Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 20

Vietnam War title
Since the "Vietnam War" was never declared in the United States, is the title accurate in stating that the military action was indeed a War? The Vietnam conflict was not a War since the U.S. Congress did not declare War, just as there was no war in Korea, since the U.S. Congress did not declare War there either. Suggested title rename to "U.S. - Vietnam military conflict 1955-1975" Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe this question was discussed ad nauseam in Archive 19.72.197.57.247 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea that Vietnam was a "conflict" as opposed to a war because the US Congress did not formally declare it is laughable on the face of it. Millions were killed, more bombs were dropped on SE Asia than all of Europe during WWII, but don't call it a war! These guys seem to have no problem with calling it war, as well as the Pentagon, LBJ and Nixon. Hinging it on a formal declaration of war is just splitting hairs, it's original research, and in any case the name most commonly used by independent historians is "Vietnam War" making the discussion moot even if all US government sources had carefully avoided the word "war". As far as I can tell, efforts to redefine the Vietnam War as a "conflict" is just a fringe trying to make the US look better ("we never lost a war, because we never declare one in Korea or Vietnam."). Moving the goalposts will not help you score in the nationalistic mythos Olympics, sorry. See further the |the previous discussion on this.--Sus scrofa (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me but rhe USA was not the only party to the war. I bleive its called a war by the Veitnamese, The Ausies, New Zeeland . I won't bother checking any others.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Original research? The Cult of the Presidency: America's Dangerous Devotion to Executive Power Healy (2008) p. 31. The U.S. constitution states that Congress declares war, not historians. The President has the power to defend national interest, such as any treaty negotiation.  Vietnam was a full scale war without any declaration from Congress.  Maybe rather then name change, this issue needs to be discussed in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have solved the matter. According to Healy (2008), p. 91, the Tonkin Resolution on August 5, 1964 was in fact a declaration of war without having stated a declaration of war. In essence, the Tonkin Resolution was an actual declaration of war giving the President authorization to launch a full scale war in South East Asia. I have added information in the article with Healy (2008) as a reference source. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Again all this is orrelevant it was not soley (or even majoritaly) a US war, so what the US thouight is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The U.S. lost the most men in the war and that is not irrelevant. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Cmguy777 (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * South Vietnam lost 4 times as many and North Vietnam 20 times as many, so if we are going by numbers lost we should use the NV’s name for the conflict (Resistance War Against America), do you agree to that name change?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In terms of European American powers the U.S. lost the most troops. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Does the NV list include civilian casualties or just the NV soilders?  I mentioned previously the issue "name" has been resolved. I am no longer for any name change.  I added pertinent information on Healy (2008), p. 91.  There is no need to rename the article "Resistance War Against America".  That means that the VC believed the primary factor in the Vietnam War were Americans or U.S. troops. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So only European American matter? Nore does it matter if teh deaths are cvilian or millitary, they are still dead.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The South Vietnamese were the U.S. ally, supposedly. They would be included as part of the overall anti-communist alliance to defeat the NV's. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NV still sufferd 4 times as many casualties as the FW forces.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found a source for Vietnam War casualties The encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. This source divides causalties between two wars the Indo China War and the Vietnam War.  In the Vietnam War there were no European powers fighting, other then Russia for the NVN. In terms of the U.S. Alliance the RVN lost the most at 1,390,357 and the U.S. 361,855. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your source says SVN had 225,000 killed in action (as compared to 1,100,000 thousand communist battlefield deaths). With a total of 2,000,000 civilian dead between both sides (Figures ranging from SVN range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 whilst those in the north range from 30,000 to 2,000,000. So a figure of 2,000,000 for both sides does seem to be the middle estimate).Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Slatersteven. The numbers I gave were from the Vietnam War article.  The War was definately high casualties. Maybe there needs to be an update on the casualty list in the Vietnam War article.Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From the Vietnam war article SVN 220,357 (lowest est.)[7] – 316,000 dead (highest est.);[8] (that is no where near 1,000,000).Slatersteven (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I included the wounded and the dead. Casualties include both wounded and dead. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The communitst suffred over 1,800,000 casulties.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

U.S. Casualties and Loses
There was a discussion of American war deaths (hostile and non-hostile) in the early part of 2011, which is now in Archive 18 that cited total U.S. Vietnam War deaths as follows:

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths (47,434 hostile and 10,786 non-hostile) during the Vietnam War as set forth below:

Total 1956	1 1957	1 1959	2 1960	5 1961	16 1962	53 1963	122 1964	216 1965	1,928 1966	6,350 1967	11,363 1968	16,899 1969	11,780 1970	6,173 1971	2,414 1972	759 1973	68 1974	1 1975	62 After 1975	7 Total	58,220*


 * Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths as well as hostile and non-hostile totals are confirmed by the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010, pages 3 and 11 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf), and the yearly breakdown is provided by A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C/updated 2012 reprint). This graph would be a useful addition to the Wiki article.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the addition of some sort of graph of American war deaths would be very useful. 69.104.55.32 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The McFarland website enables one to view yearly breakdowns of hostile deaths:

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/contents-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2

Totals match up with the CRS report figures.72.197.86.130 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Actually the yearly breakdowns of both hostile and non-hostile deaths, totaling 58,220 American deaths (during the Vietnam War), are available on the Mcfarland website.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Lawrence book referenced above is the only source I have found that provides a yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans who died in the Vietnam War.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAICS, the figures given above and discussed in archive 18 don't meet WP:V requirements. The figures in do. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-US date formatting used in the article?
Rightly this article is written in US-ENG, but isn't "1 November 1955" for example non-US date formatting? XD - or did it change? Excuse my ignorance :3 --Nutthida (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

School Shooting
Here's something I stumbled upon: North Vietnam may have committed the worst school shooting in history in February of 1968 when the Viet Cong murdered at least 170 students at Gia Hoi High School in Hue. Don't know where it might fit into the article but it certainly is illuminating. 64.169.155.230 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source?Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there's an article on Wikipedia made in 2009 (last edit history Nov 2011) regarding the Hue Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_Massacre . EDIT: Appears this information has already been subtly added. Demon971 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012
In the first line of the third paragraph under the subheading "Insurgency in the South, 1954-1960," there is a possessive pronoun, "its," that contains an apostrophe, written "it's" as if it were a contraction of "it is." The apostrophe should be removed. The possessive pronoun "its" should never contain an apostrophe. Rvkemp (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)rvkemp

Rvkemp (talk) 16:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 17:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section
9th paragraph, 1st sentence, currently reads as follows: “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.”

I feel this sentence should be re-written to state, “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). The war produced 5,283 amputees.”

All of these casualty figures can be verified in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf).72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 8th Paragraph, first two sentences read as follows:


 * More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, some 1.5 million of whom actually saw combat in Vietnam. James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops."


 * The first sentence contradicts the second sentence. I recommend rewriting the 1st sentence as follows (whiling deleting the 2nd sentence as it was only during 1969, not 1968, the troop levels reached 543,000): "More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, less than 700,000 actually served in combat roles in Vietnam."


 * Fyi -- A total of 2,644,000 servicemen and women served in the Vietnam War sent into harm’s way to Vietnam (50,000 up through 1964, and then 2,594,000 between 1965 and March of 1973). Source:  VFW Magazine, April 1997.


 * Also, many sources contend that 22% of all the Army soldiers in Vietnam were in combat roles, with the remaining 78% providing support. Some contend that only 15% (vice 22%) of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were actually in combat arms (10% serving in the infantry, and 5% serving in the artillery and armor). However this 15% figure does not take into account medics, helicopter pilots, and combat engineers, which many contend should also be added to the mix, so it is arguable to stay with 22% as being a realistic, albeit conservative, percentage of those soldiers in Vietnam at any given time that were considered to have served in combat roles. Supporting Sources: Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America (cites the 15% figure), submitted to the Subcommittee on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the Institute of Medicine on 6 July 2006, and Melvin R. Laird, “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam.” (cites 10% infantry figure) Article, Vol 84, Number 6, (NY: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005).72.197.86.130 (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If you go with the 2.6 million figure vice the "more than 3 million" figure, then those serving in “combat roles” would total less than 600,000, which is probably the most accurate statement. In Vietnam there was the equivalent of 9 Army divisions and 2 Marine divisions.  Perhaps the Marines had a higher percentage in combat roles, since much of their support was provided by Navy personnel, however the Navy and Air Force had a smaller percentage in combat roles, hence 22% of the 2.6 million, or "less than 600,000 in combat roles" is a supportable figure to apply.72.197.57.247 (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to how the Wiki editors go about making corrections/changes to the article. There are about half a dozen significant corrections put forward within this Talk section, and yet it seems they can sit there for weeks, during which no action is taken.  I was just wondering whether there is a "to do" schedule that the Wiki editors have set for themselves to turn their energies to this Vietnam War article, or whether an authorized Wiki editor can make changes to the article whenever he or she deems it appropriate.  I have no idea how corrections are incorporated, and I don't know whether our contributions to this Talk section have any real impact.  Hopefully a Wiki editor can enlighten me.72.197.86.130 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's an interesting stat I came across: only 300,000 US Air Force personnel served in Vietnam. Over 10 years that averages out to only 30,000 a year. Must have been an elite force. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. Just not heavy in manpower. Small does not always mean elite.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2012
The U.S. government viewed involvement in the war as a way to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam as part of their wider strategy of containment in support of the “domino theory” that justified American intervention. (McNamara “Argument without End” p. 19)

The Strategic Hamlet Program had been initiated in 1961. This joint U.S.-South Vietnamese program attempted to resettle the rural population into fortified camps. The aim was to isolate the population from the insurgents, provide education and health care, and strengthen the government's hold over the countryside. ( The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 2, "The Strategic Hamlet Program, 1961-1963," pp. 128-159, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971)) . In part, this was because Colonel Pham Ngoc Thao, a Diem favorite who was instrumental in running the program, was in fact a communist agent who used his Catholicism to gain influential posts and damage the ROV from the inside. ( The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, Chapter 2, "The Strategic Hamlet Program, 1961-1963," pp. 128-159, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971))

In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces, including the NLF, suffered 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during Hanoi's conflict with the United States. Civilian deaths were put at two million in the North and South, and economic reparations were demanded. ( Turgeon, Lynn. The Political Economy of Reparations (Durham, NC Duke University Press 1973) pgs. 111-125)

Above are the areas that i had noted a few months ago that required citations. Included are the sources of my information.

Ihate10mtn (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Two of your sources (McNamara, Pentagon Papers) are primary sources and are unacceptable for the analysis placed on them. The third is incapable of supporting its claim as the source pre-dates its claim by 22 years. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
According to Dale Kueter, "Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. Of those killed in combat, 86.3 percent were white, 12.5 percent were black and the remainder from other races." This part is wrong. I suggest you add something from this website. http://www.vhfcn.org/stat.html This is the relevant info:


 * Average age of 58,148 killed in Vietnam was 23.11 years. (Although 58,169 names are in the Nov. 93 database, only 58,148 have both event date and birth date. Event date is used instead of declared dead date for some of those who were listed as missing in action) [CACF]


 * Deaths       Number          Average Age
 * Total    58,148          23.11 years
 * Enlisted 50,274          22.37 years
 * Officers 6,598           28.43 years
 * Warrants 1,276           24.73 years
 * E1       525             20.34 years
 * USMC 0351 1,122          20.46 years
 * 11B MOS  18,465          22.55 years

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This contribution is unacceptable due to the incredibly low quality of sourcing proposed. The source miscited (the acknowledged author is "Gary Roush") is not at the standard of reliability for this article.  It is a personal web-page published on the website of a recreational association.  This is not the standard of sourcing used in military history articles.  The first use of "newsweek" I found in this article was Original Research btw. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I'll give you other websites which site similar info:
 * http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/11/9/143935.shtml
 * http://remembervietnam.homestead.com/thevietnamwar.html
 * http://www.lzcenter.com/Myths%20and%20Facts.html
 * http://www.rjohnsonbooks.com/vietnam.htm
 * http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf


 * All of this data seems to be from Combat Area Casualty File (November 1993)
 * (The CACF is the basis for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, i.e. The Wall), Center for Electronic Records, National Archives, Washington, DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.216.174 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Newsmax, is at best, a contemporary newspaper. It has no competence in historical statistics.
 * Remembervietnam is a personal webpage or blog.
 * The page at lzcenter is a sequence of personal reflections published by an website not known for its historical publishing
 * The page at rjohnsonbooks is a personal webpage or blog
 * The document hosted by FAS is reliable, Leland, Anne; Oboroceanu, Mari-Jana; and Congressional Research Service (2010-02-26) American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics [Report] Congressional Research Service. RL32492.
 * If you're using this, please cite and link to the original. The Federation of American Scientists has no credibility as an archive of government documents. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fifelfoo, your personal requirements are not in line with WP:RS and you are being difficult for no viable reason. Just because FAS stored it doesn't mean it is inaccurate, merely that they host the file. Your guidance actually runs contrary to WP:CITE which states you should use cite where you found the source of your information, not where its originals are held in a repository. We aren't writing a dissertation on "historical statistics" so contemporary accounts are perfectly acceptable, though it would probably be best to phrase it along the lines of "Contemporary accounts of casualties put the figure at _______, which align/don't align with later Congressional analyses (cite FAS document). Buffs (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Prove that FAS hasn't doctored the PDF file. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP doesn't work that way. You don't get to make your own rules and ask your own (impossible-to-answer) questions to personally determine their worth in an article. What you've asked is an impossible question to answer. I can't prove that FAS didn't doctor it anymore than you can prove I wasn't in Washington D.C. this weekend. Sure you can prove I was in D.C. this weekend, but it is all but impossible to prove I wasn't.
 * Instead, let's focus on reality.
 * FAS has no reason to lie about this document which is clearly labeled as a CRS document.
 * FAS may not be peer reviewed, but that doesn't make this document wrong. Just because a source is questionable doesn't make its facts wrong by definition. If someone from the KKK claims "the sky is blue", it doesn't make all claims that "the sky is blue" false or suspect. Likewise, jut because FoxNews has a conservative tilt/HuffPo has a liberal tilt doesn't make their facts incorrect, only that their analysis may be tainted by personal opinion.
 * If two sources (one with a strong record for peer review: NewsWeek) independently verify a claim, it's good enough for WP. If you have a problem with its sources, then deal with them appropriately (such as noting where the numbers come from as I mentioned above), not strong-arming them out of an article. We already use NewsWeek and other "contemporary" sources in this article and using this one is also fine. Buffs (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP works exactly this way you provide a PDF from a random website, not from the publisher. There is no reason to believe that the copy you cite is an accurate copy.  FAS has no reputation as an archival body.  The sourcing standard for history articles isn't NewsWeek and something you pull off the web. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

A reasonably reliable source for casualties (since there seems to be a bias for online sources) is here. It doesn't break down by MOS, but does give a decent overview of in-theater losses. A direct link to the cited report (accessed via a William and Mary University link) is here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I was able to obtain a July 13, 2005 CRS report of American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics from the University of North Texas at the following website. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7516/m1/1/high_res_d/RL32492_2005Jul13.pdf


 * and the most current CRS Report dated February 26, 2010: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf


 * The 2005 report cites 58,209 Americans died in the Vietnam War, while the 2010 report cites 58,220. I had spoken to the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) back in 2009, who assembles the figures.  He told me that one reason for the change is that some of those who had been listed as wounded had been moved into the death category.  This is the primary reason why the death total has changed over the years, and as per the most recent CRS report now stands at 58,220.72.197.57.247 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2012
Edit request 1: Inclusion of a graph showing American War deaths by year in the Vietnam War based on the information provided in the Talk Section above titled U.S. Casualties and Losses.

Edit request 2: The info box for U.S. wounded needs to be corrected to read 303,644 vice 303,635 based on the information provided above in the Section titled Casualties and losses info box for United States.

Edit request 3: The 9th paragraph, 1st sentence, in the Section – Effect on the United States, requires improvement and should be changed to read: By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). The war produced 5,283 amputees.

Edit request 4: The 8th Paragraph, first two sentences, in the Section – Effect on the United States, should be replaced with the following sentence:  More than 2.6 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, of which less than 600,000 actually served in combat roles in Vietnam.

Verifications for all of these edit requests are provided in this Talk Section.72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don’t believe a yearly breakdown of American War deaths in the Vietnam War has ever been broadly displayed. Here is an opportunity for Wikipedia to be the first to exhibit these figures, and thereby become the definitive source for people researching the Vietnam War.72.197.57.247 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that e-motion. I think a graph would be great.  108.237.241.88 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to provide the actual text or table which you want to inset into the article and you need to provide reliable sources with the request which support the changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Round 2
Edit request 1: Inclusion of a graph showing American War deaths by year in the Vietnam War based on the information provided in the Talk Section above titled U.S. Casualties and Losses.

Here is the source:

A. T. Lawrence (2009). "Appendix C : U.S. Hostile (Combat) and Non-Hostile Deaths". Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-4517-2.

Here is the text and the table that was provided in the Talk Section above titled U.S. Casualties and Losses (when I attempt to copy the table into this talk section the graph seems to fall away and lay out the figures horizontally):

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths during the Vietnam War as set forth below:

Total 1956	1 1957	1 1959	2 1960	5 1961	16 1962	53 1963	122 1964	216 1965	1,928 1966	6,350 1967	11,363 1968	16,899 1969	11,780 1970	6,173 1971	2,414 1972	759 1973	68 1974	1 1975	62 After 1975	7 Total	58,220*


 * Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

Additionally there are three other requested corrections/changes:

Edit request 2: The info box for U.S. wounded needs to be corrected to read 303,644 vice 303,635 based on the information provided above in the Section titled Casualties and losses info box for United States.

Edit request 3: The 9th paragraph, 1st sentence, in the Section – Effect on the United States, requires improvement and should be changed to read: By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). The war produced 5,283 amputees.

Edit request 4: The 8th Paragraph, first two sentences, in the Section – Effect on the United States, should be replaced with the following sentence: More than 2.6 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, of which less than 600,000 actually served in combat roles in Vietnam.72.197.86.130 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is the source for edit request 1:

http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/excerpts/978-0-7864-4517-2.AppendixC.pdf

Here is the source for edit requests 2, 3, and 4:

All of these casualty figures can be verified in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf).72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For Edit requests 2 and 3, verification is found on page 3 of the CRS Report for the 153,303 and 150,341 wounded figures that total 303,644. The 58,220 figure also appears on page 3 of the CRS Report and the 5,283 amputees figure appears on page 9 of the CRS Report, while the 2.6 million figure can be found on page 11.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Mostly. #1: Pretend the article isn't protected. Write the actual formatting and text which will produce the table you would like to add. The source for the table seem fine, but it is copyrighted, so use the information, don't copy the content. Remember to say where in the article the table should be placed. #2: Since the reference in the current article only supports 303644, I've corrected the infobox. #3: That level of detail in that place in the text is unwieldy. The footnote explains the breakdown of the wounded. #4: That source says that the value it provides is estimated and the source doesn't include the 600,000 number (that I could see). Do you have a source which provides the 600,000 number? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Round 3
Striving to provide edit request #1 in the format you require (this graph should appear alongside paragraph 9 in the section titled Effect on the United States where the 58,220 American deaths are mentioned):

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths during the Vietnam War as set forth below:

Total

1956	1

1957	1

1959	2

1960	5

1961	16

1962	53

1963	122

1964	216

1965	1,928

1966	6,350

1967	11,363

1968	16,899

1969	11,780

1970	6,173

1971	2,414

1972	759

1973	68

1974	1

1975	62

After 1975	7

Total	58,220*


 * Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24. (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2)


 * Regarding edit request #4: Here are the sources that support the 600,000 number, however they are provided as percentages of the total number, with 22%, the most conservative percentage applied to the 2.6 million arrives at less than 600,000. Many sources contend that 22% of all the Army soldiers in Vietnam were in combat roles, with the remaining 78% providing support. Some contend that only 15% (vice 22%) of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were actually in combat arms (10% serving in the infantry, and 5% serving in the artillery and armor). However this 15% figure does not take into account medics, helicopter pilots, and combat engineers, which many contend should also be added to the mix, so it is arguable to stay with 22% as being a realistic, albeit conservative, percentage of those soldiers in Vietnam at any given time that were considered to have served in combat roles. Supporting Sources: Statement of Vietnam Veterans of America (cites the 15% figure), submitted to the Subcommittee on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and the Institute of Medicine on 6 July 2006, and Melvin R. Laird, “Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam.” (cites 10% infantry figure) Article, Vol 84, Number 6, (NY: Foreign Affairs, November/December 2005).72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps edit request #3 (revising 1st sentence of 9th paragraph in Section – Effect on the United States) could be re-written as follows:


 * By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 requiring hospitalization and another 150,341 treated at field aid stations) of which 5,283 became amputees.72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

One last comment about the less than 600,000 number in combat roles. The Army had the equivalent of 9 divisions in Vietnam, the Marines had 2, and then there was the Air Force and the Navy. Perhaps the Marines had a higher percentage of combat personnel, though they had only two of the eleven infantry divisions (Army/Marine Corps) in Vietnam, while the Navy (had SEALs and aviators), and the Air Force had its pilots, but you can see, taken all together that the 22% figure, equating to less than 600,000 military personnel in combat roles, is justifiable and actually a conservative figure, most likely it was quite a bit lower.72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: You need to use one of the table classes to format the table appropriately. For an example, see the table in the Weapons section. You can use a sandbox to create the table and work it into the desired appearance then paste it here. Regarding #4, it doesn't sound like you have a source that actually says the 600k number and the current text has a source, so I think we need to stay with that. The problem with applying WP:CALC to these sorts of numbers is that the percentage may be calculated using a larger group and applying it to the smaller set of service members in may be misleading. Regarding #3, again, this level of precision and detail does not seem appropriate for that paragraph and the current sentence is sourced. If you wanted to change "wounded" to "seriously wounded" or add a footnote to explain, that would be better. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Round 4
In regards edit request #1, here is a table I have attempted to construct:

Total American Deaths in Vietnam War Year			Deaths 1956	1 1957	1 1959	2 1960	5 1961	16 1962	53 1963	122 1964	216 1965	1,928 1966	6,350 1967	11,363 1968	16,899 1969	11,780 1970	6,173 1971	2,414 1972	759 1973	68 1974	1 1974	62 1975	1 After 1975	7 Total	58,220*

wounds or from illness after 1975.
 * Seven (7) individuals died of their

Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C). (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2)

In regards edit request #3, the CSR (Congressional Research Service) Report states the following on page 3:

“Hosp. Care Req’d: 153,303; No Hospital Care: 150,341.”

This is why I felt writing the following was accurate: By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 requiring hospitalization and another 150,341 treated at field aid stations) of which 5,283 became amputees. I feel that “seriously wounded” might lead to more confusion, and I’m at a loss in how to say it. I want readers to be aware that 303,644 were wounded, because there are quite a few books out that just use the 153,303 number (taking into account only those requiring hospitalization), which seems very misleading. Perhaps it could be better written as follows:

By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded, of which 153,303 required hospitalization and 5,283 became amputees.

In regards edit request #4 regarding the “less than 600,000 in combat roles number.” No one disputes that only about 10% of Army served in the infantry, and 5% were in the other two combat arms (artillery and armor). Most everyone knows that the preponderance of troops provided support for the combat soldiers. Hence 22% in combat roles, by adding medics, pilots, and combat engineers is a quite reasonable approach. Currently the article reads:

More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War, some 1.5 million of whom actually saw combat in Vietnam. James E. Westheider wrote that "At the height of American involvement in 1968, for example, there were 543,000 American military personnel in Vietnam, but only 80,000 were considered combat troops.

Here the first sentence is incorrect, and few will agree that 1.5 million “saw combat.” The 2nd sentence is more realistic and reflects a 15% figure (so that most be infantry, artillery, and armor). However if one takes into account medics, helicopter pilots, combat engineers, then the percentage goes a bit higher, In any case “less than 600,000 in combat roles” would still easily apply.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see I am hopeless at constructing the table you are requesting. I feel the info would a valuable addition to the Wiki article on the Vietnam War, but it appears that I am not the one able to construct the table.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I wanted to make one last point regarding the “less than 600,000 that were in combat roles.” Even if you use the 15% figure, which equates to 390,000 of the 2.6 million American military serving in the Vietnam War (Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy) or you use the 22% figure arriving at 572,000 serving in combat roles, in either case, whichever numbers you wish to use – i.e. less than 400,000, or less than 600,000, which I feel is a more realistic number as mentioned previously to include medics, pilots, combat engineers (you have been provided the 10% (infantry) and the 15% (infantry, artillery, and armor) verified source figures), you now know that “at least” 15% saw combat, while most everyone knows that 1.5 million (as the article presently asserts) certainly did not experience combat.  There is not a magical precise number, there are only intelligent estimates.  I would encourage Wiki editors to make a determination here, as anything would be am improvement to the present article's assertion that 1.5 million saw combat in Vietnam, hence a change should be made.72.197.57.247 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't be discouraged, the table is easier than it seems. You can use the icon in the advanced editting menu to create a simple starter table:

then edit it from there. Copy and paste additional rows and change the text in each cell.


 * Regarding #3, the current text is using approximate numbers which seems appropriate to the prose in that paragraph. If I understand your objection, the number of wounded used in some sources only includes the number of persons wounded sufficiently to require hospitalization. An approximately equal number of less seriously wounded were treated in the field. So it seems that all you need to do to remove the confusion is to note somehow that these 150k+ were the wounded who required hospitalization. Including the less seriously wounded, or changing to exact counts isn't needed. I think a footnote or a word or two qualifying who the 150k+ are would be best.


 * Regarding #4, Beware of phrases like "No one disputes" and "Most people know". That sort of talk is a great big red flag for original research. We are not about best conservative estimates, we are about The current text may be wrong and you my be right, but again, it isn't about the truth, it is about what can be verified in reliable sources. You need to have a source which says 3 million and 600,000, or at least, a source which says 3 million and 20% in the same breath, which you can then calculate to 600,000.


 * Please drop #4 until you have a source which says as much. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Round 5
In regards edit request #1, I am trying once again to develop a table as you have suggested (I hope this works). This table should appear alongside paragraph 9 in the section titled Effect on the United States where the 58,220 American deaths are mentioned):

Total Deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile): There were a total of 58,220 American deaths during the Vietnam War as set forth below:


 * Seven (7) individuals died of their wounds or from illness after 1975.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C). (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2).72.197.57.247 (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see I have worked up a table, however I wanted the numbers in the right hand column to line up to the right instead of to the left.72.197.57.247 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Also hoping you will address edit request #3, based on the CSR (Congressional Research Service) Report, which states the following on page 3: “Hosp. Care Req’d: 153,303; No Hospital Care: 150,341.”

And thus change the 1st sentence, 9th paragraph, in the Section – Effect on the United States, to read:By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded, of which 153,303 required hospitalization and 5,283 became amputees.72.197.57.247 (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The alignment is pretty simple. You use align="right" like this: Which produces: Per the MOS, you should ship making the values bold, the style built into the wikitable will bold the column headers. The column header for the total number of deaths is better described as "deaths" than as "total" and the footnote is both redundant and directly copied from the source. Some better choices would be to use "died later" as the year in that row, or to footnote that row with an explanation in your own words.

You don't seem to be hearing what I am saying abour #3. That precision is not an improvement, it is a distraction. If you want to avoid confusion, you could change the line from "By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[A 2] more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[273]" to "By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[A 2] more than 150,000 were seriously wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[273]" or "By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[A 2] more than 150,000 were wounded,[A 3] and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[273]" where [A 3] explains that some sources only refer to the 153,303 who required hospitalization as being wounded, although another 150,341 received less severe wounds which were treated in the field. You can do this and clear up any confusion without getting bogged down in the details. Otherwise, please drop this.

Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Round 6
Edit request #1 --This table should appear alongside paragraph 9 in the section titled Effect on the United States where the 58,220 American deaths are mentioned:

There were a total of 58,220 American deaths (Hostile and Non-Hostile) during the Vietnam War as set forth below:


 * Seven (7) individuals died from war related causes after 1975.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C). (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2).72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Done I couldn't find a way to accomplish "alongside." I've placed the table below the paragraph. That left too much empty space next to the narrow table, so I made the table multicolumn. Also, the lead in was redundant to the text, so I paraphrased and made into a caption. Please let me know if you would like to adjust this. Celestra (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The table seems to have lost its effect when not laid out vertically. It is really most impressive when people can see how it visibly bows out during 1967, 1968, and 1969, as the table truly reflects the intensity of the fighting; all of this is missed when the table is laid out horizontally.  Hopefully there could be some way found to lay the table out vertically, maybe by taking out one of the photos, or just further elongating the section titled, Effect on the United States.  I also feel that you need to give credit to the source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009), 223-24 (Appendix C). (http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4517-2), perhaps by means of a simple footnote, as serious scholars are going to ask where these figures came from, for though the 58,220 figure appears in many government reports, only the Lawrence book has come up with the yearly breakdown, which appears nowhere else, and Lawrence obtained his breakdown directly from the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division.72.197.57.247 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that you did include a footnote (278), that takes one to the Appendix of the Lawrence book, but the reader will still not be able to identify the source unless you also add: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009) to the footnote as well.72.197.57.247 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Undone citing a memoir for combat death statistics? Really?  Of an inferior infantry officer?  That isn't appropriate sourcing.  Lawrence isn't a historian, or demographer. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That’s interesting. Lawrence also graduated from the Naval War College in 2002 and was in contact with Roger Jorstad, Director, Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) when he was writing his book. Lawrence did serve as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam; I never heard anyone previously refer to an Army infantry lieutenant as an “inferior infantry officer.” 72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * And that still doesn't make him an appropriate source for demographical statistics. Lawrence's service as a lieutenant means nothing for his capacity as a statistical demographer. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If Lawrence was provided the data, in the form of an Excel spreadsheet, directly from the Director of SIAD/DMDC, who is the individual who provides the information used in all official U.S. Government reports (and since retired), you’d think that might count for something. Only the director maintained the yearly casualty breakdowns on his spreadsheet, because most all government reports just utilize the totals, but not the yearly breakdowns.72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't count for anything. "Mate's rates" histories do not belong in wikipedia.  Fifelfoo (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, have you any policy-based reason not to consider this a reliable source? It is certainly verifiable. It is the appendix of a published book, so some editorial review is implied. Is the publisher a vanity press? Thanks for sharing your opinion, but nothing you have said so far is a valid reason to have removed sourced content. Celestra (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a primary source of which WP:RS says to use with care. According to WP:PSTS:  Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
 * I think in this case it might be okay to use the statistics provided (since there is to my knowledge no great dispute about the level of casualties), but in general memoirs (be they written by privates or generals) aren't to be used as sources (they're not vetted by peer-review etc.)--Sus scrofa (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Celestra: WP:IRS says to match the source to the claim. These claims are not sustainable from a non-historian, non-demographer's memoir.  See WP:RS/N's archives and their summary at WP:HISTRS for why this is unacceptable.  In addition see WP:MILMOS which outlines minimum criteria for all B and most C grade MILHIST articles.  The use of an inappropriate source: an autobiography, for historical statistics is not acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia also states that "publications may be scholarly that are held in multiple academic libraries. The more libraries holding the work, the greater the implication that the work is held by academic libraries for its scholarly value; rather than as an example of popular opinion or fallacious scholarship." You can see via WorldCat.org that the Lawrence book is the academic libraries of Harvard, Princeton, U.S. Naval Academy, U.S. Air Force Academy, Berkeley, Stanford, University of Toronto, and the National Library of Australia, among others.72.197.57.247 (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its still a bloody memoir. Find a better source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose I just wanted to say that pieces of these statistics appear in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf), such as 40,934 killed in action, 5,299 died of wounds, 1,085 missing in action/declared dead, 116, captured/declared dead, and 10,786 non-hostile deaths, which total 58,220 total deaths. You will not find another source that breaks these totals down by year.  Assemblage of these above totals was the responsibility of the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), who personally provided the yearly breakdown of these figures to Mr. Lawrence shortly before he retired.  Email records and correspondence would confirm all this.  I simply have an interest in improving the Wikipedia Vietnam War article.  I wanted it to be the place that people would come to research that war.  Sometimes I feel people spend so much time thumbing through rules and regulations to find a justification for saying "no," instead of looking from another perspective and saying "why not?"  There is insightful information here, and there is really no need to denigrate the Lawrence book simply because it has the word "memoir" in the title.  The casualty information exhibited in this graph would do much to inspire discussion of troop levels, intensity of the fighting, as well as the tragedy those who have died.  I feel Wiki is missing an opportunity here, because I am quite certain that this is the only source that you will find that provides a yearly breakdown of American deaths in the Vietnam War.72.197.57.247 (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "why not" is because while a report compiled for Congress by an instrument of government has credibility as a primary source, inherent in the source from publisher's responsibility to produce facts, and the CRS's access to government material; former Lieutenants do not have such a responsibility, and we can't trust their statements about where they got their facts from. The "why not" is that the suggestion that this information be sourced from such a low quality source is the problem.  If you want to become a cliometric historian, then go forth and publish in the scholarly journals.  Fifelfoo (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Have a nice day.72.197.57.247 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I can’t help myself. I must respond when you refer to Lawrence as “such a low quality source,” after you’ve already said that you consider an infantry lieutenant to be “an inferior infantry officer.”  You need to know that Lawrence did more than just fight out of a foxhole.  You should know that after surviving that horrific war Lawrence graduated from UC Berkeley with a degree in philosophy, then obtained a degree in French Civilization from the University of Paris-Sorbonne, then a master’s degree from the American Graduate School of International Management, and then graduated from the Naval War College, which is equivalent to a graduate degree in strategic studies, but, with all of those credentials, Lawrence never became a cliometric; he’s not even sure what that is, at first he thought it might have something to do with climate, or predicting the weather, or perhaps becoming some kind of economic historian?  He pondered what courses could possibly be required to become a cliometric?  Perhaps statistics?  But he studied that in business school.  You, Fifelfoo, should not ever try to judge a book by its cover; you need to turn the pages before you should make an assessment.72.197.86.130 (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How do any of these qualifications unrelated to statistical demography or history impact on the quality of his memoir? If you think his book is scholarly, can you point to appreciative reviews of the work in the scholarly journals?  Fifelfoo (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Lawrence intended to write a book for Vietnam Vets and college students, and not necessarily for scholars. His personal experiences in Vietnam and the arduous academic curriculum he completed at the Naval War College certainly provided him all the requisite expertise needed to write such a book.  One third of the Naval War College curriculum is taken up with Strategy and Policy, which involves 285 hours of study and seminar participation, and offers an examination, in depth, of case studies in military and diplomatic history, international relations, and national security affairs; receipt of a diploma from the Naval War College is equivalent to a graduate degree in National Security and Strategic Studies and is highly respected, especially within the professional military academic community.  Lawrence’s publisher, McFarland, maintains a reputation as “a leading independent publisher of academic books.”  Confirmed via WorldCat the Lawrence book appears in the libraries of 10 of the top 19 ranked American universities, and 11 of the top 26 ranked universities in the world (according to the respected CWCU academic ranking of world universities). During December 2011, Lawrence’s book climbed as high as #3 on Amazon’s Top 100 “Best Sellers in Vietnam War History.”  Not quite certain what else you require, perhaps some PhD endorsement no doubt, but I’m not even sure what is in dispute.  The 58,220 total of U.S. military deaths in the Vietnam War is certainly not in dispute; this figure appears in numerous government reports, Lawrence was simply intent on obtaining the yearly breakdown of this total, which he obtained directly from the source (the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC)) and included this information in his book while acknowledging the source; I don’t see what this has to do with being a statistical demographor or cliometric; it seems as though you are setting your own criteria based on some kind of statistical expertise for which I don’t see the relevance or necessity, even though Lawrence obtained all that statistical and economic expertise at the American Graduate School of International Management, one doesn’t have to be a statistical expert to take in hand data provided by SIAD/DMDC and place it into a graph.  Perhaps, at this point, you might consider just subscribing to the tenets espoused by Wikipedia (be polite and welcoming, assume good faith, and avoid personal attacks) and thus do Wikipedia a favor by including this casualty graph in the article.72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you’re looking for appreciative reviews of Lawrence’s work, here is one professional review:


 * "Mr. Lawrence's memoir offers a very accessible look at one man's experience at war as an Army Infantryman and Platoon Leader in Vietnam. From initial training through combat in Vietnam followed by the return to the monotony of the Stateside Army, the common experiences of infantryman preparing, enduring, and returning home from combat are thoughtfully and personally retold here. With obvious thought and reflection we see how serving as an Infantryman at war is truly a rare and unique experience forever altering the young men who have earned the right to wear the Combat Infantryman's Badge. Mr. Lawrence also captures the frustration of returning home to a garrison Army concerned only with perpetuating its own bureaucracy. As such "Crucible Vietnam" is well worth the read for both infantry veterans trying to better understand themselves, as well as anyone trying to understand the permanent change and emotions common to infantryman who have experienced combat."


 * This was actually the third review written of Lawrence’s book on Amazon. It was written by an Army infantry lieutenant whom Lawrence had never met, yet who finished first in his Ranger training and served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He died on the 5th of March 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 23 April 2012
There seems to be some inconsistencies in the article as to which army had the Viet Cong. A sentence in the introduction to the articles states that the Viet Cong fought for South Vietnam, but other parts state that the Viet Cong was North Vietnamese. This could lead to confusion amongst readers, and should be edited to the correct information. SleepingDragon7 (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

SA-3
The page for the S-125 ( SA-3 ), says the SA-3 wasn't used during the Vietnam war. The page says "The SA-3 was not used against U.S. forces in Vietnam, because the Soviets feared that China (after the souring of Sino-Soviet relations in 1960), through which most, if not all of the equipment meant for the NVA had to travel, would try to copy the missile.", yet this Vietnam war page says the SA-3 was used, it's under the list of AAW. So did the Vietnamese use the SA-3 or not during the Vietnam war? Ceagulls (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That hard to know since neither article sources those statements.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While a lot of equipment went through China, the Russians had two fleets of ships operating out of Odessa and Vladivostok which could deliver anything directly to North Vietnam. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Michel's book on Linebacker II, the SA-3 was withheld from NVN as a result of efforts by Nixon and Kissinger.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you give the title of that book and maybe a page number where this is stated?--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll have to dig it up again, but the title of the book is "The 11 Days of Christmas" and the author is Marshall Michel.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Page 29 of Michel's book. He states that NVN crews were being trained on the SA-3, but that they weren't released to NVN until after the conclusion of Linebacker III. One of his cited sources for that information is an interview with one of the crews being trained at the time. So the SA-3 appeared later in the conflict, but was NOT available during the period of major US involvement.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck is Linebacker III? 108.237.241.88 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant Linebacker II. Typo.Intothatdarkness (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
"The AFP release...says that the Hanoi government revealed on April 3 that the true civilian casualties of the VN war were 2,000,000 in the north, 2,000,000 in the south. Military casualties were 1.1 million killed and 600,000 wounded in 21 years of war (1963-74)."

Are these figures reliable? How were twice as many soldiers killed as were wounded? Isn't wounded usually around three times the number dead? Is there a single demographic study ever conducted that arrived at a comparable figure? Is the Communist government a credible source? Would it be possible to find an independent study estimating over 2.5 million Vietnamese died in the war, much less over 5 million? For that matter, how could the casualties estimates for North Vietnamese civilians vary from 50,000 to over 2,000,000? Why are the highest figures added in the breakdown?209.7.71.150 (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Government figures are primary sources, and as such should ideally be vetted by second party sources before being put into the article. --Sus scrofa (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Per the Chomsky-Herman propaganda model thesis, we must remember that Western "demographic surveys" are likely to underestimate the true number of casualties, so we should keep the Vietnamese government estimate of 5 million dead just because no source on this matter is really neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.247.11 (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We do not need sources for the casulaty totals, they can be worked out from the figures wwe already have. Also the high estimate for totla casualties is 5,397,819.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and losses info box for United States
Casualties and losses info box for United States cites 1,687 missing. The figure of 1,687 missing (per source: Vietnam-Era Statistical Support) addresses all of Asia, including China, and should be deleted.

There are two “missing” categories pertaining to the Vietnam War: missing in action/declared dead (a hostile death category), and missing presumed dead (a non-hostile death category). Both of these “missing” categories are addressed in the CRS Report and the Lawrence book mentioned in the U.S. Casualties and Losses discussion above.72.197.57.247 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There were 303,644 Americans wounded in Vietnam (153,303 U.S. troops were wounded and required hospitalization, and anotherr150,341 wounded, in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Verification of these numbers can be found on page 3 of the CSR Report referenced in the section above.  Consequently the number in the info box is incorrect, though the number and references in the Annotations is correct.72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that the Wiki editors have not yet gotten around to correcting the info box for U.S. wounded from 303,635 to 303,644. In looking down the article at the “Effect on the United States” section, 9th paragraph, 1st sentence, which currently reads as follows: “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.”  I feel this sentence should be re-written to state, “By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed, 303,644 were wounded (153,303 were wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded, but in a separate category, received flesh wounds from shrapnel or from small arms fire and received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units).  The war produced 5,283 amputees.”  All of these casualty figures can be verified in the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, February 26, 2010 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf).72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Accuracy in casualty statistics is imporatant and would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of people worried with the US casualties in the infobox. But it seems that at the same time people are overlooking the North Vietnam, Viet Cong part. It does not make sense that in the Strength section an approximated total of 461,000 soldiers is listed, while in the casualties section list 1,176,000 dead and 600,000 wounded. The number of wounded alone is greater than the strength. This means that either the communist forces are missing a zero on the right, that the military casualties are actually mixed with civilian casualties or that the military casualties are wrong. -- Juan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.73.97 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, one can expect 2% of your men to be killed and 6% to be wounded in a combat action as a rule of thumb. So the stats where the North says it had more killed than wounded is very suspicious and needs to be investigated.  Did they kill their wounded?  Did they have lousy medical care?  Anybody know how well the North treated its wounded soldiers?  That might help explain the disparity.  108.237.241.88 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Linebacker III ?
Somebody in this forum mentioned Linebacker III. I've never heard of Linebacker III. This is a new one on me. Did they actually have a Linebacker III plan for the Vietnam War, or was the phrase invented after the war to speculate on what President Ford might have done? Is somebody trying to re-write the Vietnam War? Anybody know anything? Thanks. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Linebacker III was a typo. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a typo on my part, but there have been wargame scenarios (Downtown has one if I recall) called that. As far as I know, there were no actual plans for something like this.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Spain?
Can someone PLEASE tell me where Spain helped out in the vietnam war in any way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.60.247 (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find it but at least one book I have lists them as having provided a medical team.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Groupthink
Much of the befuddlement regarding the purpose/outcome of the Vietnam War can be attributed to Groupthink. For instance, liberal left wing journalists reporting on the war with their pre-conceived notions and thus "labeling" the war with their own imprimatur; professors pushing their Cultural Marxist political agenda at colleges, etc. The "Groupthink" problem is inherent in Wikipedia because Wiki relies on the RS of a "group" of people who have reached mainstream consensus. --You know, like when academicians used to say the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth, etc. This leaves a vast chasm of "What really happened?" beneath the superficial pop history veneer embraced by the same souls who said the world was flat. In this regard then, might it not be illuminating to list mainstream conclusions about the war AND the less popularly accepted versions of the war? After all, which is right? Wikipedia's weakness is that it relies on the Authority Fallacy (an authority said it, therefore it must be true). 108.237.241.88 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not up to an encyclopedia to research facts (as per WP:OR). An encyclopedia should by its nature repeat established facts. Anyone is free to submit articles to the relevant peer-reviewed publications in the field or write books if they feel that their viewpoint isn't fairly represented. The appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority isn't an expert in the field (for example saying that a doctor is highly educated and that we therefore should agree with him on tax policy, a different field altogether). One of the problems with departing from reliable sources is one of delineation; who is then to say that we shouldn't include the Bircher view that the Vietnam War was a US government conspiracy to spread communism? Or that it was a plot by the Illuminati lizard people?--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think relying on college professors who got through college by plagiarizing is desirable. As for doctors, they kill 100,000 people a year in hospitals in the USA, Lord knows how many outpatients they kill.  The strength of Wikipedia is that it can continually challenge facts and constantly update articles.  For instance, a dozen flyers flew powered airplanes before the Wright Bros.; George Welch was the first to break the sound barrier not Chuck Yeager; Pocahontas did not save John Smith's life (he was a liar and braggart and made the story up); Janzoon Koster invented movable type not Gutenberg; the Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave (it only applied to Southern slaves not Northern slaves); Geo. Washington was a lousy general (the French won the war for us), etc., etc.  Yet so-called experts tell us these fairy tales and we are expected to believe them.  I'm not saying Wiki should pander to fringe groups, I'm just saying all sources are questionable and Wiki has the collective means to find out what really happened.  108.237.241.88 (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Redoing the entire "Insurgency in the South, 1956–1960" section
I have to say I'm dismayed at the entire section. I'll leave it intact until further discussion.

Here are the claims which are usable given the actual history:

Source for Pentagon Papers.


 * "Hanoi authorized communists in South Vietnam to begin a low-level insurgency in December 1956."
 * The Pentagon Papers say at the earliest, North Vietnam recognized the rebellion in 1960, let alone "authorize" it, the source is a book by Randy Roberts and James Olson which I doubt is as valid as the government study or the scholarship that came from it.

'''
 * "This insurgency in the south had begun in response to Diem's Denunciation of Communists campaign, in which thousands of local Viet Minh cadres and supporters had been executed or sent to concentration camps, and was in violation of the Northern Communist party line, which had enjoined them not to start an insurrection, but rather engage in a political campaign, agitating for a free all-Vietnam election in accordance with the Geneva Accords."
 * Again the Pentagon Papers point out that there was no "Northern Communist line" and that the 100,000 or so prisoners were non-communist and not even pro-communist and that the prisons were effectively "little more than concentration camps for potential foes." As P.J. Honey pointed out after visiting the camps:
 * '''""the consensus of the opinion expressed by these peoples is that...the majority of the detainees are neither communists nor pro-communists.""
 * The claim that the insurgency was organized is dubious given that, as the Papers point out, as late as mid-1959 "[South Vietnam] did not construe it as a campaign, considering the disorders too diffuse to warrant committing major GVN resources." Again, I doubt Sheehan's book disproves all this.


 * "Ho Chi Minh stated, "Do not engage in military operations; that will lead to defeat. Do not take land from a peasant. Emphasize nationalism rather than communism. Do not antagonize anyone if you can avoid it. Be selective in your violence. If an assassination is necessary, use a knife, not a rifle or grenade. It is too easy to kill innocent bystanders with guns and bombs, and accidental killing of the innocent bystanders will alienate peasants from the revolution. Once an assassination has taken place, make sure peasants know why the killing occurred." This strategy was referred to as "armed propaganda.'"
 * The quote is from a dubious source and can't be found in a Google search on anything that's not citing this very Wikipedia article or a verifiable source. As the Papers point out, North Vietnam didn't encourage the rebellion until 1960 so the quote is unlikely and barely verifiable.


 * "Lê Duẩn, a communist leader who had been working in the south, returned to Hanoi to accept the position of acting first secretary, effectively replacing Trường. Duẩn urged a military line and advocated increased assistance to the insurgency."
 * Lack of citation and unlikely given that according to the Papers the North government didn't support the insurgence until 1960.


 * "The insurgency sought to completely destroy government control in South Vietnam's rural villages and replace it with a shadow government".
 * This is based on the work of Mark Moyar which is highly disputed among historians and should be mentioned.


 * "In January 1959, North Vietnam's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing an "armed struggle," allowing the southern communists to begin large-scale operations against the South Vietnamese military. North Vietnam supplied troops and supplies in earnest, and the infiltration of men and weapons from the North began along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In May, South Vietnam enacted Law 10/59, which made political violence punishable by death and property confiscation."
 * No citation on North Vietnam authorizing "armed struggle" and unlikely given that the Papers say the earliest recognition from the North wasn't until 1960.


 * "Observing the increasing unpopularity of the Diem regime, Hanoi authorized the creation of the National Liberation Front (NLF) on 12 December 1960 as a common front controlled by the communist party in the South."
 * No citation and unlikely given that the Papers say it was recognized by North Vietnam after it's creation and especially no mention of it being created from Hanoi.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You'd be better off using the actual Pentagon Papers found at the National Archives website. In any case, the date given (1959) for the initiation of the major construction efforts along what was called the Ho Chi Minh Trail is correct. Link to the actual Papers is here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point with the National Archives but I couldn't find anything mentioning the Ho Chi Minj Trail in relation to the beginning of the NLF. The problem is that like leaves like 90% of the section to be redone. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You'd be better off referring to histories published by academic presses in Vietnam, the United States, South Korea, Thailand, Australia and other countries. The source you cited is a mix of government commissions and primary sources.  It isn't the appropriate source to use to write about VWP planning and timing (scholarly journal articles published by Vietnamese speaking historians exist on just this topic.) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's point two, obviously. The Papers were, after all, compiled during the conflict and leave a great deal out because of that. I doubt, for example, if they take any account of documents captured during the Cambodian incursion (to give just one example).Intothatdarkness (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The section is a mess though, and in particular it underplays the horrific governance by the Diem regime in the period. Additionally, works I've read published in the last 10 years by specialists do not make the absurd claims cited against Pike about widespread indiscriminate violence prior to 1959 by the southern VWP comrades.  And it doesn't place the structure of governance and the assassination campaigns into appropriate context.  It is a mess, cited generally to sub-par sources, with sub-par citation quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The party's decision to launch an insurgency in 1956 was not the decisive moment since that decision was conditional on getting approval from Moscow, which they didn't have until Ho's visit in October 1957. There was certainly quite a lot of fighting in the South prior to 1960. The first shipment down the Ho Chi Minh Trail was in August 1959 and the first large-unit military action was a VC ambush of two ARVN companies on 26 Sept. 1959. The Communists had a strict chain of command and no local commander was doing anything without Hanoi's approval. Moscow approved the war for reasons having to do with top-table international relations and the Sino-Soviet Split. A explanation that focused on Diem or his policies would be misleading. The Vietnam War from the Other Side by Cheng Guan Ang has an account of Communist decision making.
 * Also, to say the Le Duan effectively replaced Truong in 1956 as party boss is to misunderstand how a Communist system works. Titles like "president", "general secretary" and the rest don't tell you who is really running the show. Truong was seated in the No. 2 position at the 1957 May Day parade, which suggests that Le Duan and the war mongers did not gain full power until somewhat later. Kauffner (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your exegesis assumes that VWP members naturally garnered public support for their policies. This isn't the case.  Diem's policies allowed the southern VWP networks to grow, legitimise, and extend.  They also allowed "liberal" nationalists to consider cooperation.  Your analysis is sadly substitutionalist, it substitutes Hanoi for the Southern VWP, the Southern VWP for the national liberation movement, and the national liberation movement from the public.  More nuance please.  Even the most rigid lock-step analyses are aware that southern comrades were lobbying Hanoi for a more active line.  I'd suggest P Asselin and T Vu, though Grossman (10.1080/14682740500284804) is also useful for the VWP.  Quite obviously, adequate accounts of the NFL are rare. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd strongly suggest that the article needs to better engage with the historiography that Asselin outlines in "The War from the Other Side" in A Companion to Lyndon B. Johnson, 2011 Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as public opinion goes, the big issue at that time was the famine, which was blamed on Truong and the Maoists. So it was important to make it look like Truong had been punished and demoted. But judging from what happened later, he obviously remained powerful. Kauffner (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the North, definitely. In the South?  As opposed to Catholic landlordism and the poorly managed political policing?  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To address Kauffner, there was no "party", "decision," or "chain of command," the NLF was completely disorganized until 1960 (the same year North Vietnam recognized and supported them) and it would be difficult to link the Ho Chi Minh Trail to the NLF in 1959 because they didn't exist until a year later or at least according to any serious literature, to Fifelfoo, I don't think a passage on Vietnam from an nearly unknown book about LBJ would be a good source. As far as I can tell the Pentagon Papers are the best source out there even today since not a lot was really discovered since then and the Gravel edition is just as good as the source papers. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is recycled wartime propaganda and not even the communist leaders talk about the issue this way anymore. Tran Van Tra was the top VC commander, but his memoirs suggest he was hardly even aware the NLF. (He usually calls it the "PRG of the RSVN".) There is a relevant passage on how Tra got appointed NLF delegate to the peace conference (p. 9). COSVN recommended Tra to the Central Committee in Hanoi, and no one bothered to ask the NLF for its opinion. Tra was an NVA officer and he got his orders from the "Military Commission of the Party Central Committee" in Hanoi (pp. 9, 56, 66, 76, etc, etc, etc). Kauffner (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that CartoonDiablo bother to investigate the academic literature, which regularly publishes, and which unlike the edition of the Pentagon Papers cited here, produces scholarly secondary sources. Kauffner, as you would know, the PRG was formed after US intervention—memoirs are not considered reliable as they're primary and involved—Tra has great reasons to remember the later period over the earlier period.  Particularly when (as you note) at the level of policy leadership most of the NFL was interchangeable with VWP responsibilities.  But, by concentrating on PLAF/VWP leadership, you're grossly underplaying the nature of the NFL as a popular organisation.  Again: the scholarly literature, particularly since 1989, is advanced from the arguments being placed here. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Kauffner, even the Tran Van Tra article says he wasn't involved with North Vietnam until 1960 which is what I and the sources have been saying. To Fifelfoo, I don't see a disagreement in that regard other than of emphasis. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tra joined the communist party 1938, fought with the Viet Minh against the French, "regrouped" to the North in 1955, and served as the PAVN's deputy chief of general staff from 1955 to 1962. His first VC command was in 1963, when he was assigned to the B-2 front. So in 1960 he was with the general staff in Hanoi. Kauffner (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would then validate my point about how the NLF or Vietcong was an independent force as most of the actual scholarships say so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I wrote? Tra had been a regular North Vietnamese army officer for years before he got a command in the South. The other VC decision makers, Nguyen Van Linh and Nguyen Chi Thanh, were longtime Hanoi loyalists as well -- both joined the party in the 1930s. The lawyers at the NLF office delivered speeches and distributed pamphlets. Kauffner (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Viet Cong victory?
Why does this article state the Viet Cong won in the infobox if there is no consensus elsewhere? Doesn't the below information that the U.S. withdrew and communists toke over say the same thing without being biased? I don't think that "victory" part is necessary. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the Viet Cong were wiped out, they lost big time, so maybe the infobox should state this. They lost a lot of men in Tet (which was a huge North Vietnamese failure), and then with the Phoenix/CORDS program pretty much the rest of the Viet Cong were eliminated.  It was the regular army of North Vietnam that defeated the South in 1975 (three years after the USA had left).  So the North defeated the South, yes, but the Viet Cong were for all intents and purposes no longer extant by then, since the Viet Cong themselves had been defeated.  It gets confusing keeping track of the players without a scorecard since there were so many different groups involved and the war was in all of Southeast Asia, not just Vietnam.  The simplistic history taught in our schools is totally wrong and leads to much confusion.  Forums like this investigate these matters.  69.228.116.214 (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I dug up some figures for you, to help elucidate the matter: approximately 32,000 Viet Cong were killed during Tet and another 5,800 captured.  Of the remaining 80,000 Viet Cong, by the end of 1971 20,000 more VC were killed, 28,000 VC were captured, 17,000 VC had accepted amnesty and thousands more had fled to Cambodia.  This left huge areas of Vietnam completely free of Viet Cong and the NVA were forced to turn to conventionl warfare.  (The Viet Cong had murdered 61,000 village officials and civil servants between 1958 and 1966 and 5,800 civilians were killed by Communist death squads in Hue during Tet.)  The VC took little part in the convential offensives of 1972 and 1975 but were heavily involved in the brutal reprisals following the fall of Saigon.  Hope this provides some perspective.  69.228.116.214 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we have a terminology problem here. How about something like "NPA victory and surrender of the RVN government"?
 * Seems a bit of a tortology that, surley iof the NPA won it implies the RVN surrendred (given that they overrun the south).Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In a war that went on for a long time it's simplistic to state winers and losers like in a football game. The North and South were re-united, so that's a win for the North.  The American objective was to prevent a Communist empire from forming in Southeast Asia, so that's a win for the USA (the Commies got Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia but that's about it--the Communist Empire was never formed).  For 20 years after the fall of Saigon Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia continued to be embroiled in internecine warfare, so that's a loss for them.  Then China and Vietnam had a war, it just goes on and on.  From a Euro-centric point of view or an American point of view Southeast Asia was a mess.  But from the point of view of the indigenous people of Southeast Asia (whether Vietnamese, Hmong, etc.) I'm sure it was an even greater mess.  I don't think there were any winners.  69.228.116.214 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The us objective was a SV free from communist influence.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not easy to find a definitive objective either. If some country shipped supplies to a war with the objective of getting as much there as possible, you really can't say if they've succeeded or not. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC) For example, imagine if some country shipped supplies to a war with the objective of getting as much there as possible, you really can't say if they've succeeded or not. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nevere seen that as an objective in any war, care to provide an RS that says that the US objectiove was to ship suplies?Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, whoops, guess my wording could be perceived as suggestion that, though I'd tend to find it absurd to see it that way. What I meant was that not all objectives could be easily defined, I left out the for example... 173.180.202.22 (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But we have sources that make it clear that the US objecive was a SVN free from communist influence.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting take on the subject; so if the Communists won (North Vietnam, Red China, USSR) in the Vietnam War does that mean that Red China and Russia defeated the USA? Very interesting indeed.  Should this be mentioned in the article?  --That Russia defeated the USA in a proxy war?  108.237.241.88 (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure, it's true it ws a proxy war, but then do we state that the US won the war in afganistan aganst the Russians?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam was, at worst a stalemate for the US under the terms of the Paris treaty when it was rettified, and anyway you look at it it's a loss for the North. Every US clause for intervention was agreed to by the North Vietnamese goverment, and during the following months the war ended. It was not until the last of the Us ground forces had left did the North reinvade the South, who this time could not rely on the US to act as their buffer zone between the North's armies and over the next several years they eventualy lost against the North. The 'war' ended with the signing of the Paris treaty, and another started up when that treaty was violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actualy figting did not end, within hours of the signing of the Paris acird the NV breached the cease fire. Also the US had intervened to stop communist influence in the south and to remove NV forces, the PAris accords allowed both. In effect the US lost 50,000 men to retain the situation as it had been before US ground forces were commited.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012
The outcome or result needs to be changed and/or altered. A North Vietnamese Victory is correct but saying defeat of the United States overly Americanizes the conflict. The victory for the North came over two years subsequent to the American and concomitant Allied withdrawl. The loser ultimately in the conflict was South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam). The territorial changes discuss this and there is mention of the the South's dissolution but the North never met its goal of unification under Hanoi's aegis until much after U.S. withdrawl. The term loss if applied to the U.S. must also inlcude the Republic of Vietnam. A similar proxy conflict of the Cold War, the Soviet-Afghan War, on its respective Wikipedia Article indicates a result of a Soviet withdrawl and a continuation of the Afghan Civil War, it does not say Soviet defeat. This is the exact same scenario the American involvement during the Vietnam War, the U.S. withdrew and the conflict continued between the two prinicpal actors in the conflict, North and South Vietnam. I don't see how this garners such a material difference in outcome respresentations when it was the same outcome as the Soviet Afghan which is recorded as a withdrawl but in the case of the U.S. and Allied forces in Vietnam it seems to go out of its way to say American defeat. My outcome provides a more precise and accurate expression of the outcome. The way it is written only peripherally mentions South Vietman which was the primary defeated entity. Antidoaks (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to edit this into the result page but its has been removed each time.

Regards,

Antidoaks (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not as written. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for historical and military opinion, not personal argument (ie: not original research). Currently, an opinion regarding the defeat of the United States as central exists in the article, sourced to Encyclopaedia Brittanica.  I would suggest that your edit would require that the supposition is
 * In the preponderance of scholarly opinion
 * Is sufficiently cited to demonstrate such
 * Is included in the body of the article in discussion, not just edited into an infobox.


 * Happy researching! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To help Antidoaks out here's a RS--on page 115 of "Lawrence of Vietnam" by Michael M. Peters, Stansbury Publishing, 2006, it states "We left South Vietnam in 1972 and three years after we left, the South Vietnamese lost, not us". Peters taught at Calfornia Institute of the Arts so I guess that takes care of the "academic" requirement and it's from a published source.  Don't worry, Antidoaks there's plenty of people who agree with you.  It's just that Wiki articles become "territorial possessions" of a few ardent Wiki editors who have their own bias.  For instance, try making a few helpful suggestions for the Wiki "Feminist" article--the editors there are mad dogs (change that to "overly zealous participants) obsessed with their own agenda and will not even listen to people who have contrary data and are just trying to help.  --Another weakness of Wikipedia.  But yeah, there was a war in Vietnam.  What actually happened there though still has to be discovered.  108.237.241.88 (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The work you are citing is a novel. Works of fiction are not appropriate sources for historical encyclopaedia articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * THe issue here will not be finding RS that will say the US did not lose, it's that accademic consensus says that it was the first war the US lost. Also 108 lay of the PA's.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I recall reading that the USA has been involved in a few hundred military operations, so I looked up "Timeline of United States military operations" on Wiki.  There's a huge list of wars, rebellions, etc. that the USA has been involved with.  I'm working through it now to see how many the USA lost.  (The USA never caught Pancho Villa, for instance.)  108.237.241.88 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, perhaps the whole win/lose matter can be resolved by having a short paragraph in the article citing scholars from both camps. That should please everybody and would certainly be academic. 108.237.241.88 (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)