Talk:Vietnam/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Not very neutral

I think the Vietnam article is not very neutral:

• The focus on the American War.
• The slightly narrow view of the events leading to the end of this war.
• The part about grunding concessions of old commies, and the implied wonders of the free market.

Was this cut from the CIA factbook? This is the main article for the country, and in my opinion it should treat both its history and its current politics with respect. If nobody objects, I'd like to throw it out and write new one. -- Zork

Actually the Vietnam War should be a distinct topic - Vietnam should be about Vietnam, as you pointed out. - MMGB

"Vietnam is a country, not a war" - as Le Van Bang, Former Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States, once stated. regards, Olivia Summer 30 June 2005 19:13 (UTC)

____

Vietnam's early history is much like its rececnt history - characterized by its continous struggle for autonomy. The progressive and capitalistic proclivities of the Vietnamese people is a product of its history, which includes war.

The opening sentence "Vietnam's history has never been studied carefully." - is the most obvious error the the article.

[user: tbird Nov. 9, 2005]

---

What, no History of Vietnam??? — Toby Bartels, Monday, June 24, 2002

Post a new link like Vietnam/hitory or History of Vietnam on the page and thorough account should be on the new page. The current page seems to focus on history and should be adjusted to cover all aspects, e.g. political, economical, tranportion, geography etc. Ktsquare, Monday June 24 2002

I figured it out. It is indeed taken from The CIA World Fact Book, verbatim, at least on the main page. And the CIA, which afer all often repeats it, apparently forgot about history. I'll add a link to such a page (which I can't fill out, I'm afraid), but this still needs to be rewritten with input from other sources. Toby Bartels, Friday, June 28, 2002

---

Also france don´t hold Vietnam until 54, I was driven out by japanesse trops , and later try to recover dominance, with the help of USA. Cuye

---

Still, Vietnam's history on this page shouldn't be wholly focus in the 1900s. The history is just too 'warish.'

---

As Wikipedians have been told again and again, The CIA World Fact Book is not always the gospel truth and is not superior to Wikipedia and therefore people should use it as part of their research when editing, not copy and pasting verbatim from its pages.

Hi there,

I think the political need to be rewrite a little bit to reflect the CURRENT economic of VN. There is loooooooooooooooooooooong way since Asia economy crisis and we had many achivement (<-- I spell wrong) such as the stock market exchange and start to sell off (stock) some "blue chip" company such as Vinamilk (though it's only 30%). Some kraze folk even aim to become an offical member of WTO in 2005.

---

What does this mean? sounds like an incomplete sentence:

on grounds that Ho Chi Minh will have a significant support in the north, basically because they tried to implement a massive agrarian reform that result in over one million people left North Vietnam to re-settle in the South to avoid persecution and blood shed. The Communist Party encouraged poor peasants gaining ownerships of the land by putting all the landlords on public trials and executions. The South refused to abide to the Geneva Conference was declared a Republic, because, under Ho Chi Minh and his government, North Vietnamese people did not have freedom to choose and decide their votes. --θαλαμηγός (talk) 13:53, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

Need not to say this statement is plain incorrect: "The South refused to abide to the Geneva Conference was declared a Republic, because, under Ho Chi Minh and his government, North Vietnamese people did not have freedom to choose and decide their votes."

Even American history books points out that the US established a puppet government in the South, ignored the Geneva agreement, for they know that Ho Chi Minh and his party would sure win if the election was held.

Wrong Spelling

I think this article should be listed under Viet Nam, instead of Vietnam. The latter is a Western mispelling; there is no "Vietnam" any more than there is a "Greatbritain" or a "Unitedstatesofamerica". I realize that the wrong spelling will attract most of the traffic, but a simple redirect will take care of that, just as it does when (the way it is now) people search for "Viet Nam". - Yossarian4010

The general consensus seems to be that articles should be named by the most common English usage, and "Vietnam" (rightly or wrongly) is the standard English usage. You could argue that there is no Hungary, just Magyarország, or that there is no Finland, just Suomi, but we still call the articles Hungary and Finland. Moreover, achieving the correct Vietnamese spelling of the name isn't actually possible - to be fully correct, we'd need to put in the accent and tone mark (giving Việt Nam), which I don't think we can do in page titles without breaking things. I would recommend that the English Wikipedia continues to use the standard English name for Vietnam, just as the Vietnamese Wikipedia uses Anh instead of England. -- Vardion 02:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. However, Viet Nam is not obscure (to English readers) like Magyarország and needs no special characters like Việt Nam. The two-word rendering is "more correct" without completely leaving Western convention - sort of like the difference between labor and labour; which you use depends on convention, but both are equally legible and acceptable, so you pick the one that suits you.

Personally, I think insisting on the two-word spelling is "better", but I'm guessing not too many people would agree with me as far as Wikipedia usage goes; "Vietnam" is too often-used. -- Yossarian4010 17:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The two-word spelling is clear and more correct than the one-word spelling, so it should be preferred. At least it should be aknowledged in the article.

• What confuses me is that the article Việt Nam redirects to the incorrect spelling of Vietnam. It should be the other way around as this is patently incorrect. We should likewise redirect Viet Nam to the appropriate article. This way we accomodate the common vernacular, we might learn people somethin' while we're at it, and we eliminate the hassle of escape characters in URLs. --MichaelAhlers 14:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Viet Nam" returns almost 100,000 more Google hits than "Vietnam" and is also the name used in the U.N. I think this should be moved, as, in this case, the official use appears demonstably more common. Pelegius 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

Why are these links being removed repeatedly?

 [http://www.vov.org.vn/Defaultv.htm VOV News]
 [http://www.vnn.vn/ Vietnam NET]	 
 [http://www.asinah.net/vietnam.html Vietnam Guide]

I'm just asking--I actually reverted an anonymous user's changes because he/she removed them. --Ardonik 20:30, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The user who most recently removed them is Celindgren. I've been discussing NPOV, and the notion of annotating one's edits in order to justify them, with him on his talk page. I've restored them for now, and we can only hope the next editor will be more informative. Looking at those links, though... Vietnam Guide appears to be non-functional, and I'm not sure Voice of Vietnam News (a radio station) is really appropriate for a main article like this. I can't tell about Vietnam NET because I don't speak the language. —Hob←Talk 00:10, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

where to discuss exile groups?

I removed the following text from Politics, added by Tran Van Ba who has added similar references to a large number of Vietnam-related articles:

H.I.H. Prince Regent Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is the President of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League an organization that is politically pressure the Communist Government in Vietnam to peacefully form a transitional government for Vietnam so a democratic dual party system guarantee Freedom of Religion, Liberty and Rights of the people of Vietnam.

Grammar and spelling aside, this group has never been a political player in Vietnam (as far as I can tell, it was formed by Bao Dai during his exile in Paris) so it obviously doesn't belong in Politics. But should it get a mention somewhere in History of Vietnam... although its members are not in Vietnam? It seems to be mostly a public-relations group for claimants to the Nguyen Dynasty lineage, but it's hard to find reliable information apart from Celindgren's extremely POV edits. —Hob←Talk 23:50, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

where to discuss exile groups? ANSWER BELOW

Hello Hob, The Vietnamese Monarchist League Led my Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh has members in Vietnam that are poltically pressuring the government. There has been a crackdown on his poltical movement in Vietnam and followers arrested. Please email me I could have answered your questions before you just took off my addition that was neutral to cover post steps of the spectrum of politics in Vietnam. Tran_Van_ba@hotmail.com User Talk Tran Van Ba

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnam"

== where to discuss exile groups? ==ANSWER

Hello Hob, The Vietnamese Monarchist League Led my Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh has members in Vietnam that are poltically pressuring the government. There has been a crackdown on his poltical movement in Vietnam and followers arrested. Please email me I could have answered your questions before you just took off my addition that was neutral to cover post steps of the spectrum of politics in Vietnam. Tran_Van_ba@hotmail.com User Talk Tran Van Ba

ideas for new sections

I think the section on the history of Vietnam should begin with the Hu kings and end with current day. Entries on Vietnamese literature and poetry, religion, and culture under communisim would make for a richer entry on Vietnam. I think also an entry on the American perspective of Vietnam would be interesting. Also a recommend reading for people interested in Vietnam would be interesting.

Vietnam vs. Viet Nam

===> Issue: I took the page at Vietnam, and copied it to Viet Nam, since the latter name is more proper. Once I did that, I made "Vietnam" a redirect to "Viet Nam." What is the problem with this? It is perfectly legitimate and proper since:

1. "Viet Nam" is the prefered and proper nomenclature, and
2. The more common spelling will simply redirect to the proper spelling.

No harm done, and the integrity of their name is kept. If we used the "more common name" as the rule, then "Côte d'Ivoire" would redirect to "Ivory Coast", not vice versa. To make "Viet Nam" (the proper name) redirect to "Vietnam" (the common name), while "Ivory Coast" (the common name) redirects to "Côte d'Ivoire" (the proper name) is inconsistent, and mildly disrespectful. It would be equivalent to making "Thailand" redirect to "Siam" rather than vice-versa, the "Vietnam" spelling is not used by the native population: we know better, so we should act better. If I did, in fact, break any rules by copying/redirecting the pages, I apologize, but this seems the most rational and respectful solution. Correct me if I'm wrong. Justin (koavf) 19:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for whoever worked out the Ivory Coast title, but I'm afraid that unless there's a majority in favour of making an exception, policy is to use the most common name in English, and that's "Vietnam" (whether it should be or not). If you disagree with this policy, I suggest taking it up at the appropriate policy page (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), perhaps?). If the policy is changed, or if you can convince people to make an exception here, the page can be moved, but without such a mandate, general policy favours the most common English name.

The reason for this, I suppose, is the question of who decides what is "correct". Some cases may be simple, but there can be very large arguments over the "proper" name for places — witness the arguement over Danzig/Gdansk, for example. The "most common name" rule provides a clear guideline without getting into debate about what is correct. There would be plenty of people who agree with you, and support "Viet Nam", but there would also be plenty of people who disagree, and say that "Vietnam" is established and correct in English. Without the most common name rule, there would be constant dispute as to what the "proper" title should be.

(I also respectfully disagree that using "Vietnam" is disrespectful — the Vietnamese call the United States "danh từ", not the "United States", so should Americans be offended?)

--- Pardon me, but something is wrong with your vietnamese, "danh từ"," means noun, and we call the US Hoa Ky` or My~ ---

(And also, if you do want to move the page again, please don't just copy-and-paste it into the other article — that messes up the page history, making it harder for people to see who wrote what. It's better to use the "Move" function, although you'd need an Administrator to do that if there's something already present at the intended destination.)

-- Vardion 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopaedia, and therefore must use the most common English name for any country. There is nothing disrespectful about this. We call Deutschland Germany and Bharat India, so we should call Viet Nam Vietnam. (Cote d'Ivoire is an anomaly - the English name is Ivory Coast, but the government has specifically requested that Cote d'Ivoire be used, and the UN and most English-language media have complied). Adam 22:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===> Response: Thanks for your input, but I still have to disagree. I do not think that the English short-form name should be the standard for naming the articles/redirects, plus I also think it is not the standard by which we name articles currently. If that were the case:

1. Myanmar would be under Burma.
2. Republic of Ireland would be under Ireland.
3. Republic of Macedonia would be under Macedonia.
4. People's Republic of China would be under China.
5. Republic of China would be under Taiwan.
6. United Kingdom would be under England.

Please don't get me wrong - I understand that "Ireland" and "China" refer to historical entities that are broader geographically that the states which share their names, but if "English, short-form name" was the standard, that would be where the articles would be found. "Republic of Macedonia" and "Myanmar" are relatively obscure names compared to the common alternatives, and at least "Viet Nam" and "Vietnam" are pronounced the same; there would be no ambiguity, whereas "Myanmar" and "Burma" aren't apparently the same country based simply on their names. Furthermore, while I also understand that "England" is not the same as "United Kingdom" that is still a common misconception among Americans, and it is the name that is used to refer to the political entity located in Britain and Ireland, even if that name is erroneous. To those who cry "foul" and say, "Well, people from England are English-speaking, and they don't get the names wrong," that simply proves that the short-form English name is useless as a standard, since there is no consensus on the short-form name. If the common short-form name redirected to the appopriate name, then it would be a simple and effective way of educating people on how properly to refer to certain political entities. As it stands, I still charge that the standard is applied inconsistently and arbitrarily right now. Plus, to address the issue of translation raised by Adam, in the case of Viet Nam, the name isn't translated or changed in any way other than simple Romanization. Plus, as best as I understand your argument, your point is irrelevant, because I'm not advocating changing any articles to foreign-language titles that are unintelligible to English-speaking Wikipedians. The alternative that I'm proposing is a more appropriate spelling that is still Romanized, and I would still include a redirect from the more common (inaccurate) spelling to the less common (more accurate) spelling. Although, I may be missing the more germane point of your objection, and if so, please forgive me for my dullness. Justin (koavf) 02:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You say: "I do not think that the English short-form name should be the standard for naming the articles/redirects." To which I can only reply: well, it is the standard, and this article like all others will have to comply. The analogies you give are not very helpful. Myanmar and Burma are alternative names for the same country. Ireland is a geographical expression, and the island of Ireland contains two countries which need to be disambiguated. The articles for Macedonia, China and Taiwan do in fact appear under those names. No informed person thinks that "England" is the correct name for the UK. I agree that there is not much difference between "Viet Nam" and "Vietnam." But the fact is that the latter is the standard English spelling (34 million Google hits against 7 million for Viet Nam), and is therefore the form Wikipedia uses. Adam 02:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response: Macedonia does not go to the state of Macedonia anymore than Ireland goes to the state of Ireland. No "informed" person calls "Côte d'Ivoire" "Ivory Coast." Plus, "Vietnam" and "Viet Nam" (similar to Burma/Myanmar) are alternative spellings for the same country - that explanation still doesn't address the fundamental issue of "most common name (in the English-speaking population)." The most common name for that region is Burma, not Myanmar, so the standard is applied capriciously, as far as I can tell. I still don't see the harm in making "Vietnam" the redirect to "Viet Nam" since users will arrive at the relevant information, and moreover, I do see the benefit in doing so, as it will help to communicate the issue of appropriate/accurate/precise naming/spelling conventions in an efficient manner. I stand by my earlier assertions, and I've e-mailed a few administrators asking for their opinions on a page move, and directed them to this talk page. Again, even though I disagree with your assessment, I appreciate your input (especially on the page move procedure). Thank you kindly. Justin (koavf) 03:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

'Vietnam -> Viet Nam' - nope, not going to happen. By far, the most common spelling in English is Vietnam. Compare Google searches for "Viet nam" (Google even asks 'Did you mean: "Vietnam"') vs Vietnam. 'Vietnam' gets about 4 times as many hits as 'Viet Nam'. This is also in conformance with our common name naming convention. --mav 00:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to mav: The Google issue was brought up in the post before mine, and I didn't find it persuasive then, either. I don't know that your post really addresses my two objections: 1.) we shouldn't use the short-form conventional name, and 2.) that we currently don't actually use said convention in a consistent manner. Justin (koavf) 01:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

The answers to those two points are 1.) Well we do, and 2.) We should try to. The Google stats are persuasive because they show us what the current English usage is, and that is the decisive consideration. Adam 03:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to Adam: Then, to be consistent, are you going to suggest reverting "Côte d'Ivoire" to "Ivory Coast", or "Myanmar" to "Burma"? I think not. I'm trying to be consistent, respectful, and accessible to users (which is not to imply that you are trying to be capricious, disrespectful, and inefficient). As I see it, the best way to be all three in regards to this article is to make "Vietnam" redirect to "Viet Nam", not vice-versa. Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that the policy as implemented is anything other than arbitrary, although I'm willing to admit that there may be something that I'm missing here. No doubt, you are the more experienced Wikipedian, and maybe there is something here I just don't get, but I still don't see a justification of how the policy as it is currently implemented is anything other than arbitrary, and less respectful and helpful to users than the alternative that I am proposing. For those interested, I have received no response from the administrators that I e-mailed. Justin (koavf) 05:01, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have explained already that Cote d'Ivoire is an exception to the "use English" rule because the government of Cote d'Ivoire has requested that the French form be used and the UN and most English-language media have complied, so Cote d'Ivoire now is the standard English name of the country. The situation with Myanmar and Burma is more complicated, because Myanmar is the Burmese-language name of the country but also the form the Burmese regime uses. Opponents of the regime therefore refuse to call the country Myanmar. My view is that Wikipedia should call the country Burma but I have been overruled. But none of that is really the point. The point is that:

• Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopaedia
• The standard English spelling is Vietnam (as shown by Google)
• Wikipedia should use the standard English spelling
• Therefore Wikipedia should call the country Vietnam

Adam 06:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>(Final?) Repsonse to Adam: Thanks again for your input. I still contend that "Viet Nam" is more appropriate and useful, since "Vietnam" would simply redirect to it and maintain the integrity of the native naming. Is there a formal process by which I could put this to a vote, rather than continuing the discussion here? I imagine that we're rapidly reaching a logjam, so protracted discussion seems pointless. I have seen votes on various pages (such as votes on whether or not to rename or delete stub names), and it seems like we could present our arguments briefly on a page for a vote, give a reasonable time for interested Wikipedians to give their two cents, and call it a day. If not, is there an arbitrating body, or a particular administrator who would make a call like this? I've looked on pages about administrators and haven't seen one particularly qualified for these kinds of decisions. If you don't care to assist me, I'll just keep on looking around Wikipedia myself. Thanks again. Justin (koavf) 06:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to mav: Why is Viet Nam more appropriate and useful? The spelling is not vietnamese since it doesn't contain the proper tone marks, it is certainly not vietnamese.

The usage stems from the usage of chinese signs in the vietnamese language, therefore one is used to think in syllables, yet these words are not pronounced as syllables, like in chinese: Noone pronounces the capital Bei Jing, it's Beijing, the same goes for other words friend is pengyou, not peng you, in fact in chinese, you would actually lose part of the meaning if you spelled out single syllables. I presume you lose some of the meaning in vietnamese without proper tonal signs as well...

So therefore, the name of the country is pronounced Vietnam, and not Viet Nam, and therefore is should be spelt that way as well. You don't see a norwegian spell the name of country as Nor Way (although the orginal meaning is North Way). It is neither more or less precise in vietnamese since there's no usage of tonal

In addition, I think it's rather rude for a single person to disapprove official spelling of a name in what has become more or less an international encyclopedia. We should strive to adhere to standards instead of making decisions on behalf of the world simply because we think it feels better. For a wider discussion of this topic see: http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasia/vsg/elist_2001/VietnamORVN.html] Øystein Alsaker 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oalsaker. With all due respect, the whole issues of correct-ness is nonsense as it is discussed here. The two-word spelling "Viet Nam" is obviously just as much a Western creation as the one-word spelling "Vietnam" in the sense that neither is used in Vietnamese. Viet Nam is not wrong, but neither is Vietnam. Viet Nam is, just like Vietnam, an exonym, that is, a name for a place that is different from the name in the native language and created by people outside of that place. Vietnam in Vietnamese is "Việt Nam" and the full name for the nation-state is "Cộng Hòa Xã Hội Chủ Nghĩa Việt Nam", all which is clearly stated already. In English, the most common spelling is no doubt Vietnam, and for a hint on how far from the native language Viet Nam is, consider the likes of Bra Zil, Ger Man Y and Un It Ed Sta Tes Of Am Er Ic A. For Westerners, the monosyllabics becomes very confusing but for a native Vietnamse speaker it is the diacritics rather than monosyllabics that are decisive for understanding. From a Vietnamese perspective, then, the difference between "Vietnam" and Viet Nam" is qualitatively smaller than it is for a Westerner. At the same time, the difference between, say, "sữa" and "sửa" is qualitively huge for a native speaker but minimal for a non-native speaker (sữa=milk,sửa=repair). It is also instructive to remember that originally even "Việt Nam", as written in quốc ngữ, was a Western creation, a result of violent colonialism. Indeed, even chữ nôm was a result of colonialism, Chinese, that is. Still, today Việt Nam is the correct term in Vietnamese and an incorrect term in English (as well as in German, Swedish, Spanish and so on). Following the logic that Vietnam should be Viet Nam one would have to argue Vietnamese should be Viet Namese, or a lot worse, Viet Nam Ese. That seems rather difficult to argue for. And Ho Chi Minh City should then be Thanh pho Ho Chi Minh, which is, just like Viet Namese, not only confusing but still as much an exonym since in Vietnamese the name is Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. It might be at times the desire of Westerners (and mostly Americans) to be (politically) correct when it comes to Vietnam is greater than when it comes to, say, Germany or Norway. Germany in German is obviously Deutschland and Norway in Norwegian is Norge but in an English encyclopedia I think most would agree they should still be listed under Germany and Norway respectively, even though the info on the names in the native languages of course should be included in the text. In line with this logic, I also think Japan is best listed under "Japan" and not under Nippon, Nihon or, worse, 日本. Vichminh 15:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = people...Nam = of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese. I forget the Vietnamese king who created this first identity. Any help?

From what I've been able to determine, the one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.

The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When the Vietnamese use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth...and continue to make money.

For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.

Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche of America immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.

Ted

Exports

Hey, I was wondering what Vietnam Exported relating to Agriculture?

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the exports are "crude oil, marine products, rice, coffee, rubber, tea, garments, shoes." -- Randy 15:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silk. VietGrant 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vietnamese Literature

I would like ask people to help put together a set of articles and stubs related to Vietnamese literature. I have begun by creating a stub for the Luc Bat, a Vietnamese verse form. An acknowlegement of the richness and depth in the writings of Vietnam (e.g. that of Ho Xuan Huong) would be a beautiful addition to the culture section of this topic.

Don't Out-Vietnamese the Real Vietnamese

Regarding the discussion on whether the name of the country in the article should be Vietnam or Viet Nam, just go to any English-language website originated from Vietnam itself (such as the official newspaper Nhan Dan) and you will see it's spelled Vietnam. Same is true in the website from the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.

Those who insist on spelling the country name as "Viet Nam" in an English-language document are trying to out-Vietnamese the Vietnamese. I'm a Vietnamese-American and I always use the spelling "Vietnam" when I write in English or French.

Tom Tran from Texas

---

Vietnamese refer to Viet Nam as Vietnam when they write in English doesn't mean that is the correct way. It just means that it is more commonly used. English is a second language to most Vietnamese, when they learn English, every single piece of writing they found refer to Viet Nam as Vietnam, so they think it is the "English translation" of Vie^.t Nam, gradually, it became a habit. Proof: The same thing happen to any big city in Vietnam, Saigon, Hanoi, Danang,... But NOT for Ho Chi Minh City, Ia Drang, Hai Phong,... Somehow, English speakers decided that Vietnamese shouldn't have space when referring to a location. lt2hieu2004--lt2hieu2004 15:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that we referred to nations by the officially recognized UN name (for UN members, see their list [List of UN Members]). However,t ehre are many discrepancies there between the "common English name" and the "UN Name" (leaving out the obvious ones like the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). For what it's worth, however, the United Nations refers to this country as "Viet Nam". But, yes, the common English term is "Vietnam", so being an English encyclopedia, my opinion (for whatever weight it holds) says it should be "Vietnam" (with, of coruse, a redirect from "Viet Nam".)--Canuckguy 21:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)