Jump to content

Talk:Vietnam/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Inaccurate or Inconsistent statement

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

Innacurate Statement in Pre-History

"The oldest Homo sapiens fossils from mainland Southeast Asia are of Middle Pleistocene provenance, and include isolated tooth fragments from Tham Om and Hang Hum.[19]"

This is not even close to correct. The Middle Pleistocene ended around 126K years ago. The oldest modern human remains found anywhere in SE Asia are around 40K years old. http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-first-modern-humans-in-southeast-asiaVenqax (talk) 02:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

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

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

Will it be better if one were to say that what is modern Vietnam was for a millennium part of the Chinese state? This is an important point, that it was part of A Chinese state, unlike Korea which was a vassal state/tributary state of Imperial China. It doesn't imply that Vietnam BELONGS to China, merely that it was PART of China. Just like Eire was part of Great Britain, but it is controversial to say that it BELONGS to China Historicalchild (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor typo

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

Ordering of leaders in infobox

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

Pronunciation

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

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

Inconsistency?

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2014

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

to "Ethnic groups 85.7% Viet"

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

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  Talk 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Give me one example then

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

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

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

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

Administrative Map

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

Viet Nam or Vietnam?

Thhir government prefers rendering of Viet Nam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a good point actually. The Vietnamese government does prefer Viet Nam (rather than Vietnam). I think this should be looked into and be given serious consideration. For instance: http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/English
Doublestuff (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
It is internationally named as Vietnam, so it should not be changed. However, it could be made to redirect there or the name can be noted. If 2 people agree with me, I will edit the article. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree on the official name. As far as I know, it has not included "Vietnam" in decades. The article name should be left as it is, because that's how it's usually spelled in English in the U.S., in the U.S. State Department's list, in the U.S. military's list since 2012 (the bottom of the latter and the existence of an older page suggest awareness and rejection of the spaced form), and according to references in the article, but I'm about to edit the article's lead and the top infobox on the basis of http://www.vietnam.gov.vn/portal/page/portal/English (accord, http://www.vietnam.gov.vn/portal/page/portal/English/contact and http://www.vietnam.gov.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/trangchu).
A redirect from Viet Nam should also be created. I haven't done that.
Nick Levinson (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

why reverted?

My edit was essentially reverted without explanation in any edit summary. What I had edited was the statement of the official name, not the name by which widely known in the U.S. (and perhaps in some other nations). The official name is that given by the nation's government, including in translation, because that government knows what its own nation is called. That can be seen on the Vietnamese government's website, in English, at http://www.vietnam.gov.vn/portal/page/portal/English (the same URL as that given above). What basis is there for reverting? For example, is there a source for the spaceless form as being official by the Vietnamese government?

International custom in naming Vietnam is not universally spaceless. Searches of the official or semi-official news agency of the People's Republic of China show both forms: the spaced form vs. the spaceless form. However, this is about the official form, and that would come from Vietnam's government, not someone else's.

The redirect proposed was already done, I think in 2017.

Nick Levinson (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Levinson: Greetings Mr. Levinson. I think there is misunderstanding here. The version that are being reverted by me is the one from Mr. James Dimsey recent change where he controversially changing the Vietnamese alphabet of "Việt Nam" to "Việtnam/Việt nam". It seems the user also change your recent edit without explanation as seen in his another edit which I may not noticed during the revert. Night Lantern (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
The article is correct on point now. Thank you.
@Night Lantern: It wasn't you; you are right. The reason it looked like I was pointing to you is that I was on the article's history page and had selected a range of pages. This method combines multiple revisions into a single display and then shows at the top only the earliest and latest editors of the combined revisions. The actual edit I was asking about had occurred in between and was by another editor. Thank you for your work.
Nick Levinson (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

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

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

Tourism

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

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

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

1946–54: First Indochina War - extensive NPOV problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to second Dcs002 and say that this section needs much more improvement.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2015

In the part: "Administrative subdivisions", now it has a sentence: "Vietnam is divided into 58 provinces (Vietnamese: tỉnh, from the Chinese 省, shěng). " Please edit this sentence to: "Vietnam is divided into 58 provinces (Vietnamese: tỉnh)."

Because I think there is not any reason to give an explanation in Chinese language here, neither the origin of any word in other language except Vietnamese. This is an article about Vietnam and it's written in English, there's not any related to Chinese language here (this article is not about language, not about the etymology). Thank you. Congdinh2610 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It is possible that the information may be irrelevant but we need consensus for that in order to avoid revert wars. --TL22 (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015

One of the Notes near the bottom of the article has this: >The non-communist Vietnamese delegation objected strenuously to any division of Vietnam, however, the French accepted the proposal Viet Minh proposal, that Vietnam be united by elections under the supervision of "local commissions".

There are two changes I am requesting:

Put semicolon, not comma, immediately before "however" (this assumes that "however" belongs with the FOLLOWING, not the preceding, part of the remark.

Remove "proposal" occurring just BEFORE "Viet Minh". 128.63.16.47 (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Info Box Inaccuracy under 'Religion'

In the info box, the information next to religion says "Vietnamese folk religion". While this may be the majority religion in Vietnam, there is no reason to include religion in the info box if Vietnam is a secular state. For example, neither of the info boxes for USA and PRC on their respective pages include religion, as both of them are secular states. I will be removing religion from the info box on this page.--Fischia Il Vento (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? The info box for the US very clearly includes religion. Religion (2017[7]) 69% Christian 24% Unaffiliated 3% Unanswered 2% Jewish 1% Muslim 1% Buddhist 1% Hindu 1% Other

The info is relevant to what religions the population practice, not what, if any, the government recognizes or promotes. It's a common piece of demographic data, just like language and ethnicity. The US does not have an official language or an official ethnicity, either. This is just silly. Venqax (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016

27.48.2.206 (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016

Please change the population size from 91,700,000 to 96,491,146 because the old number is no longer correct. The latest number 94,104,000 is recorded on 02/01/2018 in the UN's World Population Statistics. Quang1611 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Viet Minh declare independence from France (in Infobox)?!

In 1945 the whole French Indochina, of which all 3 states of Vietnam (Annam, Cochinchina and Tonkin) belong, was under Japan rules. So, how were they able to declare independence from France?!

Particularly when the History section reads in parts: "Japan exploited Vietnam[...], culminating in a full-scale takeover of the country in March 1945..." and "Following the military defeat of Japan and the fall of its puppet Empire of Vietnam in August 1945, the Viet Minh occupied Hanoi and proclaimed a provisional government, which asserted national independence on 2 September."

Any sharp reader should be able to see that the info in the Infobox flies against those in the History section, as they are. Shouldn't an edit be made to reconcile the two?

Remaining one-party socialist states

The article states as of 21 July 2016:

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

What happened to North Korea? Is it not a socialist state officially espousing communism? Is there no party in North Korea like the CP in China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.38.131 (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

North Korea's ideology is Juche and differs in nature from the Marxism–Leninism of other countries.. Dustin (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement: education in Viet Nam under the French

"A Western-style system of modern education was developed..."

While not entirely false, this is misleading in the extreme. Such education was only available to collaborationist elite, mostly Catholic, but not necessarily. For the rest of the populace? the overt policy was obscurantism, the infamous "chính sách ngu dân" ("stupid-people policy") (as enumerated by Ho Chi Minh among the offenses of the French, in the Declaration of Independence) – under which people like my wife's grandparents (for one concrete example), if discovered trying to study anything, including simply literacy in the Vietnamese language, could be beaten, tortured, even killed (they were, except for the last).

I'll leave it to you academic heads to rectify this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenThuHuong (talk • contribs) added by Samtar at 26 July 2016 (07:55 UTC) due to an edit filter

After World War II, Vietnam surrendered to United Kingdom in the South and to the Republic of China in the north. General Lu Han represented the Chinese Nationalist Army to accept the Japanese defeat in Vietnam on August 15, 1945. The Nationalist government favored and supported the Vietnamese party Đại Việt Quốc Dân Đảng. This forced the Việt Minh to unite with the Chinese Communist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperor Lone (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016

Change the number four to five in the last sentence of the opening. "Vietnam remains one of the world's four remaining one-party socialist states officially espousing communism" There are five: China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam.

SuttonCS (talk) 06:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As I began to understand the process of making an edit. I believe I am following instructions by asking here on the related talk page for their to be a consensus that there are in fact "five remaining one-party socialist states officially espousing communism". I believe they are China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam. I encourage the necessary conversation here to allow a consensus to be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuttonCS (talk • contribs) 08:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we re-add Communist Party General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng to the infobox?

We all know Nguyễn Phú Trọng is the de facto supreme leader of Vietnam, but since May 2016, he has been absent from the infobox of this article. Template:Infobox_country says the first leader in the infobox should 'usually' be the head of state, not always. There are only five communist states in the world, and Vietnam is the only state out of the five that the supreme leader isn't holding the office of the head of state, I think a special case should be allowed. And no one has said everybody in the infobox should be the de jure offices of state. So why we can't re-add him to the infobox?

There is another similar example, that is Iran, the supreme leader of Iran is exactly in the infobox.

Cirolchou (talk) 13:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2016

Espace10 (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

unification en 1976 pas en 1975.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 16:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Update GDP per capita data for 2017 estimate

According to this: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=73&pr.y=7&sy=2014&ey=2018&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=582&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a= GDP (nominal) = 238.811 billion GDP per capita (nominal) = 2,554 USD GDP (PPP) = 637.13 billion GDP per capita (PPP) = 6,814 USD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Linh.hvtc91 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017

In the section on Vietnamese religion at the end of the second paragraph it says '81% of the Vietnamese people do not believe in God' may this be changed to 81% of the Vietnamese people do not believe in a God. this is for obvious reasons. Hamlyn2002 (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, CMD (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

"Flag of Vietnam" image file is being vandalized

Apparently someone has vandalized the image file of "Flag of Vietnam" from the current version to the South Vietnam flag version. Can anyone here revert back to the original file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.110.144 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

The article does not state whether Vietnam is unitary or federal. Add it in the "government section"; most wikipedia articles state if a country is unitary of federal.


}} 100.36.43.123 (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Three or five deputy prime ministers?

@Huyle92: On 2017-11-17, User:Huyle92 changed the "Executive" section to say that it included five deputy prime ministers; it had previously said three. Where should someone go to check the number of deputy prime ministers? I assume it's accurate, and User:Huyle92 probably is probably correct. However, something like this that obviously has a correct answer should also have a citation in <ref>...</ref>. It might also be interesting to include in the note if it used to be three and was changed to five on a certain date -- giving the date and documentation of the change. Then if someone else has a source that says Vietnam has only three deputy prime ministers, Wikipedia can help clarify the discrepancy.

I wish to thank User:Huyle92 for making this change -- assuming it is correct. If User:Huyle92 made this change "from personal knowledge", without having a citation, that could be a problem -- especially if other sources say it has [or had] three deputy prime ministers. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Chair(wo)man of the National Assembly

@David ngoviet: Your addition of the photo of Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan 2012.jpg makes the article visually more attractive and symbolically acknowledges a role for women in the affairs of the state.

However, I note that her title is listed in the infobox at the top as "Chairwoman of National Assembly" and with her picture later as "Chairman of the National Assembly of Vietnam". Might it be appropriate to shorten both to "Chair of the National Assembly"?

If she has an official English-language title, then that should be used: At least one of "Chairwoman" and "Chairman" is wrong. However, if her official title is translated differently by different people, then the gender-neutral term "Chair" might be more appropriate, I think.

And the "of Vietnam" could easily be dropped as redundant, because it should be obvious from the context.

Thanks for this edit. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

In Vietnam they only have Chairman David ngoviet (talk) 10:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay i change it to Chair David ngoviet (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I just did a search and found w:Chairman#Usage and w:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 99#PC language #1. Chairman vs. Chairperson vs. Chair. They noted many different official sources and style guides, some insisting on forms forbidden by others.
I support changing to "Chair". If someone else wants to change it, we should ask them if Vietnam or Nguyen Thi Kim Ngan has officially stated a clear preference. If yes, use their preference. Otherwise, I prefer "Chair".
And thanks for your work on editing Wikipedia. Discussions like this may seem like a waste of time but help to make our work easier to read and more valuable for most people. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018

106.223.180.101 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, 106.223.180.101: The "semi-protected" box says, 'This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".' I don't see either "X" or "Y". Therefore, I am changing "answered = no" to "yes". If you do not like this, please be more specific, as requested in the documentation at Template:Edit semi-protected/testcases. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2018

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A clear consensus has been reached below to not include Chinese character name for the country. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Should be added Chữ Nôm in article?, 共和社會主義越南 (Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam), 越南 (Việt Nam), I'm sorry if the request not accept Minhnlbt (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

 Minhlbt: I'm confused: Chữ Nôm is already mentioned in the "Languages" section. What more do you think would be appropriate? DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think this text should be on main introduction of article. or at least, I want "共和社會主義越南" should be add in the section you mentioned, up to your consider --Minhnlbt (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Not every fact goes in the lead, or else it wouldn't "... briefly summarize the most important points..." The alternative request needs to be in English and cite sources or at least needs to indicate English why "Republican Socialist Vietnam" it should be added to that section. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I might support putting "共和社會主義越南" some place in the article, but I'm not sure where. I do not know Chinese.
Are you suggesting we replace "officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam (About this sound listen))" in the lead with something like 'officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Cộng hòa xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam (About this sound listen); Traditional Chinese: "共和社會主義越南")'?
I understand from what you've written and from Google Translate that "越南" means "Việt Nam" and "共和社會主義越南" means something like "Republican Socialist Vietnam" -- or maybe better the "Socialist Republic of Vietnam"?
I appreciate your efforts to improve this article. I won't do something if I don't know what I'm doing ;-)
I also know that there are many differences between Traditional Chinese used in Taiwan and the Simplified Chinese. And I don't want to accidentally involve Wikipedia in some international scandal over favoring one over the other ;-)
Thanks DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Vietnamese hasn't been officially written in Chinese characters for more than 70 years. I don't see any reason why it should be here. DHN (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. Chinese seems to have a larger and more recent influence in Korea and Korean language. I see Chinese characters in the articles on North and South Korea but not in the lead to those articles.
If someone wants the corresponding Chinese, they can view the Chinese-language Wikipedia article on Vietnam or use other tools like Google translate. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

e?

As of 2018-01-13 the first subsection of the section on "Science and technology" was headed "e". It's contents consisted solely in a redirect {{See also|Science and technology in Vietnam}}. The "e" subheading seems odd and superfluous to me. I am deleting it. If someone else thinks it is needed, the subsection should contain more than just a redirect, and it's contents should explain the meaning of the heading. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

the Diệm's era: insert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem (It has not been inserted a link to it) (Vietnam War, line 26) Quangdieu (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. feminist (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Done A Wiki-link was added to Ngo Dinh Diem. Although the name is Wiki-linked earlier in the page, it's in a paragraph further up from the one in question and is easy to miss. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 12:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2018

Should put in Nguyễn Phú Trọng's name as "General Secretary" on the "Government" section of the country infobox. As a Leninist one-party state, Trọng is the most powerful leader in Vietnam and ranked first in the party's Politburo above the Prime Minister and the President. Tonyn31 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Request edit

General Secretary is the real head of state of Vietnam. Everyone knows that.

Even your articles General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam (featured article) and Nguyễn Phú Trọng say so.

Yet here in the article about Vietnam General Secretary ISN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE INFOBOX!! I mean, how is this possible? Did anyone with any knowledge of Vietnam proof-read this article? It's not like we are talking about some conspiracy theory or anything. It's absolutely official that the General secretary is the head of state.

So please, if you have the rights, add the position of the general secretary and the current holder Nguyễn Phú Trọng. He should be positioned above the president and others in the infobox.

Big thanks in advance. Cheers. Naj'entus (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


I don't know that. I'm no one, but you could get more support for your recommended change by citing some relevant source. I spent a few minutes last week trying to compare the article on Vietnam with those on other communist states without coming to a definitive conclusion. Then I gave up, because of other demands on my time.
Also, you could help your case by explaining on this talk page how this is article is similar to or different from the articles on other communist countries that a naive reader might expect to be similar.
I assume you know that this page is semi-protected, which "prevents edits ... from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia)". So if you are patient enough to wait four days, you should be able to make the changes you want yourself. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Naj'entus records more than 10 edits for you today.)
However, failing to provide a credible source (and / or a comparison with the articles on other communist states like I suggested) increases the chances that someone else might revert your edit. That could lead to Wikipedia:Edit warring, which would be less likely with more documentation supporting your request, as I just said. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You can see all the relevant sources in the articles I mentioned above. If you don't know nothing about Vietnam it doesn't mean aid things are not true. Naj'entus (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Examples of sources: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35418284 http://news.gov.vn/Home/Party-Congress-announces-CPVCC-Politburo-members/20111/9872.vgp etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naj'entus (talk • contribs) 08:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Also you see in other communist countries the same thing. People like Lenin & Stalin were general secretaries but they are presented as leader. Also, as far as I remember Xi also is the general secretary and so is North Korean guy.

Update data for GDP, GDP per capita (nominal and PPP) for 2018

GDP (nominal) = 232.559 billion US dollars GDP per capita (nominal) = $2,459 GDP (PPP) = 704.507 billion US dollars GDP per capita (PPP) = $7,448

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=73&pr.y=7&sy=2017&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=582&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=

Nguyenluan959 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of Vietnam

Việt 越 and Âu 歐 are homophones in the Han Dynasty and before, serving as transcriptions of Jiang - Zhe words by Chinese characters; originally and literally they mean water or water area, and their derivative sense is Country. They are similar to the word Quốc, which means earth/land/soil, and the derivative meaning of which is Country. Accordingly it can be inferred that Vietnam means Southern Country or Southern Land.

Sources: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/727590 https://truongthaidu.wordpress.com/2018/01/05/tu-nghia-cua-au-viet-va-lac-viet/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truongthaidu (talk • contribs) 12:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Which leaders should be listed in what order?

@Jannaalo: @TaerkastUA: @Gorrrillla5: Can we please have a discussion here about which leaders should be listed in what order? This has been changed fairly recently in seemingly conflicting ways. Can we discuss this here before making further changes?

  1. Does Wikipedia have any policies and / or guidelines that might be relevant?
  2. What other countries should be considered sufficiently similar to use as models for developing such guidelines?
  3. What documentation should be cited for this?
  4. Do you know of any other people, either Wikipedians or experts on the politics of Vietnam and similar countries, whom we could ask to offer an opinion on this?

Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia and through that to help people everywhere better understand the world we share. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I wish to refer others to Wikipedia:Edit warring: This question of which leaders should be listed in what order has not reached the level of "Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule", but I would be happier if we could have some discussion here about the questions raised by recent conflicting edits. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: In Vietnam the most powerful leader is the General Secretary of Communist Party of Vietnam. I think that the powerful leader should be in the list. Some people think that the President is the most powerful leader in Vietnam. No in Vietnam the most powerful leader is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Jannaalo (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jannaalo: Others seem not to agree.
Can you please provide a credible reference for that?
Template:Citation includes parameters "| language =" and "| quote =", where you can cite a source in any language you want and provide a translation. If you know an official Vietnamese language publication that essentially says that, you can cite that in this way and provide your own translation of a relevant portion of the text. If you know a French or Chinese language discussion of this, you could cite that in the same way.
When you provide a source, that tends to elevate the terms of the discussion. The Librarians' views section in the Wikipedia article on Reliability of Wikipedia cites a source that says that on controversial topics, "the two sides actually engaged each other and negotiated a version of the article that both can more or less live with. This is a rare sight indeed in today’s polarized political atmosphere, where most online forums are echo chambers for one side or the other.”Peter Binkley (2006). "Wikipedia Grows Up". Feliciter 52 (2006), no. 2, 59–61. Retrieved 2018-03-09. This can help build bridges over the walls created by media that must of necessity please advertisers and other elites, as noted in the Wikiversity article on v:Everyone's favorite news site.
I've been comparing sources like this for decades. Sometimes a seemingly subtle change in wording can resolve an apparent conflict. At other times, one source is wrong. Sources that are incorrect either (a) do not cite sources for their assertions, or (b) their assertions are contradicted by the sources they cite or (c) their sources are wrong. In any event, the process of checking sources generally leads to a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. The world is a better place because of your contributions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy:Here are some sources:

Jannaalo (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Might it be appropriate to insert a single sentence or maybe a paragraph about that at some appropriate place in the article -- citing these sources? DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2018

i would like to put more facts about vietnam because i had a relitive in the vietnam war who told me all about it please notify (Redacted) for editing rights. 2601:181:400:D219:29D1:C1D1:B48F:884 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

There aren't four communist countries left as the article says, but rather five including North Korea. 84.173.54.78 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Not done: North Korea is a dictatorship, not a communist country. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
That sounds to me like a distinction without a difference. I think the following sentence in the current text (as of 2018-06-09) is unclear and invites misinterpretation:
The Wikipedia article on "socialist state" lists these four countries as "Marxist-Leninist" (China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam). However, I think that's an unnecessary complication, especially since the term "communism" does not have one broadly accepted meaning.
Accordingly, I demoted that reference to a "note". DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2018

Please rollback the October 2nd edit, which creates a heading ("Urbanization") at an inappropriate location and adds no new information under the new heading. 63.131.173.56 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Already done —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam/Archive_5&oldid=1079713179"