Talk:Vietnam War

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

answers[change source]

What was the gulf of Tonkin accident?


Question about picture:[change source]

I don't think that a picture of slaughtered women and children is appropriate for a Simple English encyclopedia edition. Someone might consider removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.152.81 (talkcontribs)

I do agree that it was a bad choice in images, but not for the same reason. The image would be perfectly fine for an article on the My Lai massacre, or for a section of this article which was about that massacre but there is nothing about the massacre in this article. It is not as good as an example of the entire war itself and so I replaced it with a commons image more in keeping with the standard visuals associated with the war. -- Creol(talk) 10:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted, this change was irresponsible, this kind of massacre of civilians was the theme of the war, and must stay --Chosongul 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creol is right. There is nothing about the massacre in the article. The picture I have reverted to shows the destructive nature of the Vietnam War--in a generic way. I don't think it needed to be changed in the first place. Believe it or not, I'd feel the same way about it even if I wasn't the one who had originally added the picture. I hate to be part of what is shaping into an edit war, but I think that this solution is the best compromise. Tygartl1 18:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the Vietnam War should not be an edit war, as it was perhaps the worst stain on the American Military in its history. However, I was simply pointing out that those using simple english were likely to be A) Children or B) People with certain mental disabilities. A picture of a massacre just didn't seem fitting. My thanks for removing it however.

Unfortunately, I think it's more a case of national pride protection... --Chosongul 20:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]