Talk:Vietnam War/Archive 2

Vietnam War

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2

Definition and title

Please see the earlier discussion on this topic in order to understand the context of these comments.

Talk:Vietnam_War/Archive_1

If it hasn't already been pointed out in the above extremely long page, I'd like to point out that the opening sentence is unacceptable. Obviously, letting one of the parties to the war define it violates neutrality. Peter Jackson 11:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I agree. Please look back a few months when this was a single massive article, by an author that was insistent — and explicit on presenting things from a U.S., not even South Vietnamese, perspective. The major effort toward neutrality, for both practical and personality reasons, first consisted of breaking up the main article into manageable subarticles, and working on neutrality there.

This individual is no longer involved, and it is quite appropriate to look for a more neutral introduction, as well as still pulling out some of the later and less neutral text into subarticles. If my citing of Moore and Galloway in the Vietnamese museum doesn't exemplify there are multiple views, I don't know what can. Sooner or later, it will be necessary to come to consensus on a better set of names, certainly for the major phases, and possibly the articles as a whole. I can take Vietnamese military history back to the Trung sisters in the first century CE, but I'd prefer someone else work on the even earlier history in my sandbox. Such a person should read Vietnamese.

So, we agree there is a problem. I am perfectly open to a signficantly revised opening, and a controlled renaming of articles -- the comma-rich convention was idiosyncratic. Nevertheless, I would ask for close cooperation in renaming, so as not to break links. I probably know them better than anyone at this point, and I still make mistakes and lose text.

May I ask that you look at Battle of Ia Drang as something that I wrote, trying very hard to represent at least three standpoints: North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, and American. I'm still working on obtaining some interview text, as, for example, not just the emotions but also the tactics of the PAVN at LZ X-ray.

I desperately want proposals, and there is so much to fix on the detailed level that I hope you have some time to make suggestions at the topmost level. If you get beyond the first sections, I think you'll see the subarticle structure and other text that provide the basis for more neutral writing. If you are interested, please help.

Please focus not on the old definition in this page, but on the more recent work in the main page. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

change to Intro

Existing lead:

Since there is a current state and government of Vietnam, with full diplomatic representation including participation in international organizations, the final authorities on the definition of Vietnam War would appear to be the Vietnamese. They tend to refer to the Wars (plural) of Vietnam, often referring to a period starting sometime after 1959 and extending to 1975 as the "American War". Considering actions in Laos and Cambodia also confuse the terminology; not all the fighting there bore directly on Vietnam or French Indochina.

Without trying to name the wars, the key timeline events in modern history are:

Proposed change to lead:

The Vietnam War is a term used to describe a series of conflicts that took place from 1959 to 1975, between South Vietnam, America and their allies, and the communist nations allied with North Vietnam. In the modern-day state of Vietnam the wars are often described in plural, or simply as the "American War".

The war in Vietnam was initially fought between South Vietnam (with non-mobile backing from America) and the communist North Vietnamese, later supported by its communist allies. America fully mobilised in 1964, but their advice and support, as well as covert operations, had been in place for several years. The military actions in Laos and Cambodia also complicate matters, as not all the fighting there bore directly on Vietnam or French Indochina. Americas involvement in the wars were part of an anti-communist policy called Containment, which was an early element of the Cold War.

Without naming the wars, the key timeline events in modern history are:

My only real issue with the lead as it stands is that it is not encyclopedic language, and could cover more in less space. I'm mainly trying to get a better format, rather than get the facts exact.--Matt Lewis 18:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem in improving the language, as it is a difficult topic, with a title that inherently is ambiguous. If you accept the premise that the Vietnamese are the real authority on the wars of their area, however, one cannot limit the definition such that the war starts in 1959. At a very minimum, one has to go back at least to a declaration of independence in 1946, followed by the revolution against the French, and it's wise to go back to the French conquest in the 19th century. Since the Vietnamese themselves make a point, in their active museums and histories, to go through two millenia of fighting with the Chinese, the Wars (plural) go back, at least, to the Trung Sisters.

Not reading Vietnamese, I can't go much before that; there literally are too many dragons to track.

Now, I'm perfectly open to other wording that covers, at the very least, the modern wars, but I cannot see a lead that does not address the French colony, the resistance to it starting around 1930, and many things prior to 1959. Dien Bien Phu (1954) is as iconic to Vietnamese as Trafalgar and Waterloo are to Britons and French, Yorktown and Appomattox to Americans, or Tsushima Strait to Japanese.

I understand that you are focused on wording, but the proposed wording has substantial problems of fact unless the wars are seen as purely a sideshow of the Cold War. "Wars of Vietnam" would probably be a better title, but there is too much to change. Further, there really isn't a magic starting point in 1959, other than a decision by the North Vietnamese Politburo to change the means of achieving its existing political goals.

By the way, I am really delighted that you are reading this; I absolutely welcome collaboration, since I've spent a great deal of time trying to clean up previous material that was not amenable to collaboration. When I look at this article, I am reminded of the temperance delegation that called on Winston Churchill, to lecture him that they understood that all the brandy he drank during the Second World War would come up to (spot on wall). He pointed for confirmation, they nodded, and he muttered,

So little have we done, so much have we to do.

Howard C. Berkowitz 18:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Not being an expert (I know broadly as much about 'Vietnam' as your average educated Brit - perhaps a little bit more), the above is possibly the limit on what I can do without a lot of further research (I don't really have the time here, alas). Is it possible for you to work on what I have written? I tried to convery Vietnam as a modern state which has its own definition of the war.

My main question would be; Are you happy with beginning "The Vietnam War is a term used to describe a series of conflicts that took place from 1959 to 1975,"? You could change “used” to "most commonly meant”. Could you add the additional periods to the lead?

The problem for me here could be the title (which you alude to) - to me "Vietnam war" conveys America (or the US, if that is better) fighting the Vietcong, and the Cold War in general. It is great to extend upon that definition, but as it is such a 'common name' I don't think we should lose site of the principal dates etc re North Vietnam.

If the way you are taking the article requires a name change, perhaps you might be best to instigate one? I have a personal idea of "core articles" in my mind, and I stopped at this subject I suppose, as I see it as one. --Matt Lewis 19:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of the reply, but I know no good way to make it simpler -- although I'm open to suggestions.

A name change would be good, but it's not something I'd like to take on without much discussion. By focusing on, for example, 1959-1975, it immediately brings up very different names from all sides — and there were more than two — which decidedly have a non-neutral flavor. There is a saying in the U.S., for example, that people from the North speak of the little disagreement between 1861 and 1865 as the "Civil War", the genteel sort in Virginia refer to the "Late Unpleasantness between the States", and the deep south may say "War of Yankee Aggression". We run into that problem now, with the usage of Iraq War versus Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

To answer your direct question, I am not at all comfortable with "The Vietnam War is a term used to describe a series of conflicts that took place from 1959 to 1975," 1959 is a problematic starting date as it refers to a secret policy decision and start of logistical buildup, rather than combat. 1954 might be a little better, in that it does define conflict between North and South Vietnam, even at an ideological level. Alternatively, if one wants to include U.S. combat support, that could start in 1962, with direct combat in 1964.

""Vietnam war" conveys America (or the US, if that is better) fighting the Vietcong, and the Cold War in general." Yes, and it conveys that to many people — but exclusively in the West. Even "Vietcong" is a quite arguable term. To take a parallel from your side of the pond, consider the distinction between Sinn Fein and the IRA (let's not get into which IRA). Quite a few analysts suggest that an equivalent relationship existed between the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) and its fighting arm,the VC. Others argue that the NLF and VC were merely a sham for the North Vietnamese government. It is clear that the tanks that took Saigon in 1975 were not Viet Cong, but People's Army of Viet Nam (i.e., regular army of the North). The VC/NLF, for that matter, suffered immense casualties in 1968, and many of its surviving leaders were later purged by their "own side" because they were not part of the Northern decisionmaking structure. More complex than the situation on the Emerald Isle, however, is that no major external powers were involved between the British and Irish nationalists (of various flavors).

A real challenge here is whether we want to preserve "popular opinion", which often is an oversimplification, or convey the reality. Perhaps there is a brief way to state the "popular definition" in the introduction, and identify it as a Cold War oversimplification.

The immediate problem then becomes how to refer to what some call the Indochina War, certainly between 1946 and 1954, although many Vietnamese will take it back to the original resistance to French invasion, or to the nationalist fighting groups that formed during the Second World War.

I don't have a simple answer. May I ask you to look at the major subarticles covering time periods, and see if they make sense as titles? (e.g., Joint warfare in South Vietnam 1964-1968, Fall of South Vietnam). There are still problems with things that essentially were major parallel campaigns, such as ground operations in the South versus air operations outside the South. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm big on main articles, with subs - some of the above seems to be about content perhaps? I must say I have to see Citizendium as a Western encycolpedia, which covers things as objectively as possible - but is written in English for an English-speaking West. Does CZ have policy on this? I do like Wikipedia’s four paragraph intro format - I often used to focus on improving intros at WP (always per the 'common reader' and 'encyclopedic language' guidelines). We don't have the info boxes here to help us categorise of course.

I think it is fair to say that "Vietnam War" is the commonly-used term for 1959-1975. I would suggest starting with that as a basis, and using sub articles and clever prose to cover everything surrounding it. If not, we simply have to change the name IMO - or it could be kind of deadlock re progress. Using Vietnam War (1959-1975) does not prevent us providing background to the period in the article (nor does any title). I don't mind that format at all – as long as Vietnam War redirects to it.

Points we could cover in an Intro of Vietnam War

• Think about "see also" hatnotes. Cold War etc? (I always felt at Wikipedia that it needed the related articles at the top - CZ might do well to sort out a table-based system here).

• Convey that Vietnam War is a commonly-used term, that has ambiguities and can cover broad picture.
• Show commonly-used boundaries of term, and explain that it is more.

• Define west/east point of view.

• Explain parties involved.
• Briefly cover the most significant events and aspects.
• Have closing paragraph explaining legacy.

The above could stand whatever the title is.--Matt Lewis 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

As to Matt's point about this being a Western encyclopedia, for an English-speaking West, I don't think that is the policy. Without researching the exact wording, it is probably correct to say it is an English-language encyclopedia -- but not culturally or ideologically specific beyond that, indeed with a goal of not being culturally or ideologically based. The Neutrality Policy, as I understand it (pictures Larry hysterically laughing at me), says that the different views need to be covered. In this particular case, I can bring myself (laugh away, Larry) to cover pretty much all the views in a way that their holders might consider sympathetic, or at least understanding -- as well as showing their conflicts. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the bulleted list of dates be a start for an index of subarticles? It still would need some introductory and explanatory text, such as the parties involved. Even "parties involved" gets complex, as I mentioned with the NLF/VC/PAVN/DRV factions, to say nothing of the French and VNQDD and Chinese and others. Only recently did I myself learn that a British force, in 1945, got French paratroopers out of prison and helped them overthrow a provisional government in the North. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't have an answer, or even a suggestion as to what should be done, but let me stick my nose in briefly to say that the lede para. is probably the worst one in all of CZ. I understand the difficulties involved, but this para. is just like a chat/discussion that should be on the Talk page. Nuke it, maybe, and start from scratch. Break the article is 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or however many it takes, maybe. Do *something* Or just move the whole article to Cold Storage.... Hayford Peirce 21:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons, no, not in Vietnam (although that's a subtopic)

[trying to keep indentation at a level my eyes can track]

Hayford, that is a nuclear strike to which I would not object. You know a fair bit of the background of the rewrite of what was here, and my chief goals were to introduce neutrality and make the article maintainable for just the sort of discussion going on at this point. One of my major concerns, which well might justify a change to the right name(s), whatever they may be, was to get it away from what an original author had called US-centric to something that actually captures not just aspects of the Cold War, but Asian-Western perspectives.

It can be fixed without going to Cold Storage. Fixing it will be a major job that needs collaboration. If this can't be put into usable form, it's going to be just as hard to deal with other things as complex as the Second World War or the Holocaust, neither of which are well organized. Note that I am not a serious American Civil War, War of Yankee Aggression, Late Unpleasantness between the States, etc., student, and will be happy to let others fight that one. (e.g., "just what do you mean that the South lost?")

I kept the title for continuity. Personally, I might prefer "Wars of Vietnam". There is a bulleted list of major dates that might, indeed, be turned into a table of major events. Most of the first-level headings could easily become standalone articles. There really, really isn't a single thing, even from a U.S. perspective, that can be called "the" Vietnam War. Those of us who remember the start of large-scale combat in 1964 were completely unaware that U.S., and U.S. backed forces, had been in active fighting for at least two years. Substantial U.S. training and support went back to 1955, although this was fairly systematically kept from the public and Congress. Incidentally, I don't necessarily disagree with some of the decisions made back then, at least from the perspectives of the decisionmakers, what they believed, and what they knew (and didn't know). Howard C. Berkowitz 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand the difficulties. WP handles it by breaking it into First V. War, etc. As for 1964, seems to me that I was pretty aware of fighting having gone on for several years already. Maybe because I was of prime draft-age at the time.... Hayford Peirce 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Background can always be given, whatever the title. How about:

Vietnam Wars (1959-1975)?

Other ideas:

Wars of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

Wars of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (1959-1975)

Second Indochina War

Second Indochina War (1959-1975)

Second Indochina War (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos)

Cold Wars: Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, etc

One concern is that without some confining dates, we may not be able to progress on the article - unless a suitable all-purpose title is found. Even then, covering too much could be hard to pull off. It's a bit like one of those 'classical' history books that are presented as a narrative (it currently even reads like that), but online encyclopedias don't really lend to that approach. --Matt Lewis 22:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Matt, to the Vietnamese, it does read like a narrative. Whether or not we replicate that, I think it's valuable to get across, to a Western audience, that the key participants do think of it as a continuum. They actively celebrate the first century rebellion of the Two Trung Sisters. I don't think one can begin to understand Sino-Vietnamese relations — the Cold Warriors certainly didn't — unless one realizes how long the two sides have been fighting (and occasionally loving). I'm not talking about esoterica such as how Mao thought the General Offensive-General Uprising model was completely insane.

I would encourage using the bulleted list as a starting point, and perhaps turning it into a table with articles in it. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about table formatting to know if it would be possible to have merged cells that spanned date rows or columns, to deal with multiple names/emphases that covered some of the same years.

You may remember, Hayford, that a previous author involved in the first version was adamant about the title, and the US-centricity. At the time, the battle wasn't worth fighting. Perhaps even a graphic showing overlapping years and dates might help; I had to do something like that in the specialized area of communications intelligence in Vietnam; here's an example from National Security Agency and Southeast Asia, 1954-1961:

Significant events, 1959-1963. Hanyok is the source above the years and Gilbert below them.

"Ah, yes, I remember it (and him) well...." Hayford Peirce 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to argue specific dates. To me, 1959-1975 doesn't make as much sense as either 1954-1975 (the whole active mess from partition), 1964-1972 (U.S. combat involvement), 1972-1975 (South Vietnam on its own), etc.

Again, I'm not wedded to any specific title as long as it's based on some reasonable set of events. "Scholars" don't always agree, and I see no reason to be drawn into unsolved academic debates. What I do suggest is looking at the list of bulleted dates and see if any consensus of periods drops out of them; yes, there is some stuff prior to 1945 that is not shown.Howard C. Berkowitz 22:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself would probably go for Vietnam Wars, 1954-1975, since I think the article has to begin (at some point) when the French handed things over to Dopey Dwight (at least in that case) and Frozen (ideas) Foster.... Hayford Peirce 22:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

While that still doesn't cover other periods, it makes a great deal of sense. After all, until 1954, there wasn't officially (from a Western standpoint) a Vietnam. Even splitting into Vietnam Wars(plural) and Indochinese War(s) has good logic. 1972-1975 is also substantially different. Remember, I was in semi-stealth mode when A Certain Person was adamant about the title.

Speaking of Dopey Dwight, I was amazed to discover today that JFK actually was a better golfer. OTOH, my opinion of DDE has gone up over the years, still very aware of his flaws. His role in getting the wilder nuclear advocates under control in 1959 or so is little known; see SIOP and George Kistiakowsky. For that matter, he sat on Arthur Radford, who wanted the U.S. to use nuclear weapons at Dien Bien Phu, in the incredibly named Operation VULTURE. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK - Vietnam Wars, 1954-1975

Does anyone reading have thoughts on this? My only worry is that we are bringing background into the actual dates, and the war actually started in 1959. Is that setting a precedent that could run us into probelms elsewhere? Few wars come from nowhere! We can surely start with a sction called ==Background to the 1959 invasion (or whatever)== that covers all you want in a narative form. At some point this will have to be actually written. The existing background sections (which are hard to follow) can be used of course - they are perhaps even best amalgamated into one backround. Most histories I read give pre-focus backgrounds. I can put the timelines into a table, which could come after the intro, as they do now.-Matt Lewis 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with a fairly detailed knowledge of the subject, I'm going to have to raise a content point here. The "background" may seem confusing, but the background of many wars, especially ones with significant covert components, are confusing. Armies have whole departments, called maskirovka or deception, who have the job of making things confusing.

Rather than simply saying the material is generically hard to follow and needs to be redone, could you give some idea what specifically seems hard to follow? Perhaps some section needs to be clarified, but quite a bit of thought went into this structure, including "background to the background" that wasn't included -- maybe it needs to be.

Of the many years I'd say the "war" started, I definitely would not pick 1959. There was no "1959 invasion". That would be like saying that for the U.S., the Second World War started in 1940, because mobilization started. 1959 was the year in which the North Vietnamese Politburo made a midyear decision to start creating the logistics for the Ho Chi Minh trail, but the actual intensity of fighting did not especially increase in 1959. Yes, U.S. advisers went into Laos in 1959, but, again, the combat really didn't start being serious until 1961 or 1962, depending on geographic boundaries. In 1959, they were surveying the infiltration routes and starting to build roads and other infrastructure; the last thing the PAVN wanted to do was fight anyone during that time.

The 1954 partition did not mean there was immediate peace. Guerilla incidents, probably mostly from Southern enemies of the government acting independently of the North, were becoming significant from 1956 or so.

Could you explain why you think 1959 is a starting date? To me, it is a date that involves policy and planning, but those are not usually considered the starting points of wars. I rather deliberately picked "phase" dates when there was a change in the nature of fighting.

Obviously, someone is going to have to do the editing/rewriting/whatever, so the periods have to make sense for reasonable articles to be produced. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The commonly-known 'starting dates' of wars often begin with the date of either clear declarations or decisive aggressions (like I have said, they never rarely start at any single point). Look at WW1 and WW2. History is taught in dates - and I must admit that you are starting to frustrate me just a little, as I am actually very flexible and pluralistic. I feel like I'm pushed to an opposing side regarding matters.

According to Wikipedia (pan it if you will, but I make no apologies about using it - it's a hell of a lot better than here, which has the same pretentions!): "Finally, in January 1959, the North's Central Committee issued a secret resolution authorizing an "armed struggle". This authorized the southern communist to begin large-scale operations against the South Vietnamese military. However, North Vietnam supplied troops and supplies in earnest, and the infiltration of men and weapons from the north began along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In May, South Vietnam enacted Law 10/59, which made political violence punishable by death and property confiscation.[47]".

Wikipedia use the date 1959-1975, as do Encarta (it is in fact common in books, and is all over the web) - although Britannica uses 1954-1975, as does the BBC school site I notice - so that too is clearly a popular (more modern perhaps?) 'start date'. If you want to go from 1954, then by all means use that date. But remember that it is no good making demands and expecting others to do the work, or pushing them into corners either: you must go by that date. I'm not really here for this kind of debate - and I already explained that I'm not an expert here, so I shouldn't really have to do that twice. I came in here to help improve an utterly unencyclopedic intro, that few people in my eyes will respect reading, however nice it is to the Vietnamese!

If you want a narrative by all means have a narrative (I've suggested a way to do this), but I think it is silly to defend the current mutli-view section-based approach at the same time. The whole article is hard to follow - in my opinion it is consistently making an "Isn't this subject hard ot follow readers?!" point in the very language it uses. I haven't read it word for word (too hard), but I've run through it. It's got an identity crisis.--Matt Lewis 00:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Indentation again

Gentlemen, I get the feeling that you got off to a rocky start based on a difficult decision. Why not start with something a little less obscure until you realize that you are both saying the same thing and then things might well be more enjoyable for everyone and we can work this article into something we can all be impressed with. D. Matt Innis 03:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC) The Constabulary has removed a conversation here that either in whole or in part did not meet Citizendium's Professionalism policy. Feel free to remove this template and take up the conversation with a fresh start.

more title discussion, but a completely different point

It seems hard to believe that no one apparently has brought this up before:

"Vietnam" is a noun. "Vietnamese" is an adjective.

Do we have articles about the "Korea War"? The "Spain-America War"? The "Mexico War"?

I think not.

Then why should we have an article (however named) about the "Vietnam War"? Simply because The Previous Contributor did it this way? If so, this is simply one more example of his wrong-headedness.

As the resident grammarian and curmudgeon, I am gonna insist that *whatever* the final form of the title, it uses the flippin' adjective in it and *not* the noun. Ie, the 'Vietnamese Wars of 1954-1975 or whatever.

Am I wrong about this? If so, specific details, please.... Hayford Peirce 19:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a good answer for this because I've never given it any thought before. But, Hayford, you're right. The Vietnam War is (perhaps) grammatically incorrect and should be, like the others, the "Vietnamese War." However, I can see two reasons why this might not be acceptable. First, wars that the US wins should be grammatically correct; wars that the US loses, well, we don't like to talk about that so in those cases any grammar (however poor) will suffice. :) Second (and more seriously), colloquially this is what the war has come to be called. A quick survey of JSTOR shows little over 400 scholarly articles calling the event the "Vietnamese War" and over 16,000 scholars using the term "Vietnam War." It's like the "United States" itself. "The United States was involved in the Vietnam War" has become a grammatically correct sentence through usage (in spite of using a singular verb with a plural noun and using a noun to describe another noun). English is a gloriously consistent language, no? Jones 19:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, we now have the "Iraq War", not the "Iraqi War". Sigh. I give up.... Hayford Peirce 20:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it had been brought up in the discussions several months ago, and it was one of the many things the original author was insistent about. Yes, "Vietnam War" is commonly used, but at the time, actually doing research for the Army, we tended to say "War in Vietnam" or "The war".

If I had my choice here, I'd call this top-level article "Wars of Vietnam". That has, I believe, been used as a title for some scholarly works. I'd then, as I have it now, would focus on subarticles that characterize either periods of time, or aspects of the situation, such as the South Vietnamese coup du jour from 1963 to 1967, in other subordinate articles. Let there be a table or some structure for the links.

There certainly can be a redirect from Vietnam War, but, if one literally follows Larry's idea of neutrality policy, why isn't there an "American War", which is what you will find in museums in Hanoi? It's ironic that at the same time, the Vietnamese tend to be extremely welcoming of Americans who fought there.

I hope that anyone that thinks seriously about even the modern historical picture recognizes this didn't all magically start at the Gulf of Tonkin. I can easily trace some of the same key players, such as Ho and Giap, to 1930 or so, and it really is one continuous process to them. There was a quantum change in anticolonialism with the symbolic declaration of independence in 1946. One really can't separate the Viet Minh from the VC/NVA.

At the same time, there were definite qualitative and quantitative changes in the warfare at various stages of U.S. and non-U.S. involvement.

Again, if I were Emperor of the Universe, I'd remind people that you are talking about two millenia of conflict. It's not one war.. Ah. That felt better.

Hayford, can you live with Wars of Vietnam, with the various subarticles, and a redirect from "Vietnam War" Howard C. Berkowitz 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to suggest that myself. Although I think it might be more realistic to have Wars of Vietnam, 20th Century; Wars of Vietnam, Zero to 1899, etc. With a gazillion redirects.... Hayford Peirce 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives would be: American-Vietnamese War; French-Vietnamese Wars; Chinese-Vietnamese Wars, etc.Hayford Peirce 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dates work reasonably well, although there typically was a key event in a given year that gives a "before" and "after", ending one period and starting another: 1946, 1954, 1964, and 1972 are such. There need to be a number of supporting articles; the Government of South Vietnam article covers a period of constant coups. Isn't it more Italian than French to have governments that last no more than 2 weeks? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Howard, I like the idea of a macro-level article on the "Wars of Vietnam" that would put the many Vietnam/Vietnamese wars into a broad context and then linking to (not redirecting from) an article called the "Vietnam War." This is mostly what you've already accomplished here, starting at the heading French Indochina Background. Much of the article also remains at the high policy level (national politicians deciding national direction and military objectives); there is no ground-level description of the wars here. For instance, Dien Bien Phu is mentioned just once in passing. But this is okay, because such a ground-level description for this article would start mucking it. I'm not sure if there are sub-article narratives of the wars (I haven't looked at all the linked articles, yet), but I assume that a reader would get the nuts-and-bolts of the wars somewhere else. Also missing from this article is the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War; and didn't Vietnam have something to do with the downfall of Pol Pot regime in Cambodia? A "Wars of Vietnam in the Twentieth Century" article should include those as well. I think that the work you're doing on this article is top-rate, and I appreciate the efforts you've been making. Thanks. Jones 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Do see Dien Bien Phu, which is two levels down the hierarchy — yet with various lateral links to participants who were participants then (e.g., Van Tien Dung as well as the better-known Vo Nguyen Giap), and some are still active or at least available for interviews. There are compare-and-contrast, such as how Dien Bien Phu was like, and unlike, the Battle of Khe Sanh (I've never heard anyone say "Battle of" Dien Bien Phu, but often "Battle of" Khe Sanh). Khe Sanh, in turn, goes to some of speculative strategic thinking in General Offensive-General Uprising and (piped from a title I dislike) dau trinh.

Even with something like Dien Bien Phu in its own article, there's always the question of the level of detail. For example, one cannot understand how certain things happened without understanding how and where the Viet Minh artillery was emplaced, but I don't go over the order of the strongpoints falling. Actually, I don't remember if Gabrielle fell before Beatrice, and it has never been firmly established if each strongpoint was named for a mistress of the commander, BG de Castries.

I don't disagree that things didn't stop in 1975, but that was where the earlier articles stopped and I took it as an arbitrary point. Actually, I'm moving beyond 1975 more in the biographical and political articles, dealing in part with modern Vietnam, such as market reform and infrastructure development -- involving people who might have been platoon leaders at Dien Bien Phu.

We don't even have a basic article on Cambodia, so it's a challenge to deal with the interactions of the Vietnamese and the Chinese with the Khmer Rouge. In some CIA-related articles I haven't touched in a while, there is some material about the drug trade in Southeast Asia.

There's much interesting material about modern Vietnam that's falling out as well. Changing from my military to my epidemiological hat, there is immense respect, in infectious disease circles, for how proactive and cooperative the Vietnamese government has been regarding the various avian influenzas.

It is hard to write at this length almost all on the screen; when I've done books, there was a point that I needed lots of piles of paper. I'm sure there's unneeded duplication in some of the articles. Some things that I know are duplicated perhaps should be articles of their own, linked from several places. More eyes on this definitely help. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)