Talk:Battle of Dien Bien Phu

is anyone fluent in french here? the ministry of defense has issued an archive video of GCMA jean sassi's emergency column to dien bien phu (jean sassi + 3 GCMA lieutenants + 15 NCO + 2000 hmong & laotian partisans, later joined by 400 partisans and a bunch of airborne commandos). even though they rescued 150 soldiers who managed to escape from dien bien phu. also an interesting article by famous author Pierre DARCOURT with a quote by Khrushchev from his memoirs: "The situation in Vietnam is desperate [...] if we do not get a cease-fire, the Vietnamese have decided to retreat to the Chinese border"... :| Cliché Online (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

well i guess there's no much cajun here anyway, here's the english subtitled version. Navarre was the best commander ever. Cliché Online (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I updated 'Ten Thousand Day War youtube media link'. Other version on youtube has been removed.Watcher323 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

"A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat." as such the chinese who operated katyushas on may 7 and the us pilots who "SERVICED IN INDOCHINA" are belligerents and MUST be included in the infobox list. there's no way to hide the US participation just because its is US and its is defeat. source is official, a press release from the ambassy and cant be ignored. Cliché Online (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

how is there no order of battle in the article (said "quality" article) despite all unit names being known ? a simple check at the official dien bien phu battle website is enough to establish the order of battle. the french OOB shows the french expeditionary corps(s non-french units incl morroco (which is not france but a protectorate), senegal (again which is not france but a colony called AEF), lao troops (laos was then an independent country with its own army), cambodia (same as laos) and thai (troops from an area the french called "Pays Thai", lit. the land of the Thai). algerian troops were there but were french nationals (even though with "locals") because algeria was fully part of france since 1848 (a bit like corsica today). voilà. Cliché Online (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

better late than later...

• [1]
• [2]

Cliché Online (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The idea that, fourteen years later, the battle of Khe San copied tactically from Dien Bien Phu seems very near entirely irrelevant.

I think I'd like to convert the Khe San section from a section to a single graf pointing at the other article.

--GeePawHill (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Its not irrelevant, Giap was the overall commander of both battles. He either actually intended to try to repeat DBP at Khe Sanh or try to convince the Americans that that was his intention. He certainly managed to convince Westmoreland and Johnson to focus their attention on Khe Sanh while he then launched the Tet Offensive. Mztourist (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not particuarly au fait with wikipedia rules but the sources used to justify, for example, the assertion that prisoners "...were starved, beaten, and heaped with abuse...", seem to me extremely biased and unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.242.192 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Biased and unreliable'?? It is well documented that the Viet Mihn and eventually the Viet Cong used torture and psychological tactics, that to most Western beliefs constitute torture. It is almost common knowledge. The Viet Mihn did not sign (or qualify to sign at the time) the Geneva or Hague Treaties which forbids torture. There is no way to sugar coat the way the author wrote that and the statement "...were starved, beaten, and heaped with abuse...", is about as nice as it can be written. A quick 5 sec search brought me this article http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM

109.70.68.114 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Before you pretend to defend neocolonialism, please learn to spell correctly. There's a reason why it's spelled "Viet Minh" with the "n" before the "h", and not after. It's not arbitrary. Le Anh-Huy (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The starvation, maltreatment and indoctrination are well-documented in both Fall and Windrow's books. Mztourist (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Both Fall and Windrow's books only describe what happened for French soldiers after the battle, but mentioned nothing about the fate of Vietminh's personel or others resistance group in the past which France smited down without mercy. Try to search : Ba Dinh Rebellion, Bai Say Rebellion, Chi Hoa Prison, Con Dao Prison, or even At Dau Famine (which France's colonial gorvement taxes, along with Japanese movement started it) ect... And after that, could anyone give me a reason that why does an army that dominated and pillaged a country over 80 years, commited various crimes (well maybe those crimes was "legally" back then ) now expect their opponent to be merciful to them?

And people's forgot that in Fall's and many other's veterans books mentioned that by the time Vietminh forces took over Dienbienphu, it was not before long till the start of the raining season which come along with choleria, malaria, etc... kind of diseases that would took down an European easily. Also there is some sources mentioned about the "volunteers", which could be thousand of them (this was on the book, not my predict) that was airdropped into the valley shortly before the fall, which described as "foor trained people who only got to know how to open their parachute". These volunteers, along with the mass number of wounded soldiers could become easy prey to tropical diseases. Also there's nothing mentioned about the Vietminh's medical and food supplies, which has always been scacre since the beginning of the war, and a 55-day-long with 55.000 active troops would exhausted their's very own supply. And the coming rain season would also hindered their ability to acquired supply from China and Soviet Union.

About the fate of over 3.000 Vietnamese prisoner, technically they was member of the army of State of Vietnam, not the French Army. So maybe they was not exchanged to the French, but still released after Geneva Agreement. A notable example was ARVN general Pham Van Phu, a Dienbienphu veteran, which fate after the battle could be like many of his Vietnamese mates.

And another fact: Soon after Dienbienphu, some of France's colonies would revold, as Algeria and Morocco, which having key members as veterans of Dienbienphu battle. And after the revolution, the new gorvement would given some memorial like the Hochiminh Avenue in Angola, Burkina Faso and Mozambique, and other's from of remembrance. Would there be any person would do that to someone who "starved, beaten, and heaped with abuse" them?

My point here is not to remove the section, but not to focus entirely on French sources, but also has to mentioned some Vietnamese sources as well. And it was not fair to, purposely or not, for an encylopedia to giving reader's ideas that an army was good (like the picture of a French doctor treating a Vietminh soldier in the First Indochina War article), and their enemy is...this. It wouldn't fair, for either sides. Zeraful ([User talk:Zeraful|talk]) 00:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.194.147 (talk) Reply

I see that you list French dead at 2,293 and wounded at 5,195, but you do not include a confirming note. In my book, Crucible Vietnam, I refer to Bernard B. Fall as my source to support the following statement:

“During the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, French Union Forces were decisively defeated by the Vietminh on the 7th of May 1954, thus ended the 56-day battle into which the French had poured more than 16,000 troops, while suffering 1,293 killed, 5,234 wounded.”

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, p. 17. [Footnoted source: Bernard B. Fall, Hell In A Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. (Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2002), p. 483] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should the introduction section rewrited since it has written mainly about French view? --223.206.180.43 (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the whole article seems to be a view from French, doesn't it? --223.206.180.43 (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Whether it was written from the French view or not, that is highly irrelevant. The Viet Minh won the battle, and nothing could change that now.Canpark (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am reverting this series of consecutive edits by user:CopperSquare the last revision was at 08:29, 11 August 2011 and all were done under the misleading edit summary of "m (minor cleanup)". The edits changed names such as "Dien Bien Phu" to "Điện Biên Phủ", CopperSquare you should be ashamed of yourself using substitute to push through such a change. Our usage here should follow the majority usage in the English language secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the above. This is an ENGLISH-language wikipedia, and that includes using the English alphabet

that is used in Britain, Ireland, North America, Australia, the Philippines, and so forth. This is an alphabet without any excessive diacritical marks such as are found in French, Vietnamese, or Spanish, and no special characters (such as ones with umlauts), such as are found in German, Scandinavian languages, Slavic languages, and Spanish. For example, we do not use the n with a tilde over it as is found in Spanish, or the es-set that is used in German. People need to learn that the English alphabet is a simple one w/o the need of extra "bells and whistles".47.215.188.197 (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is no policy that mandates the use of diacritical marks and they are unnecessary at any rate (see WP:DIACRITIC). To me there are a number of drawbacks with their use and very few if any benefits given that they will be meaningless to the vast majority of our editors and readers who only read and write English. Also as most of our keyboards cannot generate such keys they cause accessibility issues for anyone wishing to contribute material to articles which use them meaning that any text we add will be inconsistent, including some names with the marks and others without. This causes MOS issues which detracts from good / featured content in particular. Anotherclown (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

How is it possible that there were 10,800 French soldiers involved and 11,721 captured? Did they breed during the siege?

NobodyMinus (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I like the idea :) However, it says "as of March 13" for both sides, and the battle ended in May. So, a more likely explanation is that, as the article explains, the French were dropping in or flying in, with varying levels of success, additional troops after March 13. One can also imagine that there were ultimately more than 63,000 Viet personnel involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

They had reinforcements sent in via airdrop as the siege progressed, thus the higher number of captives as opposed to the strength of the original garrison.TH1980 (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The comparison to the American War of Independence seems false, as the colonists were ethnic Europeans. Please consider removing.

Legion is part of the French army, no need to separate it from France. I deleted Legion icon.109.190.97.85 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The cited source for the presence of East German advisors on the side of Democratic Republic of Vietnam holds no evidence to back this claim. As a matter of fact, the cited source is about Western German politics towards Indochina and France's involvement, especially about recruiting thousands to tens of thousands Germans for the French Foreign Legion to fight in Indochina. There are no mentions of East German advisors in Indochina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.180.89 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Parts of this article speak of 'Vo', other parts speak of 'Giap'. I assume all of these refer to the same commander, Vo Nguyen Giap. I understand that Vietnamese names may work differently; I think the usual English short form is 'Giap'. I don't have strong opinions on which to use, but I do think that one short form should be picked and used top to bottom. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The name should be shortened to Giap. I corrected it throughout. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the background to judge this as a source describing the site today -is it useful as an external link? JRPG (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is there a date for it? It seems quite old. I visited Dien Bien Phu in 1996, but understand that a lot of new memorials have been built since then. Mztourist (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can't get a date from viewsource but he refers to 'Today' as 2002 Regards JRPG (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I think if you caption the link with c.2002 it should be fine, if someone has something more up to date they can add it later and possibly delete this link Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I was under the impression that the Japanese army occupied Vietnam through WWII and was ejected by the US army. Which explains why the US was there. Where did the French come from?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberamericans (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Indochina, made up of three historic kingdoms, was a French colony from the 1880s. During the Second World War it was administered by the French collaborationist Vichy regime until the Japanese seized control in March 1945. At Potsdam in July, the Allies decided that Indochina should be restored to France. The Chinese nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek were to accept the Japanese surrender north of the 16th parallel (in what would later become North Vietnam) and the British under Lord Louis Mountbatten's South-East Asia Command would accept the surrender south of that line (in what would later become South Vietnam). In September the British sent in two brigades of the 20th Indian Infantry Division (that is, from the Indian Army, composed of British and Indian units with mostly British officers) under Maj-Gen Douglas Gracie to take control of Saigon, see off the Communist-nationalist Viet Minh guerrillas under Ho Chi Minh and hand over to a French force under the celebrated Gen Philippe Leclerc. Gracie negotiated with the Viet Minh where possible and fought them back if they became a problem, sometimes arming French colonists and Japanese PoWs for the purpose. The handover to the French was accomplished in early 1946. The US Army had nothing to do with it. Truman and Eisenhower later financed and supported the French war against the Viet Minh as part of Washington's anti-Communist strategy. Which didn't work. Kennedy then committed US volunteer troops and helicopter pilots, and Johnson committed vast numbers of conscripts and stupendous air power. Which didn't work either. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031024004709/http://dienbienphu.org:80/ to http://www.dienbienphu.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219033545/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/spotlight/ to http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/spotlight

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Dien Bien Phu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205042612/http://dienbienphu.org/ to http://www.dienbienphu.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Currently, the end of the introductory text reads like this:

"The refusal of Ngô Đình Diệm (the US-supported President of the first Republic of Vietnam (RVN)) to allow elections in 1956, as had been stipulated by the Geneva Conference, eventually led to the first phase of the Second Indochina War. This is better known as the Vietnam War, which was waged largely by the United States after 1963."

In my opinion this sounds a bit pedantic. Why not revise this as follows:

"The refusal of Ngô Đình Diệm (the US-supported President of the first Republic of Vietnam (RVN)) to allow elections in 1956, as had been stipulated by the Geneva Conference, eventually led to the Vietnam War."

Thoughts, anyone?TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I concur too.Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done. Thanks, everyone, for your feedback.TH1980 (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why is this part phrased in such a manner? It is divise and reeks of politics. The rest of the article isn't headlined "Men at Dien Bien Phu", to better illustrate my problem. A more fitting headline, and subject, would be "Non-combatants at Dien Bien Phu" or something along those lines, and the subject should be broader than for whatever reason shoe-horning in a subtopic about women at the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.83.139 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Eastfarthingan reverted my edit to the infobox. Now, I do not dispute that the statements there are generally true. However, the Template:Infobox military conflict states that the parameter is for the "immediate" result of the battle; and explicitly discourages the use of terms like "decisive".

While I do not doubt that the result of the battle determined the result of the war, the peace negotiations were still independent of it and their result wasn't an "immediate" outcome of this battle. I still think that a link to the "aftermath" section is most appropriate here and in line with the template guidelines. However, I'd rather take it here than to go into a needless edit war... --Averell (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello Averel do you have any sources that back up your claim? Dien Bien Phu's outcome was supplemental to what happened at Geneva and vice versa. Historians have made that link many times over. Regards Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Eastfarthingan, I do not doubt that. I do know the battle was consequential to ending the war - that is why I included the link to the "aftermath" section where all of this is explained. Still, I do not think that the it was an "immediate" result of the battle (an "immediate" result would be something like "invasion repelled").

Template:Infobox military conflict strongly suggests to only use the standard phrase "X victory", plus an eventual link to a section. This is done, for example at Battle of Leyte Gulf or Battle of Midway - which, despite their significance only use the "X victory" phrase, and nothing more. --Averell (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would be good if we can get a consesus on this as historians have viewed the battle as a hinge for the geneva conference. In addtion the battles you mention Midway & Letye were fought during the middle of the war, so there isnt really a comparison. Dien Bien Phu can be made as a comparision to other battles which resulted in the end of the war. Ie Waterloo, Castillion or Pavia which still have their decisive status. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

I checked the history of the infobox template. Apparently using "decisive" was the guidance until the end of 2017, when the guidelines were changed. There was some discussion preceding that change at the template and relevant Wikiprojects, so I assume that there was at least some consensus for the current usage. I'm not surprised to find "decisive" if it was per guidance until a year and a half ago... --Averell (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Eastfarthingan: - how do you suggest we proceed from here? As far as I understand, you reject my edit because you assume that the current text is correct, and should only be changed if there if we find consensus that it isn't. I also assume that the battle was pivotal, but despite this the box should use the standard phrasing which is in line with the template guidance. I also showed that there was consensus on the guidance (which intentionally advises again "decisive"). From my point of view, nothing is taken away from the article -- the information is still there, and easily reachable.

I'd also like to have a consensus, but my first question would be: On what? Do you want consensus on wether the battle was decisive? We already have that: It most likely was. Or would you like additional consensus on whether to use the standard phrasing for the result box, even if the battle was decisive and pivotal in ending the war?

If it is the second, how would you say we reach consensus given that there are only the two of us? Averell (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well that is what a consensus is for, if we have to wait then that is the case, therwise you can take it to template infobx talkpage. Like I said if you can provide sources that states that Dien Bien Phu wasn't decisive then I'd be happy to change the result. Your last response also didn't warrant an answer; and reading it again looked like you agreed with the current status. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well, maybe we had a misunderstanding there - I took your lack of response as an agreement with the outcome of the template discussion. I'm happy to let the article stand as long as we resolve this.

From my point of view, a consensus was reached at the template infobox talk page (which apparently included the MILHIST project). The consensus was to deprecate the "decisive" modifier for every battle. That is, regardless of wether it actually was decisive or not.

This is why I was reluctant to take this back to the infobox talk, because the topic had already been discussed. However, if we have an disagreement about the infobox usage, we should probably take it there - after all, the whole point of the guidance is to ensure that the template is applied consistently. Averell (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Perfect, let's see if we can get others involved too. I understand the need for the infobox is consistent with other articles under the same guidelines - eg Lepanto, Waterloo, Sedan, 100 Days. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

-> Module talk:Infobox military conflict/Archive 5#Guidance/Dispute on using the "result" field

The infobox is not the place for detail or nuance. The infobox documentation deprecates the use of anything but a simple statement of which side won, which means no "decisive" and no bullet points. As a guideline, MILMOS states the same with a little more authority. MOS:LEAD also applies here; specifically the lead, of which the infobox is a part, should summarise the main body of the article, yet nowhere in the Aftermath section is there any specific coverage of sources' discussion of the decisiveness, or otherwise, of the battle. Finally, the three bullet points listed under the result are consequences not results. Factotem (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The RS decide if it was decisive and bullet points are otiose. Keith-264 (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The bullet points I think should be removed, there is more info in the lede about how decisive the battle was than there is the aftermath. I could tweak it to make the points from the lede in the aftermath or just repeat and CE info in aftermath. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

No adjective, no bullet points.; keep it simple. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

My comments are:

1. I reiterate the comments by Factotem
2. At no point in the body of the article is the word "decisive" used. This suggests that the usage of the term is unsourced and the result of analysis/synthesis. The result in the infobox should reflect sources (plural).
3. The term, "decisive", can have different meanings/interpretations for readers and writers. An historian, if using the term will invariably qualify why they view it as "decisive". This is nuance. A statement of "decisive victory" lacks nuance. Without nuance, there is a (potential) disjunction between intended meaning and interpretation.
4. "Other stff exist" is not an "inherently" good arguement. WP was not built in a day.

Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion kind of reinforces my view that the infobox guidance represents a wider consensus; which is supported by the template guidelines, MILMOS and the majority of comments here. However, User:El C and User:Eastfarthingan still seem attached to the status quo: [3][4] - note that those weren't any edits of mine.

User:Eastfarthingan, from what you wrote above you seemed to be at least okay with removing the bullet points. Would you be willing to do that? Then this would at least partially resolved.

As far as as "decisive" goes: From a "policy" standpoint it is, to me, very clear that it should never be used. From a personal standpoint, I don't care _that_ much. At least not to the point where I will endlessly discuss a single word in a single infobox on a matter of principle. The whole point of why you should not use "decisive", ever, in the infobox, was in order to avoid discussions like this. If leaving "decisive" ends the discussion here, so be it.

It would be great if we could pull the bullet points at least, as everybody seems to agree on that part and then at least something productive has come out of this. Averell (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, bullet points should be removed; the article has enough info to prove that is does not need them. This is explained in detail both in the lede and the body itself. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Averell (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• General Staff in Battle of Dien Bien Phu.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

One or more IP users made several unhelpful edits that apparently went unnoticed. Some were just minor wording changes, but some, like this edit change information and even delete references for the original. I don't think that someone will semi-protect at this point, but maybe someone can look into new edits every once in a while. 19:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The trench warfare section contains the amateurish run-on sentence

"During a period of stalemate from 15 April to 1 May, the French intercepted enemy radio messages which told of whole units refusing orders to attack, and Viet Minh prisoners in French hands said that they were told to advance or be shot by the officers and non-commissioned officers behind them,[79] much like Stalin's "Not A Step Back!" decree of WWII, under which troops were compelled to advance even in the face of withering enemy fire, and were strictly forbidden to retreat without orders."

I would advise an extensive re-write to at least make this a more pleasant read. I'd also call into question the need to even reference Stalin and WW2. Nothing of value seems to be added, and the overall flow of the paragraph seems better as follows:

During a period of stalemate from 15 April to 1 May, the French intercepted enemy radio messages which told of whole units refusing orders to attack, and Viet Minh prisoners in French hands said that they were told to advance or be shot by the officers and non-commissioned officers behind them.[79] Worse still, the Viet Minh lacked advanced medical treatment and care, with one captured fighter stating that, "Nothing strikes at combat-morale like the knowledge that if wounded, the soldier will go uncared for".

While the comparison does bear minor relevance, one can imagine every Vietnam war article being gummed up with references to similarities to America's more recent wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. The comparisons would not be without justification, but they add little value to the article subject that is at hand. The removal of the reference to WW2 does not subtract from the point that Viet Minh troops were pushed to the breaking point and were suffering serious morale problems. If anything the sudden switch of focus to the eastern front of ww2 makes this less clear.

I misread your edit - that you were adding rather than deleting. Apologies. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

According to Fall there was a Polish guy named Stefan Kubiak who had deserted from the Legion and joined the Viet Minh. After proving himself to them in '50-'51 he was, (again, according to Fall), "adopted" by Ho and given the name "Ho Chi Thuan." As much as I am sure the wiki does not want to drown in the minutia of battalion level commanders from a single battle it does seem noteworthy. 96.240.128.124 (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Research him and create a page. Mztourist (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

This article was promoted back in 2006, it has some issues now that I think need addressing. I've placed some tags and done a little cleanup but here's where we stand:

• A lot of unsourced text, including much of the trivial "In popular culture" section and the entirety of the "Battlefield" section
• Mix of citation styles
• Text could use some consolidation into sensible paragraphs.
• Use of some less than optimal sources, such as History.com
• Vagueness, example: Before the battle started both British and American missions visited Diên Biên Phu, to complete an assessment and left. An assessment of what?
• In places where conflicting historian's accounts are mentioned, there seems to be discussions of things historians did not write about...which unless mentioned in another source, is a WP:OR violation. Example: Jules Roy, however, makes no mention of this event, and Martin Windrow argues that the "paratrooper putsch" is unlikely to have ever happened. Both historians record that Langlais and Marcel Bigeard were known to be on good terms with their commanding officer. This statement is only cited to Windrow, and I have a suspicion that Windrow was not discussing the views of the other historians there. It could be fine, but needs to be checked.
• POV violations and unattributed opinions of normative judgements, example: The choice of de Castries as the local commander at Điện Biên Phủ was, in retrospect, a bad one. According to who?

These issues need to be fixed if the article is to retain its status. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Plenty of books say the casulties of Viet Minh was 23,000 killed or wounded. Why this article said it was estimate by french? Waylon1104 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The source cited is: Stone, David (2004). Dien Bien Phu. I cannot view the source page. However, the article would attribute this as a French estimate because Stone would make a similar attribution. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

'Howard Simpson' links to 'Howard Woodworth Simpson' (8 May 1892 – 4 November 1963) was a pioneering American Automobile automotive engineer. The author of 'Dien Bien Phu: The Epic Battle America Forgot' is another person. 86.93.67.125 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed Checked. Definitely not the correct link. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

How many former Wehrmacht and Waffen SS soldiers fought in this battle? 2001:9E8:CACD:6300:D1F8:D5E5:5C85:57C8 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply