Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 4

message: Could use a picture of McNamara? savidan(talk) (e@) 08:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: It cites no sources. Is the "further reading" lists texts still to be read or have they all been read and incorporated - some clarification as to sources is needed. Minor things like POV linking (America but not USSR and PR of China in the lead) and weird use of headers. Also it is so big (>100kb) that it's a bit much for one person to read through and evaluate every bit - it might be more suited for WP:Peer Review for a longer list of more specific criticism, in order to help improve the article. Poulsen 07:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: It seems to me that the 'timelines' of U.S. involvement during the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy Presidencies (with the exception of the long, exegetical paragraphs immediately after the Kennedy timeline) are very underdeveloped. I added a expansion request as well as a notice here and on the Expansion Request page. Secos5 17:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would question the whole existance of the timeline sections. They largely duplicate material that can be better covered in either existing sections or additions to existing sections. I've already expanded the original simple-minded timelines but if it goes much further its probably worth creating an entire new page devoted to vietnam timelines. 168.127.0.51 16:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion of U.S. Involvement section up to Kennedy paragraph

message: I have changed "military advisers" to "military troops" and added one external link tooBharatveer 07:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, Manhattan's book seems to propose a radical new theory for understanding the war. Whether one agrees with him or not, this makes his work non-mainstream. Since we don't list any mainstream books on this page itself, that makes it inappropriate to list his book. I noted this in my edit summary. The other two links don't belong either - one I moved to the Tonkin Gulf Incident page and the other was a link to an entry on Amazon.com (i.e. advertising). If you wish to list his book, try Vietnam War (lists)#External links. --Habap 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In reference to the 25,000 advisors, the word describes their task, not their status. They were deployed in small groups (probably from individuals up to a feww dozen) to advise and assist the South Vietnamese. When the Marines landed at Da Nang, they were deployed as combat units, not advisors. While the advisors were in fact soldiers, it is incorrect to describe them as troops, since they would never fight together as a unit. --Habap 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advisors and book links

message: This is no article; it's a book!
I propose an agressive plan to shorten the article. "Back home" attitudes should be mentioned, having its own paragraph not pages of text. Move to wikibooks and build a new article from the existing text.
:I was just coming here to say the same thing.  This article is way, way, way too long.  I'm shocked no one seems to have pointed that out before, considering the importance of the topic.  See articles like United States or World War II for examples of how large and  complex topics can be dealt with within normal Wikipedia lengths, with related articles linked to the main article.  Moncrief 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The Vietnam War was not a short, uncomplicated war, but the most important war of the second half of the Twentieth Century. It was the pivotal conflict of the Cold War, which lasted from 1945 to 1989 and involved countries all over the world. The Vietnam War also grew out of the end of Western colonialism and its replacement by various forms of neocolonialism and eventual independence. The conflict was not limited to Vietnam but extended into Laos and Cambodia. Major players in its genesis and resolution were North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and the Philippines. starkt 12:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, WWII and the Chinese Civil War weren't even in the second half of the 20th century to begin with, and the Korean War was mostly in the first half of the century, too.  Important as the war in Korea was, the war in Việtnam lasted much longer, from 1945 to 1979 - thirty-four years.  It was also, other than the Korean War, the first time the USA had lost a war. --Ionius Mundus 18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While you make some good points, Ionia, the odds probably still are that the VietNam war will, in 100 years or so, be considered a relatively minor skirmish. The major result of the war was to deflate US prestige, more than anything else. Truly, from today's perspective, can it really matter whether VietNam is capitalist or communist? Or rather, whether VietNam is allied with the "West" or "Soviet Bloc," when the USSR is itself a relic of the past? 66.108.144.49 01:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: The Vietnamese Wikipedia titles this page Chiến tranh Việt Nam, whereas this page claims the name is Cuộc chiến Việt Nam. I see references to what is literally the "French War" in the discussion, or the "American War" there and in the first paragraph of the article as well, but neither of these are listed on the page as Vietnamese names of the war. There are some major discrepencies here! 59.112.50.53 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Vietnamese 

message: Why does this article only reflect the anti war movements point of view? Why is wikipedia so liberal? Most articles seem to refer to Christianity, Conservatism, ect. as "the bad guy". Many citizens of America supported the war in vietnam. This article makes it seem like noone did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunoco (talk • contribs) 17:58, 30 May 2006  (UTC)
:All articles are required by policy and guidelines to be neutral. This means an article needs to have either a completely neutral point of view (this is preferrable) or it needs to present both viewpoints and strike a balance between the two. 
:If you find this or other articles to be biased, please by all means help it out and either write it neutrally or present the opposing viewpoint. Be bold! --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is a simply massive amount of extremely POV information that fails to cite sources. I propose that we collect uncited POV information into their relevant sections within the article, verify what we can, qualify, quantify, modify, and/or delete what we cannot, and then go through the article in one massive coordinated search and destroy, (or sweep and clear, if you will) making all neccessary changes that have been agreed upon by concensus. Unless there are extremely compelling reasons, I'm going to start a collection of unsourced claims in a few days.
--Irongaard 02:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Source of all ill will: Unsourced Information 

message: The article states in the "Gulf of Tonkin and the Westmoreland Expansion (1964)" section that 'a few thousand Canadaians' served in Vietnam, however no source is listed.  Does anyone know if there is a source for this?  I don't believe that any Canadian armed forces served in Vietnam, however I do believe that many dual Canadian/American citizens served in the US military in Vietnam.  While these are indeed Canadians in Vietnam, the article makes it sound as though there was participation from the Canadian government, which I don't believe was the case.  Burtonpe 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the figures offhand, but yes, there were Canadians in the U.S. armed force and in Vietnam. They were not necessarily citizens, nor were they necessarily volunteers. Permanent residents aliens could be, and were, drafted. And no, the Canadian government sent no troops. -- Cecropia 06:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is an interesting page which tries to figure out how many Canadians served in Vietnam by various extrapolations. It would seem the number is somewhere between 3,000-5,000, though it could be more since, as the page author notes, some Canadian volunteers listed a US city near their point of entry as their hometown. "Foreign" soldiers in the U.S. Army had no special identifying features. -- Cecropia 06:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have deleted this sentence: foreign nationals from many countries served in the US Armed Forces during the Vietnam War - there is no reason why Canadians should be singled out for special attention; it also gives the slightly misleading impression that those Canadians were actually sent there by the Canadian government, when in fact Canada was legally obliged to maintain a policy of neutrality due to its position on the ICC, Cripipper 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't disagree with removing that statement, which is somewhat confusing in context, but what are your referring to with the "ICC" and how does that impact the fact that several thousand canadians served in the U.S. Army? -- Cecropia 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadians in Vietnam

message: I have left the following message on the user's talk page: 
:Second Indochina War or whatever - Hi - I think you were a little too bold in your rename. The matter had been discussed quite recently on the talk page (linked to discussion above). You should have discussed further and sought concensus before moving. I appreciate your point about "Off of" but I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions takes precedence and "Vietnam War" is hardly ungrammatical. Please review WP:Bold. I will undo your move, pending further discussion to obtain concensus.
--A Y Arktos\talk 20:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent (4 July 06) Page move and reversion

message: I don't think the article should be structured by US presidents; too US-centered.  It would be more neutral to subdivide it by occurrences in the war. 24.64.223.203 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I disagree The fact that John Kerry won a purple heart in Vietnam is something the whole world should care about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myciconia  (talk • contribs) 05:07, 9 July 2006   (UTC+10 hours)
*I do not have a problem with the US involvement in the war being broken down by Presidential involvement.  If it the content on US involvement was to be divided on occurrences, can an indication/elaboration be given of the schema?  An advantage of the US presidential schema is that the chronology is regular.  The policy of involvement US involvement was characterised by the US Government, not necessarily by reaction to the actual events in the war - the Government chose how to respond to those events, they did not have to react that way given the war wasn't being fought on their territory.  I don't see what Kerry's purple heart has to do with the organisation of the article one way or the other - User:Myciconia appears to have missed the point.--A Y Arktos\talk 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The president-based chronology section was thrown into the existing article a long time ago. It didn't originally fit well with the rest of the article, but through various repairs it has been improved. I still dont like it. I think its better to cover the history as sets of years that may/may not line up with the terms of US Presidents. I agree about Kerry's purple heart. The article has become a dumping ground for various people's favorite issues with regard to the war. The entire article should be trimmed down to something more focused. 205.188.117.70 00:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just about any way of dividing up the article would be arbitrary to a certain extent, so I don't object to the president-based chronology. It gives a quick overview of events; the reader can come back later and read other sections of the article for more detail. starkt 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions 

message: I've noticed there isn't much about South Vietnamese military victories, its all about American "victories" here. It seems to me that American authors (Both on wikipedia and other sources) try to portray Vietnamese as weaklings by writing about how the Communist always losing, while the ARVN hardly win anything.
If Vietnamese are weak than Americans ain't no hercules either.
--Canpark 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What if it is actually true that the Americans won most of the battles? Would you still object to the article's saying so? No one here (so far) is talking about going in the other direction and deleting the part of the war summary at the top of the article that claims that the U.S. lost the war. starkt 12:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the West, people believe the American version of the events and disregard Vietnamese opinion in the process, what is "fact" if you don't look at both sides? Some American "victories" are disputed in Vietnam and people don't stop to listen, take the Battle of Ia Drang for example, Vietnamese veterans from that battle felt that history was distorted by the movie "We were soldiers" as America claimed to have fought 2,000+ VPA soldiers. America winning battles is true but numbers is a different matter.  --Canpark 08:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have information that contradicts the conventional view (whatever that is), feel free to include it in the article. starkt 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Your use of the words "the American perspective" implies that there was a monolithic, agreed-upon U.S. point of view regarding the war. In fact, there never was such a point of view. Neither was there a monolithic, agreed-upon Vietnamese point of view. People on all sides of the conflict disagreed with each other. And I doubt that you have the special knowledge or insights that would allow you to confidently state that any one perspective is "almost exactly the truth." At the same time, I would note that Wikipedia's English encyclopedia is mostly written by Westerners, and of the latter, mostly by Americans. So you cannot reasonably expect that the views in this encyclopedia would be representative of views that might be commonly held by government officials in communist Vietnam. Those who wish to find out those views have little choice but to read the literature of communist Vietnam. As for the Americans protesting the war, again we are talking about a diverse group with divergent motives. Your generalizations incline me to believe that you did not live during the period of the Vietnam War and experience the arguments about it in all their complexity during that time. starkt 08:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: While anti-war protesters' motivations were probably all over the spectrum, that would certainly have characterized some protesters. I suspect that it would not explain the motivations of most of the protesters who probably were simply against any kind of violence (and "imperialist aggression"). You may be projecting the current anti-war movements' motivations on the 1960s and 1970s. In the current movement, they seem to simply want to get the Americans home, regardless of the impact on another set of innocent bystanders. --Habap 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you are accurate about Jane Fonda, but I would contend you are incorrect about the majority protesters of the period. They were probably more interested in saving the Vietnamese than the Americans in uniform, whom they villified. This is in stark contrast to the current protests, which (in reaction to the Vietnam experience) the protesters assert that they support the soldiers, but not the war. It was a far different time and a very idealistic movement. --Habap 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The best film on the Vietnam War protests now has an article, The War at Home (1979 film). I highly recommend it, though must admit to having only seen it back in 1987 or so (I tooly k HST 3??, Vietnam on Film, twice while I was a student at MSU). --Habap 16:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend Born on the Fourth of July over "The War Back Home," although the latter is a fine film as well. 66.108.144.49 01:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops....wrong film. I was thinking of another "The War Back Home," about the return of a VietNam veteran. Emilio Estevez's sole outing as a director. I haven't seen the documentary to which you refer. 66.108.144.49 01:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Vietnamese victories

message: In this article, there are only two sentences about Soviet involvement. The Vietnam War was one of the theatres of the Cold War. The Cold War included both the US and the USSR. It just seems there's a lot about why the Americans got involved but not much at all as to why the Soviets got involved or how they helped.
:Feel free to add information. The article is rather weak, so there is a lot of room for improvement. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union Involvement 

message: We need to get citations for rather a lot.
Can we begin with this: "On the communist side, even before the Geneva Accords were signed, Ho Chi Minh had prepared to attack South Vietnam in case unification failed to take place through elections. His preparations included communication with thousands of covert communist agents in the south and the hiding of numerous weapons caches."? Cripipper 18:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to see a source for this. starkt 08:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources