Talk:Vietnam War: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Other wording is fine as long as it covers the Vietnamese view of at least modern wars)
 
(145 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subpages}}
{{subpages}}
{{archive box|auto=long}}
{{Box|See [[Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 1|Talk Archives One]] or [[Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 2|Talk Archives Two]] for earlier talk.}}
This badly needs copyediting. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:02, 15 September
2007 (CDT)


==Definition and title==
== OK, where do we go from here? ==
''first note needs to be read in the context that a substantial amount of comments are now in an archive''.


If it hasn't already been pointed out in the above extremely long page, I'd like to point out that the opening sentence is unacceptable. Obviously, letting one of the parties to the war define it violates neutrality. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh Brave New World after the archiving, which has such wondrous things in it. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
:keep reading friend.


:Peter, I agree. Please look back a few months when this was a single massive article, by an author that was insistent — and explicit on presenting things from a U.S., not even South Vietnamese, perspective. The major effort toward neutrality, for both practical and personality reasons, first consisted of breaking up the main article into manageable subarticles, and working on neutrality there.
==Green Box==
The green box at the top of the article adds some necessary context to this article, but there is a chronological gaffe. The box says "[[Indochinese revolution|First Indochina War]] covers closely the anticolonial war against France, with interruptions for the events of the Second World War."  But the First Indochina War starts ''after'' World War II.  So how is that an "interruption?"  Please fix.


:This individual is no longer involved, and it is quite appropriate to look for a more neutral introduction, as well as still pulling out some of the later and less neutral text into subarticles. If my citing of Moore and Galloway in the Vietnamese museum doesn't exemplify there are multiple views, I don't know what can.  Sooner or later, it will be necessary to come to consensus on a better set of names, certainly for the major phases, and possibly the articles as a whole. I can take Vietnamese military history back to the Trung sisters in the first century CE, but I'd prefer someone else work on the even earlier history in my sandbox. Such a person should read Vietnamese.
Regarding the remainder of the box, isn't it possible to discuss these ''related articles'' on the [[Vietnam War/Related Articles|Related Articles]] page?  I think that it would make more sense. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


:So, we agree there is a problem. I am perfectly open to a signficantly revised opening, and a controlled renaming of articles -- the comma-rich convention was idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, I would ask for close cooperation in renaming, so as not to break links. I probably know them better than anyone at this point, and I still make mistakes and lose text.
{|border="1"
|style="background:lightgreen"|''This is a major second-level article for numerous articles about an extremely complex situation from 1962 to 1975. [[Vietnam wars]] covers the context of conflict  between 1868 and 1999; there are separate articles on earlier history.  There was anti-French activity, but the main [[First Indochina War]] came after [[Indochina and the Second World War|the Second World War]]. This ends in 1975 with the fall of South Vietnam, but other wars continue in the [[Vietnam wars]] article.''
|}''


:May I ask that you look at [[Battle of Ia Drang]] as something that I wrote, trying very hard to represent at least three standpoints: North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, and American. I'm still working on obtaining some interview text, as, for example, not just the emotions but also the tactics of the PAVN at LZ X-ray.
==Headings==
I'm going to recommend also that the heading "Regional activity before South Vietnamese independence" find a shorter title so that the TOC isn't so wide. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


:I desperately want proposals, and there is so much to fix on the detailed level that I hope you have some time to make suggestions at the topmost level. If you get beyond the first sections, I think you'll see the subarticle structure and other text that provide the basis for more neutral writing. If you are interested, please help.
== First Section ==


:Please focus not on the old definition in this page, but on the more recent work in the main page. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The last sentence in the first paragraph should wrap up the lede, to wit, it should explain why the topic ends in 1975 (i.e., south vietnamese surrender).  I'd also like to drop the reference to the first century conflict with China; it's just too far removed in time to be relevant.  It could probably be mentioned paranthetically: "... but to a long history of Chinese attempts to control the region (going back to the first century)."  "This article focuses on ..." I'm not a fan of self-referentiality.  The famous photograph of the helicopter on the roof during the evacuation in 1975, I've heard was ''not'' the U.S. embassy itself.  The paragraph dealing with weather is really out of place here.  It's interesting and important information, but it seems out of place here.
Last, the first section should also mention that the Vietnamese call this the "American War."
[[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


== change to Intro ==
:Yes, I too read the other day that the evacuation was from a neighboring building. Maybe in an obit of the guy who took the photo? I think that's the source.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


Existing lead:
::We're all correct about the helicopters. Indeed, the most commonly used photograph is from a nearby CIA building, but there was also desperation at the Embassy and elsewhere.


:Since there is a current state and government of [[Vietnam]], with full diplomatic representation including participation in international organizations, the final authorities on the definition of '''Vietnam War''' would appear to be the Vietnamese. They tend to refer to the Wars (plural) of Vietnam, often referring to a period starting sometime after 1959 and extending to 1975 as the "American War". Considering actions in [[Laos]] and [[Cambodia]] also confuse the terminology; not all the fighting there bore directly on Vietnam or [[French Indochina]].
::Let me think about China; some reference is important.


:Without trying to name the wars, the key timeline events in modern history are:
::I moved the weather to the beginning of large-scale combat. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Proposed change to lead:


:The '''Vietnam War''' is a term used to describe a series of conflicts that took place from 1959 to 1975, between [[South Vietnam]], [[America]] and their allies, and the communist nations allied with [[North Vietnam]]. In the modern-day state of [[Vietnam]] the wars are often described in plural, or simply as the "American War".
:::Long time coming.... I've reworked this whole section into a lede and an "overview" section. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 
:The war in Vietnam was initially fought between South Vietnam (with non-mobile backing from America) and the communist North Vietnamese, later supported by its communist allies. America fully mobilised in 1964, but their advice and support, as well as covert operations, had been in place for several years. The military actions in [[Laos]] and [[Cambodia]] also complicate matters, as not all the fighting there bore directly on Vietnam or [[French Indochina]]. Americas involvement in the wars were part of an anti-communist policy called [[Containment]], which was an early element of the [[Cold War]].
 
:Without naming the wars, the key timeline events in modern history are:
 
My only real issue with the lead as it stands is that it is not encyclopedic language, and could cover more in less space. I'm mainly trying to get a better format, rather than get the facts exact.--[[User:Matt Lewis|Matt Lewis]] 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 
:There's no problem in improving the language, as it is a difficult topic, with a title that inherently is ambiguous. If you accept the premise that the Vietnamese are the real authority on the wars of their area, however, one cannot limit the definition such that the war starts in 1959.  At a very minimum, one has to go back at least to a declaration of independence in 1946, followed by the revolution against the French, and it's wise to go back to the French conquest in the 19th century. Since the Vietnamese themselves make a point, in their active museums and histories, to go through two millenia of fighting with the Chinese, the Wars (plural) go back, at least, to the Trung Sisters.
 
:Not reading Vietnamese, I can't go much before that; there literally are too many dragons to track.
 
:Now, I'm perfectly open to other wording that covers, at the very least, the modern wars, but I cannot see a lead that does not address the French colony, the resistance to it starting around 1930, and many things prior to 1959. [[Dien Bien Phu]] (1954) is as iconic to Vietnamese as Trafalgar and Waterloo are to Britons and French, Yorktown and Appomattox to Americans,  or Tsushima Strait to Japanese. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:44, 12 April 2024

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:  (1955-1975) war that killed 3.8 million people, where North Vietnam fought U.S. forces and eventually took over South Vietnam, forming a single Communist country, Vietnam. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  History [Categories OK]
 Subgroup category:  Vietnam
 Talk Archive:  1, 2  English language variant:  American English
See Talk Archives One or Talk Archives Two for earlier talk.

OK, where do we go from here?

Oh Brave New World after the archiving, which has such wondrous things in it. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

keep reading friend.

Green Box

The green box at the top of the article adds some necessary context to this article, but there is a chronological gaffe. The box says "First Indochina War covers closely the anticolonial war against France, with interruptions for the events of the Second World War." But the First Indochina War starts after World War II. So how is that an "interruption?" Please fix.

Regarding the remainder of the box, isn't it possible to discuss these related articles on the Related Articles page? I think that it would make more sense. Russell D. Jones 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a major second-level article for numerous articles about an extremely complex situation from 1962 to 1975. Vietnam wars covers the context of conflict between 1868 and 1999; there are separate articles on earlier history. There was anti-French activity, but the main First Indochina War came after the Second World War. This ends in 1975 with the fall of South Vietnam, but other wars continue in the Vietnam wars article.

Headings

I'm going to recommend also that the heading "Regional activity before South Vietnamese independence" find a shorter title so that the TOC isn't so wide. Russell D. Jones 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First Section

The last sentence in the first paragraph should wrap up the lede, to wit, it should explain why the topic ends in 1975 (i.e., south vietnamese surrender). I'd also like to drop the reference to the first century conflict with China; it's just too far removed in time to be relevant. It could probably be mentioned paranthetically: "... but to a long history of Chinese attempts to control the region (going back to the first century)." "This article focuses on ..." I'm not a fan of self-referentiality. The famous photograph of the helicopter on the roof during the evacuation in 1975, I've heard was not the U.S. embassy itself. The paragraph dealing with weather is really out of place here. It's interesting and important information, but it seems out of place here. Last, the first section should also mention that the Vietnamese call this the "American War." Russell D. Jones 21:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too read the other day that the evacuation was from a neighboring building. Maybe in an obit of the guy who took the photo? I think that's the source.... Hayford Peirce 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We're all correct about the helicopters. Indeed, the most commonly used photograph is from a nearby CIA building, but there was also desperation at the Embassy and elsewhere.
Let me think about China; some reference is important.
I moved the weather to the beginning of large-scale combat. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Long time coming.... I've reworked this whole section into a lede and an "overview" section. Russell D. Jones 21:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam_War&oldid=952624"