The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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: Page not moved. There was not consensus for the move. Consensus among the opposers was that the Vietnamese spelling (with diacritics) is appropriate and follows the English Wikipedia norms for the title. There were also English sources provided that referenced the original title. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Danetalk17:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, WP:UCN and WP:UE very clearly states that Wikipedia follows the anglicisation (or lack thereof) in the majority of reliable, English-language sources. In terms of the redirect, that works both ways - the Vietnamese syntax will redirect to the English title once moved. And I'm about to go through and tag all those non-English titles to be moved if they're anglicised in most reliable English sources as per WP:UE. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 12:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
UCN is irrelevant and all the names are recognisable with the diacritics. I do not agree with UE and have opposed your proposed mass move. Mztourist (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what to say if you disagree with policy. Start a RfC to overrule it, I guess? ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 07:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as misreading of guidelines, and also ill-researched and unfamiliar with en.wp status quo and practice. As linked in previous RM Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), while never formally adopted, has been keeping the peace for a decade. I have to challenge why this RM is singling out a Vietnamese person for attention rather than Lech Wałęsa which was one of the key benchmark articles in the diacritics wars of 10 years ago? Why not go for a Polish person? And what happens then when this Vietnamese name is shorn of full font? Is the next move to do a wholesale campaign like TennisNames against tennis player name full fonts? Or go down the route of the Kauffner socks and have 1990s keyboard names for all Vietnamese people, towns, things. And then once we've done that are we going to move on to white people? Start with Eastern Europe? Then after Eastern Europe, Western Europe? And then we are going to end up font-stripping Beyoncé and Emily Brontë? ItsPugle has suggested an RFC. What I would suggest to ItsPugle is first familarise yourself with en.wp. Look at our article corpus. Look through the bio and geo article categories. Try and come up with articles that demonstrate your understanding that full fonts are different spellings. Then mount an RFC to change the MOS. When the MOS is changed 800,000-1,000,000 (give or take) articles can be stripped of full font titles down to 26 character ASCII. Then also @ItsPugle: you can work through not the just the titles but through 800,000-1,000,000 article text bodies removing all accents and diacritics. To cleanse even the Vietnam article corpus alone would I suggest take you 5,000 hours. If you're not proposing to do that work, cleansing Wikipedia of Vietnamese full font names, do you have a team of volunteers willing to join you? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those "guidelines" weren't "keeping the peace for a decade", there were misused, undeveloped and never received any meaningful support or consensus. This isn't a thing of the Vietnamese naming conventions being "never formally adopted", it's a thing that they never had any support, never achieved any consensus, directly diverge from existing policy, and have been stagnant for the past 7 years after they were shot down after incorrectly being marketed as policy... they have no legitimacy or authority. And as Rreagan007 pointed out over here as well, your suggestion that this would mean changes to up to 1 million articles is purely ridiculous and only obstructs the path to consensus. Since the rest of your reply seems to question my integrity as an editor, I won't reply to that here - if you believe you have a reasonable and justified case against me, report me to the ANI instead of stalling discussions. Let's keep the article space for discussing edits, not editors. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 03:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are plenty of English-language authors who use the correct spelling (1, 2, 3, 4...), so I see absolutely no reason to change it. Older sources had typographical limitations which largely invalidate the popularity contest proposed above. Neodop (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry picking sources like that aren't helpful here. The basic argument that Google Ngrams is wrong because of old typographical limitations is absurd. The Ngrams result already shows that recent sources without such limitation use the anglicised version just as much as older sources which you alledge do have such limitations. Even if such limitation was true and prominent, a search for just texts between 2000 and now shows the anglicised version is still used 9x more often than the "native" version. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 00:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think predicting how someone (many of whom are dead) is going to feel about their Wikipedia page using anglicised characters is a particularly great reason. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 04:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This comment isn't particularly appropriate for an article talk page, but oh well. I understand that I'm repeating myself a lot, and for that I apologise, but from my point of view, there's no actual engagement in this process so far. I've mentioned policy and highlighted how this move aligns content with policy, but I get no reply from anyone but yourself and In ictu oculi, who appear to be attacking my personally by suggesting I'm making some race-based "attacks" or other personal misbehaviours, so I'm purposefully trying to get some engagement to figure out exactly what people's qualms are with: the policy itself, or if there's some other contrary evidence I've missed. If you have evidence or something I've seriously missed, please please let me know, honestly, but from where I am, there's a lot of opinions and little evidence in this discussion. ItsPugle (please use {{reply|ItsPugle}}) 07:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Read Bludgeon. You have responded to everyone who voted Oppose, that is the definition of Bludgeoning.Mztourist (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Copyright has been expired in America, what can be done about it for the world outside of the US? Is there a way to have separation with only for American users the image not showing? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 06:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed revision to the end of Võ Nguyên Giáp's introductory text[edit]
As of right now, the end of Vo Nguyen Giap's introductory text reads as follows:
''Giáp is often credited with North Vietnam's military victory over the United States and South Vietnam.''
But wouldn't that be inaccurate to say that the North Vietnamese militarily won against the U.S.? South Vietnam fell after the U.S. withdrew 2 years later. Although the U.S. did lose. To say they were militarily defeated by North Vietnam isn't accurate.
Here's what I came up with:
''Giáp is often credited with playing a significant role in North Vietnam's efforts against the United States and South Vietnam.''
The existing wording is fine. However you look at it, the US entered the war, didn't win it and then withdrew. Saying that South Vietnam only fell 2 years later just buys into the whole "decent interval" scenario. Mztourist (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my late reply, but isn't there a difference between defeating your enemy on the battlefield and tiring your enemy until they give up and leave? In a 1990 interview with Stanley Karnow, Giáp told him that the goal was not to oust 500,000 U.S. soldiers from Vietnam, but to simply break the will of the American government. Thegreatcool (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But breaking the will of the American government is more of a political victory rather than a military victory. For example, the Tet Offensive led to the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops, despite the offensive being a huge military loss for the VC and NVA. I believe many people will be confused by the end of Vo Nguyen Giap's introductory text because it makes it sound like the North Vietnamese military defeated the U.S. on the battlefield, which is misleading. Thegreatcool (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The US political will was broken by ongoing US battlefield casualties and the resulting domestic discord. The Tet Offensive was a psychological and strategic defeat for the US. There is nothing misleading about the text, the North Vietnamese conducted a multi-level strategy to acheive their goals forcing the US to withdraw and leading to the collapse of the South. Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text claims that the North Vietnamese military defeated the U.S. on the battlefield, which is not true. The U.S. lost psychologically and strategically but not tactically. General Giáp, who disliked the planning of the Tet offensive, believed that the NVA and VC should stick to a defensive, guerrilla strategy against the U.S. and South Vietnam. He believed that defeating the U.S. on conventional terms was simply not possible. However, his views were overruled by Le Duan and Nguyen Chi Thanh. The U.S. withdrew primarily because the American people back at home couldn't bear the ongoing situation, while the NVA and VC were willing to accept high casualties. The NVA and VC never managed to inflict a heavy tactical defeat on the U.S. forces. Thegreatcool (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the history. The revisionist view of "US never lost a battle" doesn't change anything, breaking the will of your enemy leading them to withdraw is victory. Mztourist (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. The NVA and VC severely broke the will of the U.S. and drained their morale. However, I think it's important to note that this is different from actually defeating your opponent on the battlefield. The text may be misinterpreted as suggesting that the North Vietnamese military defeated the U.S. in battle, when in reality, all the NVA and VC did was engage in prolonged fighting until the U.S. eventually withdrew due to the advantage of time. Thegreatcool (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference and nothing misleading about it. It is revisionist to suggest that North Vietnam didn't defeat the US. Mztourist (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say that the U.S. didn't lose to North Vietnam; they did. What I'm trying to convey is that there is a significant distinction between defeating your opponent on the battlefield and defeating them by wearing them down. Even Ho Chi Minh knew that the NVA and VC couldn't win a major battle against the U.S. Therefore, stating that the North Vietnamese military defeated the U.S. on the battlefield doesn't make sense when even Ho and Giáp recognized its impossibility. Thegreatcool (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have already made your position clear as have I, we don't agree. Unless other Users join this discussion and a new consensus forms the page remains as it is. Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Vietnamese Communists got the United States to withdraw by inflicting a level of casualties on the Americans that the United States was not willing to continue to accept. You could reasonably call that a victory achieved by military means, but "military victory" is still not a good phrase to describe it.
I don't like "North Vietnam" and "South Vietnam" as labels for the two sides. That was not what they called themselves, and the personnel and leaders on each side were a mixture of North and South Vietnamese.
I would suggest:
Giáp is often credited with the Vietnamese Communists' defeat of the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam).
User:Ed Moise we use South Vietnam as the WP:COMMONNAME. As North Vietnam entirely controlled the Vietnamese communist movement it is accurate to refer to North Vietnam. I'm ok with rewording it to read『Giáp is often credited with leading North Vietnam's defeat of the United States and the South Vietnam.』Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Vietnamese Communist movement that controlled North Vietnam, not the other way round. Le Duan had been born in Quang Tri province, south of the line by which North and South were separated in 1954. When he rose to become head of the Communist movement, that gave him control over the government of North Vietnam. It did not make him a North Vietnamese.
The Lao Dong Party was a Vietnamese Communist party, not a North Vietnamese Communist party. Its politburo was made up of a mixture of northerners and southerners. Ed Moise (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that South Vietnam is the standard name in the United States, but I don't like it because it gives a misleading impression that the war was more a matter of southerners against northerners than it actually was. In the early 1960s, it was the government forces, not the Viet Cong, that included a lot of North Vietnamese.
You may notice that I use "Viet Cong" rather than "National Liberation Front." "National Liberation Front" was what the organization called itself, but it also was a deliberate deception, designed to conceal the nature of the organization. "Viet Cong" (Vietnamese Communist) better reflects the reality, so it is the label I habitually use.
In the case of "Republic of Vietnam," the name the organization used for itself also was the one that did not convey an inaccurate impression of what was going on. Ed Moise (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know all that. North Vietnam was a communist state, they controlled the VC and they eventually invaded and absorbed South Vietnam. Giap stayed in the north post 1954 and controlled the North Vietnamese army so claiming that he wasn't North Vietnamese is spurious as is saying that the Politburo wasn't North Vietnamese even though they claimed to represent all of Vietnam. As I said South Vietnam is the common name and that's what we use here, what you choose to use in your books is your decision. So my view is that we either adopt what I proposed above or if we want to cover his wider military career we can say『Giáp is often credited with leading Vietnamese Communists' defeat of France, the United States and South Vietnam.』Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vo Nguyen Giap was a North Vietnamese. I have not said or even faintly implied anything else. I said the Politburo was a mixture of northerners and southerners. Giap was among the northerners. Le Duan, Pham Hung, and Pham Van Dong were among the southerners.
I had not even mentioned a claim by the Politburo that it represented all of Vietnam. My argument was that the actual membership of the Politburo was drawn from both North and South, and that it should therefore be regarded as a Vietnamese, not specifically North Vietnamese, body.
I do not believe that when a southerner rose to a high leadership position in Hanoi, that made him into a North Vietnamese, any more than I believe that when a Texan like Lyndon Johnson, or a Californian like Richard Nixon, rose to a high leadership position in Washington, that made them easterners.
There were Politburo members who actually spent years living and working in the South, while being Politburo members. During the years when Nixon and Johnson were high-level US government officials, their primary work location was always Washington. Still didn't make them easterners.
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
