Talk:Vietnam/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

The Paris Peace Accords of 27 January 1973, formally recognized the sovereignty of Vietnam "as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements." Under the terms of the accords all American combat troops were withdrawn by 29 March 1973.

204.27.156.146 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC) It allowed over 100 thousands NVN remained in SVN and to removed SVN President Nguyen Van Thieu.

Single party

The article mentions "single party" in a mere fraction of a sentence without describing it. Most people will not even notice this, and it isn't mentioned whether it is single party because there are laws against other parties forming or possibly because other candidates chose or succeeded in creating a noticable party. This communist-written article seems to imply that a single party state doesn't mean anything. 173.183.71.170 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What does "communist-written" mean? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bashi Islam

Since the creation of the Demographics -> Religions section of this article it has mentioned "Bashi Islam" but right now the link on "Bashi" goes to a musical instrument. I also can't find any mention of "bashi islam" in Google Books and the Religion in Vietnam article doesn't mention it, so I'm suspicious that this is a mistake and the other sites on the internet mentioning it have simply copied from Wikipedia. Both Religion in Vietnam and GB mention Cham Bani Muslims, however.

So, can anyone confirm the existence of this "Bashi" Islam? --[[User:Struthious_Banderkasjdgbkag snatch|❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩]] 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right then, I'm changing it to "Bani", but feel free to revert me if other evidence comes up. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Additional information on etymology of "Vietnam"

I am a professional Chinese linguist and hold a degree in Chinese studies. Incidentally, I never heard Vietnam described as "Southern Viet" before. In fact, the "Viet" character is a Chinese grammatical term meaning "more, further, beyond" and my understanding as a Chinese speaker and scholar is that Vietnam means "beyond the borders of the south (of China). I have not changed the original claim of course, merely added the possibility of mine. Etymology is always a rather inexact science. Alexandermoir (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Việt Nam: "Việt" refers to the name of the nation- no meaning, and "Nam"- means "south"- is the name of the country, in relative to China- as considered by Vietnamese as "The North" country, because the scope of vision in Vietnam in the past was just in East Asia and South East Asia (so, Vietnamese called Indonesia "Nam Dương"- meaning: the country in the Southern Sea). The word "Việt" is the name of our community for thousands of years (Chinese, themselves, called our people as Yue- 越 - meaning Việt, don't they?). "Việt" has never had the meaning "beyond". Furthermore, the word "Yue" in Chinese language has never meant "beyond", it means "樾"- the shade of a tree, "鉞"-a kind of weapon, "粵"- a grammatical function word, "越"- overcome/ experience/ fall/ release, where is the meaning "beyond"? The word "Nam" means the country Vietnam itself, not means "the south of China". It is definitely accepted that how the name of a country is interpreted depends on the way people in THAT country understand it, not on the way people in other countries infer it. This principle is the basic rule in anthropology. Your intepretation of "beyond the South of China" takes China as the central point of view and sees Vietnam as beyond that center China? Certainly not. We did NOT regard China as our center when deciding our country's name. We, in fact, think about two foremost essential aspects of a country: its land and its people and combine the names of these two aspects: "Việt" and "Nam". Remember, before our country was named "Việt Nam", our country was "Đại Việt" with "Đại" means "great". If your explanation were right, did we name our country "Great Beyond"- a silly name? Therefore, please do not try to transform the meaning of "Vietnam" (I suspect the negative motivation behind this transformation into the meaning "Vietnam" as "beyond the south of China"); this action is considered as a national offensive. If you have never heard about this semantic meaning of "Vietnam", please contact any Vietnamese linguists. Any attitudes towards any explanations of any aspects of other countries without making any second checks with scientists in those countries are incautious in doing science. Why didn't you ask any Vietnamese linguists about this before coming to any conclusions? I, as a Vietnamese, require that you hold your scientific judgement right and keep international spirit when doing science. Best regards. Neweco (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever 越南 might mean in Chinese, in Vietnamese it is readily analyzable as "South Việt." In ancient times, there were various Việt peoples who lived in what is now southern China, so it was natural to refer to the Vietnamese as Southern Việts. The character 越/Việt may have been chosen for phonetic reasons, so the lexical meaning in Chinese is not necessarily relevant. Attempting to translate the modern Chinese name of Vietnam into English just gives you nonsense, something like "cross over the South." Kauffner (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

General secretary position downgraded

The Communist Party's newly chosen general secretary, Nguyễn Phú Trọng, would appear to be a figurehead. He is only No. 8 on the new Politburo list.[1] If general secretary is no longer a top position, it should be taken out of the box. I suggest listing the top four people on the Politburo list: Trương Tấn Sang (state president designate), Phùng Quang Thanh (defense minister), Nguyễn Tấn Dũng (prime minister), and Nguyễn Sinh Hùng (deputy prime minister). Position in the party is everything in the Vietnamese government. Titles don't tell you anything about the real power structure. Kauffner (talk) 11:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't make value judgement about governmental positions. It's been generally agreed that the troika of president, PM, and GS are the top positions in the government of Vietnam. I'm wary of even adding GS since it's not a constitutional position. DHN (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, so let's take GS out. No matter what positions are listed, a "value judgement" has been made. A troika is considered the ideal because that is one leader from each of Vietnam's three regions. Which positions are "top" changes after every congress. The Politburo list is the official statement of the pecking order. IMO, we should just accept it at face value. However, that is not the only reason to think that Sang is now the real boss. The Wikileaks cable on Vietnam portrays the party as split between factions led by Sang and Dũng. At the congress, Sang and his supporters moved up, but Dũng did not. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

GDP per capita

I was surprised when I read the gdp per capita figure: $3,104.179, which I read as 3 million... It is probably best to remove the cents as I checked is done with other countries, to avoid misreading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.153.53 (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's 3 million Vietnam Dong, not usd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.40.254 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 180.242.6.212, 22 April 2011

180.242.6.212 (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Vietnam (Listeni/ˌviː.ɛtˈnɑːm/ VEE-et-NAHM; Vietnamese: Việt Nam, About this sound listen (help·info)), officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam, About this sound listen (help·info)), is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. It is bordered by People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north, Laos to the northwest, Cambodia to the southwest, and the South China Sea, referred to as East Sea (Vietnamese: Biển Đông), to the east. With a population of over 89 million, Vietnam is the 13th most populous country in the world.

Vietnam (Listeni/ˌviː.ɛtˈnɑːm/ VEE-et-NAHM; Vietnamese: Việt Nam, About this sound listen (help·info)), officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam, About this sound listen (help·info)), is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia.

Vietnam became independent from China in AD 938 after their victory at the battle of Bạch Đằng River. Successive dynasties flourished along with geographic and political expansion deeper into Southeast Asia, until it was colonized by the French in the mid-19th century. Efforts to resist the French eventually led to their expulsion from the country in the mid-20th century, leaving a nation divided politically into two countries. Fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975.

Vietnam became independent from China in AD 938 after their victory at the battle of Bạch Đằng River. Successive dynasties flourished along with geographic and political expansion deeper into Southeast Asia, until it was colonized by the French in the mid-19th century. Efforts to resist the French eventually led to their expulsion from the country in the mid-20th century, leaving a nation divided politically into two countries. Fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975.

Emerging from this prolonged military engagement, the war-ravaged nation was politically isolated. In 1986, the government instituted economic and political reforms and began a path towards international reintegration. By 2000, it had established diplomatic relations with most nations. Its economic growth has been among the highest in the world in the past decade. According to Citigroup the high growth will be continued and based on Global Growth Generators countries Index, Vietnam got the highest Index among 11 countries. These efforts resulted in Vietnam joining the World Trade Organization in 2007. These economic reforms also introduced inequality in many spheres of life in Vietnam such as income distribution and women's rights.

Vietnam became independent from China in AD 938 after their victory at the battle of Bạch Đằng River. Successive dynasties flourished along with geographic and political expansion deeper into Southeast Asia, until it was colonized by the French in the mid-19th century. Efforts to resist the French eventually led to their expulsion from the country in the mid-20th century, leaving a nation divided politically into two countries. Fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Baseball Watcher 20:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I removed this addition about the oldest mention of the name Vietnam because of the lack of verifiability of the source (Wikipedia doesn't accept it or its sub-project to be acceptable sources). By the way, The Nguyen Binh Khiem's prophecies was never considered the oldest mention of the name Vietnam because no original record of his works is still kept, most of them was passed from generations to generations as tales or legends. The most recorded Khiem's prophecies were prophecies about the Nguyen Lord and Mac Dynasty which, in my opinion, were forged due to political reasons. In sum up, I don't believe these prophecies are suitable sources for writing on Wikipedia, you can bring your addition if you find any other reliable sources.--AM ^(talk)20:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this source. Whether Khiêm actually wrote the poem or not, the word Việt Nam does appear in "Sấm Trạng Trình" and this is a significant early usage. If you look up this poem, Khiêm is always given as the author. The should be good enough. The authorship controversy belongs on Khiêm's page. But we can say "in a poem attributed to Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm" if you prefer. As far as sourcing goes, 'Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm, "Sấm Trạng Trình"' is a perfectly good citation by itself. The link to Wikisource is a gloss.

"Việt" is derived from "Bách Việt", so "hundred Viet" cannot be the original meaning of this word. What would this phrase mean anyway? A hundred Vietnamese? IMO, this is translation cruft. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emblem of ASEAN.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bách Việt

IMO, translating “Bách Việt” (Baiyue) as “hundred Viets”[2] is misleading for several reasons:

1) It implies that “Việt” is the root and that “Bách Việt” is derived from it. There is no basis to believe this. Việt could be an abbreviated form of Bách Việt, and thus not a word that ever had an independent literal meaning.

2) It implies that a “Việt” is an item that you can have a hundred of, or at least that it is noun and that a plural form is possible. In Vietnamese, Việt just means Vietnam and so you can only have one. The Chinese character (越) means something like “more”, “beyond”, or “cross over”. None of these possibilities are items that you can have a hundred of. The “hundred Viets” translation hints at the folk etymology ”hundred tribes”. But “Bách” doesn’t mean tribes, “Việt” doesn’t mean tribes, and there is no list of a hundred tribes, nor is there an explanation of why anyone would think that there was a hundred tribes, unless you count the legend of Âu Cơ and the hundred eggs as an explanation.

3) It goes against the conventions of translation to translate one syllable of a multi-syllable word like this: “When used in a compound expression, the number need not be translated as in 'the Yue' or 'all the Yue' for 'Baiyue,' [Bách Việt] not 'the hundred Yue;’ [hundred Việt]” (Wilkinson, Chinese History: a Manual, pp. 224-225). Kauffner (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't understand how a literal translation would imply "Viet is the root of Bach Viet" when the main phrase has given the contradict information of "The word "Việt" originated as a shortened form of Bách Việt"

2) Hundred Viet is what Vietnamese people understand the word "Bach Viet". I don't know what Bach Viet mean in Chinese but I but Chinese meanings have nothing to do with a Vietnamese word, OK? Moreover, Viet mean "more, further, beyond" in Chinese but Vietnamese understand Viet simply as a name with no hidden meanings. Bach doesn't mean tribe but Viet mean tribe becasue there were a lot of Vietian tribe at this time such as Mân Việt, Sơn Việt, Đông Việt, Dương Việt, Nam Việt, Tây Âu, U Việt, Điền Việt, Dạ Lang, Âu Việt and Lạc Việt (these two later merged and formed a union which later became Vietnamese) etc. And the legend of Au Co and Lac Long Quan is one way to explain the origin of the word "Bach Viet" but not the only one and if it is not reliable I would not use it in this article. Instead, I added a citation satisfies WP:RS from two Western scholars , if you has any question you should contact them.

3) This explanation is for the Chinese word Baiyue, not Vietnamese word Bach Viet. And I will not argue anything on its credibility.--AM ^(talk) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to try the Socratic method here. Việt Nam muôn năm! means "Vietnam 10,000 years!", or "Long live Vietnam!"? If you suffer from bách bệnh, you have "100 benhs" or "all the ills"? In such a situation, you would of course want a bách giải, but is that a "hundred solutions", or a "cure-all"? When an army boasts, Bách chiến! Bách thắng!, is it claiming, "100 battles, 100 victories," or is it "invincible"? As I have indicated above, the fact the that bách is a hundred only in a metaphorical sense is merely one of several problems with the translation "hundred Viets".

"Bách Việt" and "Baiyue" are two Romanizations for the same word. The Bách Việt article on Vietnamese Wikipedia mentions that the word was used by Sima Qian. Did he write "Bách Việt" or "Baiyue"?

I must object to the fact that you have replaced a specialist book by a language expert with a reference on multicultural education that mentions the etymological issue only for purpose of making a point about a contemporary issue. Kauffner (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm making my point again. Regardless of the word's "Bách"'s original meanings, many and many people in Vietnam understand it as "one hundred" as many "Hán Việt" words' meanings are changed from the Chinese roots. For example, the word "khốn nạn", "phương phi" etc. Actually, "Việt Nam muôn năm" can be translated as "Viet Nam will live for 10 thousand years" if you need a faithful translation. For the words "Bách bệnh" and "Bách giải", i'm not sure about their original meaning (and I don't have time to research) so I accept whatever you say. But the word "Bách chiến! Bách thắng" is currently understood as "100 battles, 100 victories" etc.

"Bách Việt" and "Baiyue" are two Romanizations for the same word is totally right but remember that you are dealing with a Vietnamized Chinese word so don't try to use original Chinese meanings too much, OK?

I must object the fact that you use specialist book mentioning the word "Baiyue" and its meaning in Chinese not a book mentioning the word "Bách Việt" and its meaning in Vietnamese. If you find out any other better book mentioning the word "Bách Việt" than mine, you could replace it. I won't object because I would have no reason to object.--AM ^(talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in Dynasty Era section

I don't think that the statement "First, the Chinese-supported Mạc Dynasty challenged the Lê Dynasty's power" is correct. While it is true that after 1592, the remnant of the Mạc court held on to Cao Bằng with the help of the Ming, the Mạc dynasty held the upper-hand up until around 1580, and needed no help from the Chinese court. There was controversy regarding the Mạc's foreign policy toward China, but that was an entirely different matter. There is no reason for the word "Chinese-supported" in that sentence. For references, check the wikipedia pages History of Vietnam, and the vi.wikipedia.org page "Nhà Mạc". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giaovu (talk • contribs) 05:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

merger = reunification?

Why does the article body say N & S Vietnam were merged on 2 July 1976, but the infobox says they were reunified on 30 April 1975? Thanks - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Region of Binh Thuan and Ninh Thuan

Binh Thuan and Ninh Thuan seem to be more often seen as part of the South Central Coast rather than Southeast. I intend to change the subdivisions section accordingly. Are there any objections? BertholdD (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sai-gon-chang-vang-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tp-hcm-6.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Tp-hcm-6.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Who is No. 1?

Here is the official leadership ranking. It goes president, defense minister, and then prime minister. Kauffner (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of Kremlinology, we should focus on the positions that are defined in the constitution, even if it's not closely followed. All the reliable sources name the three top positions as President, PM, and GSCPV. You can't just infer from a list that the Minister of Defense is more important than PM. DHN (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the constitution, it goes [president], "Vice President, the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, and Chief Prosecutor of the People's Inspectorate General."[3] This list skips legislative positions, but Article 84 suggests that chairman of the National Assembly ranks third after president and vice president. In any case, I don't see GSCPV mentioned anywhere in the constitution. "All reliable sources"? What sources? VNA puts out an official leadership list, every newspaper in Vietnam publishes it, and that's all we have to go by. Kauffner (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

If you search for "Vietnam troika" or "Vietnam triumvirate" you'll find references to the top three positions being State President, PM, and GSCPV in numerous reliable sources: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The top 2 (the Head of State and Head of Government) are a matter of course, while the other one is also important since he heads the sole legal party. You're reading too much into a list of members of the CPV (albeit not without reason). Remember that the Party is not the Government, at least not constitutionally. DHN (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Only one of your links is about the current leadership. We take the word of "Derek Pham is an Intern Scholar with the CSIS Southeast Asia Program" against the official VNA list? In the past, the phrase "the troika" has referred to the top three civilian leaders. That would give us President Trương Tấn Sang, Prime Minister Nguyễn Tấn Dũng, and National Assembly Chairman Nguyễn Sinh Hùng. Kauffner (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I still have yet to find a reliable source that gives any significance to the party leadership listing order. And although it's hard to distinguish between the two sometimes, the Party is still not the State. DHN (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What significance does troika status supposedly have? It just means that some writer is putting emphasis on leaders X, Y, and Z, rather than on three other leaders. VNA never says that so and so is a troika member. You condemn Kremlinology, but the troika idea is itself Kremlinology. The word implies an analogy to the Soviet system of the 1920s. Many sources acknowledged that "state president" and the other positions are just ceremonial. It's a communist country; The Politburo sets policy. Kauffner (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The position of "president" or "monarch" is largely ceremonial in many countries. Nevertheless, it's still listed first because it's the head of state. You can't list the top leaders of any country without mentioning the head of state and head of government. DHN (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Country Factfile Flaw

According to the web site of the Vietnamese Embassy, the president of Vietnam is Nguyen Minh Triet. The country's factfile should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.208.76 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The country's president changed late last month. Their website hasn't been updated to reflect that. DHN (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Remove human rights section

It is insane and unreasonable to include some other countries' inference about a country. Who cares what US thinks about any nation? If one goes to some social network sites and sees communities related to pakistan or arab states, most of them will have a poll with 90% of the respondents saying US as the biggest terrorist nation in the world. Can we include this inference in the page for USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.58.109 (talk) 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Obbop heartily agrees. My experience with the oft-times befuddled well-indoctrinated citizen-sheep ill- and uneducated buffoons of the USA who are all-too-often spewers of implanted knee-jerk rhetoric foisted upon the VAST majority of USA citizenry by their elite-class masters and corporate USA so as to maintain a status quo of immense benefit to a VERY FEW high atop the pyramid-shaped socio-economic hierarchy has led to so very very very few USA citizens being able to formulate their OWN opinion about ANY aspect of Vietnam, pre, during or the post Vietnam Conflict era when the USA imposed itself yet again on another country's affairs. When will we ever learn...... when will we ever.... learn? 66.148.248.210 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Obbop scribbled this while scratching his oblate-spheroid-shaped noggin amazed at the amassed idiocy of a supposed informed electorate that s all-too-often the mental willing slaves of their masters.

Edit request from Yakushosama, 9 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under Education please remove this information: "In Vietnam, education from age 6 to 11 is free and mandatory"

That's totally wrong! In Vietnam, education from age 6 to 11 is NOT FREE! I'm a Vietnamese myself and I can assure you that there's nothing free in Vietnam especially education which is asking for even more money now, just search around the net and you will see.

Yakushosama (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

Just search around the net you will see education in Vietnam is not free, ok for example http://www.asiarecipe.com/vieteducation.html you see it doesnt mention free education in Vietnam at all please trust me I'm a native Vietnamese I was born and grown up in Vietnam so I know about the education in Vietnam very well, it's very bad and not free at all.

The one that posted the information "In Vietnam, education from age 6 to 11 is free and mandatory" has no source to prove it also then why wikipedia still publish it? it says [citation needed] then I'm hereby to verify that information is misleading so please remove it or at least edit it like this: "In Vietnam, education from age 6 to 11 is not free and mandatory" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yakushosama (talk • contribs) 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V WP:RS - we need references to add information; we can't add claims without an appropriate reference. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Not done  Done I removed this claim as it has not been cited anyway.--AM ^(talk) 13:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 15 November 2011

The caption under the Cao Dai temple photo should read "The main Cao Dai temple in Tay Ninh." It's the Cao Dai equivalent of Vatican City.

67.168.54.133 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done →Στc. 22:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Help with Culture section

The Culture section of the article lacks citations and is pretty cursory in dealing with some fairly important cultural elements, such as festivals and cuisine. I've copyedited it as best I can, but what it needs is an expert on the subject. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request in Religion section

In the religion section it says "that all regions are equal before law". Regions should be religions, which the source corroborates. --Kikikomori (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Vietnamese leaders

There is a ranked list of leaders that was widely published in the Vietnamese media after the last party congress, example by VNA and by VOV. I don't see any basis to list the leaders in some other order. Kauffner (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

British or American spelling?

I've been noticing that there is a hybrid of British and American spelling. We must do away with one spelling in this article. The world community prefers the British Spelling over the American. This means that the American spelling has to go away from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.67.98 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Chinese terminology in etymology section

In an article about Vietnam, we should follow the terminology used in Vietnam-oriented writing, for example A History of Vietnam by Oscar Chapius. This edit is problematic is several respects. "Nam Viet" is certainly a more common spelling in English than Nanyue. "Zhao Tuo" and "Trieu Da" are both quite common spellings, and there is no basis stigmatize Trieu Da. And why stop there? Any Vietnamese name can be translated into Chinese and given a pinyin spelling. We can have "Hú Zhì Míng" instead of "Ho Chi Minh". As for the phrase "Chinese south", this is not only ungrammatical, but suggests that the salient fact about Vietnam is that it is south of China. Kauffner (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not all Vietnamese name can be translate to Chinese. For example: Lía, Bé, Nòi, and many orther word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.16.154.255 (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Question re name

What is the legally official name of the country in English. In this regard, I would mention that the info. box uses the term "Vietname" but on the Names of Vietnam it is said that the Government and the UN use the name "Viet Nam". I do not know the answer to this one at present so would like an inmformed answer if some one could provide one. I do think some tidy up work is needed to the articles around this to clarify what exactly is official. That can follow. 86.45.54.230 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Officially referred to as Vietnam (without the space) in English-speaking media, at least in the West. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The country's U.N. member name is "Viet Nam", which also the legal name, see here and here. The Vietnamese government promotes this usage somewhat half-heartly. Even the UN and the country's official news agency generally use "Vietnam". The "Vietnam". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency. is an authoritative source for the English-language name. Kauffner (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the common name in English for article titles, which here would be Vietnam. bridies (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys (Kauffner in particular who went to some trouble providing links) - THANKS! However, honestly, I am no closer to knowing the official legal position. Michaelmas - My question was not what its common name in the media is. By that standard, one might go with "Burma" for Myanmar etc. Obviously I know that the media generally uses "Vietnam". Kauffner - I did know the UN name (and the WIPO obviously uses UN names - includig for "the" former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia etc. But no one here has given a source for what the official English language name for the State is. Is it "Viet Nam" as per the UN or is it "Vietnam" as per the news agency. The CIA factbook is a source but for me not reliable - e.g. it gives the official name of the British Virgin Islands as just that when in fact it is the "Virgin Islands". The CIA is not a leader on Vietnamese law. A Vietnamese source is what I am looking for - like the official translation of the Constitution in English perhaps (if there is one). 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now found English translations of the Constitution using "Vietnam" but I have no indication as to whether they are official Government translations. Interestingly, I have found that the Vietnam embassy in the uses "Vietnam". Not sure where that leaves the UN and "Viet Nam". Official or not? Question unanswered for me! 86.45.54.230 (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Both versions were used during the infamous war. In the external links I note that the country's tourism agency uses "Vietnam".[11] One problem with "Viet Nam" is, what do you call a citizen? "Viet Namese"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an English-language version of the constitution. Only the Vietnamese version has legal status, so that doesn't resolve anything. The most official source for the name is the U.N. member list. This is the version used to sign treaties and so forth. VNA and VOV, the top government-run news sources, are pretty official too. But they do it both ways. As for the embassy sites, a lot of their material is slapped together from news agency sources. But certainly these sites can be considered RS on the issue of the embassy's name, i.e. "Embassy of Vietnam."[12] Here is an ngram for "Vietnam" vs. "Viet Nam". Kauffner (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I had already seen the English language translation of the Constitution. But as noted, I could not determine if that was an official Government translation or merely a law firm's production for example. I have definitely seen Treaties where the name "Vietnam" is used and Treaties where the name "Viet Nam" is used. If no one can find any source confirming what the Viet?Nam Government's position is on the point, I for one, think the article needs to be reviewed again. At present it says "Vietnam" is official and merely says "Viet Nam" is a spelling also used. If the latter is more official, surely it should appear in the info box. There will be knock ons for the Names of Vietnam article. Knauffner - it seems to me that you would agree that even you have not found a source confirming what spelling the Government of Viet?Nam regards as official. You have (helpfully but merely) pointed to the fact that many sources (including Government sources) use either or both spellings. This being so, doesn't thearticle need to be updated to drop the impression that "Vietnam" is the official spelling? 86.42.18.148 (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When the VNN Web site gives "Viet Nam", the printed version gives Việt Nam. So Viet Nam is a workaround for a musty old sites with legacy issues. On the newer sites, it's Việt Nam or "Vietnam". Kauffner (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Kaunffner - You seem to agree that there is no clear answer as to whether it is "Vietnam" or "Viet Nam" (as official). I am an IP editor and as such cannot for whatever reasons edit the article. Please could you amend the article (including the lede and info box) to include both terms as official - or if you still regard "Viet Nam" as more official given its UN use, something further to that effect. The article at present is inadequate. 86.42.18.148 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Communist State

It refers to Vietnam as a "Communist Nation". Many other pages about socialist republics do this as well. There is no such thing as a communist nation or communist state. They are socialist states. Communism, by it's very definition, indicates a future period, in which, all countries have become socialist and then the state, being no longer necessary, "withers away". If there's communism, then there are no states and if there are states, then there is no communism. Communism has never existed and a single nation, cannot be communist. Please make the necessary changes to this this page, as well as The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.137.63 (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

South Viet?

its written, that Viet Nam is translated as South Viet, but it could also be "Viet Male", since Nam has more meanings in vietnamesse.. and imo "South Viet" is a total nonsence (im from vietnamse heritage)..i think it would be best to skip that translation part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.133.34 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

In the traditional script, man was 男, south was 南, and Vietnam was 越南. This is not obscure. Any Vietnamese has heard of Nam Quốc Sơn Hà. Kauffner (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

vietnamese translation help

Hi - posting this here since I can't post on the Vietnamese wiki. Can anyone help with a Vietnamese-English translation at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#poster.2Fvi - thank you. 184.147.123.69 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Killings by Diem and Ho Chi Minh

Regarding this section: "In the North, thousands of landowners were killed by the communists, and collectivization efforts led to a brief famine. In the South, Diem went about crushing political and religious opposition, imprisoning or killing tens of thousands; dissidents were routinely labelled as communists even if they were anti-communist." I think it is strange that you mention Diem killed "tens of thousands" and that Ho's regime killed "thousands of landowners". The wording makes it sound like Diem's killing was greater or at least comparable to North Vietnam's. I think would be more accurate to mention that "tens of thousands" were killed during land reform. To be fair it would be more accurate to say "hundreds of thousand died" since the actual figure of deaths is most certainly in the hundreds of the thousands. The actual bare minimum estimate for those dead during land reform is actually a pretty lofty 115,000 dead, so you should be able to see why "thousands of landowners" doesn't give an impression close enough to the reality.

Sources: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.1.GIF http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP6.HTM http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB11.3.GIF http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB6.1B.GIF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumink (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the new source - I'll add an additional one, which gives the death toll at about 172,000. Michaelmas1957 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

POO :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.137.101 (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on country names

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macclesfield Bank#RfC. CMD (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the spelling of Vietnamese names

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

latest GDP report

I have the latest report on GDP in the first 6 months post TKS1988 (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Major problem with this article: name and timeline

There is a separate article on North Vietnam. That article says that the country merged. That is revisionist history. North Vietnam took over South Vietnam. Anyway, the North Vietnam article ends with the mid-1970's. This article should then continue with history after 1976. All history before that is inappropriate.

The better alternative is to make this article the depository to all history of Vietnam. Then the North Vietnam article should be merged and deleted. Auchansa (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Time Zone

In order to be consistent with the majority of the country pages, could someone please change the first portion of my main meal

[[UTC+7|ICT]] ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]+7)

instead of

ICT (Indochina Time)

[[UTC+7]] ([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]]+7)

CrimsonViking (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

4 communist states?

"The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining single-party socialist states espousing communism."

What about North Korea? It is a single party state that espouses state communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.57.31.197 (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The page devoted to North Korea says that it no longer identifies itself as a communist state. Make of that what you will.Prohairesius (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reference to the Chinese invasion of Vietnam?

Approximately 4 years after the US withdrawal China invaded Vietnam. This is an important part of Vietnamese history. In relative quick succession they had to deal with the French, the Japanese, the French again, the Americans, and then the Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.149.109.63 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

citation needed

The first paragraph of the "1976 - Present" section refers to collectivisation as a failure and triple digit inflation without providing any citation. RoboTree (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

Don't see the big problem with the Vietnam War section. It outlines the events of the war and identifies the key players, as it should do. Obviously it needs more refs (I'll work on that shortly), but otherwise it doesn't seem too biased or overlong. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Done cleaning it up and adding more references. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 October 2013

Please change the following sentence: "The name Vietnam translates as "Southern Viet" (synonymous with the much more ancient term Nam Viet), . . . ." The sentence should read: "The name Vietnam translates as "South Viet" (in contrast to the ancient term Nam Viet, which means Southern Viet), . . . ." The original sentence is not true. The change may seem inconsequential, but it is not. Southern gives the connotation that it is the southern part of a larger area, while south gives the connotation that it is a separate entity. This was the reason that Ho Chi Minh changed the name. Examples of this subtle change can be seen in the difference between Norther and Southern California and North and South Carolina. The former signifies two regions of the same state while the latter indicates two separate states. Jcguevara14 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2013

Somebody must add that the language of French is a minority language in Vietnam. Please have it done ASAP. Chipperdude15 (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam#Language: "The French language, a legacy of colonial rule, is spoken by some educated Vietnamese as a second language, especially by the older generation; Vietnam remains a full member of the Francophonie, and education has revived some interest in the language.[133]" It is already there. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 18:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

It should be mentioned that it was Vietnam that ended the Cambodian Holocaust of the Khemer Rouge.

See your own wiki pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_War for reference.

It appears the North American and European politics enters into Wikipedia and makes acknowledgement of the ending of a Holocaust by a communist regime a fact that needs to be kept from the masses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.185.198.205 (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

But the article does mention that. What it doesn't mention is that the North Vietnamese army originally installed the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao in power over large swathes of Cambodia and Laos, enabling them to build up their forces by conscription.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The American/Vietnam War was fought nearly entirely in South Vietnam with massacres, eco-terrorism, and international war crimes.

This is not my or any opinion, it is not a POV, by the nature of the assertion it is not, because it is fact, which is sourced and a matter of public record and therefore shouldn't be a matter of controversy. The fact that Vietnam today continues to suffer from the chemical poisoning of their agriculture is not a POV or opinion, it is a matter of sourced fact. It appears that editors are more concerned about pushing a hostile political agenda by not only not including facts but by putting outright lies on the nature of the war. The war was not a North vs. South conflict, it was a war between the Southern government and the National Liberation Front, composed entirely of South Vietnamese citizens, the government being supported by the US military while the NLF being supported by the North. The fact that the NLF was supported by the majority of the population of South Vietnam is not a POV or opinion, it is a matter of sourced fact. A fact which is self-confirming in the history based on the aborted elections and overt corruption which is now a matter of public record and therefore should not be a subject of controversy. The nature of the conflict as it is currently described is 'not' factually correct. Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the NFL, I have added a mention that they were a belligerent. The current lead is actually very neutral and includes the basic information that is necessary. Stumink (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no strong reason to believe any of the New Left agitprop about most South Vietnamese supporting communism. The famous "Eisenhower quote", far from endorsing this POV, was in fact Ike explaining his preference for Diem over Emperor Bao Dai (Diem defeated Bao Dai by well over 80% of the vote). According to The Pentagon Papers, from 1954 to 1956 "Diem really did accomplish miracles" in South Vietnam (while the North experienced a bloody land reform purge): "It is almost certain that by 1956 the proportion which might have voted for Ho—in a free election against Diem—would have been much smaller than eighty percent." (The Pentagon Papers 3 (1971), Beacon Press, p. 246.) In 1957, independent observers from India, Poland, and Canada representing the International Control Commission stated that fair, unbiased elections were not possible in the northern part of Vietnam due to Communist influence. (Woodruff, Mark (2005), Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of The Viet Cong and The North Vietnamese, Presidio Press, p. 6.) This would seem to vindicate the "American Plan" proposed at Geneva, which called for free elections in Vietnam to be supervised by the United Nations, and which the communist delegates rejected. As historian Robert F. Turner states: "Since Ho Chi Minh and other key Party leaders always received at least ninety-nine percent of the vote in the subsequent so-called "elections" in North Vietnam, it would have been suicide for Diem's government to accept the communist proposal. The consistent position of Diem and the American delegation that unification elections must have effective international supervision was admirable, and any criticism of either government for failing to submit to essentially unsupervised proposed elections envisioned by the Final Declaration at Geneva—which both governments denounced at the time—is unwarranted. Nevertheless, this argument was instrumental in turning many Americans against their government's policies in Vietnam." After the Geneva Accords, over 1 million North Vietnamese fled to the South; 3 million South Vietnamese fled after 1975. But all this vanishes down the memory hole, just like the fact that it was Ho Chi Minh who invited the French back into Indochina despite a deliberate Allied attempt to evict them, and who collaborated with the French to massacre the real Vietnamese nationalists.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If I could make another point, why do you think Saigon was so crowded with war refugees? Because large numbers of South Vietnamese were desperately trying to escape the areas of Viet Cong control! (The same is true of Cambodia and Laos: The Khmer Rouge were not a populist peasant uprising outraged at the evils of American imperialism, but a conspiratorial movement of French-educated intellectuals armed and trained by foreign powers. The North Vietnamese installed them in power over large swathes of Cambodia, enabling them to build up their forces through conscription, and the pretense that they were merely going to restore the monarchy prevented people from fighting very hard against them. There was never much popular support for communism anywhere in the world, which is why it died with the collapse of its state patron--outside of a few hardliners like Michaelwuzthere, of course.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, you're proving my point exactly. You're more concerned about pushing a hostile political agenda rather than what's true, even going so far as to regurgitate US government war propaganda right here. If you're personally offended that most Vietnamese in the South supported the NLF and did not support the Southern Catholic puppet state, which was in fact the continuing leading personality of the French colonial state, then that's you're personal problem. Wikipedia, however, does not belong to you and should have an objective perspective without US business propaganda putting outright lies and distortions that contradict established facts. Fact: The American/Vietnam war was fought mostly in South Vietnam, with concentrated bombing, chemical terrorism, and massacres. Fact: The National Liberation Front was entirely composed of citizens of South Vietnam and was not in any way under the control of the North beyond dependency on supplies and other such aid. Fact: The NLF had the support of the majority of citizens in South Vietnam, which the US government not only fully acknowledged but used as justification for aborting the planned election process which would have determined the fate of the country. Fact: The country continues to suffer the negative consequences of the bombing/chemical warfare to this day. The page currently either ignores or contradicts these facts, it should be fixed. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

North Vietnam created the NLF/Viet Cong and ran it from the start. Jeffrey Race noted that communist defectors found denials of this fact "very amusing" and "commented humorously that the Party had apparently been more successful than was expected in concealing its role." The aim was to hide the fact that "there was an invasion from the North." (Jeffrey Race (1972), War Comes to Long An, University of California Press, pp. 107, 122.) Since the end of the war, the communists have been fairly open in acknowledging this fact. In the end, it was the North Vietnamese army that conquered Saigon. The worst war crimes--like the Hue Massacre--were committed by the communists; and none of your unsourced rants about American imperialism using communist rhetorical terminology are appropriate for the lede.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

If the NLF/VC had popular support, they probably would not have felt the need to slice off the genitals of village chiefs and sew them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, ram bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slash open the wombs of pregnant women, machine gun children, hack men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education. As one defector put it, "we had to make the people suffer, suffer until they could no longer endure it. Only then would they carry out the Party’s armed policy." (Ibid, p. 112).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is my supposed "political agenda" "hostile" to? The Communist Party of Vietnam? It's not as though I'm the one who seeks to change this article; while I'm offering a rebuke to your badly-informed POV, the burden is really on you to justify your flagrantly undue changes to the lede. The only valid point you've made here, amidst your personal attacks and hyperbolic assertions, is that the war was mainly fought in South Vietnam. Well, of course it was, but the article doesn't say otherwise. Because the invasion of North Korea led to Chinese intervention, the US focused on restrained counter-insurgency and diplomacy in Vietnam, with tragic unintended consequences. Whereas North Vietnam's civilian population was largely untouched by the war, the communists deliberately targeted South Vietnamese civilians.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of hysterical propaganda in here. You're one step away from blaming the Vietnamese for invading the U.S.

The irony is, you don't even seem to see it. When the U.S. does something horrendous, it's a "tragic unintended consequence", while all other actors are merely provoking this great benevolent and diplomatic state. If an alien could somehow see the Vietnam war, and then see what many westerners write and say about it, he would probably wonder what they were even talking about.

The burden, apparently, is always on the "radical left", as in, the one willing to point out ugly, unpopular and "flagrantly undue" truths. The victors write the history books, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 02:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 October 2013

In the "Government and politics" section of the Vietnam page, it lists only 4 countries that are still Communist, it says: "The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, along with China, Cuba, and Laos, is one of the world's four remaining single-party socialist states officially espousing communism." However there are 5. Someone forgot to add in North Korea. Could you please add in North Korea? Thank you. RepublicOfGermania (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done North Korea no longer officially espouses communism. North_Korea#Regime_ideology --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty absurd that, regardless what they officially espouse, China is considered communist while North Korea is not. The former is clearly a state-capitalist system, while the latter is significantly closer, at very least, to what we would call communism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.252.42.161 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about whether countries assert communism. Regardless of the current system, communism is still officially part of the name and platform of the Chinese Communist Party. Communism is considered a long-term eventual goal, and maybe some people in the Party mean it. North Korea, on the other hand, ended Marxism-Leninism in favor of Juche in 1972, and removed communism references in 2009. It retains socialism, however. Abstractematics (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

From a Vietnamese

Everybody, "Ha Tay" isn't a province of Vietnam any longer, please change the map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangchanhung3 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

Was: Conflict between the two sides intensified, with heavy intervention from the United States, in what is known as the Vietnam War. The war ended with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975.

Should be: Conflict between the two sides intensified, with heavy intervention from the United States, in what is known in Vietnam as the American war, as they were seen as the occupying forces, and as the Vietnam War to those outside the country. The war ended with unification of both North and South Vietnam in 1975.

123.21.2.6 (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)