Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeVietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 8, 2004, April 30, 2004, April 30, 2005, and April 30, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

{{subst:trim|1=

Remove unsubstantiated claims in casualties or cite sources. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. Kennedy assumed the office of the Presidency in 1961. Any reference to the Kennedy Presidency with dates prior to 1961 took place under the Eisenhower Presidency. Your introductory paragraph(s) need to be changed to reflect the dates and/or the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.216.141 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{}} 64.189.18.53 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what unsubstantiated claims? Mztourist (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP with the Khemer/Kumar requests above. Intothatdarkness 11:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification

[edit]

Because the article states that this was officially a war between North and South Vietnam, I think we should change the sentence "This made it a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union" to "This made it both a Vietnamese civil war and a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union". Akysky (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Vietnam, we have always been propagated by the government that this was the war of the Vietnamese people against the invading American imperialists, not a proxy war and not a civil war. But yes, based on this article, the sentence can be changed like that, so I agree with you. 101.99.6.247 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Akysky's proposed change. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can you fix? Akysky (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Vietnamese and I do not believe in what the current Vietnamese government propagates about the war. 222.252.20.54 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to the article above, not only Cambodia helped FULRO in the Vietnam War. So I think we need to fix the paragraph about FULRO in info box. Abaotabao (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's read United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races. Abaotabao (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the two articles you just mentioned, you are right. 222.252.20.54 (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow a new IP with no other edits turns up immediately to support the proposal...Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change needed, FULRO was a sidenote that is more than adequately addressed on its own page. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do we need to change? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what that person means is that it is necessary to add other forces that supported FULRO because it was not only Cambodia that supported this organization during the war. 2402:800:9BB6:2765:83E:DAF0:9848:C90B (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's another sock. They have a particular interest in this page, and access to a lot of different IP ranges - I doubt we've seen the last of them. Girth Summit (blether) 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and Taiwan

[edit]

Did Spain really participate in the war directly when it only sent a very small number of advisers and medical staff? If it is true that Spain participated in the war, it should have been listed in the Belligerents section. Furthermore, according to infobox, Taiwan participated in the war, but why don't I see the data on the country's manpower participating in the war? 1.54.212.31 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

[edit]

The photo of Bảo Đại and Hồ Chí Minh in the First Indochina War section was taken in September 1945, not 1 June 1946. In fact, Bảo Đại gave up his position as supreme advisor to the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam after going to China to work on 16 March 1946; he stayed in China. So time in the photo is wrong. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]

You need a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on the photo and you will understand. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
I did and it does not, you need to back up your claim with RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons states that this photo was taken in September 1945. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
Here is source, I hope you can read Vietnamese. https://vietnamnet.vn/nghe-thuat-chieu-hien-dai-si-cua-chu-tich-ho-chi-minh-2144768.html 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
Another source for you. https://www.nongthonvaphattrien.vn/chu-tich-ho-chi-minh-va-co-van-vinh-thuy-a4135.html#:~:text=Ng%C3%A0y%2016%20th%C3%A1ng%203%20n%C4%83m,ngo%E1%BA%A1i%20giao%20v%E1%BB%9Bi%20n%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Bc%20ta. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
No I can't read Vietnamese, and I am unsure these are RS (well one maybe, but am unsure it supports the claim about the picture), so can anyone confirm the date this was taken? Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is from Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bao_Dai_and_Ho_Chi_Minh.jpg#mw-jump-to-license 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

@Intothatdarkness: What is the reason for your revert in Special:Diff/1263432945? I made this edit because "Direct US military involvement" is ambiguous (could mean supplies, training, advisors, etc. instead of boots-on-the-ground), and because "greatly escalated from 1965 until 1973" can be interpreted as a continuous escalation over this period, when in fact the number of US troops peaked in 1969 and then declined. — Goszei (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your wording is not an improvement. Both direct ground forces AND military aid to ARVN increased after that date. Direct military involvement captures the whole situation much better than your wording, which just implies ground units. And while troops may have dropped off, there were increases in air assets as well as supplies and aid to ARVN after 1969. Intothatdarkness 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Defections in Battlebox

[edit]

Defections

According to the Chieu Hoi program, 101,511 defections occurred. This is a significant figure itself to warrant inclusion, and also due to the sectarian and political nature of the war. The number may be higher as well as the program only ran from 1963-1971, and did not cover the post US-involvement period.

This may make up a portion of the the official military missing if they were not known to have defected by the North/NLF, under the 'military missing' label.

Either way, I recommend modifying the Casualties section to include defections, included with the 232,000 military missing as '232,000 military missing'(with up to 100,000 defections), or as a seperate figure over '100,000' defections (including officially missing)'.

Second, the final tally should then be changed to reflect this as dead/missing/defected.

See as Ref:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R1172.html

70.51.244.161 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure this adds anything, other than a complication. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]