Talk:Vietnam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Justakemeout (talk | contribs) at 18:41, 6 April 2007 (Religion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSoutheast Asia B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of April 5, 2024

What's new?

Articles for deletion

  • 11 May 2024 – List of flags by color combination (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Koavf (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

(3 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

Navigation

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Rwanda.)

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section

Opening paragraphs

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting, may be dealt with in the Etymology or History section. Naming disputes may also belong in the Etymology or History section.

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. See Canada or Japan for examples.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Too much detail

A section should be written in WP:Summary style, containing just the important facts. If it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. The link should be shown as below: (see WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for recommended hatnote usage) 

== Politics ==
{{main|Politics of the Netherlands}}

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available. The CIA World Factbook Maps can be used as a basis for the map, but plenty of other sources are available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – Aim to include relevant information within the article and reduce the See also section See WP:See also. ('See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s)).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams such as economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text or fragmented image display for some readers. See WP:GALLERY for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Sisterlinks

Related WikiProjects

Popular pages


Template:V0.5 Template:FAOL

Khmer Rouge

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

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

Intro

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

GDP growth in 2006

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

Not very neutral

I think the Vietnam article is not very neutral:

  • The focus on the American War.
  • The slightly narrow view of the events leading to the end of this war.
  • The part about grunding concessions of old commies, and the implied wonders of the free market.

Was this cut from the CIA factbook? This is the main article for the country, and in my opinion it should treat both its history and its current politics with respect. If nobody objects, I'd like to throw it out and write new one. -- Zork

Actually the Vietnam War should be a distinct topic - Vietnam should be about Vietnam, as you pointed out. - MMGB

"Vietnam is a country, not a war" - as Le Van Bang, Former Vietnamese Ambassador to the United States, once stated. regards, Olivia Summer 30 June 2005 19:13 (UTC)


____

Vietnam's early history is much like its rececnt history - characterized by its continous struggle for autonomy. The progressive and capitalistic proclivities of the Vietnamese people is a product of its history, which includes war.

The opening sentence "Vietnam's history has never been studied carefully." - is the most obvious error the the article.

[user: tbird Nov. 9, 2005]

What, no History of Vietnam??? — Toby Bartels, Monday, June 24, 2002

Post a new link like Vietnam/hitory or History of Vietnam on the page and thorough account should be on the new page. The current page seems to focus on history and should be adjusted to cover all aspects, e.g. political, economical, tranportion, geography etc. Ktsquare, Monday June 24 2002

I figured it out. It is indeed taken from The CIA World Fact Book, verbatim, at least on the main page. And the CIA, which afer all often repeats it, apparently forgot about history. I'll add a link to such a page (which I can't fill out, I'm afraid), but this still needs to be rewritten with input from other sources. Toby Bartels, Friday, June 28, 2002

Also france don´t hold Vietnam until 54, I was driven out by japanesse trops , and later try to recover dominance, with the help of USA. Cuye

Still, Vietnam's history on this page shouldn't be wholly focus in the 1900s. The history is just too 'warish.'

As Wikipedians have been told again and again, The CIA World Fact Book is not always the gospel truth and is not superior to Wikipedia and therefore people should use it as part of their research when editing, not copy and pasting verbatim from its pages.

Hi there,

I think the political need to be rewrite a little bit to reflect the CURRENT economic of VN. There is loooooooooooooooooooooong way since Asia economy crisis and we had many achivement (<-- I spell wrong) such as the stock market exchange and start to sell off (stock) some "blue chip" company such as Vinamilk (though it's only 30%). Some kraze folk even aim to become an offical member of WTO in 2005.

What does this mean? sounds like an incomplete sentence:

on grounds that Ho Chi Minh will have a significant support in the north, basically because they tried to implement a massive agrarian reform that result in over one million people left North Vietnam to re-settle in the South to avoid persecution and blood shed. The Communist Party encouraged poor peasants gaining ownerships of the land by putting all the landlords on public trials and executions. The South refused to abide to the Geneva Conference was declared a Republic, because, under Ho Chi Minh and his government, North Vietnamese people did not have freedom to choose and decide their votes. --θαλαμηγός (talk) 13:53, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Need not to say this statement is plain incorrect: "The South refused to abide to the Geneva Conference was declared a Republic, because, under Ho Chi Minh and his government, North Vietnamese people did not have freedom to choose and decide their votes."

Even American history books points out that the US established a puppet government in the South, ignored the Geneva agreement, for they know that Ho Chi Minh and his party would sure win if the election was held.

Wrong Spelling

I think this article should be listed under Viet Nam, instead of Vietnam. The latter is a Western mispelling; there is no "Vietnam" any more than there is a "Greatbritain" or a "Unitedstatesofamerica". I realize that the wrong spelling will attract most of the traffic, but a simple redirect will take care of that, just as it does when (the way it is now) people search for "Viet Nam". - Yossarian4010

The general consensus seems to be that articles should be named by the most common English usage, and "Vietnam" (rightly or wrongly) is the standard English usage. You could argue that there is no Hungary, just Magyarország, or that there is no Finland, just Suomi, but we still call the articles Hungary and Finland. Moreover, achieving the correct Vietnamese spelling of the name isn't actually possible - to be fully correct, we'd need to put in the accent and tone mark (giving Việt Nam), which I don't think we can do in page titles without breaking things. I would recommend that the English Wikipedia continues to use the standard English name for Vietnam, just as the Vietnamese Wikipedia uses Anh instead of England. -- Vardion 02:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. However, Viet Nam is not obscure (to English readers) like Magyarország and needs no special characters like Việt Nam. The two-word rendering is "more correct" without completely leaving Western convention - sort of like the difference between labor and labour; which you use depends on convention, but both are equally legible and acceptable, so you pick the one that suits you.

Personally, I think insisting on the two-word spelling is "better", but I'm guessing not too many people would agree with me as far as Wikipedia usage goes; "Vietnam" is too often-used. -- Yossarian4010 17:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The two-word spelling is clear and more correct than the one-word spelling, so it should be preferred. At least it should be aknowledged in the article.

  • What confuses me is that the article Việt Nam redirects to the incorrect spelling of Vietnam. It should be the other way around as this is patently incorrect. We should likewise redirect Viet Nam to the appropriate article. This way we accomodate the common vernacular, we might learn people somethin' while we're at it, and we eliminate the hassle of escape characters in URLs. --MichaelAhlers 14:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Viet Nam" returns almost 100,000 more Google hits than "Vietnam" and is also the name used in the U.N. I think this should be moved, as, in this case, the official use appears demonstably more common. Pelegius 21:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Why are these links being removed repeatedly? 

 [http://www.vov.org.vn/Defaultv.htm VOV News]
 [http://www.vnn.vn/ Vietnam NET]	 
 [http://www.asinah.net/vietnam.html Vietnam Guide]

I'm just asking--I actually reverted an anonymous user's changes because he/she removed them. --Ardonik 20:30, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The user who most recently removed them is Celindgren. I've been discussing NPOV, and the notion of annotating one's edits in order to justify them, with him on his talk page. I've restored them for now, and we can only hope the next editor will be more informative. Looking at those links, though... Vietnam Guide appears to be non-functional, and I'm not sure Voice of Vietnam News (a radio station) is really appropriate for a main article like this. I can't tell about Vietnam NET because I don't speak the language. —Hob←Talk 00:10, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

where to discuss exile groups?

I removed the following text from Politics, added by Tran Van Ba who has added similar references to a large number of Vietnam-related articles:

H.I.H. Prince Regent Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is the President of the Vietnamese Constitutional Monarchist League an organization that is politically pressure the Communist Government in Vietnam to peacefully form a transitional government for Vietnam so a democratic dual party system guarantee Freedom of Religion, Liberty and Rights of the people of Vietnam.

Grammar and spelling aside, this group has never been a political player in Vietnam (as far as I can tell, it was formed by Bao Dai during his exile in Paris) so it obviously doesn't belong in Politics. But should it get a mention somewhere in History of Vietnam... although its members are not in Vietnam? It seems to be mostly a public-relations group for claimants to the Nguyen Dynasty lineage, but it's hard to find reliable information apart from Celindgren's extremely POV edits. —Hob←Talk 23:50, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

where to discuss exile groups? ANSWER BELOW

Hello Hob, The Vietnamese Monarchist League Led my Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh has members in Vietnam that are poltically pressuring the government. There has been a crackdown on his poltical movement in Vietnam and followers arrested. Please email me I could have answered your questions before you just took off my addition that was neutral to cover post steps of the spectrum of politics in Vietnam. Tran_Van_ba@hotmail.com User Talk Tran Van Ba

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnam"

== where to discuss exile groups? ==ANSWER

Hello Hob, The Vietnamese Monarchist League Led my Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh has members in Vietnam that are poltically pressuring the government. There has been a crackdown on his poltical movement in Vietnam and followers arrested. Please email me I could have answered your questions before you just took off my addition that was neutral to cover post steps of the spectrum of politics in Vietnam. Tran_Van_ba@hotmail.com User Talk Tran Van Ba

ideas for new sections

I think the section on the history of Vietnam should begin with the Hu kings and end with current day. Entries on Vietnamese literature and poetry, religion, and culture under communisim would make for a richer entry on Vietnam. I think also an entry on the American perspective of Vietnam would be interesting. Also a recommend reading for people interested in Vietnam would be interesting.

Vietnam vs. Viet Nam

===> Issue: I took the page at Vietnam, and copied it to Viet Nam, since the latter name is more proper. Once I did that, I made "Vietnam" a redirect to "Viet Nam." What is the problem with this? It is perfectly legitimate and proper since:

  1. "Viet Nam" is the prefered and proper nomenclature, and
  2. The more common spelling will simply redirect to the proper spelling.

No harm done, and the integrity of their name is kept. If we used the "more common name" as the rule, then "Côte d'Ivoire" would redirect to "Ivory Coast", not vice versa. To make "Viet Nam" (the proper name) redirect to "Vietnam" (the common name), while "Ivory Coast" (the common name) redirects to "Côte d'Ivoire" (the proper name) is inconsistent, and mildly disrespectful. It would be equivalent to making "Thailand" redirect to "Siam" rather than vice-versa, the "Vietnam" spelling is not used by the native population: we know better, so we should act better. If I did, in fact, break any rules by copying/redirecting the pages, I apologize, but this seems the most rational and respectful solution. Correct me if I'm wrong. Justin (koavf) 19:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for whoever worked out the Ivory Coast title, but I'm afraid that unless there's a majority in favour of making an exception, policy is to use the most common name in English, and that's "Vietnam" (whether it should be or not). If you disagree with this policy, I suggest taking it up at the appropriate policy page (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), perhaps?). If the policy is changed, or if you can convince people to make an exception here, the page can be moved, but without such a mandate, general policy favours the most common English name.
The reason for this, I suppose, is the question of who decides what is "correct". Some cases may be simple, but there can be very large arguments over the "proper" name for places — witness the arguement over Danzig/Gdansk, for example. The "most common name" rule provides a clear guideline without getting into debate about what is correct. There would be plenty of people who agree with you, and support "Viet Nam", but there would also be plenty of people who disagree, and say that "Vietnam" is established and correct in English. Without the most common name rule, there would be constant dispute as to what the "proper" title should be.
(I also respectfully disagree that using "Vietnam" is disrespectful — the Vietnamese call the United States "danh từ", not the "United States", so should Americans be offended?)

--- Pardon me, but something is wrong with your vietnamese, "danh từ"," means noun, and we call the US Hoa Ky` or My~ ---

(And also, if you do want to move the page again, please don't just copy-and-paste it into the other article — that messes up the page history, making it harder for people to see who wrote what. It's better to use the "Move" function, although you'd need an Administrator to do that if there's something already present at the intended destination.)
-- Vardion 21:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopaedia, and therefore must use the most common English name for any country. There is nothing disrespectful about this. We call Deutschland Germany and Bharat India, so we should call Viet Nam Vietnam. (Cote d'Ivoire is an anomaly - the English name is Ivory Coast, but the government has specifically requested that Cote d'Ivoire be used, and the UN and most English-language media have complied). Adam 22:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===> Response: Thanks for your input, but I still have to disagree. I do not think that the English short-form name should be the standard for naming the articles/redirects, plus I also think it is not the standard by which we name articles currently. If that were the case:

  1. Myanmar would be under Burma.
  2. Republic of Ireland would be under Ireland.
  3. Republic of Macedonia would be under Macedonia.
  4. People's Republic of China would be under China.
  5. Republic of China would be under Taiwan.
  6. United Kingdom would be under England.

Please don't get me wrong - I understand that "Ireland" and "China" refer to historical entities that are broader geographically that the states which share their names, but if "English, short-form name" was the standard, that would be where the articles would be found. "Republic of Macedonia" and "Myanmar" are relatively obscure names compared to the common alternatives, and at least "Viet Nam" and "Vietnam" are pronounced the same; there would be no ambiguity, whereas "Myanmar" and "Burma" aren't apparently the same country based simply on their names. Furthermore, while I also understand that "England" is not the same as "United Kingdom" that is still a common misconception among Americans, and it is the name that is used to refer to the political entity located in Britain and Ireland, even if that name is erroneous. To those who cry "foul" and say, "Well, people from England are English-speaking, and they don't get the names wrong," that simply proves that the short-form English name is useless as a standard, since there is no consensus on the short-form name. If the common short-form name redirected to the appopriate name, then it would be a simple and effective way of educating people on how properly to refer to certain political entities. As it stands, I still charge that the standard is applied inconsistently and arbitrarily right now. Plus, to address the issue of translation raised by Adam, in the case of Viet Nam, the name isn't translated or changed in any way other than simple Romanization. Plus, as best as I understand your argument, your point is irrelevant, because I'm not advocating changing any articles to foreign-language titles that are unintelligible to English-speaking Wikipedians. The alternative that I'm proposing is a more appropriate spelling that is still Romanized, and I would still include a redirect from the more common (inaccurate) spelling to the less common (more accurate) spelling. Although, I may be missing the more germane point of your objection, and if so, please forgive me for my dullness. Justin (koavf) 02:10, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You say: "I do not think that the English short-form name should be the standard for naming the articles/redirects." To which I can only reply: well, it is the standard, and this article like all others will have to comply. The analogies you give are not very helpful. Myanmar and Burma are alternative names for the same country. Ireland is a geographical expression, and the island of Ireland contains two countries which need to be disambiguated. The articles for Macedonia, China and Taiwan do in fact appear under those names. No informed person thinks that "England" is the correct name for the UK. I agree that there is not much difference between "Viet Nam" and "Vietnam." But the fact is that the latter is the standard English spelling (34 million Google hits against 7 million for Viet Nam), and is therefore the form Wikipedia uses. Adam 02:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response: Macedonia does not go to the state of Macedonia anymore than Ireland goes to the state of Ireland. No "informed" person calls "Côte d'Ivoire" "Ivory Coast." Plus, "Vietnam" and "Viet Nam" (similar to Burma/Myanmar) are alternative spellings for the same country - that explanation still doesn't address the fundamental issue of "most common name (in the English-speaking population)." The most common name for that region is Burma, not Myanmar, so the standard is applied capriciously, as far as I can tell. I still don't see the harm in making "Vietnam" the redirect to "Viet Nam" since users will arrive at the relevant information, and moreover, I do see the benefit in doing so, as it will help to communicate the issue of appropriate/accurate/precise naming/spelling conventions in an efficient manner. I stand by my earlier assertions, and I've e-mailed a few administrators asking for their opinions on a page move, and directed them to this talk page. Again, even though I disagree with your assessment, I appreciate your input (especially on the page move procedure). Thank you kindly. Justin (koavf) 03:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

'Vietnam -> Viet Nam' - nope, not going to happen. By far, the most common spelling in English is Vietnam. Compare Google searches for "Viet nam" (Google even asks 'Did you mean: "Vietnam"') vs Vietnam. 'Vietnam' gets about 4 times as many hits as 'Viet Nam'. This is also in conformance with our common name naming convention. --mav 00:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to mav: The Google issue was brought up in the post before mine, and I didn't find it persuasive then, either. I don't know that your post really addresses my two objections: 1.) we shouldn't use the short-form conventional name, and 2.) that we currently don't actually use said convention in a consistent manner. Justin (koavf) 01:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

The answers to those two points are 1.) Well we do, and 2.) We should try to. The Google stats are persuasive because they show us what the current English usage is, and that is the decisive consideration. Adam 03:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to Adam: Then, to be consistent, are you going to suggest reverting "Côte d'Ivoire" to "Ivory Coast", or "Myanmar" to "Burma"? I think not. I'm trying to be consistent, respectful, and accessible to users (which is not to imply that you are trying to be capricious, disrespectful, and inefficient). As I see it, the best way to be all three in regards to this article is to make "Vietnam" redirect to "Viet Nam", not vice-versa. Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that the policy as implemented is anything other than arbitrary, although I'm willing to admit that there may be something that I'm missing here. No doubt, you are the more experienced Wikipedian, and maybe there is something here I just don't get, but I still don't see a justification of how the policy as it is currently implemented is anything other than arbitrary, and less respectful and helpful to users than the alternative that I am proposing. For those interested, I have received no response from the administrators that I e-mailed. Justin (koavf) 05:01, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have explained already that Cote d'Ivoire is an exception to the "use English" rule because the government of Cote d'Ivoire has requested that the French form be used and the UN and most English-language media have complied, so Cote d'Ivoire now is the standard English name of the country. The situation with Myanmar and Burma is more complicated, because Myanmar is the Burmese-language name of the country but also the form the Burmese regime uses. Opponents of the regime therefore refuse to call the country Myanmar. My view is that Wikipedia should call the country Burma but I have been overruled. But none of that is really the point. The point is that:

  • Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopaedia
  • The standard English spelling is Vietnam (as shown by Google)
  • Wikipedia should use the standard English spelling
  • Therefore Wikipedia should call the country Vietnam

Adam 06:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

===>(Final?) Repsonse to Adam: Thanks again for your input. I still contend that "Viet Nam" is more appropriate and useful, since "Vietnam" would simply redirect to it and maintain the integrity of the native naming. Is there a formal process by which I could put this to a vote, rather than continuing the discussion here? I imagine that we're rapidly reaching a logjam, so protracted discussion seems pointless. I have seen votes on various pages (such as votes on whether or not to rename or delete stub names), and it seems like we could present our arguments briefly on a page for a vote, give a reasonable time for interested Wikipedians to give their two cents, and call it a day. If not, is there an arbitrating body, or a particular administrator who would make a call like this? I've looked on pages about administrators and haven't seen one particularly qualified for these kinds of decisions. If you don't care to assist me, I'll just keep on looking around Wikipedia myself. Thanks again. Justin (koavf) 06:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

===>Response to mav: Why is Viet Nam more appropriate and useful? The spelling is not vietnamese since it doesn't contain the proper tone marks, it is certainly not vietnamese.

The usage stems from the usage of chinese signs in the vietnamese language, therefore one is used to think in syllables, yet these words are not pronounced as syllables, like in chinese: Noone pronounces the capital Bei Jing, it's Beijing, the same goes for other words friend is pengyou, not peng you, in fact in chinese, you would actually lose part of the meaning if you spelled out single syllables. I presume you lose some of the meaning in vietnamese without proper tonal signs as well...

So therefore, the name of the country is pronounced Vietnam, and not Viet Nam, and therefore is should be spelt that way as well. You don't see a norwegian spell the name of country as Nor Way (although the orginal meaning is North Way). It is neither more or less precise in vietnamese since there's no usage of tonal

In addition, I think it's rather rude for a single person to disapprove official spelling of a name in what has become more or less an international encyclopedia. We should strive to adhere to standards instead of making decisions on behalf of the world simply because we think it feels better. For a wider discussion of this topic see: http://www.lib.washington.edu/southeastasia/vsg/elist_2001/VietnamORVN.html] Øystein Alsaker 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Oalsaker. With all due respect, the whole issues of correct-ness is nonsense as it is discussed here. The two-word spelling "Viet Nam" is obviously just as much a Western creation as the one-word spelling "Vietnam" in the sense that neither is used in Vietnamese. Viet Nam is not wrong, but neither is Vietnam. Viet Nam is, just like Vietnam, an exonym, that is, a name for a place that is different from the name in the native language and created by people outside of that place. Vietnam in Vietnamese is "Việt Nam" and the full name for the nation-state is "Cộng Hòa Xã Hội Chủ Nghĩa Việt Nam", all which is clearly stated already. In English, the most common spelling is no doubt Vietnam, and for a hint on how far from the native language Viet Nam is, consider the likes of Bra Zil, Ger Man Y and Un It Ed Sta Tes Of Am Er Ic A. For Westerners, the monosyllabics becomes very confusing but for a native Vietnamse speaker it is the diacritics rather than monosyllabics that are decisive for understanding. From a Vietnamese perspective, then, the difference between "Vietnam" and Viet Nam" is qualitatively smaller than it is for a Westerner. At the same time, the difference between, say, "sữa" and "sửa" is qualitively huge for a native speaker but minimal for a non-native speaker (sữa=milk,sửa=repair). It is also instructive to remember that originally even "Việt Nam", as written in quốc ngữ, was a Western creation, a result of violent colonialism. Indeed, even chữ nôm was a result of colonialism, Chinese, that is. Still, today Việt Nam is the correct term in Vietnamese and an incorrect term in English (as well as in German, Swedish, Spanish and so on). Following the logic that Vietnam should be Viet Nam one would have to argue Vietnamese should be Viet Namese, or a lot worse, Viet Nam Ese. That seems rather difficult to argue for. And Ho Chi Minh City should then be Thanh pho Ho Chi Minh, which is, just like Viet Namese, not only confusing but still as much an exonym since in Vietnamese the name is Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh. It might be at times the desire of Westerners (and mostly Americans) to be (politically) correct when it comes to Vietnam is greater than when it comes to, say, Germany or Norway. Germany in German is obviously Deutschland and Norway in Norwegian is Norge but in an English encyclopedia I think most would agree they should still be listed under Germany and Norway respectively, even though the info on the names in the native languages of course should be included in the text. In line with this logic, I also think Japan is best listed under "Japan" and not under Nippon, Nihon or, worse, 日本. Vichminh 15:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I find it very interesting and some good information about the spelling of Viet Nam, the country. I'm trying to determine the origin of the spelling: Viet = people...Nam = of the south, meaning the Vietnamese were not the people of the north, the Chinese. I forget the Vietnamese king who created this first identity. Any help?

From what I've been able to determine, the one-word spelling seems to have come from Western journalists sending telex messages. Charged by the word, Dien Bien Phu became expensive, as did Ha Noi, Sai Gon, Da Nang, etc. To cut costs they made one word, the style manuals picked that up, and it stuck.

The Vietnamese are a humble people and would never tell a foreigner their spelling was incorrect. When the Vietnamese use the name "Vietnam" as mention for Nam Dan, it's simply a case of the Vietnamese knowing Westerners (mostly Americans) wouldn't recognize or understand the proper spelling, so they continue the myth...and continue to make money.

For myself, I'm using the term Viet Nam, as the older people would. Younger Vietnamese might use one word, and the Viet-kieu (overseas Vietnamese) have been raised with the single word version. That's all they know.

Using Viet Nam recognizes the original and local spelling, and begins to offer Americans a new look at healing from the American war. The one-word name is associated with the war, and the national psyche of America immediately interprets that name into emotional issues. It’s like a case of national PTSD. I believe with a new (which luckily happens to be correct) spelling, Americans of the war era will develop new emotions and appreciation for the country, and slowly leave the war. With a new war in our lives, we need healing from the past in order to better cope with the trauma and lies of the present. Thanks for any discussion.

Ted

Exports

Hey, I was wondering what Vietnam Exported relating to Agriculture?

According to the CIA World Fact Book, the exports are "crude oil, marine products, rice, coffee, rubber, tea, garments, shoes." -- Randy 15:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Silk. VietGrant 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Literature

I would like ask people to help put together a set of articles and stubs related to Vietnamese literature. I have begun by creating a stub for the Luc Bat, a Vietnamese verse form. An acknowlegement of the richness and depth in the writings of Vietnam (e.g. that of Ho Xuan Huong) would be a beautiful addition to the culture section of this topic.

Don't Out-Vietnamese the Real Vietnamese

Regarding the discussion on whether the name of the country in the article should be Vietnam or Viet Nam, just go to any English-language website originated from Vietnam itself (such as the official newspaper Nhan Dan) and you will see it's spelled Vietnam. Same is true in the website from the Vietnamese Embassy in Washington.

Those who insist on spelling the country name as "Viet Nam" in an English-language document are trying to out-Vietnamese the Vietnamese. I'm a Vietnamese-American and I always use the spelling "Vietnam" when I write in English or French.

Tom Tran from Texas

Vietnamese refer to Viet Nam as Vietnam when they write in English doesn't mean that is the correct way. It just means that it is more commonly used. English is a second language to most Vietnamese, when they learn English, every single piece of writing they found refer to Viet Nam as Vietnam, so they think it is the "English translation" of Vie^.t Nam, gradually, it became a habit. Proof: The same thing happen to any big city in Vietnam, Saigon, Hanoi, Danang,... But NOT for Ho Chi Minh City, Ia Drang, Hai Phong,... Somehow, English speakers decided that Vietnamese shouldn't have space when referring to a location. lt2hieu2004--lt2hieu2004 15:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that we referred to nations by the officially recognized UN name (for UN members, see their list [List of UN Members]). However,t ehre are many discrepancies there between the "common English name" and the "UN Name" (leaving out the obvious ones like the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). For what it's worth, however, the United Nations refers to this country as "Viet Nam". But, yes, the common English term is "Vietnam", so being an English encyclopedia, my opinion (for whatever weight it holds) says it should be "Vietnam" (with, of coruse, a redirect from "Viet Nam".)--Canuckguy 21:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Krom? Demographics?

I found the Khmer Krom in demographics quite controversial. First of all, Khmer Krom is regconized only about a million according to the Vietnam Census. Moreover, in Ethnologue also said that there are about a million Khmer-speaking in Southern Vietnam http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=VN

To me it sounds like this is an act of Khmer Fundamentalists to seperate Southern Vietnam from Vietnam itself. Secondly, if there are 8 millions Khmers living in Southern Vietnam are true, why are there no significant impacts in Southern Vietnam? I livied in Southern Vietnam, and the only other significant influence of a minority is the Hoa/chinese minority.

Third, "In 2005, the retired king of Cambodia Norodom Sihanouk officially called for the end of Vietnamese annexations and an international demarcation of the boundary on the ground." Why IS this in Vietnam section?

Anybody who lives in southern Vietnam will know it's a bunch of BS.

Okay, whoever wrote the paragraph about the Khmer Krom minority group with a population of 8 million, can you provide where you got that information? I found the statistics to be absurd as well and I would like to know where that information is coming from. Also, isn't Vietnam's population about to reach 100 million now? If so, how can 8 million Khmer Krom ethnic minority bring down the percentage of the ethnic Kinh (main ethnic group in Vietnam) from 86% to 77%? Can someone please provide answers? I have never heard of this before. If no answer is provided, I will delete the topic this time or others will delete the topic and I will not revert.
The article also states that the Khmer Krom is the largest minority in Vietnam. This is far from the truth. The largest ethnic minority in Vietnam is the ethnic Han Chinese (Hoa) and they make up 12% of the population in Saigon. If no explanations are made, I will delete the materials! UH Collegian 20:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Vietnamese statistics cannot be trusted, and the Ethonologue website uses the Vietnamese official census, so it can't be trusted either. The 8 million figure is found in many sources, including many NGOs. Make your own research online. The 8 million figure sounds more credible to me because it is based on pre-1975 censuses of Southern Vietnam which were less biased than current Vietnamese censuses. Surely, 7 milion Khmer Krom couldn't have totally disapeared between 1975 and 2005, could they? Finally, you guys seem to make a confusion between Saigon proper and southern Vietnam. To have lived in Saigon is not the same as having lived in southern Vietnam. In Saigon, truly, there are not that many Khmer Krom. Khmer Krom are essentially rural. If you had lived in the countryside of the delta, hundred miles south of Saigon, you would have seen way more Khmer Krom. Last but not least, for the zillionth time, the Hoa is NOT THE LARGEST MINORITY. Even if you don't believe the Khmer Krom numbers, the Vietnamese census says the largest minority is the Tày (1.5 million people). But of course if you have just stayed inside Saigon you have this impression that Hoa is the largest minority. Oh, and by the way, Vietnam is nowhere near 100 million inhabitants. Vietnam is near 80 million inhabitants. Just check the World Bank Statistics website or any other serious website and you'll see it's 80 million. Hardouin 12:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me evidences of the statistic? If you go to the World Bank Statitstic website, the concensus is based on the Vietnamese concensus, which contradicted to YOUR statement that Vietnamese statistic cannot be trust. And Khmer Krom only concentrated in Tra Vinh and near Cambodian border, it is no existant in the rural era of Tay Ninh, WHICH where I'm from
The World Bank uses data coming from national censuses provided by national governments, but it also uses independent estimates. In some cases, such as countries like Japan, France, or Canada, the World Bank uses national censuses only, because the quality of censuses in these countries is very good. In other cases, such as Vietnam, Nigeria, or Haiti, the World Bank uses a little bit the national censuses, but also it uses independent estimates made by researchers, because censuses in these countries are either biased, or of very poor quality. Hardouin 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


THE FOLLOWING IS FOR (USER) HARDOUIN, other people, you can feel free to read.

EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THE ETHNIC HAN CHINESE IS THE LARGEST MINORITY IN THE ENTIRE VIETNAM, LARGEST BY FAR OF ANY OTHER ETHNIC MINORITIES. VIETNAM HAS ALWAYS MADE UP OF ABOUT 85-90% KINH ETHNICITY WITH THE HAN CHINESE BEING THE LARGEST AND CONCENTRATED IN SAIGON WITH A CURRENT POPULATION OF 12% ACCORDING THE THE LOCAL COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT. THE FIGURES ALSO SHOW THAT IN SAIGON, THE KINH ETHNICITY MAKE UP ABOUT 80%. I WILL ASSUME THEY MAKE UP ABOUT 79% BUT THE GOVT ROUNDED UP THE FIGURE. IN PRE-1975, THE ETHNIC KINH MADE UP OF 77% IN THE SAIGON-GIA DINH AREA. THE SAIGON PROPER NOW IS WHAT IT USED TO BE SAIGON-GIA DINH AREA. I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAIGON PROPER AND SOUTHERN VIETNAM! DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THE SAIGON-GIA DINH AREA WAS??? GIA DINH NO LONGER EXISTS BECAUSE IT WAS DISSOLVED AND ANNEXED BY SAIGON. ALSO, I AM AWARE THAT THE CURRENT OFFICIAL NAME IS NOT SAIGON SO YOU DO NOT NEED TO CORRECT ME ON THAT. ALSO, IF YOU DO WANT TO ESTIMATE THE 8 MILLION, THEN YOU SHOULD ALSO ADD 84 MILLION + 8 MILLION TO EQUAL TO 92 MILLION OF THE TOTAL POPULATION!!! I DISLIKE THE COMMUNIST VIETNAMESE GOVT AND I DO NOT TRUST THEM EITHER, BUT YOUR CLAIM OF THE HAN CHINESE BEING THE FOURTH LARGEST MINORITY IS ABSURD/IGNORANT! ALL VIETNAMESE AMERICANS KNOW THAT THE LARGEST ETHNIC MINORITY IS THE ETHNIC HAN CHINESE! WHY DON'T YOU TAKE AN ADVICE OF THE PERSON ABOVE SINCE HE'S OF VIETNAMESE ORIGIN AND ALSO FROM SOUTHERN VIETNAM, IF YOU WILL. VIETNAM'S ETHNIC DISTRIBUTIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN STABLE BECAUSE THE COUNTRY HAS ZERO IMMIGRATION. IT IS NOT LIKE THE UNITED STATES WHERE THERE ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COMING IN EVERY DAY FROM LATIN AMERICA. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A MISREPRESENTATION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE VIETNAM CENSUS. THOSE DAMN COMMUNISTS COUNT EVERYONE. ALSO, IN VIETNAM, ALL MINORITIES GET ALONG BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE WHAT CANADA WOULD CALL "SILENT MINORITIES" WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME OF THE MONTANARDS AND THE HAN CHINESE.
ALSO, HARDOUIN, YOU DO NOT OWN THIS ARTICLE NOR DO YOU OWN ANY OF THE ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA. QUIT ACTING LIKE YOU OWN IT BY REVERTING OTHER PEOPLE'S EDITS BACK TO YOURS. IT IS OKAY FOR ONE'S KNOWLEDGE TO BE WRONG AT TIMES. EXCEPT IT AND MOVE ON. I DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING EITHER. EVEN IF YOU KNOW EVERYTHING, YOU SHOULD NOT ACT LIKE YOU DO. YOUR INFORMATION ON VIETNAM ARE BASED ON POV. THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE ABOUT THE PRESENT DAY VIETNAM SO OTHER PEOPLE CAN READ AND GRASP IT. THE ARTICLE SHOULD NOT BE WHAT VIETNAM OUGHT TO BE. EVEN IF THE FIGURES ARE OFF BY A LITTLE BIT, WE HAVE TO GO BY THE FACTS BEING PRESENTED. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT POV. IF IT WAS, I WOULD HAVE SO MANY POV ABOUT VIETNAM TO WRITE ABOUT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE U.S., "NON-HISPANIC WHITE" MADE UP 69.1% AND HISPANIC (OF ANY RACE) WITH 12.5% IN THE U.S. CENSUS 2000. THESE ARE FACTS BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT USING WHAT PEOPLE PROVIDED. DO YOU BELIEVE THIS IS ACTUALLY REPRESENT TRUE AMERICA? I DON'T THINK SO. YOU KNOW THAT CERTAIN GROUPS DON'T FILL OUT THE CENSUS, ESPECIALLY ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. YOU REALLY THINK THERE ARE ONLY 12.5% PEOPLE OF HISPANIC ORIGIN (OF ANY RACE) IN THE U.S.?? DO YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR ME TO GO OVER THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE AND PUT IN, "THE HISPANICS REALLY ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 25% OF THE U.S. POPULATION AND THAT NON-HISPANIC WHITES REALLY ONLY ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT 59.1% DUE TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND THAT HISPANICS DON'T WANT TO FILL OUT CENSUS"? THESE ARE NOT FACTS EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD BE TRUE. ALL AMERICANS KNOW THAT THE HISPANIC GROUP IS UNDERCOUNTED B/C OF ILLIGAL IMMIGRANTS AND OTHER FACTORS. THE UNITED STATES ARTICLE PRESENTS ALL INFORMATION BASED ON FACTS, NOT POV OR ESTIMATION. ARE YOU EVEN FROM THE UNITED STATES, HARDOUIN??? IF YOU ARE NOT, DO I NEED TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT A "NON-HISPANIC WHITE" AND A "HISPANIC (OF ANY RACE)" PERSON IS? IF YOU ARE NOT FROM THE U.S., YOU WILL MOST LIKELY NOT KNOW WHAT A "NON-HISPANIC" WHITE PERSON IS.

Anonymous user, anger is never the best way to express arguments... What you say about the US is a bit delirious. The Census Bureau in the US perfectly knows that minorities tend to go under-reported when censuses are conducted, as happens in all countries, and so after the census the Census Bureau always redress its figures to better reflect reality. They do the same in other countries. You can check the UK National Statistics website where they explain how they have redressed figures after their last census to better count under reports, if you are interested in these matters. About Vietnam, the fact that you were born in Vietnam doesn't make you necessarily more knowledgeable about Vietnamese statistics. I, for one, have a certain expertise in statistics built over the years, and although I don't pretend to know everything, I certainly do understand a bit about statistics. Again, the Hoa ARE NOT THE LARGEST MINORITY IN VIETNAM. Even if you don't believe the Khmer Krom figures and instead you prefer to believe the official Vietnamese figures, then check this official Vietnamese website [1] and you'll see that at the 1999 census the largest minorities were: #1- Tày (1.48 million), #2- Thái (1.33 million), #3- Mường (1.14 million), #4- Khmer (1.06 million), #5- Hoa (0.86 million), #6- Nùng (0.86 million). You are quite wrong when you say that Vietnam's ethnic distribution is quite stable. Actually, a lot of Hoa have left Vietnam after 1975, and so the percentage of Hoa people inside Vietnam is now much lower than it was before 1975. Hardouin 23:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I just looked at the link that you provided above and I am shocked at the statistics. I appologize for my ignorance and I have nothing else to say. As of right now, I am still speechless at the numbers from the vietnamese (communist) government statistics. It doesn't look right and I always thought the largest minority was the ethnic Han Chinese. Earlier I said something about Vietnam's population reaching 100 million. I was referring to the 2005 estimate, not 1999. That country has a high birth rate from what I have heard since people over there don't know much about contraception and/or the culture is too conservative to use birth control. Also, I do not trust any communist government, not just Vietnam. Well something must be wrong because that list is not even in order by population per ethnicity. The one I am looking at only has 862,371 for the Hoa. — UH Collegian 02:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see that there are 2 groups here, that is Hardouin vs. all other Wikipedians. The thing is that, Hardouin CAN NOT provide a source for his statistics of 8 millions Khmer Krom ("Do your own" research is not a good enough response). I used to live in Vietnam (14 years), and coming back to Vietnam for good next year, all that time, I haven't met a single Khmer Krom in Vietnam both North and South Vietnam albeit I have met quite a lot of Chinese (Hoa), Laotians and some other minorities like Tay, Thai. The Khmer Krom concentrated around Phan Rang, Phan Thiet, Soc Trang,... however even in those areas alone, the population of Khmer Krom ethnic group can not make up even 5 percent of the total population. Do you know that Vietnamese population is just over 80 millions?? Do you know that 8 millions is roughly the population of Hanoi & HCMC (Saigon) combined?? If you think the statistics provided by the government of Vietnam & the statistics taken from Ethnologue website can not be trusted, then may I ask, how do you come to the knowledge of 8 millions Khmer Krom in Vietnam?? What is so special about it that make you believe it wholeheartedly?? I doubt you can even provide a source for your statistics.--lt2hieu2004 02:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not even know who the Khmer Kroms are. Is that the main ethnic group in Cambodia or something? UH Collegian 02:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To answer UH Collegian. Khmer Krom is the ethnic people of South Vietnam, although they are the same with the Khmer people of Cambodia, I believe the Cambodians refer to themself as Khmer rather than Khmer Krom (correct me if I'm wrong). Vietnam & Cambodia has a long history of conflict. The area of today South and Central Vietnam is land conquered from the kingdom of Champa. According to KKF - an organization outlawed by the Vietnamese organization, the population Khmer Krom all over the world is 8 millions, and Hardouin think all of those 8 millions live in Vietnam?? Even talk about Khmer Krom population around the world, I would think 8 millions Khmer Krom is a little bit exaggerated, the motive is clear: KKF is an organization aimed to re-establish the former kingdom of Champa.--lt2hieu2004 03:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why such an aggressive tone? Can't you guys express ideas and opinions in a moderate cool tone? You portray this as a pitted war ("him vs. all other Wikipedians"), when it should be only a mature and relaxed exchange of informations and sources. Anyway, talking about sources, you can check these detailed statistics [2]: this is a research that was made in 1994 and that shows that there are about 7 million Khmer Krom in Vietnam (8.2 million in the world). The research used population surveys of South Vietnam from before 1975, and assumed a natural growth rate of 2.2% per year, which is quite credible. The survey also substracted losses in Khmer Krom population due to exile, untimely death, etc. This research was found credible enough to be broadcasted by the Voice of America in 1999. It was also found serious enough by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to be reported in one of their articles [3]. The Vietnamese government says there are only 1.05 Khmer Krom in Vietnam, so that means there is a 5.95 million discrepancy. From what I understand, these 5.95 million people are reported as Kinh in an effort of Vietnamization of the minorities. The Vietnamization of the Khmer Krom is well known by Human Rights organizations, and there are many examples of this (people forced to adopt Vietnamese family names, children forced to attend Vietnamese schools, etc.). If, from your personal experience, you do not have the impression that there are that many Khmer Krom in southern Vietnam, remember that because of the Vietnamization policies many Khmer Krom, especially the younger generation, are now fluent in Vietnamese, so when you meet them in the street they will talk to you in Vietnamese, and you would not necesarily realize that they are in fact Khmer. This is especially true in cities and towns. I think the article should not just report official Vietnamese figures, but it should also report independent estimates of the Khmer Krom. In cases of controversies, the policy on Wikipedia is to report sources coming from opposite sides, and let readers decide which source they trust more. Hardouin 12:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, so you refuse to believe in website such as Ethnologue, you refuse to believe in the official Vietnamese government statistics and even refuse to believe in the World Bank. But for some reason you chose to believe in KKF, an anti-Vietnam organization?? People only believe what they want to believe :sigh:. I found the statistics on KKF is ridiculous, why? According to KKF, the population of Khmer Krom & the growth rate before 1975 is nearly exactly the same with the population & growth rate of Cambodia before 1975. Are they counting the Cambodians or are they counting the Khmer Krom? For your reference ([4]).
There is nothing strange about the fact that Khmer people, no matter which side of the border they live, have the same birth rate. Hardouin 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
Well, if there is nothing strange about that, then the 80% figure, just because it is rounded, you claim it is questionable. Ask yourself, you know what is right. I have nothing more to say to you. You do not provide evidence, other than keep telling people you are correct & bashing others' evidence.--lt2hieu2004 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Moreover, the KKF claimed that they based their statistics on RVN statistics before 1975 but according to this Wikipedia article: South Vietnam, about 80% of the population of the RVN in 1970 is Kinh (Out of the total of 19.3 millions), that is roughly 15.44 millions.
There is no guarantee that this 80% figure is correct. RVN statistics are available nowhere online. I wonder who put that 80% figure, and where it comes from. The fact that it is rounded shows that it is not an official figure from RVN statistics. Hardouin 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
That left 3.86 millions of Khmer Krom, Chinese, Khmer, Montagnard,... If the statistics on the KKF website was correct, there must be at least roughly 4.5 millions Khmer Krom in RVN at that time. Where the hell are all the Chineses, Khmer, Montagnard, Malay gone?? As far as I'm concern that is not even account for the massive number of Chinese 'boat people' leaving Vietnam around 1979 because of woresened relationship between Vietnam & China (which led to a small war in 1979). The KKF also claimed that 'the Vietnamese cooperated with the Khmer Rouge to massacre Khmer people', are they trying to rewrite history or something? And the Vietnamization policy that you are talking about, well, if that was true, somehow, they still have their own T.V channel, their own newspaper, their own radio channel, there are a hell lots of Khmer school, a lot of Khmer pagodas in Soc Trang and other areas. And when I say a lot, I mean it is much more of those than what is currently available for the native Indians in the U.S.--lt2hieu2004 16:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Leaving your strange claim about native Indians aside, you should know that the fact that there are Khmer media and schools in Vietnam is not a proof that there is no Vietnamization going on. Communist governments are usually very good at creating minority policies which appear great on paper, but have a murkier reality. Check China: in Tibet there are also Tibetan newspapers, Tibetan schools, and even a supposedly Tibetan government. Yet, everybody knows the Tibetan culture is being destroyed, and Tibetan people are being heavily sinicized. When native schools are not funded, when people are left so illiterate in their native tongue that only a small minority can read the newspapers, when religious freedom is officially allowed but in reality hindered by various means (in Vietnam the government refuses Khmer Krom pagodas to import buddhist texts written in Khmer from Cambodia), when the dominant culture (be it Chinese or Vietnamese) is promoted and presented as the only way to escape poverty, everybody can see that flaunted minority policies are just a hypocrit cover for cultural assimilation. Hardouin 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
Look, I just want to tell you this: Please provide proof for anything you said. All of this discussion, you haven't been able to provide any proof other than bashing other people evidence. If you think only you are correct, then please tell me because in that case, no discussion is necessary. Can you tell me what evidence have you provide?--lt2hieu2004 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
BTW why is this "In 2005, the retired king of Cambodia Norodom Sihanouk officially called for the end of Vietnamese annexations and an international demarcation of the boundary on the ground" IN Vietnam article? It's more about Cambodia than Vietnam. Why is it include in here? I guess Wikipedia is where we based our "numbers and statistics" on certain organizations than the official statistics of Vietnam, Ethnologue, and World Bank. Oh well
A dispute about the Cambodian-Vietnamese border is as much about Vietnam as it it about Cambodia, mind you!, and should appear in both articles. Hardouin 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
I have yet to find any source that quote this information. Please provide source or I'm removing that part as well.--lt2hieu2004 30 June 2005 02:31 (UTC)
Just read any newspaper (foreign newspapers). Alternatively you can check Norodom Sihanouk's website were there is a copy of the official letter he sent to the government of Vietnam. Hardouin 30 June 2005 11:16 (UTC)
Well, I'm not living in Vietnam so I can not read any Vietnamese newspaper anyway, but still, I did not find that news anywhere. Last night, I searched the whole night on the Internet and it turned out nothing credible other than some forums. What is his website address btw? That would be the most credible source.--lt2hieu2004 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)
FYI, this is a copy of the official letter sent in March 2005 by Norodom Sihanouk to the government of Vietnam (among others): [5]. And this is a statement by the Cambodia's Border Committee officially set up by the Cambodian government and chaired by Sihanouk himself: [6]. And here you have the technical report in English of one visit by the Border Commission to some Cambodian border villages occupied by the Vietnamese army: [7]. Hardouin 1 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

If there is no hard evidence from Hardouin within 2 days, I will remove that information. --lt2hieu2004 28 June 2005 04:11 (UTC)

In case of controversies, on Wikipedia we always list figures from all sides, and readers are the one who use their judgement and decide which figure they trust more. Check articles about Palestine or Tibet, there are always both government and independent figures listed. So it doesn't really matter if Khmer Krom organizations overestimate their figures, or if the Vietnamese government underestimate their figures. In this case we know nobody gives the real figure, so we have to list both. The real figure is in between both figures listed. Hardouin 29 June 2005 11:31 (UTC)
Hardouin, please keep in mind that anybody can post whatever they want on the Internet. If tomorrow I post an article to my website claiming that I'm the richest man in the world (richer than Bill Gates), can you just edit the Bill Gates article and add that claim?? Well, in this case, I know (and you know too), based on my calculation above, the figure quoted from KKF is wrong. The official figure from the Vietnam government, although you say that it is can not be trusted, you can not provide any proof that it is questionable, moreover, it is being used by World Bank & Ethnologue. People can not just edit an article on Wikipedia because they think that they are correct. According to CIA World Fact Book ([8]) which is known to not use official figures from Vietnam (look at the background section), they claim that 85%-90% of Vietnamese are Kinh. As I've said before, because you can not provide any hard evidence, I'm removing that part.--lt2hieu2004 30 June 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Your aggressive comments are becoming more and more chauvinistic and nationalistic. It is not because you have never heard these figures, it is not because they are disturbing to you, that they do not exist. Maybe you would prefer Vietnam to be a 100% ethnically homogenous country, but it is not, so stop with your nationalistic bias. To call Khmer Krom exile organizations "anti-Vietnam organizations", as you do, reveals a lot about your mindset. It is already fair enough to present both sources, governmental and independent. Hardouin 30 June 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Look, the fact is that you are the only one who can not provide any hard evidence & you are the only one who is aggresive here. Everybody who view KKF website can clearly see their anti-Vietnam attitude. If you think that their figure is correct. Then please, provide evidences, don't just talk. I have explained before, if you did not understand, then probably I'll have to explain again. Let see, according to KKF, they based their figure on South Vietnam figures, O.K, according to this article on Wikipedia - South Vietnam, the population of South Vietnam is 19.3 millions, out of that 80% are Kinh. You said that there is no guarantee that is correct. Well, who can discuss anything with you anymore?? Every single evidence, whether it is from South Vietnam, Socialist Republic of Vietnam or CIA, World Bank, Ethnologue, you claimed that those are not correct, but only the what you think is correct?? Please provide further evidences, otherwise, I'm off. I've nothing to say to you anymore. Waste of time.--lt2hieu2004 1 July 2005 02:49 (UTC)

Typical of Wikipedia articles, full of flaws and inaccuracies. Let go to southern Vietnam and see for yourselves how many Khmer Kroms there are. The last time I was there I hardly saw any Khmer, even in the border town of Chau Doc. The figure of 8 million by some Khmers is either exaggerated to serve their own purposes or that the KK all lived in caves when I was touring many places in Southern Vietnam.User:DaiVietVanTue

Hello, I am Australian-Khmer. I will provide my report on this controvesy of Khmer Krom population statistics. Hardouin is correct in every respect, that the population of Khmer Krom is at 8 million (with 7 million in Southern Vietnam - not Saigon) - KKKF statistics that is. I believe there is some controvesy between the statistics provided by the Khmer Kampuchea-Krom Federation and the Vietnamese government. Hardouin believes the statistics provided by KKKF is correct whilst the "other Wikipedians" in this discussion believe those statistics are biased by the KKKF compared to those by their so-called "reputable government". The KKKF has a believe that the statistics by the Vietnamese governments are underestimates of the "actual" population of Khmer Krom in Vietnam. There has always been controvesy between the sovereignty of Khmer Krom (and population) and Koh Tral island. Khmer Krom does not only live in Southern Vietnam but also in other parts of Vietnam (although minute). I don't endorse KKKF's statistics nor the Vietnamese Government but of course in me, I'll be inclined to go with KKKF since I am Khmer. (I hope you get what I mean):
and there is the evidence that "suggests" that the Khmer Krom estimate of 8 million may be accurate:
Yes, of course this figure of 8 million is only presented by KKKF - I admit that. There are no other reputable organizations that recognize this figure except those who are supporters of the KKKF. Why can't we just leave the official Vietnamese figure as is and put in brackets that so and so (KKKF) believes the population to be underestimate and so and so (8 million) here is the correct figure? Squash 4 July 2005 03:06 (UTC)
Please read my previous comment, as I've pointed out, the statistics provided by KKF is impossible to be true. Yes, it is probable that the number provided by the Vietnam government is not correct either but at least, it is compatible with statistics provided by other organizations all over the world and according to my own observation and others who had been to Vietnam, 1 million seems to be correct. Keeping in mind that Internet is where anybody can post anything, I think we should only quote from source which is reliable. That is if CIA World Fact Book said there are 7 million Khmer Krom in Vietnam then both figures should be in the article, but an organization like KKF, I think not. That is to help making Wikipedia better and to not transform the article into a mess of different figures from all kind of organizations no matter how unreliable.--lt2hieu2004 4 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)
I think the best result is to make mention of both. Squash 5 July 2005 02:50 (UTC)
I don't agree because what is the point of quoting a figure we all know that is impossible to be true? Let's not say about 7 million, even 4 million is impossible because KKF claimed they based their figure on South Vietnam figure in 1975. However we all know too well that the number of Chinese ethnic in South Vietnam in 1975 is around 2 million (most of them left around 1979 because of the war between Vietnam & China). Moreover, as a Vietnamese, I've never actually meet any Khmer Krom. You may, just like Hardouin, say that it is because of the Vietnamization policy the Vietnamese government is implementing on the Khmer Krom population that made them unable to speak Khmer. However, according to KKF, only 10% of the Khmer Krom population able to speak Vietnamese correctly. The more I read, the more conflict it become.

I am not a fan of the communist Vietnamese government at all, but I do believe their statistics when they report population and ethnic groups! Those damn communists (of any country) are good at counting populations because EVERYONE GETS COUNTED! Why and what advantage would they have to under-estimate the "Khmer Krom" population? Yes, I acknowledged that Vietnam is not a homogenous country. The census reported 86% are of Kinh ethnicity and I truly believe that there are 86%. However, in my personal opinion, I still think that is a lot since there are 53 or so ethnic minority groups. Communists are liars, etc. but I dont think they lie when reporting populations. Communist countries are very precise when they report population counts and ethnic groups percentages. If the United States was a communist country and we had a population count, you bet the population would be more than 300 million (not 284 million) with less than 69.1% being non-Hispanic whites, and more than 12.5% Hispanic origin people of any race and more than 12% blacks (non-Hispanic). In summary, I truly believe that there are about 85% or so of Vietnam's population are Kinh. There is no reason that the government would under-estimate the Khmer Krom or any ethnic minorities population. To my knowledge, Vietnam is not a racist or ethnocentric society like western societies. To my knowledge, ethnicity in Vietnam is not a big deal. People dont meet each other and ask, "What is your ethnicity?" like they do in the Unites States. To my knowledge, all ethnicity in Vietnam socialize and live together under one group, and that is being "Vietnamese". Most ethnic minorities in Vietnam or considered what Canada would call "silent minorities" and they mix in with the general (Kinh) population well with the exception of the ethnic Han Chinese (they stand out) and some of the "Montanards" (or however it's spelled) minority groups. Of course I also know that southern Vietnam is more diverse than northern. A few weeks ago, I went to the official website for Ho Chi Minh City (I call it Saigon) and the local government population statistic has Kinh accounting for about 80% of Saigon with 12% ethnic Han Chinese, making it the largest minority still in Saigon with the remaining percentages of other ethnicities. Yes I am aware that Saigon is not the whole southern Vietnam so you do not need to correct me on it. UH Collegian 8 July 2005 10:38 (UTC) My mother is Vietnamese(Kinh)and my father is Chinese. You keep refereing Han Chinese (nguoi Tau; mostly un-education Vietnamese hate Chinese so they call them boat People) are exceptional. Let me remind you that might be your ancestor were come from China too. I hope you are not be chauvinistic and too nationalistic. May God help us; all man kind are equal. _________________________________________________________________________________ I find all this arguing about how many ethnic Khmers there are in Viet Nam quite amusing. Some of the figures that were referenced by Khmer members come from a website that claims only 150,000 Cambodians died in the Killing Field. I am speechless.

Anyway, if anyone likes to find out the demographics of the former South Vietnam, the only indisputable source would be the United Nation databases although I'm sure the Khmer members in here would dispute that too. That is not all. It costs around $50-$100 USD annually for the privilege to use those databases. --Nông Dân 20:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________________[reply]

Disparity between North and South

There is still some disparity between North and South - this was covered recently in some magazine, can't recall though

Yes, and there is a disparity between the central areas and the south, and between the central areas and the north, and between the lowlands and the highlands, between the central highlands and the northern highlands, between the coast and the inlands, between the river deltas and the drylands, between the Mekong Delta and the Red River Delta, and so on and so forth. My wager here is that there is no country on earth that lacks a disparity and that no disparity is neutral. So, again, yes, there is a disparity between north and south (Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi are not the same place) but the important issue to highlight here is that there still exist strong political interests that wish to emphasise very specific disparities between North and South. Vichminh 15:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article

...is atrocious. There is no history or politics section whatsoever and the religion section consists of "Buddhist, Confucian, Taoist, Roman Catholic, indigenous beliefs, Islamic and Protestant" (oh, very informative, but your list of contemporary religions left off Jainism). You should see other articles on countries (such as United Kingdom, Germany, United States, etc.) and bring this article to a higher standard of quality.--naryathegreat | (talk) 17:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The article had history and politics section, which was recently removed by somebody. I've restored those sections. DHN 18:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, glad to see that the article on East Timor is not better than the one on Vietnam, of all places. Sorry if I was rude, it just seemed a litle, um, stupid that the article was the only country article without such sections. Thanks--68.95.228.67 00:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

According to the coordinates given in the info box, Hanoi may be the capital of Azerbaidjan. Avia 07:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out. I fixed the coordinates. DHN 09:42, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, I have added some more info on the history section of Vietnam because I see that many of you were quite dissatisfied about the history section. Anyways you guys should feel free to edit it becuase i know there would be errors, after all im not that good in egrish (lol). Anyways enjoy!!

I think that detailed descriptions of the country's history should be at History of Vietnam to do it justice. DHN 19:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viet Nam spelling again

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

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

Area

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

Not sure I follow. You want to get rid of the miles conversions? Kafziel 23:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam, like most countries in the world, uses SI. DHN 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So? This article isn't here for Vietnam. It's for everybody, including the few hundred million people in the world who use miles. How does having a miles conversion in the template hurt anyone? I could maybe see complaining about it if they were the first units used, but they aren't. Kafziel 00:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I use miles because I'm an American too. The template only has the miles marker to allow the United States article to use it. Consensus long ago dictated that SI would be the standard. We can't include every localized change in every corner of Wikipedia.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, we can include mile calculations in every corner of Wikipedia. France, the birthplace of the metric system, is the first example that comes to mind. Then there's the People's Republic of China, arguably one of Vietnam's strongest influences of the past century. The Mongols didn't use miles, we can still list them since somebody took the time to put them in. Since it's already there, why would we want less information in an article? This just seems like editing for the sake of editing. Kafziel 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My changes

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

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

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

Hey I changed quite a bit before you corrected the page also because of the unbalanced point of view (very anti vietnamese government and use sources that weren't even academicDaicoviet 02:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was leave it where it is. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

  • Vietnam → Việt Nam - At the present, the correct form ("Việt Nam") and then the slightly less correct form (Viet Nam) sans accented characters redirect to the blantly incorrect form. It should be the other way around. This is similar to refering to the US as Unitedstatesofamerica. This has been discussed, but has been dropped for nearly two years. I think it's time to fix it. --MichaelAhlers 14:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add #Support followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Propose: Leave page name at Vietnam

  1. Support for now. I would like to see some more arguments before making a final decision --Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. As a Vietnamese speaker, I see no problem with using the most commonly used English name for the country in the English Wikipedia. Note that in Vietnamese, each syllable is written as one unit, thus leading some people (even native Vietnamese speakers) to mistake each syllable as one "word". Most Vietnamese words consists of more than one syllable. Writing Vietnam as "Viet Nam" in English would be like writing "U Ni Ted S Tates of A Me Ri Ca". DHN 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support, per DHN. Jonathunder 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep the English spelling used by the government of Vietnam on its websites. Thumbelina 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Most common. Eugene van der Pijll 10:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Most common. Gene Nygaard 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support – 1st choice By far the most common, and not at all incorrect (e.g., as per the Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, et al.); the lead should be refined – slightly different than the current version – to include the common short-form rendition with binomial alternate and a note (as is) to rarefied (accented) version below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support most (if not all) other English language encyclopaedias use the name Vietnam, I don't see why Wikipedia should break with tradition. Edwy (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Move page name to Việt Nam

  1. First choice. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: Move page to Viet Nam

  1. Second choice. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice Gene Nygaard 20:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 2nd choice Perhaps more proper, but a redirect and an effective article lead should more than suffice. Speaking of which: Viet Nam is a common enough rendition (e.g., UN) that it should be noted in the introduction, with the note to the rarefied Việt Nam. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support This form is perhaps most appropriate for English speakers while maintaining the fact the country name is two words. --MichaelAhlers 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please add any additional proposals above this line in chronological order.

Discussion

Approval voting is encouraged for page moves requested on WP:RM

You may indicate support for one or more proposals but you can not oppose a proposal.
Tactical voting is encouraged to try to build a consensus. So you may vote for more than one proposal and change you vote up to the end of the vote.
Add any additional comments

For old discussion see above #Wrong Spelling, #Vietnam vs. Viet Nam and #Viet Nam spelling again--Philip Baird Shearer 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) particularly the talk page and the archives and you will see that diacritics (or "accent marks") are very contensious, these two discussions probably cover all the bases on this issue: Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Archive1 and Talk:Zürich/archive1 -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google:

  • about 277,000,000 English pages for Vietnam -"Viet Nam" -"Việt Nam" -wikipedia
  • about 52,400,000 English pages for "Viet Nam" -Vietnam -"Việt Nam" -wikipedia.
  • about 1,520,000 English pages for "Việt Nam" -"Viet Nam" -Vietnam -wikipedia.
  • The British Library web site uses Vietnam. local search "Viet Name" redirect to it. The local seach did not understand "Việt Nam".
  • britannica Main article under vietnam spelling
  • UN list the country under "Viet Nam"

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that using "Viet Nam" instead of "Vietnam" is trying to outdo the Vietnamese themselves. "Vietnam" outranks "Viet Nam" by a factor of 5 to 1 in websites originating from Vietnam. Why impose something that they themselves don't even use? DHN 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Nam might appear more correct to an English speaker when compared with the Vietnamese term "Việt Nam", but to a Vietnamese speaker like me it looks like a half-assed attempt to be "correct". The French use "Viêt Nam", which I consider an abomination. Why use an obscure term that might not even display correctly on some computers when a commonly used English word would do? DHN 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Vietnamese speaker, I see no problem with using the most commonly used English name for the country in the English Wikipedia. Note that in Vietnamese, each syllable is written as one unit, thus leading some people (even native Vietnamese speakers) to mistake each syllable as one "word". Most Vietnamese words consists of more than one syllable. Writing Vietnam as "Viet Nam" in English would be like writing "U Ni Ted S Tates of A Me Ri Ca". DHN 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to believe you, but—why the hell does Vietnam take its seat at the United Nations as "Viet Nam", then? —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. As I said before, some people mistakenly feel that it is "more correct". Books published in the South previously wrote it as Việt-nam, and as can be seen in this telegram, Ho Chi Minh used "Vietnam". Perhaps the usage patterns have changed in the 30 years since Vietnam joined the UN. Government websites in Vietnam using "Vietnam" outnumber those using "Viet Nam" by a factor of 10 to 1, according to Google. DHN 17:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mh. As a Vietnamese speaker, could you possibly try to contact the Vietnamese government agencies and try to find out why they use "Viet Nam" at the UN? Just to satisfy my curiosity... Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


liberty and Freedom

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

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

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

Vietnamese living in Australia

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

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

Vietnam spelling in French

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

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

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

Vietnam Veterans Tourists

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

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


Breakcore In Vietnam

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

Crazy statement?

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

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

Foreign relations and military

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

Vietnam War Victim Count

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

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


I find the following sentence in the third paragraph misleading, if not flat-out wrong:
"The Vietnam War devastated the nation's economy and infrastructure, killing millions of civilians."
I have not read a single publication that lists Vietnam's civilian deaths as being over one million. In fact, most of them estimate between 400,000 to 600,000 Vietnamese civilians were killed. Even if the figure was as high as 1,900,000, the term "millions" (i.e. 2 million plus) should not be used. VietGrant 08:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Vietnamese governement says the number of civilians killed during the Vietnam War was 4 million. 2 million in the south, and 2 million in the north. (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9075317/Vietnam-War) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tridungvo 14:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template changed

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

Wildlife

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


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

204.39.17.15 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

caused WWII??!!

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

Probably "triggered by the war in the Pacific". DHN 04:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Yet the French maintained dominant control of their colonies until World War II, when the Japanese invasion of Indochina triggered by the war in the Pacific."
The sentence as it stands is grammatically incorrect. Either the invasion "triggered the war" or "was triggered by the war." Which is it? 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Another solution (sort of) would be Yet the French maintained dominant control of their colonies until World War II, when the Japanese invasion of Indochina triggered by the war in the Pacific occurred/brought an end to French colonialism or something like that. But it still leaves the war in the Pacific triggering the Japanese invasion of Indochina. I don't know enough about the Pacific war to tell if that would be accurate or not. --RockRockOn 17:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, so why is the person who replaced my link (Vietnam Travel Blog) with [9] still included? My site actually offers information, this site is just a list of words, with no info whatsoever. I agree that there are enough link directories on the web, and I do not think I was using Wiki incorrectly.

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

Cannot edit..?

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

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

Proposed WikiProject

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


Transportation Edits

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

HUGE REVAMP

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

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

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

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

Red River Delta province

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

Religion

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

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

I just did a quick revert

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

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vietnam&oldid=120792129"