Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 23
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Vietnam War. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 29 |
Who won the war?
Who won the war, who lost it? North Vietnam + allies, USA + allies? There is an oblique reference in the intro to the USA losing ("fall of Saigon"). Elsewhere in the text it is inferred (but not directly stated) that Vietnam won, but you have to read a long way down the article. In fact, the whole article is based on the assumption that "everyone knows" that the USA lost the war. Not so. A whole generation has been born, grown up and reached middle age since then. In any case, it is a truism that not everyone knows all about everything, otherwise there would be no need for encyclopedias. So first let's get the basic facts, please, before going into details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.140 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
nurses in Vietnam
I was reading with interest and then ran up against this statement......."Although female military nurses lived in a heavily male environment, very few cases of sexual harassment were ever reported.[329] In 2008, by contrast, approximately one-third of women in the military felt that they had been sexually harassed compared with one-third of men.[citation needed]." Very few cases may have been reported but that does NOT mean it didn't happen...and frequently. I can't believe how willfully naïve this statement is. The rest of it goes on and makes it sound like women in the military today are somehow whining more about it? Rape which is a crime, is STILL underreported and so what do you think stats would be on sexual harassment??? If there are more women making reports of sexual harassment in the military it is because more women feel they can do so these days without retribution. Which is progress. Back in the 1960s and 1970s nobody complained of sexual harassment because of retribution, especially, ESPECIALLY in the military. This statement needs to be rewritten or omitted altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Dang Phong, Dai cuong Lich su Kinh te VN
I quoted 100% in this book:
"...Trong chiến dịch cải cách ruộng đất, đã phát hiện 172.008 thành phần địa chủ và phú nông. Trong đó, địa chủ cường hào gian ác: 26.453 người, trong đó 20.493 người bị oan (77,4%). Địa chủ thường: 82.777 người, trong đó 51.480 người bị oan (62%). Địa chủ kháng chiến: 586 người, trong đó 290 bị oan (49%). Phú nông: 62.192 người, trong đó 51.003 người bị oan (82%). Tổng cộng: 172.008 người, trong đó 123.266 người bị oan: 71,66%..."
"phát hiện" (Vietnamese) = "found" (English), not "executed" (many of them only jailed, not killed). If you want, you can used Google translate. Please don't modify that sourceMiG29VN (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- In context (see here in Vietnamese and here for an English translation), it's pretty clear the 172,000 statistic refers to executions, because the communists' quotas targeted 5.86% of the population as landlords, which would mean 586,000 people put on trial.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thongluan.co is oversea Vietnamese's web (Người Việt hải ngoại, most of them hate communists). They didn't exactly qoute a Dang Phong's book. I have this book and I quoted 100% at here, and this book HAVE NOT the figure of "how many executed" ("victims" as not as "killed"). the communists' quotas targeted 5% of the population as landlords, maybe it's true, but the campaign was stopped in 1956 (2 years, 2/3 fewer than first plans), of course, landlords were founded only 1/3 this figure. Please read Vu Thu Hien's comment:
- Người ta thường nói tới con số khoảng 15.000 người. Tôi nghĩ con số có thổi phồng. Trong tài liệu của Bernard Fall và Wesley Fishel con số còn được đẩy tới 50.000. Nếu tính tổng số xã đã cải cách ruộng đất là khoảng 3.000, mỗi xã có trung bình một hoặc hai người bị bắn, bị bức tử, bị hãm cho chết đói, (những xã có số người bị bắn lên tới ba hoặc bốn rất ít gặp, có những xã không có ai bị) thì số người chết oan (kể cả trong Chỉnh đốn Tổ chức, tính cả người bị bức tử) nằm trong khoảng từ 4.000 đến 5.000 ngườiMiG29VN (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Thongluan.co is oversea Vietnamese's web (Người Việt hải ngoại, most of them hate communists)".Likewise, i can say that sources from inside Vietnam, esp. from northern Vietnam, is pro-communist and biased against VNCH (Republic of VN), and negates (downplay or deny entirely) anything critical and negative about the DCSVN (Communist Party) and its regime.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Remember, I don't talk about these website, I talk about Dang Phong's source was modified (or maybe translator's mistake when traslation to English). When you qoute every sources, don't modify its. I quoted 100% this book (Vietnamese), that evidence, and i will edit this sources42.114.9.105 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- Since MiGVN admits that well over 500,000 were classified as landlords, he is unable to say what the 172,000 figure refers to, although he guesses that it vaguely refers to "victims". Professor Stephen Rosefielde cites the Vietnamese source for a figure of 172,000 executions; as he is an English-language source, we cannot replace him with MiGVN's personal theories. If MiGVN or any of his Hanoi-based sockpuppets insist on continuing a slow revert-war to impose their original research on the article, they should be reverted.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Remember, I don't talk about these website, I talk about Dang Phong's source was modified (or maybe translator's mistake when traslation to English). When you qoute every sources, don't modify its. I quoted 100% this book (Vietnamese), that evidence, and i will edit this sources42.114.9.105 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
- "Thongluan.co is oversea Vietnamese's web (Người Việt hải ngoại, most of them hate communists)".Likewise, i can say that sources from inside Vietnam, esp. from northern Vietnam, is pro-communist and biased against VNCH (Republic of VN), and negates (downplay or deny entirely) anything critical and negative about the DCSVN (Communist Party) and its regime.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Ethnic minority insurgents (FULRO) (Cham , Montagnard, Khmer Krom) who fought both North and South Vietnam
United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races
Cham insurgent leader Les Kosem
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/80-from-the-f-l-m-to-fulro-1955-1975
http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/79-post-fulro-events-1975-2004
Fulro trở lại trên bàn cờ Tây Nguyên
http://www.tinparis.net/thoisu12/FulrobancoTaynguyen_Champaka.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?id=60LVMIv3cXsC&pg=PA15#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_zKFyHlBk0C&pg=PA262#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=CgwOi-5JrBYC&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA97#v=onepage&q&f=false
Montagnard
http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/lighting-darkness-fulros-jungle-christians
http://www.degar.org/hlagru-fulro/
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ld9W1NKBjzQC&pg=PA190&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_zKFyHlBk0C&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=xAKbllE5bioC&pg=PA255#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.montagnard-foundation.org/comm-070402.html
http://montagnard-foundation.org/wp/2011/07/08/1458
http://www.mhro.org/montangards-history/conclusions
http://www.unpo.org/members/7898
Khmer Krom
http://khmerkromngo.org/map/map.htm
http://www.unpo.org/article/8856
http://khmerkromngo.org/map/map.htm
Rajmaan (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2014
 | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove Spain from the infobox, where it is listed as supporting the anti-Communists; there is no further mention of Spain in the article to justify its inclusion. Spain's support (a medical team) was formerly described (with an apparently nonreliable source), but this was removed in 2010 as undue.
(If Spain is not removed from the infobox, a subsection should be re-added to Vietnam_War#Pro-Saigon using Allied Participation in Vietnam: Nonmilitary Aid to Vietnam as a source, but note that the same reference lists many additional countries as providing nonmilitary aid.) Thanks, 209.6.114.98 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Done by User:Sus scrofa 1 Cannolis (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
About the name "The American War"
It's totaly true that Vietnamese call it "Resistance War Against America" (Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or more formally "Resistance War Against America to save the Nation" (Kháng chiến chống Mỹ cứu nước), this is how Vietnamese distinguish this war from the war with French (Kháng chiến chống Pháp). The translation as "American War" (Chiến tranh Mỹ in Vietnamese) need to be examined further because I have never seen anyone in Vietnam calls it like that. The Vietnamese Wikipedia also didn't mention this name, https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi%E1%BA%BFn_tranh_Vi%E1%BB%87t_Nam#T.C3.AAn_g.E1.BB.8Di. I know everything written in here is based on realiable references, however, Wikipedia also should provide accurate info that match the reality. Quych (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment
I just want to summarize my latest edit right here. I put reunification, like the other texts have it, and I switched Cambodia and Laos because Cambodia is no longer communst right now, so I want to put it last to kind of distinguish it from how Laos still is. If anyone has any objections to this, I will be glad to revert myself. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2014
| | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Total New Zealand commitment to Vietnam was closer to 4000 than 3000. Official figures are 3680 but due to insufficient records (especially RNZAF) it is possible that there were even more. Most media sources quote "more than 3500..." or "almost 4000..." as figures. Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaN1Z6KKqQ Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0sh5zdKtqQ Reference: http://www.3news.co.nz/Vietnam-vets-remember-unpopular-war/tabid/423/articleID/309725/Default.aspx Probably the best refence is the book: New Zealand's Vietnam War: A History of Combat, Commitment and Controversy By Ian McGibbon (cited in several Wikipedia entries: New Zealand and Vietnam War, Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment, etc. 122.106.85.251 (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: I'll compromise with 3,500 since there were not 4,000 by any source and the numbers should all be rounded down and not up. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 13:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
About North Vietnam
I've changed it back to North Vietnamese victory. I mean this looks really one-sided or baised. It's like saying "Anti-capitalist victory" or if the other side won "Capitalist victory". It's also like saying "Democratic victory" or "Republican victory" or even "Anti-communist victory". I have never seen this used before and this category like this. It doesn't sound right. Furthurmore, "communist" can be an offensive term today and Wikipedia shouldn't get polilical. Furthurmore, in North Vietnam's point of view they were trying to reunify their country and just happened to have a communist government. Therefore, I think we should be neutral here. Also, the Laotian Civil War and Cambodian Civil War were different wars that started at different times and ended at different times. And this is technically a Vietnamese civil war here. And the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were not technically a country or government. They just became heavily involved in Vietnam due to the huge amounts of firebombing involved. I hope someone doesn't have an agenda here, considering Vietnam is not even bothering us today, and is even close to us now in some ways. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. Smallchief (talk 13:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Considering Stumink 1st changed it here in the first place,[1] He's obviously seen the page recently and hasn't said anthing. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: This version was previously endorsed by several editors (see here and here), and it takes more than one "Support" to claim consensus, especially since Smallchief wasn't agreeing to your more recent (unilateral) tweaks. In response to your edit, I must say that North Vietnam was fighting to reunify Vietnam under communist rule, "capitalism" is not a system of government, the start date should be consistent with the lead, and text such as "Contributed for communist governments to take power" is not a drafting improvement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- About your "endorsements", it looks like no one had a comeback to N Hoang Dai there. First of all with contradictions, this is a Vietnamese Civil War. If the Laotian and Cambodian Civil Wars also included help from North Vietnam, and "support" from the Soviet Union and China too, shouldn't they be included too? You know that, but yet wow, contradiction much? Like I said, the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao were not technically a legitimate country or government like North Vietnam, and the Soviet Union and China are under "support" for a reason, they mostly supplied arms but were not officailly directly involved in the war. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- And Smallchief hasn't agreed to the recent edits because they weren't much anyway (except for the Start Date of course) but he did agree with North Vietnam's victory so considering no one is replying except for him, that's what I mean by putting it back, especially since it was already like that before, and you're also not really replying here either. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
:I'll repost this here then since you reverted me on your Talk without a comeback. Maybe I added too much later on, but the reason why was because some of the older page revisions like on 2013 January [2] where it only said (American forces) back then, at the time, and also (from Indochina) so that's where I got that from.[3] And according to the current source, the official date is November 1, 1955. It was changed by Stumink on[4]. But just to add to this, my recent edits were not technically part of this argument, that's why I didn't think it was a problem, but alright then, it is now then. And considering you haven't come up with an argument for me yet, it's this way for now which is what it said before. OK then, I'll self-revert for now, your way but you better come up with an argument soon or it's going back which is how it was before. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm struggling to follow your logic, but I invite other editors to weigh in and help form consensus on such contested issues as whether "'communist' can be an offensive term today and Wikipedia shouldn't get polilical [sic]". It seems to me that the lead and the infobox should share the same start date; if you want to re-open the start date for discussion I guess we'll see what sources you have, and what other users think. Since I already gave my reasons for reverting you, threatening to continue the edit war until you are satisfied by my reasoning is quite premature; you are the one challenging consensus, and you have been reverted per WP:BRD, so the burden is on you to persuade multiple editors your version is correct.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How is that start date wrong? This is how it was before and all the other wikipedias have the same start date. And look at the source associated with the start date. It says the official start date as November 1, 1955. Sorry, but I say your version is wrong. The source is already there, so look at it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following is all sourced: "U.S. government reports currently cite 1 November 1955 as the commencement date of the "Vietnam Conflict", because this date marked when the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under president Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.[33] Other start dates include when Hanoi authorized Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956,[34] whereas some view 26 September 1959 when the first battle occurred between the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese army, as the start date.[35]" I agree with Stumink's version, but perhaps this has not been properly discussed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The official start date is November 1, 1955, period. The reasoning for Stumink's change was U.S. assistance does not equal war. Otherwise it is rudiculous U.S.-centric. When the U.S. considers itself involved is hardly relevant. and that's not an appropriate enough reason Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Consensus is that "Vietnam war" includes Cambodia and Laos and is not strictly a Vietnamese-only conflict, even though "Cambodian civil war" and "Laotian civil war" cover those local conflicts in depth.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Um, no, because the Cambodian and Laotian Civil Wars also heavily included Vietnam so it was not strictly their conflict either even though they were technically different wars. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- The following is all sourced: "U.S. government reports currently cite 1 November 1955 as the commencement date of the "Vietnam Conflict", because this date marked when the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under president Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established.[33] Other start dates include when Hanoi authorized Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956,[34] whereas some view 26 September 1959 when the first battle occurred between the Viet Cong and the South Vietnamese army, as the start date.[35]" I agree with Stumink's version, but perhaps this has not been properly discussed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- How is that start date wrong? This is how it was before and all the other wikipedias have the same start date. And look at the source associated with the start date. It says the official start date as November 1, 1955. Sorry, but I say your version is wrong. The source is already there, so look at it. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems that saying communism won is definately more for political reasons. This IS Vietnam's Civil War which the North achieved their goals. Although there were major spill overs, the Laotian and Cambodian civil wars started and ended at different times and it's their own civil war despite others involvement, which is acknowledged in this case. It should be the same for Vietnam like it was. And yes, the date should be the official date too. Stumink's reason for changing the date is not apropriate or good enough. Lenems (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Stumink 1st changed it here in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=581063620&oldid=581051480 And not only the Start Date here[5] I'm changing it back to the official start date until Stumink can justifiably prove otherwise. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
"Comfort women" and bar girls
It seems a non-neutral POV under the sub-section titled "Vietnamese Women" to find it mentioned that communist soldiers used "comfort women" -- but to find no mention that tens or hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese women made a living during the war by servicing American, allied, and South Vietnamese soldiers. I think I'll add a brief paragraph about Vietnamese bar girls and their wartime service.Smallchief (talk 15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2014
| | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add Spain to the "supported-by" section of the anti-communist forces. This is supported in the citation labeled "1". Please change the Spanish flag to the version used under Franco from 1945 to 1977. Add Japan as well, it is also listed in that source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.168.216 (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
221.7.11.108 (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Only the initial part of this request was completed; the portions regarding Japan and the Spanish flag were added later by two seperate IP's. 61.135.177.185 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced material
In Norwegian, Te og kaker means Tea and cakes.
no:Bruker:Te og kaker, who has been edit warring to include insults on my talk page as well as to push an agenda in this article, has repeatedly deleted a number of sources that appear to amply satisfy WP:RS on the sole grounds that they differ from statements made by the Vietnamese government. I believe Thayer, Wiesner, Hirschman, and Lewy should be used along with the official Vietnamese claims to achieve NPOV. I implore the user to stop edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- I added them because they differ a lot from the "Vietnamese civilian casualties" down there. Also, if you see here at this widely used source for death tolls of wars and regimes (which is neutral and only lists estimates by lots of relevant authors), you'll see that the numbers differs pretty much from the estimates added. "Insults"? Because I have a different opinion than you? "Push an agenda"? Because I am of a different opinion than you? I saw The Times Are A-Changing write his opinion on Ngo Dinh Diem on his talk page, claiming that he was a nationalist hero and that Ho Chi Minh told the French to intervene in Vietnam. For me it's pretty obvious who of us who is pushing an agenda here, and that is not me. What you just wrote on the article about North Vietnam is solely US/Diem propaganda. No personal attack, it's the truth! It's well known that the US and Diem refused to hold any elections in Vietnam, because they feared that Ho Chi Minh would win. And no, i am not saying that the Vietnamese government alone is a trustworthy source, but 2 million IS more used as an estimate of deaths in the Vietnam War than 245.000. Most written sources believe that there were actually 2 million victims. I don't think the Vietnamese government is a reliable source, but I see no reason to say that the number was not 2 million just because the Vietnamese government says that it was. As long as several authors agree, I see no reason to say that two million weren't killed. But although you don't think the Vietnamese government is a reliable source, you obviously see the US government as such because you're using US government sources a lot. How is that different?! Government sources are generally non-reliable. But remember that a lot of history books, encyclopedias, and other sources also estimate 2 million victims for Vietnam. A lot more than those who estimate 245.000. Te og kaker (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- necrometrics is self published by a librarian and is not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- not necrometics itself, but the authors it cites. Te og kaker (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- The frequency with which a statistic is repeated has little bearing on its accuracy. I'm not seeking to delete the Vietnamese estimate because of how far out of step it is with demographic analysis, so the burden is on you to demonstrate the unreliability of the sources you wish to purge. Necrometrics is less than satisfactory in this regard, particularly as the author cites individual estimates strikingly similar to those you wish to delete (i.e., 65,000 North Vietnamese civilian casualties) but justifies a much higher overall total by assuming the larger estimates must simply be counting a longer period of time.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- not necrometics itself, but the authors it cites. Te og kaker (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- necrometrics is self published by a librarian and is not RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Fix Needed
In the Tet Offensive section: "Across South Vietnam, 4,100 Americans and it's allied, 4,900 ARVN, ... etc. " Presumably it should read "... and its allies..." ie America's allies; its, of course, is a possessive, not a contraction. The structure is still awkward. I suggest: "4.100 American and allied troops," presuming that the "allied" refers to Australians etc, not otherwise listed. Orthotox (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Changed it as suggested.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Timeline
Would anyone be able to make a timeline? Soerfm (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/migration-asia-pacific-region. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Assessment Summary Page?
In the material at the top of this talk page, there is a box with the sentence "this article has an assessment summary page." However, when one clicks on the link one does not find an "assessment summary page," but rather an unsigned comment from January 2011, which presumably should have been posted on this talk page by whoever wrote it and not shunted to a separate, mislabeled "assessment summary page." (Some aspects of the Jan. 2011 comment seem misguided to me, but that's not relevant here.)Redound (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
American naming bias?
I am not sure if Wikipedia is self-defined as an American-centric site or not, but if not then perhaps we should consider renaming this page as the America-Vietnam war, or the Vietnam-America war. For example, I wonder what the Vietnamese call this war? Without question, Vietnam has been involved in more than one war ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Vietnam ) so calling a single war "the Vietnam war" implies an American prerogative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.45.195 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- "The Vietnam War" is the most common name used in English-language reliable sources, so that's what we should use. As noted in the article lead, the war is sometimes called "the American War" in Vietnam.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
U.S. Military Morale
The article makes no mention of U.S. ground forces' morale issues that played such a huge role in the pace of U.S. withdrawal and the later decision to move to an all-volunteer U.S. military. See e.g., [6]; [7]. Marbux (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Deletion of misleading phrase
I would propose to delete the following phrase from the Transition Section of this article, referring to the Geneva Accords of 1954: "The United States was willing to accept a reunified, communist-led Vietnam if it resulted from free and fair elections: (The Pentagon Papers (1971), Beacon Press, vol. 3, p. 661.)
I don't have the Beacon Press edition of The Pentagon Papers so I can't check the reference directly. However, in going through other editions of the Pentagon papers I can't find any statement that says the U.S. was willing to accept a communist-led Vietnam. Quite the contrary, the U.S. was distressed that one-half of Vietnam was allotted to the Communists and active in ensuring that the other half of Vietnam didn't become communist controlled. We did not object to scuttling the 1956 national elections called for in the Geneva accord.
The nearest statement I can find that might justify the present text in the article is the U.S. and UK negotiating position at Geneva of not agreeing to any "provision that would exclude the possibility of the ultimate reunification of Vietnam by peaceful means." (http://www.media.nara.gov/research/Pentagon-Papers-Part-III.pdf, p. A-38) It's a long way from that (hypothetical, throw-away) negotiating point to saying the U.S. "was willing to accept a reunified, communist-led Vietnam if it resulted from free and fair elections."
So, if nobody can demonstrate the correctness of the present text, I would propose to delete the sentence saying the US could accept a communist led Vietnam and appropriately adjust the language of this paragraph.Smallchief (talk 14:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. The US accepting a communist Vietnam is absurd. Who added this in the first place, Yellowmonkey who's now banned? Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- The claim was already deleted, which is fine as it was based on original research. Mztourist--and, to a lesser extent, myself--recently improved Geneva Conference (1954), so the information presented there is better than what is presented in this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
women in the Vietnam war
I'm not sure what to make of this statement regarding sexual harassment.
" Although female military nurses lived in a heavily male environment, very few cases of sexual harassment were ever reported.[336] In 2008, by contrast, approximately one-third of women in the military felt that they had been sexually harassed compared with one-third of men.[citation needed]"
Is this to say that sexual harassment was less prevalent in the military during the Vietnam War? Is it to say that complaints today about sexual harassment in the military are unfounded? The tone seems judgmental. I really doubt that sexual harassment was not an issue for women who served in Vietnam. I think women were much, much less likely to report it especially in a military setting for a whole lot of reasons. Since you can't find a citation for the second part of the statement, "In 2008, by contrast, approximately one-third of women in the military felt that they had been sexually harassed compared with one-third of men.[citation needed]", I suggest you remove it as it has no basis in fact and sounds biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.197 (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, this section compares apples to oranges to some extent. US service women in Vietnam were nurses, treating wounded soldiers (you're less likely to get frisky with a hole in your gut) and did not serve as today alongside male soldiers. Vietnam also had a large prostitute sector unlike Iraq and Afghanistan. Awareness of sexual harassment was also something that only recently arose in the US in the 60s.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, take it out. The analogy is not good. Smallchief (talk 10:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Start date
Currently, the start date is given as 1955. This seems incongruous as this is merely the date that the American advisors (MAAG) in Indochina were reorganized. There were US advisors doing the same things before this date, it was merely an organizational change. The source given for the start date is sourced by a US military source, this might be improper use of a primary source. The line "we were not in Vietnam for 10 years, but for one year 10 times" (1963-1973?) is quoted in the article and it seems to suggest that the war is considered to start later than 1955. The 50th anniversary of the Gulf of Tonkin incident was recently, and I saw an article touting this as the start date of the war. So it might be that historians consider 1964 as the start date of the war, when the conflict flipped from insurgency to full on war.--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
1. This war was originally between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. We didn't get involved until much later. 2. 1962 is considered the beginning of full scale involvement Operation Sunrise, according to president Obama.76.107.252.227 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe that January 1959 is the correct date as this is when the North Vietnamese Communist Party approved a people's war in the South. The entry and exit of American advisers or ground troops do not mark the start and end date of the war, just US involvement in it. Mztourist (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. January 1959 seems like the best date to say the Vietnam War started. Smallchief (talk 11:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. 1 November 1955 is sourced, and the US was a sigificant part of the war. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1959 is more appropriate than 1955. There was very little communist military activity/insurgency against the South until ~1959. The VN War began when the North and it's Southern arm, the Viet Cong, initiated attacks against the South; it has nothing to do with when this US jumped in. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1955 is sourced only as the eligibility date to have your name entered on the Wall in Washington -- not as the beginning of the war. Smallchief (talk 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I mean that's considered the official date. Of course the war heated up at various dates. In any case, the footnote already explains it well. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considered the official date by who? I believe that the Vietnamese regard the war as starting in 1959. Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- They both consider the start date to be 1955, and the Vietnamese wiki also uses 1955. An insurgency started in 1956 so that could also be considered the start. There are various sources listing various start dates (the op wanted 1964 for example). In any case, the official start date is listed as 1955. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1959 should be considered the start date. The only major event that occurred in 1955 was President Ngô Đình Diệm declaring the Republic of [S] Vietnam and its independence from France, and that itself is not responsible for commencing the War, as much as what the Vietnamese communists want everyone to believe, because RVN did not sign the 1954 Geneva Conventions and thus are not bound to its terms. The communists made the excuse that because the South declared independence in 1955 and refused to hold national elections for a national gov't as called for in Geneva, the War began as a result. However, that is complete rubbish because RVN didn't sign Geneva [how can you be bound to something if you didn't agree to it/sign it?], second it was the Vietnamese communists who agreed to the partition of Vietnam in the first place, while the RVN delegation in Geneva rejected any partition, third the North Vietnamese were persecuting and imprisoning non-communist political groups such as the Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng and Đại Việt Quốc Dân Đảng parties, and purging pro-democracy dissidents in 1956, plus a bloody land reform, making free and fair elections in the North impossible, just as how Diem rigged his elections and crackdown on VC. The North launched military attacks against the South via their arm the Viet Cong, starting in 1959 by Lê Duẩn, and that is when the Vietnam War started.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- How is it considered "Vietnamese propaganda" if the U.S. is citing it? It says "In 1998, after a high level review by the Department of Defense (DoD) and through the efforts of Richard B. Fitzgibbon's family the start date of the Vietnam War according to the US government was officially changed to 1 November 1955. U.S. government reports currently cite 1 November 1955 as the commencement date of the "Vietnam Conflict", because this date marked when the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. Other start dates include when Hanoi authorized Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956." This is not the place for original research. The footnote also points out that "the start date of the Vietnam War is a matter of debate" so obviously this can go on forever. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The footnote you quote mis-states what the reference says. The reference says nothing about November 1, 1955 being the start date of Vietnam War. The reference says that November 1, 1955 "is now formally recognized as the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." The footnote should therefore be revised to reflect more accurately what the reference actually says. Smallchief (talk 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The start date can still be debated whether it's 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962, or 1964. The reference still says it is recognized a start date and there are a ton of other dates and theories as we can see here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- A date decided by the US as being the date for inclusion of names on the Wall isn't conclusive in my view. I need to consult my references, but still believe that 1959 is the correct date. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. is considered to have died during the Vietnam War and that was in June 8, 1956. The U.S. government indeed currently cites the earliest date as 1955 and it is not solely "for inclusion of names on the Wall". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Can you cite a reference for that opinion? Smallchief (talk 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- As talked about in the Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. article the start of the war was officially moved to Nov. 1, 1955 by the American Department of Defense in 1998. The November 1955 date was chosen as the new start date because that was when the Military Assistance Advisory Group ( MAAG ) that reorganized from a general Indochina into the different countries that the deployments were stationed. This is shown in the following sources: Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant By A. T. Lawrence Pg20 and defense.gov release. It was also after a high level review by the Department of Defense (DoD) and through the efforts of Richard B. Fitzgibbon's family. I say everyone is actually correct here. I disagree with 1964. That's about all the argument I'll do on this point, I don't really have anymore time or interest. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Can you cite a reference for that opinion? Smallchief (talk 06:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Richard B. Fitzgibbon, Jr. is considered to have died during the Vietnam War and that was in June 8, 1956. The U.S. government indeed currently cites the earliest date as 1955 and it is not solely "for inclusion of names on the Wall". Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- A date decided by the US as being the date for inclusion of names on the Wall isn't conclusive in my view. I need to consult my references, but still believe that 1959 is the correct date. Mztourist (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The start date can still be debated whether it's 1955, 1956, 1957, 1959, 1962, or 1964. The reference still says it is recognized a start date and there are a ton of other dates and theories as we can see here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The footnote you quote mis-states what the reference says. The reference says nothing about November 1, 1955 being the start date of Vietnam War. The reference says that November 1, 1955 "is now formally recognized as the earliest qualifying date for addition to the database and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial." The footnote should therefore be revised to reflect more accurately what the reference actually says. Smallchief (talk 21:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- How is it considered "Vietnamese propaganda" if the U.S. is citing it? It says "In 1998, after a high level review by the Department of Defense (DoD) and through the efforts of Richard B. Fitzgibbon's family the start date of the Vietnam War according to the US government was officially changed to 1 November 1955. U.S. government reports currently cite 1 November 1955 as the commencement date of the "Vietnam Conflict", because this date marked when the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. Other start dates include when Hanoi authorized Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956." This is not the place for original research. The footnote also points out that "the start date of the Vietnam War is a matter of debate" so obviously this can go on forever. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considered the official date by who? I believe that the Vietnamese regard the war as starting in 1959. Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I mean that's considered the official date. Of course the war heated up at various dates. In any case, the footnote already explains it well. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1955 is sourced only as the eligibility date to have your name entered on the Wall in Washington -- not as the beginning of the war. Smallchief (talk 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1959 is more appropriate than 1955. There was very little communist military activity/insurgency against the South until ~1959. The VN War began when the North and it's Southern arm, the Viet Cong, initiated attacks against the South; it has nothing to do with when this US jumped in. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not really. 1 November 1955 is sourced, and the US was a sigificant part of the war. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. January 1959 seems like the best date to say the Vietnam War started. Smallchief (talk 11:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia ought not to be offering an opinion about what specific date is to be regarded as the start date of the war. Wikipedia ought to be reporting what various reliable secondary sources having possibly differing opinions have to say about that, and ought to be citing those sources, per WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right. A US government statement is currently the only source for the 1955 start date. It is a primary source and not the opinion of historians, who Wikipedia should rely on. I did some cursory searching. This Global Post article touts several possible dates, but states: "Aug. 4, 1964: The Gulf of Tonkin incident is the conventional start date." Washington Post: "it lasted 10 years by the most widely accepted metric[.]" ABC News: "And today "The Other War" has gained a fresh and dubious distinction: it is the longest war in our nation's history, surpassing the conflict in Vietnam. 103 months passed between passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the withdrawal of the last American combat forces from Vietnam. As of today, the Afghanistan war is 104 months old." Now I realize that these are not historical sources, but it seems that 1964 is considered the usual start date. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the date for the Vietnam War was 1954-1975, not 1955. The first American killed in Vietnam was Lt. Col. Peter Dewey who was shot by the Viet Minh in September 1945 (not included in the memorial).--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Start of the VN War has absolutely nothing to do with when the US intervened - this is not the "American War", this is the Vietnam War. Check my source provided above, which is double confirmed with my own knowledge of the War, so don't throw the OR card at me. I support with 1959, but will disagree with dates before 1956 and after 1962. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sus scrofa, there are two sources citing 1955. The 1st one is a primary source and the 2nd is a secondary source. Quoc, there are many names for it, such as Second Indochina War or Vietnam Conflict, but Vietnam War is used because it's more common, per WP:COMMONNAME. The name does not matter in this case. Sus scrofa makes a good argument for 1964. What he's trying to say is, for example, when Japan attacked China why wasn't that considered WWII? Only when Germany attacked Poland? There's a debate on that as well. I don't agree with 1964, but I can see why Sus does so. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin incident signified the start of direct US involvement but the war had been going for several years before then. I agree with the preceding comments regarding OR and we all need to find reliable secondary sourcesMztourist (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- After thinking things over, I'll climb down from my position that 1964 was the start date. The sources that label the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as the start of the war mean that this is the start of the war for America, similar to how some American sources say that World War II started with Pearl Harbor. However, I still object to 1 November 1955 as the start date; that the US government considers this the start date should be in the footnote and not the other way around.--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the best start date may be either (1) 22 January 1959 -- when the Communist Party of North Vietnam adopted Resolution 15, authorizing a military, as well as political, struggle against South Vietnam and the U.S. or (2) 16 Dec 1960 when the National Liberation Front was created.
- So attacks against Americans on October 22, 1957 don't count[8]? The attack against South Vietnamese army on February 12, 1958 doesn't count[9]? Killing and massacres of South Vietnamese government officials, like the 1957 Chau Doc massacre, don't count[10]? It's not only the American start date that changed but in 1955 Diem solidified his power and started the Vietnam War by attacking all his opponents in South Vietnam and then rigging the election. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- There was violence and clashes between Diem and his opponents from the moment he took power on July 7, 1954 -- so I suppose you could say the Vietnam War started that day or the day the Geneva Accords were signed -- July 21, 1954. The Chau Doc massacre probably was the work of the Hoa Hao religious sect rather than the Viet Cong. The attack on Americans? I don't know who did it.
- When did World War II begin? With the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in about 1923? With the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931? With the Japanese invasion of China in 1937? With the German takeover of Czechoslovakia in 1938? Instead, we picked September 1, 1939 as the start date for WW II because that was the date that a good part of the world irrevocably decided to go to war. The beginning of the Vietnam War is even murkier. With the adoption of Resolution 15 on January 22, 1959, North Vietnam sanctioned the reunification of Vietnam by force. It was after then that things in Vietnam began to spiral downward as a result of Viet Cong pressure on South Vietnam. Or you can cite the creation of the NLF on December 16, 1961 as the irrevocable decision by North Vietnam to go to war.
- That's about all the argument I'll do on this point. However, the footnote should be changed to reflect what the U.S. decision actually says regarding the 1 Nov 1955 date. It's inaccurate as now written.Smallchief (talk 09:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Did you ignore what I said up there? The first part of the footnote says exactly what the source says. Maybe it should be updated with a link to the actual book. The footnote almost copies the book word for word. I don't think it's neccessary to completely copy what the book says as it might have a copyright. The way the current wording reflects the book is good enough.
- You'll also need a source citing 22 January 1959, because the current one says September 26, and nothing about January 22. The footnote mis-states what the reference says about 1959. The reference says nothing about January 22, 1959 or September 26 being the start date of Vietnam War. The reference says that on September 26, 1959 "two companies of the ARVN 23d Division were ambushed by a well-organized force of several hundred identified as the "2d Liberation Battalion"; the ARVN units lost 12 killed, 14 wounded, and most of their weapons." Therefore, a "not in citation" tag should be added there.
- So attacks against Americans on October 22, 1957 don't count[8]? The attack against South Vietnamese army on February 12, 1958 doesn't count[9]? Killing and massacres of South Vietnamese government officials, like the 1957 Chau Doc massacre, don't count[10]? It's not only the American start date that changed but in 1955 Diem solidified his power and started the Vietnam War by attacking all his opponents in South Vietnam and then rigging the election. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I think the best start date may be either (1) 22 January 1959 -- when the Communist Party of North Vietnam adopted Resolution 15, authorizing a military, as well as political, struggle against South Vietnam and the U.S. or (2) 16 Dec 1960 when the National Liberation Front was created.
- After thinking things over, I'll climb down from my position that 1964 was the start date. The sources that label the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as the start of the war mean that this is the start of the war for America, similar to how some American sources say that World War II started with Pearl Harbor. However, I still object to 1 November 1955 as the start date; that the US government considers this the start date should be in the footnote and not the other way around.--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Start of the VN War has absolutely nothing to do with when the US intervened - this is not the "American War", this is the Vietnam War. Check my source provided above, which is double confirmed with my own knowledge of the War, so don't throw the OR card at me. I support with 1959, but will disagree with dates before 1956 and after 1962. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Right. A US government statement is currently the only source for the 1955 start date. It is a primary source and not the opinion of historians, who Wikipedia should rely on. I did some cursory searching. This Global Post article touts several possible dates, but states: "Aug. 4, 1964: The Gulf of Tonkin incident is the conventional start date." Washington Post: "it lasted 10 years by the most widely accepted metric[.]" ABC News: "And today "The Other War" has gained a fresh and dubious distinction: it is the longest war in our nation's history, surpassing the conflict in Vietnam. 103 months passed between passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the withdrawal of the last American combat forces from Vietnam. As of today, the Afghanistan war is 104 months old." Now I realize that these are not historical sources, but it seems that 1964 is considered the usual start date. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the date for the Vietnam War was 1954-1975, not 1955. The first American killed in Vietnam was Lt. Col. Peter Dewey who was shot by the Viet Minh in September 1945 (not included in the memorial).--Sus scrofa (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't have time or interest to continue arguing. Take care. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I looked at the secondary source for the 1955 start date (Crucible Vietnam, Google preview of page). Here are the relevant parts: "Many history books cite 1959 as the start of the Vietnam War, as this was the year Ho Chi Minh declared a People's War to unite all of Vietnam[.] [...] Most U.S. government reports now cite November 1, 1955 as the commencement date of the "Vietnam Conflict," for this was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under president Truman) was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established." So the source only repeats what the US government says without actually making a judgment on what date is the right one. In fact, the source gives more credence (for Wikipedia purposes) to the 1959 date with the line "Many history books cite 1959". So in reality there is currently no secondary source backing up the 1955 date, only a primary source. As a side note Crucible Vietnam is a memoir by a US lieutenant, and as far as I know, memoirs are not peer-reviewed historical literature.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Read the 2nd part of my comment, I see that. The source does not say January 22 or September 26, 1959. The article is also full of primary sources, most notably in the casualties section. Like I said, I am done. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I have not suggested a day, only pointed to the year 1959 as yet. As a rule of thumb, secondary sources are preferable over primary sources (proper secondary sources go through peer review and editorial vetting). In any case 1955 can only be the date that the war started for the US at most. As I noted above, Encyclopedia Britannica puts the start year as 1954.--Sus scrofa (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- 1954 clearly can't be correct, the Vietnam War didn't just start immediately on the end of the First Indochina War. I am just finishing reading Embers of War and this together with the history section of the Viet Cong page inclines me to the view that the start date should actually be early 1957 which is when the southern communists began assassinating village chiefs. This seems to be the first phase of armed struggle by the NLF/Viet Cong against the Republic of Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Different reliable sources give different beginning points for the Vietnam War/Vietnam Conflict/Second Indochina War, perhaps the best thing to do is use the longest length in the infobox, and than provide a section, that gives a neutral presentation of the different recognized beginning at end times. This way the infobox is inclusive, while recognizing that different recognized lengths of the conflict exist. For instance this WaPo source gives 1965 as the beginning year, while recognizing that this Global Post source gives as early as 1955. As different reliable sources give different verifiable start dates to this conflict, we as editors shouldn't prejudice one start date over another.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Who won the war?
I have been talking with an editor on the USA page who argues that the US had a "tactical victory" in the Vietnam War. I put a [citation needed] tag on the North Vietnamese victory statement in the infobox. I think it would be good to have a source for the infobox statement.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree that the U.S. won a "tactical victory" in Vietnam with only a few conditions: we also agree that Japan and Germany won tactical victories in WW II because the war enabled them to undertake urban renewal projects; that Custer won a tactical victory at the Little Bighorn because he caused the Indians to expend most of their ammunition; and that Napoleon won a tactical victory at Waterloo because he was given an extended vacation on a nice island in the South Atlantic.
- That is by way of saying that I don't believe the obvious fact that North Vietnam won the war needs a reference, but if others disagree I'm sure several thousand references affirming that can be easily found.
- If I were reading a Wikipedia article that said the U.S won a tactical victory in Vietnam, it would severely damage in my mind the credibility of wikipedia as a source of information on any subject.Smallchief (talk 17:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- LOL – literally – at first paragraph. 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The goal of the US was to stop Communism from taking power in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and in that they failed. The argument that the US won a "tactical victory" is an odd one. In an asymmetrical war, the weaker party wins by attrition, draining the occupying power of men and money until they give up the fight. The outcome was similar for the Soviet war in Afghanistan: the occupiers were worn down and left and supported the client government until it fell a few years later. The the US won more battles and killed more troops than they lost is irrelevant. Vietnam didn't end with NVA tanks parading down Pennsylvania Avenue, but this was never what was at stake. --Sus scrofa (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- This, I guess, is a victory parade? 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The goal of the US was to stop Communism from taking power in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and in that they failed. The argument that the US won a "tactical victory" is an odd one. In an asymmetrical war, the weaker party wins by attrition, draining the occupying power of men and money until they give up the fight. The outcome was similar for the Soviet war in Afghanistan: the occupiers were worn down and left and supported the client government until it fell a few years later. The the US won more battles and killed more troops than they lost is irrelevant. Vietnam didn't end with NVA tanks parading down Pennsylvania Avenue, but this was never what was at stake. --Sus scrofa (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sans sarcasm, all WP:RSs state the US lost, without any "tactical" qualification. We have to reflect those sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Reminds me of the argument that went on in the Battle of Stalingrad article, where some editors refused to call it a decisive Soviet victory, because of the number of Soviet deaths and the destruction of the cityOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sans sarcasm, all WP:RSs state the US lost, without any "tactical" qualification. We have to reflect those sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sources: Bruce Herschensohn, "military success that could not be translated into political advantage", COL Summers, P. 139, Cutler 2012, Moss 1991, Sung An 1998. The strategic victory went to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the end. However, a more nuanced infobox, as is the case with many modern conflicts, would meet better with the reliable sources about the subject of this article, rather than the flat "North Vietnamese victory".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- In claims of people like Col. Summers there is something of the "we didn't lose the war on the battlefield, we were stabbed in the back by politicians, Jews, and Communists" attitude that was common in Germany after World War I, the rallying cry of an Austrian paperhanger who gained some prominence. I would question whether there is any such thing as a "tactical victory" in deciding who won a war. It seems to me there are only three consequences to war: win, lose, or draw. We and the South Vietnamese had the objective of preventing the spread of communism. We failed. We lost. North Vietnam had the objective of uniting the two Vietnams. They succeeded. They won.
- To nuance the North Vietnamese victory would be a shocking display of American self-centered egotism. It would be like the British claiming a "tactical victory" in the American revolution because they won most battles and never used all the military power they possessed.
- What we could do is to be weasely and remove the reference to victory or defeat in the infobox. It's pretty obvious from the results of the war as presently listed that North Vietnam won. I don't like that idea as I think we should reflect reality and say bluntly, "North Vietnamese victory." There's not a smidgen of doubt in Vietnam as to who won that war; there shouldn't be in the US either.Smallchief (talk 09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The prolbom is that whilst the NV's won they did opt actually beat the US militarily, they beat them politically. That is what they mean by "tactical victory" (they actually mean the US won every battle). The problem is that is irrelevant when deciding who won a war, and it is just S ego salving. The US managed (by pretty much giving in to the NV, and undoing what little they had achieved by the loss of 500,000 men) to extract themselves before total collapse, but even that cannot be called victory as they achieved none of their war aims, and in fact gave many of them up.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I found [11] (5m45s) and [12] (1h8m54s) credible. Also see the Bruce Herschensohn article and Herschensohn, Bruce (2010), An American Amnesia: How the U.S. Congress Forced the Surrenders of South Vietnam and Cambodia, Beaufort Books, ISBN 978-0-8253-0632-7 (clearly presenting one POV). I spent the years '64 through '72 in Vietnam, but I wasn't involved anywhere near this level and in any case do not want to push WP:OR. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- I have been having similar arguments on the First Indochina War where certain editors insist on categorising the outcome as Viet Minh victory, which if it was case - meaning that all the Viet Minh war aims were fulfilled would have meant there would have been no Vietnam War. I believe the result in the First Indochina War was more nuanced, but there can be no doubt that the Vietnam War was entirely a Communist (North Vietnamese, Khmer Rouge & Pathet Lao) victory. Mztourist (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Count me among those saying this question is ludicrous. Of course the Communist governments won the war. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for fringe historical revisionism. Jusdafax 17:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This is not pushing OR, the sources above show that it is a verified point of view and documented interpretation of the outcome of the conflict, that although in the end the strategic victory went to Socialist Republic of Vietnam, that tactically on the battlefield they failed to win (prior to U.S. disengagement) as they did politically. Some weight to this verified content should be given, however I can understand that it not be given undue weight, but to exclude it entirely would IMHO be non-neutral.
- More sources:
- Mark William Woodruff (October 2005). Unheralded Victory: The Defeat Of The Viet Cong And The North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-89141-866-5.
- Review of above.
- Drew, Dennis M. (February 1985). "A Matter of Principles: Expanding Horizons Beyond the Battlefield". Air University Review. United States Air Force. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
- Harry G. Summers (1995). On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. Presidio Press. ISBN 978-0-89141-563-3.
- "Campaigning" (PDF). Doctrine. United States Forest Service. 1997. Retrieved 1 November 2012.
Even a succession of tactical victories does not necessarily ensure strategic victory, the obvious example being the American military experience in Vietnam
- Willard Scott Thompson (1983). The Third World: Premises of U.S. Policy. Transaction Publishers. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-4128-3935-8.
- William van Zanten (25 March 2009). Don't Bunch Up: One Marine's Story. Random House Publishing Group. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-307-52151-4.
- Here is another perspective: Botkin, Richard (29 April 2013). [http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/vietnam-the-battle-for-historical-truth/ "Vietnam: The Battle for Historical Truth"]. WND. Retrieved 1 November 2014.
{{cite web}}: Check|url=value (help) - No one here is pushing that RoV, U.S., or SEATO won the war; just that it can be verified that sources write what I have provided above.
- --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- The existing section "Effect on the United States", particularly the second paragraph, seems to adequately cover the concept of "tactical victory", though of course like most content it could probably be improved by some minor tweaks. 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is the whole war, not some individual battle. You can't just abandon the war and say "we still won". 172.56.16.227 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, when discussing battles it is possible for both sides to win (one ca win a tactical victory but one that ultimately does not win them a war, and in fact may lose it). This is not a battle it is a war. As such all that matters is not how well US forces fought, but dud they achieve their aims. Of course there are sources that claim a tactical victory, but it's hard to see how it was (given the definition of tactical victory (they achieved no tactical aims as a result of the war). You could certainly say the US defeat was political, but the info box is not the place for such detail (and in fact given the way "tactical victory" is being applied it is far too nuanced to be there either). In fact even the use of the term tactical breaches the US army's own defintio0n which is a
- This is the whole war, not some individual battle. You can't just abandon the war and say "we still won". 172.56.16.227 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
tactical level of war – (DOD) The level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to accomplish military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.
So it really is hard to see how the idea that the US won a tactical victory adds anything in the info box.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Slatersteven. Of course there are "sources" that claim victory of various kinds for the U.S. but it's just junk history. Jusdafax 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast 18:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC) - US tactical victory leading to the Paris Peace Accords is described in the section "1972 election and Paris Peace Accords". Subsequent US withdrawal and ultimate North Vietnamese victory is also described in the article. However, adding "US tactical victory" to the infobox would be a ludicrous amount of undue weight.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
More generally, regardless of the path to victory, North Vietnam won. Get over it.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to add new photo
I'd like to propose replacing the photo of South Korean troops (http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vietnam_War#/Pro-Saigon) or adding the following new photo somewhere so that it appears at the top of the wikiwand page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A_squad_of_3rd_Platoon,_Company_L,_3rd_Battalion,_3rd_Marines_patrolling_along_the_Quang_Tri_River_near_Ca_Lu,_Vietnam_June_1967._Pano_created_by_Rus_Jewett.jpg). On the plus side, it's more representative of US military involvement, a typical day for the "grunts" etc, downside is small file size, but might look good (I won't attempt to add it to the page until I hear opinions). Support at wikiwand states the following: you need to add the picture to the article in Wikipedia (somewhere in the article). Then, in WikiWand, click that picture to open the picture in full-screen. In the top-left corner, you'll see a "pin" icon. Click it to suggest that picture as cover picture. juanTamad 16:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
war crimes should be at least mentioned in the lead
Hi, The fact that war crimes were committed by both sides should be mentioned in the lead. Of course, the details are for later on, but a bare mentioning of war crimes is important to help the reader understand the nature of the conflict. A mention is even more justified by the fact that one of the sides, the US, is a democratic nation founded upon the rule of law. Do other WP war articles mention war crimes in the lead? Yes, the WW II article mentions the Holocaust in the lead, and also mentions the death toll in the Holocaust, and the Algerian War article has a discussion of torture and illegal executions in the lead. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. World War II only mentions the Holocaust even though both sides also commited war crimes. In fact, that war was all about war crimes, and plays a huge part in it, same thing with World War I, and neither mentions it. You can also say the United States was the rule of the law in Korea too, this is no different. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:LEAD, the policy for leads, says that a lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (my bolding added). Well, one of the prominent controversies of the Vietnam War was the war crimes committed by both sides.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're not listening, none of the other wars have the war crimes in the lead, World War II, World War I, Korean War, Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, War in Afghanistan (2001–present), none of them. Also, I agree with User:Anotherclown, this article fails on referencing. I urge you to please check the references in that particular section, because when I looked up the references, they were either misleading or not verified. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- @OnBeyondZebrax: Of course now you are going around and adding it into a number of articles without any consensus. You might want to read the World War II article again. It does not mention war crimes. Regarding the Holocaust, there are allegations by the Chinese that the Japanese committed worse crimes than the Nazis. Like I said, the war crimes are not included in the lead of that article, which were also commited by the Italians, Soviets, and Allies. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is thanks to you that I am going around adding war crimes to the leads of other articles, because you pointed out that, for example, WW I did not have war crimes in the lead. I read the article, and found that it has an entire section on war crimes. A whole section merits a mention in the lead.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- In the Vietnam war article's war crimes section, it is true that there are various sources tagged as unreliable sources. But there is properly sourced evidence of some war crimes being committed by both sides.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- MOS:LEAD, the policy for leads, says that a lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (my bolding added). Well, one of the prominent controversies of the Vietnam War was the war crimes committed by both sides.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Here is my proposed sentences on war crimes for the lede: "A large number of war crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict. North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops murdered between 106,000 and 227,000 civilians in South Vietnam.[1] A US investigation of alleged US war crimes found that 320 incidents had factual basis.[2]"OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Rummelwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Nick Turse; Deborah Nelson (6 August 2006). "Civilian Killings Went Unpunished". latimes.com. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Both sides are going to need to be mentioned then to maintain neutrality. Prominent controversies means if it was a major part of the war, such as, most notably, World War II where it influenced the war crimes tribunal trials, including the Japanese war crimes still being argued to this day. In this case, the use of napalm and agent orange should merit mention, especially as the effects of those are still being felt today, and the unexploded bombs still being found. The Aftermath, Events in Southeast Asia, Effect on the United State, Effects of chemical defoliation have their own sections that are important events that should be mentioned, as well as the Popular culture section that's definitely notable, especially as they also merit their own articles.
- But in my opinion, I don't know why you are so set on adding so much to the lead. Such as in this edit, that's way too much and makes it really hard to read. The intro is long enough already, and there's even talk decrease the intro on the Iraq War and even World War II was recently cut down significantly.
Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- And as said by User:Off-shell a few days ago: "I must admit I don't understand the gain in making lengthy introductions, such as those you did in History of the Jews in Russia, History of the Jews in Ukraine, History of the Jews in France, History of the United States Army, History of the United States Marine Corps. In these articles, the first paragraph gave a concise overview, and then a structured content went step-by-step. When I try to read the current versions of these articles, I feel like just skip the paragraphs 2-4 and go straight to the main content. Let me just compare it to scientific publications. Scientists developed over many decades a style of publication, where the reader can quickly get the main information from an abstract, and then all details are explained in the body of the article. Here is just one arbitrary example, a recent milestone discovery paper in fundamental physics: 1. The abstract is just one paragraph; then all details are discussed in length in the body. This paper was written by a collaboration of several thousand authors! So far, most Wikipedia articles which I saw were built with a similar scheme. What is your motivation in putting so much detail in the lead section?"
- I think Off-shell summed it up perfectly. That makes the lead harder to read than it was before and is just content duplicated from the main body. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The History of the Falkland Islands was my worst effort at creating a longer lead. I gave it a second try and made a nice, short lead. I am proud of the new leads I created for articles that formerly had a one sentence lead, like "American Literature is the literature produced in the United States and its colonies." (or similar), and I created a lead that mentions the major authors and movements. I am proud of the leads for Russian literature and American literature.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The article could simply say " War crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict." This is not going to add much length to the leadOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that History of the Falkland Islands was too long, and that the second try was much better. Anyway, the point is that if World War II, where war crimes are a big part of the events, doesn't include it in the lead, then neither should this, where the sources still need to be improved anyway. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even without the dubious sources, there is still credible evidence that war crimes were committed. That is why I am proposing a simple sentence: "War crimes were committed by both sides."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're just repeating the same thing, and ignoring the rest of the argument. Yes, war crimes were committed in every war. That's why I said even World War II, where it's the most notable, does not include it in the lead. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to do a Request for Comments to see what other editors think about this issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Go ahead, there's not much else to say here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- I would like to do a Request for Comments to see what other editors think about this issue.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're just repeating the same thing, and ignoring the rest of the argument. Yes, war crimes were committed in every war. That's why I said even World War II, where it's the most notable, does not include it in the lead. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Even without the dubious sources, there is still credible evidence that war crimes were committed. That is why I am proposing a simple sentence: "War crimes were committed by both sides."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that History of the Falkland Islands was too long, and that the second try was much better. Anyway, the point is that if World War II, where war crimes are a big part of the events, doesn't include it in the lead, then neither should this, where the sources still need to be improved anyway. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The article could simply say " War crimes were committed by both sides during the conflict." This is not going to add much length to the leadOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- The History of the Falkland Islands was my worst effort at creating a longer lead. I gave it a second try and made a nice, short lead. I am proud of the new leads I created for articles that formerly had a one sentence lead, like "American Literature is the literature produced in the United States and its colonies." (or similar), and I created a lead that mentions the major authors and movements. I am proud of the leads for Russian literature and American literature.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think Off-shell summed it up perfectly. That makes the lead harder to read than it was before and is just content duplicated from the main body. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead state "War crimes were committed by both sides"? OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
NOTICE: Substantially identical discussion has been raised here on Talk:Vietnam War, on Talk:World_War_I, on Talk:Korean_War, on Talk:First_Indochina_War and possibly elsewhere. Please centralize discussion here, including any concerns for specific treatment of specific wars. Alsee (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose: I don't think of war crimes as one of the most critical historical lessons from this war. The lede is long already. But I might change my mind if sources were brought that declare war crimes had this significance. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed, and a good example of critical historical lessons in World War II being influencing the war crimes trials and tribunals.
- And OnBeyondZebrax started the same threads on the Korean War and First Indochina War after this also, so please offer your thoughts on those as well. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Extending my comment to the lede in all war pages (thanks, Alsee): still oppose. However unjust these crimes, we're driven by sources, only. We would require multiple WP:RSs give war crimes as one of the top defining historical lessons before this could be included in the lede for any war. Even for WWII, it is the Holocaust, not war crimes in general, that became the historical lesson. All the rest, from Nanking Massacre down to individual rapes by soldiers, should be noted but cannot be in the lede without violating WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The bar for including information in the lede, based on the MOS:LEAD, would appear to support mentioning the Nanking Massacre in the lede for the Second Sino-Japanese War, because it states that "The lead should ...should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The Nanking Massacre has been a prominent controversy, especially in Japan.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Does the Nanking Massacre help define WWII? Myself, I don't think so. But, again, it doesn't matter what I think, or what any of us think, however well-reasoned. We need wide-scope RSs that define any such war crime as a defining attribute of the war. If most RSs do, then we must include it in the lede. If not, then we must not. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- (EC) Okay, changing from WWII to 2nd Sino-Japanese War changes the scope of the significance. I'd say yes, Nanking belongs in the lede there, since I assume getting RSs that confirm that would be easy. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Does the Nanking Massacre help define WWII? Myself, I don't think so. But, again, it doesn't matter what I think, or what any of us think, however well-reasoned. We need wide-scope RSs that define any such war crime as a defining attribute of the war. If most RSs do, then we must include it in the lede. If not, then we must not. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The bar for including information in the lede, based on the MOS:LEAD, would appear to support mentioning the Nanking Massacre in the lede for the Second Sino-Japanese War, because it states that "The lead should ...should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The Nanking Massacre has been a prominent controversy, especially in Japan.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Extending my comment to the lede in all war pages (thanks, Alsee): still oppose. However unjust these crimes, we're driven by sources, only. We would require multiple WP:RSs give war crimes as one of the top defining historical lessons before this could be included in the lede for any war. Even for WWII, it is the Holocaust, not war crimes in general, that became the historical lesson. All the rest, from Nanking Massacre down to individual rapes by soldiers, should be noted but cannot be in the lede without violating WP:UNDUE. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- And OnBeyondZebrax started the same threads on the Korean War and First Indochina War after this also, so please offer your thoughts on those as well. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support with qualifications. I might favor a formulation something like the following. "Civilian casualties were extensive during the war, especially in rural areas. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese used terror and assassination extensively to eliminate opposition and impose their political will on the populace; U.S. and South Vietnam forces caused many civilian deaths with aerial bombing, artillery, free fire zones, search and destroy sweeps. herbicide spraying, and, on occasion, massacres or deliberate targeting of alleged communist supporters and sympathizers." Smallchief (talk 00:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Please also keep in mind the concerns raised in the above discussion as well. Personally, I support OnBeyondZebrax's proposed sentence "War crimes were committed by both sides" being added to World War II only, but that's it. As war crimes are committed in every war, and WWII is the most significant. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Like others I do not see the war crimes as a major aspect of this war, certainly not a defining aspect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: I doubt there's any war in history that doesn't have war crimes (or allegations of war crimes) by both sides. It shouldn't go in the lede unless there's some extraordinary or defining aspect to it, the WWII Holocaust being an extraordinary and history-defining example. I am also not thrilled with OnBeyondZebrax running around adding war crimes into the lede of other articles when other articles clearly do not do this and it was clearly under dispute to do it here. Either resolve the issue here first, or post on those talk pages linking here to broaden the discussion. It's not good to multiply a contentious change across a multitude of pages in a multitude of independent talk-page debates. Alsee (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was not trying to game the system by raising the same contentious issue on multiple Talk pages. This is the first time I have had a content dispute which spanned several articles. In the future I will raise and resolve the issue in a single Talk page. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Two war articles I did not edit the ledes of mention war crimes: the Algerian War (refers to torture) and Spanish Civil War (refers to atrocities committed by both sides.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not exactly. Those two articles list examples and incidences but the word war 'crime' never appears in the lead. Even bombing or simply killing others can be considered torture and atrocities. Furthermore, Algerian War describes it as a complex conflict where the French initially refused to call it a war and treated it as a taboo and Spanish Civil War describes Spain being in a state of anarchy, hence defining both of these wars. Overall in any case, none of the major wars include the general concept of war crimes in the lead. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose here and in First Indochina War and Korean War, war crimes not a defining aspect in any. Mztourist (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Support, but only if the sentence is short and balanced as "War crimes were committed by both sides". I agree with Alsee that it (should be) obvious that war crimes are committed by all sides in any war, however many viewers don't realize the Vietnam War is no different, and they don't know that war crimes were committed by the North Vietnamese communists and not just by Americans. However the intro summary is already long as it is and there shouldn't be a long sentence about war crimes.Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)- Oppose per Mztourist, it's UNDUE coverage for the lede. Secondly, if that assertion were true let's keep it in the sourced body paragraphs, not the lede. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll revise my opinion somewhat by saying that the sentence, "War Crimes were committed by both sides" doesn't tell me much of anything. If we're not willing to put a sentence or two of detail about non-combatant casualties (not exactly the same as "war crimes") in the lead then I would say: leave it out. Of all articles. Smallchief (talk 10:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose, per reasoning of Mztourist. While it can be verified that war crimes did occur, the events themselves were not significant factors during the conflict. We aren't talking genocide level atrocities.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- Qualified Oppose, "War crimes were committed by both sides" seems redundant and too vague to me. War crimes are practically committed by all sides in all major conflicts. But I do believe the case can be made that American war crimes were given more attention by the American public (by the anti-war movement) during the Vietnam War than previous wars (e.g. Korea). It is common that one side highlights the crimes of their enemies, but the opposite is unusual. Vietnam ushered in a new era of concern for civilian causalities and human rights in the US (and the West) which is still with us. So if something about war crimes should be added, I think it should read "Though both sides committed war crimes, American actions were given much attention by the anti-war movement" or something. --Sus scrofa (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose If US war crimes are going to be highlighted directly without any attention on VC ones, i oppose. I already had reservations towards its inclusion because it should be obvious war crimes are committed by all sides in all wars. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support, as per MOS:LEAD, which states that the lead should "...be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (bolding added), taking WP:UNDUE into account as well. Following the MOS:LEAD, prominent controversies, such as the My Lai Massacre should be briefly mentioned in the Vietnam War lead. All of the above comments set a bar for inclusion which is higher than what the MOS:LEAD states.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose You are resorting the repeating the same argument now, despite there being no consensus to your wikilawyering on any article. [13][14][15] Again, none of the major wars mention war crimes in the lead, including World War II. The My Lai Massacre was not a prominant controversy in the Vietnam War and certainly not a defining aspect. Furthermore, MOS is a guideline, not a policy. We go by what balance is reflected in WP:RSs, only. I suggest you drop the stick already. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I am allowed one comment here on the RfC, just like anyone else. I don't see why you seem to be annoyed that I am putting out a short comment in this RfC. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Since you debate the significance of My Lai, here is an RS: the "...massacre, which was later called "the most shocking episode of the Vietnam War",[1].OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- ^ Greiner, Bernd. War Without Fronts: The USA in Vietnam. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2009.
- Not sure how you are going to add the "My Lai Massacre was later called "the most shocking episode of the Vietnam War"" into the lead as a defining aspect, but go ahead if you really want so badly. I'm done with this argument. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was only discussing My Lai for the sake of discussion. Why did you say I am Wikilawyering?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's pretty cool how you replied really late to one small part of my argument. How long do you want to drag this out? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I request the closure of the RfC. I guess a non-involved person has to officially close it.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- It's pretty cool how you replied really late to one small part of my argument. How long do you want to drag this out? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was only discussing My Lai for the sake of discussion. Why did you say I am Wikilawyering?OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure how you are going to add the "My Lai Massacre was later called "the most shocking episode of the Vietnam War"" into the lead as a defining aspect, but go ahead if you really want so badly. I'm done with this argument. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose All wars have war crimes (even those that took place before the concept existed in international law). Undue weight in this case. Intothatdarkness 16:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral. I think war crimes are potentially a legitimate topic for the lead, but maybe the oppose voters have a point when they say that generic statements are meaningless in the larger context of the history of warfare; in other words, maybe every war does have war crimes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support per Smallchief, whose proposed wording is both encyclopedic and accurate history. Jusdafax 03:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Smallchief was opposed if you would finish reading the rest. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as written As has already been pointed out, war crimes are committed by both sides in nearly every war, so this addition would add little information. I would support a short mention in the lede of the most notable war crimes of each war. Smallchief has a good start on the Vietnam war.--Wikimedes (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
"During the Vietnam war both sides killed civilians, both accidentally and deliberately, these have been characterized as war crimes by the other side".Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)