Talk:Vietnam/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive covers discussion from 2006 through March, 2007. Discussion was placed in this archive as it appeared in the main talk page and thus may not be in chronological order.

Talk archives for Vietnam (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	3 >>

Religious Numbers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viet Nam spelling again

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

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

Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

My changes

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

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

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

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

liberty and Freedom

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

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

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

Vietnamese living in Australia

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

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

Vietnam spelling in French

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

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

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

Vietnam Veterans Tourists

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

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

Breakcore In Vietnam

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

Crazy statement?

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

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

Foreign relations and military

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

Vietnam War Victim Count

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template changed

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

Wildlife

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

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

204.39.17.15 16:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

caused WWII??!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannot edit..?

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

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

Proposed WikiProject

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

Transportation Edits

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

HUGE REVAMP

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

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

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

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

Red River Delta province

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

Religion

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

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

I just did a quick revert

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

Khmer Rouge

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

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

Intro

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

GDP growth in 2006

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

Categories: Talk archives