Talk:North Vietnam

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtrieu5 (article contribs).

Government Form Source

The source cited for the country being a "totalitarian dictatorship" is a New York Times article. NYT is not an analysis of the government with sources and evidence, it is a news corporation. Either the "totalitarian dictatorship" part must be removed or a better source found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLMwFCC (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

End to Cold War Nomenclature

Just to start a discussion on this page for a motion to stop the Cold War Nomenclature on wikipedia, that is, stop using the 'communist' moniker on each and every place it is put on.

That is, restrain from saying a North Vietnam...was a communist state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976., since it sounds so Cold War-dish... instead put North Vietnam...was a state that ruled the northern half of Vietnam from 1954 until 1976, which followed communist doctrine.

That way we will eradicate the bipolarity view of the post war era.

Else we could change alter the page on the U.S which reads as follows The United States of America ...is a federal constitutional republic... to The United States of America ...is a federal capitalist constitutional republic....

I know the distinction between communism and capitalism was an integral part of these nations during the Cold War, but should it be of Encyclopedic value in the future? --Cosuna (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

North Vietnam is purely a historical entity, so there is no need to update for the post-Cold War era. You want to write the article as if the Cold War never happened? It strikes me as a 1984ish attempt to revise history. The article should be a service to readers, and I suspect the primary reason readers come here is because of North Vietnam's role in the Cold War and the Vietnam War. Kauffner (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I hartily agree that for historical perfection we need to preserve the facts as they were, not attempt to rewrite history as some may like to do. In the case of "North Vietnam" I don't know this has ever carried anything more than a geographical meaning, such as North America is a lot of unrelated sovereign States, USA is a peoples' chosen joint nation united as the one Sovereign Power over a lot of States, some of which remain "Commonwealths" of several former states and so on.

Therefore this article may best refer to French Colonial Era (2 provinces & 1 protectorate) names were Tonkin (Northern third) Annam (Central third) and Cochinchina (Southern third):NB: There was a preceding time under Chinese Rule when Annam was the whole of Vietnam. Prior to Vietnam recognition (probably more than 2000 years ago) it was part of China as the name translates to mean "all the Chinese race South of the Yangsee" Nam = South in translation modern Vietnamese also, Viets the race of people who were considered nomadic, hunting fishing, outgoing people.

About 4000 years ago the legendary founder of this nation King Hung Vuong mated with the Lac tribe of the mountain regions, to form the lac-Viet tribe or race, they had some 100 children, mother took 50 to the Mountains and father 50 kids to the lowland ocean front areas. One can refer to the legend for more detail, but for the purposes of discussion North Vietnam should remain purely a geographic area reference I believe. Wikipedia should cross reference all of the references accordingly.

Example of the names we should use may be one part "Annam" for the first Colonial Chinese era, two parts "Annam" for the second Chinese era (or when suited), three parts for the French Colonial era as above mentioned Tonkin, Annam & Cochinchina respectively. Then as North and South Vietnam during the Waring years, we should use DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam)for Northern under Communist rule and President Ho Chi Minh, ROV (for Republic of Vietnam) a puppet monarchial Kingdom of Bao Dai ruled by Dictator Ngo Dinh Diem (American President Truman Potsdam Decissions then installed) for the South as supported by the USA till 1973 withdrawal, in part, untilfinal ROV defeat in 1975 when DRV won over the ROV to rename the United Vietnam three parts as one post war SRV (Socialist Republic of Vietnam).

There was during the period 1946-1975 a 3rd Government of Vietnam under General Tran Van Tra I am a little uncertain of their location in the Southern remote areas of that RVN (Republic Vietnam) as their legal status was rather confused and Unrecognised generally in the World, these were the Viet Cong I believe, but recognised when Madam Nguyen Thi Binh a communist and Foreign Secretary of that Government was the major influence of the final recognition of the united Vietnam as SRV (Socialist Republic of Vietnam) during the Paris Peace talks.

My explanation I hope explains in short terms what exists in numerous Wikipedia pages if one had the time to codify and cross reference all of those references in one place or one Wikipedia page. I hope the Vietnam Project group will eventually clarify all these points coherantly for every inquirer.--Robbygay (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC) End summary wrong to call as such a geographic word "End of Coldwar Nominclature as that is not North and South names its all one SRV now. but I don't know how to correct that end summary and retain the linkto this page edit --Robbygay (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights

Human Rights Watch claims North Vietnam's army is currently pursuing the Montagnards (also known as Degar), a christian population who collaborated with USA during the Vietnam War.

The above was removed by the author who was concerned whether it was entirely NPOV. Secretlondon 15:53, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I put it back because there is no doubt whether a claim by HRW fits the neutral point of view (NPOV). --Uncle Ed 16:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

agreed - a claim is just that. Hence I saved it. Secretlondon 16:07, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence

Declaration of Idependence of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam

Hanoi, September 2nd, 1945, by Ho Chi Minh

"[…] All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: "All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights."

Those are undeniable truths.

Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French imperialists, abusing the standard of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.

In the field of politics, they have deprived our people of every democratic liberty.

They have enforced inhuman laws; they have set up three distinct political regimes in the North, the Center, and the South of Viet Nam in order to wreck our national unity and prevent our people from being united.

They have built more prisons than schools. They have mercilessly slain our patriots; they have drowned our uprisings in rivers of blood.

They have fettered public opinion; they have practiced obscurantism against our people.

To weaken our race they have forced us to use opium and alcohol.

In the field of economics, they have fleeced us to the backbone, impoverished our people and devastated our land.

They have robbed us of our rice fields, our mines, our forests, and our raw materials. They have monopolized the issuing of bank notes and the export trade.

They have invented numerous unjustifiable taxes and reduced our people, especially our peasantry, to a state of extreme poverty.

They have hampered the prospering of our national bourgeoisie; they have mercilessly exploited our workers.

In the autumn of 1940, when the Japanese fascists violated Indochina's territory to establish new bases in their fight against the Allies, the French imperialists went down on their bent knees and handed over our country to them.

hus, from that date, our people were subjected to the double yoke of the French and the Japanese. Their sufferings and miseries increased. The result was that, from the end of last year to the beginning of this year, from Quang Tri Province to the North of Vietnam, more than two million of our fellow citizens died from starvation. On March 9th 1945, the French troops were disarmed by the Japanese. The French colonialists either fled or surrendered, showing that not only were they incapable of "protecting" us, but that, in the span of five years, they had twice sold our country to the Japanese.

On several occasions before March 9th , the Viet Minh League urged the French to ally themselves with it against the Japanese. Instead of agreeing to this proposal, the French colonialists so intensified their terrorist activities against the Viet Minh members that before fleeing they massacred a great number of our political prisoners detained at Yen Bay and Cao Bang.

Notwithstanding all this, our fellow citizens have always manifested toward the French a tolerant and humane attitude. Even after the Japanese Putsch of March, 1945, the Viet Minh League helped many Frenchmen to cross the frontier, rescued some of them from Japanese jails, and protected French lives and property.

From the autumn of 1940, our country had in fact ceased to be a French colony and had become a Japanese possession. After the Japanese had surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam. The truth is that we have wrested our independence from the Japanese and not from the French. The French have fled, the Japanese have capitulated, Emperor Bao Dai has abdicated. Our people have broken the chains which for nearly a century have fettered them and have won independence for the Fatherland. Our people at the same time have overthrown the monarchic regime that has reigned supreme for dozens of centuries. In its place has been established the present Democratic Republic.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government, representing the whole Vietnamese people, declare that from now on we break off all relations of a colonial character with France; we repeal all the international obligation that France has so far subscribed to on behalf of Viet-Nam, and we abolish all the special rights the French have unlawfully acquired in our Fatherland.

The whole Vietnamese people, animated by a common purpose, are determined to fight to the bitter end against any attempt by the French colonialists to reconquer their country. We are convinced that the Allied nations, which at Teheran and San Francisco have acknowledged the principles of self-determination and equality of nations, will not refuse to acknowledge the independence of Viet-Nam.

A people who have courageously opposed French domination for more than eighty years, a people who have fought side by side with the Allies against the fascists during these last years, such a people must be free and independent.

For these reasons, we, members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, solemnly declare to the world that Viet Nam has the right to be a free and independent country—and in fact it is so already. The entire Vietnamese people are determined to mobilize all their physical and mental strength, to sacrifice their lives and property in order to safeguard their independence and liberty".http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=2

Takima 15:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Legally, in International studies and politology do exist "West Germany", and "East Germany"?

The legal name is "Democratic Republic of Vietnam" since september 2nd, 1945. Was "North Vietnam" at Geneva in 1954 and Paris in 1974? Did North Vietnam sign any international Accords and Convention? Takima 15:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the "North Vietnam" signed the Geneva, the South hasn't been recover from the French Colonists yet. Both North and South VN signed the Paris one, you should've known that.68.161.48.162 04:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't just North Vietnam who signed the Geneva accord, there were no North or South Vietnam at that time, there was just one united Vietnam, South Vietnam was created as a consequence of the Geneva accord. In 1973, both North and South Vietnam signed the Paris peace accords.--lt2hieu2004 08:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hanoi never used "North Vietnam" officially, always "Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam". South Vietnam was the "State of Viet-Nam" at the time of Geneva and had a separate delegation at the conference. Wikipedia practice is to use WP:COMMONNAME, not legal names. Kauffner (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm wrong, but isn't it also called the People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam? And if it is, shouldn't that be in there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.74.34 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. It was never called People's Democratic Republic of Vietnam.--AM ^(talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I wish you guys would get this right. Northern third of Vietnam was during the French Colonial era called "Tonkin". At one time Central and North Vietnam was Annam, then only Central Vietnam under the French was Annam. The South was Cochinchina under the French, but some claim at one stage all was called Annam, I don't know for sure.

But after the Northern Viet-Minh Army, who had been a Western allied jungle Army under General Vo Nguyen Giap (currently 99+ and very close to death near his 100th birthday). Ho Chi Minh (Born Nguyen Sinh Huy, educated as Nguyen Sinh Cung, Nguyen Tat Thanh and Nguyen Ai Quoc variously. later with French Communist press La Perla, visited Russia as Comrad Linov and China as Comrad Vuong) was the Jungle leader who was rescuing allied airmen and returning them to the Allies at safe Embasies in China, and Laos perhaps, later during the japanese occupation helping USA keep a CIA Radio asset in his Jungle safe haven.

In 1946 after the Japanese surendered the Northern Tonkin to Chinese allies (as settled by Truman in the Potsdam Convention), Ho promptly declared Vietnam independence in Hanoi Ba Dinh Square, just a few days ahead of Truman's dictate intended had reversed Roseveldt's deceased intention for an election, Truman ordered Chinese to hand back to France as a colonial asset. However Ho had an election anyhow, he was chosen in the Tonkin North area to lead with King Bao dai a Supreme Advisor to himself.

At that declaration he initiated the flag as now exists and he chose the name DRV (Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and yes it was called a people's Government "Of the People, By the People, for the People" I think that originally was also an American expression he adopted, but no, the Country had left the word "Peoples" out of the name (China was "Peoples Republic" i think) and he was not copying them, for all their tea in China. His stated motto then, as is still on all official and formal mail here in SRV, the words state at the very top right hand side "Doc Lap - To Do - Hanh Phuc" (Independence - Freedom - Happines) following American ideals again.

Then the French tried retaking Hanoi, Tonkin State, and in 1954 the Viet Minh put a final end to that at Dien Bien Phu, where the French were slaughtered by General Giap's wisdom and Viet Minh Army tactics, Ho reconfirmed the DRV power and sovereignty ofver the DRV (Tonkin area) which eventually extended down as far as Dong Hoi Quang Binh Province at the 17th latitude Tropic of Cancer near the Central Annam Border of the Quang Tri Province and the DMZ (demilitarized Zone) a "No-man's-land" between DRV and ROu.

The South that had been Cochinchina Under the pre-WWII French had become part of Annam Kingdom, then Americans brought King Bao Dai back from France to rula the Kingdom and installed Ngo Dinh Diem under that Puppet King in Saigon, claiming sovereignty as the Republic of Vietnam. However there was at the time, and even since about the time of Ho election in the North DRV, a Vietnam Republic Government called RVN with the elected leader General Tran van Tra President and Mrs Nguyen Thi Binh foreign Minister (as was later confirmed by the Paris Peace talks). In the Paris Talks she brokered the settlement after 1975 fall of Saigon and the ROV, to allow her RVN and Ho's DRV to unite as the SRV or Socialist Republic of Vietnam for the whole post-Vietnam War area of Vietnam Peninsular as we know it today, in Post-Cold war Vietnam if you wish, now recognised by the whole World as the sovereign State Republic of Vietnam (SRV) actually titled "Socialist Republic of Vietnam" (SRV) or "Cong Hoa Xa Hoi Chua Nghia Vietnam".

In fact so well confirmed Sovereign State, by their membership of the UN, WTO, NAM, APEC & ASEAN (this year they are leaders of ASEAN presidency by rotation and a member of the UN Security Council).

Does all this help you Guys decide the facts and direct your research accordingly. Regards--Robbygay (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The account above is quite confused. In newspaper usage during the colonial period, the North was "Annam" and the South was "Cochinchina." Annam was a protectorate with a native king and a dual system of administration, while Cochinchina was considered a part of France and represented in the National Assembly. There was a French governor in Hanoi who administered all of Indochina, so the local inhabitants were "Indochinese" as far as English and French speakers were concerned. The historical name "Vietnam" was resurrected by nationalist writers and adopted officially in 1945 by both Emperor Bảo Đại and by the DRV. The French appointed Bảo Đại to head the Cochinchina government in 1949 and he appointed the anti-French Diệm as his prime minister at the time of Điện Biên Phủ (1954), when the French were obviously losing their grip.

Trần Văn Trà was a PAVN general assigned to the Vietcong, i.e. someone appointed by Hanoi. He was a "faceless Vietcong," almost a secret agent during the war. He was never elected by anyone or president of anything. Kauffner (talk)

Chinese in lede

"越南民主共和"[1] is the long form name of North Vietnam in standard Chinese, i.e. not a Sino-Vietnamese form. I assume this name was put on the banknotes for the benefit of Vietnam's Chinese minority, who are noted for their business skills. I don't think it belongs in the lede at all, but at very least it should be identified as Chinese. Kauffner (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Status as client state

Not sure what the deal is, but maybe another vist to ANI is needed? --Mollskman (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Partition of Indochina

The later half of this section did not have anything to back it up. I suggest the editor to add some reliable sources.--Zeraful (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Content in that part of the section is long-standing info there for a long time now, and have links to other Wikipedia articles on the historical events mentioned there, which have verified sources to support that the details and the events itself actually happened and existed. Your edits have deleted content that are established facts, and instead of neutralizing the content as you claim, which was already neutral before, you actually made implicitly POV deletions of content instead. I agree with the compromise edit made by TimesAreAChanging in the Battle of Khe Sanh article, but I was too busy to respond and generate another long rebuttal for some ridiculous responses that you have made. Nguyen1310 (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Is "Free World", the term used in the Cold war neutral?. Invade? Created?. These statement show clearly POV, as they're not only present one sided point of view of the war, but also neglecting fact that most Western nation have established diplomatic relation with North Vietnam in th 70s. Also the article was heavily antagonized the North Vietnamese, compare to the South Vietnam article. And most of all, the persons write this doesn't bring any sources to back them up. So I suggest either a complete rewrite, or someone bring up reliable (neutral, non-anti-communist) sources. Notice this: You're POV, not mine. Your statement show clear POV, not mine.--Zeraful (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FREE WORLD pertains to democratic, non-communist nations. THESE countries MOSTLY DID NOT RECOGNIZE NORTH VIETNAM, the only few that did included Australia in the 70s. Did the US or Canada or most of the western European countries recognize the North at any point? NO. North Vietnam launched an invasion of the South, DID THE SOUTH TRY TO INVADE THE NORTH? NO. SOUTH VN WAS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT, POLITICALLY, OF THE NORTH, AND IS NOT PART OF THE NORTH, however both Vietnams consider themselves the legitimate one. The North headed and helped to create the VC. Period. This is long-standing info that has been in the article, before I even started becoming a Wikipedian. What you're doing is doubting established facts, deleting things merely because they are critical of your communists, however they are true, which is called CENSORSHIP and are POV edits. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The National Front of Liberation (NLF), was not created by Hanoi. Even the term "Vietcong" isn't. It was the result of Diem's national purge of anyone who oppose his idea, from the communistic Vietminh, their families and sympathizer, Buddhist monks, even anti-communist commanders, such as Ba Cut is jailed and executed. The North Vietnamese only declare to take control of the NLF in 1961, 2 years after the notorious 10/59 Law, which effectively outlawed the communist. And for the "isolated by global community", please check the Foreign relations of Vietnam article, which imply that North Vietnam have receive diplomatic relation with most Western nation in the 1970s.

Anyway, the Deutsch version, the French version, even the Vietnamese version editors did better than this. So if anyone think that an article about an existed nation/state is a place for them to cram their own ideas, biased POV and call it "neutral", read them and remake this properly. If they couldn't do something that simple, log out and let other people do it--Zeraful (talk) 07:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Viet Cong did NOT encompass everyone who opposed Diem, that term was applied to communists and their sympathizers. PERIOD. Numerous undercover VC agents infiltrated Buddhist clergies across the South, even South Vietnamese and US intelligence had evidence of this. Ba Cut was not a communist, nor was he ever called as one by Diem's government, however he was prosecuted and executed for attempting to overthrow Diem's government. North Vietnam WAS isolated for most of its history, THAT'S WHY I KEPT REINSTATING THAT, because many non-communist and democratic nations recognized and were diplomatic with the South, only in the 70s did the North gained relations with several non-communist nations like with Australia, which still kept recognition and relations with the South simultaneously. So, that section I reinstated was NOT POV and IS AN ESTABLISHED FACT, NOT MY OWN IDEA, and for you to entirely delete the isolationism section, is POV-driven censorship, the deletion of content that you don't want others to know about, and such edits are AGAINST Wikipedia values, and are never welcomed here. This site is NOT under the control of the Vietnamese communist government, so, government censorship of content is impermissible on here. Nguyen1310 (talk) 08:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, your statement show POV and personal attack. Your fact was based on article written by anti-communist author, therefore should be treated as POV. Don't accuse me of thing I didn't do. I deleted NOTHING of your precious "Partition of Indochina" section, only mention that you have NO source to back it up. Only you keep undo the changes I made while accuse me for "censorship"--Zeraful (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Really you didn't delete anything? Look at your edit again and you'll see that you have deleted a significant section in the partition section, which is censorship. You cannot change what happened in history, but for some reason you think you can. I undid edits where you have deleted whole sections of content for an invalid reason. If you say that it needs citations, you can place "citation needed" templates beside it instead, until further citations can be added, not delete things. Look again, you're the one that began blanking whole paragraphs in this article merely because you didn't support it. You cannot conclude to me that the North had numerous diplomatic relations with many other non-communist countries before the 70s, because that didn't happen because many non-communist countries before the 70s had no diplomatic ties with communist countries like China, North Korea etc., only in the 70s did some non-communist nations started to have diplomatic ties with communist countries like China and Cuba and North VN, and so on. North VN was in a similar, if not same, diplomatic situation as communist countries like China at the time. And, this article is about North VN, NOT unified VN, so you cannot refer to isolation after 1975, and the isolation mentioned in the article pertains to the North before 1975. Nguyen1310 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted NOTHING of the "partition" section. Check again. Also that, the sentence "isolated by international community" have no sources, like much of the information on this article. Also the definition of "international isolation" is: "a penalty applied by the international community or a sizeable or powerful group of countries, like the United Nations, towards one nation, government or people group. The same term may also refer to the state a country finds itself in after being shunned by the international community of nations or the greater group of countries". North Vietnam is under no such penalty, therefore the term "isolated by international community" is irrelevant.--Zeraful (talk) 00:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, North VN was shunned by many countries, including numerous powerful ones, throughout most of its history, but somewhat improved in the 70s. They were shunned for being a communist nation primarily, by the US, Canada, numerous western European nations like France and West Germany, and numerous Asian countries like Thailand, Rep. of China (Taiwan) and Rep. of Korea (South Korea), and formerly, Australia. This group of nations are powerful. This also applied to all other communist nations at the time, before the 70s, which was marked by Kissinger's diplomatic opening with China. I've just added the part about Diem's persecution of communists, retained the deletion of the isolation part, since the second sentence explains that already and is redundant, this would be part of a compromise edit.Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's get to the "In the late 1950s, Hanoi openly supported and headed the southern communist force to invade and overthrow the Saigon government". The latter I can compromise with, not the first, which conflict with the Vietnam War article, which stated: "all available evidence shows that the revival of the civil war in the South in 1958 was undertaken by Southerners at their own—not Hanoi's—initiative...Insurgency activity against the Saigon government began in the South under Southern leadership not as a consequence of any dictate from Hanoi, but contrary to Hanoi's injunctions." and "it was not until September, 1960 that the Communist Party of North Vietnam bestowed its formal blessing and called for the liberation of the south from American imperialism".

And the "southern communist force", it stated "In December 1960, the National Liberation Front (NLF) was formally created consisting of all anti-GVN activists and included non-communists. According to the Pentagon Papers, the NLF "placed heavy emphasis on the withdrawal of American advisors and influence, on land reform and liberalization of the GVN, on coalition government and the neutralization of Vietnam." Often the leaders of the organization were kept secret". While the NLF was "formally created" after the blessing of the North, without Diem's campaign of "Denounce the Communists", failed land reform program and widespread repression, the NLF will never achieve the amount popularity and support they receive, nor their military strength by the absorption of many military organization and experienced personnel.

For "to invade", again, the Vietnam War article stated that Vietnam "was temporarily partitioned at the 17th parallel, and under the terms of the Geneva Accords, civilians were to be given the opportunity to move freely between the two provisional states for a 300-day period. Elections throughout the country were to be held in 1956 to establish a unified government". Notice that the definition of invasion is "a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof", therefore the North Vietnamese support for the NLF should not be taken as an act of "invasion", as a military campaign.--Zeraful (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Republic of Vietnam was not a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, it was only an observer, therefore, since they didn't sign the conventions, they are not legally bound by it, and not required to hold those elections, which I don't believe is feasible based on the political conditions in the North, as Diem pointed out. And your definition of invasion perfectly applies to the North, as the North did send troops to the South, yes even directly from the Northern army and not just Viet Cong, to conquer the South, which was a politically separate entity from Hanoi. This can be observed throughout the war, esp. during Tet Mau Than (Tet Offensive) and 1974-1975 invasion. So, the term invade is correct. "Southern communist force" is enough to describe the Viet Cong, as this article is not about the Viet Cong, rather it's about North VN, so further detailing of the VC is unnecessary as it'll make this article too long and inconcise, and unfocused. Yes, some non-communists joined the VC, but the majority are still communists, many left over from the Viet Minh, or redeployed from the North in 1954. So, to accomodate those non-communists, I've already made a link to the Viet Cong article, for further reading if anyone wants it. The VC didn't liberalize anything nor have intentions of it, everyone saw how they ruled Hue and the Hue Massacre they created when they controlled the city for a month in 1968, and there's no coalition of anything, the world saw how the communists aggressively dominated the government after 1975 and persecuted non-communist politicians in the South, just as they have done in the North before. Okay, I'll change the late 1950s part to 1960. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the term "invasion" refer to "a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces", while the majority of the PAVN forces is located in the North, as there are only 3 major military offensive could be consider an invasion action. Therefore the act of supporting the NLF should not be taken as an act of "invasion".

The State of Vietnam did not sign the Geneva Agreement, however they are considered part of the French Union as an associated state, therefore also obliged to exercise the term of the agreement. Notice that the Passage to Freedom was based on the condition of the Geneva Accords: "civilians were to be given the opportunity to move freely between the two provisional states for a 300-day period". From the reaction of Diem and Eisenhower toward the election suggesting that they're only exercise the term that benefit them. This attitude repeat again after the Paris Agreement, which South Vietnam DID sign. While the fighting did not stop, it was South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu officially denounce the election.

Also the latter part of your comment is leading the conversation off course, as you said it "this article is about North VN". In the Massacre of Hue article, researchers did point out that "Many later authors relied on Pike's account, e.g., Stanley Karnow in Vietnam, A History and Michael Maclear in The Ten Thousand Day War. Other early sources include front line reporters serving under a strict code of reporting conduct imposed by U.S. forces and agencies.", which receive critics: "Porter alleged that Pike manipulated the official figures for civilian death counts in the destruction of Huế during Tet, primarily by U.S. artillery and naval shelling and aerial bombing, to arrive at his figure of nearly 4,000 civilians murdered by the Viet Cong, and that Pike’s hypothesis about the Communist policy during the occupation of Huế was contradicted by captured Communist documents and other evidence.". So if you rely on this article to support your point of view, I suggest that you take it with a grain of salt.--Zeraful (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I stated this again: The official definition for "invasion" stated that: "is a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity". The act of supporting and/or leading an armed organization with the aim of destabilize or overthrow an government is not an act of invasion--Zeraful (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate the response I made earlier about using the word invasion, and i will not repeat it again. North Vietnam did send large sections of their army directly to the South to invade the South and topple Saigon, with the South as a sovereign and independent political entity and state apart from the North, atop of heading and supporting the Vietcong insurgents. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, the term "invasion" is stand for "a military offensive". The act of "send large sections of their army directly to the South" is an invasion, but the act of "supporting and/or leading an armed organization with the aim of destabilize or overthrow an government" is not an act of invasion. If your statement be true, then the US act of supporting the French Union in their war effort against the Vietminh in the 1950s and send thousand of military advisers which at one point "embedded at every level of the South Vietnamese armed forces" and huge amount of equipment "directly to the South" to train and arm the ARVN is also an act of invasion.

Also the term "defensive war" is POV, since the VNAF already flying sorties in Operation Rolling Thunder, a military operation against North Vietnam. They're also participate in the Cambodian Campaign and Lam Son 719, with the goal of driving off the North Vietnamese in these areas, which also fit to the term "a military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government".

The term "Free World" nations is loose, since the countries agree to send troops and supplies are mostly SEATO countries. Also the Kingdom of Laos and Khmer Republic did neither contributed troops nor military aid to South Vietnam.

The term "not recognized" is also put in the wrong time. As in the First Indochina War, most of the world only recognize the State of Vietnam. But after the Partition of Indochina, most have recognize that there are 2 Vietnam states. Diplomatic recognition must be distinguished from formal recognition of states or their governments.

Seriously, are we editing the North Vietnam or the South Vietnam here?--Zeraful (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sigh, a fundamental part of the term invasion is that one country sends troops to another politically and territorially independent state to take over and control that other country, which is the North's intent in the Vietnam War, and they eventually did just that by 1975, absolutely no question about that. So, the term invade is accurate and is in no way POV. The North supporting the Vietcong to topple Saigon is not an act of invasion, but the North sending troops to the South to take over and control the South is an act of invasion and is why that term invade was used in the article. French and American militaries training the South Vietnamese military is not an invasion as you proclaimed. The Southern war effort was primarily, not entirely though but mostly defensive, since the majority of the war was fought on their territory, and their primary goal was to defeat and rid their part of the country first before even considering to invade the North and unify Vietnam under Saigon. The Cambodian and Lao campaigns were the South's attempt to rid the Vietcong from these areas who were supporting the Vietcong insurgency in the South, NOT to take over Laos and Cambodia and control those countries, so it doesn't fulfill the word invasion's definition of: (of an armed force or its commander) Enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it: "Iraq's intention to invade Kuwait". Haha, Kingdom of Laos and the Khmer Republic did send troops to the South, a small number though, and sided with the South Vietnamese and American war effort,even the Vietnam War article mentioned that. Not Recognized is correct, because even though the international community acknowledged that there were 2 Vietnams, most non-communist countries didn't politically and diplomatically recognize North Vietnam, and this article describes of North VN's foreign relations, not if the world acknowledged or was aware that there were 2 Vietnams, which is ridiculous to add in an encyclopedic article. This article is about North VN only and not the South, but somehow you kept insisting that the South was obligated to abide by the Geneva Agreement, which it did not sign, in the North Vietnam article, and mentioning about the Southern war effort like the Cambodian and Lao campaigns and other random and unrelated things, and purposefully illogical things, while I was only writing about North Vietnam the whole time. I will not accept something twisted and false to be the truth, that even i know for myself is absolutely wrong. Nguyen1310 (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Figures used in this article for deaths in North Vietnam by the government

Some of the figures that have been put in this article seem way off and the sources are a bit let's say out there.There is a report from the Rand Corporation that is a source for stating that "in some cases there were mass slaughters of landlords" and the figures in there are about 100,000 but they are not used here instead we have the Black Book of Communism which is dubiuos and has been criticised by many scholars which has "up to 172,000 killed. Then there is another book used as a source called Red Holocaust which states that between 200,000 and 900,000 died(not even sure what those figures are counting). All the history book that I have read put the figures inbetween 50,000 and 100,000.Anyway I would like to sort thru which historian is stating what figures and come to a conclusion on numbers to use in this article. Thoughts?Zrdragon12 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I found this which seems to be of some interest in debating the figures presented in this article.

Third, and perhaps most important for present purposes, the basic sources for the larger estimates of killings in the North Vietnamese land reform were persons affiliated with the CIA or the Saigon Propaganda Ministry. According to a Vietnamese Catholic now living in France, Colonel Nguyen Van Chau, who was head of the Central Psychological War Service for the Saigon Army from 1956 to 1962, the "bloodbath" figures for the land reform were "100% fabricated" by the intelligence services of Saigon. According to Colonel Chau, a systematic campaign of vilification by the use of forged documents was carried out during the mid-1950s to justify Diem's refusal to negotiate with Hanoi in preparation for the unheld unifying elections of 1956. According to Chau the forging of documents was assisted by U.S. and British intelligence agencies, who helped gather authentic documents that permitted a plausible foundation to be laid for the forgeries, which "were distributed to various political groups and to groups of writers and artists, who used the false documents to carry out the propaganda campaign."

Zrdragon12 (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Constant deletion of sourced material

Nguyen1310 is constantly reverting sourced material on this and other pages. His excuses are feeble to say the least. I have asked him a few times to stop it. So please explain yourself? Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting that specific content because it was POV commentary, despite it being sourced, it has no place on this article because it's not fair analysis of historical events, and its clearly a comment with no reasoning behind it. So, if a scholar were to make non-academic remarks and this was documented, should it be allowed to be included on a reputable schorlarly artice, or not? No, absolutely not. The other content on South Vietnam was redundant, Diem's rigging of elections was mentioned 2 TIMES in the article, thus its redundant and inconcise. Funny how Zrdragon wants to repeat content she likes, but stringently objects to repeating content, also sourced, that's against her political views, like about the Vietnamese famine in the 80s in the Vietnam War Casualties article. Funny how Zrdragon herself deletes whole sections of information she doesn't approve of, including sourced ones (on VN War Casualties article again, view the edit history on that), and accuses others of deleting sourced content. Funny how someone guilty of wrongdoing tries to report on innocent people. Zrdragon also engages in wording wars, changing the word communist to something else, when referring to communists in article content. Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

And what exactly is not fair about it? It says that Diem had corrupt elections where he won 98% of the vote. It is back up by two sources from real historians. Why is that not a fair analysis of historical events? That is what actually happened,it is a fact.What do you mean there is no reasoning behind it? What reasoning is there supposed to be? It is carrying on from Diem not wanting to take part in the elections that should have happened in 1956, so there is the reasoning obviously. The fact that Diem had a corrupt election is in virtually every scholarly book on the subject,to actually leave it out would be un scholarly. I do not object to content that is sourced unless it is contradicted by many others, I even put your piece in about Diem not wanting elections because he thought that they would not be democratic in the North, which was very funny considering he committed fraud in his own election, I even put your source in while you were still trying to delete my sourced material. I changed communist to VC because that is what they were or NVA. I do not go around the site changing the Americans to capitalists and as I stated communist is a loaded word with negative connotations in America and that is why you want it there, VC/NVA is what they were and is neutral.Nguyen, you have been caught deleting sourced material in a few threads because you do not like it because it does not tally with your biased world view, even your mate TTAC has reverted you.You even reverted a whole section of the Vietnam war page even though it had been discussed on the talk page to remove it by consensus of about 7 editors.You spend your time running around posting negative things about North Vietnam, and that seems to be all you do here,well that and type in capital letters on your edits. Zrdragon12 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

New Sources

I just found several potential sources that can be used to cite existing content and add on content onto this article:

• [[http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/Vietnam/portermyth73.pdf]]

Porter's denial propaganda, based on official communist sources, is no more reliable than his infamous Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This source is academic and seems to qualify as reliable under WP:SOURCES. While there is understandable controversy surrounding the author, that doesn't automatically rule out everything he's written. This source would be admissible in the article, provided that it's presented as an alternative view rather than undisputed fact. Ibadibam (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is about North Vietnam, not fringe theories about North Vietnam. Porter's Congressional testimony on Indochina was considered so disagraceful that one Senator likened him to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers. His work is based almost entirely on official communist sources, both in the case of Vietnam and Cambodia. Should we add Starvation and Revolution to Democratic Kampuchea? I will add Porter to Land reform in Vietnam, but it is out of place in the main article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And, in fact, the "Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars" is not very reliable, as it was known to advocate for the communist cause. That the link is taken from the self-published website of Stalinist crank Grover Furr does not help its cause.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this source is not Porter's congressional testimony on Indochina, nor is it the original work of Grover Furr. The author's other works don't necessarily invalidate this one, and the website that happens to be hosting this source is irrelevant. The source must be considered on its own. I am by no means informed about the issues addressed in this article, and I won't try to comment on the veracity of the sourced information; I'm simply here with the reminder that sources must be considered on the basis of Wikipedia policy and not editors' personal views. The source in question is a peer-reviewed academic periodical. If it stands up to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, then as far as WP:SOURCES is concerned, that makes it reliable. And under WP:NPOV, that means the views it advances should be represented in Wikipedia — without undue weight, of course. If you can provide evidence that calls the Bulletin into question based on one of the disqualifications specified by WP:SCHOLARSHIP or WP:NOTRELIABLE, that's another story. If you like, one of us can put in a request to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to have this publication evaluated by the community. Ibadibam (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My position is that this work would deserve zero weight if it had been completely ignored. Because it recieved some attention at the time, it merits mention in Land reform in Vietnam and Gareth Porter. But not in the article about the entire country of North Vietnam.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i read the thing for myself, and this is what i've found: it's a mere propaganda piece with communist apologetics, with heavy references from communist N Vietnam sources like Nhan Dan newspaper, which are undeniably unreliable sources, and he denounces Hoang Van Chi's findings all over the article. Porter also tries to improve the image of the VCP by denying many aspects and rationale behing the land reform, or opt for a less critical reason/outcome. I personally wouldn't find it acceptable to use this source for additional info or further referencing. I was tired and sleepy when i found these, and just decided to post it here for later analysis, and if i had dug through and examined it earlier, i wouldn't have bothered adding this here. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN has concluded that "The Myth of the Bloodbath" is not reliable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• [[2]]

• [[3]]

• [[4]]

This appears to be a self-published reflection by John M. Del Vecchio, a fiction writer whose works often deal with Indochina. Del Vecchio is not an expert and this is a source of dubious reliability.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth noting that the piece is itself well-sourced, and some of those sources themselves could be used if they support whatever it is you're looking to support. Ibadibam (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• [[5]]

The rest look fine to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, i just crossed out the links that were found to be dubious. To be honest, i was quite tired when i found these used in another site, and i didn't bother looking very deep into them and just wanted to post these up for later analysis so i dont forget them... Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Common languages

To halt an edit war and start a meaningful discussion, let's sum up the dispute between Nguyen1310 and TheTimesAreAChanging. The question comes down to whether Mandarin Chinese and Russian were "common languages" in North Vietnam. The source given may or may not support this. The documentation for the "former countries" infobox describes the "common languages" field as "Major language(s)" and doesn't get any more specific than that. That leaves the definition of "common language" open to debate. Merriam Webster gives "common" as a) or or relating to a community at large b) known to the community.

The source given is not really a discussion of common languages, but of foreign languages taught in schools and the venues in which they were used. It claims that these languages were promoted by the government to be taught to students and used in trade and diplomacy. This would suggest that these languages occupied much the same place as Latin in Medieval Europe or English in the late 20th century. While much of the educated population had a working knowledge of the language, it was not in common use, i.e., by the people or the national community at large. One notable exception mentioned by the source is Cantonese in Saigon (p.5), which was spoken by a sizable community there. But even this is only a passing mention to explain why there were Cantonese schools in that area, and probably not an indication of wider use in South Vietnam.

Another thing that's useful in this case is to compare other articles that use the former countries infobox. Austria Hungary has a number of languages listed that were in common use by the various nationalities contained within its borders, but does not include French, which was in diplomatic use throughout Europe and would undoubtedly have been promoted in Vienna. Classical Chinese would have been used as a lingua franca in Joseon, particulary among the scholarly class, but the common language of the realm was Middle Korean. According to this pattern, Russian and Mandarin probably don't have a place here, unless we can find a source that deals with something other than university foreign language faculties. Ibadibam (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Managing NPOV

This recent revision, although from an anonymous user and lacking an edit summary, appears to improve WP:NPOV in the section, not to mention fixing a grammatical error. Why was it reverted? Ibadibam (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit also made a sentence incomplete, for example the part about cutting off children's fingers, the ip deleted the reason to why their fingers were cut off (reason being because the children wanted to go to school). Since this sentence was also cited, deleting the why part of the sentence potentially alters the original context set forth in the source. Nguyen1310 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

North Vietnam created the NLF/Viet Cong and ran it from the start. Jeffrey Race noted that defectors found denials "very amusing" and "commented humorously that the Party had apparently been more successful than was expected in concealing its role." The aim was to hide the fact that "there was an invasion from the North" (War Comes to Long An, pp. 107, 122). "Invade" is not the wrong word. The IP edit suggests that the Viet Cong already existed, and were merely "encouraged" in some unspecified way by the North.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking a little more critically at the section, there's a lot of information in there that's pretty far out of scope for the foreign relations of North Vietnam, and in fact much of the content looks to be copied verbatim from Viet Cong. I'm going to revise the section for organization, scope, consistency with the Viet Cong article, and add a hatnote to Viet Cong. See what you think. Ibadibam (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So the main reason I removed the sentence that was restored here is not so much that the truth of the statement is disputed, but that

• that exact sentence appears in Viet Cong
• that information is more about the Viet Cong than it is about the activities of the foreign ministry of North Vietnam (although they are connected)

Take a look at WP:TOPIC and see if you still disagree with the sentence's removal. Ibadibam (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The war ended in "total victory" for North Vietnam? This position is neither universal nor neutral.

For a Western reader the claim that the war ended in "total victory" for North Vietnam is very bold, if not outright radical. And it is made without a credible citation. As this is an English language page, it violates Wikipedia's neutrality and universality guidelines and it needs to be revised.

They definately won that war decisively. That's not even disputed. So I can't see how it is bad. Te og kaker (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

North?

Calling the pre 1954 state North Vietnam isn't totally anachronic? There isn't North or South back then.

And by the way, does any source call it North Vietnam? AdjectivesAreBad (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

POV in Land Reform and Consolidation of Power section

I believe that this section relies too heavily on what was, in effect, anti-communist propaganda by South Vietnam and the United States in the 1950s. There is no doubt that land reform in North Vietnam was effected with many assassinations and imprisonments of "landlords and reactionaries." However, the statistics given in this section seem inflated. Instead of giving the impression in this section that hundreds of thousands were executed or died in the land reform program, the more likely total would seem to be in the thousands or tens of thousands. 13,500 is one estimate that has recent scholarship backing it up.

I am in the process of expanding the Land reform in Vietnam article which I believe gives a much more realistic account of the consequences of land reform in North Vietnam.

I would propose to tone this article down by utilizing more recent and less polemical scholarship to present a more accurate account of land reform in North Vietnam.

Comments? Smallchief (talk 09:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No major comments, just wanted to deliver a thank you for your efforts in this regard. I too had noticed a wide array of problems in the previous state of the article, and am glad to see that it has been rectified in and objective and analytical fashion far more fitting of an encyclopedia.

Conflicts revolving around a user with a rather sordid history here on Wikipedia, specifically regarding present and historical American military conflicts, were greatly inhibiting previous efforts to get this article into a presentable state. I tried to correct some particularly glaring violations (though, looking back on it, I have no idea how I missed the part where the Soviet Union -of all nations- was referred to as a member of the Third World), but ultimately wasn't willing to take the matter all the way to the ArbCom, as I simply don't know enough about the subject matter at hand to speak with sufficient confidence on the facts of the matter.

I'm glad you were here to pick up that slack in an appropriate manner, and would request that you keep an eye on things in the event that user in question returns. TheMurgy (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for your efforts at Land reform in Vietnam. I am taking break from Wikipedia, so I can't really contribute anything. If you are inclined, feel free to replace the entire section on land reform in this article. The section's lack of balance is the least of its problems - it relies heavily on dubious or fraudulent source material and OR, and will not be missed. You can take a look at the edit history of Land reform in North Vietnam and its talk page to see which citations are the most problematic. Despite the redactions, the POV of Land reform in North Vietnam remains essentialy unchanged - unlike your own contribution, which provides a broader and more balanced coverage of the issue.81.88.116.27 (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

越南民主共和

On several banknotes the Nôm name 越南民主共和 appears and seems to be used until the early 1950's one can see it here on the website of Art-Hanoi and in fact earlier banknotes seem to feature both Hán-Nôm and Nôm and as this seems to be the native Vietnamese language as opposed to Chinese, personally I would like to add the text "越南民主共和" to both the infobox and official name, but as I can't find any other sources other than banknotes (which might fall under WP:PRIMARY) I might need help finding an Anglophone reference that uses the term "越南民主共和" though another problem is that after the 1951-series Latin seems to be the exclusive alphabet used by the North-Vietnamese government so maybe the style of the name wasn't long enough in use to be relevant.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A separate state

This article makes it seem as if North Vietnam was a separate state from the current Vietnam. That's not what happened, it was the same couutry, just that it annexed South Vietnam and changed it's name.--RM (Be my friend) 22:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Evaluation of this article

This article is clearly relevant to the topic because it goes through the history of Vietnam in chronological order, showing it has good organization. The only issue is that it glances over events that are more current and does not provide enough information about the earlier history of Vietnam. This could be because the sources used to create this page are not super extensive and are mostly on untrustworthy websites in different languages. The article was overall neutral with a little biased against the north for the cruel acts they performed. 00:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.102.157 (talk)

Nôm name

The 1950's banknotes from North Vietnam and earlier display the Nôm name of the country as is evident here, for that reason the characters aren't irrelevant in this article. --Donald Trung (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Terms like Bắc Việt Nam seem like a back-formation from English. Please provide sources that these term were used contemporaneously, let alone written with Chinese characters. DHN (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@DHN: Bắc Việt Nam was accidentally restored, but the Nôm term for "Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa" was officially used (as evident on the aforementioned banknote), so I will restore that name back, removing Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hòa because Bắc Việt Nam is mentioned seems counterproductive to me. --Donald Trung (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Shouldn’t “Vietnamese Democratic Republic” be a redirect to this page, just like how Democratic Republic of Vietnam is? (97.90.153.18 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Using the official name

Why don't we use the official name of the DRVAnhhunghanquoc (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: SNOW close of debate started by blocked sock operator. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

North Vietnam → Democratic Republic of Vietnam – I think we should change the name of the article to Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the official name of north vietnam. Anhhunghanquoc (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

• SUPPORT per WP:OFFICIAL, I think we should use the official name. In the 1973 Paris Accords, we use the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, not north vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ILpeace (talk • contribs) 09:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: we have an analogous situation at East Germany. --MarioGom (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • EXPLAIN: the name East Germany, i know that it is a common name. The official name is German Democratic Republic. In the German wiki page, the German also use Deutsche Demokratische Republik, not East Germany.Anhhunghanquoc (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• SUPPORT per WP:OFFICIAL, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was established in 1945 and its' territory widespread from the north to the south of VN. The 1954 Geneva Accords only limited its' administrative territory to the 17th parallel. If we use "north", we just describe incidents from 1954 to 1975 and we can't describe what happened from 1945 to 1954.Bietnoinhieungoaingu (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. North Vietnam is the most used English name. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I suspect the first two supporters above are meat or sockpuppets of the RM requester. Number 57 13:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: the opener and two first support !votes are blocked sockpuppets. There is also a similar request move at Talk:South Vietnam#Requested move 6 October 2019. --MarioGom (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. SNOW close due to apparent vote manipulation by proposer. -- Netoholic @ 18:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

---

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

"multi-party"

the DRV was dominated and controlled by the communists. "multi-party" should be reserved for democratic countries, not dictatorships that preserve the fiction of political pluralism through sham parties that are never allowed to challenge the communist monopoly on power. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)