Talk:Vietnam War

Casualites and Losses

Why are the NLF force's casualties listed in with North Vietnamese force's casualties, but not in the strength of their troop numbers? YouMakeMeFeel: (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"North Vietnamese victory" is wrong

WP:SOAPBOX, WP:DISRUPTION
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Vietnam 'war' had been fought in several stages, but ended with the Paris Peace Accords of 1973. In this treaty the North agreed to all of the US's war aims, including the recognition of the South and an official peace treaty with them. However in 1975 the North launched a massive offensive after US ground forces had left as par the agreement, thus violating the peace treaty and starting another war. However the Vietnam war from 1963 to 1973 ended with an agreement of the status quo. To say it was from 1955-1975 would be to say the current war in Afghanistan started in 1976 and lasted until 2011+ Your combining several wars, all be it they had the same causes and participants into a single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.24.242.242 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC) The North Vietnamese did not "agreed to all of the US's war aims". In contrast, the U.S. government was forced to recognised the defacto rule of the National Liberation Front in several regions of South Vietnam that were captured during the 1972 offensive, and approximately 150,000 North Vietnamese soldiers were allowed to stay in those areas under the provisions of the Paris agreement. Thus, the Americans had to pick up and run whereas the North Vietnamese stayed where they were. In fact, the U.S. government was so desperate to retreat from Vietnam that they completely disregarded South Vietnam's objection to the Paris agreement, which South Vietnamese leaders believed was their regime's death warrant. Behind the scenes Nixon even promised to pay war reparations if North Vietnam signed the Paris agreement, which never materialised due to the Watergate Scandal. To sum it up, the North Vietnamese benefited much more from the Paris agreement, because U.S. military forces retreated from Vietnam with their tails between their legs with nothing to show after more than a decade of military intervention.Canpark (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC) To help the discussion along, I think persons claiming that the USA lost the Vietnam War are going to have to provide RS to support their claim: for instance, do US citizens now speak Vietnamese, do they work in communes, is the ruling political party in the USA the Communist Party, did the USA surrender its forces and all its armaments to the North Vietnamese in 1975, etc., etc. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC) You need to learn history, kid. The Vietnamese Communists fought to reunify their country, and they achieved that objective. They did not try to conquer anyone's country. Now stop spewing trash like a clown.Canpark (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Mythologies of the Vietnam War

I think a section on the different war myths of the Vietnam War would improve the article. People interpret the war in terms of contemporary rhetoric, and since the war was a decades-long conflict in both Vietnams, Cambodia, Laos, etc. involving many groups and factions there exists much confusion. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

what do you mean by war myths? Do you mean this sort of thing [1]Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, well, no. Just Google "Vietnam War Myths" and you'll find article after article about myths about the Vietnam War. For instance, it's a commonly held belief that it was a draftee American military in Vietnam, when in fact 75% of the men who served in Vietnam were volunteers. Or the myth that black men were disproportionately killed in Vietnam, when they weren't. Etc., etc. These different articles replicate the data in a consistent manner, so it seems quite credible. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

But are these articels RS? The few I haqve checked look like they mihgt not be.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the sites have referenced sources. Also, I've read similar data from other sources (which provides credibility), and am familiar with a lot of the sources sited. For instance, throwing VC prisoners out of helicopters--I've never found any credible source that confirms that. Our troops being attacked by tigers in the jungle seems iffy--I did find one account of a jungle tiger attack, but just one. More Vietnam Vets committing suicide than were killed in the war--there was a rate increase after the war (as might be expected) for five years, but then the suicide rate for Vietnam veterans went below the national average. A lot of these myths are left over from the Vietnam War years, when they were prevalent, and should be debunked. They fit into the "urban myth" category. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

An abundance of sources does not mean its true (but does mean if verifiable), there are a ton of sources that say fairys exist I would not expect those to be included in a list of living creatures. In the saem way, whilst its true that there seem to be a lot oif sources (some it culd be argued hardley neutral) its also true they have nothing to do with the actualy history of the vietnam war. Moreover if we start to clutter the articel with rebutals of facts that are not even in he articel we will ake an already lengthy article unwieldy (and also we would have to have full balabce, thus also citing those who claim the oriogional myth, care to do that work as well?Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider getting rid of inaccurate information to be a "burden" on Wikipedia. I looked for a Wiki site on Vietnam War myths but couldn't find one, so perhaps a separate site for myths could be started. But the major prevalent myths aren't a large amount, so they could easily be included in the Vietnam War article. In fact, it should be easy and quick to do since various sites already exist on Vietnam War myths, and referencing them should be easy. This article has a section on women and "sexual harassment" in Vietnam, for instance, which is nonsensical--sexual harassment wasn't even invented until sometime into the 1970's after the Vietnam War ended (it's like saying there were Fords and Chevrolets in the American Civil War). Wiki must be careful not to pander to current political fads. Anyway, the data on Vietnam War myths is already out there--we don't have to go hunting for it, and it's mostly statistics, so what is there to dispute? 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's the scholarly source that says that mythology is significant to a top level article? Until then, find your sources and Mythology of the Vietnam War. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

There's plenty of articles listed under "Vietnam War Myths"--it should be simple to transfer the info over to a Wiki site, or include it in this article. I think scholarly research dictates that accurate information should be sought out--inaccurate information constitutes "myths". 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we use a different process on wikipedia to what we think. We look at what is contained in the best scholarly sources, for the Vietnam War this means histories. If the histories mention the myth, regularly (given the publication level), then we include a section. But before that, someone who can find "high quality" reliable sources: academic journal articles, book chapters, scholarly books, discussing myths, then they can make a Mythology of the Vietnam War. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's a scholarly history, for instance, from the history book "Eyewitness Vietnam" by Gilmore and Giangreco, Sterling publishing, New York, 2006, pg. 10--"Other data defy the common media myths...such as that fully 23 percent of the soldiers in Vietnam came from 'privileged' families...Of the men who actually served in 'Nam', 88.4 percent were Caucasian...and 10.6 percent were African American, even though black Americans of military age made up 13.5 percent of the U.S. population." "...just less than 25 percent were draftees, a figure far below the 66 percent of World War II." --So there we have data from a scholarly history book which states that blacks did not serve in disproportionate numbers, that 23% of Vietnam vets came from privileged families, and that it was not a 'draftee' army, in fact it was mostly a volunteer military. The info is out there, I read it constantly whenever I'm at Barnes and Noble perusing history books. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 08:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This Sterling press, "Sterling books cover a broad range of subject areas including: current events, diet and health, parenting, popular culture, reference, history, art and artists, music, and everything in between." ? They're not an academic publisher. There are no academic reviews of Gilmore and Giangreco "Eyewitness Vietnam." I'd suggest that as a popular press work, it would be useable in the sub-article; but, it doesn't substantiate inclusion of the section here. Build the sub-article, get to know the Military History project who will provide support and reviews. You may also want to consider historiography books, as they discuss "deeper" myths. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. Could the title be changed to "Vietnam War Myths", since it would get more hits from folks interested in the war rather than mythology? Also, I did a quick Wiki search and "sexual harassment" was invented by women at either Cornell or MIT in the early 1970's, after the war ended, so including "sexual harassment" in an article on the Vietnam War is anachronistic. It's late, I'm burning out, time to catch some sleep. 67.121.225.72 (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, welcome to the project. You may like to create a user account, and Vietnam War myths is snappier— but I'm a sourcing and source quality expert, not a naming expert on wikipedia. Remember to include myths from the ARVN, NFL/PRG, DRVN, South Korean, and Australian war experiences, and civilian war myths, if you find them in reliable sources of course. If you can find a scholarly book, preferably history, sociology or political science that discusses war myths, use that to structure your article and your reading—it'll help make your article higher quality earlier! My suggestion is to use scholar.google.com as your first search engine of choice, and follow the advice at WP:HISTRS for choosing sources. To start you off, I've made a little stub article you can expand (which should survive deletion). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have set you up a very small article, sourced out of a scholarly review article. I strongly advise you read the books listed there, and search for other books by academics as the first point of call. By doing that you'll find the more "popular" works that academics actually think are good. Remember: historiography and myth are deeply connected. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a FORUM nor a tutorial in primary source analysis
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm looking at different sources as you suggested, but I think I should point out that the book "Eyewitness Vietnam" is a collection of first person accounts of the Vietnam War by Vietnam War veterans, including some Medal of Honor recipients. I'd believe a Medal of Honor recipient before I'd ever believe some acadamic pedant. I've taught at university and I don't think people realize the tremendous amount of academic backstabbing, lying, incompetence, etc. that goes on at our universities. Certainly, there are subjects that only pedants involve themselves in, but things like wars involve many people from all occupations--and these different people are the reliable sources, not academic types who were never in the war but rather sequestered in their ivory towers instead, relying on tertiary sources. And of course our universities are filled with Cultural Marxists (feminism, political correctness, multiculturalism--these are all communism) so relying on academic works lends a Marxist bias to a history of the Vietnam War. Since Wiki is to be objective, I thought I should mention this academic bias, in an effort to illuminate the matter. By the way, I was talking to an Air Force veteran on the phone the other day who had been with the F-105's early on in the war and he said the books by Jack Broughton ("Thud Ridge", "Going Downtown", etc.) were quite accurate. I like Wikipedia, I use it all the time, but I think special cases like the Vietnam War need a special dispensation, otherwise editors get mired down in pedantry and lose their way. 66.122.182.241 (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry 66.122.182.241 but we don't give out dispensations. Nor do we rely upon personal communication, or personal experience. In areas of history we rely upon scholarly, high quality sources for the core of the article. Where non-scholarly secondary sources fill in details, we use them. We only use primary sources like we use pictures: to illustrates points already made in secondary sources, and according to the weight present in the secondary literature. If you want to overturn the scholarly historiography of the Vietnam war, I strongly encourage you to publish in high quality forums off of wikipedia. The articles I've read on the historiography of American experience of the Vietnam war note that there is an active scholarly debate—in fact one reason why wikipedia trusts scholars is that they backstab each other, they deliberately attack weak scholarship. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC) And bravery is not an indicator of honesty either. Just because some one has received a decoration for something unrelated to education, academic achievement or honesty does not maker them more reliable then someone else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Actually, you have to have a university degree to be a fighter pilot in the Air Force. And many of these guys got graduate degrees, taught at the War College, the Air Force Academy etc. In fact, one of them, Robin Olds, was head of the Air Force Academy. So it turns out fighter pilots are academic pedants after all. 63.192.101.105 (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I think the unique problem with the Vietnam War is that the government lied and the liberal press both lied back then, so historically citing liars is not conducive to a good Wikipedia article. Going back to primary sources seems to be the only way to find out what really happened. I read compilations of first hand accounts and they give a totally different picture than what's in the history books.... 69.104.54.79 (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How Many U.S. Vietnam Veterans Are Still Alive?

Well, here's something the "academic pedantry" of Wikipedia would be uniquely suited for: How many U.S. Vietnam veterans are still alive? The matter is further compounded in that about ten million guys claim to be Vietnam veterans who aren't (which brings up another issue, why would anyone claim to be a Vietnam veteran who isn't, since it normally carries a stigma?). And the U.S. Air Force, from what I've read, only had 300,000 men in Vietnam, so if half of them have died (Viet vets would be in their 60's and 70's now) then maybe only 150,000 U.S. Air Force vets are still living. Academia usually lags by about 20 or 30 years, so by the time information is filtered down to tertiary sources Vietnam vets may have mostly died off.... 63.192.101.105 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request about Kennedy

In the section "During John F. Kennedy's administration, 1961–1963" it says of Kennedy :-

"He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"

On the grounds that we judge a person as much as by his actions as by his words, can we make clear that he was most definitely in favour of sending more troops there. We know this because this is exactly what he did. I do not see the benefit of making Kennedy out to be against the use of military force in Vietnam when he most defintely was. A retrospective lionising strips the dead of their dignity : the dead were entitled to make mistakes too.

Can we clarify this statement and source it and then, if sourced properly, state that he "Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam, but subsequently changed his mind". That at least would more accurately record the events as they actually were, rather than some would like it to be. Jackd1000 (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact a better (more accurate rendition) would be

"Kennedy said on such and such a date (give reference) that he was against the use of troops in South Vietnam. Whether or not he believed this, he subsequently substantially increased the US's military participation in South Vietnam"

Jackd1000 (talk) 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, this gets iffy. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Kennedy couldn't back away from the Laotians and their fight with the Pathet Lao, since this would alarm President Diem in South Vietnam. And way back in 1961 the Soviet Union was against the Chinese regime over Laos and Cambodia. The Vietnam War encompassed all of Southeast Asia--Laos, Cambodia, etc., not just North and South Vietnam. Kennedy had to try and balance a lot of situations. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 06:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Robert McNamara and General Maxwell Taylor had visited Vietnam and in 1963 had advised President Kennedy to phase out American troops by 1965. In 1962 Kennedy had sent over some 5,000 US Army Special Forces as "advisors". It was Johnson who ramped up the war and sent over massive amounts of troops. Neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev wanted a war in Laos (it was landlocked) so Kennedy put his emphasis on Vietnam. Then Johnson escalated it. 69.228.116.138 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The questionable phrase is currently sourced against a primary source. It should really be sourced against scholarly history, or rather, Kennedy's position on the war if infact notable, should be sourced against scholarly secondary sources based on what they say, not what Kennedy actually said. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it just cannot be said to be in dispute that Kennedy substantially escalated the use of armed forces in South Vietnam. He did it, and that's that. That Johnson escalated it to a greater extent subsequently is irrelevant, as are the geopolitical considerations that were connected to it. This contrasts with the wording of the article, which says that Kennedy was against the deployment of troops in South Vietnam. If indeed he did say this, his behaviour contrasts with his words, not exactly untypical behaviour for politicians - in which case it is important to record this fact, rather than simply echo a traditional line whose intention may be to minimise the actions of a now venerated figure. I'm absolutely sure Kennedy would not have been happy about this editing of the truth.

Jackd1000 (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that if Kennedy had not been assassinated, then he would have extricated the US from Vietnam, pulling out troops rather than escalating, and the Vietnam War would have been averted. --This is usually the point that "historians" argue over. 209.77.230.59 (talk) 09:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NLF Vs VC

The common naming policy applies to artciel titles, not artciel content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong or NLF in Infobox

I have restored Viet Cong to the infobox because common name policy mandates the usage of the common name in english over the official name. What do other editors think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you're talking historical literature, it tends to depend on when a book was written and (to a lesser degree) the political slant of the author. Viet Cong was common early on, but writers like Douglas Pike tended to use PAVN and NLF. Over time, at least in US historical works, both terms came to more or less replace NVA and VC. I've also seen a distinction made between the NLF and VC as the political and military parts of the organization, respectively. I'd be inclined to go with NLF if you're referencing the flag, as it's more of a political marker and thus appropriate. We should also remember that the term VC was invented by the GVN and US and was intended to be at least slightly offensive.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sum of reliable sources hold that Viet Cong is the prevalent term as seen here. Moreover, the infobox should be consistent; the section above declares victory for the Viet Cong...why confuse things by changing from one section to the other? The article already states the alternate name for the VC so there is no need to pontificate that in the box. The majority of english speakers use "Viet Cong".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet your own graph shows that Viet Cong peaked during the war years (which is only to be expected when you consider the origin of the term VC and the fact that the usage search is based on English publications) and has steadily declined since then, while NLF has remained constant. Not quibbling, just pointing that out.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the decline has more to do with the whole subject declining in the media. There is still a prevalence of VC over the NLF by about 2 to 1 on the current trending. That said, the contemporary sources fall under the large blue envelope and represent the mass of sources. Current trends shouldn't necessarily supersede the bulk but that is neither here nor there as VC comes out on top either way.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why open it here? The spike you're talking about in contemporary sources is to be expected, given that VC was the approved US government term and figured in all their releases and military journal articles of the time. Might as well make the change, since that sounds like what you want to do. I don't have a marked preference, actually, but I'm just not sure how appropriate it is to use an invented term for an organization that had its own name.Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

See the thread above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Systemic_bias VC is more common the NLF because it is the US given name, But we should be trying to avoid such cultural bias, and as the common name policy applies to article names and not content is not a justification for not using the correct name.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make the initial change...R41 did but I felt it was a reasonable change so when I saw it reverted I decided this should be discussed. (re Steven) I saw your thread above and tried to blend them during the edit conflicts but after Intothatdarkness replied, I just went with this thread. I have already accounted for your response within this thread. The logic on titles remains although we are not discussing changing any article titles. Arguably, we are preventing unnecessary redirects. Again, there should be consistency for the infobox (call them the same thing throughout the box). (re Intothatdarkness) It is entirely appropriate to have a different name for a group or organization than they seek to represent themselves with. We use Japan and not Nippon; we use Apache (a Zuni word) and not what they call themselves. The article here already states the NLF name so this isn't depriving our readers of anything. Steven what policy are you citing for trying to have NLF?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy (as far as I am aware) that requires us to call them by a given name, but neither is there one that does not allow is to. But I would point out that Japan is the westernise version of Japan (and has always been), but VC (which is not even English) is not the westernised version of NLF (that national liberation front), it a propaganda name. The same with Apaches, it’s the only English name, there are no toerh English language names for the group. We are asked to try and avoipd obviouse westernise culterual bias.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It will likely confuse the average reader - our audience, if Viet Cong is replaced by NLF throughout the article. Noting what they called themselves would seem enough. Even if Viet Cong was intended to be offensive, I doubt more than a handful of readers know this - and if they already do, probably know more about the conflict than is in the article. (Hohum ^@) 00:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of the usage for NLF is on Mondays during the U.S. football season, which suggests that it is mainly people mistyping "NFL". "NLF" is not "what they called themselves", but an unofficially translated and shortened form. The whole concept doesn't exist in the official Vietnamese literature. If you look at Victory in Vietnam, they do not recognize any distinction between northern and southern communist forces. U.S. policymakers had traumatic memories of Korea and didn't want to invade the North. So they created the fiction that the U.S. was at war with someone other than Hanoi. Kauffner (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a different issue. During the conflict the North maintained that the NLF was a distinct organization that wasn't controlled or directed by Hanoi.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the part of what Kauffner is pointing out is that from a common name perspective, there are few hits on WP for National Liberation Front (3047) whereas their are substantial hits for Viet Cong (40689). I only used December as a sampling but I think these proportions are roughly consistent across time. Also, the NLF page is a DAB and actually represents many other organizations that bear that name. In short, people call them Viet Cong and but a few scant folks use the other name.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I get 8,650 post-1990 English-language Google book hits for "Vietnam War" NLF OR National-Liberation-Front, 33,000 for "Vietnam War" Vietcong OR Viet-Cong. This scholarly preference is misleadingly close. Vastly more readers are searching for Viet Cong/Vietcong than for "National Liberation Front", according to Google Insights. Kauffner (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again it seems like the decision has been made. Why waste the time going through the talk page stuff?Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting discussion. The North Vietnamese referred to themselves by various names such as the bo doi of the Viet Minh, the Chu Luc of the regular army, and each division had its own name such as Nam Dinh, Viet Bac, Ben Tre, Bien Hoa and even the humourous Dong Bang...it would be interesting to know what the North actually considered naming themselves, I wish some North Vietnamese would contribute to this article but I assume they have censorship problems in their "liberated" country. It seems to be all a matter of perspective. While the Americans would consider themselves "Americans" yet at the same time they would consider themselves Air Cav or Brown Water Navy or Wild Weasels or whatever their mission or unit was. What did the North collectively call the Americans? I'm sure it was something disparaging--in WWII we called the Germans Krauts and in Vietnam we called the North "zipperheads" so it's probably something quite colorful. I'm sure the North hated the Americans. 64.169.155.134 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC in Vietnam

There's a 1995 BBC Timewatch programme showing some of the BBC's reporting of the Vietnam War on YouTube here: [2]] - it include contemporary reports by, amongst others, Julian Pettifer, Martin Bell, Charles Wheeler and Brian Barron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Participants

Why does DPRK stay as participant, while Soviet and even CHINA stays as supported by? DPRK sent only 300 troops there while China sent 170 000! This is vandalism. It seems to be one supporter of the war that want to give the illution that no nations supported Vietnam with troops, except from the North Korea prison! Here's a message to the vandal: If you can't edit seriously, or objective, you may just find something other to do than editing Wikipedia! Cuba was the only to give humanitarian support to Vietnam without participating military! The REPUBLICAN BUSHIST that did this is the worst idiot I've MET on Wikipedia. And I think the use of the propaganda word "Viet Cong" shall be removed, if you want to call yourself neutral. Wikipedia is not unlike CONSERVAPEDIA! And vandalism KEEP STAYING in long time because most articles about politics is written from an imperalist view. That a war killing 2,5 million or more innocent civilians is becoming a place for political views seen from the killing machine (it had been more OK if it had been pro-Vietnamese than pro-American, because NVN/FNL didn't committed any war crimed and killed only 2000 civilians, though I prefer neutrality), that is pretty HORRIBLE! --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I saw that a vandal removed this, but please don't remove others' inlays because you don't agree with them. --153.110.194.139 (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay...your point being? And your RS is...? 69.236.142.194 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Women in Vietnam section totally inaccurate

The bit about American women serving in Vietnam, sexual harassment, etc. is totally bogus. Enlisted men were not allowed to fraternize or become "overly familiar" with officers (nurses), according to military law. If they did, they'd go to the brig. There was even an entire movie made about the quandry of enlisted men not being able to go with female officers called "Operation Madball" in 1957 with Jack Lemmon and Ernie Kovacs. The person who wrote the women in Vietnam paragraph obviously was never in the military and attempted to implant some sort of contemporary feminist overlay to the war, implying sexual harassment of women, portraying women as victims of societal prejudice, etc. --Totally bogus. Contempory rhetoric stamped onto a war that happened 40 years ago. Ridiculous. It discredits the entire article on the Vietnam War. Somebody didn't read the UCMJ. 69.228.116.96 (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

we repeat what RS say, not what films do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the RS: Article 92 (unprofessional relationships) and Article 134 (fraternization) of the UCMJ are taken quite seriously and Courts-Martial may result. If nurses (who were officers) in the Vietnam War were engaged in the slightest impropriety heads could roll. The person who wrote the paragraph about women in Vietnam obviously had no knowledge of military courtesy, military law or military history and probably wrote the paragraph based on some feminist course he took or somesuch nonsense. The paragraph should be amended to at least contain references to Articles 92 and 134. This would give it some degree of historical accuracy. Apart from dating, sexual relationships, etc., officers and enlisted personnel can not have business dealings together, loan money to each other, share living quarters, go on vacations together, etc. The erroneous paragraph starkly delineates the problem with letting "pop history" political fads worm their way into Wikipedia. 209.77.229.65 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Primary sources, sources related to the subject are not WP:RS ("Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."). Regulations only tell us what the regulation says, not how well they were followed. Given that the US military doesn't have a handle on rape within the ranks even today, it beggars belief that no sexual contacts occurred between nurses and other soldiers during Vietnam.--Sus scrofa (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly I could find laws saying that murder is illegal, does that mean we can't have material about Jack the Ripper because its impossible for some one to break the law. However we can say that such liasons wee illegal.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the last sentence on American women in Vietnam says that few cases of impropriety were noted in the Vietnam War, compared to a startling 1/3 rate of sexual harassment of BOTH men and women in today's military. --Has there been a paradigm shift? This might be a matter worth investigating. In Vietnam, there were plenty of Oriental women around since the US was an occupying country, and US men dated and married South Vietnamese women. There was no shortage of eligible women. There's even a YouTube video of the Cam Ranh Bay Meat Market where the girls are lined up alongside a metal fence, waiting to date GI's. If they landed a GI, they could get married and then go live in the USA. (So there was a lot of THAT kind of hanky-panky going on). A lot of guys dumped their girlfriend back home and married a girl from SEA, since women in this sphere of the world were brought up to respect men. Nurses you would not want to annoy, since they might have to save your life someday. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I probably should mention the "Candy Stripers", who were nice, civilian American girls who went to Vietnam to, um, "help" the troops. 67.117.24.65 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Weapons List?

I'm a little confused about the weapons list, is it supposed to be inclusive or just representative? For instance, it lists the AC-130 gunship of which we only had about a dozen or so operating out of Ubon, Thailand with the 16th SOS (Special Operations Squadron) which was part of the 8th Wing. In reality, we had hundreds of C-130's of various models (C-130A's, C-130B's, C-130E's) performing a multiplicity of missions (C-130's were used to drop the world's biggest bomb (at 15,000 lbs.) by pushing it out the back of the airplane for Commando Vault missions--and they got the highest bombing accuracy rate of any "bomber" in the course of the war!) C-7 Caribous were used extensively, in fact they were used to relieve the siege at Dak Seang, and almost all of them received battle damage there and as I recall at least three of them were shot down, two Congressional Medals of Honor were handed out at Dak Seang, along with a bunch of Silver Stars, etc. and the 834th Air Division received the Presidential Unit Citation. The only other time the 834th got the PUC was for helping to relieve the siege at Khe Sanh. So Dak Seang was Hot City. The reason Dak Seang is so little known is that it was primarily a South Vietnamese camp. So should the list be an all-inclusive list or just list "some" of the aircraft? There might be some old pilots out there who will feel slighted ("According to this here Wiki list I wasn't even in the Vietnam War, I guess I got my Purple Heart by slipping on a beer bottle in Wichita and falling down the stairs"). So if it's just a "starter list", it would be easy to add to. 69.238.198.15 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already an article listing the Weapons of the Vietnam War, the "Weapons" section in this article could conceivably be pared down so that it only talks about new/decisive developments relating to the course of the war, and not a list that already exists in full form elsewhere. --Sus scrofa (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Casualties and Loses

There was a discussion of American war deaths (hostile and non-hostile) in the early part of 2011, which is now in Archive 18 that cited total U.S. Vietnam War deaths as follows:

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths (47,434 hostile and 10,786 non-hostile) during the Vietnam War as set forth below:

	Total

1956 1 1957 1 1959 2 1960 5 1961 16 1962 53 1963 122 1964 216 1965 1,928 1966 6,350 1967 11,363 1968 16,899 1969 11,780 1970 6,173 1971 2,414 1972 759 1973 68 1974 1 1975 62 After 1975 7 Total 58,220*

• Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths as well as hostile and non-hostile totals are confirmed by the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010, pages 3 and 11 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf), and the yearly breakdown is provided by A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C/updated 2012 reprint). This graph would be a useful addition to the Wiki article.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)