Talk:Vietnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Inaccurate or Inconsistent statement[edit]

The summary describes Vietnam as having high income inequality, but the gini ranking places it as moderate (and less than that of America) 216.145.68.130 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement[edit]

Found: "Vietnam was part of Imperial China for over a millennium, from 111 BC to 938 AD." The statement doesn't accurately depict the history of Vietnam. It erroneously implies Vietnam had belonged originally to China, which is totally inaccurate. Vietnam had never been part of China before, but after the Chinese invasion, Vietnam was part of Imperial China at the time. Professor and Holder of the John Biggs Chair in Military History Spencer C Tucker, Spencer C. Tucker states in his book (http://books.google.com/books?id=hvyNAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=111+BC+to+938+AD,+vietnam&source=bl&ots=ZI78puaTtA&sig=bI15k6BdzP2Rj-xAB89FUyvZnEw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zf6lU-2UBrHo8AHSr4GgCA&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=111%20BC%20to%20938%20AD%2C%20vietnam). That statement should be read: "Governgov (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)After the Chinese invasion, Vietnam was part of Imperial China for over a millennium, from 111 BC to 938 AD."


}}

This sounds strange to me as well, and I am neither Chinese nor Vietnamese. China has never existed as a continuous political entity for more than a millennium, and this sounds like an attempt to claim a history of modern, Communist China that does not exist. It would be like claiming that the United States actually existed for as long as there were humans in North America and then calling that period the Anarchic United States or the "Era of Warring Tribes" of the United States. The reality is that the political entity known as the United States did not exist until the Constitution was implemented. Similarly, China did not exist until the Ming's inherited (seized) the Chinese portion of the Mongol Empire in the 1400's. China before then was simply an amalgam of various independent kingdoms that have long since passed into oblivion. Calling them "China" would be like calling Europe today Roman. It's almost the reverse of the one-drop rule that we use to categorize Americans into whites and non-whites: if any territory is inside China, then its history is "Chinese." Florida is now a part of the United States, but the U.S. doesn't claim that Spain and its former empire are part of American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.130.131 (talk) 07:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Minor typo[edit]

Found a typo in the part about the First Indochina War. "major strategic setback at during their defeat at the Siege of Dien Bien Phu"

Ordering of leaders in infobox[edit]

Why is the Communist Party General Secretary listed first and the President listed second? According to Syntax in Template:Infobox country, the first leader listed is usually the head of state's (wikilinked) title, e.g. "President", "Monarch". --WikiWinters (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

The two audio files at the top of the article have been transcribed similarly with /ɑː/, though the second, the native Vietnamese one, is clearly /æ/. So I've edited the second accordingly: the vowel value now matches that further down in the Etymology section.

The article currently gives most prominence to the US pron, /ɑː/. My judgment is that the Vietnamese pron should be the first mentioned. Spicemix (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency?[edit]

Is the Vietnamese pronunciation of the name of the country [viət˨ næm˧] or [viə̀t naːm]? -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Help with stub: Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76)[edit]

Hello, I noticed there was a gap in the former states of Cambodia so I created Kingdom of Cambodia (1975-76); any help in expanding this stub would be much appreciated. Cheers, walk victor falk talk 04:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014[edit]

Congdinh2610 (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Please change "Ethnic groups 85.7% Vietnamese"

to "Ethnic groups 85.7% Viet"

Because there's not any ethnic which is named Vietnamese, and could be make misunderstand with all Vietnamese people. In Vietnam, we named the main ethnic is "Kinh" or "Viet", maybe "Viet" is more common and easy for foreign to understand, but not Vietnamese. Thank you.

"... there's not any ethnic which is named Vietnamese"
There's not any ethnic what?
"Ethnic is an adjective, not a noun!"
Surely there are some literate Wikipedia editors capable of correcting such fundamental misuse of English?!
It's an article talk page, not an English classroom. No one cares. bridies (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  LeoFrank  Talk 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is problematic, since the main article on the ethnic group is called Vietnamese people but I agree the OP is correct (Kinh is also bolded in the lead in the main article). This seems to me to be plainly analogous to Cambodian vs Khmer, Laotian vs Lao and Burmese vs Burman. bridies (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

  • No further input, so made the edit. bridies (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Give me one example then[edit]

Give me one example of socialist states which hasn't had single-party rule post-1917 then @Bridies:. --TIAYN (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and People's Republic of Bangladesh, it would seem, and arguably various other states under socialist governments (we are talking about governments, yes?) at one time or another: "socialist state" is ambiguous, and if we must remove one, "single-party" should be what remains. None of this is even relevant: shall I start giving references that describe Vietnam as a "single-party" state, government, or regime? bridies (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
As much as various people would like to see their variations of their ideology in any specific country most countries are a mix.

A state can have socialism or socialist principles in its constitution no matter its political plurality. Then any part is consititutionally bound to uphold certain virtues just like any party in America (and its de facto two party system) is bound to uphold its virtues. Of course sometimes constitutions are ignored. Just like it partly was in the USSR and partly is today in the US. Other reasons which make Vietnam a socialist country but still a single-party state is the states regulation and ownership of the economy which actually is growing and the way the result of this economic activiity benefits the people (after corruption) instead of single individuals or groups of them as under oligarchy or fascism. 79.136.64.95 (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The notion that state ownership benefits "the people" and not vested "individuals or groups" is verifiably ridiculous ;) Otherwise I agree regards pervasive state ownership making it something recognisably socialist, as it's commonly understood. I don't really see what you're getting at in regards to the OP, though. bridies (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrative Map[edit]

Administrative maps need to fix because Ha Tay province was merged into Hanoi since 2008. Nguyenthienhaian (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014[edit]

Under the heading "1862–1945: French Indochina", there is a vocabulary error in the final sentence. Instead of "Japan exploited Vietnam's natural resources to support its military campaigns, cumulating in a full-scale takeover of the country ...", it should read "Japan exploited Vietnam's natural resources to support its military campaigns, culminating in a full-scale takeover of the country ...." Mprat001 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014[edit]

i wanna edit it,in language part,Vietnam culture is a branch of the chinese culture 204.237.43.205 (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tourism[edit]

Shouldn't the section "tourism" better be shifted from "culture" to "economy"? --Schwobator (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015[edit]

Vietnam populations should be 90.630.000 instead of 90.730.000. 67.230.153.29 (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1946–54: First Indochina War - extensive NPOV problems[edit]

1) Note #2 in this section begins, "Neither the United States government nor Ngô Đình Diệm's State of Vietnam signed anything at the 1954 Geneva Conference." There was no reason to expect Diệm's regime would sign anything at the Geneva accords because 1) Diệm's government did not exist yet, nor did any nation of South Vietnam, by any name, 2) the French were still the official rulers of Vietnam at the negotiations, and 3) Diệm did not seize power until after the agreements were all signed. Diệm was not a party, nor was the US. Saying Diệm and the US were not signatories and disagreed with the agreement between the French and the Viet Minh was a common excuse used by Diệm and US leaders to absolve Diệm and the US for interfering with an agreement to which they were not parties. Diệm created a nation that did not exist by overthrowing the French-supported Emperor Bảo Đại and seceding the South from the rest of Vietnam. That secession is what absolved the Diệm regime from having to hold elections, not the fact that he hadn't signed off on the Geneva Accords (which are the source for this).

2) The article then states, "Two states formed after the partition – Ho Chi Minh's Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the north and Emperor Bảo Đại's State of Vietnam in the south." This is simply not true, and it reflects a bias to legitimize the nonexistent statehood of South Vietnam after the Geneva Conference. These were not the names of actual states, nor were they created at the Geneva Conference. There was only one Vietnam after the Geneva Accords. Until the South seceded, the North and the South were referred to as "regrouping zones" and "the northern and southern zones of Viet-Nam" in the Geneva Accords and in American documents (see the Pentagon Papers). Each zone was administered by the opposing parties within the nation of Vietnam. The Geneva Declaration also says "the military demarcation line should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." South Vietnam was not even claimed to be a nation until the year after the Accords were signed and Diệm overthrew the governing authorities of the southern administrative zone. This is all spelled out clearly in the Geneva Accords, which stand as THE authoritative RS for all of this. Other sources reflect the interpretations of their authors. That's ok, but it's not history.

3) The responsibility for enforcing these terms rested with the French and People's Army Commanders [Art. 22]. The French and the People's Army (Viet Minh) signed off on this. It's incorrect and divisive for us to say that two states were formed until after Diệm's coup. (This reflects a bias in favor of the South, and against the Communists.) The French were required to enforce adherence to the agreements but simply abandoned its responsibility without even asking for help. The People's Army Commanders did their part. This section must, IMO, describe the role of the French after the Geneva Conference, as they are one of the two warring parties described in this section and the major party to the agreement. This reflects a Western bias IMO. Again, the Accords are the source for their responsibility.

4) Further NPOV problems follow in that same paragraph, where it states that "almost a million northerners, mainly Catholics, moved south, fearing persecution by the communists." While the number is true, there is no statement of the hundreds of thousands of people who moved to the North during the same time, fearing whatever they feared from the regime in the South. This again reflects an anti-North bias.

This war ended 40 years ago. Can we put aside our partisan rhetoric and report the facts here? Emotions still run very deep, but we still need to be neutral on these issues, and I think it's time we tried. The Communist North won. They're doing ok. Dcs002 (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't object to much of what you say, and certainly not to your overall objective (which I take to be intellectual accuracy), but I think the article at hand as well as your comments - especially your point no. 3 - fail in a major way to reflect my understanding that the 1954 Geneva Accords specified that free elections were to be held in both the north and south "regrouping zones" to determine the direction of the sole country, that these elections were held in the south but never in the north, and that this failure in the north was the primary justification for the subsequent US intervention in Vietnam. This electoral failure in the north was the essence of US fears as described by its "domino theory". I think this article, especially the introduction, needs to be edited to reflect this fact.BLZebubba (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)