Talk:Paris Peace Accords

message: The treaty signed in January 1973 is little different than the treaty that Henry Kissinger proclaimed he would sign during October 1972, prior to the presidential election. Also, if you read the letters from Nixon to Thieu sent during January 1973, you will learn that Nixon says "either sign or I will sign a unilateral agreement with North Viet Nam...and if I sign a deal with just North Viet Nam, I will terminate all aid to South Viet Nam." Moreover, don't forget that Nixon had recently played his "China card" and had recognized the government of China. Viet Nam was noose around his diplomacy whereas China offered great political rewards. And regardless of Nixon's long history of loudly beating the drum against communism, he was more than anxious to embrace China if it would salvage his career. Dick Nixon like Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu, Nguyen Khanh and Nguyen Van Thieu, was only concerned about his career and mythical place in history. Nothing else mattered and that is the reason all ended in history's garbage heap of deposed dictators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vietnamtopsecret (talk • contribs).
----
Attention: This article is horribly biased, the entire third and fourth paragraphs need to be edited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchup4cabra (talk • contribs).
----
"The treaty's terms were unpopular with many in Diem's Southern government."
In 1973, the president of the South Vietnamese Government was Nguyen Van Thieu. Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated in a coup in 1963.
I would like to edit to fix that mistake.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.22.73 (talk • contribs).
Le Hoai Viet
This article pretty much tells it like it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.248.80 (talk • contribs).
This article is amazingly biased. It also needs more about the actual talks. The Commie agitprop that is the summaryn of the war should be deleted or moved to the Vietnam War page. This page shoudl be about the acutal talks in Paris.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.223.116 (talk • contribs).
------------
The article is not only biased, it is *horribly* written and woefully inaccurate. I've just read the 7/31/06 New Yorker article on Wikipedia. This article is one of those that justifies the remark by one critic that "Wikipedia is to Britannica as 'American Idol' is to the Juilliard School." One example: "Negotiations between National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger had been proceeding with little success since 1968." Between Kissenger and WHOM? Inaccuracies and oversimplifications are many, not just the result of shading the article in an anti-American sense (I opposed the Vietnam War from '62 on), but out of ignorance, for example: "Despite superior fire-power, the U.S. was not winning the guerilla warfare because the Government of South Viet Nam was not supported by the people, as it was always a military dictatorship with revolving door leaders." This is nonsense. Ngo Dinh Diem (a civilian) was president of South Vietnam for many years until deposed and murdered by a U.S.-encouraged military coup on Nov. 1, 1963. There was then a succession of ten military governments over the next 17 months, until a government headed by Nguyen Van Thieu (chief of state) and Nguyen Cao Ky (prime minister and head of the S. Vietnamese Air Force) took power in June, 1965. This government remained in power until the end of the American involvement. 'Nuff said? REWRITE IT FROM SCRATCH. 69.144.100.154 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then fix it yourself, please.  This is Wikipedia.  Be sure to cite sources.  Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Article should contain a section on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the criticism that "irony is dead" in America, as demonstrated when Kissinger accepted the prize while fighting was indeed underway.  Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nobel Prize

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: Recently User:Armando Navarro, who has a reasonable-looking contributions record, added a new subsection under Paris peace talks, headed "Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations" and containing the following:
and citing the following references:
Anon user User:70.54.3.70 removed this addition here with an edit summary reading, simply, "Alleged".
The addition was heavily cite-supported (perhaps too heavily, style-wise), and I nearly reverted on that basis. I thought, though, that I would take a quick look at some of the cited supporting sources. I picked [12] to start with, since it seems to support a very straightforward assertion. That cite contains a link which it says is to page 198 of an online book preview. When clicked, the link navigates to page 246 of that book. Both pages 198 and 246 are previewable, and neither seems to contain anything relevant to the point needing support. Page 243, however may contain some relevant material.
So, I've left the removal of the section unreverted and have moved the material to this talk page. I don't plan to do anything further on this myself. I'll leave a note about this on User talk:Armando Navarro. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After the restoration, I notice that reference [12] in the edited article still says, "... p.198. ...", with a clickable link which still navigates to page 246 in the book preview. Also, there seem to be some square-bracket problems because the square-bracker is a wikitext markup character—e.g., [[[Richard Nixon]]], [KC Johnson Robert|"KC" Johnson], [[[Lyndon B. Johnson|Johnson]]], and [[Eisenhower]’s chief of staff] were probably meant to render respectively as something like (Richard Nixon), Robert "KC" Johnson, (Johnson), and (Eisenhower’s chief of staff). There are other instances of a square-bracket being used to parenthesize things, and it would probably better overall to adopt a consistent convention of using round-parens as parenthesizing punctuation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got some problems with this.  I've stated it at the nixon article, and I'm saying it here.  These matters were Johnson's suspicions; Nixon denied them.  I see nothing that makes it clear that there is an established historical fact.  Yet AN's addition not only so alleges, but states as fact that a crime was committed, and presumably the serious crime of treason.  Please remember that there are Nixon aides still alive; there might be a serious BLP issue here.  I suggest that this be eliminated, or at the very least toned down considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations 

message: * Technical problem on [12] is now fixed.
* FBI wiretaps, Johnson recordings, Chennault statements, etc, cannot be brushed aside as « allegations ».
Armando Navarro (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After the restoration, I notice that reference [12] in the edited article still says, "... p.198. ...", with a clickable link which still navigates to page 246 in the book preview. Also, there seem to be some square-bracket problems because the square-bracker is a wikitext markup character—e.g., [[[Richard Nixon]]], [KC Johnson Robert|"KC" Johnson], [[[Lyndon B. Johnson|Johnson]]], and [[Eisenhower]’s chief of staff] were probably meant to render respectively as something like (Richard Nixon), Robert "KC" Johnson, (Johnson), and (Eisenhower’s chief of staff). There are other instances of a square-bracket being used to parenthesize things, and it would probably better overall to adopt a consistent convention of using round-parens as parenthesizing punctuation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got some problems with this.  I've stated it at the nixon article, and I'm saying it here.  These matters were Johnson's suspicions; Nixon denied them.  I see nothing that makes it clear that there is an established historical fact.  Yet AN's addition not only so alleges, but states as fact that a crime was committed, and presumably the serious crime of treason.  Please remember that there are Nixon aides still alive; there might be a serious BLP issue here.  I suggest that this be eliminated, or at the very least toned down considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for restoration 

message: Did the U.S. Senate ratify the agreement?  If not, the U.S. was not bound by the agreement, so ratification is a pretty significant piece of information to include in the article.Wikimedes (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to , the administration never asked the Senate to ratify it.  I added mention in the lead that it was not ratified, though probably a better source could be found.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ratification? 

message: What is the relationship between the "Paris Peace Accords" and the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam"? 
* Were the "Accords" the negotiations in 1973 specifically that led to the "Agreement?"
* Should the "Agreement" be described in the same article as the "Accords"?
* Should a different article describe the Paris peace negotiations from 1968–1973?
Let's sort this out. Also see: Talk:Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. groupuscule (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/Rename/Divide/?? 

message: Rather than just arguing back and forth, I think it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems to me that we have two basic options with respect to this section:
# We can provide a straightforward summary setting out the basic facts of the incident/issue, along with a brief discussion of the controversy that has surfaced in later years, OR
# We can provide a bare-bones summary as a section of this article, linking it to a separate article that more fully explores both the incident and the surrounding controversy.
In any event, Conrad Black hardly qualifies as a neutral source, so if his views are to be cited, they will need to be balanced by others. Cgingold (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not apply to source's opinions, as you well know. If alternative quotes exist from sources of comparable stature, it is on you to find them, not others to meet your vague demands under threat of edit warring. I am, however, sympathetic to the proposal of a simple summary. Note well that you cannot have it both ways.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion resumes

message: Is anyone able to locate a map showing the 1973 ceasefire line? Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My self-produced map of the approximate areas of control by the communists and South Vietnam is in the article.  I don't know of a better map. Smallchief (talk  13:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of ceasefire line 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paris Peace Accords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041209132535/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon-vietnam.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon-vietnam.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With no reference explaining that title, it seems like a hacking.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:500:B200:4D27:5D40:890B:64AC (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title above illustration: Paris Peace TORTOISES? 

message: The map in this article is from 65-67 and notably shows control of a number of areas that were not under northern control at that point.2607:FEA8:13C0:225:DDC6:FC18:E60C:3914 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map is old (as per the map image itself) 

message: Quite confusing all these Paris Agreements and Paris Peace Agreements and Paris Peace Talks. Shouldn't we add a note on both articles. cf. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords are not to be confounded with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements And visa versa? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a 'Note section" not to mix this up with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements - Comprehensive Cambodian Peace Agreements?