Talk:Vietnam War

Short description

For some major conflicts, "conflict" is the most widely used in short description for military history articles, but instead of "war" (as per primary sources). Other military history articles including "conflicts" like the Russo-Ukrainian War – Ongoing conflict since 2014Pages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets. Absolutiva 14:51, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

You cited a non-existent policy (there's no mention of the preference for "conflict" in the link you used to justify the change). Explaining it here is a good start, but don't link to things that don't exist. Intothatdarkness 15:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Article size

@Nikkimaria Wikipedia:Article_size#Size_guideline Chattenoir (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

And the actual article size is 17,720 words. I was using a character counter not word, oops Chattenoir (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep, wondered if that might be the case ;-) . Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2026

There is a spelling mistake in the following sentence: "The American buildup transformed the South Vietnamese economy and profoundly effected society." The correct spelling of the last verb is "affected", not "effected". Reference: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/affect-vs-effect-usage-difference. Please change "effected" to "affected". L.Earth (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done LizardJr8 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

equating the us and china-ussr in the infobox [?]

i think it's not right that the infobox places the us and china/ussr as equal: the soviet support for vietnam, embodied mostly in "military specialists", was limited compared to the u. s. intervention which included deploying large-scale troops a few years ago, i would have added china and the ussr under the line "support", since there's a difference between support and a full-scale intervention/occupation, but the "support" thing was abolished like a year ago - not sure if it was a right decision tho ~2026-30434-26 (talk) 03:30, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

China deployed hundreds of thousands of troops to North Vietnam during the war (mainly for logistical support). The Soviets (and China) provided almost every last bit of matériel used by the North/VC during the war. That's no small role. We have numerous countries listed in the info box with much smaller roles.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

providing material is still not belligerence, and by the number of people sent (infobox) the support of the ussr seems to be comparable to the one of philippines - and i'm not sure if it's right to add them to the infobox as a belligerent either, the body mentions philippines only once - and in the other articles it's described as "supporting civil and medical operations", not a full belligerence. so i'm not sure if philippines should be added either. again, i think it would have been more proper to place such involved but not fully belligerent sides under "support"

also i goofed w china sry ~2026-30434-26 (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

With the particular order shown in the infobox, it's not implying equality.

In fact, China sent about 320,000 troops to North Vietnam, allowing Hanoi to escalate its war effort in South Vietnam. Mao also assured Hanoi of further Chinese intervention if the United States deployed ground troops into North Vietnam. Soviet specialists also took part in combat against US forces and helped shoot down American aircraft ("Soviets Had Combat Role in Vietnam, Paper Shows"). In some cases, Soviet pilots themselves flew combat sorties against the US Air Force, although details of these incidents remain highly classified ("The Soviet Union Defeated the United States in the Vietnam War", titled by Sputnik in Vietnamese). Depending on their relations with Vietnam, China and Russia may choose either to keep such documents classified or to declassify them in order to gain leverage over the Vietnamese government. ~2026-30428-06 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Well put. In addition, the Soviets sometimes manned the anti-aircraft weapons they sent. (And some were killed as a result.) So belligerence is not a question here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Exaclty, they were directly involved in combat, they admit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

To this day, Putinist Russia and communist Vietnam still hold the Soviet Union's role in the Vietnam War in high regard (Russian Embassy in Hanoi). The Soviets taking part in the fighting themselves, as did the Chinese, is something that has long been publicized. Anyone who cares enough to learn about the war should already be aware of this. "How the Soviets fought against the Americans in Vietnam" (Russia Beyond). ~2026-30428-06 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Date of the end of the War and the Mayaguez incident

Shouldn't the date for the end of the War be 15 May 1975 and not 30 April 1975. The Mayaguez incident ended on 15 May 1975, and the last 41 names on the Vietnam Memorial are the names of the 3 soldiers who died in that incident. And the Infbox includes the Mayaguez incident.

If not that shouldn't this be treated as a separate, but related incident in the aftermath section?

Thanks. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

This has come up before if I recall. The Mayaguez Incident is not considered part of the Vietnam War. The fall of Saigon is considered the end of the war. While the incident might be considered part of the Vietnam era writ large, it's not part of the war. Intothatdarkness 19:34, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, shouldn't we remove it from the info box or send it to the aftermath or see also section? (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Aftermath makes sense. Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Cool I will work on it tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it. (: Historyguy1138 (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Cost of war and the decline of science in the U.S.

Apparently, the decline in science funding in the 1970s, which left science graduates scrambling to find jobs, was in part due to the high cost of the Vietnam War, which cut federal funding for science programs. This is rarely if ever discussed on any Wikipedia page. I would like to see it discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

And this article's already huge. There'd better be more than one or two RS if something like this is going to be added. Intothatdarkness 17:14, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way for me to approach it is to write a separate article on the funding of the war and how it detracted from funding in other areas and then to briefly link to it here. Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming there are actually enough sources to write an article, I'd say it could be a see also as opposed to something else. Considering the space program reached something of a funding peak during Vietnam the contention that the war cut into science spending feels a bit tenuous to me. But if there are enough RS to support the position... Intothatdarkness 01:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It's the same phenomenon. The funding for the space program was cut in part due to the high cost of the Vietnam War, which had wider ramifications beyond space science, impacting particle physicists in the US, for example. It is not in any way controversial that funding for foreign wars has weakened American science, although it is non-intuitive, as it was previously believed that it spurred tech development. The modern computer industry came about due to these funding cuts, with government-funded engineers and computer scientists moving to private companies. This is already covered elsewhere but fails to trace it to the Vietnam War. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Again...do RS trace it to that or is this just your opinion? Either way, it belongs someplace other than this article. Intothatdarkness 11:22, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't add personal opinions to articles, so your question is very odd and unusual. Do you think I came here to talk about my opinion and to write a new article about my opinion? Very odd. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Viriditas, the impact of the War in the American economy and technology should probably be covered in the article United States in the Vietnam War, rather than the main article. That article already covers the "Impact on the U.S. military" and could probably cover the impact to the rest of the minor country. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the info I was looking for. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Collage is missing Phan Thi Kim Phuc

"The Terror of War"

CaptainEek recently cited this article's collage as an example elsewhere. The choices seemed reasonable but I wondered why the iconic, prize-winning image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc was not included. This article doesn't even seem to mention her and this seems to be a significant omission. Such incidents are still occurring – see 2026 Minab school attack – and they seem quite telling in the hearts and minds aspect of such wars. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

They are not still occurring, the Vietnam War is over. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that The Terror of War photo should be in the article; it currently illustrates the war crimes section. It does link to Phan, it's a slight Easter egg link as it says nine year old girl rather than her name, but I think that's fair. There was tough competition for the infobox. Both Saigon Execution and The Terror of War won the Pulitzer prize. Both are very iconic photos, but I decided to only include one of them, lest I include two South Vietnamese war crimes; I wanted some sort of balance by having one Northern and one Southern war crime. I can admit that I partly chose Saigon Execution over The Terror because I found it less distressing that The Terror of War. They're both pretty horrible images, but The Terror of War is a photo that makes me cry. In an article I have dreams of taking to GA, having it in the infobox felt discouraging. I also wanted to consider what readers would think on seeing such an image in the infobox. We aren't censored, but we do have some sensitivity about infobox images, and I think it does better lifting in the war crimes section. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:47, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. We seem to be spoilt for choice of images for this collage. To help ensure NPOV/OR, we might consider the selections of external sources such as:

• Vietnam: The Real War – in pictures
• Iconic photos of the Vietnam War
• 21 Iconic Photos of the Vietnam War
• Vietnam War Photos That Made a Difference
• Images of the Vietnam War That Defined an Era

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I think what's there currently is fine, honestly. And the vast majority of the linked photos already exist in other articles. They also repeat and could be said to have their own POV issues as they focus mainly on American forces. This is a massive article currently...adding to it isn't especially helpful. Intothatdarkness 23:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

If we want a picture showing war crimes, there are better ones. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Technically there are already two: the Saigon Execution (which I feel comes close to violating NPOV based on its size related to the other war crime photo) and the Hue massacre victims (although this one feels somewhat sanitized compared to, say, the Đắk Sơn massacre or even Thạnh Mỹ massacre). Intothatdarkness 16:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We could make Saigon Execution smaller, but it looks nice to have a wide image on the top and bottom, and those photos had good aspect ratios for it, and had an artistic merit. And I don't think it's an NPOV violation to show off one of the wars most famous photos. I guess I wouldn't be opposed to a different picture than the Massacre at Hue; the lead image at Thanh My is okay. But again, there was something artistic to the Hue photo, something that captured the somberness of the aftermath. To catch on film an almost rote scene, repeated far too often during the war, distinguished here only by its context. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:58, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

But should it be artistic? Maybe that's the question. Execution and Terror both show the horror of war, while the current Hue one does not. Instead of showing the horror of what happened at Hue, it transforms it into (to borrow your phrase) something artistic and even abstract. To me it looks like showcasing one side's war crimes while (probably unintentionally) minimizing others. That's why I bring up NPOV. I'm not advocating for a change necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind for future discussions. Intothatdarkness 22:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Well I think we're on the same page at the moment though that the images are fine, so I think all is well. We can keep that in mind for when I go through the body images more thoroughly at some point. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:38, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Saigon execution wasn't a war crime. Terror of war was an accident not a war crime. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist I'm not going to argue about whether something was a war crime, that gets us off into NOTFORUM territory. Lets call them screwups. If I was going to have a photo of a southern screwup, it seemed fair to also have a northern screwup, given the nature of the war and the resultant photography. "Summarily executing surrendered man" and "dropping napalm on child" both seem like pretty big screwups to me, and the Pulitzer prize committee seemed to agree that they were unusually worthy photographs. Still, I'm not sure we need to include both, lest we put two southern screwups in the infobox. Again, I suspect we're on the same page that the current images are fine? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:10, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the PAVN/VC screwup? Massacre at Hue was a war crime, if you want allied war crimes put in a photo of My Lai. If you want famous photos then put in a photo of Operation Frequent Wind. Mztourist (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist That wasn't my sole criteria for inclusion in the infobox. I considered many factors. I think the warcrime aspect is a distraction. The real question is: do you dislike the current infobox collage? If you think the current one is fine, I think the current one is fine. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Not really. I don't like the Marines using flamethrower photo and think there are much better photos of US forces in action. I think the A-4 photo should be replaced with a picture of a B-52 bombing. I would downsize Saigon execution and add a photo from Operation Frequent Wind. Mztourist (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I can search for a better US forces in action than the flamethrower photo, I wouldn't mind replacing it. As for the A4, I agree that a higher quality plane image could be found. As for a photo from Operation Frequent Wind, I could go for the classic File:Helicopter evacuation of Saigon atop 22 Gia Long Street.webp. I like the 1-2-2-1 layout personally, though I guess we could do a 1-2-2-2 and have Gia Long St. and Saigon execution next to each other. Or we could swap it for one of the others...? But not sure which. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @Mztourist when it comes to the flamethrower picture. I would also not characterize the other photos as images of "screwups," but that's not germane to this discussion. One thing to keep in mind with the aircraft photos...reducing the size of a B-52 picture can render it almost impossible to distinguish (they're big planes, after all). Adding Frequent Wind would make a nice "bookend" to the collage, but then you might consider switching the current opening photo (taken in 1970) with one from earlier in the conflict. But that's just an observation. Intothatdarkness 13:48, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree, bookending would be good. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• CaptainEek, in another discussion referred to herein by the OP, you exampled this as being a good collage and asked the question: How could you possibly choose just one of those to represent the entire 20 year conflict? Firstly, the question is based on an incorrect premise. MOS:LEADIMAGE tells us that the lead image should be a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. It is not telling us that the lead image (or images) should be a representation of the entire article topic. The two are very different premises. Secondly, the images in the present collage are drawn from 1966 to 1970. They do not represent the entire 20 year conflict. However, answering your question is easy but I would not use one of the images in the present collage. I would use the image of image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc referred to by the OP.
  In the other discussion, you stated, quite a lot of time on picking the images for Vietnam war and in the discussion herein you identify the rationale for image selection. However, without the benefit of this discussion, neither I nor a reader would reasonably be aware of the rationale. Instead, what I see is a somewhat random selection of images that lack any context to give them meaning. The six images significantly add to the size and bloat of what is already a large and bloated infobox. All of the four smaller images suffer a lack of visual acuity, some more than others, as a result of having been reduced in size. The first of these is reasonably seen as being PAVN troops. The next is a person under an umbrella somewhere. There is a military fighter (?) dropping something (probably a bomb) somewhere. Apart from the caption, the flamethrower image is one that would be more associated with the Pacific War. While the Iroquois is an iconic helicopter used in several conflicts, it is associated with the Vietnam war. However, this is not an image that resides in the collective consciousness as being an Iroquois operating in the Vietnam war. To the bottom image, I acknowledge that it is a prize winning photo; however, it is not an image I recall seeing until viewing it on this page (noting that I am old enough to have personal recollections of the war). I would submit that it does not have the same degree of presence in the collective consciousness as the image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc - an image that I do have a clear recollection of.
  This collage is not achieving the aim of the lead image expressed at LEADIMAGE. MOS:IMAGEREL and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE both tell us that less is better. This then goes doubly for images in the infobox. There is a clear candidate for a single image that will achieve the aim of LEADIMAGE and other P&G, including a reduction in infobox bloat. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Saigon image is quite familiar to those of us who study the war. There are better Huey photos out there, some of which are also considered iconic. If you're aiming for a "one photo to rule them all" approach I suspect you'll be disappointed. In addition to being a long conflict, Vietnam went through a number of stages (or phases), each distinguished by specific elements. Using the "Terror" image is in my view succumbing to sensationalism and has little value aside from shocking the reader. It might be iconic, but it does not sum up the conflict. Intothatdarkness 15:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Saigon image may be quite familiar to those that study the war but the article is pitched at readers that have little or no knowledge of the war. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  So? The article images can also be used to educate. Personally I'm not a fan of some of the current ones, but I would also be strongly opposed to replacing all of them with a single, sensationalized image that's also in more recent times been seen as exploitative. Intothatdarkness 02:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  1. Per MOS:IMAGEREL: Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding the subject. It should be placed relative to the prose it supports. While a lead image should do this, it serves a slightly different purpose: to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. An image that resides firmly in the collective consciousness does this. The image of the execution can be used in the article to inform but if it doesn't reside firmly in the collective consciousness, it is probably not a suitable image for the lead.
  2. I would also be strongly opposed to replacing all of them with a single, sensationalized image ... Does that mean that you are only opposed to use of the Phan Thi Kim Phuc image as a single image because of your view that it is sensationalized or are you opposed to only using a single image here at all? If it is the latter, what is the relevant P&G that supports your opinion?
  3. You refer to the image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc as in more recent times been seen as exploitative. Her article and sources therein suggest otherwise. She has used her notability and the image to help war refugees - particularly children. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

     You can stop bludgeoning things at any time. I am opposed to a single image in general being used for this article, and this image in particular is not appropriate. You might like it, but that does not mean it's what the article needs. Your interpretation of the collective unconscious is just that: your interpretation. Hiding behind P&G does not change that. Intothatdarkness 11:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Cinderella157 you just lost the RfC about collages...but then come here and try to keep fighting that battle. I agree that some of the photos could use refinement, as is being discussed above. But there is no single image that could capture the Vietnam war. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Completely agree. It's far too complex of a conflict to be summed up in a single snapshot. Can the current collage be improved? Most likely. But we can't reduce it to a single photo. Intothatdarkness 18:50, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Substituting (per this edit ) one small image of a military jet somewhere with another small image of three (or is it four or five) military jets somewhere is not an improvement. There is nothing in the lead to give relevance to Operation Rolling Thunder. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I admit I'm not sold on that jet image; I've got more searching to do though. I looked for a good B-52 image and found some contenders, but none that seemed standout. However, I've yet to check Flickr or elsewhere for photos we could upload, so that's next on my list :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:42, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  The lede does mention Operation Linebacker, so you might use that as a search parameter. The F-4 featured in that campaign, so it might be a viable alternative to the B-52. Intothatdarkness 12:18, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  If the image is not a good image for the lead, it should be removed and not replaced with an equally poor image. Furthermore, I am not the only one to comment that other images used are not particularly good/appropriate. Despite the claim, this is not a good collage. There are multiple images that should be removed and/or replaced. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Could you stop bludgeoning this discussion please? Your point has been made. I have already made clear I will further improve the images as I have time.

  a CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:36, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

"silenced its critics"

A recent edition says this:

By 1958, the Vietnam Workers' Party had largely silenced its critics and overcome many of the political and economic challenges of the previous years,....

Not to offend anyone, but that is quite a euphemism/sugar coating for what really happened: basically the communists eliminating the competition. (And not through elections either.) I can add RS that says that....but I am not sure how it can coexist with the statement above. So I thought I'd bring it up here first.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This sentence is not really about the elections, but rather the 1955–1957 crisis in North Vietnam, which I think is worth mentioning. The issue is that the article is approaching the word limit, so I did not want to elaborate further and risk it being tagged "Very long". Not sure I understand your concern about the euphemistic tone, is it the word "overcome"? I do think that a clearer wording might be better. Greenknight dv (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Well that "silenced its critics" stuff combined with the rest makes it sound like their hold was Democratically established....when it wasn't. As most RS establishes: the CPV basically eliminated their competition (rather violently). In other words: they essentially "silenced [their] critics" the same way the NSDAP did in Germany in the 1930's. Now if this is intended to say their critics on economic issues at a certain time period....I think that can be communicated a bit more clearly (hopefully without getting too wordy).Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:IDIOMs should be avoided regardless. It's best to use unambiguous phrasing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

By the way Greenknight, I am not saying you had any intent of whitewashing/sugarcoating anything. Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I made it a separate paragraph. Feel free to improve it further. Greenknight dv (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)