Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 142: Line 142:


::::::::: i removed it. it gives undue weight for number, giving the impression that it is the total casualty report for NVA civilians. [[User:Ameteurdemographer|Ameteurdemographer]] ([[User talk:Ameteurdemographer|talk]]) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: i removed it. it gives undue weight for number, giving the impression that it is the total casualty report for NVA civilians. [[User:Ameteurdemographer|Ameteurdemographer]] ([[User talk:Ameteurdemographer|talk]]) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: looking up the source it implies that the number is actually from 1968-69 intelligence report? [[User:Ameteurdemographer|Ameteurdemographer]] ([[User talk:Ameteurdemographer|talk]]) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


:::::::: I get it, but the vietnam war was between 55 and 75. the 65,000 is a partial research and gives the wrong impression if put in the infobox. it belong in the casualty section, but not in the infobox [[User:SyriaWarLato|SyriaWarLato]] ([[User talk:SyriaWarLato|talk]]) 14:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: I get it, but the vietnam war was between 55 and 75. the 65,000 is a partial research and gives the wrong impression if put in the infobox. it belong in the casualty section, but not in the infobox [[User:SyriaWarLato|SyriaWarLato]] ([[User talk:SyriaWarLato|talk]]) 14:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:12, 17 September 2015

Template:Vital article

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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


War was extended:

It turns out Nixon helped prolong the war.

" Now, for the first time, the whole story can be told. It begins in the summer of 1968. Nixon feared a breakthrough at the Paris Peace talks designed to find a negotiated settlement to the Vietnam war, and he knew this would derail his campaign. rest Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21768668

Allies of South Vietnam

It seems silly to list Canada, United Kingdom, West Germany, Spain and possibly some others as allies of South Vietnam -- and if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam. Sending a medical team or something similar to South Vietnam is not being an ally in a war. If we're going to list these countries as allies of South Vietnam, then we should list Sweden as an ally of North Vietnam as it had aid programs there.

Illustrating the lack of support of the United Kingdom for the war, I recall the story of Lyndon Johnson begging the UK to send troops -- "even a bagpipe band" -- to South Vietnam as a show of support. The Brits turned him down. I propose these countries be omitted from the list of allies.Smallchief (talk 20:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wondering, why is it offensive to be a South Vietnamese ally? The Philippines and Taiwan apparently sent a little bit of troops. Canada is also mentioned in the article. 30 Spaniards are also mentioned composing around 30 Free World Military Forces, and the source also mentions Spain composing up the FWMF too. I don't know about the others though. I never heard about Sweden taking a side, other than they were neutral or opposed to the war. Kiwifist (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The infobox doesn't need to be changed at all, it clearly distinguishes between "anti-communist forces" (i.e. those that were direct belligerents) and "supported by" (i.e those nations that provided non-combat support).That said, I think its arguable to what extent those countries listed under "supported by" actually supported the South Vietnamese war effort as opposed to maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam, though at the time one was probably indistinguishable from the other. Smallchief your opinion that "if I were a citizen of one of those countries I would be offended to be considered an ally of South Vietnam" is just that, your opinion.Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, then. I will add Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam. The Swedes gave more aid to North Vietnam than did any of the supposed West European supporters gave to South Vietnam.

If I were a Brit or a Canadian I would be offended to be considered a supporter of the war in South Vietnam because the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war. The Canadians were rigorously neutral throughout the war, serving on the neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord. To call them an "supporter" of the US side in the Vietnam war is a misrepresentation of their status.

The U.S. on occasion during the Cold War provided humanitarian aid to communist countries. That didn't make us a supporter of communism and the governments of those countries. Ditto humanitarian aid to South Vietnam. Smallchief (talk 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get into an argument over this, but saying "the majority of the people of those countries were opposed to the U.S. war" is unproven. As far as I am aware there was never any vote in the UK or Canadian parliaments nor any referendum in either country on participation in the Vietnam War. Rather I assume that support among the population for the war in each country essentially followed the same course as in the US, general vague support of opposing perceived communist agression in the early phases of the war, later moving to general vague opposition to the war. In relation to Canada's role in serving on the "neutral commission to supervise the Geneva Accord", it was not a "neutral commission" as the "force comprised troops and officers from Canada, Poland, and India representing the non-communist, communist, and non-aligned blocs respectively." as stated on the International Control Commission page.Mztourist (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I don't want to get into an argument over this -- but the supposed support of many countries to South Vietnam was token and humanitarian. I continue to believe that it is misleading to list countries such as the UK and Canada as "supporters" of South Vietnam. However, using the present criteria for "supporters" I've added Sweden to the list of supporters of North Vietnam and I'm considering adding Denmark which gave diplomatic recognition to North Vietnam in 1971. Also, the reference alleging that the UK, Canada, etc. were supporters of South Vietnam is a blog which is not usually considered a reliable source. Smallchief (talk 12:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War. One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary? I certainly agree that the sole reference does not not meet WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "maintaining diplomatic relations with and providing aid to South Vietnam at the time was probably indistinguishable from supporting them in the Vietnam War"—source needed. (2) "One salient fact is that in April 1975 the UK evacuated their embassy in Saigon, if they had not supported South Vietnam would this have been necessary?"—what on earth does this mean? 81.168.45.105 (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The UK probably evacuated their Embassy because of fears for the safety of their personnel. The US evacuated its Embassy in Afghanistan in 1991 when the Russians pulled out. That doesn't imply that we supported the Russian's war in Afghanistan. Smallchief (talk 10:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:81.168.45.105, I thought it was clear that this was my opinion, not something that I need to cite references for. The UK presumably perceived that they would be seen as an ally of the US/South Vietnam and there would be repercussions to this, despite the UK not having provided any combat support. Smallchief the Soviets pulled out in 1989, the Soviet-backed government in Kabul fell in 1991. Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ho chi minh trail graphic

This graphic is used in two sections: a) Insurgency in the South, 1954–60, and b) Tet Offensive. I think it should be removed in the first section since the graphic represents 1967. It can then be replaced at a later time with a more appropriate graphic. Thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HoCMT.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevetauber (talk • contribs) 08:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Clearly the article knows who the main aggressors were. "Japan invaded Indochina" "North Vietnam invaded Laos" ...And so on. "attacked" "invaded" or "invasion" appears numerous times in the article I counted about 20!

Only two involve the US 

-U.S. and ARVN forces launched an invasion into Cambodia to attack NVA and Viet Cong bases.
-"Bay of Pigs Invasion." which is a link to another article.

The article quotes establisment debates: "What is the fundamental nature of this war? Is it aggression from North Vietnam or is it basically, a civil war between the peoples of South Vietnam?"

good question! Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox edit war about casualties

Please discuss the contested changes here instead of edit warring. User:SyriaWarLato, please be aware of the method of Bold, revert, discuss. This means that you should discuss the edit you want to make. --Sus scrofa (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all right. the information provided in the infobox is OTT. to many estimates, to many variables. i propose to cut down on estimates especially the ones that have been proven false. Ex Lewy's 65,000 civilian dead, is not only false but incomplete(it's from 69), also more recent data given by the vietnamese government also proves his NVA military casualties estimate wrong. although i'm not saying remove his estimates altogether, i would remove his estimates from the infobox. SyriaWarLato (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i would also put the civilian casualties in the 3rd casualty section, keeping 1 and 2 casualtiy sections for military casualties, making it more easier to navigate. SyriaWarLato (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Levy's book was published in 1978, not 1969 as you claim, and it clearly labels its casualty estimates as 1965-1974.
(2) 65,000 is an estimate for the number of civilian killed in North Vietnam as a consequence of U.S. bombing. Not the number of civilian dead in the entire war. That seems a reasonable estimate given the evacuation of many people from North Vietnamese cities, the construction of air raid shelters, and U.S. avoidance, to a certain extent, of bombing near the China border and heavily populated centers. Smallchief (talk 13:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The info he got was from 69. also, putting the bombing casualties only as civilian casualties in the infobox gives the wrong impression of total civilian casualties. especially without specifying they're as a result of air strikes. Us air strikes. of course you can specify, but that would mean more fillers to an already OTT infobox. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lewy clearly labels his estimates as covering the years 1965-1974. See his graphic on p. 453, plus all the supporting material in his text. Specifically, Lewy estimates 52,000 civilian deaths from U.S. bombing of North Vietnam from 1965-1968 and 13,000 in the years following. Smallchief (talk 13:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no. lewy put 587,000 deaths for both sides. the 65,000 dead is from 69. Also the vietnam war didn't start in 65. SyriaWarLato (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read Lewy, p. 451. He gives his rationale for estimating 65,000 civilian deaths from US bombing of North Vietnam from 1965 to 1974. We are all aware that the Vietnam War didn't start in 1965, but Lewy's estimate for deaths in the Vietnam War is for that period -- and that period only.Smallchief (talk 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i removed it. it gives undue weight for number, giving the impression that it is the total casualty report for NVA civilians. Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: looking up the source it implies that the number is actually from 1968-69 intelligence report? Ameteurdemographer (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, but the vietnam war was between 55 and 75. the 65,000 is a partial research and gives the wrong impression if put in the infobox. it belong in the casualty section, but not in the infobox SyriaWarLato (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the war against North Vietnam DID begin in 1965, so this is not a good rationale. The figures for South Vietnam are more misleading in this regard, it was already getting bombed under Kennedy.Guccisamsclub (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the page is vietnam war, the date is put between 55-75. SyriaWarLato (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the section is "North Vietnam Casualties". If it were up to me I would also drop this number from the infobox, because it is outdated and comes directly from a 1968 USG intelligence report (Lewy tacks on 15,000). Even Hirshman et al, who produced perhaps the lowest scholarly Vietnam War death toll estimate discount the underlying data as specious. But people like numbers in the infobox especially if it comes from an academic source, so there is nothing you can do aside from improving the article BY ADDING QUALITY SOURCES.Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and in this case (north vietnamese casualties) the best source is the vietnamese government. like it or not. they have no reason to falsify data 20 after their victory. SyriaWarLato (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And where do they give give civialian casualtiues for North Vietnam?Guccisamsclub (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Vietnamese government is not WP:RS, all of their facts and figures regarding the war must be approached with great skepticism given their POV as you will see from reading any of their texts. The Vietnamese government draws most of its legitimacy from winning the wars against the French and US and reuniting the country and so they continue to perpetuate their version of history. I have moved the deletion of several pages of North Vietnamese/Vietcong "victories" that don't exist anywhere other than in Vietnamese claims. The US only started airstrikes against North Vietnam in 1964 and contrary to North Vietnamese propaganda, they did not carpet bomb North Vietnam. The bombing was stopped in 1968, resumed in 1972 in response to the Easter Offensive and then ended in December 1972. 65,000 civilian deaths seems to be a reasonable estimate. Mztourist (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not take the Soviet Union's casualties from WW2 seriously? history is written by the victors, we get that, but the fact that Vietnamese gov is not WP:RS is your personal opinion. there are no reliable sources to counter their claim. only estimates. at least when it comes to their own casualties. Also, what would be the propaganda value of saying 1,1 million of their fighters died in the war? they are not in a state of war anymore. SyriaWarLato (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in comparing the reliability of different communist regimes. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources (of which there are many, contrary to your assertion), the Vietnamese government is a primary source and I have shown it to be unreliable on a number of occasions in relation to the Vietnam War. You obviously haven't spent much time in Vietnam, otherwise you would know that their propaganda really hasn't moved on much since 1975. Mztourist (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no. you just said it's unreliable. you haven't provided any sources or proof. only your views on the Vietnamese government. which doesn't count for much in this case. SyriaWarLato (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Governments are reliable sources for internal demographic and economic data. If they were not, well you can go and delete all population and gdp data on wikipedia.
As for the line that the Vietnam's govt main purpose in carrying out the survey was to defame the US, it's absurd beyond belief.
First, maybe the Vietnamese govt actually cares about assessing the damage to their country wrought by 20 years of war? Crazy theory, I know. And unfortunately they had to do the body count themselves, because Western scholars and journalists have been preoccupied with counting Cambodian corpses. And we really don't have that much recent scholarship on the Vietnam death toll. We have a BMJ study and a possibly flawed study by Hirshman et al. We also have a remark by Robert MacNamara. That's about it. Nobody seems to really care.
Second, western scholarship and journalism is heavily dependent on official USG sources, but that seldom causes raised eyebrows here. We all know American officials never tell a lie, unlike communist officials, who always lie. I don't remember anyone objecting when a single 1968 US State Dept estimate (50K civ deaths in the DRV) became transformed into an authoritative looking "range" of 50-65K in the infobox. Two secondary sources reproduced this official number, with one source (Lewy) prorating it to 65,000 to account for the year 1972. Naturally the numbers were sourced to these secondary sources, so readers could not even tell how the sausage was made. If propaganda is your concern, you'd do well to look for it closer to home.
Third, Vietnam's main goal since the war has been to normalize relations with its former enemy. Indeed Vietnam's goal was to NOT bring up the war in its dealings with the Americans (after it became clear that Kissinger's promise of aid would be broken and that Vietnam would receive no compensation whatsoever from the US).
Finally, the hypothesis that govts routinely inflate their own casualties for propaganda purposes sounds a little crazy. Governments may exaggerate individual "atrocity" stories. But governments generally don't inflate overall casualty figures. This is mainly because deaths are underreported. This is also because higher numbers actually DAMAGE the government's image. So, for example, the official Soviet casualty figures are widely considered to be an undercount. Guccisamsclub (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guccisamsclub and SyriaWarLato I suggest you read some Vietnamese published books about the war or Nhân Dân to see how reliable and non-POV Vietnamese sources are. Also take a look at these examples of events that the Vietnamese claim occurred but which were removed from Wikipedia as being unreliable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chà Là, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Pat To and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hoa Da – Song Mao. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mztourist Wartime Vietnamese (or those of any other country) publications are not reliable sources and need to be treated with caution. I would never argue otherwise. They do of course also vary in quality and blanket dismissal is not the mainstream approach among scholars. But as far as your examples are concerned, lets take "Battle of Chà Là". What dubious assertions did you find in Lịch sử chiến thuật Quân đội Nhân dân Việt Nam 1944 - 1975 - Tập 2 (History of Tactics of the Vietnam People's Army 1944 - 1975 - Vol. 2, People's Army Publishing House, Hanoi, 2005.? Also where do you find this stuff - I want a piece of the action ;).Guccisamsclub (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guccisamsclub I haven't read the source you cited, what does it say about the "Battle of Chà Là"? The reason "Battle of Chà Là" was deleted was because there were no WP:RS to show that the "Battle" even took place. As shown by the other deleted pages, many of these battles only exist in Vietnamese claims and so it is dubious whether or not anything took place at the time and place stated. If you go to any war museum or memorial in Vietnam you will find the most outlandish claims, such as: "The gun of Kpakolong in Chu Prong District, Gia Lai-Kon Tum Province - used to kill 64 and Puppep troops." at the Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang Mztourist (talk) 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know either. The point is not to prejudge serious sources before examining them carefully. The "Battle of Chà Là" article was based on on articles in the PAV's ezine, stuffed with fanciful tales of bravery (kinda like Chris Kyle). These are indeed junk sources, and I cringe whenever I see them. But a silly news article is NOT the same as a published volume - even if it's People's Army Publishing House. As for statistics gathered by the Ministry of Labour, Invalids and Social Affairs and other bureaucratic agencies, this is another ball game entirely. What you are doing is essentially equivalent to finding a stupid article in Army Times and then using this fact to claim that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is unreliable propaganda and that state university publishers can't be trusted.Guccisamsclub (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you seem hell bent on controlling what view points get added to vietnam discussions. also, AP wouldn't have posted an obivous propaganda piece. also, there is no propaganda value of admitting 1,1 million dead fighters dead during the war. check your bias SyriaWarLato (talk) 07:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have proven repeatedly that the Vietnamese Government is not WP:RS and so can't be relied on for casualty figures. You don't have consensus here, so stop changing the Infobox or you will be blocked (again). Mztourist (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
obviously the consensus on Vietnamese government not being RS is against you. SyriaWarLato (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also, your deletes, remove referenced data, ex US MIA, and keep original research and (overall troop numbers/casualties) also, you put a misleading addition to the casualty section, Lewy's proven false 65,000 NVA civilian casualties. SyriaWarLato (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=681501730"