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

Lead sentence format

Moved to Talk:Fall of Phnom Penh § RfC on lede wording

 – RfC reopened there Dw31415 (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

As of October, this article had good opening sentence that avoided redundancy of “The fall … was the capture” (see MOS Redundancy). It seems that we should have a wider RfC (this issue was discussed at Fall of Phnom Penh. This page was changed and reverted after it was mentioned in the Phnom Penh discussion Dw31415 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Clintville and Cinderella157: Dw31415 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Mztourist and Daniel Case: Dw31415 (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I have restored the previous language which was stable for many years. The changes in October did not make it "good". MOS:FIRST applies. I can't believe that we are wasting so much time debating over the city name being repeated. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems like the best course is to reopen the RfC to move forward. I didn’t realize the redundancy was eliminated in August, I thought it was predating that. It seems like a discussion worth having if the MOS expressly, in my opinion, suggests avoiding redundancy as an exception to MOS:First. Dw31415 (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Clintville has rinstated a 3 month old version without edit summary and when revered, reinstated it with the summary: That's how it was before. That really isn't a substantive reason for the edits (see WP:STONEWALLING). While I have said that their edit was "not an improvement", I might have also referred to MOS:REDUNDANCY.
  MOS:First links to a level 2 heading within the MOS. MOS:REDUNDANCY is a level 3 heading within that section that deals with contexts that are a specific exception to the general advice in the initial part of MOS:FIRST. There is no inconsistency to be resolved here. In making the change in August, Daniel Case made the edit summary: Rewrite lede to avoid MOS:REDUNDANCY (what else could “the fall of” mean other than a city’s military defeat) ... The original statement was: The fall of Saigon was the capture of the capital of South Vietnam [Saigon]... [italics added for emphasis]. This is tautology: effectively "saying the same thing twice". Tautology is redundant language and MOS:REDUNDANCY applies. While it might be possible to craft a first sentence that bolds the article title without redundancy, as a binary choice, the guidance is clear as to which version is consistent with guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a tautology. MOS:FIRST states that the first sentence explains the title. The title is the fall of Saigon and so explaining that fall of Saigon means the capture of Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam by the North Vietnam ending the Vietnam War is what must be and is explained. The repetition of Saigon is trivial in the context of the explanation. Mztourist (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The 2011 Mississippi River floods page is one of the examples given in the MOS. Is there a compelling reason “the fall” of a city is different and deserves some exception to REDUNDANCY? Dw31415 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of anyone being confused by what "fall of" means? "Explains the title" is not (ahem) synonymous with "use a synonym for it". "Fall of" does not, for 99.9% of readers, need further explication. I have, from your repeated restatements of your position, gleaned no insights as to why it might reasonably be possible to conclude otherwise.

If it really is the case that we need to use every possible variation on the title in the lede, well, that's why we have redirects. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"Fall of" has at least 3 slightly different meanings: (1) physical collapse of a structure e.g. the Fall of the Berlin Wall (both a structure and a system); (2) capture of a place (e.g. Singapore, Berlin, Phnom Penh, Saigon, Kabul etc.); (3) decline and collapse of a political system or empire (western Roman Empire, Assad Regime). I don't need to prove confusion and you cannot prove that 99.9% of readers need no further explanation. Mztourist (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are "slightly different", yes, but you are eliding the fact that in sentences, words and phrases are not used in isolation. Thus, they have this wonderful thing called context, that clears up what was intended without having to explicitly make clear what was meant in the sentence.

The only confusion you're proving is your own. Or rather your own obstinacy. Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Context that is immediately apparent in the first sentence? I don't think so. Watch it with the comments as you are getting close to personal attacks. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted my closure at Talk:Fall_of_Phnom_Penh#RfC_on_lede_wording. I suggest we take the discussion over there first and see if consensus emerges there. @Cinderella157, @Mztourist, @Daniel Case Dw31415 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

"Among most overseas Vietnamese"

No idea if this is true, but "most overseas Vietnamese" sounds a bit speculative, given that "most overseas" sentiment is likely not particularly homogenous, given that they are in different countries.

The reference links to an example but that example does not provide adequate basis for "most overseas".

Would suggest either it is reworded to "Among some overseas", potentially making reference to "overseas south Vietnamese" or keeping it if there is a more robust international opinion measure of overseas Vietnamese ~2026-44139-1 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed Cinderella157 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2026

I would like a small revision to the introduction. Please change "...its predecessor (1949-1975)" to "...its predecessor (1949–1975)"

~2026-17815-62 (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done InfernoHues (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)