Talk:First Indochina War

Coverage of racism
and also, In response to these edits, and to a lesser extend these comments on Laska666' talk page about this edit, I don't think that this section was adding undue weight by covering racism during this period, especially since some scholars agree that racism is often discussed in the context of this war (""). The comment "This section was even longer the Geneva Conference section" isn't an argument for full exclusion either, the section itself can be made appropriately short and the rest could be migrated to the article "Racism in Vietnam".

For this reason I decided to restore the first paragraph and restore the stuff you removed to the "Racism in Vietnam" article together with the racist South Vietnamese government policies, a lot has been written about the topic of racism in Vietnam and unfortunately not that much is covered on Wikipedia, but while I agree that that section was too long there, I don't think that the whole section should be removed purely because of either its length or the topic involved, especially since there's discussion about the topic by scholars both inside and outside of Vietnam. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought I wrote this down here, but I've noticed a weird trend where some editors claim that "Undue weight" means including a large amount of content that is well established and covered off-wiki but that here after its inclusion becomes longer than other sections, the Geneva Conference has its own Wikipedia article and it wouldn't make sense to add a very long section here on a topic that already has its own article at the English-language Wikipedia, also it makes even less sense to then remove the entire section rather than condensing it or re-writing it to only stick to the relevant points. If our standard of including new content on Wikipedia is "Does it already have an existing Wikipedia article?" Then we'd never be able to add anything. And the reason why the "Racism" section was now moved to the "French Union" section is because "the abbreviated version" excludes a lot of the more nuanced subtleties of the racism debate about this war and only mentions outright xenophobia. This doesn't really benefit the readers at all. In the earlier version the section at least linked to more context and subtleties, now it's essentially only about Vietnamese xenophobia, that is almost an entirely different (sub-)topic that rather than provides a wider context narrows the debate down to only one small aspect of it.


 * If you feel that a topic is "Undue weight" because of its size it is wiser to simply cut the parts that make it "too detailed" to make it shorter and only include "the relevant parts", but cutting out a section in its entirety (as the editor in question seems to do wherever they can if they perceive something as "Undue weight") doesn't benefit anyone, it cuts relevant content for the sake of lending prominence to subject matters already discussed by excluding all other relevant aspects of the same topic. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a new problem for Wikipedia. "Undue weight" has also been used to censor entire aspects of an individual's life and career from his/her article, and to remove widely known minority views from the descriptions of various topics. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Black africans?
My g, im pretty sure the averge person probably knows that most Africans are black 2603:8000:6C03:E638:3C09:2D26:EA8:5B00 (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * French indochina napalm 1953-12 1.png

Lu Han thing
At the picture with the context: "General Lu Han", the Lu Han page redirects to a popular singer in the modern day. Could be a vandal made by somebody (or could be a placeholder if there aren't any articles for that general), if somebody with the power to remove it, please remove it and provide us with the correct link (If there isn't any, still remove that link and provide with a non-existent page). The picture is located at "After the surrender of Japan" minisection at the "Background section". Thank you and goodbye. 2402:800:61D3:B56A:91E4:9E36:8CF:D148 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)