Talk:Vietnam

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.

Disputedpenis

I wonder what do you guys thinks about that on the Chinese wiki page, there's an amateur porno version of 'Map' of China which includes the disputed penis? see my dick get hard when i look at[[1]] Is it kind of Chinese government's act of messing up facts? Sontung007 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2008 (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)

Doi Moi 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Coat of arms

1)Official coat of arms [2] [3] 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)

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)

== == Political system. ==

Can we put this somewhere in the article?

"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!"

Please put that on top of the main article. Thank you!'''' ==

As much as everyone would like to put that on to the article, I don't think its a good idea, because some people could be offended. The truth can hurt, sometimes it can hurt too much. just keep that in mind. Viet|Pham (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumainu (talk • contribs) 10:32, 20 July 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"[4], 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. [[5]], 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 [6].

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

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 [9].

As of December 2007, Vietnam has established diplomatic relations with 172 countries (the list is here: [10]). Vietnam holds membership of 63 international organizations such as United Nations, ASEAN, AES, La Francophonie, WTO and 650 non-government organizations [11]. 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)