Talk:Vietnam syndrome

message: The article gave the impression that pro-Vietnam-war people made specific reference to the "Stabbed in the back" theory about Germany in World War I, or used the phrase "Stabbed in the back" themselves. There are no citations supporting this, and as far as I can tell, the comparisons to World War I are instead made by those opposed to the Vietnam war. Instead, I moved reference to "Stabbed in the back" to the "See also" section. Andjam 01:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article also gives the impression that 1) the entire American public was against the Vietnam War (which is untrue) and 2) that the 'Vietnam Syndrome' is used in reference to the American public, when it's actually directed towards American leftists and liberals. I believe some major editing is in order. 69.58.249.133 20:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the "Stabbed in the back" reference is not really relevant, and appears to be an attempt at guilt by association. I suggest removing it completely. Also, this article is of very poor quality in its present form and desperately needs work. I will tweak it here and there as time permits, but someone else will have to revise it substantially. --Varenius 21:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stabbed in the back ARGGHH!!!

message: This article appears to me to suffer a rather suggestive bias; at the least, it is repetitive, and ought to be given another round of Wikification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.123.71 (talk • contribs) 1 July 2006
:Feel free to modify the article yourself! Also, what specific problems do you see that need fixing? -Phoenixrod 06:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: polemic

message: I've added two tags to the article: weasel words and not citing sources. I've tried to mark spots in the article that use weasel words like "many pundits". I think the above comments are related. -Phoenixrod 07:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tags

message: Withdrawal of US forces from Somalia was already planned months in advance with the Battle of Mogadishu occurred. This article makes the incorrect (and POV-laden) assertion that the withdrawal occurred because of the US casualties. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Somalia

message: According to the book Manufacturing consent, many large news stories and reporters were infact still very supportive of the Vietnam war.(and the larger indochina war) Even those claimed to be have the lowest opinions of it in "studies" like Big Story from Peter Braestrup from Freedom_House. Even to the point of chastizing the media for negativity while it was being more optimistic than many government sources.88.159.79.223 (talk) 10:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism, like MSM news analysis claimed to contribute to Vietnam Syndrome, while infact supportive of the Vietnam War 

message: This article is completely written from the perspective of war hawks and only quotes proponents for war, using biased terms like "malaise" and presenting the term like an actual syndrome rather than a term coined by conservatives. Opencooper (talk) 14:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This blog-entry by Richard Falk could provide some of the needed material to balance the article. The Weinberger Doctrine (article) has unfortunately similar shortcomings, but is at least available. And there is more....  Ai24 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On Loving the Vietnam Syndrome"