Talk:Vietnam/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Religious Numbers

I changed the Roman Catholic church as one of the minority religions to be included with Cunfucian and Buddhism. If, as the article states, 80% of Vietnamese are not religiously affiliated that leaves 15.6 million adherents to a particular religion. There are an estimated 5 million Catholics in Vietnam (and this takes into consideration the large number of Catholics who fled in the '70s/'80s) and if the non-adherent number is correct, than it is the second largest practised religion in Vietnam, probably much less than Buddhism but equal or more than Confucian. Considering it's long history there it would make sense. Virgil61 08:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

These numbers are very suspect. With the Communist government in power, i highly doubt the official census numbers on religion of a supposedly religion-free state are accurate due to fear of government oppression or just plain government "book cooking". According to the Wiki article on Demographics in VN as well as countless other sources and personal experience, over 80% adhere to Buddhist/Confucian/Taiost philosophies while around 10% are Catholic and other Christian subsets. It is not advisable to take two opposing sources with contradictory numbers to base your claims, otherwise you run the risk of sounding very POV and will appear to be "cooking the books". Yes, large numbers of Catholics left after 1975, but even larger numbers of Buddhists left also. I dare say a proportional ratio of Buddhists to Catholics similar to that already in VN were displaced after the war. But without data and sources, I will not enter this into any article. I've made the appropriate changes to coincide with other data while still leaving in the SRV's census numbers and making note of the sizeable Catholic minority.--hvn73 10:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not someone with a Catholic POV "agenda". I used the inherent logic of the original text on the page not the Demographics in VN, assuming there was no contradiction, to make the "claim". The original, which you changed for the better I think, said flatly that 80% were non-religious. To determine the remaining numbers I just subtracted 80% from the population leaving that as the "religous" populace and made the correct calculations. Now that the initial claim of 80% is stated as dubious (which really I should have noticed and changed) your change in the Roman Catholic status to where it stands now seems appropriate. My only connection to this is that I often go to a Catholic Vietnamese church nearby [I'm of European descent] because the non-Vietnamese one is much farther from me. Virgil61 16:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a debate, but you "assumed" (in your own words) twice when you didn't read the demographics section for VN to check data, and secondly when your partial basis of changing the article by your attendance of a VN Catholic church. I mean, I go to McDonald's once in a while but I would change the article to say "most Vietnamese eat at McDonald's..." The wording that you changed it was unclear and only made it seem as if there was a 50/50 division between the number of Buddhists and Catholics in VN...not only that, but you added the statement "the largest population in Southeast Asia outside of the Philippines" which sounds like it has a Catholic POV agenda. My purpose was not to attack you, but to "enlighten" (Buddhist pun intended) you about how pointed your changes sounded as well as inform others of the contradictions that in the two articles. Hopefully from this experience, we can both become better Wikipedians and continue to constructively contribute to this great project.--hvn73 18:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The original article didn't harmonize with the Demographics in Vn. My assumption is this isn't all f-up. I was wrong. Having implicitly admitted it was f-up don't you think the burden is also on those of you who monitor the VN section to tighten up? The attendance to a VN mass only served to give me a some knowledge of the situation and not give me an "agenda" and the McDonalds comment doesn't hold up to scrutiny since the percentage I used were based on the inherit to the article faults. I'll make sure the Demographics in Vn isn't a soup sandwich either. Virgil61 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this civil, shall we? I see that you've gotten defensive about my constructive criticism and have reverted to using "f-up", so I will no longer reply to you on this talk page. Do you have a valid user page in Wikipedia where these sorts of discussion should take place? The link to virgil61 seems to be invalid. You might consider setting one up if you feel the need to carry on this conversation. If you need a tutorial or "how to", click on the link to your handle and follow the instructions.--hvn73 19:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're 'constructive criticism' was laced with a complete misunderstanding of the mechanics of how I approached the change--after it was explained--along with poorly rendered analogies of my intent and a bit of baiting on your part--"..you assumed..". I used f-up instead of the real phrase, I took that as a milder approach. Of course you continue to bait by accusing me of being defensive and applying constructive criticism to your own approach. The horse is dead anyway.Virgil61 19:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You may have the last word. The wrong has been righted. Beat your horse if you'd like. God bless.--hvn73 20:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Viet Nam spelling again

As I recently saw on a user page, the UN's English-language member states page uses the two-word spelling, with no notation that it had ever used a different one. Maybe it's time to revisit this?--SarekOfVulcan 18:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference either way; either one leads to the same information. It does seem that the 2-word usage is more "correct". Out of curiosity, how does the UN deal with the word "Vietnamese", in terms of people and language? Do they write Viet Namese? If not, then I'd say that's at least tacit acceptance of the one-word variation. Kafziel 18:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Area

This page's infobox uses the optional tags for area in square miles and density per square mile, but I don't think it should be here unless the Vietnamese government uses it or ordinary people in the country do on a regular basis. Does anyone know if it's one way or the other?--naryathegreat | (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. You want to get rid of the miles conversions? Kafziel 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam, like most countries in the world, uses SI. DHN 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So? This article isn't here for Vietnam. It's for everybody, including the few hundred million people in the world who use miles. How does having a miles conversion in the template hurt anyone? I could maybe see complaining about it if they were the first units used, but they aren't. Kafziel 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I use miles because I'm an American too. The template only has the miles marker to allow the United States article to use it. Consensus long ago dictated that SI would be the standard. We can't include every localized change in every corner of Wikipedia.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, we can include mile calculations in every corner of Wikipedia. France, the birthplace of the metric system, is the first example that comes to mind. Then there's the People's Republic of China, arguably one of Vietnam's strongest influences of the past century. The Mongols didn't use miles, we can still list them since somebody took the time to put them in. Since it's already there, why would we want less information in an article? This just seems like editing for the sake of editing. Kafziel 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My changes

I've gone through and copyedited the article. Most of the changes were minor grammar, but a few of them were larger and I will clarify here:

• I removed the list of 59 provinces. There's a whole article dedicated to that.
• I removed the section about how Vietnam's second religion is despair or whatever; it's unencyclopedic, POV, and the NPOV parts just repeat statements from the religion section.
• I moved the "see also" from the demographics section to the "see also" section.
• I removed a commercial external link.
• I added a tag requesting references. The entire article should list its sources, but especially the places I marked with {{Fact}} tags.

I also think the demographics section needs to be shortened. This information is in other articles and should not be completely repeated here. I'm not familiar enough with the minority groups and regions to know what info needs to be moved where. Kafziel 20:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey I changed quite a bit before you corrected the page also because of the unbalanced point of view (very anti vietnamese government and use sources that weren't even academicDaicoviet 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

liberty and Freedom

liberty and Freedom , in Vietnam is used Freedom--203.160.1.37 10:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They're the same thing. DHN 20:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

who put thing like the poopy republic and such in the beginning of article

Vietnamese living in Australia

Hi, I am a 12 year old boy, living in Australia. I am currently wanting to know how many Vietnamese people are living in Australia and there where-abouts. Also how they live and how they keep in contact. Any information on this topic would be very grateful.

See Vietnamese Australian. DHN 05:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam spelling in French

It is most often Vietnam in a single word today. Another accepted one is Viêt Nam, used mostly in bilateral relationships, but I guess that it is the will of the current Vietnamese government. Others outdated spellings or names are used solely for historical matters or memorabilia (Indochine, Annam, Cochinchine, Nam Viêt...).

This official page from the French government shows both spellings used interchangeably. http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays-zones-geo_833/vietnam_555/index.html

99% of French would write Vietnam. Viêt Nam is used on wikipedia French solely because somebody decided to change the title and nobody opposed in the following discussion.

Vietnam Veterans Tourists

Article used to say "Most of the [..]", changed to "Some of the over 3 to 3.5 million annual visitors are Vietnam War veterans.". I don't think a source is needed for such a clear error. Most would imply at least a majority and likely a lot more than that, and considering there's just 3.5 million veterans who have actually served there's not the faintest chance most of the tourists in Vietnam are veterans.

It used to say "many" and I chose not to revert to that as "many" just like "most" would imply a considerable amount of veterans visiting.

Breakcore In Vietnam

Hi! Tell me if there are any breakcore or IDM artists in Vietnam. Thanks 82.209.208.184 11:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Crazy statement?

The spending power of the public has noticeably increased. The reason lies in the high prices for property. In Hanoi, the capital, property prices can be as high as those in Tokyo or New York City. This has amazed many people because the average income per capita of this city is around US$1,000 per annum. The booming prices have given poor land owners the opportunity to sell their homes for inflated prices.

That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that the lack of decently-paying employment has forced poor vietnamese land owners to sell their homes and move elsewhere! MisterSheik 08:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations and military

I assume there is no objection w/ me adding that new section to article. I just copy and pasted some key points from their main articles, so anyone can elaborate on those sections if they wish.24630 21:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam War Victim Count

I recently edited the count of victims in Vietnam War, and today it was removed because it was considered "irrelevant info" by DHC. Leaving aside that I think the info was fundamental also in this article, the main problem here is that the victim count shown in the current Vietnam article is not the same as in the Vietnam Casualties article (which I had linked from my previous, now removed, edit). The figure used in the current Vietnam article is outdated, while the one in Vietnam War and Vietnam Casualties are more correct - even though there is lack of consistency also between these two articles.

This article is about Vietnam, not about the Vietnam War. Please make your edits to Vietnam War, this article aleady focused too much on the past 50 years of Vietnam's 2000+ year history. I changed the wording to say "millions of people were killed". DHN 19:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the following sentence in the third paragraph misleading, if not flat-out wrong:

"The Vietnam War devastated the nation's economy and infrastructure, killing millions of civilians."

I have not read a single publication that lists Vietnam's civilian deaths as being over one million. In fact, most of them estimate between 400,000 to 600,000 Vietnamese civilians were killed. Even if the figure was as high as 1,900,000, the term "millions" (i.e. 2 million plus) should not be used. VietGrant 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Vietnamese governement says the number of civilians killed during the Vietnam War was 4 million. 2 million in the south, and 2 million in the north. (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075317/Vietnam-War) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tridungvo 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Template changed

This template Template:VietnamTopics is such a mess so I've created a new template Template:Vietnam_topics

Wildlife

Someone should add a section on the country's wildlife, nature reserves etc. Totnesmartin 15:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

That woul be cool if they did. I'd like to know about it.

204.39.17.15 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

caused WWII??!!

"Yet the French maintained dominant control of their colonies until World War II, when the Japanese invasion of Indochina triggered the war in the Pacific. " dont know how to edit correctly, but you definitly can't claim that japanese invasion of indochina triggered WWII pacific... not sure if thats what hes trying to say

Probably "triggered by the war in the Pacific". DHN 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Yet the French maintained dominant control of their colonies until World War II, when the Japanese invasion of Indochina triggered by the war in the Pacific."

The sentence as it stands is grammatically incorrect. Either the invasion "triggered the war" or "was triggered by the war." Which is it? 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another solution (sort of) would be Yet the French maintained dominant control of their colonies until World War II, when the Japanese invasion of Indochina triggered by the war in the Pacific occurred/brought an end to French colonialism or something like that. But it still leaves the war in the Pacific triggering the Japanese invasion of Indochina. I don't know enough about the Pacific war to tell if that would be accurate or not. --RockRockOn 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why should my link be removed, but not this one?

Ok, so why is the person who replaced my link (Vietnam Travel Blog) with [1] still included? My site actually offers information, this site is just a list of words, with no info whatsoever. I agree that there are enough link directories on the web, and I do not think I was using Wiki incorrectly.

If you are going to delete my link, at least be consistent. I'll check back in a week or so :)

Cannot edit..?

I've been trying to edit a section starting with "Hanoi capital - Hanoi Citadel" and ending with "vietnam travel since then." because it contains what appears to be a commercial link. However, no matter what I open, I can't find the source of the text. Help? It just seems very suspicious.

The text had already been removed. Refresh your browser to see a new version of the article. DHN 16:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Southeastern Asia at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Southeastern Asia whose scope would include Vietnam. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Transportation Edits

Someone just added a bunch of info to the transportation section. While there is some valuable information there, the punctuation and grammar is a mess. A complete wreck. I don't even know where to start. Please refer to an English composition book when adding so much information. Someone else has to edit that mess. I don't have the energy. VietGrant 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

HUGE REVAMP

I revamped the whole entry because there ARE too much specific details and analysis, PLEASE add them to the daughter articles, not in the main entry. Daicoviet 17:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence in "Dynastic Era" section of "Vietnam"; help?

The sentence "Three times with massive troops as well as careful preparation for their attacks but three times in the row the Mongols were totally swept out of Dai Viet." seems unclear to me. Could someone clarify it? Thank you. Cedar

I think whoever inserted it wanted to say that the Mongols were defeated by the Vietnamese in all three invasions, which is redundant. I edited the history section to make it a bit more coherent without making it much longer. DHN 20:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Red River Delta province

This article links the Western name "Red River Delta" to the Vietnamese name "Dong Bang Song Hong". The latter article does not exist; however, there is a stub article Red River Delta that should either be renamed to "Dong Bang Song Hong" — in line with the apparent standard here — and expanded, or else the limited material merged into this article, Red River (Vietnam) or another suitable article. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I found it interesting to read that "Vietnamese people eat fried cat terds for sacrifice to the god Cornholio".You may want to check in to the accuracy of that fun fact!

72.91.120.124 01:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Ed Gray

I just did a quick revert

the flags and stuff were all screwed up and there seemed to be some profanity. No harm intended —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Khmer Rouge

"In 1978, the Vietnamese Army invaded Cambodia to remove their erstwhile allies, the Khmer Rouge, from power"

Democratic Kampuchea and the SRV (or the DRV that preceded it) were not allies. The Khmer Rouge routinely committed incursions into Vietnamese territory, attacking villages and murdering civilians. The invasion was in response to this after the SRV leadership decided that they had had enough. Ther were never allies, so I have removed this body of text from the article. --CloutierFan02 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

Regarding the intro to the article - I think someone has either removed a section they dont like or someone has cut & pasted from another website without even trying making it look like it! For an article on a country it is in rather poor shape considering the extensive editing done on other countries (some much smaller!) I hope I can find the time to fix this Mytchill 01:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP growth in 2006

The official number of GDP growth (in 2006), given by the government and presented by many internet sites, is 8,4%, not under 8% as the beginning of this article claims. Suggest it is changed, and the GDP growth of 2006, on the Economy of Vietnam page is also updated. 85.164.37.137 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Military of Vietnam

I have changed the text of this section, as it was misleading and the links were inaccurate. Now the text is taken from the main VPA article, and the relationship between the various branches etc is make clear. Frank Walsh (1962) 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Terrorist" Definition in Vietnamese Constitution

Opposition to the communist party in Vietnam is defined in the Vietnamese constitution as "terrorism." This results in former enemy combatants of the government, such as mountain tribespeople (Dega Montagnards, etc.) being dubiously misclassified under international law as 'terrorists'. This warrants mention and posting Vietnam, and Laos too. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you specify which section of the constitution defined that? DHN (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Wildlife

Sorry to bring up the topic again, but it would be interesting, given that in the 1990s alone, 3 new mammals discovred in VietNam: saola, giant and Truong Son muntjac, . Not only that, there are very spectacular species like the critically endangered Javan rhino, the gaur:

http://www.arkive.org/species/GES/mammals/Bos_frontalis/Bos_frontalis_00.html

http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-06/23/Stories/23.htm

and wild water buffalo, which apart from VietNam, can only be found in India

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KG7tgRN2UNc

And most recently, the discovery of giant wild buffalo in VietNam:

http://www.laodong.com.vn/Home/khoahoc/2007/1/20926.laodong

All that makes VietNam the biggest hotspot for wildlife in the world for the last decade. So I think it's a chracteristics worthwhile mentioning.

I just noted that in the biodiversity section, Edward's Pheasant is included in a list of mammals recently discovered. Next time someone with access is editing the page you should change it to "six birds and mammals" or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabriel (talk • contribs) 04:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion

sorry but I just gotta bring up the religion topic again (and yes, I've read the last discussion) but it still doesn't seem to have been resolved. from what I understand, there could be 2 reasons for that govmt figure with such a high rate for "athiests". 1 is some ppl claim the govmt considers all who identify as practicers of more than 1 religion (that is that triple religion thing) to be aethiests. the other possibility is that a lot of vietnamese have historically considered themselves to be buddhist, but they dont practice all of the strict rites and stuff that's required - and only visit the temple/pagoda like once or twice a year <--and so maybe the govmt only considers strict purveyors of buddhism to be "buddhist". the reason i doubt the govmt figures so much is simply growing up i always thought it was obvious vietnam was a historically buddhist country????? how could the catholic and buddhist figures be that close to each other? Justakemeout 18:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Communist ("socialist") countries favor atheism, since that is mandated by Marxism-Leninism and (as in this case) Maoism. Although such governments usually make a show of religious tolerance, in practice religions are generally discouraged. The numbers are probably "massaged" to favor atheism, or else many religious people have gone underground...64.61.81.231 17:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

An independent Western social scientist, Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College, gives the proportion of the "Nonbelievers in God" in Vietnam as %81. There are two points to make. First, all nonbelievers are not atheists. Second, atheism is not just an instrument of the communist countries to suppress their people but it is a well documented tendency of the societies of the advanced neighboring countries like Netherlands, Belgium, France and etc. Deliogul (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate the word "costume"

... especially when it's being used to describe another nation's garment:

One of the most popular Vietnamese traditional costumes is the "Áo Dài"

It serves only to further estrange a cultural aspect of the country. So I changed it to the appropriate word "garment."

I agree, good call. Sir Vicious 08:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The Vietnamese history section of the article reflects the Vietnamese government's interpretation of history that does not reflect historical fact. The Vietnamese were historically a small group of Viet-Muong tribes along the Red River that includes the area of Ha Noi, today. Over the 2,000 years from the first conquest by the Han Chinese in 206 B.C.E. to modern times, the country actually expanded as an empire, conquering several small kingdoms and liquidating their populations, and even seeking to expand into China (under Ly Thuong Kiet in the 12th century). The policy of imperial expansion into the south, "nam tien", has been a recurrent historical theme and such expansion led to the conquest of the Cham empire (now considered the area of "Central Vietnam" but at times extending close to the Red River, and the area of "South Vietnam" that was land taken from the Khmer Angkorian empire. Land was also taken from kingdoms to the west (some from Lao) and north, such as from the 11th century Tay Nung empire of Dai Nung. This expansion and the underlying cultural differences need to be understood as part of the context of the Vietnam-American war and of the geopolitical expansion of Vietnam into much of what now remains of Cambodia and Laos, in the 19th century. 81.183.152.79 12:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC) June 5, 2007

"the Viet language spelling was invented by French colonist just 100 years ago in order to separate from China deep influence; compare to the Cambodian , Lao and Thai spelling which created by themselves."

actually the cambodian, lao and thai scripts are derived from indian scripts..NOT independent scripts.165.196.97.67 (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I recognized only a few events that you list since I'm not at all knowledgeable about the topic. If you feel like it please contribute, but do cite sources so people can check up on. Thanks. Sir Vicious 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

'Costume' does not only mean 'fancy-dress costume'. It is standard for it to also be used in 'national costume', 'traditional costume' etc. It is not a xenophobic usage. Salopian (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree: usage of an antiquated term like "traditional costume" is certainly patronizing and more than a little dehumanizing. "Costume" indicates a certain showiness or masquerade, not unlike actors or circus animals: when used in a term like "national costume" it's a rather quaint, Victorian diminution of foreign customs, and it is not befitting Wikipedia. (I'm sure no one would ever refer to the suit & tie as "traditional Caucasian costume".) SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"The extent of the U.S. bombing of Cambodia ..."

This paragraph seems a bit odd and out of place. drh 16:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

neutrality against communist monovision

I've recently corrected the article with facts about the colonial era and cold war's early years as there was an obvious non-NPOV.

now there is the vietnam war episode: The communist-held North Vietnam was opposed by the United States is such a phrase neutral? as I saw in the preceding section earlier there was not a single mention about the anti-communist vietnamese people, state and army that actually existed. reads like every single vietnamese were communist but this is untrue. what about operation Passage to Freedom that no one here seems to have heard of? what about the ARVN army (the new VNA)? so were the U.S. the only to oppose North Vietnam or were they some vietnamese people as well? Paris By Night 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

General Secretary of the Communist Party?

Shouldn't the Government part of the country template list General Secretary Nông Đức Mạnh's name under the names of the President and the Prime Minister? I had thought that in a communist state, the General Secretary of the Party is the real ruler of the country.Inkan1969 23:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A section on the actual government structure in Vietnam would be great. There is little to no information about Vietnam's governmental structure in the article. What's up with that? Rag-time4 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. He's as powerful as them, but isn't the head of state nor the head of government, nor does he act in place of one of the others. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Geography

Among all the changes that have taken place recently, the area of the Red River Delta has been changed from 15,000 km^2 to 3,000 km^2. On checking an atlas the former looks more plausible, and is the figure given in the Red River Delta article. (Have other errors escaped reversion?) I am also skeptical that the delta advances by 100m per annum. Lavateraguy 00:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"Mountains account for 40% of the area, with smaller hills accounting for 40% and tropical forests 42%" These don't quite add up... do smaller hills and tropical forests add up to form 82% of the mountains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.1.36 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree! Those numbers do not match up. 20, 40, 40, and 42 percent mean that Vietnam would have more than 100% of its own land, an impossibility. Could someone please correct those figures? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cimorene12 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Population

I think that someone should put up the July 2007 estimate.

Answer: I just did. I got it from the CIA World Facts Book, placing it at just over 85 million, not 87 as previously stated on this site. The Vietnam General Office of Statistics gives a 2006 estimated figure at 84.1 million so the 85 million figure for 2007 seems more in line that the 87 million figure. Tom3605 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom3605 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Transportation

This sentence was in the transportation section:
"Transportation is the most popular form of transportation in the country"
Looking at the history, it used to say "The road system is..." -I've switched it back to this, it looks like the change may have been accidental. Nick McClellan 21:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnamese Americans (2nd nomination). Badagnani 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Flag

Although the flag in the Info Box is the official flag of Vietnam, whether I like it or not, there is another flag which is red with 3 yellow stripes across the top, leaving the area of red below it above a quater of the whole flag. Do you think it is we should add it as a reference, as this flag is only used by the original Southern Vietnam, as a flag of freedom to oppose Ho Chi Minh. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 07:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, this flag is not used officially in the entity now known as Vietnam. Wikipedia already has an article on the flag of the Republic of Vietnam. DHN 07:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "No" answer. One must not confuse one's own political preferences with the reality on the ground. Like it or not, the red flag with the gold star is recognized internationally as the flag of Vietnam. Tom3605

Commentary

"Đổi Mới (New Age)" = Oops! sorry we screwed up, we were wrong. Crreg 24.6.74.109 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Provinces

Provinces Now Vietnam has 64 provinces :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.129.44.22 (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are, in fact, incorrect. Vietnam is divided into 59 provinces and 5 centrally-controlled municipalities existing at the same level as provinces. Rarelibra (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal perspective of the article

The article has a strong feeling of liberalist point of view in it. I mean, if parameters say good things, it is because of the market economy and when they are bad, it is only because of the socialist rule in the country. I also didn't understand why we use capitalist measures (see "International rankings") to determine the degree of development in a socialist country. "Bretton Woods system is the best and everybody should be in accordance with it because US won the WWII"? Deliogul (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The period of socialist rule in the country is generally agreed in Vietnam itself to be a failure. Recently, an exhibit at the Vietnam Museum of Ethnology called "Hanoi Life Under the Subsidy Economy (1975-1986)" showed the horrible living conditions during this period. Likewise, doi moi is officially commemorated as a rousing success. With Vietnam joining the WTO earlier this year, it's safe to say that it's only "socialist" politically and not economically. DHN (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, what do we understand from failure? Do those "horrible living conditions" were caused because of the socialist system or the ongoing Western intervention to the country (France, US)? I’m mean, if you colonize the capital and labor in a country for years and then use your napalm bombs to destroy its agriculture, what can socialism do? The helicopter scene in the Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket is one of my popular ways to explain the case of Vietnam. A crazy gunman kills peasants without a reason. This is the Western subjectivity and paranoia about Vietnam.

When there is a collective structure and not many chances to become rich or to express yourself, the conditions are "horrible" and when there is an individualistic market economy where people are not equal in merit (the main argument of liberals to explain why some people are rich and others are starving), it is the heaven on earth.

I'm refusing to look at the case from the eyes of an American teenager who just watched Rambo 2. It is just too much Ronald Reagan. Vietnam can change its policies and become a part of the global capitalist system. Actually their current approach is one of the two main sectors of the Dependency Theory, “Possibility of Dependent Development”. Therefore, I’m not opposing to that. I just think that the article is sided. Deliogul (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In vietnam today and in the past the 'Veitnam War' as the Americans and the world dubbed it was actually known as the 'American War'. I feel that maybe this title should have precedence in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.43.212 (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is an article about Viet Nam, not the US. The war should be called the American War, or maybe the Second Indochina War, though there are a host of problems with that name too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.163 (talk • contribs) 03:29, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

Too much economy in the intro section

I believe the intro section of the article has too much about economy. I suggest we remove:

"The country is listed among the "Next Eleven" economies; according to government figures, GDP growth was 8.17% in 2006, the second fastest growth rate among countries in East Asia and the fastest in Southeast Asia."

We already have estimates of the 2007 gdp growth and thus should remove the 2006 figues. I don't think the "next eleven" economies is so important that it should be included. And all in all, the economy section is too long, and takes up too large a percentage of the intro. It gives the wrong impression of Vietnam being a rich country. Vietnam is a developing country with a strong economic growth and that's how the intro should introduce Vietnam. We could add that instead of the sentences above. Tridungvo (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dai Viet

Why does Dai Viet redirect here, yet is not mentioned at all in the article? This should be corrected. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

vietnam motto

someone changed the motto of vietnam to "we love dong". unfortunately, i can't change it back to the correct motto as this page is "semi-protected". 24.143.85.56 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is soooooooooo awsome!!!!!...........................NOT IT IS SO STUPID!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.113.185.158 (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Vietname War of 1979?

Perhaps the history section should include a brief paragraph detailing the Sino-Vietname War, or at least link to the larger article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.210.55 (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 58.186.12.159 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nam Viet, Viet Nam, Dai Viet

In this article, it says that

"Then, in 1804, King Gia Long planned to use the name of Nam Việt for Vietnam but the Qing dynasty of China disagreed and changed it to Việt Nam."

Okay.. Very interesting. But.. Could this elaborate any further (note sarcasm)?

Please don't let me leave hanging. The suspense is killing me.

So why did the Qing disagree with the name, Nam Viet? Didn't you think that people would want to know why? An explanation as to why the name Nam Viet was refused by China would be helpful. Thanks. Vlag (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Vlag

There was once an ancient kingdom named Nam Việt, part of which is now located deep inside China. So the short and simple answer is that Chinese don't want another state making claim to the former border of Nam Việt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.54.49 (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC) WRONG!YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT WELL EDUCATED ABOUT ASIA HISTORY ; ESPECIALLY TO YOUR NORTHERN NEIGHBORHOOD ; THAT IS SAD AS ASIAN; IT IS OPPOSITE MEANING WHY THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THE DISTRICT CALL NAM VET AS YOU DESCRIBED. ACTUALLY THE NAM VIET DISTRICT WHICH SAID THE AREA WOULD BE DEEP INSIDE THE NORTH VIETNAM AND WAS ALSO BELONG ONE OF THE HAN WARLORD ; REMEMBER THAT THE SOUTH VIETNAM WAS BELONG TO THE CHAMP EMPIRE. AND THAT WILL HURT THE VIETNAMESE FEELING . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.43 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vietnam in the Dutch Empire

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map, because user Red4tribe has made a map of the Dutch Empire (Image:Dutch Empire 4.png) that includes significative parts of Vietnam. Would you like to comment? Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New Map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dutch_Empire_new.PNG http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ square=tradingpost (Red4tribe (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC))

Still OR, POV and unsourced (yours is not not a credible source). Please discuss stuff at Talk:Dutch Empire#Request For Comment: Map. This was just a request for comment, not a discussion. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports

What happened to the Sports section right under the Culture sections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omfgitsalex92 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Vietnam

Why should the main Vietnam article not use the name Second Indochina War instead of the "common name" Vietnam War? That's its well-known name in Vietnamese and most other languages. The earlier war with the French is given due credit as "First Indochina War", so it seems that the Second should be in the list as well. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that it's known as "Second Indochina War" in Vietnamese? DHN (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did fail to express that correctly, but I think the issue is plain enough: the fact that the Vietnamese refer to it as "The American War", and that Americans refer to it as "The Vietnam War", means that "Second Indochina War", a neutral descriptive term used commonly in academics worldwide, is the most suitable choice for a NPOV encyclopedia. SteveStrummer (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think only the Americans call it the "Vietnam War"; virtually everyone else does. Also, in Vietnamese academic circles, it's beginning to be called that as well. DHN (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree but I also cannot offer any hard evidence in support of my own position: I'll concede if you or another contributor wishes to edit the name. (However, I still feel it's really odd to leave "First Indochina War" alone in the list... but hey, c'est la guerre, eh?) SteveStrummer (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The audience for the article is English-speakers, not Vietnamese. "Vietnam War" is common usage in English, and not just for Americans. My English-Vietnamese dictionary translates "Vietnam War" as "chiến tranh Việt Nam (từ 1954 đến 1975)" so I don't think that "American War" is actually commonly usage, even in Vietnamese. Kauffner (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, 'Vietnam War' is used much more widely in the English language than 'Second Indochina War'.

'Second Indochina War' redirects to 'Vietnam War' on Wikipedia. If Kauffner's translation is correct, the title of the Vietnamese page for that war directly translates into 'Vietnam War'.

Google.com hits (Apx.): Vietnam war- 14,000,000, Second Indochina War- 201,000

Google.co.uk (only pages from the UK) hits: Vietnam War- 477,000, Second Indochina War- 6,640

Google.com.au (only pages from australia) hits: Vietnam War- 242,000, Second Indochina War- 3,060

To make it clearer, google.com includes pages from all over the English speaking world, plus two non- U.S., English speaking countries to show that it is known as The Vietnam War outside of the U.S. much more frequently than Second Indochina War. It is very clear that 'Vietnam War' is used much more frequently in English. It is appropriate to use the common name as the title of a page or section anyway, as what it is also known as is explained on the main page. The section 'First Indochina War' Is completely appropriate to stand on it's own, as that is its common name. The Vietnam War is also known as the Second Indochina War, and anyone visiting the Vietnam War main page will see that.

Simple Explanation: Most people know it as the Vietnam War, not the Second Indochina War, and not just Americans.

Based on that information, I think 'Second Indochina War' should be changed to 'Vietnam War', and the above is the rationale. Abusing (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed--Abusing (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

personally i call it 'the war of US aggression against vietnam'. but then the war created alot of useless huey that ended up here, there is still a few lying around rusting away... Akinkhoo (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

To replace a new government system

"The Vietnamese Communists are one of the most corrupt and extortive societies on earth, thus they should be killed and eliminated as soon as possible. Perhaps the world should start Vietnam War II, but this time, do it efficiently. Eliminate the corrupt and extortive Communist bastards! Someone should assassinate the most recognized officials of Communism!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumainu (talk • contribs) 10:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop. If you want to add well sourced information on corruption in Viet Nam please do so. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The largest city of Vietnam has now changed

{{editprotected}} The largest city of Vietnam has been Hanoi since 01/08/2008. Can admin change it?

 Not done A quick Google search shows that Saigon is the largest city. You need to provide a reliable source for this claim. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In Hanoi article, "Hanoi's total area will be increased three times to 334,470 hectares divided into 29 subdivisions"[2], and in Saigon article 808.9 sq mi (2,095 km²) (although it is not well-sourced, but no one ever denied it). Just for information, Hanoi has just officially increased administrative area since today (August 1st Hanoi time). Vinhtantran (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is only semi-proteced, so you can make the change. I imagine quite a bit needs changing, so I'll leave this to the regular editors. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Largest city" usually refers to population figures. Even though it's increased in area and population, Hanoi is still behind HCMC in terms of population. DHN (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Independence from whom

In his Declaration of Independence, Ho Chi Minh mostly spoke against the French colonial government, not the Japanese. Moreover, the Japanese are already losing control of Indochina by this time, and sovereignty was in the process of being passed back to the French. So even if Japan was technically in control at the time, independence is actually being declared against France. DHN (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Should edit

Someone put "financial duty" under the culture section. I believe this is supposed to be filial duty.Givensuchaluckstroke (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Suspected spelling error

I know this is extremely minor, but I felt the need to mention that the "Vietnam War" subsection under "History" contains the sentence, "Portions of Northern Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia more resembled the surface of the move[Emphasis Added] instead of a lush tropical jungle." I do believe the word the author was looking for was "moon". Just a basic typo that could be corrected quickly.--K. S. Varanid (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely because it's not relevant to the history section. DHN (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese people are denied human rights?

The introduction of this article read "With a population of over 86 million, who are denied basic human rights[1], Vietnam is the 13th most populous country in the world." Is this true? I think stronger sources are needed for such a statement like this right at the beginning section of the article, to prevent media bias. 117.3.1.240 (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it. It doesn't belong in the lead. DHN (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:Countries Assessment

The reassessment section of the WP:Counties appears to be stagnant at present. Does anyone object to me assessing the article to check the sections against the assessment criteria? Taifarious1 10:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maps

No historical maps of Vietnam? Sca (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

VN War section

Is already quite big compared to the other section. This is'nt the place for detailed discussion of US budge contributions etc. YellowMonkey (choose Australia's next top model) 05:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted every one of the words I wrote. [[3]], the 'intermediate revision not shown' being mine, for a total additional 1,619 letters, increasing the kilobyte size from 59 to 61. Curiously, you did not use the Revert button. And yet you make only two points. I shall answer them, and await eagerly any other reason for your edit, for surely there must be some.

• I encourage third party editors to decide for themselves about the size of the named section. I cannot myself see a size issue; I refute this statement. Furthermore, my edits were over numerous sections, and all of them were removed as shown above.
• 'The discussion of the budget' as you refer to US economic aid to southern Vietnam, did not exist before I created it. It no longer exists now that you have reverted it. It is of relevance to Vietnam that the US gave the South between twenty and thirty billion dollars during the War. By providing precise amounts, I believe, I have added weight to otherwise flat assertions that fill this article with uncited, unverified commentary; something which is unfortunate, if necessary at times, but which we as editors should take every opportunity to correct. Anarchangel (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reinstated your changes except for the parts about US public sentiment etc. While it obviously had a large impact on what Americans think, it was what actually happened in Vietnam that matters about Vietnam, and I thought it places too much emphasis on a group that is much less affected by the war. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 02:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it's just a value judgment. The actual budget and actual # of soldiers isn't relevant, it's what affect Vn that is important. This section is way bigger than other parts of VN history already, we don't need to know if LBJ or Nixon was being truthful, compared to revolutions etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...And what happened in Viet Nam that is under discussion, the Viet Nam War, is only adequately explained by speaking of the countries that were involved in the Viet Nam war. Your value judgements aside, there is information here that is required to explain the events in Viet Nam that shaped the country.
'a group that is much less affected by the war': Are you referring to the opposition to the war? Setting aside the fact that opposition was world-wide, why else would the protestors protest if they were not at least moved by the war? More importantly, there is a good argument for the case that they, the protestors, affected the war themselves.
See French Indochina#First interventions for an example of public sentiment regarding a single engagement in the country in question is a matter considered worthy of inclusion. "De Genouilly was criticized for his actions and was replaced by Admiral Page in November 1859,"
Perhaps you might explain why mention of the Ho Chi Minh trail, and the secret war in Laos and Cambodia to bomb it, were also removed. Anarchangel (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnam War is a 50-year blip in the country's 2000-year history. This article devoting several paragraphs describing it is already placing too much emphasis on it. This is the article about the country, and the history section should ideally just mention who fought, who lost, and who won. Who are you to say that this war is more important than the Trinh-Nguyen War, which arguably had a more long-lasting impact on the nation's history and only got mentioned in 4 words in this article. DHN (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So now the war itself isn't important? Please.

The -main page- links are the military forces in the conflict, and are indispensable. The number of forces added to the conflict, and the dates give the perspective of the early years of the war, which allow the reader to understand that the war was a continuum from French occupation all the way through Eisenhower's administration, to the Paris Accords. Note that this page does not have a section on the Japanese occupation either; this page is sorely lacking as a Vietnamese history, and I can not see how I would be convinced by any arguments relying on the current state of the page as being indicative of how it should be, particularly unspecified and subjective ones.

The Ho Chi Minh trail is a vital part of the discussion of the tactical conduct of the war. The secret bombing campaign of Laos and Cambodia is integral to the discussion of the trail, and has relevance in its own right.

50-year blip: See my own edit to Vietnam War describing the end of the Viet Nam War as the end of 116 years of foreign involvement. I am not unaware of the relative length of the Viet Nam War to the length of Viet Nam's history, but I respectfully suggest that you are making too little of its relative importance by reducing it to only a duration, rather than a series of events. 'blip', 'too much emphasis', and 'ideally' are all value judgements, and I am not convinced. I would be happy to discuss further, cogent arguments against inclusion. Moreover, your lamentation, which I support, upon the lack of coverage of the Trinh-Nguyen War would seem to indicate that you would be better served by expanding on that section rather than attempting to trim others to match its deficient length.

For the benefit of those who might be wondering, the diff in question is 2:27 19 Nov Anarchangel (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that the Vietnam War is not important enough to warrant more than a paragraph on in this article which talks about the country as a whole. As is, the history section of this article suffers from recentism and a Western bias by focusing too much on Vietnam's interaction with France and the US. The history section should only give a brief overview of the country's history. If we expand the Trinh-Nguyen War, the Tay Son rebellion, the Lam Son rebellion, the repelling of the Mongol invasions, and various other important events in the country's history to the length of the Vietnam War section, then we'd have a long, rambling history section. Description of how much money the US poured into the war does not have a place in this brief overview. DHN (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That country pages should be required to give only a brief overview of their history is quite simply not true. You overstate your case considerably. The page United States, and its history of under 500 years, is contained only within a History section larger by a factor of 27 to 20 (4 1/2 page lengths on my browser, to 3 1/3) than the History on this page, of, as you say, 2000 years. And if it is the events, as I referred to, that make it longer, then with fewer events on this page, the Viet Nam war assumes a larger relative importance.

Recentism more properly refers to transient events in our modern history, not modern history itself. As regards recentism, I am actually a separatist not a mergist. Yet attempts to reference other pages by deleting the NLF and ARVN <main page> links have also been reverted. A western bias would favor leaving out information unfavorable to the U.S. involvement.

Conspicuous by its absence is any mention by either DHN or Yellowmonkey of the Ho Chi Minh trail and the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, although Yellowmonkey has removed it five times, and DHN once. I would be interested to hear what your views are on the inclusion of this material.

I think it is important to note that you can not balance the page the way you want it to be. You can add information on the Tay Son brothers or w/e that deserves inclusion, but you can't delete info that deserves inclusion because no one has bothered to include the Tay Son. 2000 years is a long time. Maybe you ought to be rethinking your definition of 'long and rambling'.

What I really want to include is how the US used aid in the form of goods directly to merchants, that they then sold (The United States in Vietnam: An analysis in depth of the history of America's involvement in Vietnam by George McTurnan Kahin and John W. Lewis) This impacted not only the Vietnamese economy, but was a form of bribe to curry favor with the populace. This would be long, and of course 'bribe' would be PoV, but the numbers themselves are the least that should be included.

Alternatively, I would be more than happy with a link to a new (or dare I hope for an existing) page that would detail all the aid and other involvement of the US in Vietnam. Anarchangel (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

International relations

The current Vietnamese foreign policy is that: "Implement consistently the foreign policy line of independence, self-reliance, peace, cooperation and development; the foreign policy of openness and diversification and multilateralization of international relations. Proactively and actively engage in international economic integration while expanding international cooperation in other fields. Vietnam is a friend and reliable partner of all countries in the international community, actively taking part in international and regional cooperation processes" (Extract from The Political Report of The Central Committee - Vietnam Communist Party, 9th Tenure, at The Party’s 10th National Congress [4].

As of December 2007, Vietnam has established diplomatic relations with 172 countries (the list is here: [5]). Vietnam holds membership of 63 international organizations such as United Nation, ASEAN, AES, La Francophonie, WTO and 650 non-government organizations [6].

Ckletter (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

International relations

The current Vietnamese foreign policy is that: "Implement consistently the foreign policy line of independence, self-reliance, peace, cooperation and development; the foreign policy of openness and diversification and multilateralization of international relations. Proactively and actively engage in international economic integration while expanding international cooperation in other fields. Vietnam is a friend and reliable partner of all countries in the international community, actively taking part in international and regional cooperation processes" (Extract from The Political Report of The Central Committee - Vietnam Communist Party, 9th Tenure, at The Party’s 10th National Congress [7].

As of December 2007, Vietnam has established diplomatic relations with 172 countries (the list is here: [8]). Vietnam holds membership of 63 international organizations such as United Nations, ASEAN, AES, La Francophonie, WTO and 650 non-government organizations [9]. Ckletter (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Government Censoring

Similar to China, Vietnamese government exerts its control over main stream media broadcasting including TV, radio, and internet. In general, the main message that the communist party tries to convey is the tremendous economic growth and government effort in fight corruption while dimishing the human right struggles that have been going on in other areas of the country. It is a total form of manipulation. Whether it's news, movies, or any other forms of entertainment, they all shares a common theme- success via hard and honest work with the support of the government. This serves two purposes: distraction from political resentment and promotion of enterprenuerial activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feonie (talk • contribs) 22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

wow !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.10.13 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced

The first few sections of the article contain no cited sources.

I am not an established registered user so I cannot edit the source to insert appropriate templates (e.g. Template:Fact). --213.143.18.23 (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Although you specified sections plural, and may not have been referring to the lede at all, I want to point out, just in case, that it is common for the lede to contain no cites, as it is primarily a precis of the rest of the information in the article, which itself is cited. For sections after that, citations should be added. Anarchangel (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why we have a section Đổi mới?--Magicknight94 (talk) 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.219.82 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion of Adding a new Map of Vietnam

I have created this new map in SVG format and suggest it to be included in "Infobox Country". If any change is required, such as errors to be fixed, translation of text or whatever, please let me know.

Map of Vietnam

NgaViet (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Chào anh. The scale of a Web image has no meaning - it depends upon your screen, etc. It would be better to remove it. --Touchatou (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Education Free For minority group

Education in Vietnam, are free for only minority group, in remote region. Mandatory is not being enforce, kids are walking around pestling tourist. The majority group of Vietnam have to pay for education and they are not subsidise by the government. If you don't have money you stay in the street. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.3.165 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

CLIMATE

VIETNAM'S CLIMATE IS TROPICAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.78.211.30 (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New Strategy Statements (in History Section)

• Originally, this section contained these statements...

"It is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world. However, this growth does little for the development of the country[citation needed], and Vietnam still ranks as one of the poorest nations in the world. This is due primarily to the fact that much of the money gained from the growth does not trickle down to the people. Politically, reforms have not occurred. The Communist Party of Vietnam retains control over all organs of government."

• Before I begin my comments, I would like to mention that I am Vietnamese-American and do have my own biases when it comes to how Vietnam is portrayed. However, I will try to remain as impartial as possible.
• I hope I am not stepping over anyone's toes, but I believe that these opinions about the current economic situation in Vietnam are not necessary. Not only do they contradict what is written down in the Economy section of Vietnam, they contain clear bias that is not necessary in Wikipedia.
• Though the Economy section itself is not as adequately cited as I would prefer (I will try to fix that in the future), it does contain facts that can be easily reserached and reference. Being Vietnamese, I read a lot about my home country and I have come across most of the facts mentioned in the Economy section during my readings.
• However, I am fairly certain that it will be very difficult to find SCHOLARLY REFERNCES to verify the above quote that was made. Of course, everybody is free to have their own opinions. I am not a fan of the Communist Party in Vietnam. However, Wikipedia is not the place to voice your concerns about how the Communist Party is running Vietnam.
• Furthermore, despite the Communist Party's repression of many political liberties that we in the U.S. take as given, it is fairly undeniable that they have led Vietnam to large growth figures over the past 20 years (since 1986, when doi moi was enacted).
• WARNING - THIS CONTAINS MY BIAS ... South Korea itself when through violent political repression to achieve their amazing 40 years of economic growth. Vietnam is following a similar path. It may not be perfect ... in fact, it is nowhere near perfect. However, the economy is growing, the people are getting richer (relatively), and living standards are improving. Vietnam is not the United States, and it has a long way to go before it does. However, to attempt to belittle Vietnam's economic growth by voicing personal distates for the Communist Party is not necessary.

+Therefore, for the sake of NPOV for this article, I will remove these statements and in the next couple of days, attempt to integrate more neutral statemnts (with sources), if the Wikipedia community feels this is necessary. BNgo 05:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) The terms "private ownership of farms" in Đổi Mới are incorrect. In the Socialist Republic of Vietnam there are no private ownership of properties. Land belongs to the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conscience01 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

1)Official coat of arms [10] [11] uses gold and red only like the .svg version, while the .png version uses black outlines

2).svg version if much clearer and technically superior to .png version. Compare on 500px versions svg to png

• File:Coat of arms of Vietnam.png

--Avala (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Vietnamese coat of arm here is totally wrong from the official coat of arm [12] [13]. Can anyone fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Baldness (talk • contribs) 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Name

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloppen (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) It's Veit Nam; TWO words. (Per the Vietnamese Consulate in San Fran, "Viet" means "the people", "Nam" means "of the south", rough English translation.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.28 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's two words in Vietnamese but one word in English. Salopian (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well, then I suppose it’s “United States” or “Greatbritain“, not “United States” and “Great Britain.”

Vietnam is 'YUE NAN' 越南 in chinese. YUE is the ancient name for the provine of Guangdong (Canton) while Nan means South. Therefore Vietnam simply means south of Yue, a name given by the chinese. This is just like Japan (Riben, origin of the sun) a Chinese name.

You did some research, but clearly it's not enough. The name which was given by the Chinese was NAN YUE, as a matter of fact that the adjective (NAN, south) must always precede the noun (YUE, name of the ethnic group) in Chinese. It has NO Chinese origin, since "Việt" (the ethnic group) is the name that ancient Vietnamese used to call themselves, it has no relation whatsoever with the ancient kingdom of "YUE" in Chinese history. They are two different words, but sound roughly the same. By the way, I approve using the word Vietnam instead of Viet Nam. This is an English wikipedia, therefore it should be written in English. Cheers.24.249.92.4 (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam or Viet Nam

Why is "Vietnam" written as one word? On the list of UN members it's "Viet Nam". I'm not going to change anything, since there are so many references and we should have a consensus on style, but it appears that the government of Viet Nam prefers the two word form.  Randall Bart   Talk  21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In English media Vietnam. In Vietnamese language, everything is monosyllabic: Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Viet Nam and so forth. But in English it is uiniversally written in one word. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It’s a respect issue; ¿Would it be respectful to write “Unitedstates” or “Greatbritian”? (To give you a hint, my spellchecker automatically changed “Unitedstates” to “United States” in both writings.) I submit the answer is an emphatic “No” followed by several colorful metaphors. That “in English it is universally written in one word.” does NOT make it right, nor proper, and certainly not respectful.

While I agree English spelling should be used in the English text, i feel like being pedantic about another thing. The text says the two syllables "were written into one". That's almost correct. I'd say the two syllables are written into one word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.73.248.37 (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That is absolutely correct. And to be even stricter, Viet Nam in English is two words containing three syllables (unless you're mumbling, or Lyndon Johnson). I amended the sentence: thank you for pointing it out! SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: Vietnamese language is NOT monosyllabic: it has short words generally following that pattern

: consonant, vowels, optional  consonant..   That is, it has short words.

That said, it is a language with many word pairs, where X Y means something differernt to X and Y on its own.

So in English, to avoid the confusion we say write Vietnam, as out of context and in incorrect font, "Viet nam" could mean "five Vietnamese" .. and to that end, how are we going to write Vietnamese if we have to follow Vietnamese spelling rules "Viet Nam Ese" ?

There is no respect to join the words, they write it HaNoi, HaiPhone, SaiGon, etc themselves. 202.92.33.210 (talk) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the language of Vietnam is monosyllabic. Each "short word" stands for a separate syllable, and the arrangement of the syllable will determine the meaning of the word. But I do support that the name should be written "Vietnam", as it always is in English.24.249.92.4 (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural resources

A nice addition would be a section on natural resources. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

== Perhaps pronounciation of Viet words? Also, Ethnic Chineses in VietNam?

in Vietnamease it's hard to pronouce in English at least! Maybe a Phonetic pronouciation? Also, didnt Ethenic Chineses enter Viet Nam and also contrinute to itrs culture? Didnt see an refeerance to this Thans!JANUSROMA (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Vietnameseapchb92647slateravmortDatedpmTuo811o91stcent.eaj

HDI "decrease"?

While in HDI 2008, UNDP used 2006 data, and Vietnam's trend has increased from time to time. How can it be "decreased" in the infobox? I will correct this. Tân (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Iconic napalm girl image

This image appears in the article. It appears the main legal basis for its presence is the following permission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marked-ap-letter.jpg. This letter specifically requires that the image be accompanied by credits that do not appear in its caption or anywhere on this page (to my knowledge). While some claims appear to be made for the fair use of the image, it certainly seems to me that these are on shaky ground for at least some of the uses of the pic.

Regardless of whether a fair use exception exists, if it is the policy of wikipedia to comply with the license granted it by the AP, then it seems the caption should indicate the AP's desired credits. It seems unlikely to me that "accompanied by" (as used in the terms of the permission granted by the AP) means listed on a separate page which also displays the image, as the case is now, but rather requires placement alongside the image.

I could find no wikipedia policy regarding this, only one saying credits are unnecessary for gpl images in most cases. From a practical standpoint, given that the AP has granted permission to use the image, it would seem wise to add the caption with it if its determined that may be required by the terms of the permission. It seems clear to me that the only reason the fair use claims aren't getting more criticism is the fact that the limited grant of permission exists.--Δζ (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vietnam's Independence from Japan

Please see the "Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam" (Ho Chi Minh), all wikiers:

"The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French."

So Vietnamese Independence from Japan, not France.DVN01 (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CITATION REQUIRED: Vietnam sometimes being rendered as "Viet Nam" in English

NOVEMBER 14th, 2009: "In 1945, the nation's official name was changed back to "Vietnam". The name is also sometimes rendered as "Viet Nam" in English."

Is there any proof of Vietnam's name as sometimes being rendered as "Viet Nam" in English? As far as I know, Vietnam is written as two words in Vietnamese, but not in ENGLISH. Therefore, isn't it incorrect to say that the word is sometimes rendered as "Viet Nam" in English, when there is no proof of that? If Vietnam's name is ever rendered as "Viet Nam," in English, then it's incorrect, just like any other typo or misspelling. To put it bluntly: the term "Viet Nam," in itself, does not exist in the English language—only "Vietnam" does.

Term inputted (Viet Nam): http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Viet+Nam (Within the definitions themselves, Vietnam is never rendered as two words. The search function is simply understanding my input of "Viet Nam" as two words, and combines it as one.)

Term inputted (Viet Nam): http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viet%20nam (Recognizes my input, but lists "Vietnam" as one word only in ALL cases.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onixz100 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I put in: {{ CITATION NEEDED }} as required. Perhaps this information should just be removed completely? Onixz100 (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It took me about 15 seconds to find an example, this Time article from 1965: [14] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

"Viet Nam" is actually the official ISO English short form name for the country. [15] --Polaron | Talk 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding a source. However, I believe that the source to the standard ISO spelling is better than the Times article as I am looking for an authoritative source on terminology/language and not just "Viet Nam" written anywhere. I will probably redirect the citation. Thank you... Onixz100 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Small typo

...South Vietnam during the 1968 Tet Offensive, and althought their campaign failed militarily, it...

Althought should be although. Noticed it on my way through! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.139.198 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Health in Vietnam

I propose to merge this article with Health in Vietnam. Health in Vietnam is not large, but relevant. Sarcelles (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nam Tiên *Southward expansion)

It is well known that thgis southward drive (equivalent to the germanic "Drang nach Osten") has been mad with the help of Chinese imnmgrants. if needed, I have more publications on that matter.

http://paristimes.net/fr_culture/immigr-chinoise-ntheanh.html

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/befeo_0336-1519_1942_num_42_1_5494 I agree with you as well because Vietnesame Healt is in Vietnam therfore it should be merged with iss respective country therfore it should be merged/ Takima (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Western colonial era" section needs rewritting

This whole section needs to be rewritten to remove bias. I'd do it but the page is semi-protected. Here are a few comments:

Vietnam's independence was gradually eroded by France in a series of military conquests from 1859 until 1885 when the entire country became part of French Indochina.

Vietnam was invaded by France. The country did not "become" part of French Indochina, that name was given to the region (with Laos and Cambodia)by the French for administrative reasons, that did not concern the Vietnamese. The way this is written, the French conquest seems like some sort of natural process.

The French administration imposed significant political and cultural changes on Vietnamese society

...and what where the "changes"? Well, French political control was absolute ,and there was no attempt to include local elites (let alone the population)in governing Vietnam. The economy was run for the benefit of French colonists and large French companies. In every way the Vietnamese were worse off than under the prior feudal organization. As a result of cheap manufactured products being imported from France an entire strata of Vietnamese artisans were rendered redundent. Average calorie intake per capita declined over the period of French rule, at the very time that French colonists increased rice exports from Vietnam to other asian coumtries. The French ruled with great brutality. Imagine how a frenchman would react if he was told that the nazi occupation of France in WW2 "imposed signifigant changes", without more?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.3.173 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A Western-style system of modern education was developed, and Christianity was propagated widely in Vietnamese society

This is rubbish, literacy declined under the French, and only locals who collaberated recieved "modern education", whatever that was. In any event the French found it convenient that their servents spoke good french.

I could go on. The whole section reads like it was written by a member of the Foreign Legion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.4.217 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide any source for your information?

What about the execution of 60,000 "undesireables" ?

,Upon achieving victory in 1975, the new communist rule executed 60.000 "undesirables" among the South Vietnamese. Source: Andrew Wiest: The Vietnam War 1956-1975, p. 85, ISBN: 9781841764191. The article about Vietnam only talks about reeducation camps, but omits this vital piece of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsterboyone (talk • Lobsterboyone (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)(87.48.3.173 (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Hi someone can replace the map "Provinces of Vietnam" by this map? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Bandohanhchinh.jpeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaputin (talk • contribs) 03:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"Far more capitalist then western nations"

This sentence has a citation needed on it but it really should just be removed. Whether you believe in capitalism or not wihtout some citation or proof this is just a ridiculous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.76.130 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the text to read: Although the state remains officially committed to socialism as its defining creed it is increasingly capitalist,[30] according to The Economist it is currently run by "ardently capitalist communists".[31] - which seems far more neutral (and is sourced) - I hope that addresses your concerns :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"The perimeter of the country running along its international boundaries is 4,639 km2 (1,791 sq mi)."

(in "Geography and climate" section) The perimeter shouldn't be expressed in km2 but in km (and mi, respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.157.205 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. But even without the issue of units, I don't know if I've ever seen discussion of the "perimeter" of a country. Length of borders, maybe, but not perimeter. I realize it might be essentially the same thing, but depending on how some borders are defined it could be problematic. Especially coastlines...the whole fractal thing...at what scale do you look? PurpleChez (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cambodian leadership

"In 1978, the Vietnamese army invaded Cambodia (sparking the Cambodian-Vietnamese War) which removed the Khmer Rouge—who had been razing Vietnamese border villages and massacring the inhabitants—from power, installing a regime whose leaders rule to this day.[24]"... There is no communist, one-party rule in Cambodia today..? 83.108.195.124 (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice catch, I've removed the comment "to this day" and added a new sentence saying the Vietnamese ruled until the early 1990's with a citation needed - the issue is that the source is from 1987, so isn't up to date. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hun Sen, the current Prime Minister of Cambodia, was among those installed to power by the Vietnamese. DHN (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary source url for current-ish update [[16]]Kerojack, Argenta (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hosting caption not neutral

In the caption "Vietnam hosted the Miss Universe 2008 pageant successfully", the adverb seems condescending. Would it be present if the country was the United States? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.186.248 (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I just made the change now. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War 1962 to 1973

I assume there is a more in depth article on the Vietnam War? If there is it should be placed at the beginning, and the two articles compared for consensus. I know for a fact there were American 'military advisers' in Vietnam in 1962, as this was featured in a National Geographic magaizine which appeared July 1962 (I don't have the magazine anymore). The abbreviated article gives the impression the Americans did nothing until 1965. The Vietnam question was kicking around from 1961 when JFK spoke with Eisenhower about the issues and challenges faced (as noted in Robert McNamara's auto-biography). I don't think there is any dispute that Van Diem was a corrupt politician but the way the article is written it appears to reference him as a dictator who hated Communism as much as Joe McCarthy did. I don't dispute what Nhu did. Both men were pretty much set in their ways, and America was in some way seen by the North as propping up a "bad" government. I think one thing I gotten from my reading of McNamara's biography was that he wanted the get America out as soon as they had a stable government, and clearly the loss of Van Diem followed by all the infighting probably led to end of South Vietnam as an independent state. Ok, much said here, but I think the article could do with a little fleshing out on the American involvement socio-politically. Kerojack, Argenta (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the country Vietnam, not about the war that occurred there for about 30 years. Bring your discussion to Vietnam War. DHN (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

So thong tin ko dung---Checking information about Drives Traffic in VietNam is Left side

Trong bai viet ve VietNam. Vietnam la nuoc lai xe tai lai ben trai nhung trong day viet la Drives on traffic Right.

VietNam is the country drives on Left hand traffic.

to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cykoo0 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Traffic in Vietnam drives on the right, or at least, it does in the big cities, and in the rural areas nearby. Maybe in some of the rural areas this isn't the case, but everywhere I've been in Vietnam so far, traffic has been on the right. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 22:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I have been to Vietnam and never saw traffic on the left in either the city or country. Alexandermoir (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Snow Not Moved Preposterous original research. Cybercobra (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Vietnam → Wietnam — Even in Vietnamese is Viet Nam, but V is pronounced like W. I use the what-sounds like the native. They pronounce Wiět Nam (I bring tone system from Chinese). But in English have no tones so Wietnam will most-close to the native. But in Vietnamese is spelled Việt Nam but pronounce like "W"125.25.244.125 (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Vietnam is what its called in English. I'd possibly support a move to Viet Nam as that's what its 'proper' name is and I believe some international organisations use that as its 'English' name. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I'm not sure what accent you're referring to, but no Vietnamese speakers I know pronounce it "Wietnam". Besides, "Vietnam" is the standard English spelling; a cursory check on any English-language website (US State Dept, CIA World Factbook, or Vietnamese embassy sites in UK or Australia or Canada) will back this up. (Side note: "Wietnam" is apparently the correct Polish spelling, but this is the English Wikipedia, not the Polish one.) --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 19:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous request with no backing from any source. DHN (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is the English Wikipedia. We use the English pronunciation. —fetch·comms 21:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• SNOW oppose seems WP:POINTy. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Joke, surely? It's not pronounced "W" in Vietnamese at all (that's not the right Chinese tone either). bridies (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975."

"Fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975."

Bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.255.48 (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The communists rule the whole of Vietnam now. Looks like a pretty solid victory to me... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly American, don't you realize our communist brethren control wikipedia?131.247.83.135 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see how its possible to look at it as anything other than a victory for North Vietnam... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the user is an ex-patriot of the former Republic of Vietnam still in denial? But yah, I mean N.Vietnam was pro-communist, and lo-and-behold, the country's current form of Government is communist... maybe the original poster was questioning the accracy of when the victory took place (like in a different year)?? Either way, just saying "bullshit" isn't a really great criticism. 174.24.218.10 (talk) 22:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it was the departing American troops who decided to rename "Saigon" to "Ho Chi Minh City"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the departing US troops must have been in a hurry to declare a socialist republic, haha. ValenShephard (talk) 14:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not American... - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)