Talk:Vietnam War

Infobox (Casualties and Losses for U.S.) and Effect on the United States -- Section

I note that Archive 16 contains corrections, and authoritative sources, to U.S. casualties and losses (58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635 [153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 wounded from shrapnel or small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units]). Will this information in Archive 16 find its way into the article? 72.197.57.247 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I am still hoping Wiki editors will make the correction to the Infobox regarding U.S. casualties and losses. It should be corrected to read 58,220 dead vice 58,159, and 303,644 wounded vice 303,635. The Department of Veterans Affairs fact sheet, dated May 2010, confirms the number of American deaths in Vietnam at 58,220 (10,786 non-hostile deaths and 47,434 hostile deaths). The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, had provided me these numbers back in December of 2007 when I was working on my book, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. Additionally, the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 states a total of 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded in Vietnam. There were 153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units). Additional detail is provided in Archive 16.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I medited the article to use the 58,220 figure, with a supporting note and cites. Someone else may wish to improve my edit, which is pretty wordy. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In regards improving the edit, you might wish to change Annotation 2 to read:

The figure of 58,220 U.S. deaths comes from the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as from a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and the book Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173. The figure of 303,644 U.S. wounded comes from the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.

The reason I cite the book Crucible Vietnam is because the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division, Defense Manpower Data Center, provided the author a detailed breakdown of the 58,220 figure back in 2007.

Notes 5, 6, 7, and 8 would need to be rearranged. You only need two notes: 5 (for deaths) and 6 (for wounded) to read as follows:

Note 5 (for U.S. deaths) should be corrected to read:

The Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, as well as a Department of Veterans fact sheet dated May 2010, and A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173.

Note 6 (for U.S. wounded) should be corrected to read:

CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.72.197.86.130 (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, somewhere in the article, it is important to make mention of the fact that of 303,644 U.S. military personnel wounded in Vietnam, 153,303 required hospitalization, while another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire) received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units. Otherwise, there will be confusion, because oftentimes historians just pick up the 153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and they often neglect the other 150,341 wounded who were treated at field aid stations and sent back to their units.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see you made the correction for U.S. deaths 58,220, but you did not correct for U.S. wounded, which should read 303,644 and not 303,635.72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that the edit had other problems as well, which I had missed seeing yesterday in my rush to move on to something else I had to do. I've redone the edit -- though not precisely as you suggest. I've also made some other fixes, including

• removed citation of "A. T. Lawrence, author of ..." as not verifiable
• moved ref for the cite of The Personnel Missing from the wounded figure to the missing figure

Again, improve it as may be appropriate. I'll leave it to someone else to add the other figures you mentioned. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In Annotations 2, I don’t see why, now knowing the accurate numbers of 58,220 deaths and 303,644 wounded, it is necessary to include the last sentence that reads as follows: “Some other sources give different figures (e.g. the 2005/2006 documentary Heart of Darkness: The Vietnam War Chronicles 1945–1975 cited elsewhere in this article gives a figure of 58,159 U.S. deaths [5], The 2007 book Vietnam Sons: For Some, the War Never Ended gives a figure of 58,226. [9]).” This simply leads to unnecessary confusion. The info box still cites 303,635 instead of 303,644 wounded. You mention that you removed the citation of "A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam as not verifiable, however if you dial up Crucible Vietnam Appendix A on Google, you will see the reference to 58,220 American deaths, which is cited in three other places in the book.72.197.57.247 (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC) If you go online to Google ebooks and call up the book, Crucible Vietnam, and go to the search option and input “58,220,” it will come up with all four entries in the book concerning total U.S. deaths in Vietnam.72.197.57.247 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I read into that a presumption that sourcing from particular sources indicates accuracy and factualness, and a view that information of such accuracy and factualness is worthy of inclusion, and a further view that conflicting information (clearly being neither accurate nor factual) should be excluded. I may have that wrong, but that's my read.

Re accuracy and factualness ("Truth" with a capital T, one might say), see the initial sentence of WP:V. What we have here which is verifiable is that several sources, all of which might generally be considered to be reliable, give somewhat conflicting figures. We've chosen to use figures from one particular source. If there were a serious dispute about which figures were correct, WP:DUE would require us to present all significant sets of disputed figures — and would require us not to take a position concerning which are accurate and which are inaccurate.

I don't think that's the case here. What we have is figures from different sources, compiled at different times, by different sets of compilers, probably from differing information sources, and probably using differing selection criteria. I don't think that WP:DUE requires us to present, or even to mention, the differing figures in this particular case.

However, other sources giving different figures than the ones we've chosen to present do exist, and some of them are cited in this article (cited in support of assertions other than the figures we're discussing here). Persons looking at those other sources are likely to come across figures there differing from the figures which we've chosen to present, and might wonder at the differences. I think a clear statement that sources other than the one we've chosen to use do contain different figures is useful. Other editors might feel differently about the usefulness of such a statement. In this case, it's not a big deal to me either way. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The accurate figures of 58,220 U.S. Military deaths in Vietnam and 303,644 wounded are set forth in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 (here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf). These casualty figures are substantiated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and a sourced book in which the author received casualty figures directly from the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, who is responsible for assembling these figures, together these sources create an indisputable affirmation of the accuracy of these casualty figures. It seems important to get this right in the Wiki article. For too long there have been inaccuracies concerning these casualty figures among historians; here is an opportunity for Wiki to get it right and to serve as a reputable source for those seeking accurate U.S. casualty figures. I still don't see any reason, at this point, to include sources providing other numbers, when those cited above are the most recent and incontestable.72.197.86.130 (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoping the Wiki editors will make the correction and change the number of wounded in the info box from 303,635 to 303,644 (the references do not need to be changed). The most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 verifies this number, though you have to go into the Report and put the two wounded categories together (153,303 who required hospitalization, and another 150,341 who were wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire who were not hospitalized but rather received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units).72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know ,when did the Vietnam Conflict ,Became a WAR. ????

I would like to know when did the VIETNAM CONFLICT became a WAR? As a Vet of the Vietnam conflict ,I wonder when it was decided to be called a WAR. Alot of fellow VET's lost alot because we fought in a Conflict not a war. So could somebody let me know when was this decided to be called a WAR? Thank You 69.97.158.227 (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8) states, “The Congress shall have Power to declare war.” However this was not done in the case of Vietnam, as President Johnson had all the power he needed to escalate the “Vietnam Conflict” (the term used in the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report and other government documents), due to his expanded authority under the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and thus he had no cause to go back to Congress for a formal declaration of war. The last time Congress declared war was during 1941 against Japan.72.197.57.247 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One interesting consequence of taking this approach is that there could be no prisoners of war in Vietnam. No war - no prisoners of it. This would in turn lead to some sweeping changes in wikipedia articles dealing with the Vietnam and Korean war etc.--Sus scrofa (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can attribute the naming of this event to the news media. The US Government never officially named this conflict a war but the US and other non communist news media around the world put it into print and then all the "I want to write a book" guys jumped on the bandwagon with the tag. So it is a "pop culture" thing that through use and reuse has been accepted as an "official" title. A lot like using 'Kleenex' for tissue paper.Meyerj (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who makes a google search of the .gov and .mil domains will find more hits for the term "Vietnam War" than "Vietnam Conflict" so I don't think the use of the name is in serious dispute.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The American Heritage College dictionary definition of war simply reads, “A state of open, armed conflict between nations.” Whether or not Congress declared war, those of us who fought in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, certainly considered ourselves in the midst of a war.72.197.84.216 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say the U.S. involvement with Vietnam became the "Vietnam War" sometime between 1966 and 1968 when the American mass consciousness came to recognize it as a war because of the massive influx of American troops there at this time. Officially the U.S. has declared war only 5 times. Declaring war in the U.S. drastically alters the structure, methods, objectives, rules, regulations, goals, etc. of the U.S. 209.77.230.226 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources please. Also, check your clear nationalist bias at the door please. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He's speaking or seems to be speaking from the US perspective, so you should expect some "nationalist bias" because it's from that collective perspective. And what exactly do you want secondary sourced? There is the official state of "declared war", which is a legalistic construction, which follows the dictionary definition quoted above, and the conflict version of war. I'm sure there's some pop culture explanation of the change in language, but most serious historians of the American involvement have been calling it the "Vietnam War" for many years now (going back to at least the early 1980s).Intothatdarkness (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• If the IP wishes to modify the article, I want to see their sourcing basis for change. If they're not seeking to modify the article, then WP:SOAPBOX applies and they should really not be editing this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The United States Code, or U.S.C., is the compilation of the federal laws of the United States, containing 50 titles of which Title 10 pertains to the armed forces and exceeds 2,000 pages. This compilation frequently makes reference to “declaration of war or the declaration of a national emergency by the President.” It does not appear to differentiate substantially between a declared war (by Congress) or a national emergency declared by the President. Title 10 refers to the “Korean conflict” and occasionally to the “Korean War.” It refers to the “Vietnam conflict” and the Persian Gulf conflict (First Gulf War). It refers to “Operation Iraqi Freedom (Second Gulf War)” and Operation Enduring Freedom (the official name used by the U.S. Government for the War in Afghanistan). I found it interesting that over time, the “Korean conflict” additionally came to be referred to as the “Korean War” within Title 10 of the United States Code.72.197.57.247 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S.

If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

US Law is a primary source. Cite social, military or economic historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war. For preference you should be citing US, former RVN, and Vietnamese historians on any major characterising point. If characterising the opinion of a particular state, you should still be citing historians of the Vietnam war when they're writing on the Vietnam war, though it is probably safe to simply cite any one of the three largest historical traditions on the opinion of any particular state. Regardless of your personal opinion, if you're advancing an argument, you should be advancing it out of secondary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ (edit conflict) According to the Wikipedia article on the topic, War is "... a phenomenon of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption and adaptation, and high mortality. There is some debate about other characteristics, but in general there is agreement that war involves at least two organized groups, is a premeditated activity at least on the part of one side, and at least one of the groups uses violence against the other." Yes, in the context of conflicts involving the U.S., and in the specific case of the Vietnam War (sometimes called the Second Indochina War), there is often much discussion about "declared" vs. "undeclared" regarding its political context within the U.S. If this discussion involves specific suggested changes to resolve perceived problems with this particular article, please focus it on such suggested changes. If it does not involve such suggested changes, see WP:NOTFORUM. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I was simply trying to express the view that the Wikipedia article, “The Vietnam War,” is accurate as written and does not require any changes insofar as terminology is concerned.72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume the Vietnam War was termed the 'Vietnam Conflict' within the US for legal reasons. The same thing occurred in the Malayan Emergency where the British Government termed the war officially an 'Emergency' so that Lloyds of London would have to pay out insurance claims by the MNLA-targeted British-owned mining industries and rubber plantations. These insurance policies usually specifically exclude 'acts of war'. The soldiers on both sides knew it was a 'war' though.

BTW, in the section; Vietnam_War#Background_to_1949 there's no mention of the British ever leaving Vietnam - presumably they did at some point so it might be a good idea for someone to add it, otherwise it's rather puzzling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.74.176 (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I added info on the British departure. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

OK - thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.44.121 (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The War Powers Resolution was passed in 1973 because of congressional concerns about prolonged military conflicts such as Korea and Vietnam. In my opinion using the term "Vietnam War" detracts from the historical significance of this concern. If it wasn't a declared war then don't call it one. Who cares what the journalists called it? Doktat (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)doktat

Within Wikipedia articles, we use the most common name for the article subjects. In this case, there is no comparison...searching from 1940 forward we can see that Vietnam War is common whereas Vietnam conflict is not. Please see this comparison.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the Vietnamese consider it a war and not a conflict.So therefore the Vietnam war.Owain the 1st (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not stating USA was defeated is POV

We state who was defeated in other wars, to not state that USA was defeated in this war is clearly a POV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Really, then we better fix World War II, which doesn't state that the Axis lost. Oh, and Franco-Prussian War which only mentions that Germany won. Oh, and American Civil War, which doesn't mention in the result that the Confederacy lost. Please, point out on which "other wars" that the loser is listed next to "Result". --Habap (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's more important to dispel the myth that the United States 'won every major battle but lost the war' in Vietnam, such as the fights in Kham Duc, Hill-937 (FSB Ripcord) and the An Lao Valley. Once that had been achieve to some degree, than we shall discuss the American defeat in greater detail.Canpark (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The Americans were not defeated. The Americans left in 1972 and three years later in 1975 the South Vietnamese lost, not the Americans. When General Giap invaded with 200,000 troops in the Easter Offensive the Americans killed 40,000 of them and sent General Giap scurrying back across the border with his tail between his legs where he was fired and they never let him be a general again. (Giap was the general who had defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. The Americans not only defeated him, they got him fired. That doesn't sound like the Americans were losers to me.) Where is all this disinformation about losing coming from? I think a lot of these lies about the Vietnam War are perpetrated by ignorant grade school teachers (91% of whom in the USA are female and are just those gum chewing high school girls who thought they'd become school teachers so they'd make thousands of dollars a year for babysitting and who are completely ignorant). Then there's the liberals who are promoting their political agenda. Me, I'll stick with the supportable facts, which is what Wiki is supposed to do instead of relying on pop culture fads and notions. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

America failed to meet its objectives and left. The North Vietnamese achieved theirs. The loss is pretty clear. Also, your irrelevant invective undermines you. (Hohum ^@) 11:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Canpark, WP is an encyclopedic publisher of verifiable information which has been reported by reliable sources, not a dispeller of myth as perceived by individual WP editors. I do know that the specific example you bring up has been asserted (See e.g., this from a source cited in the article as a general reference secondary source), though I don't think that it is currently mentioned in the article and I don't know what supportable refuting counterexamples might exist. I doubt that this this would pass WP:DUE in this article, but that source I've mentioned could be cited (possibly along with others) to support a mention that it has been asserted that the U.S. was never defeated on the battlefield, contrasted with mention of major U.S. battlefield defeats supported by other reliable sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The American objective was to prevent the worldwide spread of Communism. America bled off the will and the ability of Communism to spread throughout the world in Vietnam. Also, the North Vietnamese totally ignored the Paris Peace Accords. America left with South Vietnam secured, and honored its side of the Accords while North Vietnam did not. To state it in the most simple of childs terms, I think we all know that "cheating doesn't count". 66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read proper history books, kid. The average North Vietnamese soldier fought for his country, with concerns for his wife and kids like every normal human being. He did not fight for Communism. Communism only stopped in Indo-China because the Vietnamese Communist Party were too small and too insignificant, in a global context, to spread its ideology. Not because the "almighty" USA stopped them. I know it's very hard for people like you to grasp the truth, but grow up and you shall learn. In the meantime, however, stop making a complete fool of yourself.Canpark (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

North Vietnam received 85% of its war goods from Russia, they were just a puppet state of the Soviets. You would have preferred the US and Russia fight each other directly? No, no. Bad idea. Better that they should fight each other indirectly , through other countries. And Vietnam--you are missing the mystery and seductiveness of the Orient. 63.198.18.247 (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a good way of looking at the war: the Vietnam War was the USA's Uncle Remus "tar baby". As per the fable, the way to win the situation was to extricate yourself from the tar baby. Which is what the USA did indeed accomplish in Vietnam. It got out and left the mess in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to whatever fools tried to straighten it out. Remember when Red China tried by invading Vietnam in 1979? what a debacle that turned out to be. 63.198.18.247 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Effect on the United States -- Section

Presently, the first two sentences of the last paragraph of the section titled, Effect on the United States, read as follows:

“More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War. By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[2] more than 150,000 were wounded, and at least 21,000 were permanently disabled.[257].”

Due to information in Archive 16 and on the present discussion page, I would like to take a stab at re-writing these two sentences (which now becomes three sentences), with the hope that the Wiki editors will accept them and include them in the article. They would read as follows:

“A total of 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, which includes flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). From this total, 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. [Footnoted Source: VFW Magazine April 1997]. By war's end, 58,220 soldiers were killed,[2] and 303,644 U.S. military personnel were wounded (153,303 who required hospitalization, and 150,341 who did not require hospitalization but rather received treatment at field aid stations. [Footnoted Source: CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 -- here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf].” 72.197.57.247 (talk) 07:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops! One must say 58,220 military personnel died (vice 58,220 soldiers were killed) -- soldiers just refers to the Army, but of course deaths occurred in all of the Services, and 10,786 deaths were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, etc., so it is more accurate to use the word "died" instead of the word "killed."72.197.86.130 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Preparations to 1949

Here it says that North Vietnam was supposed to be occupied by nationalist Chinese forces in 1945- and then nothing about what happened to said forces. Did they ever show up? If not, why?

Where does it say that? -- Esemono (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"the major powers came to an agreement that British troops would occupy the south while Nationalist Chinese forces would move in from the north".Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I've added some info on that and cited a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Annotations -- #5 is incorrect and needs to be corrected

Annotations #5 states: “On 6 May 1965 the first American combat troops the, Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, are sent to Vietnam to protect the Da Nang airport." This is not correct.

Marines first arrived in Vietnam on March 8, 1965. I wrote the following in my book, Crucible Vietnam, on page 27: “on the 8th of March 1965, 3,500 Marines of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the lead element of the 3rd Marine Division, stormed ashore near Da Nang, about 100 miles to the south of the DMZ, to become the first U.S. ground combat troops to set foot upon Vietnamese soil (the 1st Marine Division would be dispatched to Vietnam one year later).” Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 27. In the first paragraph of the section titled, Escalation and ground war, the issue is handled correctly (though it could be expanded a bit), however there is no footnote. And when you ping on the Annotation #5 it takes the reader to the section titled, Exit of the Americans: 1973–1975, whereas it should be addressing the section titled, Escalation and ground war, and the arrival in Vietnam of the Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division.72.197.57.247 (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

other sources support the 8th march date too. Corrected. its not good formk to cite yourself though.Slatersteven (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, I should have looked for other supporting sources. It’s just that I feel that the accuracy of these details, as well as correct casualty figures, are so important for us Vietnam Vets and for the historical record, which will be here when we are gone. Please excuse me.72.197.57.247 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Annotations #5 should be corrected to read “9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade, Third Marine Division” vice “Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division.”72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

If supported, and as IAW WP:DUE.

The currently-cited supporting sources say (1) "Battalion landing team 1/3 (1st Battalion, 3rd Marines) begins landing at Danang air base. At the same time, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing deploys from Japan and Okinawa to Vietnam to support U.S. Marine Corps operations in I Corps.", and (2) "The first American ground combat troops landed in South Vietnam during March 1965, specifically the U.S. Third Marine Regiment, Third Marine Division, deployed to Vietnam from Okinawa to defend the Da Nang, Vietnam, airfield." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are three Marine Corps websites that support the usage of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment, as only one of the battalions, 1/3, in the Expeditionary Brigade was from the Third Marine Regiment. The Marine Corps consistently cites the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965.

www website tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronologies/Campaign/Vietnam_War_1962-1975.htm, states as follows: “8 March 1965 - The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), commanded by Brigadier General Frederick J. Karch, landed at Da Nang, Vietnam. The brigade consisted of two Marine battalions, one arriving by air and the other over the beach.”

www website tecom.usmc.mil/HD/This_Month_History.htm, states as follows: “8 March 1965: The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed at DaNang, Republic of Vietnam as the first U.S. ground combat troops to be committed to that conflict. The 3,500 men arrived both across the beach with Battalion Landing Team 3/9, and at DaNang Airfield with Battalion Landing Team 1/3.”

The www website leatherneck.com, the Marine Corps Community for Marine Veterans states as follows: “March 8, 1965 - The 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB) commanded by BGen Frederick J. Karch landed at Da Nang, Vietnam, consisting of two Marine battalions, one arriving by air and over the beach.”72.197.57.247 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Slatersteven--Re the "Crucible Vietnam" citation above, I think it's very good form for a Vietnam veteran to cite himself. Who else is going to know more about the Vietnam War? No one. I wish more Vietnam vets would contribute to this site. Then we'd get some real insight. Perhaps a special section with quotes from Viet vets telling the "actual factual" should be added to improve the article. After all, do I believe what the academic pedants who were never in Vietnam have to say about the war? No. And as Lawrence says, after Vietnam vets are gone, who's going to tell the real story? Hollywood? Here it is, 150 years since the American Civil War and over at the Wiki site on the Civil War people still can't agree on what caused the Civil War.66.122.184.111 (talk) 09:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a seemingly minor correction, for instance, but a critically important one in aerial warfare--the picture in the article stating a B-66 was dropping bombs with four F-105's may be incorrect, it may actually be an EB-66, providing ECM or other such electronic assistance rather than dropping bombs, which makes sense. One of the F-105's doesn't have camo paint yet so the picture happened early in the war. I think only a Vietnam vet would actually know the tactical flight arrangement used. A history professor with a Phd would be clueless while a Vietnam vet in the USAF would know. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the caption sourced from here which was provided when the photo was uploaded (click on the image in the article to see that caption) reads

"'Flying under radar control with a B-66 Destroyer, Air Force F-105 Thunderchief pilots bomb a military target through low clouds over the southern panhandle of North Viet Nam. June 14, 1966.'Italiano: Volando sotto il controllo radar di un Douglas EB-66 Destroyer, alcuni Republic F-105D Thunderchief bombardano un bersaglio militare nel Nord Vietnam attraverso nuvole basse in una missione pathfinder (nella stagione dei monsoni non c'era modo di avere visibilità dei bersagli, gli EB-66 guidavano, grazie al loro radar, i bombardieri fino al bersaglio, dove questi sganciavano alla cieca in seguito alla segnalazione dell'aereo guida). 14 Giugno 1966, foto scattata dal tenente colonnello Cecil J. Poss, 20th TRS USAF, da un McDonnell RF-101C Voodoo."

According to Google Language Tools, the Italian translates approximately to

"Flying under the radar control of a Douglas EB-66 Destroyer, Republic F-105D Thunderchief some bomb a military target through low clouds in northern Vietnam in a pathfinder mission (in the monsoon season there was no way to have visibility of the targets, the EB-66 were leading, thanks to their radar, the bombers to the target, where they dropped blindly following the recommendation of the plane guide). June 14, 1966, photo taken by Lieutenant Colonel Cecil J. Poss, USAF 20th TRS, a McDonnell RF-101C Voodoo."

Note also

• this edit which changed "EB-66" in an earlier version of the caption to "B-66", and this still-earlier edit which changed it from "B-66" to "EB-66", and
• this earlier edit which modified a different part of the caption, and this edit which added the mention of the EB-66 to the caption in the article, and
• this edit which labeled the F-105s, and this edit which modified the caption without identifying the aircraft, and
• this edit which added the image with the caption "U.S. bombers dropping explosives.". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

However, there are those pesky Wikipedia policies on original research and verifiability to think about. Also, a cite of A. T. Lawrence (2009), Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant, McFarland, ISBN 9780786445172 is not a VN Vet citing himself, it's a cite of a book authored by a VN Vet and published by a reputable publishing house which apparently has enough editorial oversight to be considered a reliable source here (see [1]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's good research, Wtmitchell. I think you should get one of those Wiki awards. So, should the caption be changed to read something like "Four F-105D's on a Pathfinder mission drop bombs in the monsoon season guided by an EB-66 used to penetrate cloud cover"? That would clarify the picture. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a bit more research which may not be so welcome. Robert, Mann (2002), A grand delusion: America's descent into Vietnam, Basic Books, pp. 502, ISBN 9780465043705 shows a copy of the photo and credits it to "CORBIS". A bit of googling turns up this, which says that the image is copyrighted by Corbis as part of the Bettmann Collection there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the author of the book Crucible Vietnam. I did write a book about that war in which I had fought. I have simply attempted to make some corrections pertaining to casualties, for example the number of wounded in the info box should be changed from 303,635 to 303,644 based on the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010. Additionally, a change should be made to the section titled, Effect on the United States: 8th paragraph, first sentence, currently states, “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” This statement is not correct. VFW Magazine (April 1997), which I consider to be a reliable source, states that a total of 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, which includes flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters). From this total, 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam. I brought these issues up during August of 2010, and yet the Wiki editors have still not made the correction. Also during December 2007, when I was writing my book, the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, provided me the yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans who died in Vietnam by category (killed in action; died of wounds; missing in action/declared dead; captured/declared dead; illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and homicides). I don’t know of any other source that breaks these figures down by category and year. It was simply the Director’s Excel spreadsheet that he was using as a working file to compute annual composite figures, so in this instance I only have the Director’s spreadsheet to verify some of these casualty figures. However I have come up with three Marine Corps websites that support the usage of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965, and I would hope the Wiki editors might make that change.67.188.237.74 (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that back in August the Wiki article stated: “More than 3 million Americans served in Vietnam.” Whereas now the article states: “More than 3 million Americans served in the Vietnam War.” So apparently a change was made, however it might be helpful to expand on this issue by saying that 3,403,100 personnel served in the Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, including flight crews based in Thailand, and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters) of which 2,644,000 U.S. personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam.67.188.237.74 (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Im going to have to buy a copy of Lawrence's book. Anyway, there's probably been a lot of confusion on how many people served in the Vietnam War because of various criteria. I remember when the war ended they said that 2.1 million vets had served in Vietnam, then it went up to 2.2 million, 2.3 million, etc., as more data came filtering in. Then they included guys in all the Southeast Asia theater, which brought it up even more. A certain number of guys went there without written orders, since they didn't have time to cut the orders, etc. Then what about classifed missions? SOG teams, CIA missions, etc. You can't acknowledge they were there. I notice that the 563rd Tactical Fighter Squadron was flying missions out of Thailand between 8 April 1965 and 15 August 1965. In that 5 month tour they lost 10 of their original 18 aircraft, picked up two Air Force Outstanding Unit Awards with Combat "V" (a very rare decoration and they got two of them!) and yet they were never awarded the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry Unit Citation, which should have been an automatic award. Were they pulling missions on a classified basis? Could our government even acknowledge that they were in Vietnam? Seems strange. Anyway, I agree with Lawrence's current estimates. By the way, were B-52 crews flying out of Guam on Arc Light missions ever included in the troop estimates for service in Vietnam? 66.122.184.111 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedias rules on sources are clear. You may not cite yourself, SPS are generaly not acceptable and sources should be third party.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Then I'll cite Lawrence by proxy. That should resolve the issue. But does anybody know if B-52 crews flying over Vietnam from Guam were included in the troop count for Vietnam service? Did they get Vietnam Service Medals or Vietnam Campaign Medals, for instance? I'm really wondering about it now. Any B-52 crew members out there? Thanks. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

These issues have become exasperating. I am simply attempting to make three corrections to the Wiki article. 1) the issue of U.S. deaths and wounded in Vietnam for which I have cited the CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 as a source. 2) the number of U.S. personnel that served in the Southeast Asia Theater and within the borders of South Vietnam for which I have cited VFW Magazine (April 1997) as a source, and 3) the issue of 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade vice Third Marine Regiment as the Marine unit that arrived in Vietnam on 8 March 1965, which is the only issue to which I referred to my book, because I had obtained that information from my classroom notes when I was attending the Naval War College, though I have since found and provided Wiki with three U.S. Marine Corps websites that confirm this point. The only reason I initially became involved with Wiki back in August of 2010 was because someone had misquoted me in my book in regards the reorganization of the U.S. Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) into country-specific units. Still hoping Wiki editors will proceed to make the three corrections cited above.67.188.237.74 (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wiki editors often paint themselves into a corner. Try to get Wiki editors to admit that Steven Spielberg or James Cameron are script thieves, for instance, despite the vast evidence that they are. Wiki editors are often in denial, don't know what causes it. I still like Wiki articles because they have lots of info. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Effect on Vietnam section

I can see the effect on the United States section.Is there a section for the effect on Vietnam? Pretty sure they were more effected by that war than the Americans.Owain the 1st (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting concept. I remember reading a TAC Attack magazine in 1970 which said, incongruously enough, that we had dropped 90% of our bombs on South Vietnam at that time, not North Vietnam. So there may be some surprising revelations. The war introduced Vietnam to American capitalism--America is now Vietnam's biggest trading partner.66.122.184.111 (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

China is Vietnams biggest trading partner.[2]1. Anyway getting back to the subject.There is no section on the effect on Vietnam but we have one on America. We should have one on Vietnam as the effect of the war was devastating, from the loss of so many of its people to all the chemicals sprayed by the Americans, the boat people.etc.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I probably should have said the US is Vietnam's biggest "investment" partner. And yes, I agree with you, a section on the effect on Vietnam would be a good addition. 63.198.18.247 (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am up for changing the Chemical defoliation section into the effect on Vietnam section as a lot of the stuff in it is to do with American servicemen which could be placed in the effect on US section and the other stuff in the effect on Vietnam section.The effect on Vietnam section could then cover the chemical spraying,the deaths of millions of Vietnamese and the boat people,reeducation camps etc.Thoughts?Owain the 1st (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea but could prove to be a massive undertaking--after the US left, Vietnam became embroiled in Laos and more particularly Cambodia (Vietnamese and Cambodia are traditional enemies and this kept the Vietnamese economy in a shambles for 20 years). Then Vietnam went to war with China and killed 30,000 Chinese. So Vietnam had many problems after the US left, many problems were endemic to the region, and had nothing to do with the US. Agent Orange has its own article (q.v.); the boat people are important; then there's the Vietnamese who immigrated to the US after the war, etc....it looks like it could be an article unto itself. 67.117.25.62 (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead Photo

The lead photo of the Huey helicopter at a landing zone might use some clarification--that's Major Bruce Crandall flying at the famous battle of Ia Drang (Mel Gibson made a movie of the battle called "We Were Soldiers"). Major Crandall received the Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, four Distinguished Flying Crosses and 23 Air Medals. That's a great photo to lead off the article with. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is that photo so great? Why not have a photo of Vietnamese fighting to kick the Americans out of Vietnam?Owain the 1st (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's one of only two photos of someone winning the Medal of Honor. The other is of a besieged dirt strip in Vietnam with a lot of wrecked planes and helicopters, but I can't remember the name of the besieged airbase right now. Anybody remember? And I don't think a picture of a North Vietnamese torturing a civilian would be a great photo. The North Vietnamese played dirty. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

How about a nice picture of the Vietnamese entering Saigon when they won the war?Who cares who won a medal of honour invading someone else country and butchering their population. As for playing dirty I suggest you read up on what the Americans did in Vietnam.Actually I would go as far to say that this whole article is pro USA in pictures, it needs some pictures of the NVA and VietCong fighting to make it equal. All we have now is Americans killing, Americans bombing, Americans on the river, American this and Americans that. Also most of the sources are American or western..I think I count about less than 5 out of over 200 that were North Vietnamese/VietCongOwain the 1st (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: the only other photo of a Medal of Honor action is of Kham Duc airfield. So these two are very unique, historically important photos. While Owain the 1st seems to display an anti-American bias, I agree with him that the article needs representation from the North Vietnamese for their POV. But how many people in Vietnam are connected to the Internet? How many books by the Vietnamese have been translated into English? How much censorship is there in published literature in Vietnam? We might be surprised by accounts of North Vietnamese who were brainwashed, indoctrinated and pressed into service (but then I'm sure Owain the 1st would say the same of American soldiers). There's a big difference between the political bigwigs and their typical pack of lies and the experience of the common soldier on the battlefield. There might be a good deal of commonality between ordinary soldiers of both sides, experiencing the same terrain, weather, bugs, snakes, etc. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not matter how many people in Vietnam are on the internet and plenty of books from the North Vietnamese/VietCong point of view are printed in English.As for anti American bias,that is a weak argument,it is clear that this articles pictures are pro American when it should be neutral under the rules of wikipedia.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more info on Major Crandall: he flew 22 unarmed missions (that's right unarmed) into Ia Drang to evacuate the wounded and bring in supplies; he wasn't "butchering" anybody. He was saving lives. I counted about 20 photos in the article, including one of the My Lai massacre (which certainly can't be counted as "pro American"), and though there was a photo of Aussie troops I didn't see any photos of New Zealand troops or ROKs (Republic of Korea troops). So yes, we could use more photos but what's the Wiki policy on the number of photos that can be used? 66.122.184.111 (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The guy flew over 900 combat mission.Of course he butchered Vietnamese.As for the photos, we take out some of the American ones and put in some North Vietnamese/Vietcomg ones.They are well under represented in this article.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So we insert photos of North Vietnamese committing war atrocities and torturing and butchering people--which was their modus operandi. Hanoi Hilton prisoners being beaten and starved? Okay. Morbid but it is a war article. Don't want to make the article too hideous for schoolchildren though. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, we insert pictures of Vietcong/NVA fighting off American invaders.Talking of war atrocities..the Americans committed loads, people are still dying today from American agent orange..I can see there is no point discussing anything with you at all and this is not a discussion forum so I will change or add pictures myself when I get around to it.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Americans were specifically prohibited from committing war atrocities by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and The Geneva Convention, which the North Vietnamese did not abide by. If you have verifiable instances of Americans committing war crimes in Vietnam, you'd have to cite sources. And yes, Agent Orange is hideous, I absolutely agree with you, but American soldiers were exposed to it too, they weren't told of its horrible effects so we'd have to blame the manufacturing company I suppose. You ever try to sue an American corporation? Our corrupt American laws protect corporations because there's a body of law passed by a Justice Field in the USA in the latter part of the 1800's which says that the interests of corporations are more important than the rights of individuals. This isn't the USA, this is the USA, Inc. Corporate America is the bad guy here, not the ordinary American or the footsoldier in the field. Americans complain about their corrupt government all the time. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, Americans committing atrocities in Vietnam..[3]Tigerforce [4]My Lai..those are just two off the top of my head there are plenty more.As I said this is not a discussion forum so I am done here with you.Owain the 1st (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We all know about Tiger Force (founded by Col. Hackworth) and My Lai. Occasionally soldiers will go beserk. However, these are the exceptions to the rule. By contrast, the North Vietnamese committed war atrocities as standard, normal procedure (the North murdered thousands of civilians during the battle of Hue for instance). Some members of Tiger Force protested but were threatened with retribution and My Lai had subsequent court martial proceedings. Tiger Force is still being investigated the last I heard. On Feb. 19, 1970, five Marines murdered 16 non-combatant women and children in the village of Son Thang and were court martialed. Lt. Calley was sentenced to life in prison but was pardoned by Nixon. War crimes are forbidden by the US. But then, war in itself is a crime is it not? And what can any of us do about that? It's part of the human condition. Watch the movie "Grand Illusion" by Jean Renoir. The grand illusion is that someday war will dissappear. You and I both hate war but are we not warring with each other now? Why do so many pacifists like to pick fights? 66.122.184.111 (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

So now I notice the lead picture was changed. So what does this mean? That the Vietnam War Wiki article is an anti-American site? As such, it has no credibility.66.122.184.111 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the lead image from a collage emphasizing bodies and the My Lai massarce to the previous helicopter image. If you look at the lead images for other war articles, they do not focus on massacres or bodies, although these are common features of war. This collage also strikes me a propagandistic approach -- the Dak Son Massacre and the Massacre at Huế produced gruesome images as well. The Huey is an obvious choice for the lead image since it is often described as the "symbol of Vietnam" -- the visual image that is most readily identifiable with the war. Kauffner (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Described as the symbol of Vietnam by who? Americans? I have never heard of it described as that frankly.It might well be to Americans but they do not make up the whole world.The pictures in this article are mostly of the Americans fighting, killing,rounding up Vietnamese..we need some photos of the Vietnamese NVA/Cong. We need a balance as that would be neutral.Owain the 1st (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Huey "symbol of Vietnam" and you will get hundreds of results. I am not responsible for "the pictures in this article", but I can tell you that the reason Wiki has many images that originate with the U.S. military and government is because many such images are available without copyright and this policy of the U.S. government has long been understood by those who organize and upload images. Kauffner (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I opine that this image, currently positioned as the lead image in the article, is inappropriate as a lead image for this article. That image, a photo apparently taken during the 1965 Battle of la Drang would be better placed in the Lyndon B. Johnson expands the war, 1963–1969 section, perhaps replacing this image which, as is mentioned here above, may have copyright problems. An image more reflective of the article as a whole would be better as a lead image for the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've studied cinema and have been a journalist--in photographic and film semiotic terms, the composition of the Bruce Crandall Huey helicopter photo is a good lead image because the action in the photo is from right to left, leading the viewer's eye into the article instead of away from it; the soldiers and the Huey are poised for action, re-emphasizing that this is the start of the article in symbolic terms. The photo draws the reader into the article, which is what a good newspaper editor would desire; the massacre collection of photos would tend to repel a potential reader. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have neither studied cinema nor been a photographic journalist, but then we're neither making a movie here nor illustrating a news story -- we're writing an encyclopedia article, one of many articles in this online encyclopedia. Other articles on similar topics include the World War I, World War II and Korean War articles. Looking at the lead images in those articles, I see more stylistic similarity to the lead image in this version of the article than to the image in this current version. It seems to me that it's a good idea to use similar styles for articles on similar topics.

Those images in the other articles, like the image from the older version of this article, are photo montages. In contrast, the current lead image of this article is a single image. A photo montage has an advantage over a single image as a lead image for an article about a multi-year conflict in that it can show a number of representative illustrations ranging across the wide sweep of the conflict. A single image can only show a snapshot -- in this case a snapshot from 1965, illustrating a war which the article lede presents as ranging over the 20 year period from 1955 to 1975.

One image in the previous montage used in this article was a photo of Vietnamese civilians killed by U.S. troops during the My Lai Massacre, and that drew editorial objections as being unnecessarily gruesome. It was remarked above that lead images for other war articles do not focus on massacres or bodies, although these are common features of war. That image in the montage formerly used for this article could be changed -- perhaps replaced with the helicopter image currently used as the lead image, though I still think that helicopter image would be better placed in the other section which I mentioned in my earlier comment. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kauffner.Just because the US government lets us use images does not mean that an article has to be full of them. It is clear that this article is just American propaganda in pictures as I have already stated it is just Americans bombing,killing rounding up Vietnamese.There should be more pictures from the other side to make this article more balanced.As for your symbol of Vietnam bit I do not agree with it at all and just because there are loads of results on google means nothing as it it is just a fact that the Americans have pushed their version of events, well the rest of the world does not really buy that and because this is supposed to be a neutral world wide site I feel the picture should be removed and replaced with something else.I suggest the NVA entering Saigon Presidential Palace thru the gates in a tank..that would at least be one NVA image that portrays their victory.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I was in the Vietnam War so I could offer one of my photos to use as the lead image (LOL), but that would be rejected as OR. I remember a great photo somebody took at Nha Trang--someone had stolen a huge, colorful grocery store banner from back in the States and hung it on the outside of a barracks building. The banner read "We Give S&H Green Stamps", which sums it all up. The absurdity of war. A lot of our guys would dump their white girlfriends back in the states and marry a girl from Southeast Asia. In Vietnam we'd know when there would be rocket attacks on base because soldiers' Vietnamese girlfriends would tell them. People think it was an "us against them" situation but it wasn't--we intermingled with them, lived with them, married them. We all had to live together. There were no front lines. Many of us wanted to go back to Vietnam after the war and open up beach resort hotels like in Miami and become millionaires. I appreciate everyone's interest in the war and am drawn to this site now and then to see what's up and that phrase from "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" always occurs to me: "When the facts contradict the legend, print the legend". 66.122.184.111 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Color beats black and white. I don't care much for montages. In this case, one element is gruesome and two others are just blah. So I suggest using this as the lead image: Kauffner (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

We have enough American photos in this article, too many actually so putting forth yet another one is not very constructive. What this article needs are more pictures of the NVA and VietCong because frankly as of now the only pictures with them supposedly in are when they have supposedly been captured by Americans.Remember the Americans lost the war.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Is All Wrong

From the first sentence the article is wrong. Stating that the Vietnam War was a "Cold War era military conflict" implies that Vietnam was a "cold" war. It was not. It was a "hot war". The Cold War is a different conflict altogether, involving the US and USSR strategically using nuclear bombers and missiles. The Vietnam War was primarily battlefield tactics and weapons. It did not start on Nov. 1, 1955. It began on March 8, 1965, 10 years later, when the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade landed at Da Nang. It ended on Dec. 29, 1972 after Linebacker I and II had brought the defeated North Vietnamese to their knees and forced them to the negotiating table where they were made to sign the Paris Peace Accords on Jan. 27, 1973, the US stating that it would withdraw the few remaining US military personnel within 60 days, thus formally ending the war on March 28, 1973. Two years after the US had left, the North Vietnamese, in total non-compliance with the Paris Peace Accords, defeated the South Vietnamese on April 30, 1975. We all know these dates, they're not in dispute. However, anti-American Wiki editors are attempting to use such easily detectable brainwashing stratagems such as the false premise, the diversionary tactic, the syllogism, the straw man fallacy, etc., to construe things differently to suit their own personal political agenda. The POV of the article seems to be skewed to be pro-Communist. This whole matter needs to be looked at by Wiki editors from an unbiased point of view and re-evaluated. 66.122.184.111 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I arrived in Vietnam on 11 November 1964. I guess I misread my invitation and showed up early by mistake. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Very witty, I like that. Then let's start it on Nov. 11, 1964. I've no problem with that. I seem to recall we had fighter aircraft flying out of Thailand on missions in 1964, I'd have to check on the dates, will get back to you. We had American military personnel moving in and out of Vietnam for years, like we do everywhere; I'm just trying to use March 8 as the first significant buildup of ground forces which led to a massive war. The "Star of the West", for example, was a Union supply ship fired on by the Confederacy way before Ft. Sumter but people still prefer the Ft. Sumter date because it really got things moving. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's something really interesting--the first F-105D mission of the war was against an anti-aircraft artillery site in the Plaine de Jarres in Laos on Aug. 14, 1964. They call it the Plain of Jars because it's littered with these mysterious old, huge stone jars (it's like Easter Island!). So we start the F-105 air war by bombing an archeological site. We actually didn't bomb the enemy back into the Stone Age--we bombed the Stone Age itself (well, megalithic Iron Age actually). And of course, operation Rolling Thunder began on March 1, 1965. But I prefer that the war started on Nov. 11, 1964 when WtMitchell arrived in 'Nam. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The war began for me during September of 1967, however U.S. government reports currently cite November 1, 1955, as the commencement date of the “Vietnam Conflict.” This was the day when the United States Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in Indochina (deployed to Southeast Asia under President Truman), was reorganized into country-specific units and MAAG Vietnam was established. I believe this early date also had to do with the fact that the first acknowledged American soldier to die in Vietnam occurred on the 8th of June 1956 (when Air Force Tech Sergeant Richard B. Fitzgibbon Jr., was murdered by a fellow airman).67.188.237.74 (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more interesting stuff--apparently the Vietnam War was started by the Viet Minh version of the Three Stooges: on Sept. 26, 1945 a US Army Lt. Col. named Peter Dewey of the OSS was leaving Vietnam when three Viet Minh mistook him for a Frenchman and shot him. Dewey was headed back to the States to tell his superiors that US involvement in Vietnam was a really, really bad idea and that the US should get out. Nice going Moe, Curly and Larry. So Dewey was actually the first American killed in Vietnam. Then the first American airmen were killed in combat in Vietnam at the battle of Dien Bien Phu when civilian pilots James McGovern and Wallace Buford died when their C47 Dakota was blown up. (Ironically, the 105 mm howitzers that the Viet Minh used at Dien Bien Phu were American-made.) And for the longest time the first US military deaths in Vietnam were listed as Maj. Dale R. Buis and Sgt. Chester Ovnand, military advisors killed by the Viet Minh on July 8, 1959 at Bien Hoa, South Vietnam. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd to give a start date that is several years before major fighting began. Many sources give 1959 as the start date since the first large unit military action was on 26 September 1959. The was a lot of guerilla activity in 1958-1959, so a slightly earlier date can be justified. The 1955 date has to do with eligibility for placement on the Vietnam War Memorial, not with military activity in Vietnam. Kauffner (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a list of U.S. military Vietnam War casualty deaths by year, provided to me by the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, during December 2007. This includes hostile and non-hostile deaths. The reason why you see additions beyond 1975 is due to the fact that some wounded were moved into the death column. From these figures it appears that the war for U.S. military personnel began before U.S. combat ground forces arrived during the spring of 1965.67.188.237.74 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

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 1987 1 1990 1 2004 1 2005 2 2006 2 Total 58,220

I also agree that this page should be re-evaluated but for its extremely pro-American stance, on articles relating to the topic. The Paris Peace Accords was signed on North Vietnamese terms, that's why their troops remained in South Vietnam and the U.S. had to f**k off, like a bunch of losers that they were. Only poorly educated, brainwashed right-wing morons would say otherwise.Canpark (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Canpark, your invective does little for your credibility. Please adhere to WP:CIVIL. (Hohum ^@) 17:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

IP67 did some excellent work--perhaps a graph of the rise and fall in American deaths could be emplaced in the article to visually give the reader a rendering of the rise and fall of the war. I also looked up the qualifications for the Vietnam Service Medal and it goes from July 3, 1965 to March 28, 1973. So the year 1965 does seem to be an incipient one for the Vietnam War. As a side note, I should mention that tomorrow, April 12, marks the beginning of the 150th anniversary of the American Civil War and they know exactly when it started--they're going to mark the occasion at Ft. Sumter by pointing a single beam of light skyward and then at exactly 4:30 AM the beam of light splits in two. As for me, I went to UC Berkeley in 1966 before I joined the Vietnam War. I don't think that qualifies me as a poorly educated, brainwashed, right-wing moron although I do appreciate the interest in my education. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

US Casualties
Year				Deaths
1956			1
1957			1
1958			2
1959			1
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
Total			58,213

I removed the deaths in Vietnam after the war ended. Also, is it casualties (wounded + deaths, or only deaths? A link to the original source would be helpful.) (Hohum ^@) 18:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It was only deaths and did not include wounded. The "official" number of 58,220 American deaths in the Vietnam War is confirmed in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010 on page 3. Here is the website for the CRS report: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf Here is some additional U.S. casualty info. During the Vietnam War, according to the official DoD figures, Americans suffered 47,434 hostile deaths, comprised of four categories: Killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)); while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents (which comprised nearly 85% of all non-hostile deaths), missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War. Following is a list of Americans killed in action by year:

1959-1961 14 1962 30 1963 71 1964 146 1965 1,313 1966 4,432 1967 8,454 1968 13,005 1969 8,239 1970 3,659 1971 1,206 1972 327 1973 20 1975 18 Total 40,934 Again, this info was provided to me by the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, during December 2007, but I realize that it is inappropriate to cite statistics from my own book Crucible Vietnam. However the Director provided me with his Excel working spreadsheet which provided category breakouts by year, and I know of no other source that provides a breakdown of hostile and non-hostile categories by year.67.188.237.74 (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that describing Vietnam as a Cold War era military conflict implies it was, itself, a cold war at all. In fact the term military conflict suggests otherwise. It only means that it took place during the Cold War, and needs to be considered in that context. Barnabypage (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, somewhere in the article, it is important to make mention of the fact that of 303,644 U.S. military personnel wounded in Vietnam, 153,303 required hospitalization, while another 150,341 (wounded from shrapnel or from small arms fire) received treatment at field aid stations, and were then sent back to their units. Otherwise, there will be confusion, because oftentimes historians just pick up the 153,303 wounded who required hospitalization, and they often neglect the other 150,341 wounded who were treated at field aid stations and sent back to their units. These figures concerning the wounded are also confirmed in the most recent CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics, dated February 26, 2010.67.188.237.74 (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent graph. I think it should definitely be included in the article. 66.122.182.154 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the official U.S. Government number of 58,220 American deaths in the Vietnam War should not be reduced to 58,213. The people at the Defense Manpower Data Center are extremely conscientious and I believe they have added to the figure after 1975 by considering those who "Died of Wounds Received in Action" even if they died sometime after the U.S. military personnel came home.67.188.237.74 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)58,220 tallies exactly with this source [5], which also explains why there are some casualties reported after 1975

"Inclusive dates are November 1, 1955 to May 15, 1975. Casualty dates after the end date represent service members who were wounded during the period and subsequently died as a result of those wounds and those service members who where involved in an incident during the period and were later declared dead."

I can't find a yearly breakdown yet though - which we would need to include it. (Hohum ^@) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I may be the only person with the breakdown (by year and category), which adds up to the official U.S. Government totals. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center provided me this information when I was working on my book, Crucible Vietnam, and though I have acknowledged him in my book, when I went to personally thank him, I was apprised that he had retired. I know it sounds strange, but I might be the only person who has this info (which was the Director's working spreadsheet) and since I cannot cite my own book, I suppose someone else could cite from it.99.29.232.64 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is possible to get a similar breakdown from the "The Coffelt Database" in the US National Archives here, and searching between Jan 1 and Dec 31 for each year of Actual date of death, then reading the number of results. This would only include the people who died during the war, and not those that died of injuries later - which is ok to use as long as we make a note in the chart. Many records don't have an Actual date of casualty, so that field isn't a good one to search. (Hohum ^@) 19:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this could be construed as a form of original research, though they are actually the casualty figures off the working Excel spreadsheet of the Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center, provided to me during December 2007, before he retired, when I was working on my book. Death casualties are broken down by year and category (hostile deaths: killed in action, died of wounds, missing in action/declared dead, and captured/declared dead; as well as non-hostile deaths: illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and homicides). These yearly and category figures match up precisely with the official DoD total figures (i.e. killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116)), along with the breakdown of non-hostile deaths). I would have no problem with Wikipedia using the year and category casualty breakdowns pertaining to the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War as well as to the 40,934 killed in action that I have already provided, as I feel that Wiki will be hard-pressed to find another supporting source. Perhaps Wiki could simply cite that these figures are provided courtesy of A. T. Lawrence, author of (2009), Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant, McFarland, ISBN 9780786445172. I would expect that Wiki would not change the totals, in other words reduce the total of 58,220 because some wounded died of their wounds after 1975. I don’t know if Wiki can do this, though I do feel that these casualty figures by year are informative and insightful. A. T. Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.237.74 (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems, for the chart pertaining to casualty deaths, to simply use the figure 58,220 with an asterisk that sim[ply states seven deaths were added after 15 May 1975 which represent service members who were wounded during the war and subsequently died as a result of those wounds and those service members who where involved in an incident during the war and were later declared dead. A. T. Lawrence67.188.237.74 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Also you need to check your chart; I believe the U.S. Government claims that no military personnel died in the Vietnam War during 1958.67.188.237.74 (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Should a formal notation be made that the only American woman to die in combat in Vietnam, 1st Lt. Sharon Ann Lane, an Army nurse, died on June 8, 1969, during a 122 mm rocket attack? 63.198.18.247 (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Is female specific US combat mortality the specific subject of academic study? If so, then it would be WEIGHTY to note it. Basic searching ( http://www.springerlink.com/content/x8711phh44153800/ ) indicates that in studies of Vietnamese mortality, the standard focus has been on class, educational attainment and social status, and, that women disproportionately did not die as a result of war. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A bit of googling turned up

• Anne Leland; Mari-Jana "M-J" Oboroceanu (February 26, 2010). "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. (See tables 3, 11-16).
• "American Civilian and Military Women Who Died in the Vietnam War (1959-1975)". virtualwall.org. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
• "Should Women Share Combat duty With Men?". JET. December 17, 1990. pp. 8-12, .{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link).
• Kingsley Browne (8 November 2007). Co-ed combat: the new evidence that women shouldn't fight the nation's wars. Penguin. ISBN 9781595230430. Retrieved 13 April 2011.

There's no doubt more stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so, should the graph above on US casualities be included in the article? I think so, it's one of those "everything explained at a glance" visual graphics. It quite succinctly delineates America's involvement in the Southeast Asian imbroglio. But as noted, the graph should be amended to reflect that no US deaths happened in 1958 and 2 US deaths happened in 1959. It's a great graph, I'm surprised no one thought of it before. 71.148.52.82 (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an impressive graph, visually. It needs to be clearly sourced to one or more verifiable reliable sources. "... provided to me by ..." sourcing won't do it. If it is a compilation from more than one source, it needs to be comprehensively sourced and footnoted to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I am the individual who provided the yearly breakdown of U.S. deaths during the Vietnam War. I did not provide a list of American deaths by year in my book (which I provided to Wiki), rather I made reference to deaths for selected years within my narrative. In my book, Crucible Vietnam, I concentrated on those “killed in action” (KIAs) as I felt this was the best gauge of the intensity of the fighting, and I did provide a list of KIAs by year in my book (Appendix C). When I set out to write my book I was determined to obtain the “official” and accurate yearly U.S. Government casualty figures and I persevered in this endeavor because most all of the experts whom I had read invariably cited conflicting figures; some would unintentionally cite hostile deaths totals for killed in action or visa versa, and neither they nor the government provided detailed casualty breakdowns by year, rather government reports in particular published just total casualty figures for the war. The Director of the Department of Defense Statistical Information Analysis Division (SIAD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), who provided me with his Excel worksheet during December 2007 is the individual responsible for gathering the casualty figures for all official U.S. government reports, yet his worksheet additionally and meticulously included yearly breakdowns by category of death (killed in action, died of wounds, etc.). In regards the total casualty numbers for the Vietnam War I would hope that Wiki would use these current total numbers (of 58,220 deaths and 303,644 wounded) that are substantiated in the most recent U.S. government reports. You will note that two deaths (from wounds) were added to the total death count of 58,220 as late as 2006 and perhaps that is why earlier figures are different, though I feel that these most recent figures should be used as they represent the “official” U.S. Government casualty figures. Even if the total of 58,220 American deaths were to change by future additions, the yearly totals that I have provided will not change; I suppose one could trace back the individual’s military record to ascertain when he was wounded, but that would entail a fair amount of research. It is preferable, in my opinion, to simply state that these additions to the U.S. death total are a result of individuals who died of their wounds after 1975. As I have previously mentioned I have no problem with Wikipedia using the year and category casualty breakdowns pertaining to the 58,220 troops who died in the Vietnam War as well as to the 40,934 killed in action that I have already provided, as I feel that Wiki will be hard-pressed to find another supporting source. Perhaps Wiki could simply cite that these figures are provided courtesy of A. T. Lawrence, author of (2009), Crucible Vietnam: memoir of an infantry lieutenant, McFarland, ISBN 9780786445172. A. T. Lawrence67.188.237.74 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that. "Crucible Vietnam" has a lot of great information. 71.148.52.82 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I would third it, but... — I'm trying to look for a way. See here for my first stab at it. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't just take some anonymous internet address' word for it. We must use only verifiable information, which must have been published in a reliable source. If these numbers were not published, then they cannot be used. This may seem counter-intuitive, but it's a core principle here. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you can create a chart that simply addresses the number of Americans killed in action (KIA) by year, which would result in a similar looking chart to the chart of American deaths, and the KIA chart has been published in a reliable source: A. T. Lawrence, Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2009, p. 154 (for hostile and non-hostile deaths) and Appendix C (for list of KIAs by year).

(Responding to Orangemike, above) Right; and that is what I was trying to address. I vaguely remembered encountering a way to deal with such a situation on WP years ago, but I haven't been able to locate info on it. I just came across this, and I suspect that OTRS might help here, if the anon above is A. T. Lawrence, and is is willing to set up his end of it. Another approach would be for him to set up an author-owned website about the book, and to publish the material there on an "additional information" (or somesuch) page. McFarland has a web page on the book here; perhaps they would be willing to put such additional info on a sub-page there. Such web-hosted info could then be recast into a different presentation format and published here, citing the web page as a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

1959-1961 14 1962 30 1963 71 1964 146 1965 1,313 1966 4,432 1967 8,454 1968 13,005 1969 8,239 1970 3,659 1971 1,206 1972 327 1973 20 1975 18 Total 40,934 While pointing out that Americans suffered a total of 47,434 hostile deaths in the Vietnam War comprised of four hostile death categories: killed in action (40,934); died of wounds (5,299); missing in action/declared dead (1,085); and captured/declared dead (116), while an additional 10,786 deaths (18.5%) were non-hostile, meaning they died from other causes besides combat, which included illness, accidents, missing/presumed dead, and even homicides. It is these two categories (hostile and non-hostile) that comprise the total of the 58,220 U.S. military who died in the Vietnam War.67.188.237.74 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Hohum, IP66, Orange Mike, and Wtmitchell for prompting me to get in touch with my publisher. Appendix C (pgs 223 and 224) will now incorporate totals for hostile and non-hostile, and thereby include a yearly breakdown of the 58,220 Americans that died in the Vietnam War. My publisher, McFarland & Company apprises me that they expect to issue reprints of my book, Crucible Vietnam, Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant, as early as June. I suppose at that point, in order to apply the statistics to a graph (showing deaths by year), it will probably be necessary to obtain permission from my publisher, but that should not be a problem as they are very nice people. A. T. Lawrence72.197.57.247 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_13#File:Truong_Sa_Navy.jpg

All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

File:TrangBang.jpg

Is specifically allowed to be used on Wikipedia by permission of The Associated Press. S_peakF_ree (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I reorganized your comment above to separate the text and the image, eliminating visual garble. I hope you don't mind.

Isn't the restriction, "... solely for their personal viewing and not for copying or redistribution in or through any media" a problem? It appears so from a look at WP:COPY. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No becasue it also says thyat Wikipedia is permited to display them to its users.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this conflicts with the portion of WP:COPY which reads,

"The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details). Copied Wikipedia content will therefore remain free under appropriate license and can continue to be used by anyone subject to certain restrictions, most of which aim to ensure that freedom. This principle is known as copyleft in contrast to typical copyright licenses."

As I understand that, WP users are free to copy, modify, and redistribute WP content (including images) as long as the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included. This would seem to be disallowed by the terms of the AP authorization. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thew way I rad that is that it does not preclude the use of the material, just its copying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and since WP users are free to copy, modify, and redistribute WP content, this permission does not grant sufficient rights for this material to be hosted as WP content. That is my understanding, anyhow. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an exception for English Wikipedia as it allows fair use, under Florida law. S_peakF_ree (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

So, you are saying that the appearance of this image in this article is allowed under Fair use, not allowed because of permission given by AP (but, as I argue above, permitted only with restrictions which make it unusable by WP under that permission). I have no problem with that but, as I understand it, a fair use rationale for the appearance of the image in this article should be supplied here, as is done there for its appearances in for the Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Nick Ut articles. See Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline.

Additionally, the invisible comment in the article recently updated in this edit should be changed to indicate that the image appears here under Fair Use rather than being allowed by AP with credits given in that comment (and also with restrictions not mentioned in that inline comment).

Also, beside the point here but relevant to usage of the image on WP, I see here that the image also is linked without a fair use rationale from the Pulitzer Prize for Spot News Photography, 1973 Pulitzer Prize articles, and in various places outside of article space. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

tags

The CN tag that’s been placed after the veterans against the war, is that ofr the idea that veterans joined veterans against the war or for the idea that Mai lai led to an increase in the anti war movement?Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

American Women in Vietnam

Hello! As part of a gender equity project for my college course, I would like to add a section to the Vietnam War article entitled "American Women in Vietnam." While the existing article as a whole is very rich in detail, I think that Wikipedia users would benefit from my contribution. After conducting extensive research, I have prepared a section that I feel is appropriate. The section includes information about the jobs that women held in Vietnam while on active duty and also briefly explores the dynamics between men and women serving in Vietnam. I feel the addition of a women’s section would complement the existing article and provide a more complete picture of the Vietnam War. Goldsphinx (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Why just American women?Not going to bother with Vietnamese women? I do not agree with just a section for American women. If you want to put a section in about women then include them all or do not bother.This article already suffers from too much from the American side and does not need any more I believe.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Goldsphinx, I would suggest that you place the material here on the talk page so that we may see what you are talking about.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but if it's original research it might not belong here.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, but the mention of "active duty" suggests that this is limited to American Women serving in the military. I'm not female, but I spent the years of '64-'72 in Vietnam as a US govt contractor and can observe from my experience there (though I can't presently cite reliable supporting sources for this) that a fair number of nonmilitary women from the US and elsewhere also spent time in Vietnam in various capacities during the VN War years. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. You had women from the Red Cross, USO, USAID I think had some, embassy staff, and missionaries working in SVN, and that's just from the US.Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If this can be writen in a NPOV manner and covers all sides of the story then yes (but it might be better as a seperate lined articel.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I realize that women held a variety of positions during the Vietnam War, and that they all deserve to be covered. However, my hope is that my addition to this article may serve as a starting place to open up discussion rather than act as an end-all authority. I now see that my title may be misleading- my section is specifically about female nurses serving in Vietnam, so I will change the title to clarify this. As for the role that Vietnamese women played in the war, I agree that it too is deserving of recognition. However, as I am not an expert on Vietnamese women, I will leave it to others better informed than myself to make their own contributions regarding this topic. Goldsphinx (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Show us what you've got.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 16:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to put your piece in then go ahead but title it like women in the Vietnam war or something like that then people can add stuff about Vietnamese women as well.Good luck.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This article appears to be locked. Could someone please tell me how I can add my section? Thanks! Goldsphinx (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes you have to be autoconfirmed, you have to be a member for 4 days and edit wikipedia as well then you can post your piece or otherwise post it on the talk page and someone can add it for you. Owain the 1st (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Here is my section. Would someone mind adding it for me? Thanks!

American Nurses in Vietnam

During the Vietnam War, women served on active duty doing a variety of jobs. Early in 1963, the Army Nurse Corps (ANC) launched Operation Nightingale, an intensive effort to recruit nurses to serve in Vietnam. Most nurses who volunteered to serve in Vietnam came from predominantly working or middle class families with histories of military service. The majority of these women were white Catholics and Protestants. (Norman, 7) Because the need for medical aid was great, many nurses underwent a concentrated four-month training program before being deployed to Vietnam in the ANC (Vuic, 5). Due to the shortage of staff, nurses usually worked twelve-hour shifts, six days per week and often suffered from exhaustion. 1st Lieutenant Sharon Lane was the only female military nurse to be killed by enemy gunfire during the war. She died on June 8, 1969. (Norman, 57)

At the start of the Vietnam War, it was commonly thought that American women had no place in the military. Their traditional place had been in the domestic sphere, but with the war came opportunity for the expansion of gender roles. In Vietnam, women held a variety of jobs which included operating complex data processing equipment and serving as stenographers. (Holm, 214) Although a small number of women were assigned to combat zones, they were never allowed directly in the field of battle. The women who served in the military were solely volunteers. They faced a plethora of challenges, one of which was the relatively small number of female soldiers. Living in a male-dominated environment created tensions between the sexes. While this high male to female ratio was often uncomfortable for women, many men reported that having women in the field with them boosted their morale. (Holm, 213) Although this was not the women’s purpose, it was one positive result of the their service.

Because most field commanders in the Southeast Asia theater of operations preferred men to carry out their missions, they did not readily accept women. Although Title VII of the Civil Rights Act had been passed in 1964, discrimination based on sex was still prevalent in the military during the Vietnam War. Despite this adversity, approximately 7,500 women had served in the Southeast Asian theater by the time the last American troops withdrew from Vietnam in 1973. (Holm, 206) In that same year, the military lifted the prohibition on women entering the armed forces. However, women were gradually granted greater mobility within the military, and by the end of 1978, the Coast Guard removed all limitations on assignments based on sex. (334) However, it was not until 1993 that Congress allowed women to serve in combat units in the air force. Women in the army today are still prohibited from serving in combat positions.

American women serving in Vietnam were subject to societal stereotypes. Many Americans either considered female in Vietnam mannish for living under the army discipline, or judged them to be women of questionable moral character who enlisted for the sole purpose of seducing men. (Vuic, 8) To address this problem, the ANC released advertisements portraying women in the ANC as “proper, professional and well protected.” (26) This effort to highlight the positive aspects of a nursing career reflected the ideas of second-wave feminism that occurred during the 1960s-1970s in the United States. Although female military nurses lived in a heavily male environment, very few cases of sexual harassment were ever reported. (Norman, 71) This does not mean that harassment never occurred; rather, there are few cases that have been officially documented by the military. In 2008, by contrast, approximately one-third of women in the military felt that they had been sexually harassed compared with one-third of men. ^{citation needed}

Works Cited

Holm, Jeanne. Women in the Military: an Unfinished Revolution. Novato, CA: Presidio, 1992. Print.

Norman, Elizabeth M. Women at War: the Story of Fifty Military Nurses Who Served in Vietnam. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1990. Print.

Vuic, Kara Dixon. Officer, Nurse, Woman: the Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2010. Print.

Goldsphinx (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Ok done that just have to add your references.Owain the 1st (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Will have to edit that piece down I think as it goes off past the Vietnam war into the 1990's, that is if it does not get kicked.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that there is an Operation Nightingale that is not related to the one mentioned above. Also, to state that there was discrimination is an anachronistic approach. This is looking at things in hindsight without realizing that this was status quo and just simply operational procedure. Discrimination would occur if there was an expectation of deploying women in roles they had not previously held but someone interferes with that. That part is revisionist.

The refs aren't formatted yet. I stopped editing when I thought that Owain might be doing that and I would accidentally cause an edit conflict for him. Should we discuss text alterations before formatting or after?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Discrimination is discrimination, it was then and it is now.Just because they did not say anything about it at the time does not make it something different it was still discrimination.Anyway take that up with the editor who wrote it.The article needs some cleaning up as it wanders off into the 1990's.You can format the refs if you like.Owain the 1st (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the right place to discuss. This was not discrimination. Moreover, if you read Title VII#Title VII which is the rationale cited in the text, you will see that it does not in any way apply to the Federal government including all branches of the military. To assert that there was sex discrimination, we would need reliable sources stating that women were trying to get into combat roles circa Vietnam era and being rejected. If they weren't trying, there could not be discrimination. (I've got some things to do and will be back after a bit...I'll work up the refs then if someone else hasn't done it already)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've worked up the refs and have highlighted three things in the above text (in green) that need stipulated to the cited works so I can finish.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed if RS do not say that women were rejected for combat rols and that as such they were being disciminated against then to say that is OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is good, although everybody worked 12 hours a day, six days a week, not just nurses. Of course the grunts in the field worked 24 hours a day, there's no escaping war. Sharon Ann Lane was awarded a slew of medals, I think she got the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Vietnamese Military Medal, etc. but I assume all this would be mentioned in her own article. The last three paragraphs are SOAPBOX and biased, although the statement that 7,500 American women served in Vietnam is useful, and that very few cases of sexual harassment were reported. I don't think the term "sexual harassment" was even invented yet. I should like to point out that women were everywhere in Vietnam, it was a war without a front, and in many areas business went on as usual. A lot of American military men married Southeast Asian women, preferring them over American women. Some data on the number of these marriages would be helpful. Trying to impress a post-modernist feminist interpretation onto military nurses in Vietnam 40 years ago is all wrong. A different approach should be tried. These women nurses were officers and enlisted men were not allowed to fraternize with them. 69.104.55.118 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• While this is good work, there are some problems. It is an argumentative essay, and not an encyclopaedic article. In addition there are some assumptions, "Their traditional place had been in the domestic sphere" which are inappropriate to make (as they are wrong—traditional isn't expanded out) and unnecessary to the article section. You really need to work on your anachronistic judgements. Women workers and officers serving in the US armed forces weren't making wide spread public political claims along these lines in 1959 or 1963. Also the length is a serious problem for the article Vietnam War. This would suit a section in Women in the Vietnam War or an article American women in the Vietnam War. ( I'm not going to mention the misweighting problem here, as it isn't a problem with your text, but with the absence of coverage of South Vietnamese women of all political alignments and North Vietnamese women. ) Fifelfoo (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with the comment above. Women were at this time restricted to a small number of military occupation specialties (MOSs). It didn't have anything to do with field commanders preferring men to carry out their missions; it had everything to do with the fact that women were prohibited from entering into combat-oriented MOSs. And if you're going to discuss workloads, you'd have to look at the workloads of the military doctors as well as field medics in addition to nurses (although this was mentioned above as well). It's an interesting aspect of the war, but it's not really as obscure as you might think (remember "China Beach"?). Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Date of and definition of "... last American troops withdrew from Vietnam"

I'm about to revert this edit. I tried to revert it earlier with WP:Twinkle, but the revert didn't do what I intended (due, possibly, to WP sever lag), and I backed it out. The assertion at issue says "... by the time the last American troops withdrew from Vietnam in [year]. (Holm, 206)", with the [year] asserted being changed from 1973 to 1975, and with an edit summary saying, "Women in Vietnam: if Holm wrote 1973 then Holm is wrong". I have a number of issues with this change, including the following:

• re correctness or lack thereof of a cited source as perceived by WP editors, see the initial paragraph of WP:V.
• if the cited source is in conflict with other sources on this point, see WP:DUE.
• it makes no sense to make such a change, explain the reason for it in an edit summary which will be invisible to the general readership, and leave the article assertion in presumed conflict with the source cited in support.

I have not seen the cited source and don't know what it says, but I suspect that this change grows out of a difference in presumption about what the article assertion describes as ""... last American troops withdrew from Vietnam". Note the final sentence in the article's 1972 election and Paris Peace Accords section. That sentence reads, "The Paris Peace Accords stipulated a sixty-day period for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. 'This article', noted Peter Church, 'proved... to be the only one of the Paris Agreements which was fully carried out.'", citing a supporting source. Yes, American troops were physically present post-1972, but the troops present during the 1972-1975 period were associated with the International Commission of Control and Supervision activity (at least that's my understanding -- I left VN in 1972).

I'm going to change the date at issue from 1975 back to the 1973 date presumably supported by the cited supporting source. Perhaps the wording of the assertion needs a tweak, or a clarifying footnote is called for. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like clarification from someone who has the source to verify if 1973 is what is written. I do find it confusing considering that the troops didn't fully withdraw until April '75. Alternatively, the text may be rewritten to pull the confusing bit out without changing the context that the sentence is meant to convey...for example, "By 1973, approximately 7,500 women had served in the Southeast Asian theater."
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. combat units departed Vietnam during the spring of 1973, however Marines remained to guard the U.S. Embassy. It should be noted that there was 1 U.S. military death (from accident) during 1974, and during 1975 eighteen (18) U.S. military personnel were killed in action, 3 were declared dead (either from missing in action or captured) and 41 died from accidents. See comments above in section titled, Article Is All Wrong.72.197.57.247 (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Holm's exact quote is: "By the time the U.S. forces were withdrawn, some 7,500 military women had served in Southeast Asia." I added the 1973 because I assumed that after the Paris Peace Accords were signed, no more women were being sent to Vietnam. I think that Berean Hunter's suggested phrasing accurately represents what I was trying to say ("By 1973, approximately 7,500 women had served in Vietnam in the Southeast Asian theater.") Or, if my assumption is too presumptuous, then perhaps it could be replaced with something like, "By the end of the war, approximately 7,500 American women had served in the Southeast Asian theater." Goldsphinx (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Browsing around, I stumbled over some details which might be of interest at

• http://www.armywomen.org/wacHistory.shtml (search for "vietnam")
• http://www.illyria.com/vnwomen.html
• http://www.army.mil/women/newera.html#newera4
• Mary T. Sarnecky (1999), "The Era of the Vietnam War", A history of the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, University of Pennsylvania Press, ISBN 9780812235029
• Kara Dixon Vuic (2009), Officer, nurse, woman: the Army Nurse Corps in the Vietnam War, JHU Press, ISBN 9780801893919
• Karen Zeinert (2000), The valiant women of the Vietnam War, Twenty-First Century Books, ISBN 9780761312680
• Rosemarie Skaine (1999), Women at war: gender issues of Americans in combat, McFarland, pp. 58, ISBN 9780786405701 (re Sharon Lane)

I didn't do much searching around. The ease with which I stumbled across the above probably indicates that there is a lot of other stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)