Talk:United States in the Vietnam War

message: :Image:Nguyen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nguyen.jpg

message: I added a paragraph under Vietnamization, 1969–1975 that reflects a document now available from the National Security Archives at Georgetown. This document was declassified in May of 2006 and in my estimation changes the discussion over "who lost" Vietnam. It appears that President Nixon dramatically changed the U.S. game plan from supporting a weak Saigon against a strong Hanoi to supporting a strong Beijing against a stronger Moscow. Rather than editorialize I thought I'd let the document speak for itself. The quote I used is on the last page of the 37 page document. It is labeled as Document 10 on the index page given as reference, and is down-loadable as a PDF file.LarG (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newly available document 

message: removed:
" The morality of U.S. participation in the conflict was a major political issue both in the U.S. and abroad. First, there was the question whether America should have interfered in what was generally considered to be a civil war. Second, was a proxy war, without a clear and decisive path to victory, worth the number of casualties that were being sustained by both combatants and civilians? Third, there was the question how the American military, which depended on the use of massive amounts of firepower (which tended to hold down casualties), could fight a war against an elusive enemy that was often indistinguishable from the civilian population. Last, how could inexperienced U.S. troops (many of whom were unwilling conscripts) be reasonably expected to engage in such a guerrilla war without succumbing to stress and resorting to acts of wanton brutality? Fighting a mostly invisible enemy (who often utilized the civilian population as a shield) that did not obey the conventional rules of warfare, American troops suffered injury and death from impersonal booby traps and snipers.  This could only lead to the kind of fear and hatred that would compromise morals."
not sure that is directly relevant to the massacre itself. It's also quite slanted to a particular point of view.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZubenelgenubiA2L (talk • contribs) 01:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Lai 

message: When reading this article, I became confused (perhaps because of my lack of Chinese history.  Take note of these two time line items:
* February 1946 — The French sign an agreement with China.  France gives up its concessions in Shanghai and other Chinese ports. In exchange, China agrees to assist the French in returning to Vietnam north of the 17th parallel.
* 1949 — Chinese communists reach the northern border of Indochina. The Viet Minh drive the French from the border region and begin to receive large amounts of weapons from the Soviet Union and China. The weapons transform the Viet Minh from an irregular large-scale insurgency into a conventional army.
I would propose modifying the first sentence of the second entry to: "The now communist Chinese reach the norther border of Indochina."  This would clarify the changes that occurred in China between these two entries.  FrankCarroll (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of changes in China 

message: The final paragraph of the section entitled "Search and destroy, the strategy of attrition" is very poorly written.  It reads like a middle school book report!
98.235.176.167 (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: I can't figure out a way to write it any better than it currently is, why don't you try then re-request an edit. Spitfire19 T/C 05:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 98.235.176.167, 8 November 2010 

message: The Operation Grey Cloud section does not cite any sources, is much too detailed given the level of overview provided on the page, and is not relevant to the overall page.
Operation Grey Cloud should be relegated to a reference link in this page, if it is retained at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.58.138 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to remove section on "Operation Grey Cloud" 

message: Why is there nothing in this article about American strategies used in the war which are often regarded as war crimes, like the spreading of Agent Orange, the forced relocation of people and the destruction of villages? This article shows very much an American military perspective on the war. It's a shame. Bever (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody cared to respond to this issue in the previous two years, I added a POV tag to the article. Bever (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead also uses the disputed domino theory (without using the term) as a justification for the American involvement in the war, as a fact: "This would have resulted ..." Bever (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The domino theory import there is, I think, an inference by you and not an implication in the article. BOP concerns and the domino theory were, as I recall without researching, factors in US decisions re more direct involvement. This is probably easily supportable, but whether it ought to be mentioned at that point in the article is open to question. I've wikilinked Balance of power (international relations). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infamous strategies 

message: The article seems to mention just a few specific protests in the timeline.  There is lots of info at Vietnam War Protests, etc. which should rate at least one section given their number, scale and coverage. Facts707 (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: not NPOV - needs more antiwar protest information 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 03:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: United States in the Vietnam War →  – Consistency with Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War 2804:248:FBA9:1A00:C165:4145:6B52:3EDD (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

text: *: who moved this to its current location in the first place. The proposed title is slightly longer, so not automatically better per WP:CONCISE, but I'm not that fussed myself. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 27 May 2023