Talk:Paris Peace Accords

NPOV
The treaty signed in January 1973 is little different than the treaty that Henry Kissinger proclaimed he would sign during October 1972, prior to the presidential election. Also, if you read the letters from Nixon to Thieu sent during January 1973, you will learn that Nixon says "either sign or I will sign a unilateral agreement with North Viet Nam...and if I sign a deal with just North Viet Nam, I will terminate all aid to South Viet Nam." Moreover, don't forget that Nixon had recently played his "China card" and had recognized the government of China. Viet Nam was noose around his diplomacy whereas China offered great political rewards. And regardless of Nixon's long history of loudly beating the drum against communism, he was more than anxious to embrace China if it would salvage his career. Dick Nixon like Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu, Nguyen Khanh and Nguyen Van Thieu, was only concerned about his career and mythical place in history. Nothing else mattered and that is the reason all ended in history's garbage heap of deposed dictators. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vietnamtopsecret (talk • contribs).

Attention: This article is horribly biased, the entire third and fourth paragraphs need to be edited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchup4cabra (talk • contribs).

"The treaty's terms were unpopular with many in Diem's Southern government." In 1973, the president of the South Vietnamese Government was Nguyen Van Thieu. Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated in a coup in 1963. I would like to edit to fix that mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.22.73 (talk • contribs).

Le Hoai Viet

This article pretty much tells it like it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.248.80 (talk • contribs).

This article is amazingly biased. It also needs more about the actual talks. The Commie agitprop that is the summaryn of the war should be deleted or moved to the Vietnam War page. This page shoudl be about the acutal talks in Paris. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.223.116 (talk • contribs).

The article is not only biased, it is *horribly* written and woefully inaccurate. I've just read the 7/31/06 New Yorker article on Wikipedia. This article is one of those that justifies the remark by one critic that "Wikipedia is to Britannica as 'American Idol' is to the Juilliard School." One example: "Negotiations between National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger had been proceeding with little success since 1968." Between Kissenger and WHOM? Inaccuracies and oversimplifications are many, not just the result of shading the article in an anti-American sense (I opposed the Vietnam War from '62 on), but out of ignorance, for example: "Despite superior fire-power, the U.S. was not winning the guerilla warfare because the Government of South Viet Nam was not supported by the people, as it was always a military dictatorship with revolving door leaders." This is nonsense. Ngo Dinh Diem (a civilian) was president of South Vietnam for many years until deposed and murdered by a U.S.-encouraged military coup on Nov. 1, 1963. There was then a succession of ten military governments over the next 17 months, until a government headed by Nguyen Van Thieu (chief of state) and Nguyen Cao Ky (prime minister and head of the S. Vietnamese Air Force) took power in June, 1965. This government remained in power until the end of the American involvement. 'Nuff said? REWRITE IT FROM SCRATCH. 69.144.100.154 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is completely rewritten. Hopefully most of the concerns are addressed. I have removed the NPOV tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Another element that appears to be biased is the 'Aftermath' paragraph. To suggest that the North was sole responsilbe for the failure of the agreement is bias --212.139.163.229 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Then fix it yourself, please. This is Wikipedia.  Be sure to cite sources.  Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added more info to the Aftermath section to undue the bias in that section.71.156.61.88 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Article should contain a section on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the criticism that "irony is dead" in America, as demonstrated when Kissinger accepted the prize while fighting was indeed underway. Tempshill (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There are too many things we should know about the Paris Peace Accords, especially the Vietnam War. An So many confused things in the Vietnam War we need to work out first. The confusing has come from the books written by the Anti-war American and the Vietnamese Communist's propaganda.

With me, the U.S government has responsibility in the broken of this agreement and with the Vietnamese in the South of Vietnam, who can not be under a Commmunist regime. It's clear that this agreement's mostly written by the US side with their promise to protect it before the US forced the South Vietnamese president to sign in.

Daocongkhai76.200.161.84 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations
Recently User:Armando Navarro, who has a reasonable-looking contributions record, added a new subsection under Paris peace talks, headed "Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations" and containing the following:

and citing the following references:

Anon user User:70.54.3.70 removed this addition here with an edit summary reading, simply, "Alleged".

The addition was heavily cite-supported (perhaps too heavily, style-wise), and I nearly reverted on that basis. I thought, though, that I would take a quick look at some of the cited supporting sources. I picked [12] to start with, since it seems to support a very straightforward assertion. That cite contains a link which it says is to page 198 of an online book preview. When clicked, the link navigates to page 246 of that book. Both pages 198 and 246 are previewable, and neither seems to contain anything relevant to the point needing support. Page 243, however may contain some relevant material.

So, I've left the removal of the section unreverted and have moved the material to this talk page. I don't plan to do anything further on this myself. I'll leave a note about this on User talk:Armando Navarro. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for restoration

 * Technical problem on [12] is now fixed.


 * FBI wiretaps, Johnson recordings, Chennault statements, etc, cannot be brushed aside as « allegations ».

Armando Navarro (talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After the restoration, I notice that reference [12] in the edited article still says, "... p.198. ...", with a clickable link which still navigates to page 246 in the book preview. Also, there seem to be some square-bracket problems because the square-bracker is a wikitext markup character&mdash;e.g., [Richard Nixon], [KC Johnson Robert|"KC" Johnson], Johnson], and Eisenhower]’s chief of staff] were probably meant to render respectively as something like ([[Richard Nixon), Robert "KC" Johnson, (Johnson), and (Eisenhower’s chief of staff). There are other instances of a square-bracket being used to parenthesize things, and it would probably better overall to adopt a consistent convention of using round-parens as parenthesizing punctuation. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've got some problems with this. I've stated it at the nixon article, and I'm saying it here.  These matters were Johnson's suspicions; Nixon denied them.  I see nothing that makes it clear that there is an established historical fact.  Yet AN's addition not only so alleges, but states as fact that a crime was committed, and presumably the serious crime of treason.  Please remember that there are Nixon aides still alive; there might be a serious BLP issue here.  I suggest that this be eliminated, or at the very least toned down considerably.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

___
 * It's been awhile, but I agree with some of the points above and have somewhat refactored this section, first for readability (removing a lot of the quotes that are also presented here anyway) and second for neutrality, both in the use of neutral terms (e.g. not "junta") and in making clear that this is an allegation. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't read "claimed" sabotage--it happened, folks. The tapes are out, the documentation is out. The section needs to be completely and totally rewritten because of what we now know from the LBJ tapes and the file on the Chennault affair. Dallek's claims need to be completely junked in favor of more recent works on the issue, such as Ken Hughes's recent book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

These are no longer "allegations" but facts backed by the historic record. We have the classified documents and the tapes. We know Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to secure his election. There is no dispute over this anymore. sn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

New info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html Keith McClary (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

ratification?
Did the U.S. Senate ratify the agreement? If not, the U.S. was not bound by the agreement, so ratification is a pretty significant piece of information to include in the article.Wikimedes (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to |this, the administration never asked the Senate to ratify it. I added mention in the lead that it was not ratified, though probably a better source could be found.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge/Rename/Divide/??
What is the relationship between the "Paris Peace Accords" and the "Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam"? Let's sort this out. Also see: Talk:Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. groupuscule (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Were the "Accords" the negotiations in 1973 specifically that led to the "Agreement?"
 * Should the "Agreement" be described in the same article as the "Accords"?
 * Should a different article describe the Paris peace negotiations from 1968–1973?

Support Merger Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Merger 97.116.183.238 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Merger Smallchief (talk 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Merge. History shows that the second article was created by a user intending to provide the full text of the Agreement, which was later transferred to Wikisource, leaving it void. The topics are identical (Accords and Agreement are synonymous), there is no room for two articles. As there is little content to keep anyway, I suggest redirecting to. Place Clichy (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion RE "Claimed sabotage" section
The following exchange was moved here from User talk:Cgingold:

I don't have to give reasons to your satisfaction for retaining well-cited material from widely accepted reliable sources. In a content dispute, where you feel a RS is being given undue weight, the onus is on you to gather consensus for removal. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That's very cute, seeing as you yourself recently rewrote the entire section to your liking -- without making even the slightest effort to seek or reach concensus with the editors whose work you replaced. I merely removed an unnecessary and duplicative passage that added nothing of real value to the article and only served to express the opinions of an author whose views you find congenial.


 * So, actually, you do need to provide a good reason for re-adding text that merely serves to "gild the lily". As I explained in my edit summaries:
 * "removed entire passage quoting Conrad Black - 1) Reiterates what was already said in passages quoting Dallek & 2) Dallek is a respected professional historian, Black is merely an admiring biographer"
 * "Kissinger's honor is adequately defended by Dallek, so there's no need or compelling reason to reiterate what was already said. Black's views are not especially noteworthy & there's already plenty on Kissinger in the section"
 * Cgingold (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have acted in accord with WP:BRD, unlike you. Your actions either have merit on their own terms, or they do not. As I said in my edit summary, "Black is a notable RS whose opinions are clearly ascribed". That is a more than adequate rationale for reverting your arbitrary deletions. There is absolutely no policy-based justification for your edit warring.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious?? I am frankly amazed that you would cite WP:BRD, given your own history with this article -- as I pointed out above. My deletion was in no way "arbitrary" -- it was carefully considered, and done in order to make the section a little more balanced than it was when I found it. You, on the other hand, engaged in wholesale deletion of the existing text, substituting a whole new version that was to your liking. Cgingold (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * PS - Whatever else he may be, Conrad Black is NOT a Reliable Source on the diplomatic history of the Vietnam War. Cgingold (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But he is a RS for his own opinions, which is the argument that I have been making.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion resumes
Rather than just arguing back and forth, I think it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems to me that we have two basic options with respect to this section:
 * 1) We can provide a straightforward summary setting out the basic facts of the incident/issue, along with a brief discussion of the controversy that has surfaced in later years, OR
 * 2) We can provide a bare-bones summary as a section of this article, linking it to a separate article that more fully explores both the incident and the surrounding controversy.

In any event, Conrad Black hardly qualifies as a neutral source, so if his views are to be cited, they will need to be balanced by others. Cgingold (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not apply to source's opinions, as you well know. If alternative quotes exist from sources of comparable stature, it is on you to find them, not others to meet your vague demands under threat of edit warring. I am, however, sympathetic to the proposal of a simple summary. Note well that you cannot have it both ways.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Map of ceasefire line
Is anyone able to locate a map showing the 1973 ceasefire line? Mztourist (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My self-produced map of the approximate areas of control by the communists and South Vietnam is in the article. I don't know of a better map. Smallchief (talk  13:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paris Peace Accords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041209132535/http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon-vietnam.html to http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/nixon-vietnam.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Title above illustration: Paris Peace TORTOISES?
With no reference explaining that title, it seems like a hacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:500:B200:4D27:5D40:890B:64AC (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Map is old (as per the map image itself)
The map in this article is from 65-67 and notably shows control of a number of areas that were not under northern control at that point.2607:FEA8:13C0:225:DDC6:FC18:E60C:3914 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding a 'Note section" not to mix this up with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements - Comprehensive Cambodian Peace Agreements?
Quite confusing all these Paris Agreements and Paris Peace Agreements and Paris Peace Talks. Shouldn't we add a note on both articles. cf. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords are not to be confounded with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements And visa versa? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)