Talk:American wartime rape of Vietnamese women

Which convention?
Hi @AzureCitizen, which "naming convention" are you referring to here in your undiscussed move? M h hossein  talk 05:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It's how these articles are named; just type in "Rape during" in the search box at top right and you'll find many such articles auto populate the search field. There are no articles on Wikipedia that use the formulation "[Nationality] rape of [Nationality] women". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Those articles include incidents with multiple belligerents. For instance Rape during the Kashmir conflict was committed by "Dogra troops as well as Hindu and Sikh mobs during the 1947 Jammu massacres, and by Pakistani militia when the conflict broke out in 1947, including the Mirpur Massacre". Same thing is true for Rape during the occupation of Japan where the allied forces did the violation. Also, Rape during the occupation of Germany was carried out by multiple nationalities from Soviet soldiers, to US, British and French soldiers. However, this page focuses on the biggest perpetrator for the case of Vietnam, i.e. U.S.. As per WP:Title, the original title, before your undiscussed move, was 'recognizable', 'precise', 'concise' and 'natural'. Conduct a google search or go through academic sources like, . A whole scholarly book is dedicated to "rape and sexual abuse of Vietnamese women by U.S. soldiers during the Vietnam War." You can though start a WP:RM if you still think the title should change. --  M h hossein   talk 03:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, that you've written this article solely to focus on rapes of Vietnamese women by American men during the Vietnam War, and since all the other Wikipedia wartime/conflict rape articles cover sexual assaults of indigenous women by foreign military personnel of more than one nationality, you have assessed that a unique (albeit somewhat ambiguous) title like "American rape of Vietnamese Women" is better than the usual and common "Rape during (Conflict Name)" title. I say ambiguous because omitting "Vietnam War" from the title widens the potential scope to cover rapes of Vietnamese women committed by American men anywhere and at any time. That said, it's obviously an artificial exclusion to focus only on one nationality. Why not just expand the coverage to include more than one? Accordingly, I'll work up something using existing content as well as new material to expand the nationality scope shortly. As you've already moved this article back to the "American rape of Vietnamese women" name you picked when you created the article the other day, I'll put the expanded version at the "Rape during the Vietnam War" conventional article name I chose (as a courtesy, so as not to overwrite your one-nationality version here), then we can compare the two articles side by side to see which is a better way to handle the subject of rape in Vietnam during the time of the war. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've adapted Wikipedia content to include more than one nationality for a more comprehensive take on the subject matter. I also arranged it to lead with the United States section first because even though "U" comes later alphabetically, we can go with the notion that the U.S. content is more primary. Here are two links for convenience:
 * American rape of Vietnamese women → Rape during the Vietnam War
 * Have a look and let me know your thoughts after you've had a chance to compare both concepts. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination
Before proceeding with a DYK nomination, the issue from the section above should be resolved as there is now an obvious fork problem with subject and its content. I'll add a banner and merge section below to get that sorted out. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge to Rape during the Vietnam War
At this point, all of the content here at American rape of Vietnamese women is included at the more comprehensive article Rape during the Vietnam War, which effectively makes the former article a WP:CONTENTFORK of the latter, even though one was created a few days before the other. That should be resolved before any DYK nomination is adjudicated as there is no point in keeping such similar articles with the same content mirrored in the fork. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already explained to you that, according to numerous reliable and scholarly sources, U.S. is the biggest rapist in the Vietnam story. There are multiple sources SOLELY talking about rape by U.S. soldiers (not others !). Look at this: "“both literally and figuratively, Saigon has become an American brothel.”"
 * That you say my page, which is effectively the original page, is a fork of yours seems weird. Things does not work that way. According to numerous reliable sources used here, the "American rape of Vietnamese women" is notable and requires a stand alone article. Now, the American rape section in Rape during the Vietnam War is too large (per WP:SPLIT: when a "section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article" it can be spitted.) Also you had to acknowledge you were copying contents from the original page (Copying within Wikipedia). -- M h hossein   talk 08:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." WP:MERGE -- M h hossein   talk 08:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The rape section in the other article isn't large enough to justify splitting it off to a stand alone article here. See the section on Soviet Troops in Rape during the occupation of Germany for comparison.
 * These are not discrete subjects; all of the content here at "American rape of Vietnamese women" is a subset of the topic "Rape during the Vietnam War".
 * There are many "Rape during [Name of War/Conflict]" articles on Wikipedia. None of them split off an individual nationality to a daughter article.
 * Likewise, none of them predicate having stand alone articles on account of who is the "biggest rapist" per your quote above.
 * There are no articles on Wikipedia with names like "[Nationality] rape of [Nationality] women"; your choice was also inherently ambiguous as it didn't address the where or the when.
 * American rape of Vietnamese women is now a de facto content fork of Rape during the Vietnam War, regardless of the fact that one was created a few days before the other.
 * Page merges preserve the history of contributions for attribution plus there is the Talk Page record above.
 * I'll put in a request for a WP:THIRD opinion, it will provide the chance for someone else to review and comment on the situation here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability, notability! This is not the time for 3rd opinion. The discussion is ongoing and you have put a tag on the page. -- M h hossein   talk 05:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at WP:SPINOFF might be helpful for you. Although you have used my contents to create your desired title, you should remember creating subarticles is a routine procedure in Wikipedia, specially when the subject is notable enough. A whole book is dedicated to Rape by the American troops during the Vietnam war. There are other sources also used here which deeply cover the same subject. -- M h hossein   talk 06:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as a comment (I got here from WP:THIRD): content forks are really unhelpful on Wikipedia, I find. While I agree that the evidence seems to indicate that American soldiers were primarily responsible for the rapes of Vietnamese women which occurred during the Vietnamese War, I don't see the usefulness of doubling up our content or of specifying nationalities here. Also, if a reader wants to discover more about the rape of Vietnamese women during the war, he or she will probably not preface this by typing "American" first, but will start by typing "Rape"... and go from there. In the interest of helping readers get to their subject most efficiently and quickly, and in the interest of having them reach the definitive article on the subject rather than a content fork, I personally recommend consolidating this information into the broadest subject area that is appropriate (and I think you will both agree that this is a worthy goal, given the emotional nature of the subject matter). Just a thought. A loose necktie (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The more I re-read the arguments here, the more I am in favor of having there be one article on this subject, not two. A loose necktie (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This page is notable enough and can stand alone. I have used books and chapters solely covering the war time rape by US (not others). If anyone feels the title should change, then they should start a Move request, not a merge one. Plus, you have not supported your comment by guidelines. -- M h hossein   talk 03:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge. These two articles are clearly talking about the same topic, with almost exactly the same sourcing.  Obvious WP:POVFORK.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be better described as a WP:SPLIT, not a fork. The same sourcing is because a user has copied all the contents I authored to create a new page. Check the creation dates. -- M h hossein   talk 14:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to call it, and whatever the history, they are clearly covering the same topic and there's no reason to have two different articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also here from WP:THIRD: Agree that as written this article feels like a POVFORK, but could be improved with an overhaul. Regarding its existence as a whole: isn't there room for condensing the main article's text and moving most of its content to a more in-depth article, much the same way that Soviet war crimes is two short paragraphs and Deportation of the Soviet Greeks is a 450-ish word article with 15 sources? If so, I think the titles need work (and likely deletion of old ones). The original "American rape of Vietnamese women" is over-broad; it might be appropriate if there were ongoing problems with rapes committed by American tourists or something else outside the scope of the war. "American wartime rape of Vietnamese women" is better but still feels more like a headline than an encyclopedic article title. - why not move to "Rape by American troops during the Vietnam War" as suggested in your link above? –Mockingbus (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Mockingbus, I think your suggested title is even better. What do you think of the content? My contents have been copy-pasted to imply that my creation is a fork. -- M h hossein   talk 04:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the Soviet war crimes article for comparison here doesn't work well; that article has a long list of summaries for many independent articles that fall under the broad topic of war crimes (similar to United States war crimes). By my count, there are more than 30 "main article" header links in the Soviet war crimes article, so using summary style is required there.  What we should be doing here is comparing like-with-like article subjects.  All of the articles on Wikipedia dealing with rapes during particular conflicts or wars use the naming style "Rape during the [War/Conflict]" and roll up events under that one topic for readers at one location. Here are some of them:

For a relevant comparison to the article here, have a look at Rape during the occupation of Germany. The section on rapes by Soviet troops is longer than the content here on this article, but it still isn't large enough to justify splitting off to a stand-alone article. So why should this article be split off in the first place? Why isn't it more appropriate and in better keeping with existing practice that all rapes during the Vietnam War be covered in one location at one article titled Rape during the Vietnam War like all the others? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Rape during the occupation of Germany
 * Rape during the liberation of France
 * Rape during the Soviet occupation of Poland
 * Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War
 * Rape during the Kashmir conflict
 * Rape during the occupation of Japan
 * Rape during the Bosnian War
 * Rape during the Congo civil wars
 * Rape during the Armenian genocide
 * Rape during the Rwandan genocide
 * Rape during the Darfur genocide
 * Rape during the Syrian civil war
 * Merge per nom and Roy Smith. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge: As a background note, I should remind that Rape during the Vietnam War was created after I created American wartime rape of Vietnamese women – formerly under 'American rape of Vietnamese women'. Back then, I explained to AzureCitizen how the current page is mistakenly taken as content fork, which should rather be considered as a legitimate split. I have made substantial changes to both pages after this merge discussion making things really different now.
 * Per WP:CONTENTSPLIT, American wartime rape of Vietnamese women – or 'Rape by U.S. troops during the Vietnam War', is notable enough. This can be supported by the large number of reliable sources solely/deeply covering the Rape by the U.S. troops during the Vietnam War:
 * You may add to the list, the movies which are inspired by the rapes by the U.S. troops in Vietnam (see American wartime rape of Vietnamese women). According to Splitting, "If an article becomes too large, or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article, it may be appropriate for some or all of the article to be split into new article." Merging this page into the suggested destination will certainly create such a situation. Also, per WP:SPINOFF, the following is described as being vulnerable to splitting: "Articles where the expanding volume of an individual section creates an undue weight problem". Finally, the example brought by AzureCitizen, i.e. the section on rapes by Soviet troops in the Rape during the occupation of Germany, is vulnerable to splitting given the size of the article and the fact that the mentioned section (rape by Soviet troops) is "is out of proportion to the rest of the article."
 * Taking all these points into account, I suggest the current tile stand alone as a separate page. Sorry for the long comment and thanks for your time. -- M h hossein   talk 12:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the content notable? Of course it is, and Wikipedia should cover it just like all the other wartime sexual violence content.  But per the lead of WP:NOTABLE, that's "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."  In practice, the consensus for editorial discretion has been to group content on wartime rapes during any particular conflict into one article at a single location titled "Rape during the [War/Conflict]" that covers that subject. There are no articles on Wikipedia that have done what you're arguing for here, so why should this content be treated differently?
 * Per Wikipedia's information page on splitting, if an articles becomes too large, it is appropriate to be split into a new article, but are you reading the chart at WP:SIZESPLIT? It says that if an article is less than 40kb, length alone does not justify division.  Even if larger than 50kb, the chart only recommends that it "may" be divided.  The page size for Rape during the Vietnam War is 25kb.  The page size for the content here is only 21kb, and if the non-redundant content herein was ported over to the main article, the main article would still be no larger than 30kb. So why should we accept "size" as an argument that we should treat this content differently from all the other "Rape during the [War/Conflict]" articles on Wikipedia? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am actually saying this incident is very large in scale to this point:"“both literally and figuratively, Saigon has become an American brothel.”"
 * Plenty of books are authored on this subject and movies are created. There's no so-called "consensus for editorial discretion" against having this stand-alone article. For the second bullet, see WP:CONTENTSPLIT. Size, being an important point, is not always a split criteria. A notable title should have a page, unless there is a legitimate consensus against it, which lacking here. -- M h hossein   talk 11:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's twice now you've block quoted a senator's remark about the rampant prostitution going on in Saigon. That would be relevant for an article titled Prostitution during the Vietnam War, but this article is about rape during the Vietnam War. Do you understand the difference between what prostitution is and what rape is?
 * Hundreds of editors have participated in the creation and editing of the various "Rape during the [[War/Conflict]" articles on Wikipedia. None of that work and editorial discretion over the years has resulted in sub-topic articles being split off with names like "[Nationality] rape of [Nationality] women" as you've done here, an obvious de facto consensus in editorial practice.
 * Sure, plenty of books have been written on this subject. Did you notice that your leading book (by Weaver) is titled "Rape in the Vietnam War"?  That's nearly the same title as Rape during the Vietnam War and is nowhere close to "American wartime rape of Vietnamese women".
 * You cite WP:CONTENTSPLIT and say that a "notable title" should have a page, but WP:CONTENTSPLIT doesn't say anything about "notable titles". It does refer to notable topics. Sure, rape during the Vietnam War (by whoever, be it U.S. personnel, Korean personnel, or Viet Cong as currently included in the main article) is a notable topic, but all of that is properly addressed as a notable topic in the main article, just like all the other notable topics included in the various "Rape during the [War/Conflict]" articles. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with merge after the arguments by, especially in parallel to other "Rape in X war" articles. This said, there is a lot of work to be done there; I'm not sure that the long-term content is best served either by copy-and-replace or by deleting this one wholesale. I'm not sure what's best to do with the redirects that the titles will leave; as mentioned before they're over-broad and feel "headliney" or sensationalistic rather than encyclopedic.
 * - To address your earlier question, I think you've clearly put a lot of effort into this research! It's comprehensive and has good foundations. As others have discussed it needs some quote-context/NPOV/encyclopedic-tone edits and some trimming for focus, but most of it should survive a merge.
 * -Mockingbus (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You cite WP:CONTENTSPLIT and say that a "notable title" should have a page, but WP:CONTENTSPLIT doesn't say anything about "notable titles". It does refer to notable topics. Sure, rape during the Vietnam War (by whoever, be it U.S. personnel, Korean personnel, or Viet Cong as currently included in the main article) is a notable topic, but all of that is properly addressed as a notable topic in the main article, just like all the other notable topics included in the various "Rape during the [War/Conflict]" articles. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with merge after the arguments by, especially in parallel to other "Rape in X war" articles. This said, there is a lot of work to be done there; I'm not sure that the long-term content is best served either by copy-and-replace or by deleting this one wholesale. I'm not sure what's best to do with the redirects that the titles will leave; as mentioned before they're over-broad and feel "headliney" or sensationalistic rather than encyclopedic.
 * - To address your earlier question, I think you've clearly put a lot of effort into this research! It's comprehensive and has good foundations. As others have discussed it needs some quote-context/NPOV/encyclopedic-tone edits and some trimming for focus, but most of it should survive a merge.
 * -Mockingbus (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

This merge discussion has been open for 30 days and has not attracted any new commentary or viewpoints for the past week. In total, six editors have assessed the content should be merged to the "Rape during the Vietnam War" article location while considering arguments in opposition from the editor who created the "American rape of Vietnamese women" title. Probably time to move forward unless there is something new and substantial to consider here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * AzureCitizen: At the moment there is a consensus for merging the content, though I personally think there should be a stand alone article for the U.S. role. Given the expansions I conducted recently in this page, the merge should be done carefully so that the valuable content gathered here is not lost. -- M h hossein   talk 05:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern about material becoming lost or inaccessible. What we'll do for now is enter a re-direct at this location, pointing to the other article, so that readers as well as new editors start going there, while leaving the page history here undisturbed so that content can still accessed for material to port over. We can also hold off on re-directing the Talk Page in case editors have more comments to make here. After sufficient time has passed (or you feel there's nothing else you think should be ported over and you comment here accordingly), we can take further steps as well as well as re-directing the Talk Page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, the initial re-direct has been implemented. For convenience, here's a link to the page history here.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you AzureCitizen, I have no more points to add here. Are you willing to handle the port over job? Btw, the merger discussion had to opened on the talk page of he destination article. -- M h hossein   talk 06:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I've been too busy to do much Wiki editing of late, but a good chunk of the key items have been ported over now. I may come back at it again later when I have more time... regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The top part is controversial and should be edited.
The top part is controversial as it is basically in only one sided points of view, not the mainstream historians point of view. While I don't doubt there was rapes committed against Vietnamese women by American soldiers. The question everyone wants to know is how many rapes occurred? We can't just trust some authors and historians one sided point of views to represent. Like even in this book Unit 731 Testimony. By Hal Gold (a author and historian)· 2011 link, Author Hal Gold estimated 20,000 Russian women were raped by Japanese soldiers ( Japanese soldiers were in Siberia at that time) was the reason for Unit 731 experiments. From the authors points of view in the Vietnam War, I also don't find it too credible. I don't see any evidence of any number of Vietnamese women accusing American soldiers committing rape atrocities against them like the Vietnamese victims issuing 'apology' from Korean government (10 Vietnamese women came forward and said they were raped On October 14, 2015. I also don't see any evidence of conceived rape babies like in the case of Lai Đại Hàn born of Korean soldiers and Vietnamese women where they estimated 1,500 to 30,000 were born, others estimate in the 1000-1500 range. But even the rape figure is contested, some believe a minority was born from rape and the majority was from intercourse, others believe more than half of them was formed from rape. So far the only interpretation that rape was 'significant', 'frequent' or 'common' are all in the interpretations of the authors.

According to Authors Walsh, Brian P.
 * "Shortly after the Occupation ended a leftist anti-American propaganda campaign and a boom in exploitation literature coincided to produce a great number of works purporting to be true exposes of American cruelties. Though these books are wholly unreliable, and contradict contemporary evidence, many have been incorporated into mainstream history. This is an error. Stories of mass rape and organized sexual exploitation during the Occupation are better understood as metaphoric expressions of the humiliation of defeat, occupation and continuing diplomatic subordination, than as history."

Thelordofsword (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)