Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Vietnam War myths)
Former good article nomineeVietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 8, 2004, April 30, 2004, April 30, 2005, and April 30, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

{{subst:trim|1=

Remove unsubstantiated claims in casualties or cite sources. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. Kennedy assumed the office of the Presidency in 1961. Any reference to the Kennedy Presidency with dates prior to 1961 took place under the Eisenhower Presidency. Your introductory paragraph(s) need to be changed to reflect the dates and/or the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.203.216.141 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{}} 64.189.18.53 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what unsubstantiated claims? Mztourist (talk) 07:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same IP with the Khemer/Kumar requests above. Intothatdarkness 11:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. PianoDan (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayaguez Incident true end of the Vietnam war May 15,1975.

[edit]

The men killed and wounded during the Mayaguez incident are listed as Vietnam war causality's according to military government records. The deaths of these men are listed on the Vietnam memorial. Remove the phony date you have of April 30,1975 as the end of the Vietnam war as it is incorrect in every way. That is just the day they turned the cameras off in Sagon. 2600:1015:A004:F190:7920:2CE8:4767:E02A (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page archive as to why we have the date we have, its based on what wprs say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat of this. (Hohum @) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We rely on the consensus of reliable sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the war ended on April 30, 1975 you rely on pure stupidity.  2600:1015:A004:F190:1FEB:5B45:A6C3:7B78 (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you contact the RS we used and get them to change it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you contact the families whose sons died in the Mayaguez Incident and tell them the wiki decided April 30, 1975 is the end of the Vietnam war.  While the US government says they are Vietnam veterans killed in action during the Vietnam war. so obviously according to wiki their names should be removed from the Vietnam memorial and all the Vietnam awards they received should be returned.  2600:1015:A004:F190:F07C:8D8D:B48A:66C8 (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mayaguez incident was a fight between US and Cambodian forces, in Cambodia, after the fighting in Vietnam had ended. It had nothing to do with Vietnam. Ed Moise (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US forces fought in Cambodia all the time during the Vietnam war. Are you now saying that no US military was ever in Cambodia and the fight in Cambodia on May 15 ,1975 was the first time? 2600:1015:A025:FEDC:EB84:BCDD:711F:645A (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not saying those things.
"All the time" is a slight exaggeration. US forces fought occasionally in Cambodia, not very often, up to 1969. They were fighting Vietnamese forces, and this was definitely part of the Vietnam War.
US forces (usually the US Air Force) fought a lot in Cambodia from 1969 to 1973. For most of this time the US operations were directed mostly against Vietnamese forces. Even in 1973, when US operations were directed mostly against Cambodian forces, they were directed against Vietnamese to a significant extent. This was definitely part of the Vietnam War.
Then there was a period of almost two years, from August 1973 to May 1975, when US forces were not fighting in Cambodia.
Then in May 1975, after the war in Vietnam had ended, US forces fought Cambodian forces in Cambodia. This had nothing to do with Vietnam, and I don't regard it as part of the Vietnam War. Ed Moise (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K6ka http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A2600%3A1015%3AA026%3A2AD9%3A16AA%3A2EA4%3AF206%3A6A7E Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Lies about the US not being in Cambodia prior to May 15, 1975, during the Vietnam are easily disproved as the Cambodian Campain happened April 29 to July 22 of 1970. It was a direct action of and during the Vietnam war as was the Mayaguez Incident. 2600:1015:A000:8DA6:CD08:67A2:37AD:CBF8 (talk) 05:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall anyone saying that, all that said was this incident was long after the US had left the Vietnam war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the US government says. The US government says it was a Vietnam war action and people killed during the battle are on the Vietnam war memorial. 2600:1015:A000:8DA6:CD08:67A2:37AD:CBF8 (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Try locating and posting RS to support your claim. Intothatdarkness 17:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
read the names on the Vietnam memorial thats all the RS you need. 2600:1015:A000:8DA6:475F:181C:E62B:DDE (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That this marked the official end of the war, note it has to say something like" the Vietnam war ended on ...". Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2024

[edit]

Can you added in the belligerents that the Kingdom of Sweden supported North Vietnam? 42.2.152.193 (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not without the source you did not provide. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification

[edit]

Because the article states that this was officially a war between North and South Vietnam, I think we should change the sentence "This made it a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union" to "This made it both a Vietnamese civil war and a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union". Akysky (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Vietnam, we have always been propagated by the government that this was the war of the Vietnamese people against the invading American imperialists, not a proxy war and not a civil war. But yes, based on this article, the sentence can be changed like that, so I agree with you. 101.99.6.247 (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support Akysky's proposed change. Mztourist (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, can you fix? Akysky (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am Vietnamese and I do not believe in what the current Vietnamese government propagates about the war. 222.252.20.54 (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Block evasion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to the article above, not only Cambodia helped FULRO in the Vietnam War. So I think we need to fix the paragraph about FULRO in info box. Abaotabao (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let's read United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races. Abaotabao (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the two articles you just mentioned, you are right. 222.252.20.54 (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow a new IP with no other edits turns up immediately to support the proposal...Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No change needed, FULRO was a sidenote that is more than adequately addressed on its own page. Mztourist (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do we need to change? Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think what that person means is that it is necessary to add other forces that supported FULRO because it was not only Cambodia that supported this organization during the war. 2402:800:9BB6:2765:83E:DAF0:9848:C90B (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's another sock. They have a particular interest in this page, and access to a lot of different IP ranges - I doubt we've seen the last of them. Girth Summit (blether) 11:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and Taiwan

[edit]

Did Spain really participate in the war directly when it only sent a very small number of advisers and medical staff? If it is true that Spain participated in the war, it should have been listed in the Belligerents section. Furthermore, according to infobox, Taiwan participated in the war, but why don't I see the data on the country's manpower participating in the war? 1.54.212.31 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2024

[edit]

The photo of Bảo Đại and Hồ Chí Minh in the First Indochina War section was taken in September 1945, not 1 June 1946. In fact, Bảo Đại gave up his position as supreme advisor to the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam after going to China to work on 16 March 1946; he stayed in China. So time in the photo is wrong. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]

You need a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on the photo and you will understand. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
I did and it does not, you need to back up your claim with RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Commons states that this photo was taken in September 1945. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
Here is source, I hope you can read Vietnamese. https://vietnamnet.vn/nghe-thuat-chieu-hien-dai-si-cua-chu-tich-ho-chi-minh-2144768.html 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
Another source for you. https://www.nongthonvaphattrien.vn/chu-tich-ho-chi-minh-va-co-van-vinh-thuy-a4135.html#:~:text=Ng%C3%A0y%2016%20th%C3%A1ng%203%20n%C4%83m,ngo%E1%BA%A1i%20giao%20v%E1%BB%9Bi%20n%C6%B0%E1%BB%9Bc%20ta. 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]
No I can't read Vietnamese, and I am unsure these are RS (well one maybe, but am unsure it supports the claim about the picture), so can anyone confirm the date this was taken? Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is from Wikipedia Commons: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bao_Dai_and_Ho_Chi_Minh.jpg#mw-jump-to-license 42.113.161.192 (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (sock strike)[reply]

Recent revert

[edit]

@Intothatdarkness: What is the reason for your revert in Special:Diff/1263432945? I made this edit because "Direct US military involvement" is ambiguous (could mean supplies, training, advisors, etc. instead of boots-on-the-ground), and because "greatly escalated from 1965 until 1973" can be interpreted as a continuous escalation over this period, when in fact the number of US troops peaked in 1969 and then declined. — Goszei (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because your wording is not an improvement. Both direct ground forces AND military aid to ARVN increased after that date. Direct military involvement captures the whole situation much better than your wording, which just implies ground units. And while troops may have dropped off, there were increases in air assets as well as supplies and aid to ARVN after 1969. Intothatdarkness 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]