Talk:Vietnamization

Untitled

I imported this article from a section inside the Vietnam War article. It still needs an introduction and links. Any help would be appreciated, this is only one of five or so articles that I'm going to have to create because of this project. Thanks! Ahudson 22:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

War crimes

I find the language amazingly pro-USA. Imagine if you were a Cambodian who had his wife and all of his children killed by US bombing. Imagine you were a international lawyer or a simple common-sensical human. This (and many other articles about USA wars) sound like they were written by the president's legal team. The few sentences that give a balanced POV are not helping much. Wiki-moderator, if you see this, please start a discussion among the higher-ups in wikipedia. 85.197.19.140 (talk) 09:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resignation of Johnson?

The section "End of Americanization" starts out "The resignation of Lyndon Johnson...". However, he did not resign; he announced that he would not seek re-election, and completed his term in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.191.35.218 (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison with Iraq and/or Afganistant

"Vietnamization" seems to have some similarities with recent US (and other Alies) policy in Iraq and Afganistan where there have been troop withdawals and training of local forces to replace. There must be by now some scholarly work which has dome some comparisons somewhere along the line. There's relatively speaking plenty of money in security studies compared with other humanities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.98.229.132 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Vietnamization. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060821193042/http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu:80/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/marwar.htm to http://www.vietnam.ttu.edu/vietnamcenter/events/1996_Symposium/96papers/marwar.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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) 10:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Vietnamization. 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/20020616021105/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680331.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/Johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/680331.asp

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) 09:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a clear consensus that this is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 19:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

---

Vietnamization → Vietnamization (Vietnam War) – I don't like to talk but this page symbolizes that it is an American War policy dated under the Nixon era rather than another Vietnamization that is cultural assimilation. I would love to differ it immediately because a Vietnam War's policy has to be a Vietnam War one and not for general use. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Absent a clear consensus that the Vietnam War policy is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the cultural assimilation policy, Vietnamization should be the main title header of a disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, overwhelming primary topic per page views. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose for what at first? First at all, Vietnamization isn't synonymous to Nixon's policy, it is also a part of Vietnamese history that happened before the United States joined Vietnam War. Stating Vietnamization as only a Nixon's policy is like stating it as a general Vietnamese history. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

And I bet you can't understand that Vietnamization is not just a Vietnam War policy. Vietnamization can also be seen as a process of cultural assimilation imposed by the Vietnamese government on its ethnic minorities that have nothing related to Richard Nixon's war policy. What belong to Vietnam War must be registered as part of Vietnam War. That's what I am looking to clarify. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the war policy seems to be the clear primary topic doing a news search. Spike 'em (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

War policy should belong to war policy. Don't make it like it is general use. Vietnamization should be registered as disambiguation. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

have you bothered reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as mentioned above? Given your conduct so far, you also need to read WP:BLUDGEON. Spike 'em (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) I bet you can't find a better replacement for your explanation. My family belong from an ethnic minority who suffered from forced cultural assimilation known as Vietnamization by the Vietnamese government, but when it comes to requesting from Americans to acknowledge this racial problem Vietnam is enduring, people like you drag only Vietnam War memories. This insulted me. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I take that as a no then? Your comments have nothing to do with the WP policies on what to do if there are 2 articles that would otherwise have the same title. No-one is denying that there should be an article about cultural assimilation, it is just that the one on the war policy is the clear primary topic. WP follows the sources and is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Spike 'em (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as the Nixon-era policy is by far the more common use of "Vietnamization," at least in English-language sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Do English speakers know how to differ Vietnamization as a war policy and as a cultural assimilation term? Does English have alternative words for Vietnamization? I question that for you. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 06:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Sadly, oppose. I really have sympathy for the suggestion, which would put vietnamization on par with most other x-izations worldwide. The problem is that in English (or mostly American) sources, the word is almost exclusively used for the Nixon-era policy. I am afraid that up to now, the cultural assimilation is hardly covered in English-language sources. Over time, this may change, when the Vietnam war is fading back into history, and the focus on cultural assimilation grows stronger. But for the time being, the sources does not allow us to make any other conclusion than keeping Nixon as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Too bad, really! It kind of shows how the international domination of the English language helps maintain a Western POV as the dominating world view. --T*U (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel sorry for that too. Let's hope that Americans and other English-speaking people to drop their stupidity of equalling Vietnamization into Vietnam War rather than making as a disambiguation. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S Direct Discussions with North Vietnam

Does this section need to exist? It doesn't even make sense by itself and its two sentences so I really don't think it needs to exist. It could easily be folded into another section or deleted entirely. It just doesn't make sense. Binnybags11 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)