Talk:1975 spring offensive

message: the title should be changed to Spring Offensive as Ho Chi Minh Campaign is a part of the Spring Offensive, along with Battle of Phuoc Long, Battle of Buon Me Thuot and Hue-Da Nang Campaign.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trần Ái Quốc (talk • contribs) 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The name is wrong

message: In Vietnam the Ho Chi Minh campaing only appeared from 26th April to 30th April. The war com plexion from Battle of Phuoc Long to the 30th April was actually named "The 1975 Spring Campaign" or "The 1975 Spring Total Annihilatation and Uprising". Thus please change the name of this article. 137.132.3.6 (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the name

message: The Conclusion section makes pretty wild claims about the causes of the final collapse of the military, including blaming ARVN officers for desertion. These claims are substantiated by a writer (Isaacs) who is neither a military historian nor a strategist, and has previously made discredited claims about allocation of resources to the South Vietnamese military. This article is badly biased and should not be locked. Who is responsible for it?
Sonnybobiche (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies 

message: This section needs to be cleaned up. The grammar is quite terrible  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.50.104 (talk) 03:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammatical errors 

message: :File:NVA pose for picture in Presidential Palace at end of Vietnam war.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at :File:NVA pose for picture in Presidential Palace at end of Vietnam war.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-free file problems with [[:File:NVA pose for picture in Presidential Palace at end of Vietnam war.jpg]]

message: Giap has just died, and is currently in the Recently Died section on Wikipedia's Main Page. This well-referenced article on the 1975 Spring Offensive currently has only one mention of Defence Minister (and Vietnamese national hero) Vo Nguyen Giap (referring to 1973) and the article on the Fall of Saigon currently has no mention of him (and neither of the Talk sections of these two articles mentioned him before now). Giap's biographical article has a 'Fall of Saigon' section with 3 or 4 unreferenced claims implying that he more or less directed the entire campaign. I think these claims are wrong or at least rather misleading, and I have put in citation requests in the article and a comment on the matter in that article's Talk Page. But I'm no expert on the subject. Perhaps some of you experts out there might be able to supply reliable citations to either confirm or deny or qualify those claims. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role or non-role of General Giap 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1975 Spring Offensive. 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/20060615200421/http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2000/0400saigon.asp to http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2000/0400saigon.asp
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) 15:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "[On the 11th March 1975], the day of the fall of Ban Me Thuot, the US House of Representatives had rejected the $300 million supplementary military appropriation bill which President Ford had attempted to push through Congress. It was now crystal clear the South Vietnam, unlike the invader from the north, was on its own and could count on no further aid from the US." -Guenter Lewy, America in Vietnam (New York, 1978), pp.211-212.
Is this a suitable citation? I ask because I haven't edited a page before and I don't know if this is a good enough reference to back up the 'dubious' claim at the start of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.188.13 (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'dubious' claim re: cut in congressional aid to south vietnam 

message: I have a problem with the opposing forces section of this article. Paragraph 3 of this section details the deleterious impact that reductions in US aid had on the South Vietnamese army, e.g. only 85 bullets per soldier per month, etc.  However, the last para mentions the enormous haul of arms and ammunition the North Vietnamese captured when South Vietnam was defeated.  That seems contradictory: not enough ammunition vs vast amounts of ammunition captured.  In my opinion that's a problem in the article that needs to be fixed. Smallchief  (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Did South Vietnam run out of bullets?

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: They were officially still separate from North Vietnam, supposedly under their own political leadership. 5.173.41.12 (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They were always part of the PAVN and played no major role. Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various problems with the infobox include the complete lack of VC