This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
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 articles
First Indochina War is part of WikiProject Cambodia, a project to improve all Cambodia-related articles. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group on Wikipedia, aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Cambodia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.CambodiaWikipedia:WikiProject CambodiaTemplate:WikiProject CambodiaCambodia articles
I'm looking for the best picture or any informations about the KAF's U-6 (Beaver). It seem that the KAF had 3 aircrafts.
But in 1971, during the viet cong's sapper attack at the Pochentong Air Base,at least 1 Beaver was destroyed.In 1972
at leat 1 Beaver was refurbished with a new engine.
http://www.khmerairforce.com/AAK-KAF/AVNK-AAK-KAF/Cambodia-Beaver-KAF.JPG
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is about a topic whose name is originally rendered in the Lao script; however the article does not have that version of its name in the article's lead paragraph. Anyone who is knowledgeable enough with the original language is invited to assist in adding the Lao script. For more information, see: MOS:FOREIGN.
@Bumbubookworm: and also @Laska666:, In response to these edits, and to a lesser extend these comments on Laska666' talk page about this edit, I don't think that this section was adding undue weight by covering racism during this period, especially since some scholars agree that racism is often discussed in the context of this war ("McHale concludes racial violence and race issues during the First Indochina War which often seen as marginal, outside the mainstream scholarship"). The comment "This section was even longer the Geneva Conference section" isn't an argument for full exclusion either, the section itself can be made appropriately short and the rest could be migrated to the article "Racism in Vietnam".
For this reason I decided to restore the first paragraph and restore the stuff you removed to the "Racism in Vietnam" article together with the racist South Vietnamese government policies, a lot has been written about the topic of racism in Vietnam and unfortunately not that much is covered on Wikipedia, but while I agree that that section was too long there, I don't think that the whole section should be removed purely because of either its length or the topic involved, especially since there's discussion about the topic by scholars both inside and outside of Vietnam. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I wrote this down here, but I've noticed a weird trend where some editors claim that "Undue weight" means including a large amount of content that is well established and covered off-wiki but that here after its inclusion becomes longer than other sections, the Geneva Conference has its own Wikipedia article and it wouldn't make sense to add a very long section here on a topic that already has its own article at the English-language Wikipedia, also it makes even less sense to then remove the entire section rather than condensing it or re-writing it to only stick to the relevant points. If our standard of including new content on Wikipedia is "Does it already have an existing Wikipedia article?" Then we'd never be able to add anything. And the reason why the "Racism" section was now moved to the "French Union" section is because "the abbreviated version" excludes a lot of the more nuanced subtleties of the racism debate about this war and only mentions outright xenophobia. This doesn't really benefit the readers at all. In the earlier version the section at least linked to more context and subtleties, now it's essentially only about Vietnamese xenophobia, that is almost an entirely different (sub-)topic that rather than provides a wider context narrows the debate down to only one small aspect of it.
If you feel that a topic is "Undue weight" because of its size it is wiser to simply cut the parts that make it "too detailed" to make it shorter and only include "the relevant parts", but cutting out a section in its entirety (as the editor in question seems to do wherever they can if they perceive something as "Undue weight") doesn't benefit anyone, it cuts relevant content for the sake of lending prominence to subject matters already discussed by excluding all other relevant aspects of the same topic. --Donald Trung (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a new problem for Wikipedia. "Undue weight" has also been used to censor entire aspects of an individual's life and career from his/her article, and to remove widely known minority views from the descriptions of various topics. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the picture with the context: "General Lu Han", the Lu Han page redirects to a popular singer in the modern day. Could be a vandal made by somebody (or could be a placeholder if there aren't any articles for that general), if somebody with the power to remove it, please remove it and provide us with the correct link (If there isn't any, still remove that link and provide with a non-existent page). The picture is located at "After the surrender of Japan" minisection at the "Background section". Thank you and goodbye. 2402:800:61D3:B56A:91E4:9E36:8CF:D148 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
