Talk:Ho Chi Minh trail

"Truong Son Strategic Supply Route"

In the introductory paragraph's explanation of what the HCM Trail is called in Vietnam, I think Đường Trường Sơn (in Vietnamese, and with the English translation "Duong Truong Road") is more appropriate than "Truong Son Strategic Supply Route". Perhaps the latter term was used by Viet Cong bureaucrats forty years ago, but coloquially, in present-day Vietnam, and in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, [[1]], it's Đường Trường Sơn. -- Paul Richter 01:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Have seen several different renditions, but, for now, I'll stick with what the official Vietnamese history of the conflict calls it.RM Gillespie 11:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings):

• Headings must be in sentence case; in other words, words after the first must not be capitalized unless they're proper nouns.
• Headings should omit initial articles ("a", "the", etc.).

The dates, I think, look much neater in parentheses than following a trailing comma; but this may be more a matter of personal preference. Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

If you made additions to this article after 29 April 2007, your edits have been deleted by reversion. Sorry about that, but some no-name editor (24.149.147.219) deleted the entire first section of the article with no explination (as if there was one) as to why. Once again, sorry for the inconvenience. Just type it up to more mindless vandalism by those that can think of nothing other than stroking their miniscule egos. RM Gillespie 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There must have been a typo. Where did they find people to man 100 billion bulldozers? 70.181.234.41 08:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately?

"In early February 1971, 16,000 (later 20,000) South Vietnamese troops rolled across the Laotian border along Route 9 and headed for the PAVN logistical center at Tchepone. Operation Lam Son 719, the long-sought assault on the Ho Chi Minh trail itself and the ultimate test of the American policy of Vietnamization, had begun.[56] Unfortunately, U.S. forces (with the exception of air support, artillery fire, and helicopter aviation units) were prohibited by law from participation in the invasion.[57]"

"Unfortunately" for who? - Francis Tyers · 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, South Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.184.243 (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

There have never been nations with the official titles of North and South Vietnam. This is an international encyclopedia and as such should strive for historical accuracy and not cater to an American (or anyone elses) POV. RVN and DRV are only mentioned in the opening line of the intro (followed by N & S Vietnam to make the distinction). PAVN and NLF are the official titles of the organizations for which men and women fought, bled, killed, and died - and I'm wiling to go the extra length to identify them with their distinct units. The term Viet Cong was, is, and always will be a derogatory term cooked up by USAID for President Ngo Dinh Diem early in the advisory period. This was done to distinguish the guerrillas (who were then commonly called the Vietminh by the people) from the old nationalists. The US accepted and adopted this practice and, in turn, renamed PAVN the NVA, hoping to deligitimize both (not wanting the term People's Army to confuse the issue).(talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the NLF's own-place article is at "Viet Cong," and that editors there voted strongly in favor of that name, I don't think it makes much sense to use your own preferred terminology on this page. It makes it seem like you have a political axe to grind. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Political axe? How about the historical accuracy of an international, and I reiterate, international, encyclopedia? The lack of historical knowledge that confuses the terms NLF with Viet Cong or conflates them should be corrected, should it not? Or should it be? Perhaps I am not the one with a political axe to grind. Reflect on it.RM Gillespie (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing "or derogatively, Vietcong" is clearly not Neutral Point Of View per Wikipedia guidelines. It appropriates Wikipedia's voice to make a decision on whether the term is derogatory or not. When I search the internet I find that many people believe it's derogatory, but they often don't have a convincing or accurate command of the term's history. If you are going to insist that it's objectively derogative, you should provide a cite. Furthermore you should settle it in the primary NLF article, where many domain experts can weigh in on the subject, so that the verdict is more than just your own opinion. Bvanevery (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.159.30.126, 19 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

please change: "The area through which the system meandered was among the most rugged in Southeast Asia: a sparsely-populated region of rugged mountains (1,500–8,000 feet), triple-canopy jungle and dense primeval rainforest." to "The area through which the system meandered was among the most challenging in Southeast Asia: a sparsely-populated region of rugged mountains (1,500–8,000 feet), triple-canopy jungle and dense primeval rainforest." because the use of 'rugged' twice almost back to back reads poorly. 86.159.30.126 (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Images of the Truong Son Trail

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13476480@N07/sets/72157623953891370/

Takima (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Trường Sơn trail?

I hope no one seriously believes that this subject is called "Trường Sơn trail" in Vietnamese. "Đường Hồ Chí Minh" (Ho Chi Minh Road) gets 47 post-1980 deghosted Vietnamese GBook hits, "Đường Trường Sơn" (Truong Son Road) 26, and "Trường Sơn trail" 2. The first book that pops up is Đường Hồ Chí Minh: con đường huyền thoại (Ho Chi Minh Trail: the Legendary Road). If numbers and book titles don't do it for you, here's a picture. Kauffner (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@Kauffner, what exactly is the point of this comment? "(known in Vietnam as the "Trường Sơn trail")"added to article here to help readers by illustrating the two words which are different from Ho Chi Minh trail. Yes wikt:đường can be "road" or "trail." Which is going to be more helpful in the lede here? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What is "known in Vietnam as" supposed to mean? "Trường Sơn trail" is obviously not the Vietnamese name. The article should open as, "The Ho Chi Minh trail (Vietnamese: Đường Hồ Chí Minh)"....

There is a minor point to be made here. For the sake of internationalization and historical accuracy, there are technically five points of view for naming the trail: American/English (which hasn't changed since the Vietnam War), China/North Vietnamese pre-1975 and post-1975, and South Vietnam pre-1975 and post-1975. I'm not an historical expert, so I don't know what words/glyphs would have actually been used, but at least three of the five would have had different name references. For example, what the V.C. called the trail during the war is likely very different than what Vietnamese writers today would use simply due to the tendency of the "victor" to write the history (here that would mean the weight of historical writings post-1975 will tend to favor the U.S. POV). However, I believe readers and researchers would appreciate knowing all the terms. What name would have been used by the V.C. on written documents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.75.43 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

External links?

I'm used to seeing external links, but supposing there is a reason why this article has none, I'll settle for proposing one here—note the odd punctuation. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Legend of the, Ho Chi Minh trail

The Trail today?

Is anyone interested in knowing the current status of the Trail? Should a section be added for the post 1975 history? User:tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:12, 5 Aug 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a popular motorcycling tour, but is apparently littered with unexploded bombs. Frustratingly I can't find a good single source. It has been largely obliterated by jungle and the Ho Chi Minh Highway. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

A-class status

Personally I doubt this article is close to the A-class status, especially lacking on A1 and A2. Beyond the citation needed issues flagged in the article, an excessive number of the cited sources are close to the US government. This would be excusable if there were no other sources to cite, but a quick Google Scholar search shows that's not the case. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Briticisms need to be corrected.

I have noticed well-meant edits by British editors. Without being churlish, I would like to point out that American usage is indicated for this article. Please do not resent the corrections.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Georgejdorner: please see if this issue has been addressed and, if not, be more specific. The copy edit tag has been removed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: "Tonnes" instead of"tons" used throughout.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

wrongly coded

"" wrongly coded.2603:8000:D300:3650:AD45:E6EE:7A8:8B7C (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. That's intentional, and it's there to mark the page number (127) referenced in the source. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 20:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)