Talk:Vietnam War casualties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Disgusting ideological bias in this article[edit]

My father served in this war as an American soldier. He he suffered and my family suffered. Because we were a career military family living in military communities, I knew a number of children of casualties. Putting the American casualties dead last is an intentional slap in the face of the families of those Americans who died. The lost soldiers are gone, so only their relatives and friends are left behind to see how this article is being used and manipulated.

To the person or persons who did this: you are not making a great moral point, you are hurting people who lost their fathers or husbands, brothers or sons. I have mixed feelings about this war, but I would never play with casualty lists or show gross insensitivity to surviving family and friends just to make a "moral point".

2602:306:BDA0:97A0:58A1:2906:F359:8B24 (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello. If you are not going to make a "moral point" as you say, then what is your point really? Please explain what you mean. And please dont degrade the discussion by using unexplained adjectives.
PS. I believe the section you are referring to is the section "Deaths in the Vietnam War"? I believe the rationale behind the listing, is to list the number of deaths in descending order. Wikipedia is an International project. Btw. new posts here, are put at the bottom of the page as well, and that is not to disgust anyone, its just the way its done. RhinoMind (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hispanics[edit]

"Hispanic" was not a common label until the 1970s and the 1980 census. Most Hispanics - especially Mexican-Americans - would have been classified as "white" in the military. Therefore those numbers are highly suspect. 72.191.185.14 (talk)

Good and interesting point. Please provide us with some kind of documentation and reference to what you say, then it can be used in the article. RhinoMind (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional Detail[edit]

How do people feel about adding additional detail, breaking down casualties by year (like here http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html) or month, or geographical area, or presenting sums from major battles? Should that sort of thing be on this page or additional pages? Is going into excruciating detail (for example, attempting to list every single US soldier KIA) appropriate for wikipedia? Wsacul 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

==Arrogant== how many peopled?

I find it pretty arrogant that your casualty listing for Vietnam makes sure to point out where the U.S. may have killed civilians but you sure don’t want to point out how many S. Vietnamese were kill by the Vet con and Northern Vietnamese Army.


2602:306:BDA0:97A0:58A1:2906:F359:8B24 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Example: (Bold font is the author issues with the categorization)

NVA (North Vietnamese Army) and the VC (Viet Cong) < No doubt that the U.S. is responisble for killing these murders.• ~900,000 killed and/or missing North Vietnamese civilians < And being these are NV civilians no doubt the U.S. did this too.• at least 500,000 killed by Allied bombings South Vietnamese Army • ~1,000,000 killed and/or missing South Vietnamese civilians • anywhere from 1,000,000 to 2,500,000 killed and/or died of starvation, wounds, disease, drought, friendly fire, atrocities etc. • > 100,000 killed or wounded by US ordnance since 1975 • 200,000 affected by US Agent Orange < So you find it a need to make sure to point out that these last two listings are U.S. Kills but who’s responsible for the set of numbers above. Beside the friendly fire did the S. Vietnamese do this to them selves? Well hell then why were they in a war with NVA. I’m you’re your attitude is that it goes with out saying, but it doesn’t you’ve just decided pointed out the U.S. instigated casualties to cast bad light on the nation. For instant the Agent Orange kills are most likily a exaggeration and whether they are or aren’t you point them out in blatant disregard for the reason it was used to make it look like the U.S. just gassed them to gas them. In fact your main article on Nam doesn’t point out the Agent Orange use at all except for the “Social Attitudes and Treatment of Veterans” (God fobid you talk about the liberal hippies who spit on those soldiers). You might want to talk about those instances of AO use if your going to point them out as being a reason for some of the dead. They used the Agent too wipe out over run areas and most likely killed twice as many of the enemy on those instances. I’m not saying that it not sad what happen I’m just saying you skewing a fact intentionally by not giving all the information anywhere eles. Not to mention that fact that in the main article under the Vietnam search you state that you’re using numbers from a government that won the Southern half. Yes, I’m sure those numbers aren’t skewed at all. Obviously the rest of the SVC death are not due to America or you would have pointed it out, so who then nice vague description. I’m just jumping the gun but I’m sure you’ll be sure and correct that to say, starvation, wounds, disease, drought, atrocities etc… by NVA and VC cutting of food, medicine and through attacks on the S. Vietnamese, and by friendly fire.

Just thought I’d help you clean that up.

There is some attempt to tally the North's pogroms against civilians here.[[1]] Mporter 09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

attributing casualties[edit]

To improve the article, it would be nice to have as many deaths as possible attributed: i.e. how many civilians and how many combatants were killed by US, north vietnamese, etc. forces. Jens Nielsen 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreement with other articles[edit]

The figures, at least for US casualties, don't agree with those in the main Vietnam War article. The biggest discrepancy is wounded: 153,303 there, 128,000 here. Can anybody fix these? — MikeG (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

US Casualties[edit]

US casualties don't appear to be listed on this page. Why not?

They seem to be listed now, but maybe we should agree on some consistent numbers? (from the article):

Casualites as of November 7 2001:

  • 58,209 KIA and other dead[1]
  • 303,635 WIA (including 153,303 who required hospitalization and 150,332 who didn't)[2]
  • 1,948 MIA[3]
Country Branch of service Number served Killed Wounded Missing
USA[2] Army 4,368,000 38,218 96,802 617 {A}
Marines 794,000 14,840 51,392 242{B}
Navy 1,842,000 2,565 4,178 401{C}
Air Force 1,740,000 2,587 1,021 649 {D}
Coast Guard
7 59 0 {E}
Civilians
38 {F}
Total 8,744,000 58,217 153,452 1,947

Note: Footnote # 1 gives breakdown of Casualty by Branch of service as follows: Army-38,209; Marines-14,838; Navy-2,555; Air Force-2,584; Coast Guard-7. Total:58,193. As of 12/1998
Originalname37 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

refrences?[edit]

There are no refrences for this article.... and this is the sort of article needs them! please add some if you have time. Ahudson 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


122.104.135.222 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC) is http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ a credible site.

although only numbers are being quotes, a quick look at the site will see it has significant bias.

could its numbers be found elsewhere?

122.104.135.222 (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What the Fuck?[edit]

Over one million Americans died in Vietnam? That number seems not only inaccurate but grossly inflated. I'm pretty sure that most historical accounts have the number of U.S. dead at around 60,000. I checked the casualty records at the archive and the list is around 58,193. I think the guy who wrote 1,000,000 must have added up the totals for all the different subsets, failing to realize each subset was just categorizing the same casualties in a different way.

High Count, Low Count[edit]

It seems to me that many of the discrepancies in VPA/VC casualties could be explained by differing chronological scopes for various estimates. The absurdly high figure of 1.1 million Communist deaths could very well be referring to every VPA and VC combatant killed from 1945 to 1989 - as I recall the press release in question is a very vague three-line French affair. For all I know ARVN troops are lumped in there too. It is doubtful that this figure refers specifically to the period of American involvement in Vietnam. Kensai Max 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I looked at a document purporting to be the Agence France Presse piece the other day and it was remarkably scrappy. No source for the figures at all. Not at all what I'd expect from a news agency of their calibre. One other thing that struck me was that the combined total of dead and wounded for each side is virually identical. I suppose this reflects better casevac, treatment etc in the south. ROGER TALK 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

United States Armed Forces[edit]

The U.S. section says there were "58,209 KIA and other dead", but I don't see that number in the given source. Also, the MIA link appears to be dead now. Superm401 - Talk 09:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Individuals[edit]

Should we perhaps try to list every individual casualtie we can as well? --67.162.31.148 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cambodia and Laos[edit]

Any chance of adding casualties from those two countries as well? I know there's less agreement on the figures than for North and South Vietnam, but omitting the subject entirely seems like the wrong approach. 87.74.32.50 (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are the casualty figures for these countries? They were part of the war too.

Also, there is way too much emphasis on Rummel here. Rummel is a controversial figure whose work appears to have been virtually ignored by mainstream scholarship. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There are sections on Laos and Cambodia now. But apparently somebody posted material, that is not part of the Second Indochina War (ie. the vietnam war). Look:

"Under the leadership of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge killed 1-3 million Cambodians in the killing fields, out of a population of around 8 million.[72][73][74][75]"

While it is a sad and important chapter of world history and violence in South-East Asia in particular, it is not part of the Second Indochina War. What happened in Cambodia under Pol Pot and the grip of Khmer Rouge was basically a localised homicide and civil war within Cambodia. It eventually instigated The Third Indochina War, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia later on. I opt for removal of that particular sentence.
The sentence right after about the killing of Hmong in Laos, is a bit more difficult to judge. While it certainly has no part in the Second Indochina War with America, it was a consequence of the politics of that war, since the Hmong were notorious for helping the US armed forces. I believe it too has to go, but as said it is harder to judge on that one. RhinoMind (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's a part of the Second Indochina War! North Vietnam armed, trained, and installed the Khmer Rouge/Pathet Lao in power, despite US military intervention to stop them. All of Indochina was affected by the conflict; if you really think that Laos/Cambodia are irrelevant, you should argue the point at Vietnam war.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you are right (maybe not), but what Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge did in Cambodia is not part of the Second Indochina War (or Vietnam War if you like).
All things are connected eventually, but there are sections and pages on Wikipedia for each thing.RhinoMind (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal makes no sense. Why would you delete the figures for Cambodia and Laos post-war, but not also delete the figures for the Cambodian and Laotian civil wars? Surely, if one is related, they both are. Moreover, your suggestion that "Second Indochina war" is more accurate than "Vietnam war" is correct largely because the war extended beyond Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. What I reacted on, was the mention of the killing fields, when discussing Vietnam War casualties. These are two seperate (although somewhat connected) events. That was why I opted for deletion on this page. Maybe 'deletion' is a too strong word, let's say 'moving' instead then, like moving the killing fields causalities to its right place, ie. the killing fields page. Instead we could write something like "The Vietnam War instigated other regional conflicts, with huge casualties in the millions like the killing fields in Cambodia (1975-79)", if it needs mention at all on this page.
As you point out, the Cambodian Civil War (1970-75) was in some ways part of the Second Indochina War, as mentioned on the page on Indochina Wars and Im ok with keeping this on the page. If we adopt the term "the Vietnam War" things become more murky, but Im not objecting at the moment. RhinoMind (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Rummel[edit]

Rummel is over used in this and other articles on the Vietnam War,this article just seems to be one Rummel observation after another. I lost count of how many times his name is mentioned in this article. Seems someone had a Rummel book for Christmas. It would be a good idea to list other sources as there are many around.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Source[edit]

The reference http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB6.1A.GIF (used five times in this article) is not a source, but a list of sources. In the foonote should be indicated which specific source (plus page nr.) is referred to.S711 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Massacres[edit]

Ok, so I understand that this article touches on controversy. But I find little mention of the US atrocities referenced in popular culture, or by vietnam veterans. I thought the info would be easier to find on wikipedia, but it's nonexistent. I'd reference some Vietnam vets, but it would be original research.

Some examples from the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group:

http://www.latimes.com/vietnam

I'm obviously not well versed in wiki-protocol: is this not the place for this info or something? Atrocities seem relevant when discussing casualties. Hard to define atrocity when the enemy hides behind women and children. Civilians are casualties in a hut to hut firefight. Of course if you survive, you run the risk some distant citizen will blame you for trying to live another day.

-Learning Newbie 24.247.198.115 (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Maybe it would fit better at a page about war crimes? This page's mission is to expose the numbers.
Btw. your link points to some pics about 'street food in Hanoi', please fix your link if you care. RhinoMind (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The # of N. Vietnamese civilian deaths[edit]

I don't know how credible Australian schoolbooks are or which scholarly census is referred to when it comes to thinking that 3,000,000 North Vietnamese civilians were killed by the USAF. I know people sometimes unfortunately cite rjsmith's mistaken interpretation of the death toll reported in the AFP report, which in itself just claimed 2,000,000 for *all of Vietnam*, not North Vietnam alone with an equal number to be added for S. Vietnam (what rjsmith for some reason says).

First off, anything over a few hundred thousand wouldn't make any sense (and I hope these remarks prove that I'm *not* trying to pass off apologetics for the U.S. military campaign in Vietnam here), because as writers as opposed as Noam Chomsky and Guenter Lewy have pointed out, it was South Vietnam that suffered the most damage during the war, not North Vietnam. (Well, maybe Cambodia and Laos were hurt just as much, but let's set that aside for now.) I think there's solid evidence that U.S. pilots periodically murdered North Vietnamese civilians during Rolling Thunder at least (e.g. at the Quynh Lap(sp.?) leper colony), but nowhere nearly as much as it would take to produce a fatality rate eclipsing the one in Japan or, for that matter, North Korea (and note that the USAAF/USAF operations in those countries were, as a matter of centrally-organized policy, meant to inflict massive devastation on civilian life). By contrast, the American military's free-fire zone, forced relocation of the rural citizenry, etc. SOPs naturally could be expected to result in the vast loss of civilian life that *actually* took place in South Vietnam. I agree without reluctance that this was really, awfully evil, not the responsibility of a few isolated U.S. soldiers or pilots, etc. but the intent, more or less explicit, of the American high command and personnel of comparable stature, protogenocidal if not outright genocidal in character, and so on.

Moreover, I should like to note that the indeterminate "hundreds of thousands" figure is one that I got from a copy in the Texas Tech University online Vietnam War archives of an SRV (postwar Vietnamese communist) government tract. I suppose if they had suffered no less than 15 times that much in the northern half of the country, they might've been keen on pointing that out (if for propaganda purposes only). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.27 (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

ttk love you knom and ever

I want to mention this statement in this context as well:

Air force captain, Brian Wilson, who carried out bomb-damage assessments in free-fire zones throughout the delta, saw the results firsthand. "It was the epitome of immorality…One of the times I counted bodies after an air strike—which always ended with two napalm bombs which would just fry everything that was left—I counted sixty-two bodies. In my report I described them as so many women between fifteen and twenty-five and so many children—usually in their mothers' arms or very close to them—and so many old people." When he later read the official tally of dead, he found that it listed them as 130 VC killed.

Turse 2013, p. 212
Turse has been disputed here previously (see Nguyễn Quốc Việt's revisions), but with a name and rank of Air force captain Brian Wilson, this specific statement is as reliable as it gets. It is an important statement to have in mind, when discussing numbers. RhinoMind (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

the effect of the news and the troops[edit]

vietnam news of the war how did it effect the troops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.154.116 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Casualties caused by US forces[edit]

The article states that US forces killed 2 million civilians during the war; however, the source says only that 2 million citizens were killed TOTAL in the North and South. I am therefore removing this part of the section because it is not supported by the source until a credible number can be found. Anytus (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

2 million were directly killed, but much more died from other effect. Agent orange, for example, caused major health issues, and destroyed mass areas of farmland, causing chaotic famine and disorder. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that 2 million were directly killed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.0.8 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Great Article....[edit]

I personally congratulate [redacted] on a perfectly [redacted] article full of pro-US bias, and figures and statistics, even the most historically well known ones, completely twisted to their liking. But this is the usual [redacted] people should expect from this "high standard encyclopedia" I suppose. Long Live America!--Propaganda328 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is awful. How comes it doesn't mention how many civilians where killed by the USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulla1982 (talkcontribs) 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Redactions by Fences&Windows 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a specific criticism? I.e., a number that is wrong? If so, please correct it. This is your encyclopedia..---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't know... maybe they left out the little fact that 3 million vietnamese were genocided by the US.--Propaganda328 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that an editor on Wikipedia will earnestly consider any source questioned by the U.S. government as reliable? Don't dream it. Go ask Jimbo Wales "I know a few sources that the U.S. government doubts. Are those sources good on their own?" Get my point? Bottom line is, it the U.S. government doesn't agree with those numbers, Wikipedia wont put it on regardless of how many times hell freezes over. Forget it. Let it be. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Assuming the number of casualties according to Guenter Lewy or any related historic revisionist is right, is fundamentally wrong and a mistake. It is biased for the singular fact that "America in Vietnam" is also biased and justifies war crimes or war involvement among other factors... This article should be more objective... Luisa Valencia (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a subject such as this, clearly shows the importance of implementing a truly international Global WP along with a US WP and a British WP. Many American editors believes WP English is an (North) American WP specifically. Similarly many British editors wrongly believes WP English to be a truly British WP too. I can easily understand their views, since the official language of WP English is English (British English in fact), rather confusing to US or British readers and editors I guess. I hope that in the future we could implement US WP, British WP and above all Global WP. The language of "Global WP" should probably be English, since this language is the preferred language in international affairs. Currently WP English is actually "Global WP" as is, but as stated it is too confusing to US and British editors/readers.

I have encountered these issues again and again in various contexts. Many articles have a very distorted POV and peculiar foci because of this. I don't blame anyone, but the underlying misconceptions have some real and problematic effects on the WP English. If anyone have any suitable links to groups and/or people working on these issues, please share them below, it will be much appreciated. Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What does WP mean? Smallchief (talk 16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just Wikipedia for short. There are several Wikipedias, and its a bit tiring writing Wikipedia over and over again. RhinoMind (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Smallchief (talk 21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

False information, your math is wrong[edit]

1178 US soldiers died in the last 24 years? From your own source, in the past 28 years only 71 US soldiers died, so wtf. Also over 50,000 white people died, it says about 48,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.27.224 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Total number[edit]

Shouldn't there be a total number? Casualties on all sides including civilian. Maybe even including post-war casualties due to famine, injuries and such. The total number is what I was looking for and it's not mentioned anywhere. Even a ballpark figure would be better than nothing. Is it 500.000 or 5.000.000 or 15.000.000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiedirkx (talkcontribs) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The estimates vary too widely to be stated in absolutes, but the main Vietnam War article provides the range. Population and Development Review estimates slightly less than one million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians died directly or indirectly as a consequence of the conflict; the Vietnamese government claimed over 3 million dead. Wounded is typically three times dead. In Cambodia, there were about a quarter of a million deaths (one million total casualties), according to Sliwinski, Heuveline, Kiernan, Etcheson, Banister and Johnson. In Laos, probably somewhat less than 100,000 were killed. The number is most commonly put at 1.5-2 million altogether. The war with France cost an additional 500,000 lives.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Deaths Caused by American Military section[edit]

I have added a section under that title as there was not one before but an editor seems to think that it is not needed. If there are sections for deaths caused by North/VietCong.South Vietnamese military then obviously there should be a section for the American military as they were the major power in the actual war, not to have one seems strange to say the least and also I feel biased. Maybe others would like to explain their reasons for not having a section for deaths caused by the American military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

You copied text about a CIA/South Vietnamese counter-insurgency program. The title you proposed is both not directly related and beyond the scope of the material. You should not have reverted again; your edit-warring and refusal to assume good faith is very disruptive. The deaths caused by American bombing were covered already, and you have not demonstrated the need for such a section in the first place.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you missed that the US Military were involved,it states that clearly on the wikipage for that program and in the piece I put up for starters.The title I proposed is there because there is no section named to that effect where as there are sections for Deaths caused by the South Vietnam Military and deaths caused by the North/VietCong military,so therefore there should be a section called Deaths caused by the American Military unless you want to get rid off all the other sections for the South and North. The Americans killed plenty of people there so they should have their own section, I find it weird that they have no section as they killed the most people in that war.The deaths caused by American bombing that is just below that section is for deaths in North Vietnam not south where the deaths caused American military section is. You accuse people of edit waring when that is exactly what you did, so you are edit waring and being disruptive by deleting a section that should be there for dubious reasons.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are absurd. The Americans killed significantly fewer people than either the North or South Vietnamese. You are not adhering to the BRD cycle and have contributed nothing to this discussion except for personal attacks. The section covers the PP, and there is no need to give it some inexplicable name.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
My comments are certainly not absurd at all. The fact is that the debate here is why there is no section called Deaths caused by the American Military when they did cause deaths obviously. There are sections named Deaths caused by South Vietnamese military and Deaths caused by the North Vietnamese/Vietcong, so why not one about the Americans? I see no good reason to delete the section about the Americans and your argument has been feeble to say the least.The section at this present time covers the PP but I am going to add more info as I have already stated in my edits.How many people the Americans killed is neither here nor there and not part of this debate at all, you are grasping at straws. First off you claimed that the US military were not involved in the PP and you were wrong,then you claimed that deaths by American bombings are covered in the section below but that is for North Vietnam not the South Vietnam section and now you are on to the Americans killed less than the rest, all of your arguments there have nothing to do with what is being debated.You have a cheek claiming that I have personally attacked you as well, as I have not. It sure looks like you have no real argument for not having a section named Deaths caused by the American Military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Your own tendency to go off on tangents necessitates that I reply to unrelated assertions. I never said the US military "were not involved" in the PP. I questioned why the primarily South Vietnamese-run program would be attributed solely to the US military. As for the bombing of North Vietnam, deaths caused by the American military do not cease being deaths caused by the American military because of a border.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not gone off on any tangents, I have described my arguments all the way thu and it has been the same.The North and South forces both have sections of deaths caused by them so why is there not a section of deaths caused by the American military. If anything you are the one to have gone off on tangents.Also you did say the US military was not involved in your edit..and I quote:"The PP wasn't the American military". You are back on the bombings again, I have already explained it to you once. The bombings are in the section for deaths in North Vietnam and thus have nothing to do with sections about deaths in South Vietnam where I have put the deaths caused by the American military section.I see no good reason from you that there should not be a section for deaths caused by the American military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

I think we should keep a balance on the pictures, we have at the moment I believe too many showing Viet Cong atrocities and need to lose some. We have the massacre at Hue,a terrorist attack and Đắk Sơn Massacre. For the Americans we have My Lai and for the south we have the bombing of the village with the kid running naked so there is clearly a need for a NPOV to cut down on the VietCong ones or add more of the Americans and South Vietnamese which will just be too many pics altogether.Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The massacre photos and VC bomb photos balance out the American/South Vietnamese attack photos already installed in there. Ironic how there's a call to cut down Viet Cong atrocity photos and even add more American/South Vietnamese attack photos, when there's no call to cut down on American and South Vietnamese attack photos, THAT in itself is POV... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
How do they balance out? There are many more of them, it you wanted to balance it out then you would have the same amount not more.Why should we cut the American/South photos? There are two of them,one for each side so that is hardly a lot,one each.You have put too many Viet Cong ones in so be nice and remove some or I will.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
VC and North Vietnamese photos account for 1 side, and in total there's 3, the Dak Son, Hue, Saigon. The South Vietnamese and US account for 1 unified side, with the My Lai, napalm, and dead VC photos, another total of 3. That's equal. Boat People occurred immediately after the war. Deleting of well-sourced material is called censorship, which is against Wikipedia values. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
There's three of each. Let's just leave it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Killing soldiers is not an atrocity. You have posted 3 atrocity photos for the VietCong but we only have two for the Americans/South, the other picture is for the Tet Offensive(Soldiers killed in an attack). So please remove one of yours. There are not three of each.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Twisted logic. 2 people against 1, so is that clear enough?? Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
"One of yours?" I haven't added any photos. Why don't you just replace your "non-atrocity" photo with an atrocity photo if you feel that strongly about it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Nguyen, two against one? Well we know how that happened,because you ran to his talkpage to ask him to come here.If you do not want to remove one then I will add one.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this "legit" target mean we've lost our "balance of atrocities"? I know you're very concerned about precise mathematical equivalence....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
US embassy is a legit target, full of US military and CIA operatives. The source states that it was an attack on the US embassy in retaliation for US bombings in North Vietnam, that is the source and all I am doing is reproducing that source. The previous description was incorrect and a POV issue,accusing the VietCong of attacking just a residential street when actually it was the US embassy.You might not like it but those are the factsZrdragon12 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Try again, this time actually responding to my question instead of rambling off-topic. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes the balance is fine, the boat people make up for it.You really have nothing to talk about here on balance,as I remember you did not even want a section for deaths caused by the US military which states exactly what your function here is.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me ZDragon, please go to the South Vietnam article and see the caption for that Saigon bombing photo. It does NOT say US embassy on there, it says a "residential area". Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not need to as I went to the source and it says that it was an attack on the US embassy,try reading it.I checked the the actual picture page and it says the US embassy as well.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Here is a link to the picture page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scene_of_Viet_Cong_terrorist_bombing_in_Saigon,_Republic_of_Vietnam.,_1965.jpg 01:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrdragon12 (talkcontribs)
You're violating WP:AGF. Note that I have discussed everything with you here; I have stopped reverting or editing the main page altogether. I just asked a simple question; there's no need for personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Just telling it like it is. Do you deny that you argued against having a section about deaths caused by the US military? Anyway it would be hard for you to deny it as it is just above this section.I would assume good faith but the evidence is against you. I mean how long have you been editing this article? A long time I expect and not once did you think to put in a section on deaths caused by the American military. Anyway if you think that I have attacked you then I apologise.Zrdragon12 (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki editors sources[edit]

Inclusion of sources that have not been properly written is causing this article problems. So please write your sources out properly so that they are not just raw url's. Also when adding a PDF file as a source I suggest putting in a page number so all can see what is actually being referenced. You added a 113 page PDF for your claims about NVA/VC wearing civilians clothes,do you expect everyone to wade thru 113 pages of a Rand report to find what you have sourced?Zrdragon12 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If this is just about him, it would be more appropriate to discuss it on his talk page. However, as mentioned, the citations for Rummel are seriously screwed up as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Well I guess it can apply to everyone who edits here but I have spent some time sorting out his raw links into something readable.The Rummel figures are a real pain and not just the sources. Zrdragon12 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Use of the term Insurgency[edit]

Obviously this is a fairly new term,probably arrived since the Iraq war in conventional use.To be insurgents you need to be fighting against the recognised government of a country. South Vietnam was not recognised by the UN at all. Vietnam was divided in the 1954 Geneva accords on a temp basis until 1956 when elections should have been held. The Americans and Diem did not want elections held as Ho Chi Minh would have won them so they set up the South Vietnam state. The people fighting against that were Vietnamese so they were not insurgents against any recognised government,it was a civil war that had been going on since the end of WW2.Please provide you thoughts or evidence that states otherwise

The Geneva Agreements, which were issued on July 21, 1954,[11] carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a "provisional military demarcation line",[12] "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal".[12] To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary"..Zrdragon12 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents. Zrdragon12 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Answer

Hi Zrdragon. I hear you and agree absolutely. But why dont YOU change it then? Maybe the initial writer wasnt aware of this? You dont have to promptly stigmatise anybody. Just change what you find wrong. If it needs documentation, just provide that. Its really easy.

RhinoMind (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


Boat people and famine[edit]

These figures cannot be suppressed as coincidental to the war's result. The sources cited clearly link them. It's not as though people were going on boats for a vacation; the entire ethnic Chinese community was expelled and forced onto the boats.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese were expelled due to the Chinese Viet war not because of the Vietnam war.You changed the title heading and that title heading excluded them, now I see you have changed the title heading again Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Zrdragon, not only Chinese-Viet people fled the country, many Vietnamese civilians, who had no ties to the Saigon govt, fled too, look at Little Saigon for example, so all of a sudden i'm Chinese-Vietnamese??? Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I was expressing an opinion on the other editors claims that ethnic Chinese were expelled,I was pointing out that was after the Vietnam war and had to do with the war with China. I thought I put it simple enough for anyone to understand.Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
He's not saying that. However, he is defending the expulsion of the Chinese. Zdragon, would you defend the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do not try to put words in my mouth, I have not defended anything. You brought up the ethnic Chinese and I point out that they were removed because of the Chinese Viet war not the Vietnam war.Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
By any standard, these were post-war deaths related to power consolidation by the communist regime. Removing the facts and then reminding us that China wrongly attacked Vietnam seems like apologetics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
This whole talk page thing comes down to you changing the head titles so that things that were already in there did not then fit the head title description. So if you had not done that then there would be no debate. Now that you have again changed the head title to one that encompasses the boat people I see no point for further discussion. The famine had two references in two sentences in one section, I removed one because two were not needed obviously, you and your buddy kept putting it back for no good reason so then I left it there and removed the other one.Now what is there is fine since you made a compromise.So do not come here like I am in the wrong when you caused all the problems Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to Phoenix Program[edit]

"Stumink (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,676 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (Vandalism really. This to clarify that the 26,000 figure includes NLF operatives, informants and supporters, not just civillians. This is sourced."


Is it sourced? Ogden Reid, a member of a congressional committee investigating Phoenix in 1971, "if the Union had had a Phoenix program during the Civil War, its targets would have been civilians like Jefferson Davis or the mayor of Macon, Georgia."

It targeted civilians NLF operatives, informants and supporters, they were the civilian infrastructure of the Viet Cong government.Would you actually like to see the original declassified documents that state who they were targeting? I got them. Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What's good enough for WWII page is good enough here[edit]

Who is trying to omit the Cambodian and Laotian deaths from being listed here? First it was attempted not to mention them. Then when they were mentioned some idiot decided to pretend it was just a civil war. I somehow don't think the person is too stupid to know it's ridiculous to characterize a war that involves at least two if not more countries as just a civil war. The only conclusion one can take is that person or persons is doing it in order to commit historical fraud.

Whoever it is you better give it up cuz you won't succeed. Wikipedia has explicit rules and rewriting history is simply not allowed. We will not stand for it and you not get away with it. That means just as the holocaust casualties are mentioned in the world war two causalities page, likewise ALL casualties of the Vietnam war should be and shall be mentioned HERE!!! Loginnigol (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That was from the banned user Zrdragon, who, out of their pro-Communist POV and defence of everything communist, and antagonism towards everything capitalist/democratic, deleted numerous, i mean numerous, things that were criticAl of the communists during and after the War, esp. on VC atrocities against North Viets, South Viets, Cambodians and Laotians etc. I would try my best to look into this and put the appropriate things back to where they were. BTW, 2 massive edit wars occurred on this article over such behaviour, see the revision history for yourself... Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Both of you sound crazy. The Cambodian and Laotian civil wars were never mentioned in the entire history of this article until Loginnigol brought them up, and they are commonly described as civil wars even though they were part of the broader Vietnam war. There's no vast conspiracy, and Zrdragon was not to blame.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Get your facts straight. I'm talking about not civil war but the Vietnam war that without any doubt spilled over to the neighboring nations of Cambodia and Laos. By that I mean BOTH Vietnam AND the United States were fighting EACH OTHER (notice neither are Cambodians or Laotians so it's laughable and absurd of anyone to attempt to dismiss that as "Cambodian civil war" and "Laotian civil war". That is like subtracting holocaust victims outside Germany from the total and dismissing that as "civil war". Loginnigol (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Cambodians and Laotians fighting each other were, in fact, responsible for most of the bloodshed in the Cambodian civil war and Laotian civil war. Not Vietnamese or Americans, at least not directly. Likening the war to the Holocaust is truly nonsensical.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you are adding multiple wars and adding up all the victims. I'm talking about the Vietnam war and THAT WAR directly spilled all over Cambodia and Laos. That's all I'm talking about. Nothing more, and absolutely nothing less. Loginnigol (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Your comment suggests little historical understanding. You either count these civil wars as part of the larger Vietnam war, or you do not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed additions by Cortagravatas[edit]

Nguyen, how about reading Greiner's book instead of googling? You may start with the Kindle preview, where you find the killings I listed mentioned in the Introduction. Greiner's main sources are the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group and the Peers Commission.Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Nguyen, the comment regarding your last editing-out of my list from Prof. Greiner's book ("funny how Greiner didn't mention about communists' torture, killings and forced labor of US, ARVN troops, or of t..") was rather out of place, as Prof. Greiner's book is about the US involvement in Vietnam. Crimes committed by other participants are addressed elsewhere on this page, so if you think too little is being said about these crimes, feel free to expand the respective sections. But the next time you remove my summary from the introduction of Prof. Greiner's book, I'll have to report you for vandalism.Cortagravatas (talk)19:11, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

Then you'll have to report us both, although I don't see how you could characterize our edits as vandalism. You seem to want to challenge Rummel's "democide" estimate, but it applies only to a small fraction of war-related deaths, which he characterizes as intentional murders. Please do not combine other sources with Greiner, as this violates Wikipedia:SYNTH. I appreciate that you trimmed your propsed text, but it was still a monster to insert directly into the middle of the "US military" section. I would add that the US section should not be significantly longer than the South or North Vietnamese sections. If you refuse to move this content to the "specific incidents" section, then at least trim it more and add it to the end of the "US military" section rather than attempting to integrate it with the rest of the text. Thank you for your good faith contributions,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Bumping off unarmed civilians and then counting them as VC, as was done in the course of Operation Speedy Express, is intentional murder. Besides, who said that "Deaths caused by US military" means only democidal killings?

2. Newsweek source was moved to "specific incidents".

3. If the South or North Vietnamese sections are too short for your taste, why don't you expand them?

4. "Deaths caused by US military" is the most appropriate section for Greiner's list.Cortagravatas (talk)20:30 (GMT), 30 December 2012.

Cortagravatas, please explain how the removal of speculative content, like the "who knows how many VC prisoners were tortured/killed" part (which the VC and NVA have also committed rampantly against ARVN, US, ANZAC prisoners and anti-communist civilians in both South and North VN), and the highly apologetic tone in the mentioning of several US-committed incidents in the deaths of civilians/suspected VC (which the VC/NVA have committed even more times, on a larger scale, against civilians in South VN cities, towns, villages) constitutes me committing vandalism? At times when reading that section, it felt more like POV speculations and apologetics and attempts to advance a position than anything meaningful. These rather small incidents are blown out of proportion when considering many larger incidents committed by both sides occurred. If such incidents with those many deaths are added in here, which are actually really small incidents when compared to others in the war, then i should be adding a long list of VC/NVA-committed incidents as well. Remove the speculations and the apologetics and the highly pro-communist, anti-American tone in that section, and cutting it down to make it concise and focused on major, important incidents rather than a gigantic super-paragraph, then it should be okay. Otherwise, consistently trying to readd that section in its recent form will compel me to report for POV. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to report to whoever you like. Greiner's list is neither apologetic nor condemning, but a plain statement of facts. The heading of the section is "Deaths caused by US military" or so, which means that your considerations about VC/NVA having killed more civilians/non-combatants are irrelevant here; if you want to make that point, do it in the sections dedicated to deaths caused by VC/NVA. As to killings of VC prisoners, the essential information, which Greiner expands on later in the book, is that a considerable number of veterans referred to it as SOP, so there's nothing "speculative" about this information. And please spare me the nonsense about a "highly pro-communist, anti-American tone" in that section. Neither Greiner nor I are pro-communist or anti-American. You, on the other hand, seem to argue from an ideological position that perceives any mention of crimes committed by American forces as "highly pro-communist" and "anti-American". Try to show a little more objectivity.Cortagravatas (talk)20:30 (GMT), 30 December 2012.

PS: "My Lai (4)" and "My Khe (4)" are the names of two places where massacres occurred. These two plus the other five mentioned in the first item of Greiner's list makes 7 massacres, not 8 as per your "math".Cortagravatas (talk)20:35 (GMT), 30 December 2012.

The massacres are covered in "specific incidents". Please add any relevant, non-repetitious content there.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Specific incidents" are one thing, Greiner's overall tally of "incidents" (based on the files of the Peers Commission, the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group and other sources) is another. There are sections on deaths caused by VC/NVA, South Vietnam and South Korea regardless of whether some of the massacres mentioned in these sections are also mentioned under "specific incidents", so why should the section about deaths caused by the American military be different? I'm beginning to get the impression that Prof. Greiner's research touched a raw nerve of American nationalist pride and that this is the reason for so much opposition to his list. Please bear one thing in mind when comparing the length of this section with the length of sections about deaths caused by other participants: there's nothing extraordinary about atrocities committed by VC/NVA, South Vietnamese or South Korean forces, insofar as these pertained to authoritarian regimes with little concern for human rights. The United States of America, on the other hand, are supposed to be a democracy that respects human rights. US forces in Vietnam were supposed to fight according to rules of engagement meant to protect non-combatants. Their objective was to protect the people of South Vietnam and to win their hearts and minds. Wrongs committed in violation of such high aspirations and principles deserve more attention and require explanation if the world's mightiest nation is to learn from its history. Prof. Greiner's book is an attempt to provide as complete as possible a picture of what went wrong as concerns treatment of non-combatants by US forces in Vietnam and why things got so badly out of control. I strongly recommend that you read this book, which is available in English translation. And I wish you a Happy New Year.Cortagravatas (talk)21:41, 31 December 2012 (GMT).

The notion that certain countries committing war crimes are more serious, and thus should be given more focus and weighting, than crimes committed by other countries/forces in a war is wrong. Focus and weighting should be increased on sides/countries that commit more atrocities, in number of incidents and in scale, not according to which democratic or which authoritarian country committed atrocities. This type of mindset, that war crimes/incidents committed by (democratic) Americans are worse than crimes committed by (authoritarian) NVN/VC, basically fuelled the anti-war movement, forced the withdraw and cutting of aid to RVN (while the North's aid was uninterrupted), caused the South to fall, and forcing 1.5 - 3 million Boat People to flee their homeland from communist rule, not to mention continued oppression, human rights abuses and corruption from the current communist regime. The idea of the My Lai massacre, committed by US troops, that resulted in ~300 (suspected covert VC) dead is somehow far worse, more appalling, than the Hue Massacre, committed by the VC and Northern army, resulting in up to 6000 estimated dead (incl. anti-communist/fleeing civilians, intellectuals, business people, foreign residents like West German/American professors, religious people esp. Catholics, along with RVN government personnel and ARVN soldiers) is a serious injustice. It's similar to a comparison in saying that Nazi-caused atrocities (like the Holocaust or deaths caused during the Blitzkrieg over Britain) is not as serious, or "better", than the deaths caused by Allied aerial bombardment of German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. I hope you can see the absurdity of this kind of logic there, especially from myself who came from the city of Hue, and is frustrating to hear every time someone tells me the Americans/ARVN/My Lai are worse than the VC/NVN/Hue Massacre. No one, in their right mind, should be letting certain parties in a war, esp. those who have slaughtered more innocent civilians, get off "easier" and deserve less attention to their crimes, while overly demonizing certain other parties. Aside, as a correction, South Vietnam isn't authoritarian as what many Westerners believe. The South, politically, is what i call a flawed democracy or a quasi democracy. Yes, it often invoked martial law and often had to use special powers to quell unrest in the country and to fight against the VC, but some other basic freedoms were generally respected, like freedom of movement, to a degree freedom of speech (provided that opinion isn't pro-communist), to a degree freedom of religion (provided that these dont get out of control), cultural freedom, and economic freedom, unlike the North. Try having anti-war protests in the North or complimenting the South and you'll find yourself accused of being a counter-revolutionary or traitor and sent to a gulag. Everywhere you go in the North, even if just village to village, you need a special police permit and they'll interrogate you intensively before permitting it. Art, music, film, drama must be revolutionary, communist, pro-war in nature - love songs and romantic movies/books are prohibited unlike in the South. Private business and private property ownership is illegal, and if you try to do it, you'll be accused of being a capitalist, bourgeioise, landlord, and executed or sent for hard labor (look at their land reform where 50,000 to 200,000 perished). And another question, was there an exodus of refugees during the (so-called American puppet) South's existence, or after the (so-called nationalist) communist's takeover? Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Nguyen, that was an excellent post. I bow before your experience, and if you would like to tell me more about it, please do so. However, you got me wrong when you understood that I considered NVA/VC atrocities to be «not as serious, or "better"» than crimes committed by the American military. What I wrote was the following: «Please bear one thing in mind when comparing the length of this section with the length of sections about deaths caused by other participants: there's nothing extraordinary about atrocities committed by VC/NVA, South Vietnamese or South Korean forces, insofar as these pertained to authoritarian regimes with little concern for human rights. The United States of America, on the other hand, are supposed to be a democracy that respects human rights. US forces in Vietnam were supposed to fight according to rules of engagement meant to protect non-combatants. Their objective was to protect the people of South Vietnam and to win their hearts and minds. Wrongs committed in violation of such high aspirations and principles deserve more attention and require explanation if the world's mightiest nation is to learn from its history.» No, I didn't say that atrocities committed by criminal dictatorships are not as bad as atrocities committed by democracies that claim and are supposed to uphold human rights. My point is that one shouldn't sweep atrocities committed by democracies under the carpet or reduce them to a marginal issue with the argument that criminal dictatorships did much worse. Instead one should explore them and learn from them. Criminal dictatorships like Nazi Germany or the communist regimes of North Vietnam, North Korea and Cambodia cannot be improved, and the only lesson to be learned from their crimes - which outweigh crimes committed by democracies both quantitatively and qualitatively - is that they should be kept from coming into being or abolished where existing, preferably by peaceful means but if necessary (as in the case of Nazi Germany) by military force. Democracies, on the other hand, can be improved by criticism, which includes exposing practices unworthy of democratic states. One should not overemphasize crimes committed by democracies, to be sure, let alone invoke them to play down crimes committed by dictatorships. But one should document and condemn the failure of democratic self-control mechanisms so that these self-control mechanisms are improved and made more effective. I hope you can agree with that. As concerns Nazi crimes, you may want to visit the blog I write for, which is dedicated to providing information about these crimes and refuting the claims of ideologically motivated apologists. It is called "Holocaust Controversies", and the link is http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.pt/ . Best regards, Cortagravatas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

New info sources for later analysis and addition into this article - when time becomes available[edit]

  • [[3]] (derived info from credible sources like the VN Centre Archive)
  • [[4]], from Time Mag, for adding in here and Hue Massacre article
  • [[5]], VC repression, may find smtg in there for this
  • [[6]] - more links and material, excl. ones from Porter
  • [[7]] - probably not qualified as a source, but its contents can be searched up and viable sources support that content can be added in here


Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some good sources on Viet Cong terrorism here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_terrorism#Vietnam 70.131.124.176 (talk) 05:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Kill Anything That Moves: A Real American War In Vietnam[edit]

Given the substantial ammount of credible sources in the book, could it be used as sources?--Zeraful (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a completely valid source, but watch as no one makes use of it. The blatant pro-US bias of this sites Vietnam articles is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.65.149 (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Are your fingers broken? PraetorianFury (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Turse has been completely discredited as a source. See: https://cross-currents.berkeley.edu/e-journal/issue-12/zinoman-and-kulik.74.96.114.147 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The correct name of the war[edit]

The historical correct name of the war at hand is The Second Indochina War. The war has many other names, like the Vietnam War in USA and parts of the west and The American War in Vietnam and south-east Asia. Since Wikipedia (en) is an international project and strive for neutrality and balanced information, writers are encouraged to use the name The Second Indochina War. RhinoMind (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but this is not the place to argue that point. Current consensus is to use the term "Vietnam war".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you point to how this consensus came about and who made that decision. I want to know, not to argue. Hope you can help RhinoMind (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I can't, but I assume the consensus exists because Vietnam war is the name of the article. The rationale presumably is that most English-language sources use that term.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I hoped you could have cleared some of the clouds. I guess the primary place to discuss this issue is on the page Terminology of the Vietnam War at the moment. It is not just a 'battle of words' so to speak. Let me explain: If we adopt the term the Vietnam War, it is not clear why the civil wars in Cambodia and Laos is included. the US bombed (and sprayed?) Viet Cong in the Cambodian and Laotian jungle as part of the Vietnam War and that should definitely be included though. Maybe other acts of war happened there in direct relation the war in Vietnam as well, but I am not aware of them right now. RhinoMind (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Minority casualties during the war[edit]

I've been trying my best to either confirm or debunk this myth but I'm finding a lot of contradictory information.

Did Blacks and Latinos suffer disproportionate casualties during the war? Were they disproportionately drafted? Was there one year were blacks were 20% of the casualties? Were they less in other years? What was the total population in the country and in the military of minorities? Were latinos counted as white?

I can't find any reliable sources on at least the first two pages of Google. Is there an expert watching who can weigh in? This seems like a glaring oversight on this page. Even if we think something is a conspiracy theory or nonsense, if it is widely reported on, as this particular claim is, we should cover it. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done PraetorianFury (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I am honestly shocked at how badly this section was modified. Here are the problems I have:
  1. "Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam" - This is disputed. The rates of black casualties were higher at the beginning of the war and lower at the end of the war. And they were equal to the proportion of draft eligible males throughout the war's duration. Historians can make claims either way, but we do not pick a side here.
  2. " the military radically lowered its admission standards" - "radically" is not an appropriate word for us to use.
  3. "McNamara claimed this program would provide valuable training, skills and opportunity to America's poor - a promise that was never carried out." - this is disputed and not appropriate to debate on this page, which is why a link to the project was included.
  4. The attribution was due to David's clear advocacy throughout the book. I thought that might disqualify him as someone who could be quoted without attribution. We don't have the overwhelming tide of reliable sources making this claim that we would need in order to drop attribution.
So I have reverted the first paragraph. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
From the start, you admitted you were "trying my best to either confirm or debunk this myth" about disproportionate casualties (your words), so it does not come as a surprise to me that you are "shocked" to see that it wasn't a "myth" after all. Addressing your problems in order:
1) Reliable sources say blacks were indeed suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam. In fact, on page 12 of the Westheider source presently in the article, it says "Blacks were suffering disproportionately high casualty rates in Vietnam". It even prompted the military to act to correct the situation, as indicated by the sources you provided. You claim "this is disputed", yet you have not provided reliable sources disputing that statement of fact. You and I (and all sources provided so far) agree that the disproportion was significantly reduced and almost eliminated by the time the war ended, but we shouldn't misconvey that to our readers to mean that the gross disparity didn't exist during the first part of the war. I look forward to seeing your reliable sources disputing these facts; in the mean time, I'm returning the factual and reliably sourced material that was deleted.
2) The Appy source (pg. 31) already in our article states, "In 1965, however, as draft calls jumped to fill the troop buildup in South Vietnam, the military began to lower its admission standards quite radically." You say the word "radically" is inappropriate, without explaining why. I have no objection to you using alternate wording to convey substantially the same thing as our reliable sources, but you deleted the whole sentence instead. I'll return the sentence; can you suggest alternate wording?
3) See number (1) above about claiming there is a dispute or a debate without providing the reliable sources to indicate same. I've re-reviewed present sources (here and at the article link) just to be sure and I do not see discussion of a dispute or debate - in fact, I now see a Department of Defense commissioned study confirming it, so I have returned the content.
4) By "David", do you mean David Cortright? He's not cited in the previous version; Appy is. Your version misattributes the 10% figure to Cortright (see footnote 3 in the source you provided) instead of Appy, and further neglects to attribute Appy for the education level info or the almost 25% casualty rate early in the war (see footnote 6 in the source you provided). Was this an oversight on your part? My previous version never references Cortright. I've returned the factual portion of that content.
In addition to the 4 concerns you raised above, I noticed several edits not explained by you in your edit summary or here on this Talk page. You removed the word "further" from the verbiage "Project 100,000 which further lowered military standards", which now fails to inform the reader that standards were being lowered prior to implementation of Protect 100K. You removed the words "in sacrifice" from the verbiage "criticized the racial disparity in sacrifice", which is actual wording from reliable sources. You also removed an Appy reference citation following the Project 100,000 content, leaving only the Guardian citation - when both sources discuss this subject. I'm going to reinstate these edits pending an actual explanation for removal. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
To start, what I discovered was that it was an exaggeration. Blacks did not suffer 25% of the combat casualties. They were not used as cannon fodder. Racism in the United States has always been more sneaky than that. They were drafted disproportionately due to lower education and occupation. It was not deliberate targeting or endangerment. Their casualty rates were approximately equal to their prominence among combat units. That's what the math says. And they were deliberately kept out of combat by the end of the war. This claim has plenty for skeptics and advocates to throw at each other, and our only responsibility is to tell the truth, not spin it.
  1. Disproportionate casualties at the beginning of the war. You did not specify that, so I have fixed it.
  2. Radically is a sensationalist term which we do not need in this encyclopedia. We are not required to use the exact text of the source. If you want to argue that the word should be used per WP:WEIGHT, find me more sources that use it.
  3. This article is not about Project 100,000. And the source does not say the promises went unfulfilled. Again, that debate is not appropriate here, which is why we link to a separate article, which, by the way, is extremely critical of it.
  4. Probably, whatever. I don't care enough to fight about this. Hopefully an anti-advocate won't come along and delete it entirely when we are gone because it is unattributed.
The Guardian source, which is the only one I read that mentioned Project 100,000 did not say "further". It didn't mention lowering standards before the project. That's why it was removed. "In sacrifice" is bad English, again, we are not required, and in fact, are discouraged from copying material word-for-word from the source. We are paraphrasing and that phrase is unnecessary. Deleting the source was an accident. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Blacks did indeed suffer 25% casualty rates, and higher - no exaggeration there. And despite my repeated pleas that you provide reliable sources to the contrary, you still have not done so, and have instead chosen to edit war based on what I can only conclude are your personal beliefs and biases. I'll request again that you provide the supposed "disputing" sources you claim exist, to show otherwise. I do not disagree with you (and reliable sources) that disadvantaged youth were disproportionately drafted, placed in combat roles and killed. I'm happy for you that you discovered this for yourself. Now what, exactly, does that have to do with our recent edits to this article? This article only states the reliably-sourced fact that blacks did suffer disproportionate casualties, and never claims it was because of "deliberate targeting or endangerment" or that they were "used as cannon fodder". Those are strawman constructs of your own creation, and you can knock them down to your heart's content - it doesn't change the reliably sourced facts.
1) No, you didn't fix it - you specified 1965 only, which is not what the cited source conveys. "at the beginning of the war" is not in the presently cited sources, so please provide the citation(s) to support it. It's also vague, and doesn't convey specifically which of the Vietnam War years (1956-1975) constitute "the beginning of the war", so let's see what your sources actually say. Agreed? (I have since located the "at the beginning of the war" verbiage in Appy-1993, where Appy describes disproportions over 20% -- see source list below) - Xenophrenic
2) You did not remove just the word "radically", you removed twenty words, which leads me to suspect your stated reasoning. I have returned the deleted text. I disagree with you that "radically" is a sensationalist term in this context, but your editorial concern should be easy enough to address. How about "significantly" as a substantially equivalent replacement?
3) We agree that this article is not about Project 100K, but you introduced it. You also introduced Project 100K-content about poor black and white conscripts, as did I - a single sentence describing McNamara's stated rationale for inducting them under this program, and the result. You claim "the source does not say the promises went unfulfilled", but you are mistaken. What part of "The effect of Project 100,000 was dire. The promised training was never carried out." pg. 32 did you misinterpret? Based on that oversight, I have returned the deleted single sentence.
4) "Probably, whatever." Good, I'll consider that one resolved. The present content is fully sourced, so future editors, advocates or not, should have no problem with it.
The Guardian source did not go into detail about the reduction of standards prior to P-100K, very true, which is why I added the Appy citation that covers that content. But you removed that content and the source to which it was cited. I've returned that content based on your acknowledgement that the deletion was an accident. Re: "In sacrifice" -- Paraphrasing means to convey information with different words; it doesn't mean leave key information out completely. Rather than simply removing "In sacrifice" and possibly leaving the reader wondering "disparity in what then", let's replace it with what the source actually says: disparity in both casualties and representation in the entire military. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources on the disproportion of blacks serving; casualties[edit]

To facilitate our efforts in conveying when, and to what extent, disparities existed, I'll begin a list of sources. Regarding the disproportion, specifically the dates and ratios, I see the following in reliable sources:
  • There was a marked turnaround from the attitude in previous wars that black men were not fit for combat - during the Vietnam War African-Americans faced a much greater chance of being on the front-line, and consequently a much higher casualty rate. In 1965 alone African-Americans represented almost 25 percent of those killed in action. --Your PBS source
  • Combat infantry soldiers, "the grunts," were entirely working class. They included a disproportionate number of Black working-class troops. Blacks, who formed 12 percent of the troops, were often 25 percent or more of the combat units. --Your ISR source (and can be found via footnote in Appy)
  • Of the 246,000 men recruited under Project 100,000 between October 1966 and June 1969, 41% were black, although black Americans represented only 11% of the US population. --Your Guardian source
  • For an Army whose combat troops were disproportionately poor and black, King's speech... --The Vietnam Wars: 1945-1990, Marilyn B. Young pgs 198-200
  • Those who fought the war and died in it were disproportionally poor, badly educated, and black. --Young; pg. 319
  • Between 1961 and 1966, when blacks composed approximately 11 percent of the general population aged nineteen to twenty-one, black casualties amounted to almost one-fourth of all losses of Army enlisted personnel in Vietnam. --Blacks and the Military, Martin Binkin, et al., pg 32
  • As is to be expected, the overconcentration of blacks in combat units is all too obviously shown in the casualty reports from Vietnam. As documented in Table 5.5, during the 1961-1966 period, blacks constituted 10.6 per cent of military personnel in Southeast Asia while accounting for 16.0 per cent of those killed in action. [...] In 1967 and the first six months of 1968, however, the proportion of black combat deaths dropped to between 13 and 14 per cent. Yet even in these later figures, black combat deaths were still about one-third above the proportion of blacks stationed in Southeast Asia, and about one and a half times the total black proportion in the American military. The American Enlisted Man, Charles C. Moskos, pg 116
  • To simplify: At the beginning of the war Blacks comprised more than 20% of American combat deaths, about twice their portion of the U.S. population. However, the portion of black casualties declined over time so that, for the war as a whole, black casualties were only slightly disproportionate (12.5 percent from a civilian population of 11 percent). The total percentage of blacks who served in Vietnam was roughly 10 percent. African Americans clearly faced more than their fair share of the risks in Vietnam from 1965 to 1967. That fact might well have failed to gain any public notice had the civil rights and antiwar movements not called attention to it. --Working-Class War, Appy, Christian G., pg 19
  • In the early years of U.S. escalation, 1965-66, African Americans comprised more than 20 percent of U.S. casualties, about twice their portion of the U.S. population (11 percent) and also more than twice their portion of the entire military (10 percent), indicating that blacks were much more likely than whites to be sent to Vietnam and assigned to combat units. Civil rights leaders like Martin Luther King drew attention to this striking racial disproportion in sacrifice, and in response to that criticism Pentagon officials ordered a cutback in the number of African Americans in combat positions. Accordingly, the percentage of black casualties steadily declined until, by war's end, African Americans represented 12.6 percent of all U.S. fatalities in Vietnam. --The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides; Appy, Christian G., pg 355
  • The Pentagon was praising the gallant, hard-fighting black soldier, who was dying at a greater rate, proportionately, than American soldiers of other races. In the early years of the fighting, blacks made up 23 percent of the fatalities. [by 1969...] Black combat fatalities had dropped to 14 percent, still proportionately higher than the 11 percent which Blacks represented in the American population. --Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War, Wallace, Terry, pg xiv - Introduction
  • By 1967 the notion of "numerical fairness" had become a heated issue as it was suggested that blacks were shouldering a disproportionate burden of the war. Between 1961 and 1966, when blacks constituted approximately 11 percent of the general population aged nineteen to twenty-one, they accounted for one out of every five Army combat deaths. --Blacks and the Military, Martin Binkin, et al., pg 76

Recent changing of criticism of Turse[edit]

Xenophrenic has removed criticism of Turse rather disingenuously stating "rmv unsupported BLP vio" and "doesn't address that specific content" in their edit summary, and specifically removing the suggestion that "Turse has been accused of falsifying references" according to the source provided, i.e. Kulik and Zinoman. Yet if either Xenophrenic or his mate Capitalismojo bothered to actually read the source they would note the source does indeed accuse him of exactly this. Note "Four of his citations of marine testimony claiming support for his account are demonstrably false." on page 177 [9] and "These are the first two of Turse’s citations that are clearly false." on page 178 [10]. Turse is clearly a tainted source and the fact that one supporter needs to write a half page paragraph watering down the criticism of his work makes it quite clear this has no place in this article in the first place. 101.169.213.82 (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a big difference between accusing a professional journalist of "falsifying references", and alleging that 4 of the "marine testimonies" which Turse cites in support of his argument may be false. (And Kulik does a poor job of trying to prove even that.) Your claim that Turse is "clearly a tainted source" is far-fetched and unsupported. Kulik's beef with Turse is well known among researchers in that field, from back when Kulik accused Turse of allegedly using his research without crediting him. This article is not the appropriate location to continue that squabble. If you wish to challenge the reliability of the source, raise your concerns at WP:RS/N. As a "supporter" of Wikipedia (not Turse or Kulik, as I've cited both of them in other articles), I simply added a couple more reviews to your preferred critical one for NPOV reasons - since other editors were determined to keep book reviews in this article. To be fully Wikipedia policy compliant, however, save all the book reviews for a Wikipedia article about the book. If you feel a source isn't suitable, challenge it at the appropriate noticeboard, not in the middle of an article on Vietnam War casualties. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The solution is not to just remove the criticism of Turse though is it? That is not NPOV. If it is going to be included, and I don't agree that Turse should be used given how problematic it appears, if it is going to be included you need to include the considerable criticism of his work. That seems fairly clear. Restoring only one part of it, when all of it was removed seems like gaming the system to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Turse's work doesn't appear any more or less problematic than any of the other reliable sources presently cited in the article. The small section of text cited to Turse was not "criticized" or shown to be incorrect information in the Kulik book review that someone attached to it. You mention NPOV and "gaming the system"; to clarify, NPOV does not consist of Wikipedia editors trying to disparage a source of information they find unappealing by attaching a negative book review. Are you challenging the accuracy of the information or the reliability of the source? "The system" says you do that at WP:RSN; you don't cite a source in a Wikipedia article but then attach a disclaimer to it in the form of a negative book review. That is a violation of NPOV, and appears to be an attempt to game the system. Will you next be adding to our article, after every paragraph cited to Guenter Lewy (and I see several), that Lewy is accused of "misrepresentation of documents, uncritical regurgitation of government claims, and dismissal of annoying facts that contradict them"? The place for that isn't in a Wikipedia article about Vietnam War casualties.
The solution here, according to Wikipedia policy, is that we cite reliable sources and we don't cite unreliable sources. If you are unsure of the quality of a source, you don't stuff a bunch of book reviews after the citation, you raise your concerns at RSN. Do you have any policy-based reasons for leaving the book reviews in this article, or should they be removed? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vietnam War casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vietnam War casualties. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Official SRV estimates[edit]

Mztourist, A bicyclette, I've taken a look at the official SRV source that A bicyclette puts forward:

"The figure of 849,018 according to a nationwide survey of compensation claims by veterans and their families for the periods between 1955-1975 is directly sourced from Hanoi's ministry, and should reflect the more accurate number than an AP article written in 1995, citing it. The AP article uses a rounded figure, of the upper 1.1 million which is used to assess all casualties across 1949 to 1990,and ought to be considered a secondary source, NOT a primary source. You can run this across a translator, but these numbers are broke down into the "resistance war against France - 191,605 which is accepted on First Indochina War page, and the 105,627 which is the Third Indochina War phase.


- Theo số liệu thống kê, toàn quốc có: 1.146.250 liệt sĩ, trong đó:
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Pháp: 191.605 liệt sĩ.
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Mỹ: 849.018 liệt sĩ.
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong chiến trang bảo vệ Tổ quốc: 105.627 liệt sĩ."
[1]

This is probably the best source I've seen put forward from the Northern side for whole-war casualties, but for En:wiki use there are problems with it. I do understand that it comes from a gov.vn source, but it has no official watermark, heading, date, etc, anything that marks it out as an official document; it could be simply some word doco that someone came up with. A bicyclette, is there an official gov.vn webpage with official markings on it (and a date) that cites all this?
Secondly, as a WP:PRIMARY source, we're discouraged from using it; we are told to prioritise secondary sources.
Furthermore, in terms of presenting estimates, I would encourage you both to list the different sources alongside each other: this is, for example, from Population and Development Review, Vol. 21, No. 4, December 1995, and cites the AP estimate: "..there are no reliable statistics on the Vietnamese war losses during the "American war."' Numbers from one to three million Vietnamese war dead are frequently reported (Lewy 1978: 450; Thayer 1985: 103- 104 and 128-129; Turley 1986: 195-197; Associated Press 1995). A New York Times reporter who covered the war summed up the prevailing view of most knowledgeable authorities by claiming that close to one million communist combatants lost their lives, in addition to a quarter-million South Vietnamese soldiers and an unknown number of civilian casualties in South and North Vietnam (Browne, Malcolm W. 1994. "Vietnamese also extending the search for their M.I.A.'s," The New York Times, 20 May,: 1)." (Source Hirschman, Charles, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi. "Vietnamese casualties during the American war: A new estimate." Population and Development Review (1995): 783-812, via JSTOR)
The P&DR article estimates, "using the analytical tools of modern demography" say that they estimate "a midpoint of 966,000 and a range of 791,000 to 1, 141,000, or +/- 175,000 around the midpoint estimate." But this is war related deaths 1965-75. [this] "is lower than the 1.2 million estimated by Lewy (1978: 450) and considerably lower than the 3.1 million war deaths recently claimed by the Vietnamese government (Associated Press 1995). Documentation on the basis of this last estimate has not been released, to our knowledge. Part of the reason for the higher figure by the Vietnamese government could be that it covers the years 1954 to 1975, while our estimate is for 1965 to 1975."
I would encourage you two to stop sparring about which figure is "right" before you define (a) exactly your time-period, (b) exactly who you're talking about (military or civilian, killed, wounded, died-of-wounds), and then start researching the estimates. Then, as the secondary sources do, we can list them all, and let the reader read the different estimates, without going into WP:OR to try and say which figure is more accurate (which the scholars don't generally do, and is beyond what is our instructions here). I will now start looking for later research work that cites and hopefully improves on the P&DR article. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 04:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Does the document address the 330,000 missing in action? I reviewed the Vietnam War Casualties page as you suggested and it presents a wide range of PAVN/VC casualty numbers. Lewy's figure of 444,000 is clearly incorrect even according to A bicyclette's document and so should probably be deleted/reduced in importance. Rummel's low estimate is 533,000, the mid 1,062,000 and the high 1,489,000. Even according to A bicyclette's document the low figure is too low. My issue all along with this (ignoring A bicyclette's changing explanations for the 1995 AP story) is that he insists that only the Vietnamese language document is correct and everything else is wrong even though the others are all WP:RS and his document is apparently a primary source of unclear provenence. Once A bicyclette proves the provenance of his document, I am more that happy for the Vietnam War page to give a PAVN/VC range of 849,018 to 1,489,000 if A bicyclette will agree to stop edit warring this issue. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Buckshot06 (talk) the document link address points directly to the Ministry of Defence national documentation portal/archive and seems to be a digitization of paperwork documents. The entire document itself is a law promulgating the collection of war remains throughout the war. The document itself refers to the search for martyr's remains across 3 different wars, and is related to general orders and laws which the government has mandated to search for the remains of PAVN/NLF who died during these three wars. The document source link, in itself ought to be considered reliable given that its a ministry. The website in question is here: http://chinhsachquandoi.gov.vn/
Its referred to consistently, but here's a veteran's graves memorial site which works on this project, which does discuss these actual figures and documents. http://www.nhantimdongdoi.org/?mod=chitiet&subcate=47&id=3846
The figure estimates from Lewy and Rummel ought to be less reliable, given that these numbers derive from internal government records of enlisted NLF/PAVN personnel during the three wars. The document/figures furthermore can't be stated as "propaganda" as MZTOURIST will childishly put it because its purpose is for internal government use, primarily to coordinate several agencies to find war remains. A bicyclette (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
How would you wish to amend the first section on total casualties using the law's figures? I suggest you add the 849,000 figure, citing it correctly, somewhere there, but you must provide proper titles in Vietnamese and English. See Ref 2 in 13th Air Force Corps (People's Republic of China) for an example original (Mandarin in that case)-language and English-translation titled document. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Buckshot06 who are you directing this comment to? Me or A bicyclette? I have already moved Lewy's table down in the article effectively demoting it. I am not going to fix A bicyclette's ref. As detailed above, I am asking you to adjudicate a final position on PAVN/VC casualties to go in the Vietnam War infobox, I suggest this should be the following range: 849,018 (with A bicyclette's ref when he provides it properly) - 1,489,000 (with Rummel ref). Please confirm and obtain confirmation of this from A bicyclette as he seems to still be contesting all other references other than his Vietnamese document. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I was directing my comment to A bicyclette. Making the insertion yourself would show good faith but no, I was talking to A bicyclette. You two have to sort out your own problems, so I suggest you talk to each other; I am focused on trying to get this page under control first before moving on to others. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Buckshot06 as evidenced from the discussions above and elsewhere, suggesting that A bicyclette and I talk to each other is a waste of time. A bicyclette asked you to adjudicate this issue, I have suggested a resolution and am asking you to be an Admin and reach a final and enforceable resolution to this issue. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Specific incidents - delete?[edit]

Is the specific incidents section really necessary? Almost all of them are covered earlier in the page and we could just do a See Also to List of massacres in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Its better to leave it.A bicyclette (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy is that things get stated once only, more than once is POV. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties[edit]

I have raised the issue of the WP:RS of a purported Vietnamese Government document detailing North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties at WP:RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties together with a suggestion as to how such document, if accepted, should be presented. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)