This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 27, 2005, January 27, 2006, January 27, 2007, and January 27, 2008. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The treaty signed in January 1973 is little different than the treaty that Henry Kissinger proclaimed he would sign during October 1972, prior to the presidential election. Also, if you read the letters from Nixon to Thieu sent during January 1973, you will learn that Nixon says "either sign or I will sign a unilateral agreement with North Viet Nam...and if I sign a deal with just North Viet Nam, I will terminate all aid to South Viet Nam." Moreover, don't forget that Nixon had recently played his "China card" and had recognized the government of China. Viet Nam was noose around his diplomacy whereas China offered great political rewards. And regardless of Nixon's long history of loudly beating the drum against communism, he was more than anxious to embrace China if it would salvage his career. Dick Nixon like Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu, Nguyen Khanh and Nguyen Van Thieu, was only concerned about his career and mythical place in history. Nothing else mattered and that is the reason all ended in history's garbage heap of deposed dictators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vietnamtopsecret ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 May 2006.
Attention: This article is horribly biased, the entire third and fourth paragraphs need to be edited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchup4cabra ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2006.
"The treaty's terms were unpopular with many in Diem's Southern government."
In 1973, the president of the South Vietnamese Government was
Nguyen Van Thieu.
Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated in a coup in 1963.
I would like to edit to fix that mistake.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
202.138.22.73 (
talk •
contribs) 20:40, 29 April 2005.
Le Hoai Viet
This article pretty much tells it like it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.248.80 ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 April 2006.
This article is amazingly biased. It also needs more about the actual talks. The Commie agitprop that is the summaryn of the war should be deleted or moved to the Vietnam War page. This page shoudl be about the acutal talks in Paris.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.223.116 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2006.
The article is not only biased, it is *horribly* written and woefully inaccurate. I've just read the 7/31/06 New Yorker article on Wikipedia. This article is one of those that justifies the remark by one critic that "Wikipedia is to Britannica as 'American Idol' is to the Juilliard School." One example: "Negotiations between National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger had been proceeding with little success since 1968." Between Kissenger and WHOM? Inaccuracies and oversimplifications are many, not just the result of shading the article in an anti-American sense (I opposed the Vietnam War from '62 on), but out of ignorance, for example: "Despite superior fire-power, the U.S. was not winning the guerilla warfare because the Government of South Viet Nam was not supported by the people, as it was always a military dictatorship with revolving door leaders." This is nonsense. Ngo Dinh Diem (a civilian) was president of South Vietnam for many years until deposed and murdered by a U.S.-encouraged military coup on Nov. 1, 1963. There was then a succession of ten military governments over the next 17 months, until a government headed by Nguyen Van Thieu (chief of state) and Nguyen Cao Ky (prime minister and head of the S. Vietnamese Air Force) took power in June, 1965. This government remained in power until the end of the American involvement. 'Nuff said? REWRITE IT FROM SCRATCH. 69.144.100.154 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is completely rewritten. Hopefully most of the concerns are addressed. I have removed the NPOV tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Another element that appears to be biased is the 'Aftermath' paragraph. To suggest that the North was sole responsilbe for the failure of the agreement is bias -- 212.139.163.229 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I added more info to the Aftermath section to undue the bias in that section. 71.156.61.88 ( talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Article should contain a section on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the criticism that "irony is dead" in America, as demonstrated when Kissinger accepted the prize while fighting was indeed underway. Tempshill ( talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There are too many things we should know about the Paris Peace Accords, especially the Vietnam War. An So many confused things in the Vietnam War we need to work out first. The confusing has come from the books written by the Anti-war American and the Vietnamese Communist's propaganda.
With me, the U.S government has responsibility in the broken of this agreement and with the Vietnamese in the South of Vietnam, who can not be under a Commmunist regime. It's clear that this agreement's mostly written by the US side with their promise to protect it before the US forced the South Vietnamese president to sign in.
Daocongkhai 76.200.161.84 ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Recently User:Armando Navarro, who has a reasonable-looking contributions record, added a new subsection under Paris peace talks, headed "Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations" and containing the following:
Prior to the 1968 U.S. presidential election, the Nixon campaign [1] [2] “set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. [3] (…) they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (…) The tactic "worked", in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign.” [11] Before the elections President Johnson “suspected (…) Richard Nixon, of political sabotage [12] that he called treason”. [13] [14] No one was ever prosecuted for this crime. [15] [16]
and citing the following references:
Anon user User:70.54.3.70 removed this addition here with an edit summary reading, simply, "Alleged".
The addition was heavily cite-supported (perhaps too heavily, style-wise), and I nearly reverted on that basis. I thought, though, that I would take a quick look at some of the cited supporting sources. I picked [12] to start with, since it seems to support a very straightforward assertion. That cite contains a link which it says is to page 198 of an online book preview. When clicked, the link navigates to page 246 of that book. Both pages 198 and 246 are previewable, and neither seems to contain anything relevant to the point needing support. Page 243, however may contain some relevant material.
So, I've left the removal of the section unreverted and have moved the material to this talk page. I don't plan to do anything further on this myself. I'll leave a note about this on User talk:Armando Navarro. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
___
It shouldn't read "claimed" sabotage--it happened, folks. The tapes are out, the documentation is out. The section needs to be completely and totally rewritten because of what we now know from the LBJ tapes and the file on the Chennault affair. Dallek's claims need to be completely junked in favor of more recent works on the issue, such as Ken Hughes's recent book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
These are no longer "allegations" but facts backed by the historic record. We have the classified documents and the tapes. We know Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to secure his election. There is no dispute over this anymore. sn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
New info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html Keith McClary ( talk) 05:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Did the U.S. Senate ratify the agreement? If not, the U.S. was not bound by the agreement, so ratification is a pretty significant piece of information to include in the article. Wikimedes ( talk) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the "Paris Peace Accords" and the " Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam"?
Let's sort this out. Also see: Talk:Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. groupuscule ( talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Merger Mztourist ( talk) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Merger 97.116.183.238 ( talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Merger Smallchief ( talk 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Merge. History shows that the second article was created by a user intending to provide the full text of the Agreement, which was later transferred to Wikisource, leaving it void. The topics are identical (Accords and Agreement are synonymous), there is no room for two articles. As there is little content to keep anyway, I suggest redirecting Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam to Paris Peace Accords. Place Clichy ( talk) 12:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following exchange was moved here from User talk:Cgingold:
I don't have to give reasons to your satisfaction for retaining well-cited material from widely accepted reliable sources. In a content dispute, where you feel a RS is being given undue weight, the onus is on you to gather consensus for removal. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than just arguing back and forth, I think it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems to me that we have two basic options with respect to this section:
In any event, Conrad Black hardly qualifies as a neutral source, so if his views are to be cited, they will need to be balanced by others. Cgingold ( talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone able to locate a map showing the 1973 ceasefire line? Mztourist ( talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paris Peace Accords. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
With no reference explaining that title, it seems like a hacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:500:B200:4D27:5D40:890B:64AC ( talk) 22:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The map in this article is from 65-67 and notably shows control of a number of areas that were not under northern control at that point. 2607:FEA8:13C0:225:DDC6:FC18:E60C:3914 ( talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Quite confusing all these Paris Agreements and Paris Peace Agreements and Paris Peace Talks. Shouldn't we add a note on both articles. cf. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords are not to be confounded with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements And visa versa? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 27, 2005, January 27, 2006, January 27, 2007, and January 27, 2008. |
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
The treaty signed in January 1973 is little different than the treaty that Henry Kissinger proclaimed he would sign during October 1972, prior to the presidential election. Also, if you read the letters from Nixon to Thieu sent during January 1973, you will learn that Nixon says "either sign or I will sign a unilateral agreement with North Viet Nam...and if I sign a deal with just North Viet Nam, I will terminate all aid to South Viet Nam." Moreover, don't forget that Nixon had recently played his "China card" and had recognized the government of China. Viet Nam was noose around his diplomacy whereas China offered great political rewards. And regardless of Nixon's long history of loudly beating the drum against communism, he was more than anxious to embrace China if it would salvage his career. Dick Nixon like Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu, Nguyen Khanh and Nguyen Van Thieu, was only concerned about his career and mythical place in history. Nothing else mattered and that is the reason all ended in history's garbage heap of deposed dictators.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vietnamtopsecret ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 11 May 2006.
Attention: This article is horribly biased, the entire third and fourth paragraphs need to be edited.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elchup4cabra ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 April 2006.
"The treaty's terms were unpopular with many in Diem's Southern government."
In 1973, the president of the South Vietnamese Government was
Nguyen Van Thieu.
Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated in a coup in 1963.
I would like to edit to fix that mistake.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
202.138.22.73 (
talk •
contribs) 20:40, 29 April 2005.
Le Hoai Viet
This article pretty much tells it like it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.248.80 ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 23 April 2006.
This article is amazingly biased. It also needs more about the actual talks. The Commie agitprop that is the summaryn of the war should be deleted or moved to the Vietnam War page. This page shoudl be about the acutal talks in Paris.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.223.116 ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2006.
The article is not only biased, it is *horribly* written and woefully inaccurate. I've just read the 7/31/06 New Yorker article on Wikipedia. This article is one of those that justifies the remark by one critic that "Wikipedia is to Britannica as 'American Idol' is to the Juilliard School." One example: "Negotiations between National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger had been proceeding with little success since 1968." Between Kissenger and WHOM? Inaccuracies and oversimplifications are many, not just the result of shading the article in an anti-American sense (I opposed the Vietnam War from '62 on), but out of ignorance, for example: "Despite superior fire-power, the U.S. was not winning the guerilla warfare because the Government of South Viet Nam was not supported by the people, as it was always a military dictatorship with revolving door leaders." This is nonsense. Ngo Dinh Diem (a civilian) was president of South Vietnam for many years until deposed and murdered by a U.S.-encouraged military coup on Nov. 1, 1963. There was then a succession of ten military governments over the next 17 months, until a government headed by Nguyen Van Thieu (chief of state) and Nguyen Cao Ky (prime minister and head of the S. Vietnamese Air Force) took power in June, 1965. This government remained in power until the end of the American involvement. 'Nuff said? REWRITE IT FROM SCRATCH. 69.144.100.154 23:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The article is completely rewritten. Hopefully most of the concerns are addressed. I have removed the NPOV tag. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Another element that appears to be biased is the 'Aftermath' paragraph. To suggest that the North was sole responsilbe for the failure of the agreement is bias -- 212.139.163.229 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I added more info to the Aftermath section to undue the bias in that section. 71.156.61.88 ( talk) 11:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Article should contain a section on the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize along with the criticism that "irony is dead" in America, as demonstrated when Kissinger accepted the prize while fighting was indeed underway. Tempshill ( talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. -- dashiellx ( talk) 12:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
There are too many things we should know about the Paris Peace Accords, especially the Vietnam War. An So many confused things in the Vietnam War we need to work out first. The confusing has come from the books written by the Anti-war American and the Vietnamese Communist's propaganda.
With me, the U.S government has responsibility in the broken of this agreement and with the Vietnamese in the South of Vietnam, who can not be under a Commmunist regime. It's clear that this agreement's mostly written by the US side with their promise to protect it before the US forced the South Vietnamese president to sign in.
Daocongkhai 76.200.161.84 ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Recently User:Armando Navarro, who has a reasonable-looking contributions record, added a new subsection under Paris peace talks, headed "Nixon campaign sabotage of negotiations" and containing the following:
Prior to the 1968 U.S. presidential election, the Nixon campaign [1] [2] “set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. [3] (…) they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] (…) The tactic "worked", in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign.” [11] Before the elections President Johnson “suspected (…) Richard Nixon, of political sabotage [12] that he called treason”. [13] [14] No one was ever prosecuted for this crime. [15] [16]
and citing the following references:
Anon user User:70.54.3.70 removed this addition here with an edit summary reading, simply, "Alleged".
The addition was heavily cite-supported (perhaps too heavily, style-wise), and I nearly reverted on that basis. I thought, though, that I would take a quick look at some of the cited supporting sources. I picked [12] to start with, since it seems to support a very straightforward assertion. That cite contains a link which it says is to page 198 of an online book preview. When clicked, the link navigates to page 246 of that book. Both pages 198 and 246 are previewable, and neither seems to contain anything relevant to the point needing support. Page 243, however may contain some relevant material.
So, I've left the removal of the section unreverted and have moved the material to this talk page. I don't plan to do anything further on this myself. I'll leave a note about this on User talk:Armando Navarro. -- Boracay Bill ( talk) 06:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Armando Navarro ( talk • contribs) 03:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
___
It shouldn't read "claimed" sabotage--it happened, folks. The tapes are out, the documentation is out. The section needs to be completely and totally rewritten because of what we now know from the LBJ tapes and the file on the Chennault affair. Dallek's claims need to be completely junked in favor of more recent works on the issue, such as Ken Hughes's recent book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
These are no longer "allegations" but facts backed by the historic record. We have the classified documents and the tapes. We know Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks in 1968 to secure his election. There is no dispute over this anymore. sn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:117:C080:520:1A03:73FF:FE0A:68ED ( talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
New info here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/politics/nixon-tried-to-spoil-johnsons-vietnam-peace-talks-in-68-notes-show.html Keith McClary ( talk) 05:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Did the U.S. Senate ratify the agreement? If not, the U.S. was not bound by the agreement, so ratification is a pretty significant piece of information to include in the article. Wikimedes ( talk) 19:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
What is the relationship between the "Paris Peace Accords" and the " Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam"?
Let's sort this out. Also see: Talk:Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. groupuscule ( talk) 02:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Support Merger Mztourist ( talk) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Support Merger 97.116.183.238 ( talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Merger Smallchief ( talk 19:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Merge. History shows that the second article was created by a user intending to provide the full text of the Agreement, which was later transferred to Wikisource, leaving it void. The topics are identical (Accords and Agreement are synonymous), there is no room for two articles. As there is little content to keep anyway, I suggest redirecting Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam to Paris Peace Accords. Place Clichy ( talk) 12:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The following exchange was moved here from User talk:Cgingold:
I don't have to give reasons to your satisfaction for retaining well-cited material from widely accepted reliable sources. In a content dispute, where you feel a RS is being given undue weight, the onus is on you to gather consensus for removal. Regards, TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 06:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Rather than just arguing back and forth, I think it would be helpful to reframe the discussion. It seems to me that we have two basic options with respect to this section:
In any event, Conrad Black hardly qualifies as a neutral source, so if his views are to be cited, they will need to be balanced by others. Cgingold ( talk) 07:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Is anyone able to locate a map showing the 1973 ceasefire line? Mztourist ( talk) 05:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paris Peace Accords. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
With no reference explaining that title, it seems like a hacking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:500:B200:4D27:5D40:890B:64AC ( talk) 22:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The map in this article is from 65-67 and notably shows control of a number of areas that were not under northern control at that point. 2607:FEA8:13C0:225:DDC6:FC18:E60C:3914 ( talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Quite confusing all these Paris Agreements and Paris Peace Agreements and Paris Peace Talks. Shouldn't we add a note on both articles. cf. The 1973 Paris Peace Accords are not to be confounded with the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements And visa versa? Thy, SvenAERTS ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)