Talk:The Vietnam War (TV series)

Requested move 14 September 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. — Za  wl  15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Vietnam War (film) → The Vietnam War (TV series) – This is an ten-part series airing on television. Charles Essie (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:NC:TV since it is a series television.ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support dashiellx (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Safiel (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - as per other similar series examples by Burns (The Civil War (TV series), Baseball (TV series), The War (2007 TV series)) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – this is a no-brainer: it's a TV series, not a film. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support But only in favor of consistency. I'd be in favor of using the term "Documentary" other than "TV Series". JOJ  Hutton  19:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no provision for that in either WP:NCTV or WP:NCF – "documentary" is not used as a disambig. term from what I can see.... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Advert tag
I disagree with the   tag added by User:Victorgrigas on September 20. I don't see the problem. HowardMorland (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I modified the previous user's comment to suppress display of the advert tag. Safiel (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

nonsensical sourcing?
Do we really 3 footnotes/sources for the first sentence in the lead?--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Country ?
On the Arte France website and in the Arte version's credits, this documentary is from US and France and co-produced by Arte France. http://boutique.arte.tv/f12006-vietnam_effondrement Lokk at the french press kit (p19): http://artefrance-webmag.arte.tv/webmag/magazine/38-2017.pdf So should we mention France and US as countries in the box ?--Pokovoz (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Split section: Music/Soundtrack
The Soundtrack section is "meaty" enough for its own article, agreed? StevePrutz (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really convinced of it's weight - basically it's just a list of episode music (which I don't think we need TBH), and a list of CD tracks, and very little else besides... JabberJaw talk 13:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable review?
While it's great to expand the reception section...  is Mackubin Thomas Owens really a good source? "Providence" doesn't appear to be a particularly notable publication, nor does Owens seem to be particularly notable. While including some "criticism from the right" would be good, are there any better sources?

(as a side comment, that review has some issues... as does the current summary of it.  Like, the review itself says that Bob Sorley *was* interviewed and appears in the documentary???  And asking for every historian to be included, especially "revisionist" ones like Moyar, would be a formula for a 180 hour series rather than an 18 hour one, and include a lot of sighing at the "other side"'s revisionists.  also also I'm pretty sure that the documentary *does* go into North Vietnamese atrocities, reflects the South Vietnamese side pretty well, affirms that the ARVN wasn't hopelessly incompetent and enjoyed genuine support.  but that's a side issue.) SnowFire (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes; when I was doing a quick copyedit, this paragraph struck me as a bit strange. I'd expect to have heard of Owens in some context. I would argue for removing any reference to it, and -- as you say -- finding other right-wing commentaries. — Hugh (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought Owens was rather well known. There were any number of reviews I could have added, but those two were, IMO, the most well-known and respected. I was trying to add some balance, since it's nearly impossible to provide NPOV on something like this. Txantimedia (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think Moyar's critique is a better one to include, myself. If nothing else, City Journal (New York City) has a Wikipedia article about it, while Providence doesn't.  Owens doesn't appear that notable (those are some shaky sources in his article....  they prove he exists, but the same could be done for a lot of people) and his review was not IMO very good.  (Lest I be accused of POV, I should add that I've also read some "left" reviews which also shouldn't be included here due to being terrible, as they are not really responding to the documentary but instead ranting about their own politics- e.g. complaining that Burns is an imperialist for not also denouncing Afghanistan, or daring to say that anybody ever had any good intentions.) SnowFire (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Review Section Emphasis on Criticism Not Reflective of Consensus Opinion
For a film with a 90 on Metacritic, there should be more reviews highlighting some of the achievements of the film that are generally agreed upon by film critics, as opposed to quotes from just one positive review, and by a Conservative political opinion journalist no less. While I wholeheartedly concur with the inclusion of expert criticism in the rest of the "Reception" section, and think this is vital, the inclusion of ONLY George Will's positive review paints a biased picture of the film, that would leave the reader with the impression that it is not as universally acclaimed as it is if only doing a cursory reading of the section. I would manually add more review quotes, highlighting different aspects of the film, but want to make sure they won't just be immediately deleted, given the somewhat tetchy nature of this conversation. Comments? I'll add some more in a few days if this stands unaddressed. BROBAFETT (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Why the difference in length between PBS and BBC broadcast versions?
This series aired on BBC Four in October / September 2017 and again in August / September 2019 as a significantly shorter edit, ~55 minutes per episode compared to the originals ~1h20m-1h50m. That's half an hour or more of cuts per episode. Can anyone find a source explaining why these cuts were made? BBC4 usually broadcasts long-form documentaries, including plenty of mature content, and as a government-funded broadcaster has no adverts to schedule. Andrew Oakley (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)