Talk:Operation Passage to Freedom

Texas Tech link
Please assert why it is not reliable or pertinent to this article. It is from a university library and is therefore a reliable source. Baka man  21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Renaming
As this article also details the northward migration as well as the southward one, I suggest renaming it Vietnamese migration of 1954, as the Vietnamese article had done. DHN 22:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Prados and numbers
The numbers cited are from the most recent piece of research based on US Navy Records by respected historian John Prados,, author of Valley of Decisions: The Siege of Khe Sanh, The Sky Would Fall: Operation Vulture - the US Bombing Mission in Indochina, Lost Crusader: The Secret Wars of CIA Director William Colby, and Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA among several others, and senior analyst at the National Security Archive. Please do not rubbish scholarship just because you don't happen to like its results. The article carefully explains how the figure of one million was a propaganda piece, and that of the 800,000 actually transported in Operation Passage to Freedom, 350,000 were either military or non-Vietnamese. Cripipper (talk) 11:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems that he is still in the minority and isn't the mainstream yet. All the other books I have consulted still all use 800-1,000.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be because they are all quoting other secondary sources, whereas this is a piece of primary research using the French and U.S. Navy records. The numbers quoted within it are the precise numbers transported as recorded by those who were organising and carrying out the transportation.  Indeed within the article there appears to be the inflation of numbers and ignoring of sources you cite elsewhere when their numbers do not match the one million claim (e.g. the article currently claims that 'North Vietnam' had 1.5 million Catholics, whereas Seth Jacob's book, which is heavily cited elsewhere, says that it only had one million, and that of these 55% moved south, rather than 60% quoted in the article (although Jacobs cites no source for this information, which makes it a questionable source anyway).  There are numerous other sources which put the Catholic population of Vietnam at the time at 1.5 million, with a 2:1 ratio above the 17th parallel in 1953.  Authoritative sources such as Tran Thi Lien put the number of Catholics who moved south at about 650,000 out of a total of 850,000 but as Prados shows, not all of these were civilians.  The point made by John Prados (and by the way if you haven't heard of John Prados then I am not sure you are in any position to be claiming ownership of any article relating to the Vietnam War, and particularly the involvement of the U.S. in it) is that of the widely quoted figure of 800,000 to one million who moved from North to South is misleading, as of the 800,000 who were transported under military supervision a little over half of these were civilians.  That is what the US and French naval archives record.  This also accords with figures contained in other of the sources you quote, such as Bui Van Luong writing in Lindholm, p. 49, who concedes that the actual number of refugees could have been as low as 600,000.  Kevin Ruane uses similar figures, so if you haven't seen these figures in any of the books you have read then I suggest you might want to read a little more widely. Cripipper (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Undue weight, 2) this article isn't published in a peer reviewed journal or a book, but a veterans website, 3) per Kevin Forsyth's comment about the same topic on Ngo Dinh Diem, it was 450,000 net, not total.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 04:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected
Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template editprotected here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2nd sentence
I think the 2nd sentence, starting with "When Turkey does it...", should be removed. This is subjective polemics, absolutely irrelevant with regard to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.29.35.250 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see any such sentence. Have you got the correct article? Skinny87 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was vandalism that has been removed. – Joe   N  16:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the Peter Hansen referred to in the article and the fotnotes. An initial citation for my work seems to be missing, as is a reference in the bibliography. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Hansen ctc (talk • contribs) 22:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Improvements needed
The Propaganda campaign section is UNDUE and US-centric. Please use the Hansen source properly instead of abusing it. Greenknight dv (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

PoV
The current version relies largely on the orthodox school of the Vietnam War. The work by Hansen is reasonably Vietnam-centric, but it is used unfairly in the article. The other issue with the article is it places too much emphasize on later developments, which is undue and anachronistic. Greenknight dv (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what exactly needs fixing because there are now a lot of POV templates, but you haven't given specific feedback, other than that there is too much emphasis, which is very vague. Even the name of the operation, "Passage to Freedom", was part of the propaganda. Moreover, the section uses more sources, not just the one written by Hansen. If other editors can't tell how to improve the article, the templates will get removed. BeŻet (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources, except the one by Hansen, reflect the views of "other players", i.e. Vietnamese communists and American anti-communists, and did not take in consideration the views of the Bắc 54 people themselves. The current version is also biased in writing about later developments citing mostly of "orthodox" historiography. Recent scholarship has offered better coverages, explanation and evaluation. I will add them when I have time. Greenknight dv (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of NPOV templates makes sense when other people can act on them. From the sounds of it, we're talking about your opinion and concern which only you can solve. Moreover, the article is about the US initiative, hence more of the emphasis on US. The article seems to be talking about the view of the migrants, so could you be more specific? BeŻet (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Further pursuant to the questions surrounding PoV, language like this from the introduction:

"In reality, the Personalist Revolution under Diệm's regime promoted religious freedom and diversity to oppose communism's atheism. However, this policy itself ultimately enabled Buddhist activists to threaten the state that supported their religious liberty."

is highly subjective and indicates a pro-Catholic, pro-Diem bias. The allegation that Diem's Personalism was the basis of a policy of support for individual liberties requires substantial support on its own, and language like "threaten the state that supported their religious liberty" is needlessly antagonistic. I suggest that this segment be re-worded or struck altogether in order to achieve a more neutral tone. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)