Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

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]

Spain absolutely did deploy military assets, albeit on a small scale. The infobox was inconsistent with showing their strength, but not listed as a party to the conflict. Fixed.--Surv1v4l1st TalkContribs 03:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provide RS that support this. Mztourist (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article already had this cited. Added additional.--Surv1v4l1st TalkContribs 17:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Defections in Battlebox

[edit]

Defections

According to the Chieu Hoi program, 101,511 defections occurred. This is a significant figure itself to warrant inclusion, and also due to the sectarian and political nature of the war. The number may be higher as well as the program only ran from 1963-1971, and did not cover the post US-involvement period.

This may make up a portion of the the official military missing if they were not known to have defected by the North/NLF, under the 'military missing' label.

Either way, I recommend modifying the Casualties section to include defections, included with the 232,000 military missing as '232,000 military missing'(with up to 100,000 defections), or as a seperate figure over '100,000' defections (including officially missing)'.

Second, the final tally should then be changed to reflect this as dead/missing/defected.

See as Ref:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R1172.html

70.51.244.161 (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure this adds anything, other than a complication. Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Viet Cong"

[edit]

"Viet Cong" is a derogatory term used by US and South Vietnam forces. The correct name for the fighting force is "Viet Minh." This should be changed to the correct name. Kolodzodo (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Viet Minh dissolved in 1955; you have no idea what you're talking about. The official name for the organisation in the south was Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam. Yue🌙 00:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm wrong about the proper name. But Viet Cong is derogatory, it only takes a quick google search... Kolodzodo (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how its offensive. Googling it turned up [1], which suggests that the term was being used in the Vietnamese press years before the war and has a complex history. The official name of "National Liberation Front of South Vietnam" is a mouthful, and isn't something that most folks would recognize. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME applies. Mztourist (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kolodzodo this is your 6th edit ever, your last edit was 12 years ago... Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Viet Cong" means Vietnamese Communist. The label was basically accurate; the Viet Cong were in fact a Communist organization. They pretended to be a coalition including some Communists, but not controlled either by the Communists within the group or by the overall Communist leadership in Hanoi. That was pretense. The label "National Liberation Front" was the one that I regard as deceptive.
The US and the Republic of Vietnam thought of Communism as evil; they intended "Viet Cong" as a derogatory label. But the Viet Cong thought Communism was good, so from their viewpoint the label would not have been derogatory, just politically inconvenient. Ed Moise (talk) 05:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Similar arguments being made at Talk:Viet Cong#Viet Cong is an extremely derogatory term in referring to the force, don't you think ?. It looks like some Vietnamese accounts are trying to perpetuate the myth that the VC were a Southern populist movement, rather than a branch of the Communist party/North Vietnamese military. Mztourist (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME should cover this.--Surv1v4l1st TalkContribs 05:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

[edit]

I need to check only for some purposes Emirates380 boeing (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the box "the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." Your request does not comply with that. Mztourist (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Total strength numbers

[edit]

They do not give an accurate depiction in the infobox. If official total military casualties for the North Viet side exceeded 1 million, then by all logic their total military strength would have to be larger than 800,000. The strengths seem to give a "snapshot" of the North Viet side at one point in the war vs the total involved across the entire war for the South Viet side. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Change Spain to Francoist Spain

[edit]

In the combatants box, modern Spain is listed instead of Francoist Spain, which was the government active at the time. I request that this may be changed for accuracy. 130.156.142.240 (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

[edit]

Ar8toce shoudl be made more concise! 2603:8002:BF0:14A0:A558:445C:9CBC:5BB6 (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid suggestion but not an edit request. Yue🌙 08:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petition to delete the background section

[edit]

Should we delete the background section as it is making the article too long,and has a weak connection the the main topic of the “Vietnam War”? Jguywiki (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, its necessary context for the war. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is about historical context. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's a necessary component. Intothatdarkness 11:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]