Talk:Fall of Saigon

(2005)

As I learned from what I read and information from my family members who fought in the war (I'm Vietnamese by the way), it looked a lot more like 'liberation' instead of 'fall', even though my family has been in the south for generations. Just an opinion

---

I was just wondering if anyone knew how many people died in the 'Fall' or 'Liberation' of Saigon.

The Fall of Saigon does not seem to be a neutral term. Did the north not regard the "fall" as a liberation? SV|t|add 18:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should definitely include mention of what the event is called by different parties in different languages. But whatever the term preferred by the north, it has not popularized it in English-speaking countries; the "Fall of Saigon" would seem to be the most common name in not just the U.S. but the UK (and The Independent is not known for its sympathy for U.S. military adventures), Australia, and New Zealand. "Saigon Giai Phong" meaning "Saigon Liberation" does appear to be a term used in Vietnam. -choster 05:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ordering of Belligerents in the infobox

This is corrently

Viet Cong and PRG Supported by: North Vietnam }vs

South Vietnam Supported by: United States

Vandalism

@Mztourist: Once again a pro-communist IP address from Vietnam vandalized English Wikipedia, distorting Vietnamese history from 1945-1975. I hope you pay attention. 2001:EE0:41C1:DAF2:D0:4A02:287C:C (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, tiresome. Mztourist (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I know you are tired, so I will actively cooperate with you to reduce your burden in protecting English Wikipedia from the communist and leftist bias of Vietnamese IP addresses. Wikipedia needs to be objective and neutral not only about the 1945-1975 period of Vietnamese history but about everything. 2401:D800:111:C0F6:C0C7:17E9:A6FE:8520 (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Not only IP addresses, we also need to take action against destructive Vietnamese accounts. 2401:D800:3B7:EBCA:452F:E01D:7CA6:4C2A (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems that a pro-communist IP address from Vietnam continues to vandalize when this person edited the article Cambodian–Vietnamese War with claiming that Vietnam won the war despite the fact that Vietnam withdrew its troops in 1989. I hope you will revert the edits of this person. 2401:D800:172:46D:4DD1:AB6C:AC3A:FCCF (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The vandalism edits created by that IP address have been undone, however we need to keep a close eye on that article and I fear the vandalism will return soon. 2401:D800:11F:BBA8:54CE:4BE8:E8B1:AF04 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

30 April MOSNUM

User:DragonFury MOSNUM states: "Generally, in article text: Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). When written as words, integers from 21 to 99 that are not multiples of 10 are hyphenated (including when part of a larger number): fifty-six and fifty-six thousand, but five hundred and five thousand." There is no preference for words as you have claimed: [1] Mztourist (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

So, A: the MOS clearly states both can be used. B: most editors I've interacted with prefer to use words instead of numbers, so it's not "a personal preference". C: "it's been stable for years" is not even remotely a valid or relevant argument. D: this very article uses the word "twenty" once already in the paragraph "Final assault"; "and killing at least twenty PAVN soldiers.".

In short; I see no reason why using 20 should be preferred over twenty, other than what seems to me to be your personal belief in ownership over this page.DragonFury (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

No ownership at all, but you haven't provided any valid reason why the change should be made. I have no idea who the "most editors I've interacted with" are or that that somehow creates a consensus. You claimed that words are preferred, but that is clearly incorrect. Mztourist (talk) 09:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I've interacted with Mztourist some times, and I support him in this case :) Leemyongpak (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

About numbers

Copied straight from MOS:NUM: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)." "This has been stable for years"; not a valid argument, Wikipedia has had factual errors that lasted for years as well, their longevity doesn't make them right. "are you going to change every number on every page to suit your preference?" I have been making similar edits on other pages as well, often finding them as I read an article for personal interest. And I've had people question those edits, with other editors supporting my edits. So it's not a personal preference, it's a preference shared by nearly all editors I've interacted with. DragonFury (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)