Talk:Viet Cong

Images

Why are all the images negative US propaganda? Should there not also be images of heroic freedom fighters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. These images are all US propaganda and do not reflect a balanced, objective viewpoint. --Karaff (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Me three! Those non-neutral images should be removed by someone. I wish I could do that right now--Phuyem (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Images produced by the U.S. federal government are all copyright-free, which simplifies the paperwork/bureaucracy aspect both in terms of uploading them and in terms of putting them in the article. There is now a "heroic freedom fighter" image near the bottom. People have complained about the images of bombings, but that's what the group is famous for. The PRG flag has been suggested as an alternative. But the Vietcong usually flew the North Vietnamese flag, so I think this would exaggerate the flag's historical importance. Kauffner (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you guys, it´s really parcial and real propaganda no impartial images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.190.185 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the problem with the images. They give a heavily POV slant to the article. Since there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the images are too heavily weighted toward a US POV, I've gone ahead and made some changes.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is just the images, the whole thing is US propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL 24.214.238.86 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong or Vietcong?

Probably not as heated an issue as some other questions here re etymology of "Viet Cong", but I might also note that this should really be rendered as Vietcong... in much the same sense that we no longer write Viet Nam (as was once common practice). see this: http://www.history.uk.com/styleguide/u-w.htm#V

Viet Cong is better (VC). Victorcharlie or Victor Charlie? Viet Nam is also better.

The name should be FNL and nothing else. "Viet Cong" was a propaganda sticker name invented by the Pentagon and the reliant U.S. media. Though widely used in the mass media at the time, it was soon recognized as a POV labeling. Most other WPs have opted for FNL because it's the name this movement called itself by.

You think that they called themselves by a French abbreviation? Kauffner (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of translation of names? FNL is legitimate in the same way that Mexico City, Moscow or the Republic of India are correct names, even though they read differently in the local tongues. Viet Cong is just as derogatory as if an article on African-American musical traditions were called "Negro grooves".

And the organization is question freely accepted to be referred to as FNL (or FLN) by media outlets and by people supporting it in the West. It never accepted "Viet Cong", period. Everyone who has taken the trouble to learn something about the Vietnam War knows this.Strausszek (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Names can be translated, but why would you translate the name of a Vietnamese organization into French and then use that name in English? FLN?? A Spanish abbreviation? That's even more bizarre. AFAIK, neither abbreviation was ever got significant use in English language media. I checked a Vietnamese dictionary. It has Việt cộng, but not FLN or FNL. Kauffner (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

US media conflated the NFL, PRG, VWP (in South Vietnam) and PLAF (all anglicised acronyms, of course). US media tended to distinguish the DRVN and PAVN, but often conflated the DRVN and VWP (in the DRVN). Due to this conflation, Viet Cong is used commonly in English to refer to the PLAF, NFL/NLF/FLN, VWP and PRG. And yes, I'm very aware of the current VWP line on all of the Southern revolutionary organs being front organisations—they're producing a whig history to invalidate the role of the buddhists, cults, democratic bourgeois nationalists, and local revolutionaries in the national liberation struggle. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Google News archive for 1958-1975, it's "Viet Cong" over NLF by 100 to 1. FNL, FLN, PAVN, DRVN, and PLAF never had significant usage. They get a few scattered mentions each. Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree in US media use. In scholarly texts focusing on the precise topic NLF, PRG, PLAF and PAVN come forward much more often. But, the core issue here is providing the article to readers where a common single name is used in contemporary non-scholarly English. At least for naming the article. The content should be based out of scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article must of course change name to what it is really called! "Viet Cong" is a propaganda name used by U.S. authorities. I haven't seen an article about Dushman (Afghan guerrilla) either, so why should names used in state propoganda be used? What was called "Mujahedin" in the medias in the West and in most muslim nations, was called "Dushman" in Soviet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.194.139 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NPOV and RS concerns

I am generally very impressed by the quality of this article - I've read very few Wikipedia articles on controversial historical topics with this level of balance and verifiability - but I think some claims and sources used are problematic according to neutral point of view and reliable sources principles:

• Two claims on the relationship between the VC and the South Vietnamese populace are sourced from Ralph Zumbro's Tank Sergeant. These claims are "Many Vietcong units operated at night, and employed terror as a standard tactic" and "Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Vietcong". I do not know Zumbro's books, but Google Books describes it as an "evocative, action-packed memoir" from a US veteran. A soldier's memoir is hardly a reliable source in this context - at least not without a disclaimer ("According to US Sergeant Ralph Zumbro's memoir ..."). And what exactly does "Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Vietcong" mean? That the entire VC based their rations on rice produced at gunpoints, that some VC units did this, or that some VC soldiers did this? Such general statements are only justifiable if they cite academic sources.
• The information about the My Canh and Dak Son massacres cite only contemporary news reports. According to WP:RS, "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports".
• I find the citation marks around "2d Liberation Battalion" problematic ("The "2d Liberation Battalion" ambushed two companies ..."). I do not believe it is customary to use citation marks for military units - we write German Sixth Army and not "German Sixth Army". I suspect whoever wrote the paragraph wants to make it clear that the VC was not objectively a liberation army - which is of course true, but this is clear from the context and using citation marks around a unit's name discredits it, making it seem like it's not a "real" unit and certainly not a "real" liberation battalion. By WP:NPOV, we are not in a position to make such subtle political statements.

Peace, 96T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the Fujian People's Government

China State TV carried a report some years ago connecting the flag of the the Vietcong () (1960-1975) to that of the Fujian People's Government () (1933-1934). The two flags certainly look remarkably similar. But it seems more likely that the VC flag is a variation on the Flag of North Vietnam (). The Asian communist flags have no nationalistic elements at all, just red field, star, hammer, sickle, etc. So perhaps the same combination turned up on two independently designed flags. Kauffner (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)