Talk:Paris Peace Talks: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
imported>Joe Quick
Line 4: Line 4:


Russell has sure done a lot of work on the original, but even so it is still badly organized -- it reads the way novelists write novels if they want to use flashbacks, etc.  This is not, in my opinion, how a history article should be written. Thanks, Russell, for trying to work on it!  (I looked at it myself several months ago and threw up my hands in despair.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Russell has sure done a lot of work on the original, but even so it is still badly organized -- it reads the way novelists write novels if they want to use flashbacks, etc.  This is not, in my opinion, how a history article should be written. Thanks, Russell, for trying to work on it!  (I looked at it myself several months ago and threw up my hands in despair.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
:I agree.  I don't usually contribute to this kind of article, but I felt like I ''had'' to do something with the lede.  I'm glad someone who knows what's going on is around to straighten things out.  Thanks, Russell. -[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:43, 16 August 2011

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Secret bilateral talks between the U.S. and North Vietnam (1969-1973) to end U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, resulting in the Paris Accords signed on January 28, 1973. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories History, Military and Politics [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Vietnam
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

This article seems completely disjointed to me

Russell has sure done a lot of work on the original, but even so it is still badly organized -- it reads the way novelists write novels if they want to use flashbacks, etc. This is not, in my opinion, how a history article should be written. Thanks, Russell, for trying to work on it! (I looked at it myself several months ago and threw up my hands in despair.) Hayford Peirce 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I don't usually contribute to this kind of article, but I felt like I had to do something with the lede. I'm glad someone who knows what's going on is around to straighten things out. Thanks, Russell. -Joe Quick 23:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)