This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vietnam Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Buddhism Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The current title (Buddhist crisis) is very broad and not reflective of actual content. I suggest moving the article to 1963 Coup in South Vietnam, which is a lot more specific and highlights the political situation which dominated the events discussed. Johnfos (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the coup. It's about the unrest that the preceded it. The coup is already covered in 1963 South Vietnamese coup. Charles Essie (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Buddhist crisis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "j2634":

• From Huế chemical attacks: Jones, pp. 263–264.
• From Đỗ Cao Trí: Jones, pp. 263-64.

Reference named "h136":

• From Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ: Hammer, p. 136
• From Đỗ Cao Trí: Hammer, p. 136.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reword The fact that the South Vietnamese government was anti-Buddhist remains unproven. to The fact that the South Vietnamese government was anti-Buddhist remains controversial. to avoid adding a (somewhat unavoidable) political nuance to this sentence. There was obviously some kind of tension - whether it was justified or not should not be part of the encyclopaedia article. Eventually, you can probably give the two viewpoints and cite the UN report. Mmom (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "forced conversions, looting, shelling and demolition of pagodas occurred" (Fall, The Two Viet-Nams, p. 199) is a complete falsification. Nothing resembling this statement appears anywhere in the book. I'm just noting it here since several wiki articles have repeated this fraud. Greenknight dv (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]