Talk:1968 in the Vietnam War

Data

Only data on the anti-communists and US domestic policy. Nothing about machinations in SV with the power struggle in the military and the draft YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of lack of data on those issues, add them if you got them! Also, more info is needed on major developments on the North Vietnamese side. -- Esemono (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Casualty numbers

Are the numbers of casualties in the infobox sourced reliably? It would be historically very nearly unprecedented for a fighting force to loose 50% of its manpower and remain effective in the field. If this includes civilian victims, it should be noted somewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole American philosophy to the war was a 12 to 1 kill ratio in Vietnam. Which when you account for 16,000 American dead is actually less then there goal. They lost 50% of the men that were based in South Vietnam which was a fraction of North Vietnam's actual army. Here is the google source though Throughout the entire war their military lost over one million men.-- Esemono (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that source says, correctly, "the United States claimed". It's fairly well-known that the US claims were wild over-estimates, and that "every dead Vietnamese is a Viet Cong". So that number should not stand uncommented. Can we find a better source? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The only reason that I used that source is because the upper limit source, which is shown in the article, is 200,000+ or more than the American claim. I think the around 200,000 mark is reasonable. In this source the Vietnamese General Giap says that between 1965-1968 it suffered 600,000 military causalities and that the Vietnamese were suffering a 10 to 1 ration with the Americans. The same source claims that the North Vietnamese thought that just during the Tet Offensive it lost upwards of 90,000 men. While most American sources say that it was around 50,000 just for the Tet Offensive. Of course what you say about Americans might be true but Wikipedia isn't about truth its about Verifiability -- Esemono (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. But in this case we should attribute the estimates, not state them as fact. Claims that Giap made, especially while the conflict was ongoing, are, of course, equally suspect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's why I gave a range from smallest to largest. But I'll put a note that its an American estimate too. -- Esemono (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency in tense

The timeline is very inconsistent as regards its use of tense. It shifts back and forth between the present tense ("is", etc.) and the past tense ("was") in describing the events of the day(s) in question. Gotta choose one and stick to it.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

Trying to find dates of when North Korea had forces in the war all I could find was: BBC article -- Esemono (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1968 in the Vietnam War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716142800/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/go7124.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/go7124.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)