Talk:Vietnam War body count controversy

Discussion on Total Casualties
I find this irrelevant to discussing total reported casualties. It doesn't add anything to this article and seems very non-sequitar. though some of the casualties or figures are relevant, why is reporting 950k or 850k or whatever relevant when it belongs in the war casualties page? 92.100.237.172 (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not irrelevant, in fact it goes to the heart of the entire issue. If body count was as inaccurate and grossly inflated as is claimed by various sources then the total casualties claimed by the US should vastly exceed those acknowledged by the Vietnamese Government, but this was not the case. I addition it is unclear whether or not the Vietnamese Government figure includes the 300-330,000 PAVN/VC missing in action. I am reverting to previous language. Mztourist (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea where the 300k figure comes from, but the edit by the previous user seems fair, given it states in the previous that 849k accounts for both dead AND missing. Injecting it as if its part of what that source reads is just not a fair representation of a source given its placed before the citation while being WP:OR about a claim while trying to dispute it. Given what you stated is placed later its fair to leave it there in the latter section and removing the linkage between the two (of using one source to "cast doubt" on another in an unfair way).
 * The 300-330,000 missing figure comes from General Giap and other WP:RS. My translation software of the Vietnamese Government document (which, as has been discussed previously, is of doubtful provenance) doesn't make it clear that it includes all PAVN/VC missing. No OR on my part just reflecting to ambiguity of the document. Mztourist (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This story from Vietnam in 2019 confirms the PAVN/VC 300,000+ MIA figure. Mztourist (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Translation software may not really capture it well. The document was assigned to one of their sub-ministries concerned entirely with the retrieval of remains. This is probably where the 2019 article comes from when it cites the 300K MIA. This is the purpose of this document, to determine how many remains are still missing which is close to 300k. There is another contextual issue here that the government does not break down wars into seperate ones; the official line is that the Second Indochina War was a continuation of the first in a "struggle for independence" for propaganda reasons since the second war is portrayed as a "struggle for independence" and de-colonization. They seperate by time periods; not by conflict and give figures for 190k for the First Indochina War, 850K for 1955-1975, and 60-70k for 1975-1990 Cambodian-Chinese war and a total figure of 1.1M dead or missing. The 300k number comes from the unaccounted for remains of units from internal records; and mandates each local governing body assist with their retrieval. 125.174.206.78 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the story, it says 300,000 missing from the American war.Mztourist (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read this story. Nothing I said misinterprets this because the documents I can translate. I don't see why you would go ahead and revert all changes regardless. This is not a good reason to undo what I wrote. Neither is the part that states "it is unclear whether the 300,000 are part of this figure" that was included before is even related because it has nothing to do with the article. I will go ahead and undo your changes, change it where you see fit but this injecting your own interpretation of this article rather than actually citing it.JoeB99 (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Mine is a plain reading of the story, you claim to translate and understand Vietnamese documents that contradict the story. Mztourist (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Query
G'day, any idea why this article is still showing up as unassessed for Milhist? Am I missing something? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

February 2021
New user User:Thanhducan made this edit on 23 February 2021 claiming that "One of the most thorough studies...". As this was clearly POV and it was just Christian Appy's claims I changed it by this edit: to the neutral and factual "Appy claims" with the edit summary "Appy's claim, no RS says its the most thorough study". IP User:216.209.50.103 by this edit:  changed it back to "One of the most thorough studies found" with the edit summary "NPOV phrasing. Please WP:BRD". Firstly its not neutral and not even correct, secondly I was boldly reverting so if the IP felt the need to open the issue they should have opened the discussion then, not started edit warring. I reverted the change with this edit summary "You have to provide a source that says it was "one of the most thorough studies" otherwise its just your POV". IP 216.209.50.103 again edit-warred with this edit summary: "WP:BRD. you made the edit, you open discussion. phrasing isn't even neutral". So here we are. User:216.209.50.103 explain to me how "Appy claims" isn't neutral when it is describing a finding in Appy's own book, but how "one of the most thorough studies" is neutral? Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As User:216.209.50.103 hasn't bothered engaging in this discussion after more than a week I am reverting to the neutral and factual "Appy claims". Mztourist (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)