Wikipedia

Talk:Vietnam War#<Ref> problems with this article need fixing

Former good article nomineeVietnam War was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 21, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 8, 2004, April 30, 2004, April 30, 2005, and April 30, 2006.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Slightly crude sentence in the lede.

[edit]

"Direct US military involvement escalated from 1965 until its withdrawal in 1973."

If I was a reader who don't know much about the Vietnam war, that sounds like the US sent in combat units in ever-increasing numbers until, in 1973, they suddenly turned about, marched to the sea and left. That is not exactly what happened, and I don't think that is what the editor who wrote that sentence intended to say.

Possible replacement sentences could be: "Direct US military involvement escalated from 1965 until 1968. In 1969 began a gradual withdrawal of US combat units that ended in 1973 when the last US ground forces left."

Or something like that. As you can tell, english not my native language (I am from Sweden). 212.247.23.74 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Direct US military involvement escalated from 1965 until 1968. In 1969 a gradual withdrawal of US combat units began that ended in 1973 when the last US ground forces left." 212.247.23.74 (talk) 19:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading your title and the sentence in the article I thought you were talking about the sexual implications implied in the sentence. LOL. US military involvement escalated before 1965. I think the first sentence of the replacement language should read. "Direct U.S. military involvement escalated from the early 1960s until 1968." Smallchief (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I see your po
int. But by "crude" I menat "constructed in a rudimentary or makeshift way". 212.247.23.74 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And If you want to say that "Direct U.S. military involvement escalated from the early 1960s until 1968" say it in your own voice. Don't try to use me as a proxy. 212.247.23.74 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to change the article, I'll do it. I don't want or need you as a proxy for what I might do. Smallchief (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontrollable Word Amount

[edit]

There are 17,488 words (this is all according Word Counter), 1 and 37 hours to complete, someone has to do something about this. Additionally, there is 300 paragraphs, 400 sentences, 100,000 characters and is made (together) by a college graduate. 2407:7000:8E29:5600:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agent orange

[edit]

User:Ngn bb: I don’t think putting Agent Orange in the Women section was a good idea. It should be in the subsection “Effects of U.S. chemical defoliation” instead. But keep in mind that the article is already way too long. There is also a tag showing “use of deprecated (unreliable) source”. Would you please help with these issues? 199.119.235.254 (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail in background section

[edit]

Recently somebody added a bunch of information about early Vietnamese revolutionary movements in the background section, such as internal conflicts between nationalists and communists, that I feel is unnecessary and makes the background section extremely bloated. I attempted to delete the information, claiming that this article was about the Vietnam War and not early Vietnamese revolutionary politics, however my edit was reverted under the grounds that I was pro-US biased and that the information was "well-sourced". However I personally feel as if said information is not relevant to this article. HawkNightingaIe175 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is a connection if you understand the war, you can't just look at the war focusing on American intervention. KinderNew (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why a scholar or historian might want to look into it when seriously studying the Vietnam War, but this is a Wikipedia article. We don't need to go into the intricacies of ideological struggles of the early Vietnamese independence movement, particularly ones that took place before the war itself, which is what this article covers, actually began. HawkNightingaIe175 (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Background section needs to be expanded though. Wikipedia also needs to provide objective information. It is flawed to only mention the communist-led independence movement and then the US suddenly jumped in to support the French colonialists and then the South Vietnamese government as if the US was a "selfish" and "unrighteous" force. The conflict between the communists and nationalists and communist nature of the Viet Minh were directly related to the war as its background and need to be mentioned. KinderNew (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KinderNew, these are your only 2 edits. Under what name did you edit previously? Mztourist (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HawkNightingaIe175 I don't think you got my point. I don't care if someone is pro-US, pro-China, pro-communist, or pro-nationalist. What I mentioned earlier is that the "American"-centric view treats the Vietnam War as solely an American war. First and foremost, throughout its final stages and in its legacy to this day, the Vietnam War was, fundamentally, a Vietnamese War. That’s why the Background section exists. For many of those affected, the war began in 1945 or even earlier—but you may not realize this if you don't know Vietnamese. However, people who can read multiple languages and access rich resources on the subject come to understand this. How can you claim this is only for scholars when you haven’t read either the primary sources or the academic work on the subject? Greenknight dv (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then write or expand an article dealing with that aspect and link this one to it. And your comment about someone not understanding when the war began if they don't "know Vietnamese" is ridiculous. I'm not sure why you think adding to an article that is constantly under fire for being "too long" already is going to solve anything. Intothatdarkness 11:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that you don’t need to read primary sources to understand history is exactly why scholarship exists. Scholarly works indirectly help you engage with primary sources without actually having to read them. This is extremely important and a key issue in understanding the Vietnam War.
The ideal approach is to read all primary and scholarly sources, which is an exhausting endeavor. The second-best scenario is relying solely on scholarly sources, which are normally the only ones accepted on Wikipedia anyway. But somehow, the OP believes they don’t need to read what a scholar or historian has to say.
I’ve aimed to include essential points as concisely as possible. Suggestions on what to keep and how to trim are welcome, but please don’t discard everything as the OP did. Greenknight dv (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that important (and I'm not suggesting it isn't), add it to a new article or expand one dealing specifically with the background of the war. This article is constantly under attack for being too long, so it needs to contract rather than expand. There's no way you can add adequate coverage in this article, and such a complex topic is better served in a more focused article. Intothatdarkness 15:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not advocating for the deletion of the entire background section; rather, I am expressing that the information in the background section regarding communist vs. nationalist infighting within Vietnamese independence groups is unnecessary for this article and would be best suited for another article. HawkNightingaIe175 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HawkNightingaIe175, your response lacks specific improvement suggestions and merely reverts to prior versions, which is unconstructive and discourteous. Please specify the particular elements you find objectionable before proceeding with any further reversion. Greenknight dv (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been covered. If you feel so strongly about adding a bunch of background information to an already bloated article, I would really suggest you start an article about the background of the various Vietnamese political movements prior to World War II (or expand articles that already exist). Those are better locations for this sort of information, and at the very least keep it from getting lost in a much larger article. I'm not sure why you're so determined to add it here, but it's bordering on unconstructive at this point. Intothatdarkness 19:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the old version focuses on the communist movement while ignoring nationalist groups is inherently biased and less relevant to the Vietnam War. However, the competition between nationalists and communists was precisely what was most relevant to the Vietnam War.
To start, I recommend reading the first chapters of Kort (2017) and Tran (2022) to gain a grasp of this issue, including the historiographical debates surrounding the war. Greenknight dv (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can stop being pedantic. It does you no favors. It also doesn't address the issue with this article already being bloated. You don't need to cram everything into a single article. To start, I suggest you draft an article covering these issues, which are important to the background of the conflict but don't necessarily belong in the main article. That way you can go into greater detail and involve others in the writing process. What you're doing now clearly isn't working. Intothatdarkness 19:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will. It is still necessary to incorporate the tensions between communists and nationalists into the Background section, rather than retaining the previous revision’s claim that Ho Chi Minh was a 'nationalist'—which is inaccurate (see, e.g., "The Myth of the Wilsonian Moment", "Vietnam’s Misunderstood Revolution"). Let's identify which specific aspects should be included and which elements can be omitted. I would like to retain the part about the Viet Minh's purge of nationalists and how the surviving nationalist partisans rallied around Bảo Đại, ultimately leading to the creation of the State of Vietnam (which would later become the Republic of Vietnam). Greenknight dv (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you need at least some mention of Ho's purge, but in this article it needs to be kept short. It's preferable in an overview article (which this is) to keep parts brief (as in a sentence or two) and link out to more detailed articles discussing specific areas. Brevity is your friend here. Intothatdarkness 20:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this information is important and directly relevant. Gorgia124 (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gorgia124 you are a new account with 3 edits, how do you know what "information is important and directly relevant."? Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2025

[edit]

I request for in Result section of the infobox where it says "North Vietnamese victory" to be changed to "North Vietnamese and Viet Cong victory" since the Viet Cong are from South Vietnam, not North Vietnam? 2A0A:EF40:13B6:7201:8016:1998:A0DB:18BC (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By most RS, the VC were mostly southern prior to 1968, but after 1968 they were predominately from North Vietnam. But South Vietnam did not fall to the VC insurgency, it fell to a conventional North Vietnamese invasion. So I am not sure how to reflect all that in the info box. Probably either one would be good. Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
North Vietnamese victory is the way to go here. Intothatdarkness 02:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. SI09 (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove

[edit]

I think we should remove the note at the top of the article that the article is too long. The note is there because a sockpuppet account added a lot of information to the article but all of those edits have been rolled back a long time ago. AAA982 (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14,000+ words is still a lot of words. Yue🌙 20:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The Thin Red Line" is not a Vietnam war movie

[edit]

"The first major film on the war was John Wayne's pro-war The Green Berets (1968). Further films were released, the most noteworthy examples being Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter (1978), Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now (1979), Oliver Stone's Platoon (1986) and Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket (1987). Other films include Good Morning, Vietnam (1987), Casualties of War (1989), Born on the Fourth of July (1989), The Thin Red Line (1998)." - the last movie is not about Vietnam, but about World War II. Canelo 93 (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from this section. Intothatdarkness 14:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]