Talk:Vietnam War casualties

message: "Hispanic" was not a common label until the 1970s and the 1980 census. Most Hispanics - especially Mexican-Americans - would have been classified as "white" in the military. Therefore those numbers are highly suspect. 
72.191.185.14 (talk)
:Good and interesting point. Please provide us with some kind of documentation and reference to what you say, then it can be used in the article. RhinoMind (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hispanics

message: How do people feel about adding additional detail, breaking down casualties by year (like here http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html) or month, or geographical area, or presenting sums from major battles?  Should that sort of thing be on this page or additional pages?  Is going into excruciating detail (for example, attempting to list every single US soldier KIA) appropriate for wikipedia?  
Wsacul 17:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some attempt to tally the North's pogroms against civilians here.[] Mporter 09:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Detail

message: To improve the article, it would be nice to have as many deaths as possible attributed: i.e. how many civilians and how many combatants were killed by US, north vietnamese, etc. forces.
Jens Nielsen 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  attributing casualties 

message: The figures, at least for US casualties, don't agree with those in the main Vietnam War article.  The biggest discrepancy is wounded: 153,303 there, 128,000 here.  Can anybody fix these? — MikeG (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement with other articles 

message: US casualties don't appear to be listed on this page. Why not?
:They seem to be listed now, but maybe we should agree on some consistent numbers? (from the article):
Casualites as of November 7 2001:
* 58,209 KIA and other deadStatistical information about casualties of the Vietnam Conflict, US National Archives
* 303,635 WIA (including 153,303 who required hospitalization and 150,332 who didn't)US Military Operations: Casualty Breakdown
* 1,948 MIAThe Vietnam-Era Prisoner-of-War/Missing-in-Action Database, Vietnam-Era Unaccounted for Statistical Report, CURRENT AS OF: November 7, 2001, Library of Congress
Country	Branch of service	Number served	Killed	Wounded	Missing
USA    	Army             	4,368,000    	38,218	96,802 	617  {A}
       	Marines          	794,000      	14,840	51,392 	242{B}
       	Navy             	1,842,000    	2,565 	4,178  	401{C}
       	Air Force        	1,740,000    	2,587 	1,021  	649 {D}
       	Coast Guard      	             	7     	59     	0 {E}
       	Civilians        	             	      	       	38 {F}
       	Total            	8,744,000    	58,217	153,452	1,947
Note: Footnote # 1 gives breakdown of Casualty by Branch of service as follows:
Army-38,209; Marines-14,838; Navy-2,555; Air Force-2,584; Coast Guard-7. Total:58,193. As of 12/1998
Originalname37 (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US Casualties

message: There are no refrences for this article.... and this is the sort of article needs them! please add some if you have time. Ahudson 16:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  refrences? 

message: It seems to me that many of the discrepancies in VPA/VC casualties could be explained by differing chronological scopes for various estimates.  The absurdly high figure of 1.1 million Communist deaths could very well be referring to every VPA and VC combatant killed from 1945 to 1989 - as I recall the press release in question is a very vague three-line French affair.  For all I know ARVN troops are lumped in there too.  It is doubtful that this figure refers specifically to the period of American involvement in Vietnam. Kensai Max 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I looked at a document purporting to be the Agence France Presse piece the other day and it was remarkably scrappy. No source for the figures at all. Not at all what I'd expect from a news agency of their calibre. One other thing that struck me was that the combined total of dead and wounded for each side is virually identical. I suppose this reflects better casevac, treatment etc in the south. ROGER TALK 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: High Count, Low Count

message: The U.S. section says there were "58,209 KIA and other dead", but I don't see that number in the given source.  Also, the MIA link appears to be dead now.  Superm401 - Talk 09:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States Armed Forces 

message: Should we perhaps try to list every individual casualtie we can as well? --67.162.31.148 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals

message: Rummel is over used in this and other articles on the Vietnam War,this article just seems to be one Rummel observation after another. I lost count of how many times his name is mentioned in this article. Seems someone had a Rummel book for Christmas. It would be a good idea to list other sources as there are many around.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummel 

message: The reference http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB6.1A.GIF (used five times in this article) is not a source, but a list of sources. In the foonote should be indicated which specific source (plus page nr.) is referred to.S711 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: vietnam news of the war how did it effect the troops?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.154.116 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  the effect of the news and the troops  

message: The article states that US forces killed 2 million civilians during the war; however, the source says only that 2 million citizens were killed TOTAL in the North and South. I am therefore removing this part of the section because it is not supported by the source until a credible number can be found. Anytus (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 million were directly killed, but much more died from other effect. Agent orange, for example, caused major health issues, and destroyed mass areas of farmland, causing chaotic famine and disorder. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties caused by US forces 

message: I personally congratulate [redacted] on a perfectly [redacted] article full of pro-US bias, and figures and statistics, even the most historically well known ones, completely twisted to their liking. But this is the usual [redacted] people should expect from this "high standard encyclopedia" I suppose. Long Live America!--Propaganda328 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Redactions by Fences&Windows 22:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Do you have a specific criticism? I.e., a number that is wrong? If so, please correct it. This is your encyclopedia..---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know... maybe they left out the little fact that 3 million vietnamese were genocided by the US.--Propaganda328 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you seriously believe that an editor on Wikipedia will earnestly consider any source questioned by the U.S. government as reliable? Don't dream it. Go ask Jimbo Wales "I know a few sources that the U.S. government doubts. Are those sources good on their own?" Get my point? Bottom line is, it the U.S. government doesn't agree with those numbers, Wikipedia wont put it on regardless of how many times hell freezes over. Forget it. Let it be. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Assuming the number of casualties according to Guenter Lewy or any related historic revisionist is right, is fundamentally wrong and a mistake. It is biased for the singular fact that "America in Vietnam" is also biased and justifies war crimes or war involvement among other factors... This article should be more objective... Luisa Valencia (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

text: What does WP mean? Smallchief (talk  16:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Just Wikipedia for short. There are several Wikipedias, and its a bit tiring writing Wikipedia over and over again. RhinoMind (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Smallchief (talk  21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Article.... 

message: 1178 US soldiers died in the last 24 years?
From your own source, in the past 28 years only 71 US soldiers died, so wtf. Also over 50,000 white people died, it says about 48,000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.27.224 (talk) 07:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information, your math is wrong 

message: Shouldn't there be a total number? Casualties on all sides including civilian. Maybe even including post-war casualties due to famine, injuries and such.
The total number is what I was looking for and it's not mentioned anywhere. Even a ballpark figure would be better than nothing. Is it 500.000 or 5.000.000 or 15.000.000?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiedirkx (talk • contribs) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total number 

message: I have added a section under that title as there was not one before but an editor seems to think that it is not needed. If there are sections for deaths caused by North/VietCong.South Vietnamese military then obviously there should be a section for the American military as they were the major power in the actual war, not to have one seems strange to say the least and also I feel biased. Maybe others would like to explain their reasons for not having a section for deaths caused by the American military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You copied text about a CIA/South Vietnamese counter-insurgency program.  The title you proposed is both not directly related and beyond the scope of the material.  You should not have reverted again; your edit-warring and refusal to assume good faith is very disruptive.  The deaths caused by American bombing were covered already, and you have not demonstrated the need for such a section in the first place.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you missed that the US Military were involved,it states that clearly on the wikipage for that program and in the piece I put up for starters.The title I proposed is there because there is no section named to that effect where as there are sections for Deaths caused by the South Vietnam Military and deaths caused by the North/VietCong military,so therefore there should be a section called Deaths caused by the American Military unless you want to get rid off all the other sections for the South and North. The Americans killed plenty of people there so they should have their own section, I find it weird that they have no section as they killed the most people in that war.The deaths caused by American bombing that is just below that section is for deaths in North Vietnam not south where the deaths caused American military section is. You accuse people of edit waring when that is exactly what you did, so you are edit waring and being disruptive by deleting a section that should be there for dubious reasons.Zrdragon12 (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are absurd.  The Americans killed significantly fewer people than either the North or South Vietnamese.  You are not adhering to the BRD cycle and have contributed nothing to this discussion except for personal attacks.  The section covers the PP, and there is no need to give it some inexplicable name.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments are certainly not absurd at all. The fact is that the debate here is why there is no section called Deaths caused by the American Military when they did cause deaths obviously. There are sections named Deaths caused by South Vietnamese military and Deaths caused by the North Vietnamese/Vietcong, so why not one about the Americans? I see no good reason to delete the section about the Americans and your argument has been feeble to say the least.The section at this present time covers the PP but I am going to add more info as I have already stated in my edits.How many people the Americans killed is neither here nor there and not part of this debate at all, you are grasping at straws. First off you claimed that the US military were not involved in the PP and you were wrong,then you claimed that deaths by American bombings are covered in the section below but that is for North Vietnam not the South Vietnam section and now you are on to the Americans killed less than the rest, all of your arguments there have nothing to do with what is being debated.You have a cheek claiming that I have personally attacked you as well, as I have not. It sure looks like you have no real argument for not having a section named Deaths caused by the American Military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your own tendency to go off on tangents necessitates that I reply to unrelated assertions.  I never said the US military "were not involved" in the PP.  I questioned why the primarily South Vietnamese-run program would be attributed solely to the US military.  As for the bombing of North Vietnam, deaths caused by the American military do not cease being deaths caused by the American military because of a border.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not gone off on any tangents, I have described my arguments all the way thu and it has been the same.The North and South forces both have sections of deaths caused by them so why is there not a section of deaths caused by the American military. If anything you are the one to have gone off on tangents.Also you did say the US military was not involved in your edit..and I quote:"The PP wasn't the American military". You are back on the bombings again, I have already explained it to you once. The bombings are in the section for deaths in North Vietnam and thus have nothing to do with sections about deaths in South Vietnam where I have put the deaths caused by the American military section.I see no good reason from you that there should not be a section for deaths caused by the American military.Zrdragon12 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deaths Caused by American Military section 

message: I think we should keep a balance on the pictures, we have at the moment I believe too many showing Viet Cong atrocities and need to lose some. We have the massacre at Hue,a terrorist attack and  Đắk Sơn Massacre. For the Americans we have My Lai and for the south we have the bombing of the village with the kid running naked so there is clearly a need for a NPOV to cut down on the VietCong ones or add more of the Americans and South Vietnamese which will just be too many pics altogether.Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The massacre photos and VC bomb photos balance out the American/South Vietnamese attack photos already installed in there. Ironic how there's a call to cut down Viet Cong atrocity photos and even add more American/South Vietnamese attack photos, when there's no call to cut down on American and South Vietnamese attack photos, THAT in itself is POV... Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do they balance out? There are many more of them, it you wanted to balance it out then you would have the same amount not more.Why should we cut the American/South photos? There are two of them,one for each side so that is hardly a lot,one each.You have put too many Viet Cong ones in so be nice and remove some or I will.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: VC and North Vietnamese photos account for 1 side, and in total there's 3, the Dak Son, Hue, Saigon. The South Vietnamese and US account for 1 unified side, with the My Lai, napalm, and dead VC photos, another total of 3. That's equal. Boat People occurred immediately after the war. Deleting of well-sourced material is called censorship, which is against Wikipedia values. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's three of each.  Let's just leave it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Killing soldiers is not an atrocity. You have posted 3 atrocity photos for the VietCong but we only have two for the Americans/South, the other picture is for the Tet Offensive(Soldiers killed in an attack). So please remove one of yours. There are not three of each.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Twisted logic. 2 people against 1, so is that clear enough?? Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "One of yours?"  I haven't added any photos.  Why don't you just replace your "non-atrocity" photo with an atrocity photo if you feel that strongly about it?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nguyen, two against one? Well we know how that happened,because you ran to his talkpage to ask him to come here.If you do not want to remove one then I will add one.Zrdragon12 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this "legit" target mean we've lost our "balance of atrocities"?  I know you're very concerned about precise mathematical equivalence....TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  US embassy is a legit target, full of US military and CIA operatives. The source states that it was an attack on the US embassy in retaliation for US bombings in North Vietnam, that is the source and all I am doing is reproducing that source. The previous description was incorrect and a POV issue,accusing the VietCong of attacking just a residential street when actually it was the US embassy.You might not like it but those are the factsZrdragon12 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Try again, this time actually responding to my question instead of rambling off-topic.  Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the balance is fine, the boat people make up for it.You really have nothing to talk about here on balance,as I remember you did not even want a section for deaths caused by the US military which states exactly what your function here is.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me ZDragon, please go to the South Vietnam article and see the caption for that Saigon bombing photo. It does NOT say US embassy on there, it says a "residential area". Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not need to as I went to the source and it says that it was an attack on the US embassy,try reading it.I checked the the actual picture page and it says the US embassy as well.Zrdragon12 (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

text:  Here is a link to the picture page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scene_of_Viet_Cong_terrorist_bombing_in_Saigon,_Republic_of_Vietnam.,_1965.jpg 01:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're violating WP:AGF.  Note that I have discussed everything with you here; I have stopped reverting or editing the main page altogether.  I just asked a simple question; there's no need for personal attacks.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just telling it like it is. Do you deny that you argued against having a section about deaths caused by the US military? Anyway it would be hard for you to deny it as it is just above this section.I would assume good faith but the evidence is against you. I mean how long have you been editing this article? A long time I expect and not once did you think to put in a section on deaths caused by the American military. Anyway if you think that I have attacked you then I apologise.Zrdragon12 (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Inclusion of sources that have not been properly written is causing this article problems. So please write your sources out properly so that they are not just raw url's. Also when adding a PDF file as a source I suggest putting in a page number so all can see what is actually being referenced. You added a 113 page PDF for your claims about NVA/VC wearing civilians clothes,do you expect everyone to wade thru 113 pages of a Rand report to find what you have sourced?Zrdragon12 (talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is just about him, it would be more appropriate to discuss it on his talk page.  However, as mentioned, the citations for Rummel are seriously screwed up as well.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well I guess it can apply to everyone who edits here but I have spent some time sorting out his raw links into something readable.The Rummel figures are a real pain and not just the sources. Zrdragon12 (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki editors sources

message: Obviously this is a fairly new term,probably arrived since the Iraq war in conventional use.To be insurgents you need to be fighting against the recognised government of a country. South Vietnam was not recognised by the UN at all. Vietnam was divided in the 1954 Geneva accords on a temp basis until 1956 when elections should have been held. The Americans and Diem did not want elections held as Ho Chi Minh would have won them so they set up the South Vietnam state. The people fighting against that were Vietnamese so they were not insurgents against any recognised government,it was a civil war that had been going on since the end of WW2.Please provide you thoughts or evidence that states otherwise
The Geneva Agreements, which were issued on July 21, 1954,[11] carefully worded the division of northern and southern Vietnam as a "provisional military demarcation line",[12] "on either side of which the forces of the two parties shall be regrouped after their withdrawal".[12] To specifically put aside any notion that it was a partition, they further stated, in the Final Declaration, Article 6: "The Conference recognizes that the essential purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary"..Zrdragon12 (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: An insurgency is an armed rebellion against a constituted authority (for example, an authority recognized as such by the United Nations) when those taking part in the rebellion are not recognized as belligerents.  Zrdragon12 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term Insurgency

message: These figures cannot be suppressed as coincidental to the war's result.  The sources cited clearly link them.  It's not as though people were going on boats for a vacation; the entire ethnic Chinese community was expelled and forced onto the boats.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chinese were expelled due to the Chinese Viet war not because of the Vietnam war.You changed the title heading and that title heading excluded them, now I see you have changed the title heading again Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Zrdragon, not only Chinese-Viet people fled the country, many Vietnamese civilians, who had no ties to the Saigon govt, fled too, look at Little Saigon for example, so all of a sudden i'm Chinese-Vietnamese??? Nguyen1310 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was expressing an opinion on the other editors claims that ethnic Chinese were expelled,I was pointing out that was after the Vietnam war and had to do with the war with China. I thought I put it simple enough for anyone to understand.Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not saying that.  However, he is defending the expulsion of the Chinese.  Zdragon, would you defend the internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not try to put words in my mouth, I have not defended anything. You brought up the ethnic Chinese and I point out that they were removed because of the Chinese Viet war not the Vietnam war.Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By any standard, these were post-war deaths related to power consolidation by the communist regime.  Removing the facts and then reminding us that China wrongly attacked Vietnam seems like apologetics.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole talk page thing comes down to you changing the head titles so that things that were already in there did not then fit the head title description. So if you had not done that then there would be no debate. Now that you have again changed the head title to one that encompasses the boat people I see no point for further discussion. The famine had two references in two sentences in one section, I removed one because two were not needed obviously, you and your buddy kept putting it back for no good reason so then I left it there and removed the other one.Now what is there is fine since you made a compromise.So do not come here like I am in the wrong when you caused all the problems Zrdragon12 (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boat people and famine 

message: "Stumink (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,676 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (Vandalism really. This to clarify that the 26,000 figure includes NLF operatives, informants and supporters, not just civillians. This is sourced."
Is it sourced?  Ogden Reid, a member of a congressional committee investigating Phoenix in 1971, "if the Union had had a Phoenix program during the Civil War, its targets would have been civilians like Jefferson Davis or the mayor of Macon, Georgia." 
It targeted civilians NLF operatives, informants and supporters, they were the civilian infrastructure of the Viet Cong government.Would you actually like to see the original declassified documents that state who they were targeting? I got them. Zrdragon12 (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts to Phoenix Program

message: Who is trying to omit the Cambodian and Laotian deaths from being listed here? First it was attempted not to mention them. Then when they were mentioned some idiot decided to pretend it was just a civil war. I somehow don't think the person is too stupid to know it's ridiculous to characterize a war that involves at least two if not more countries as just a civil war. The only conclusion one can take is that person or persons is doing it in order to commit historical fraud.
Whoever it is you better give it up cuz you won't succeed. Wikipedia has explicit rules and rewriting history is simply not allowed. We will not stand for it and you not get away with it. That means just as the holocaust casualties are mentioned in the world war two causalities page, likewise ALL casualties of the Vietnam war should be and shall be mentioned HERE!!!   Loginnigol (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was from the banned user Zrdragon, who, out of their pro-Communist POV and defence of everything communist, and antagonism towards everything capitalist/democratic, deleted numerous, i mean numerous, things that were criticAl of the communists during and after the War, esp. on VC atrocities against North Viets, South Viets, Cambodians and Laotians etc. I would try my best to look into this and put the appropriate things back to where they were. BTW, 2 massive edit wars occurred on this article over such behaviour, see the revision history for yourself... Nguyen1310 (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of you sound crazy.  The Cambodian and Laotian civil wars were never mentioned in the entire history of this article until Loginnigol brought them up, and they are commonly described as civil wars even though they were part of the broader Vietnam war.  There's no vast conspiracy, and Zrdragon was not to blame.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Get your facts straight. I'm talking about not civil war but the Vietnam war that without any doubt spilled over to the neighboring nations of Cambodia and Laos. By that I mean BOTH Vietnam AND the United States were fighting EACH OTHER (notice neither are Cambodians or Laotians so it's laughable and absurd of anyone to attempt to dismiss that as "Cambodian civil war" and "Laotian civil war". That is like subtracting holocaust victims outside Germany from the total and dismissing that as "civil war". Loginnigol (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cambodians and Laotians fighting each other were, in fact, responsible for most of the bloodshed in the Cambodian civil war and Laotian civil war.  Not Vietnamese or Americans, at least not directly.  Likening the war to the Holocaust is truly nonsensical.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know why you are adding multiple wars and adding up all the victims. I'm talking about the Vietnam war and THAT WAR directly spilled all over Cambodia and Laos. That's all I'm talking about. Nothing more, and absolutely nothing less. Loginnigol (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comment suggests little historical understanding.  You either count these civil wars as part of the larger Vietnam war, or you do not.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's good enough for WWII page is good enough here 

message: Nguyen, how about reading Greiner's book instead of googling? You may start with the Kindle preview, where you find the killings I listed mentioned in the Introduction. Greiner's main sources are the Vietnam War Crimes Working Group and the Peers Commission.Cortagravatas (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you'll have to report us both, although I don't see how you could characterize our edits as vandalism.  You seem to want to challenge Rummel's "democide" estimate, but it applies only to a small fraction of war-related deaths, which he characterizes as intentional murders. Please do not combine other sources with Greiner, as this violates Wikipedia:SYNTH. I appreciate that you trimmed your propsed text, but it was still a monster to insert directly into the middle of the "US military" section. I would add that the US section should not be significantly longer than the South or North Vietnamese sections.  If you refuse to move this content to the "specific incidents" section, then at least trim it more and add it to the end of the "US military" section rather than attempting to integrate it with the rest of the text. Thank you for your good faith contributions,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cortagravatas, please explain how the removal of speculative content, like the "who knows how many VC prisoners were tortured/killed" part (which the VC and NVA have also committed rampantly against ARVN, US, ANZAC prisoners and anti-communist civilians in both South and North VN), and the highly apologetic tone in the mentioning of several US-committed incidents in the deaths of civilians/suspected VC (which the VC/NVA have committed even more times, on a larger scale, against civilians in South VN cities, towns, villages) constitutes me committing vandalism? At times when reading that section, it felt more like POV speculations and apologetics and attempts to advance a position than anything meaningful. These rather small incidents are blown out of proportion when considering many larger incidents committed by both sides occurred. If such incidents with those many deaths are added in here, which are actually really small incidents when compared to others in the war, then i should be adding a long list of VC/NVA-committed incidents as well. Remove the speculations and the apologetics and the highly pro-communist, anti-American tone in that section, and cutting it down to make it concise and focused on major, important incidents rather than a gigantic super-paragraph, then it should be okay. Otherwise, consistently trying to readd that section in its recent form will compel me to report for POV. Nguyen1310 (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The massacres are covered in "specific incidents".  Please add any relevant, non-repetitious content there.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The notion that certain countries committing war crimes are more serious, and thus should be given more focus and weighting, than crimes committed by other countries/forces in a war is wrong. Focus and weighting should be increased on sides/countries that commit more atrocities, in number of incidents and in scale, not according to which democratic or which authoritarian country committed atrocities. This type of mindset, that war crimes/incidents committed by (democratic) Americans are worse than crimes committed by (authoritarian) NVN/VC, basically fuelled the anti-war movement, forced the withdraw and cutting of aid to RVN (while the North's aid was uninterrupted), caused the South to fall, and forcing 1.5 - 3 million Boat People to flee their homeland from communist rule, not to mention continued oppression, human rights abuses and corruption from the current communist regime. The idea of the My Lai massacre, committed by US troops, that resulted in ~300 (suspected covert VC) dead is somehow far worse, more appalling, than the Hue Massacre, committed by the VC and Northern army, resulting in up to 6000 estimated dead (incl. anti-communist/fleeing civilians, intellectuals, business people, foreign residents like West German/American professors, religious people esp. Catholics, along with RVN government personnel and ARVN soldiers) is a serious injustice. It's similar to a comparison in saying that Nazi-caused atrocities (like the Holocaust or deaths caused during the Blitzkrieg over Britain) is not as serious, or "better", than the deaths caused by Allied aerial bombardment of German cities killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. I hope you can see the absurdity of this kind of logic there, especially from myself who came from the city of Hue, and is frustrating to hear every time someone tells me the Americans/ARVN/My Lai are worse than the VC/NVN/Hue Massacre. No one, in their right mind, should be letting certain parties in a war, esp. those who have slaughtered more innocent civilians, get off "easier" and deserve less attention to their crimes, while overly demonizing certain other parties. Aside, as a correction, South Vietnam isn't authoritarian as what many Westerners believe. The South, politically, is what i call a flawed democracy or a quasi democracy. Yes, it often invoked martial law and often had to use special powers to quell unrest in the country and to fight against the VC, but some other basic freedoms were generally respected, like freedom of movement, to a degree freedom of speech (provided that opinion isn't pro-communist), to a degree freedom of religion (provided that these dont get out of control), cultural freedom, and economic freedom, unlike the North. Try having anti-war protests in the North or complimenting the South and you'll find yourself accused of being a counter-revolutionary or traitor and sent to a gulag. Everywhere you go in the North, even if just village to village, you need a special police permit and they'll interrogate you intensively before permitting it. Art, music, film, drama must be revolutionary, communist, pro-war in nature - love songs and romantic movies/books are prohibited unlike in the South. Private business and private property ownership is illegal, and if you try to do it, you'll be accused of being a capitalist, bourgeioise, landlord, and executed or sent for hard labor (look at their land reform where 50,000 to 200,000 perished). And another question, was there an exodus of refugees during the (so-called American puppet) South's existence, or after the (so-called nationalist) communist's takeover? Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions by Cortagravatas

message: * [] (derived info from credible sources like the VN Centre Archive)
* [], from Time Mag, for adding in here and Hue Massacre article
* [], VC repression, may find smtg in there for this
* [] - more links and material, excl. ones from Porter
* [] - probably not qualified as a source, but its contents can be searched up and viable sources support that content can be added in here
* []
 Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info sources for later analysis and addition into this article - when time becomes available 

message: Given the substantial ammount of credible sources in the book, could it be used as sources?--Zeraful (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are your fingers broken? PraetorianFury (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kill Anything That Moves: A Real American War In Vietnam 

message: The historical correct name of the war at hand is The Second Indochina War. The war has many other names, like the Vietnam War in USA and parts of the west and The American War in Vietnam and south-east Asia. Since Wikipedia (en) is an international project and strive for neutrality and balanced information, writers are encouraged to use the name The Second Indochina War. 
RhinoMind (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but this is not the place to argue that point. Current consensus is to use the term "Vietnam war".TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Can you point to how this consensus came about and who made that decision. I want to know, not to argue. Hope you can help RhinoMind (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I can't, but I assume the consensus exists because Vietnam war is the name of the article. The rationale presumably is that most English-language sources use that term.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I hoped you could have cleared some of the clouds. I guess the primary place to discuss this issue is on the page Terminology of the Vietnam War at the moment. It is not just a 'battle of words' so to speak. Let me explain: If we adopt the term the Vietnam War, it is not clear why the civil wars in Cambodia and Laos is included. the US bombed (and sprayed?) Viet Cong in the Cambodian and Laotian jungle as part of the Vietnam War and that should definitely be included though. Maybe other acts of war happened there in direct relation the war in Vietnam as well, but I am not aware of them right now. RhinoMind (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The correct name of the war 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vietnam War casualties. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.quangngai.gov.vn/quangngai/english/homepage/20128761658_1995/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Vietnam War casualties. 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/20150118011608/http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm to http://www.mrfa.org/vnstats.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722140810/http://www.imhc.mil.kr/imhcroot/upload/resource/V27.pdf to http://www.imhc.mil.kr/imhcroot/upload/resource/V27.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130726010609/http://vietnamwar.govt.nz/resources to http://www.vietnamwar.govt.nz/resources
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524214218/http://www.virtualarchive.vietnam.ttu.edu/ to http://www.virtualarchive.vietnam.ttu.edu/
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) 02:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the specific incidents section really necessary? Almost all of them are covered earlier in the page and we could just do a See Also to List of massacres in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is that things get stated once only, more than once is POV. Mztourist (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific incidents - delete? 

message: I have raised the issue of the WP:RS of a purported Vietnamese Government document detailing North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties at WP:RSN here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties together with a suggestion as to how such document, if accepted, should be presented. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties  

message: IP 113.189.175.11 is edit-warring, making changes to the page in relation to PAVN/VC missing here:  which based on my Google translate is not supported by the (already questionable) underlying document. IP 113.189.175.11 must follow WP:BRD and discuss the issue here or should be blocked for edit-warring. Mztourist (talk) 07:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing and recent edits by IP 113.189.175.11 

message: Per the article. https://www.thedailybeast.com/lost-souls-the-search-for-vietnams-300000-or-more-mias
"The Vietnamese government puts the number [of officially missing] at 300,000, but the actual number of those whose bodies were buried in anonymous graves or never found and buried at all is widely believed to be closer to 500,000. " 
article is not about how "unclear it is" how such and such numbers connect to anything else. this is drawing conclusions about something which isn't stated and clearly misrepresenting the article. 
:just to clarify; the only issue seems to be using the article to prove a point which it doesn't draw. it doesn't 'discredit' any source as the original wording seems to suggest.
::A bicyclette, you have tried raising this argument before. The current wording formulation is correct. It is unclear how the Vietnamese government figures deal with the missing which number anywhere between 300,000 and 500,000. You claim that the Vietnamese government figures include missing when they clearly don't. Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know why you keep calling me a bicyclette. either way; you are drawing an WP:SYNTH from what isn't there. it isn't meant to discredit anything as you suggest, Joseph Babcock merely stated a position. i suggest getting a neutral editor to read the article and settle it. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I honestly ask why you are so obsessed with these little things? Like, what does it personally mean to you? I find it strange since I'm just looking at you spending basically your entire time reverting edits by virtually everyone on every page. And that's all you do. You make no effort to reconcile anything with anyone, its either your way or no way.216.209.50.103 (talk) 09:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so obsessed A bicyclette? You have tried directly and through socks to blurs the facts surrounding PAVN/VC casualties for the last two years. Mztourist (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither that person you are talking about, nor am I doing what you suggested I am. You should actually re-read the article you cited. Its pretty clear you are taking sources to create a narrative which it doesn't support. You spent your holidays getting into edit wars with people but its easier to just reconcile a point. 216.209.50.103 (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette Mztourist (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit Citing Joseph Babcock Article 

message: Moyar was wrong. 849,018 dead are INCULDING the number of missing. I'm Vietnamese, and I see he was wrong when translated Vietnamese source. See this first data, which Moyar translated - http://datafile.chinhsachquandoi.gov.vn/Qu%E1%BA%A3n%20l%C3%BD%20ch%E1%BB%89%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A1o/Chuy%C3%AAn%20%C4%91%E1%BB%81%204.doc
+ Liệt sĩ hy sinh trong kháng chiến chống Mỹ: 849.018 liệt sĩ. - In Vietnamese, "liệt sĩ" = dead + missing, not only "dead" (in Vietnamese, "missing" = "liệt sĩ cần tìm kiếm quy tập"). "Theo số lượng thống kê, đến nay số hài cốt liệt sĩ cần tìm kiếm quy tập còn khoảng 207.000, tập trung ở những địa bàn vùng sâu, vùng xa, hiểm trở, việc tìm kiếm rất khó khăn do thiếu thông tin..." - 207,000 are number of missing, and they were counted in "liệt sĩ" (849.018 total)Cucthanh (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This has all been discussed previously and the page (before your changes) reflects the competing claims and the consensus. This is a contentious area that must be discussed here per WP:BRD. Don't WP:EDITWAR the page. Mztourist (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the page's history. This is the first change - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War_casualties&type=revision&diff=1120762057&oldid=1120455398 - 8 November 2022, Nihlus1 added missing figures, but he didn't discuss for this change. He quoted Moyar's book, but I found he was wrong when translated Vietnamese source. So, I fixed this figure as of before 8 NovemberCucthanh (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: See the conversations above and read what the page actually states. Your insistence that we should rely only on the Vietnamese Government's official position is not accepted. Are you back again User:A bicyclette? Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Your insistence that we should rely only on the Vietnamese Government's official position is not accepted" - but in fact, Moyar's figure was translated from Vietnamese Government's data (this link i quoted).  If Vietnamese Government's official position is not accepted, Moyar's figure is not accepted, too. Moyar used to Vietnamese Government's data is not matter, this matter is Moyar was wrong when he translate Vietnamese Government's data, because he don't understand the VietnameseCucthanh (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That document you link is dated 2020, not 2017, explain that first. Also where and when was it WP:PUBLISHED? It doesn't satisfy the requirements for a WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is Moyar's book quote: "Chapter 17 index: "Communists provided further corroboration of the proximity of their casualty figures to American figures in a postwar disclosure of total losses from 1960 to 1975. During that period, they stated, they lost 849,018 killed plus approximately 232,000 missing and 463,000 wounded. Casualties fluctuated considerably from year to year, but a degree of accuracy can be inferred from the fact that 500,000 was 59 percent of the 849,018 total and that 59 percent of the war's days had passed by the time of Fallaci's conversation with Giap. The killed in action figure comes from "Special Subject 4: The Work of Locating and Recovering the Remains of Martyrs From Now Until 2020 And Later Years," downloaded from the Vietnamese government website datafile on 1 December 2017..." - This is exactly this link I quoted - http://datafile.chinhsachquandoi.gov.vn/Qu%E1%BA%A3n%20l%C3%BD%20ch%E1%BB%89%20%C4%91%E1%BA%A1o/Chuy%C3%AAn%20%C4%91%E1%BB%81%204.doc (Chuyên đề 4 CÔNG TÁC TÌM KIẾM, QUY TẬP HÀI CỐT LIỆT SĨ  TỪ NAY ĐẾN NĂM 2020 VÀ NHỮNG NĂM TIẾP THEO. In Vietnamese, "TỪ NAY" = "From now", or the time this document was upload, or 2017)Cucthanh (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what Moyar's book says, it was published so can't be changed, unlike your Vietnamese document which was not WP:PUBLISHED and so is not a WP:RS. Your entire argument is based on a flawed document and so has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrong. This link is Vietnamese Government's website. In wikipedia, Government's document IS PUBLISHED and REALIABLE sourceCucthanh (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be changed then its not PUBLISHED. The Vietnamese Government is not a reliable source for its own casualty figures because that is a sensitive issue for them and there is extensive Censorship in Vietnam. Mztourist (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Moyar was wrong