Talk:Military history of Vietnam

Military history: Asian / Southeast Asia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Vietnam High‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Battle of Bach Dang (1288).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“The most peace-loving country in Southeast Asia”

The lead section of this article has major issues with WP:TONE.

The contention that “wars played a great role in shaping the identity and culture of [Vietnam]” is not particular to Vietnam, and it contains no specific historical information.

”Vietnam is considered one of the most peace-loving countries in Southeast Asia” is especially strange: even if it were attributed, it’s not at all clear what “peace-loving” actually means.

The rest of the article is of decent quality, so I don’t think there’s much point further critiquing these passages. I have no doubt this was written in good faith, and I am sympathetic to its de-emphasising of a single US-involved military conflict.

I am confident this can be substantially improved. If I am able to, I will make an attempt at writing a new lead section. Foxmilder (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]