet, the template should be edited to accommodate things other than unofficial, covert, or other qualified so-called belligerents.

belligerent. specifically: belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war (Merriam-Webster).[10]

belligerent. a state or nation at war (Random House Unabridged [Dictionary.com]).[11]

belligerent. a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law (Oxford Dictionary of English).

 —Michael Z. 18:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What else would you call a nation's soldier's shooting at another nation's soldier's during a war? If the "state of war" (as in a declaration) is required....than the USA doesn't qualify as a belligerent either. (Since the USA never declared war during the conflict.) Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Question is what RS include in the list of belligerents in the Vietnam War. Your logical formulation is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH.  —Michael Z. 21:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And from what I'm seeing you'll reject any source that doesn't agree with your position (and Pike and Lind are both authorities on Vietnam, so they can't be dismissed as fringe). Consensus seems to agree that the Soviet Union was a belligerent, and it's been backed by RS. Your not agreeing with that doesn't override consensus. Intothatdarkness 22:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I did not dismiss them, did I?  —Michael Z. 23:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to consider them RS, because you keep rejecting them. Repeating the same assertions as you do below doesn't make them true. I'll leave you to it, though. Your determination to control the discussion, and insist on your own unilateral standards for said discussion, isn't in any way conducive to consensus or collegial work. Intothatdarkness 02:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Using Iran in today's Russian invasion of Ukraine is a poor comparison, one we don't know to what extent Iran is supporting the Russians nor do we know if there's a body count. The same goes for the West's support of Ukraine. In terms of the Soviets role as a beligerent, there's a book 'The Soviet Union and the Vietnam War' by Ilia V. Gaĭduk which as per title describes in detail the Kremlin's role in the war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And . . .? There are books about Canada and the Vietnam war.[12] Saying so doesn’t prove anything.

What does Gaĭduk say about the war and its belligerents?  —Michael Z. 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps this is RfC time? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. But so far, it looks like it's just one editor vs. everyone else.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose you can just choose to forget about it, because I’m not going to change the infobox unilaterally. And I’ll remind you that @Hohum also stated an opinion.

The issue is that we have differing opinions on what constitutes a belligerent, in the broad context of the article’s subject. I’d feel a lot better at concluding it if a single other participant in the discussion acknowledged that they understand my opinion, both in terms of the facts, and in terms of the application of our guidelines on sourcing and no original research. But that doesn’t look likely.

But I would prefer an RFC to get more opinions.  —Michael Z. 00:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The user you refer to (i.e. Hohum) said that "The USSR should only be listed as a belligerent if reliable sources say it was one." In my opinion, those have been provided. (Although I don't know if Hohum concurs.) But the vote count (as it stands) now appears to be 5-1 in favor of inclusion. I have nothing against a RFC...but (as it stands now, and granted it's early) there appears to be a consensus. RFC's are for when consensus cannot be reached. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you’re not counting them, then it should be 5-1-1, with one undetermined. Anyway, I think we don’t have consensus because I can’t tell whether you are WP:HEARing what I say about what being a belligerent in a conflict represents. And because we still have the open question of your source, Gaĭduk, says.  —Michael Z. 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, I just don't buy your arguments. And Gaiduk isn't a source I've cited. Other editors have said my sources are fine.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I see it was @Eastfarthingan that named the source as supporting. I hope they can quote it.

So if you’re not buying my argument, then I will examine yours.

It must be your assertion that the USA and USSR were at war for some period as belligerents on opposite sides of a war. And the majority of sources support this?

And I guess there must be some lower threshold of involvement that constitutes being “effectively” a belligerent that’s lower than sixteen casualties and, how many troops in combat was it?  —Michael Z. 03:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Haven't we gone around and around on this (above) already? You've been given the sources (one of which, a definite RS, specifically calls the USSR a "co-belligerent"). Any "lower threshold" judgement call is OR...unless you've got a RS establishing one.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that sort of argument based on semantics of definitions is OR/SYNTH, particularly when we have good quality [more] recent sources asserting that the USSR was directly engaged in combat / was a belligerent, even if it did so covertly. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but the first series of comments by Rja13ww33 were arguments that could be considered SYNTH. Are those dropped now? Am I to understand that the basis for listing belligerents in the war including the USSR is now only a single source, or three? Is this claimed to be a majority opinion?

Does any source claim that it was a legal belligerent? Does any claim it was at war with the USA?

If it was a belligerent covertly, has it ever been acknowledged as a belligerent by other states, the UN, or international courts?  —Michael Z. 05:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

More territory we've been over. You (scroll up) asked for a source that called the USSR a belligerent.....you got one specifically calling them that (not to mention another pointing out their participation in combat operations there), then all the stuff came in about what a majority of RS called them. You claimed "the majority of RS do not say it was a belligerent". Your proof? 3 sources that obviously don't represent anywhere the number of RSs out there. Furthermore, you have quoted nothing from these sources that state what the majority of scholars or other RS believe. So there is no basis for your claim. So how many times do you want to go over the same ground?Rja13ww33 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Rja13ww33, the two positions seem intractable. We can kill a lot more electrons continuing to debate this and then kill a lot more having an RfC or we can cut to the quick and go for the RfC now, with the prospect of killing just half as many electrons? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Going to a RFC wouldn't bother me. (But I think the main reason we are going there is because another editor isn't getting what they want. But I've seen that movie before here :))Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No need to be snarky on me. It’s your argument that’s unconvincing, and it’s you who refuses to engage my argument. I’m not going to pretend I’ve changed my mind to make you happy.  —Michael Z. 03:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say I have "refused" when I've been going back and forth with you for about a day on this. (Scroll up to refresh your memory.) And a consensus (so far) finds your argument unconvincing (not mine).Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

For an RFC it would surely need at least one or two more users to support the notion that the USSR shouldn't be in the beligerents column. The other problem here is that 'supported by' seems too generic; all the other communist states gave largely diplomatic support and/or just supplying weapons, but that in itself shouldn't be given scope to place said communist/country in 'supported by'. India & Sweden for example should be removed - who cares about diplomatic support? On top of that hardly any mention is placed in the article for said country's support and just relying on a single (nr) source. As a possible solution, the use of 'Undeclared' or 'military support' where USSR could be placed under as a consideration, but IMHO at present the USSR should be listed as a beligerent. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Eastfarthingan, I agree with your observations about "supported by" but this is a problem not confined to this article. It occurs to me that we might just ask for a close of this discussion? A CR might take a while but we might post a request at MilHist? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it's something that needs to be addressed, as for as closed discussion is concerned - I concur. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I have posted a CR to MilHist. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Adding a citation to the North Korean deaths. Currently, the only citation from the BBC is that North Koreans participated in the war but no information about the number of deaths, citing the number of deaths seems more appropriate in this situation. Thong-on (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Interpreted this as "insert this source as a reference to the 14 dead total for North Koreans". Page 1 of linked source supports this claim. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races (FULRO)" editing request

That section is the least covered and cited part of the Vietnam War, it unable to make clear to readers that what was the FULRO and what was the Montagnard CIDG, American rangers, what distinctions between them in ideology, motive, assistance, organization, involvement in the Vietnam war, alignments with North Vietnam and the US...etc. The moniker "ethnic minorities" is not simply just wrong and racist, but utterly denies the Montagnards as well as other groups' entitlements to the indigenous identities of South Vietnam, otherwise thereby decontextualizes and guarantees refusal to engage the "lost history" of the Vietnam war and from other nonmainstream perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.151.56.68 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

War winner

Hello. WINNER OF THE WAR OF NORTH VIETNAM AND VIET CONG/PRG WRITTEN; While China, Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Lao Pate, GRUNK and North Korea participated in the war and these countries were supported by Cuba, Romania, Soviet satellite countries, India and Sweden. According to the Pentagon Papers, the purpose of US involvement in the Vietnam War was to contain the People's Republic of China It is better for the Eastern Bloc to win. Parham wiki (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You are aware that the USA was not the only noncommunist power? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know; But I did not understand what you mean. Parham wiki (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I may have misunderstood, The aim of the Republic of Vietnam was not to contain China, it was to survive as an independent nation. As the war was fought in defense of that nation, on its soil and it had both the largest military comnitment and the heaviest losses. Their reasons for the war are at least an important as the US's. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I realized; Sorry, I wrote wrong. Parham wiki (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Aftermath

Is it only me or is the aftermath focus more on the US? Mailsac (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

To a degree. You can always improve it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnson Escalation Edit Request

There is a part of the escalation that I feel could covered. There has been some research into how the culture of gender roles played a part in the escalation. In Johnson's term, critical escalations took place and all of the advice that led to the escalation was given by males who were operating under a traditional male gender role of being the 'hero'. I feel that this could add to the page. I am a Univeristy student and one of my assignments is to edit a Wikipedia page but I have a new account and therefore cannot access this page without permission. Favoir Andrews (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone just added something like that on the United States in the Vietnam War page (under a different username than yours). I gave my thoughts on that on the Talk page there. [13](Not sure if you were thinking of what was added there should be added here.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is theory and not supported by the majority of established RS for this article. It also has potential bias, as it's only looking at things through a fairly recent Western cultural/sociological lens. Intothatdarkness 21:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree, if we looked back at history through that lens you could probably add that to anything, which is pointless. Mztourist (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Related discussion

Just linking this discussion @ Talk:Vietnam Veterans Memorial as it may affect this article. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

friendly discussion

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.

---

First of all, I absolutely agree with your assertion that there are other POVs that need to be included, but you could also include all that information alongside mine, instead of deleting everything I wrote. Like you said, there's important POVs that needed to be included.

Secondly, I believe the State of Vietnam was signatory, according to the CIA's file, CIA and the House of Ngo:

"The Viet Minh destroyed colonial rule in Indochina when they defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu on 7 May 1954. Negotiations beginning in Geneva a day later led in July to an agreement signed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and the three Associated States of Indochina, including Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The United States agreed to respect the Geneva Accords, but, unhappy with the provision for the temporary division of Vietnam at the 17th parallel, refused to sign. Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the French, remained in Cannes, and his new prime minister, Ngo DDinh Diem, had played no role in the war or in the negotiations that ended it."

Notice that the only recent change I did was clarify that Bao Dai was former emperor, not the Chief of State. I properly quoted from my source. I'm not sure why that was removed. Jumopil (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for engaging. Making substantial changes after being reverted multiple times demonstrates a need to talk about the disagreement. Second, please continue to discuss here and if you will pledge not to edit further while the discussion is ongoing, I'll relax the page protection. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much - I'm very sorry about what happened in the edits. I pledge not to edit further while discussion is ongoing. Jumopil (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The issue it is unclear if what you added is correct, as wp:rs seems to dispute what you wrote, it is not very well written (using present tense when it should have used past tense), goes into over much detail on something really trivial to the overall war. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think before anymore edits happen, it needs to get hashed out here first.

To start with, I take issue with saying South Vietnam "signed" the Geneva accords (and ergo endorsed them). RS say otherwise. The CIA source is fairly primary....not that it cannot be mentioned....but read (for example) 'Vietnam The Necessary War' by Michael Lind. He states: "Contrary to the mythology of the anti-Vietnam War movement, none of the major parties in the Vietnam War-North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, or the United States-endorsed the Geneva agreements." He also notes the monopoly of power the communists maintained in the North, and by virtue of their larger population.....that meant a victory in any election. These sorts of POVs need to be included. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

So it seems like the signatory issue is disputable, with contradictory sources. Maybe we can include those two POVs in the article in the future?

I absolutely agree with you that other POVs needed to be included, and you could also include all that information alongside mine. Perhaps it's best if there's a discussion here first before any edits or deletes happen, though. Jumopil (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm also surprised that role of Edward Lansdale and the CIA in helping Diem consolidate his power in the south is neglected in this article. That is a very significant achievement. In the future, I hope we are able to expand more on this in the article. Jumopil (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The proposed text should be stated here first. And most RSs I can think of note the fact that neither the United States nor South Vietnam formerly ratified this agreement. In addition to Lind's book (above), some examples:

-"South Vietnam refused to give their assent to the Geneva accords...", from: 'The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991', by: Ronald E. Powaski (1997)

-"If true, rewards were soon forthcoming as Diem's refusal to endorse the Geneva settlement made the American abstention all the easier...", from: 'War and Revolution in Vietnam', by: Kevin Ruane.

-"Despite participating in the Geneva talks, the United States refused to sign the final accords.", from: 'Letters from the Southern Home Front: The American South Responds to the Vietnam War', by Jospeh A. Fry. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing these quotes to me. Remember, I never disputed that the United States was not a signatory - it was only the State of Vietnam.

The quote from the CIA paragraph I shared to you (I edited into my comment at the top of the thread), could perhaps add more context to the first and second quote you showed me:

"Bao Dai, the puppet emperor of the French, remained in Cannes, and his new prime minister, Ngo Dinh Diem, had played no role in the war or in the negotiations that ended it."

I'll try to investigate more sources.

And I also agree - the proposed text should be stated here first.

Thank you very much again for your time. Jumopil (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

So, specifically for your second quote, combined with my CIA quote clarified that although Diem didn't endorse the Accords, he was not part of the negotiations. So it seems like he wasn't in a position to sign it or refuse to sign it in the first place. In this case, endorsement does not mean signing it. Jumopil (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v16/ch5subch4

Yeah, he wasn't part of the delegation at all. This is from the State Department's website. Jumopil (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Bảo Đại abdicated in 1945, your wording makes it read like this was linked to Deim becoming PM, it was not. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh! I personally don't see it. In the article itself, It was simply a description of Bảo Đại being the former emperor, that's all.

Is this better?

"The south, meanwhile, constituted the State of Vietnam, with former emperor Bảo Đại as Chief of State and Ngô Đình Diệm as his prime minister." Jumopil (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

NO, it still implies they both came to office at the same time (when the state of Vietnam was formed). Dai was also PM until 1950, Diem was not PM until 1954 (there were in fact 4 PM's before him). It is far too simplistic. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Pretty sure you're talking to a sock. I don't understand what the point was of them pretending to act in good faith when they immediately made three socks the next day to restore their edits on Jumopil. See the edit history of South Vietnam. Complete waste of everyone's time; should have been a block the first time, but the admin didn't recognise the behavioural pattern. Yue🌙 05:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I was not aware, thanks. This needs closing. Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2023 (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.