Talk:1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Please edit the citations such that the full book reference appears in the references section first. You may want to have page references following, but please do not have it as it is, with the titles following the footnotes.Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The titles are often put after the footnotes, eg see Italian War of 1542-1546, a FA written by the lead coord of the MILHIST project. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Lansdale, CIA, etc.
This comes across as very conspiratorial, and treating the CIA as a Dark Force. Please see CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific#Vietnam, especially the discussion and documentation of the Saigon Military Mission in 1954. You may want to go further into the relevant documents, which are online, to evaluate the role of Lansdale in the 1960 coup, and what power he actually had at the time. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, the article doesn't say Landsale was involved in the coup not at all. It says that Landsale was a Diem supporter and criticised the US Amabassador's policy during the coup, which he felt was rotten twoards Diem. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and I have no intention of arguing with people's feelings on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Date autoformatting puts in a useless link. Links should go to related articles that the reader may be interested in visiting. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should have asked here first, but I went ahead and modified the citation formatting to have links from the "Notes" section to the "References" section. Any comments about whether this change is wanted on this article or not? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Coppertwig, its good you consulted on talk, but I have to ask to what advantage was that edit. So that readers dont have to scroll a further quarter page down. Its just more blue links as far as I can see. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- During the standoff, Durbrow ambivalently noted "We consider it overriding importance to Vietnam and Free World that agreement be reached soonest in order avoid continued division, further bloodshed with resultant fatal weakening Vietnam’s ability [to] resist communists."
The grammar of this statement shows that this was in a telegram. Could someone with the source at hand verify this and mention that it's in a telegram (and mention who the telegram was sent to)? Otherwise Durbrow appears to be a Robot Diplomat Model 3000. Tempshill (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Death in absentia
- The seven officers and two civilians who had fled the country after the failed coup were found guilty and sentenced to death in absentia.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1960 South Vietnamese coup attempt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222005518/http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3Aa76065a93a60f8dc3d2eebcd8e4ee8eebc078fff to http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/org.wgbh.mla%3Aa76065a93a60f8dc3d2eebcd8e4ee8eebc078fff
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.