Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.4.34.74 (talk) at 00:17, 11 August 2020 (→‎Agent Orange & M-16 Industrial SNAFU). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
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

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018

There were 4 military organization in this war, each has their own characteristics and goals in this war, therefore, to prevent confusion for the readers (I saw a lot of people mistaking the PAV and the Viet Cong when reading this article), I suggest a subheading to clarify these information.

Also moving "The primary military organizations involved in the war were, on one side, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the U.S. military, and, on the other side, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) (more commonly called the North Vietnamese Army, or NVA, in English-language sources), and the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF, more commonly known as the Viet Cong in English language sources), a South Vietnamese communist guerrilla force." to the beginning of this new subheading.

Agent Orange deaths 1975-2018

Does not include deaths that happened as a direct cause of US military persons being exposed to Agent orange. The estimated deaths caused by Chemical warfare weapon Agent Orange from 1975 to 2018 after Vietnam Exposure is 35,000 to 44, 000.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

Change sidelined as PAVN forces begun more conventional to sidelined as PAVN forces began more conventional

and begun almost immediately in a series of border to began almost immediately in a series of border VagueWhelk (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is be but I am not seeing any difference.Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done began is correct form in this context, begun needs to appear in the form "had begun".--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Communist forces

China, North Korea and the Soviet Union we're supporters of North Vietnam, the Viet Cong, Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge. I don't think China, North Korea and the Soviet Union we're involved in the Vietnam war. ColorfulSmoke (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also what the heck is Sweden doing in the communist side? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Chilliness Toward U.S. Is Limited to Vietnam New York Times, 8 January 1973. More reliable source than those presently used for the infobox and gives a fuller background. --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ColorfulSmoke China sent military advisors, North Korea sent a fighter squadron and the USSR sent fighter pilots and SAM operators so all three were combatants. Mztourist (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sweden provided humanitarian aid, that's why it is included.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
May be putting Sweden under "humanitarian aid" would reduce controversy? --Horus (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Khmer Rouge listed as a North Vietnam/Viet Cong ally? It doesn't seem like they were a real participant in the "Vietnam War" between Vietnamese Communist forces and their allies and American forces and their allies as much as N. Vietnam/Vietnam fought in Cambodia, initially in favor of the Khmer Rouge and then against the Khmer Rouge. They should really get their own column if they're included at all, in the same way that the Iraq War article lists the Mahdi Army, Ba'ath Party and ISIS as co-belligerents against the United States but not as allies of each other. Did the Khmer Rouge ever even fight in Vietnam against anti-Communist forces? N0thingbetter (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was part of the conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presence and Participation

An umpire or referee is present on the sports-pitch or in the ring, but is not considered to be one of the pugilists or players or a member of either team.

The Laws of War were sufficiently well-understood by say 1599, that a playwright could make them a feature of a play ('Henry V', Act IV, Scene vii) without explanation to ordinary members of the theater-going public. As Shakespeare nearly said: 'if you aren't armed, you are not an army...'. That was even before Dunant, the Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions (& Hague Conventions) and the modern corpus of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC/LAC) and International Humanitarian Law. Quakers are famously abjured not to bear arms but most have bravely joined the (Religious Society of -) Friends' Ambulance Units [FAU] in time of war. Non-signatories such as the Waffen SS and the Imperial Japanese Army committed massacres but have also observed many of the conventions. This is not the place for a general discussion, but suffice to say the principles are known to all cultures, and for centuries: non-combatants are not combatants.

A Spanish medical unit of 30 men is not the same two divisions of ROK marines and soldiers. A Swedish medical unit is not the same as an NLF combat-assault team. British Red Cross Land-Rovers are not the same as British SAS Land-Rovers. Etc.

On that basis, can we agree that the following are Official Neutrals/Non-Belligerents:

  • India: ICC-ICSC (including a full, armed battalion of the IA...)
  • Canada: ICC-ICSC/ICCS
  • Poland: ICC-ICSC/ICCS
  • Hungary: ICCS
  • Indonesia: ICCS
  • Iran: ICCS

That there is as yet no evidence of combat support from the following, and that medical assistance - so long as administered impartially - is allowed by the custom of centuries and by the modern corpus of LAC and IHL, so these are also Non-Belligerents:

  • Spain: medical team in SVN
  • Sweden: medical team in NVN
  • Britain: British Red Cross medical team in SVN.
  • etc. (a helmeted actress looking through the sights of an AA gun is technically and legally more belligerent, albeit ridiculous).

Thoughtful observations would be actively welcomed.

Sorry, this was unsigned and undated.14:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Problems with your edit, one neither Sweden or Spain are British. Two the British Red Cross are an NGO thus do not represent official British support.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now make a case, you have been undone by multiple editors.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really need to include countries such as India, Indonesia, Hungary etc. These are merely poltical and if we add them we open a can of worms where people will argue for every country to be added that affirmed their poltical support to USA or Republic of Vietnam. Remember this article is too long as it is & this is why I have removed them. As mentioned above, the Red Cross is an organization of many countries & again should not be put into individual countries, certainly not with the UK involvement (already disccussions in talk page). Poland Im having doubts with but will leave it there for moment. I do believe however that Combat medical teams should be included such as Spain and Brazil. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you -- and I'm reminded of a story that Lyndon Johnson begged British PM Harold Wilson to send something to Vietnam "even a bagpipe band" to show support for the U.S. Wilson declined. Smallchief (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange Death 58,319

On May 25, 2020 The deaths from Agent orange exposure in Vietnam surpassed the death toll from the Vietnam war itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.81.237 (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

There are a few grammatical errors that need to be addressed. Mainly spelling errors. Vazsherwin (talk) 07:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such as?Slatersteven (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2020 (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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

I would like to edit because there is a typo on one of the photos, it says a bombed Buddha in Laos, then it says it has made Vietnam the most bombed country in the world but the most bombed is Laos. RPG2428 (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: On reviewing the page history, it appears that this discrepancy is intentional rather than being an error. Jack Frost (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does however seem a bit of a contradiction, we use a picture from Laos to illustrate how bombed Vietnam was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion in the caption there is not directly related to that image, and might fit better with this image localized in its description to "southeast asia" and located in the Extent of U.S. bombings article section. For sources re the context of the buddha, which is apparently well known as the "Enduring Buddha", see e.g., here and here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Orange & M-16 Industrial SNAFU

Has anyone mentioned that the M-16 was originally a good weapon until they changed the gunpowder? Or that Agent Orange was originally safe until they increased the manufacturing temperature (making it toxic) to increase profits? 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a subject for this article. Too much detail.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wherever mentioned in Wikipedia articles, WP:BURDEN would apply. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a good article in the Atlantic Monthly June 1981 by James Fallows entitled "M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story" relating how changing the gunpowder from DuPont's IMR 4475 to Olin Mathieson's ball powder caused the guns to jam due to bureaucratic incompetence. A few lines in the Wiki article should suffice. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 19:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are other sources with a bit of info here, here, and probably elsewhere. Offhand, it seems to me that technical details about the M-16 and its ammunition should first be run through discussion at Talk:M16 rifle and reflected in M16 rifle#Reliability before being added to this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Wiki article on M-16's and they actually cover this matter, the M-16 was praised when they sent over test rifles in 1961 and 1962 BUT they changed the gunpowder to ball powder in 1964 and this fouled the guns and caused them to jam. Also, the new powder increased the firing rate which caused the extractor claw to shear through the lip of the cartridge, jamming it in the chamber. The M-16 was excellent, it was the ball powder that was the problem all along. 75.4.34.74 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=972236742"