Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 29
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 |
Nick Turse
Hello, I just wanted to know why can't his potential findings be included in this article. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who? Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nick Turse. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- How about telling us who Nick Turse is and what it is that they found - with a link if possible, to the latter. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nick Turse has written several books critical of the US in the war, particularly Kill Anything That Moves... where he argues that US forces systematically killed civilians. I regard him as WP:FRINGE. I would note that User:Volume2KWestOG is arguing on Talk:United States war crimes that US bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, in the Korean War and in the Vietnam War should be listed as war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I would also note that Volume2KWestOG's account was only created on 30 June 2023 but they seem very keen to push some controversial edits. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you qualify his scholarship as "fringe" when multiple peers have praised his work on the american war in Vietnam. Indeed, some have disagreed with him but you're going too far. On the question of war crimes, this is another debate that has no place here. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nick Turse has written several books critical of the US in the war, particularly Kill Anything That Moves... where he argues that US forces systematically killed civilians. I regard him as WP:FRINGE. I would note that User:Volume2KWestOG is arguing on Talk:United States war crimes that US bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, in the Korean War and in the Vietnam War should be listed as war crimes. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC) I would also note that Volume2KWestOG's account was only created on 30 June 2023 but they seem very keen to push some controversial edits. Mztourist (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Nick Turse. Volume2KWestOG (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK now we know who he is, what do you want us to say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Removal of 15 images
Hi all
Recently 15 (if I have counted correctly) images were removed in a single edit https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=prev&oldid=1168990200 I just wanted to flag this edit as it seems like a rather large change to make on such an established article.
Thanks
John Cummings (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- The article still has lots of images, the editor gave a valid reason for removal MOS:SANDWICH " avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other; or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar." If you think some of the images removed where key to the article and should have been retained, you could ask the editor in question for their rationale. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Iran
Iran was also a supporter of South Vietnam and United States in the War. Why isn't that included in the belligerents part of the infobox? Aminabzz (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Use of "Supported by" in the belligerent parameter is deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict. So, the obvious answer to this query is to remove all such entries here - which I have now done. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- There are so many "supported by"s in so many war articles. So all of them need to be removed? Aminabzz (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP is a work in progress and there is no rush. So, sooner or later. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Length
This article is quite long (18k words) and very detailed in places, making it potentially overwhelming for a reader. Some of the details present would be better relocated to subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but as I said in my edit summary: "That an article exceeds some arbitrary length guideline is insufficient justification for adding this tag." As WP:SS says:
judging the appropriate size depends on the topic and whether it easily lends itself to being split up
. Can you be specific about which "details present would be better relocated to subarticles"? It also looks as if you've been placing this tag on many articles in rapid succession. So I have to ask, did you read and considered each such article individually, taking into account breadth of the topic being covered, or did you place this tag simply because of word length? Paul August ☎ 16:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
- I placed this tag because, as it states, the article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As to how to approach fixing that problem, I'd suggest starting with Aftermath and the unsourced content in Legacy, but really the whole article would benefit from a thorough going-through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but you didn't answer my question:
did you read and considered each such article individually, taking into account breadth of the topic being covered, or did you place this tag simply because of word length?
- I do not consider that the breadth of topic of any of the articles I tagged justifies its length. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- So did you tag the articles simply because of their word length? Paul August ☎ 13:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, but you didn't answer my question:
- I placed this tag because, as it states, the article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. As to how to approach fixing that problem, I'd suggest starting with Aftermath and the unsourced content in Legacy, but really the whole article would benefit from a thorough going-through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I tagged the articles because they are too long to read and navigate comfortably; I don't share your belief that word count is completely irrelevant to that consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know that they are
too long to read and navigate comfortably
? (By the the way I never said that "that word count is completely irrelevant to that consideration". What I said was that word count alone is "insufficient justification for adding this tag".) Paul August ☎ 14:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- How do you know that they are
- I tagged the articles because they are too long to read and navigate comfortably; I don't share your belief that word count is completely irrelevant to that consideration. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- The Vietnam War lasted TWENTY YEARS and has EXTENSIVE media coverage and firsthand accounts. You know what's "overwhelming"? Being drafted as an 18 year old kid into one of the most brutal and futile wars of all time. Why SHOULDN'T it be exhaustive? 2603:6010:8C01:257C:E192:8A78:24AC:5E47 (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
- OK, but I think you should know that your apparently one-size-fits-all approach to article length is inappropriate per the part of WP:SS quoted above. In addition when you add this template to an article you should explain, on the talk page, why that article is too long, giving reasons (other than just article size) tailored to that specific article, and including details about where and how the article would be made better by shortening it. 14:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose merging Terminology of the Vietnam War into Vietnam War#Names. This article is very short and should be merged. Parham wiki (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- yea, does seem rather pointless. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Belligerents
The article states that the 'Vietnam War' started in 1955, yet France is not listed as one of the belligerents. 58.7.168.178 (talk) 11:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that says they were still, involved in conflict after october 1955? Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
- The State of Vietnam was a French backed state that existed from 22 July 1954 to 26 October 1955. It was part of the French Union. Officially, French troops were only required to leave by 1956, under the provisions of the Geneva Accords. This is easy information to find.
- The problem here is that the entire wiki page has the wrong name. It should be named "Second Indochina War" and the term "Vietnam War" should redirect to a page on the Second Indochina War, for the sake of accuracy. The "Vietnam War" under the American understanding of the term, begins well AFTER 1955, which is why the page should be renamed.
- We go by what RS calls the war. If RS called it the "ham sandwich war".....that's what we'd call it. And most RS I am familiar with call the Vietnam War exactly that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- By a degree of technicality, France WAS a belligerent in the Second Indochina War, although that status quickly changed in 1956, when French troops were forced to leave the south in April of that year. JaLikei (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Just linking this discussion @ Vietnam Veterans Memorial, as it might affect this article. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the United Kingdom be added under the Belligerents section, perhaps with a "minor involvement" or "supported by" header. Declassified documents suggest that the UK sent SAS teams into Vietnam, as well as providing MI6 intelligence and covert arms supply flights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuskyCriminologist (talk • contribs) 16:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- That is not an wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- No, it is not. However, this book is: https://nuspress.nus.edu.sg/products/the-british-and-the-vietnam-war-their-way-with-lbj. JaLikei (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2023
![]() | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to write about Diems Persecution against as it is not written more then it should of. ForeheadSavingSorry (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done Please put your edit request in a clear Change X to Y format. Loafiewa (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023
![]() | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
NATO was involved in the Vietnam war
203.95.196.244 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Not done It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2023
![]() | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change -> the M60 still could fail to fire at crucial times – spent casings could get stuck inside of the chamber, meaning the barrel would have to be replaced before it could fire again. to -> the M60 still could fail to fire at crucial times – spent casings could get stuck inside of the chamber, meaning the barrel would have to be service before it could fire again. I want to change this because replacing the barrel would be inaccurate as it would more than likely to have the separated or stuck shell removed. look up stuck case extractor for proof most gunsmiths or armorers would have this tool. Jrmhwatkins (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong here. Do you know how to change an M60 barrel? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
The picture of a monument
Hello, the picture of a Memorial with a tank in the front seems to have a wrong caption. It says it's T-54 tank, while the tank looks more like T-55. It has a barrel ejector - those were only on T-55. Also the turret of T-54 has an additional "cap" for the ventilation hole and it's not on the picture. Vladroot (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2023
![]() | This edit request to Vietnam War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dead link in reference 45, the citation for how many New Zealanders died in the war. Gwquinn (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
End of the war date May 7,1975
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.
According to the US government a Vietnam war Veteran is anyone who was in Vietnam waters, air space or on the ground being evacuated until May 7, 1975. Your claim is biased on the faulty end date of April 30, 1975 when the last troops left the embassy. They were not the last troops in Vietnam just the last ones shown on TV. Please change your phony end of war date to May 7,1975 so it matches official US government records.  2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- The war ended on 30 April 1975 with the Fall of Saigon. A date set by the US Government doesn't change that. The Marines at the Saigon embassy were the last American troops in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- You Are WRONG. they were not the last troops out of Vietnam. American ships were offshore even past May 7, 1975 evacuating troops in remote locations and members of the CIA. The war DID not end when the cameras were turned off and the embassy was left wide open for the enemy.  Thats why the official end date of the Vietnam war using official government records is May 7, 1975. you just don't have access that is still sealed by the US government of evacuations between April 30,1975 and May 7, 1975. The last guy out was a member of the CIA and a Marine spotter who were in a remote location. they got out on May 7,1975 at approximately 3 pm Vietnam time.  You need to correct your end date as it is Wrong. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide recognized RS for any change of this nature. That's how this works. Your claiming something does not make it so. Intothatdarkness 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, IP user we don't indulge conspiracy theories here. If RS aren't available it doesn't belong here. Mztourist (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The US government is in a conspiracy to get the end of the war date WRONG buy saying it did not end until May 7,1975????. IF Vietnam veterans are recognized to May 7, 1975, that means they were in Vietnam up until May 7, 1975. IF the war ended on April 30,1975 when the TV cameras were shut off when the embassy was evacuated why are men classified as Vietnam war Veterans for another week?  Because the war did not end clean and tidy men trying to get to the embassy could not as the enemy encircled the city. They had to find radios and contact the ships offshore to get evacuated. That went on for another week. Your ludicrous claim there was a government conspiracy  is beyond belief but no surprise from the children running Wikipedia.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- If you don't have any actual sources (Reliable Sources), nothing will be added to the article. Many of the dates chosen by the US government to demarcate awards are arbitrary and not always grounded in historical reality. Just look at the various Vietnam "campaigns" for an example. The so-called "Comanche Campaign" is another. No historian uses the term, but the Army invented it for unit lineage purposes.
- Bottom line: no RS, no change. Intothatdarkness 17:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Here is this proving Vietnam war operations did not stop and continued until May 7, 1975. if you wiki idiot editors can read and not think it a government conspiracy.
- The US government is in a conspiracy to get the end of the war date WRONG buy saying it did not end until May 7,1975????. IF Vietnam veterans are recognized to May 7, 1975, that means they were in Vietnam up until May 7, 1975. IF the war ended on April 30,1975 when the TV cameras were shut off when the embassy was evacuated why are men classified as Vietnam war Veterans for another week?  Because the war did not end clean and tidy men trying to get to the embassy could not as the enemy encircled the city. They had to find radios and contact the ships offshore to get evacuated. That went on for another week. Your ludicrous claim there was a government conspiracy  is beyond belief but no surprise from the children running Wikipedia.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, IP user we don't indulge conspiracy theories here. If RS aren't available it doesn't belong here. Mztourist (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- You need to provide recognized RS for any change of this nature. That's how this works. Your claiming something does not make it so. Intothatdarkness 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- You Are WRONG. they were not the last troops out of Vietnam. American ships were offshore even past May 7, 1975 evacuating troops in remote locations and members of the CIA. The war DID not end when the cameras were turned off and the embassy was left wide open for the enemy.  Thats why the official end date of the Vietnam war using official government records is May 7, 1975. you just don't have access that is still sealed by the US government of evacuations between April 30,1975 and May 7, 1975. The last guy out was a member of the CIA and a Marine spotter who were in a remote location. they got out on May 7,1975 at approximately 3 pm Vietnam time.  You need to correct your end date as it is Wrong. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Huge text dump of a transcript of an NPR broadcast, hyperlinked later in the discussion
|
---|
|
- So, the US government is not the only thing in the world, what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
- There you go. The whole thing printed out for you simpletons known as wiki editors. My brother was on the USS Kirk and he was inside the 12-mile limit of Vietnam doing rescue operations past your crazy war is over end date of April 30, 1975. The article even tells you the exact day the South Vietnam flag was lowered as May 7, 1975. Thats the day the US government says the war is over. The end of that military evacuation. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- The source url, which would have been more useful than a badly formatted text dump:
- Also, it doesn't say the war ended on May 7.
- Additionally, calling other editors simpletons and idiots is not helping you. (Hohum @) 23:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. IP user you were claiming that there were still CIA agents and a Marine spotter on the ground in Vietnam after 30 April 1975, but all you have provided is information about the USS Kirk (which is already on that page). The evacuation of people and ships from an island that wasn't occupied by the North Vietnamese hardly counts as continuation of the war. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Because idiot the military evacuations of Cia operatives and spotters are still classified. Thye will not be unclassified as long as the people named are still living.  Do you know anything not related to a computer or wiki? 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- This just shows your lack of knowledge and competence. Declassification decisions rarely involve named people still being living. If it did, nothing regarding MACV/SOG (for one example) would exist in a declassified version. Yet it does. Intothatdarkness 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Because idiot the military evacuations of Cia operatives and spotters are still classified. Thye will not be unclassified as long as the people named are still living.  Do you know anything not related to a computer or wiki? 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I dumped it because you simpletons could not find it another way.  And it says right in the Article that it appears you can't read. ON May 7 the ships now flying the American flag entered Subic Bay. When a country lowers it flag that when the war is over.  Even a wiki idiot should know that. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- As noted above, throwing insults doesn't help your argument, read WP:NPA. Your US-centric arguments have no merit, the fact that US Navy ships arrived into Subic Bay on 7 May doesn't mean that was when the war ended. The US wasn't even a combatant at that time and hadn't been since 28 January 1973. The war ended with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on 30 April 1975. As you're clearly WP:NOTHERE go find somewhere else to push your POV. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Once again you are full of shit. Once the Paris peace accords were broken by the North Vietnam invasion of the South Vietnam the US was an active participant in the defense of South Vietnam. Obviously, you are 14 or 15 years old and have no idea what you are talking about. This is no surprise as most Weki editors have the brain power of Communist traitor Joe Biden.  2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, whatever. Mztourist (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Once again you are full of shit. Once the Paris peace accords were broken by the North Vietnam invasion of the South Vietnam the US was an active participant in the defense of South Vietnam. Obviously, you are 14 or 15 years old and have no idea what you are talking about. This is no surprise as most Weki editors have the brain power of Communist traitor Joe Biden.  2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- As noted above, throwing insults doesn't help your argument, read WP:NPA. Your US-centric arguments have no merit, the fact that US Navy ships arrived into Subic Bay on 7 May doesn't mean that was when the war ended. The US wasn't even a combatant at that time and hadn't been since 28 January 1973. The war ended with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on 30 April 1975. As you're clearly WP:NOTHERE go find somewhere else to push your POV. Mztourist (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. IP user you were claiming that there were still CIA agents and a Marine spotter on the ground in Vietnam after 30 April 1975, but all you have provided is information about the USS Kirk (which is already on that page). The evacuation of people and ships from an island that wasn't occupied by the North Vietnamese hardly counts as continuation of the war. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- There you go. The whole thing printed out for you simpletons known as wiki editors. My brother was on the USS Kirk and he was inside the 12-mile limit of Vietnam doing rescue operations past your crazy war is over end date of April 30, 1975. The article even tells you the exact day the South Vietnam flag was lowered as May 7, 1975. Thats the day the US government says the war is over. The end of that military evacuation. 2600:1015:A023:4A1A:F1F7:5F71:4582:E2D9 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
We need sources saying the war ended, not wp:or of sources that just say that some kind of operation occurred after that date. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am aware of no RS for this spurious claim. Just a NOTHERE IP pushing a particular viewpoint. Intothatdarkness 15:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources for the 1975-05-07 date. 1975-04-30 was the Fall of Saigon, but an actual end of an era was proclaimed by Gerald Ford. Here's a contemporary source:
Gerald Ford officially declared America's anguished adventure in Vietnam a thing of the past. In a proclamation ending benefits to veterans in time of war, the President formally designated May 7, 1975 as "the last day of the 'Vietnam Era'".
— Steele, Richard; Norman, Lloyd (1975-05-19). "Ripples from Saigon". Newsweek. Vol. 85, no. 20. p. 36.
And another encyclopaedia:
The South Vietnamese managed to continue their struggle for two more years, but as American aid dwindled, they saw their capital, Saigon, fall on April 30, 1975. It was left to President Gerald Ford to issue a proclamation stating that May 7, 1975, was the last day of the 'Vietnam Era'.
— Girard, Joylon P.; Miller, Randall M., eds. (2008). "Daily Life in the United States 1960–1990". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Daily Life in America. Vol. 4. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 227. ISBN 9780313065361.
You can even read the proclamation in the National Archives at https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/proclamations/04373.html .
In the following year, Congress enacted yet another piece of legislation extending all veteran's benefits to Vietnam veterans serving between 5 August 1964 (later adjusted to 28 February 1961) and, as was later determined, 7 May 1975. A major difference between Vietnam-era veterans and [...]
— Hamowy, Ronald (2008). "The Veterans Administration". Government and Public Health in America. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 305. ISBN 9781847204257.
So yes, reliable sources exist for what this date specifically is, and this article should mention the Vietnam Era. Ronald Hamowy was an emeritus professor of history, so can be relied upon.
Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- These are not necessarily the same thing. The Vietnam era is not the same thing as the Vietnam War (Second Indochina War, what have you). The IP was claiming the May date as the end of the war, while you're talking about something different. Intothatdarkness 20:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Intothat is correct. The US wasn't a combatant in 1975 and so whatever arbitrary date they chose for veteran's benefits isn't relevant to the actual end date of the war. The fighting ceased on 30 April 1975 with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam as thoroughly documented by RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- The US was a combatant after the phony Paris peace agreement was broken in December of 1974 when the North launched a massive attack on the south. The US lost many men before the war ended on May 7,1975. And many men listed on the wall were put on it for war service between January 1973 when the phony peace treaty was signed and May 7 ,1975 when the war ended.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Prove it. The Case–Church Amendment prevented any renewed US involvement in the war, so the US was not a combatant in 1975, rather the US strictly observed the Paris Accords until almost the Fall of Saigon. How many names listed on the Wall between 28 January 1973 and 15 May 1975 [1] were killed in combat in Vietnam? Almost none, they're from operations in Laos and Cambodia (where the air war continued until 15 August 1973 under Operation Freedom Deal, JCRC losses like Cpt Richard Morgan Rees, crashes in Thailand, men lost at sea in the Gulf of Tonkin, non-combat crashes like the 1975 Tân Sơn Nhứt C-5 accident, Operation Frequent Wind and the Mayaguez Incident. Mztourist (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- The US was a combatant after the phony Paris peace agreement was broken in December of 1974 when the North launched a massive attack on the south. The US lost many men before the war ended on May 7,1975. And many men listed on the wall were put on it for war service between January 1973 when the phony peace treaty was signed and May 7 ,1975 when the war ended.  75.192.12.233 (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, the USA was not at war with NV. The war was between SV and NV. Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- The US was not at war with North Vietnam? Then the 58,000 men who died in Vietnam were killed by magic bullets that just appeared and then killed them north Vietnam had nothing to do with their deaths. Just another 15-year-old wiki editor being stupid.  2600:1015:A004:52AD:A0C4:A107:6A6E:14DE (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- So you can't even read then. The US was not a combatant from the date the Paris Peace Accords went into effect on 28 January 1973. Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nope, the US was a combatant, but it was not (officially) at war with NV. SO the war ended when SV fell. Also read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- The US was not at war with North Vietnam? Then the 58,000 men who died in Vietnam were killed by magic bullets that just appeared and then killed them north Vietnam had nothing to do with their deaths. Just another 15-year-old wiki editor being stupid.  2600:1015:A004:52AD:A0C4:A107:6A6E:14DE (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Intothat is correct. The US wasn't a combatant in 1975 and so whatever arbitrary date they chose for veteran's benefits isn't relevant to the actual end date of the war. The fighting ceased on 30 April 1975 with the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam as thoroughly documented by RS. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor I suggest you two cool down. There is no need for personal attacks. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Soetermans read the preceding conversation, the IP is making constant personal attacks to push their WP:FRINGE POV and has already been blocked. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suggesting someone "can't even read then" isn't helping the conversation either, right? Cooler heads prevail. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have maintained a cool head for a long time, while dealing with a barrage of insults from this IP. No-one asked you to get involved in this discussion, so unless you have a view on the issues you're free to leave. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I understand your frustration, but the IP editor isn't going to win this argument anyway, so why not take the high road? Kill 'em with kindness. Now you're being snarky to me for no particular reason. Try to keep a cool head for a little while longer, please. I don't have to remind you that civility is a policy, do I? It's not good for this discussion and you're not getting any sympathy if you start insulting people. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you as an experienced editor feel the need to come in and "both sides" this discussion between an insulting IP and me (another experienced editor)? I don't need to "get any sympathy" here because its obvious to everyone that the IP is a pushing a FRINGE view. I also have no wish to get into a debate with you on civility, so please DTS. Mztourist (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Look, I understand your frustration, but the IP editor isn't going to win this argument anyway, so why not take the high road? Kill 'em with kindness. Now you're being snarky to me for no particular reason. Try to keep a cool head for a little while longer, please. I don't have to remind you that civility is a policy, do I? It's not good for this discussion and you're not getting any sympathy if you start insulting people. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I have maintained a cool head for a long time, while dealing with a barrage of insults from this IP. No-one asked you to get involved in this discussion, so unless you have a view on the issues you're free to leave. Mztourist (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- Suggesting someone "can't even read then" isn't helping the conversation either, right? Cooler heads prevail. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Soetermans read the preceding conversation, the IP is making constant personal attacks to push their WP:FRINGE POV and has already been blocked. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I had been following the discussion for a little while now (long live the watchlist!). You didn't need any help, but maybe I should've voiced my support. Perhaps I'm a Monday morning quarterback in that regard, just now jumping in when you said something. For that I apologise. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Oh, and what does DTS mean here?
- I'd say @Mztourist means Drop The Stick, but I could be wrong. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Intothatdarkness is correct Mztourist (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say @Mztourist means Drop The Stick, but I could be wrong. Intothatdarkness 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
result parameter in infobox
MOS:MIL gives voice to the template documentation in respect to populating the result parameter. The guidance is quite specific about what is permitted. Multiple dot points are not supported. This is also consistent with a more minimalist approach advocated by WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. This is a terrible infobox that needs to be more focused. The misuse of the result parameter is just one issue. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where MOS:MIL says you can't have multiple dot points. Nor does WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE prohibit multiple points in the result parameter. Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:MIL would state:
... should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" ...
. The template documentation is similar. These explicit restrictions are not permissive of populating the parameter with multiple dot points. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)- I don't see where in MOS:MIL it says that, please advise where exactly. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- At WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and/or search using the quote. See also the template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and searching using the quote doesn't bring up any result, please provide a direct link to it. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The nearest shortcut is to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Then look for "infobox military conflict" in curly brackets (like this - {{infobox military conflict}}). If one copies the quoted text (less elipses), goes to MOS:MIL, uses Ctrl-F to search the page and pastes the copied text, it will find the text. I just did exactly that. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. On that basis I'm happy for the result to be simply "North Vietnamese victory" or "See Aftermath". Mztourist (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The nearest shortcut is to WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Then look for "infobox military conflict" in curly brackets (like this - {{infobox military conflict}}). If one copies the quoted text (less elipses), goes to MOS:MIL, uses Ctrl-F to search the page and pastes the copied text, it will find the text. I just did exactly that. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't say that at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and searching using the quote doesn't bring up any result, please provide a direct link to it. Mztourist (talk) 05:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- At WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and/or search using the quote. See also the template documentation. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see where in MOS:MIL it says that, please advise where exactly. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:MIL would state:
History
The Vietnam war 41.116.139.173 (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- yes, what do you want us to say about it? Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Edit Request - Add Taiwan and Francoist Spain
Taiwan should be added to the combatants list in the Anti-Communist grouping. Taiwan sent air support to aid the South Vietnamese and Laotian and small number of troops to help train South Vietnamese soldiers and conduct reconnaissance operations and small raids on the NVA and VC. Taiwan also supplied South Vietnam with rice and machinery. There were at least 250 soldiers from Taiwan who served in The Vietnam War.
Francoist Spain should be added as Supported By under the Anti-Communists in the combatant lists. Franco sent a force of 100 doctors, nurses, and officers to Vietnam to provide medical aid to the American and South Vietnamese forces in Saigon. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pat J. McCarthy, welcome to Wikipedia! One of the guidelines of this online encyclopedia is verifiability: can you provide reliable sources that support that claim? Historians, research papers, declarations, international treaties, that kind of stuff. Thanks! soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Both Taiwan and Spain are mentioned in Vietnam Studies Allied Participation in Vietnam [2]. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Taiwan
- Has a Wikipedia article already about their involvement but here are some sources I found
- - Chinese article by Xinhua News Agency in March 2007 台湾曾秘密参加越战 (Taiwan was secretly engaged in the Vietnam War) detailed the air support and mentioned advisors were sent to South Vietnam
- - Leaflet that was dropped by American forces depicts Taiwanese people planting food to be sent to Vietnam and machinery that was produced for Vietnam
- - Article in The Free World in Vietnam details how Taiwan sent a "POLWAR group" to assist the South Vietnamese in developing successful political messages and psychological warfare.
- Spain - Article in The Free World in Vietnam in 1969 briefly mentions Spain
- - Leaflet 2727 was dropped by American forces in 1968 depicts Spanish Doctors in Vietnam
- - Spanish documentary called Españoles en la guerra de Vietnam
- - Article called Spain's secret support for US in Vietnam written by Paloma Marín
- There is more sources on line but their credibility is not as esteem as these. Pat J. McCarthy (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Using "Supported by" in the infobox is deprecated. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi,
- I'm not sure if you've noticed but the source you've used for Taiwan is PRC state media, perhaps not the best source for this case. Considering the subject I wouldn't consider that a good enough source. Originalcola (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 12 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rreese9515 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ak0124.
— Assignment last updated by Ak0124 (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
May 15, 1975 end of vietnam war.
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.
According to the department of defense the last 41 deaths of the Vietnam war are those personnel killed in the Mayaguez Incident ending May 15,1975. The last 41 names listed on the Vietnam war memorial are those military people. IT time to dump your phony end of war date of April 30, 1975 as it is wrong. 2600:1015:A026:2AD9:16AA:2EA4:F206:6A7E (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Didn't we just kick this around a few months ago? Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- We did. Consensus was to leave it as is since the vast majority of RS use the date used by the article. Intothatdarkness 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be the same IP user as previously, now wanting 15 May rather than 7 May. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- As usual you three idiots never respond to the statement. The statement is the department defense considers the Vietnam war is over on May 15,1975 as the last 41 deaths of the Vietnam war are those personnel killed in the Mayaguez incident ending May 15,1975. The 41 are listed on the Vietnam war memorial. 2600:1015:A026:2AD9:16AA:2EA4:F206:6A7E (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The US was not the only participant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- A clear case of NOTHERE, as usual. Intothatdarkness 13:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- As usual? I didn't even participate in this conversation the last time it came up. Knock off the personal attacks. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the IP, which should be clear if you look at the threading. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's who I was talking to....not you. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- It seems both myself and the IP used "as usual." Apologies. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- no problem. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- It seems both myself and the IP used "as usual." Apologies. Intothatdarkness 16:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's who I was talking to....not you. Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about the IP, which should be clear if you look at the threading. Intothatdarkness 16:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- The US was not the only participant. Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- As usual you three idiots never respond to the statement. The statement is the department defense considers the Vietnam war is over on May 15,1975 as the last 41 deaths of the Vietnam war are those personnel killed in the Mayaguez incident ending May 15,1975. The 41 are listed on the Vietnam war memorial. 2600:1015:A026:2AD9:16AA:2EA4:F206:6A7E (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Seems to be the same IP user as previously, now wanting 15 May rather than 7 May. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- We did. Consensus was to leave it as is since the vast majority of RS use the date used by the article. Intothatdarkness 02:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/ending-vietnam. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
They have been blocked for a couple of days for PA's so let's close this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Which year was 28 January?
In the sentence "In the lead-up to the ceasefire on 28 January", which year is that? I would assume that it refers to the Paris Peace Accords from 27 January 1973. Except, the day doesn't seem to match... although... it might be the same day in different timezones, or something like ceasefire was signed on 27 January 1973, and came into effect on 28 January 1973? 2OO.3OO.2OO.3OO (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)