Talk:Fall of Saigon

(2005)

As I learned from what I read and information from my family members who fought in the war (I'm Vietnamese by the way), it looked a lot more like 'liberation' instead of 'fall', even though my family has been in the south for generations. Just an opinion

---

I was just wondering if anyone knew how many people died in the 'Fall' or 'Liberation' of Saigon.

The Fall of Saigon does not seem to be a neutral term. Did the north not regard the "fall" as a liberation? SV|t|add 18:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should definitely include mention of what the event is called by different parties in different languages. But whatever the term preferred by the north, it has not popularized it in English-speaking countries; the "Fall of Saigon" would seem to be the most common name in not just the U.S. but the UK (and The Independent is not known for its sympathy for U.S. military adventures), Australia, and New Zealand. "Saigon Giai Phong" meaning "Saigon Liberation" does appear to be a term used in Vietnam. -choster 05:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

infobox selection and POV characterization

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

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

Fall of Saigon is WP:COMMONNAME, it indicates the capture of Saigon and the end of South Vietnam. It was a military conflict because fighting went on in Saigon right up until Duong Van Minh's surrender speech.Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Ordering of Belligerents in the infobox

This is corrently

Viet Cong and PRG Supported by: North Vietnam }vs

South Vietnam Supported by: United States

Infobox ordering of belligerents, etc.

This is currently

Viet Cong and PRG Supported by: North Vietnam

vs

South Vietnam Supported by: United States

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

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

North Vietnam Supported by: Viet Cong and PRG

vs

South Vietnam Supported by: United States

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

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

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

The infobox says as one point under Results:

• Provisional government established; Viet Cong gains nominal authority in South Vietnam; North and South were merged as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in July 1976 and the PRG was dissolved.

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

That point clearly needs a rewrite.

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

How about rewriting that infobox Results point to something like:

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

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

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

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

Thanks. I've made that further change here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional/continued discussion

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

Nothing more to add than what I said above. Mztourist (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

That is completely fine with me. 🧧Virtuous🧧 ^❔ 20:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

However, I am more or less concerned about the strengths section as seen in this [1]. This article denotes specifically the strength of both belligerents at the time of the fall of Saigon, not the entire war in which this piece of information was extracted from. In this revision, it already shows the strength data of the North and South at 120,000 and 31,000, respectively. I later replaced that information with the info added in a later revision as a momentary solution to avoid an edit war and to keep the section organized, as the entire list was placed in the "South Vietnam" side. A more reliable and precise source should be found to replace it. 🧧Virtuous🧧 ^❔ 02:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow your point. Are you saying that the forces engaged around Saigon were only 120,000 (North) and 31,000 (South)? Do you have a WP:RS that supports those figures? Mztourist (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not saying that there were 120,000 North and 31,000 South in Saigon; I am merely pointing out the fact that that piece of information had already been there for a while prior to the addition of what had been entirely extracted from the Vietnam War article. My point is that there should be more precise and reliable statistics, as in "x number" of North Vietnamese and "x number" of South Vietnamese forces at the time of the fall of Saigon, not "x number" of North Vietnamese forces in 1966 for example.🧧Virtuous🧧 ^❔ 04:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you can provide WP:RS of the strength for the PAVN and VC and the South Vietnamese at the time of the Fall of Saigon then go ahead and add them in.Mztourist (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Parade Unification.jpg

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

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

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

• Duong Van Minh In Saigon, 1975.jpg

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