Talk:Joint warfare in South Vietnam, 1963–1969

Casualty count

More Communists killed than they had troops engaged?? NealeFamily (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joint warfare in South Vietnam, 1963–69. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051217083239/http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/BattleKheSanh1968.htm to http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/central/brush/BattleKheSanh1968.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060821193042/http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/marwar.htm to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/marwar.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede section paragraph

First off, this is an oddly defined article topic that it's Citizendium's "fault" for being weird on, since the topic is not entirely clear (It's sort of "Vietnam War, 1963-69" but also not quite?). Anyway, I removed the following strange paragraph from the lede awhile ago, and I see that User:Worldwar1989 restored it without comment:

The North Vietnamese term for the large-scale introduction of U.S. ground forces, in 1965, is the Local War, according to Gen. Trần Văn Trà, the Vietnamese Communist Party concluded, the "United States was forced to introduce its own troops because it was losing the war. It had lost the political game in Vietnam....the situation allows us to shift our revolution to a new stage, that of decisive victory." The Party issued a resolution to this effect, which was transmitted, in October 1967, to the Central Office for South Vietnam and to key officials of the major commands in the South. They were directed to begin detailed planning for what was to become the Tet Offensive. Note that there was a delay of approximately two years between the Politburo decision and the directive to begin planning, so it can be asked if the Politburo did actually make the broad strategic decision in 1965, or some time later, as they grew more aware of the effect of U.S. operations.

This doesn't make any sense. The North Vietnamese view of the Americanization part of the war is relevant, yes, but a long extended quote from a single North Vietnamese general in the lede is wildly disproportionate, and a Google does not back up the idea that "Local War" was the North Vietnamese term for this. The bizarre "Note a delay" stuff about Politburo decisions has nothing to do with anything and isn't even clear what it's saying.

Also, let me put this bluntly: WorldWar1989, are you User:Qajar? I assume you are, since you have the exact same interests (Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.) and are restoring Qajar's material (well, material added by a Qajar sock). I think it's been long enough since 2010 that I'm not in a hurry to report you as a sockpuppet, but please collaborate better with other editors, and use edit summaries. This isn't optional on Wikipedia: you need to explain your edits. SnowFire (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

References