Talk:Viet Minh

Untitled

I thought that the Vietminh recieved support from the Soviet Union, not the Americans. The Americans supported the French due to the fear of Communism and the domino theory.

First the Americans helped the Việt Minh, but then betray them after WWII. --Ionius Mundus 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article is referring to the period during WWII prior to the start of the Vietnam War. Note that the dates referenced are in 1941, long before the start of the Vietnam War. Fib0nacc11 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Elections

There is evidence that the Communist faction wes using fear and intimidation to coerce people to vote for them. I am not sure fair elections could be held if the threat of violence was a factor.

That "evidence" is incorrect. The Việt Minh were widely supported, especially after beating the French imperialists. --Ionius Mundus 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to provide a link, as I would be very interested in that? Ydirbut 03:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________

Go to August Revolution and then to French version of both "Viet Minh" and "August Revolution" closely linked.

Takima 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

army organization

this article is obviously pro-Viet Minh oriented but whatever this is not my concern for the moment, i'd like to create a kind of Viet Minh army or Viet Minh organization article. it would present the military organization with division, regiments names, a weapon list could come later as well like done in the korean war article. the pupose is to present the viet minh organization like the bo doi dia phung, the role of the coolies etc. Cliché Online 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

this article need to redirect to "Việt Minh". 96.229.179.106 (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Description

I strongly disagree with the description of the Viet Minh as a "communist revolutionary national liberation movement." To call it "communist revolutionary" is misleading--the Viet Minh was a coalition movement made up of different nationalist elements. While many of the leaders were members of the Communist party, the goal of the movement was national liberation, a cause that unified various disparate nationalist groups under the same banner. To call it a communist revolutionary movement would be to disregard the organizational brilliance of the movement, not to mention the efforts of intellectuals, Catholics, peasants, bourgeois, and other anti-French sympathizers that participated in this movement. Flaneuse78 (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Response : Flaneuse78 - I've changed the article to reflect this, before I had read about your concern with the line "communist revolutionary national...", I didn't like it either. However please put in your two cents, your paragraph sounds pretty good TwinqleTwinqle (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-education Camps

Something should be mentioned about the re-education camps, conducted by the Viet Minh (around 1954 - 60s I believe). Refer to http://www.anapi.asso.fr/en_Prisoners-of-the-Vietminh_25.htm. twinqletwinqle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

True History of Viet Minh

I can no longer find my sources regarding the fact that FDR had laid the foundation of insuring that all of France's former colonies, especially in Indo-China were given over to Soviet authority as part of the hegemony of the New World Order that the U.S., the U.K. and the U.S.S.R. were to form. The Viet Minh were a creation of the U.S. govt. and would never had been able to become the fighting force that they became without the support of the degenerate FDR who trusted the Soviets without question. FDR disliked the French and considered them a nation of losers who had no right existing but only have done so because of the lost lives of millions of non-French people who have fought wars for them in order to achieve colonies and to act as some kind of buffer for Germany's power dating back to the end of the 19th century. Also, it's well known that Hồ Chí Minh was a creation of the U.S. govt. and eventually became the rallying figure for a Communist dominated Southeast Asia. Once again, the U.S. creating an enemy, much like Israel created Hamas in order to ruin the P.L.O in hopes that students of Hamas would turn their focus to studying the Koran and leave a struggle for a Palestinian state with no supporters. Big mistake.

This would become standard policy of the U.S. to create enemies where none existed before our involvement.

Does anyone have any of those sources available to add to the fact that the U.S. was complicit in aiding the Communist Vietnamese and the Viet Minh in general? MattFoley Motivational Speaker (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh is just ho chi minh ,not who product In 1919 he asked for Vietnam's independence in the treaty of versailes. Indochina communist party establishment in 1930.Viet Minh establishment in 1941 but just in 1945 america cooperate with viet minh14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)14.244.118.237 (talk)

"South Japan" ?!

Currently the intro section says the Vietminh began in South Japan. That can't be right, but the link given as a reference is broken, and I don't want to change it because I'm not sure where it was actually founded (I assume that's supposed to be "South Vietnam"). Can somebody with a good source fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.108.189 (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It was founded at Pac Bo, in North Vietnam, near the Chinese-Vietnamese border. --SheenShin (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Diacritical markings

Here I am again looking up something about Vietnam and finding those annoying diacritical markings. This is the English Wikipedia; if the bias for preserving Vietnamese ethnicity with marks totally foreign to English must prevail, please at least give me the option of a button that allows me to turn them off on my own screen. Yopienso (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to complain, get in line, senora. DHN (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Yopienso (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Formation of Pathet Lao

Hello, all,

Influence of the Viet Minh on the formation and activities of the Pathet Lao should be covered in this article.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the ICP?

First paragraph refers to ICP, but no explanation of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.29.223 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

please contact

https://sq.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Minh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.248.173 (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050512031344/http://www.vpac-usa.org/flag/The%20National%20Flag%20of%20VN.pdf to http://www.vpac-usa.org/flag/The%20National%20Flag%20of%20VN.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 September 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Viet Minh → Việt Minh – the pre-1955 movement against the French is now given the correct ệ in English books. Ben Kiernan Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present 2017 Page 381 "Estimates suggest that by late July the Việt Minh had enlisted or recruited possibly 150,000 people in Tonkin, 20,000 in Annam, and 10,000 in Cochinchina.". Also WP:CONSISTENCY with the vast majority of en.wp pre-Vietnam War articles. (Not consistent obviously with the later Viet Cong which is a 1960s US name not real Vietnamese name of the NLF). In ictu oculi (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Wikipedia is an online, Unicode-based reference work that need not reflect archaic typographical limitations. See also WP:DGUIDE: Reasons. —  AjaxSmack  03:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Finding it with the "correct" diacritics in a few books doesn't mean that it's the most common form. Most reliable English-language sources (i.e. Britannica) don't use it. Academicoffee71 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom. No need to stick to outdated typography. (I can still remember when the state institution I used to work for finally managed to go from ALLCAPS in their database to normal ASCII and then finally being able to use diacritics) Agathoclea (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2017 (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.

Just for the record the 'oppose' there Academicoffee71 is a Bobby Martnen/Genealogizer sock. Would have struck through but already closed. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's permissible to strike anyway; the refactoring rule that permits one to strike another editor's comment is a higher-grade permission than tweaking formatting in a hatted thread. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sep 2017 move decision was defective and needs to be revisited

The above decision of Sep 2017 was done with minimal consensus, apparently 2 people, and is based on flawed reasoning. The question at hand is not whether or not Wikipedia has the technological capability to present Unicode. The fundamental issue is this:

What is the appropriate spelling to use when people are having a discussion in English on this topic?

The root of this becomes whether or not it is appropriate to use letters which are outside of the English language when having a discussion in English about the Viet Minh. Not only what is appropriate, but what is the more common method for doing so, and which is the method that is most appropriate for Wikipedia here to do so. And that is en.Wikipedia, specifically.

So this is not a technology question. Everyone is perfectly clear that we can do this. The question is whether it is proper to do so. Here is an example of one case where it is clearly proper:

Blue Öyster Cult

It is a US band, yet it is spelled using a vowel form found in the German language, not in English. But because this is the standard they set and the standard they were addressed by through their fan base and reviewers, etc, it serves as an exemplary case where it is fully appropriate for the English language Wikipedia to go outside of the Roman alphabet character set for the title of that article. Countless reliable references can be cited to support this decision.

Now in the case for the Viet Minh/Việt_Minh, to support the September 2017 decision, the proper way to have done that would have been to show how reliable English language sources spell the name of this organization, and whether or not they go outside of the Roman alphabet character set to print their name.

It is clear to me that this entire question is in need of being revisited, and this time use this proper criteria to base the decision. The deficiency was not so much that it was based on the positive vote of 2 people. This is not a democratic decision. It could be only one person voting one way, and if that person is outnumbered by votes going the other way, that is not the proper way to make this decision. All that one person need do to show that their position is the proper one is to have a weighting of the English language sources, and that we here will follow what these sources do. That would be the primary consideration.

The bottom line here is that the September 2017 decision was defective. This issue needs to be revisited. Please note that I have thus far withheld my own opinion on the outcome regarding the decision that was made. This call to revisit the decision is based on the defective criteria used to arrive at the outcome, and not necessarily in the outcome itself. I myself would be fine with me staying out of the new process in going back through the weighting of sources, etc. I am content with this role of simply pointing out that it needs to be done over. This time using proper criteria.

One more point to make here is that the question was raised on Sep5, and the issue was marked as closed on Sep15. 10 days and 10 hours strikes me as horribly rushed. If a robust outcome is desired ...one that can withstand the test of time, then it would seem prudent to keep the process open for significantly longer than 10 days. While 10 months might be excessively long, it would seem to me to be desirable to err on the side of being too long versus too short. And in seeing what was posted the day after it got closed, it is apparent that something very strange had happened here. -- Lexi sioz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Replacing citation of The Pentagon Papers from books from Beacon Press with Wikisource

The article cites The Pentagon Papers three times, and Wikisource already has s:United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense available for the Pentagon Papers and that is more accessible than the book published by Beacon Press. If someone has a copy of Beacon Press's book, I suggest that he use the page number to find the referenced part and replace the citation with Wikisource reference. --Happyseeu (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not believe that Wikisource is regarded as a reliable source, because the content is added by users - but I could be wrong about that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

A quick look at WP:Reliable sources noticeboard seems to indicate that Wikisource is not regarded as a reliable source. See this, for example. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2020

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: Moved(closed by non-admin page mover) Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Việt Minh → Viet Minh – Per WP:UE. Previous RM to the current title was contested, but not actually reviewed - only one source was given, despite Google Ngrams showing the anglicised version being used about 10x more than the Vietnamese equivalent. Also makes this consistent with Viet Cong. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 06:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per UE and UCN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Absolutely no need to complicate things given this is the common name in pretty much every English-language source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unlike Viet Cong which is an English made up name, Việt Minh is a real Vietnamese name and en.wp uses full spelling in all Latin-alphabet fonts, including Slovak, Maltese and Vietnamese. This is a font issue. It may cause heads to explode as "foreign", but guess what it is foreign, and a quality MOS book on the Vietnam history will give the full font on Vietnamese names and terms in order to aid reading. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@ItsPugle: if you don't mind, I'm curious. Why this article and not Lech Wałęsa? How is that different? Or the Rhône? Why single out a Vietnamese term? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Hey! While I understand that Viet Minh is an anglicisation of the Vietnamese proper noun, the English Wikipedia's established Naming Conventions have already resolved that we use the most commonly referred to name in reliable English sources. This has nothing to do with the title being "foreign", but simply is from established convention (also note that we do have other articles under their "native" name: Göttingen etc, because they're commonly referred to in literature by that name). And to answer your question about why I've 'singled out' this article, I'm not purposefully, I just saw what I think is room for improvement, and have put forward that suggestion. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 11:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is ItsPugle that you haven't provided any justification for removing the full font. You've cited WP:UE which says nothing about fonts. You've found that most books don't have full font, which Wikipedia does. Something you would also find for Lech Wałęsa. So I ask again, why have you singled out this article? We had a damaging and disruptive attempt by a dozen editors about 10 years ago, some of them socks, to remove full fonts from en.wp, and it resulted in the status quo consensus - full fonts in all articles - being retained. A cursory look at your edit interests (which is allowed, had to check that this wasn't a Kauffner sock) indicates no involvement in Vietnam articles, with respect you seem to be contributing more to Queensland pages. So why make an issue of Polish fonts, etc? The whole of the Wikipedia article corpus uses full fonts in all Latin alphabet languages, why this article rather than a bulk move of 100,000 articles? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: The anglicisation policy directly says, and I quote, The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titles Besançon, Søren Kierkegaard, and Göttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title forms Nuremberg, Delicatessen, and Florence are used - that is my justification. As per the Google Ngrams link in my requested move message, you'll find that the anglicised term, "Viet Minh", is used significantly more often than the Vietnamese alternative. I don't know why you think most books don't have full font, and nor have I ever suggested such - the existence of non-Latin characters doesn't mean that we should use them against policy, and in this case, the majority of reliable sources. On sock puppetry, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on other user's behaviour when I haven't been involved (or even was editing Wikipedia then). In reference to your exploration of my editing history, I don't really see how that's relevant to this move request - just because I have a history of editing Australian articles doesn't mean that I'm unable to edit others outside that scope. In terms of your "what about xyz" concern, to directly address your examples of those two articles, Google Ngrams shows that Lech Wałęsa and Rhône, the native terminology, is used more in English-language sources than their anglicised equivalents. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 09:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom and ngrams. Note that I double-checked a few scholarly dead-tree books I own and they too use "Viet Minh". SnowFire (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

.. disappointing @Synoman Barris:, can people really not tell the difference between "spelling" Florence vs Firenze, and "fonts" Lech Walesa vs Lech Wałęsa? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I acted on consensus above, I was never involved.If you want a review of the move, the relevant notice board is open, you can also request another move, Regards Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a good faith non-admin close, despite none of the guidelines cited saying what the above Supports claimed, but I fear you've inadvertently reopened a damaging war from 10 years ago. The rest of the Vietnam articles are already targeted. And based on a decade ago maybe Poland articles after that. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi: A little less alarmism would be appreciated. This isn't Kauffner reborn, and you should "blame"/credit the other participants in the discussions, not the closer here. My intuition is that for the very prominent Vietnamese terms that are well-known in English, the English version will be used (Hanoi, not Hà Nội, similar to uncontroversial examples like Tokyo vs. Tōkyō), and for everything else the Vietnamese version will be used. Viet Minh is merely prominent enough in English literature to have the style "Viet Minh" with no diacritics be the default, but I doubt there will be some massive change-over, nor would I personally support a massive switch of everything, despite thinking that Viet Minh should be switched. SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

In ictu oculi. Seconded. I actually usually advocate using the name as it appears in its native language unless it is far, far more commonly seen in English-language sources in another version. This is the case with Viet Minh. It is not the case with your other two examples, Lech Wałęsa and Rhône, both of which are frequently seen in their native forms. Viet Minh, however, almost always appears without the diacritics. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not blaming the non-admin closer at all. @SnowFire: @Necrothesp: but a multiple move against a bag of VN bios has in fact also been launched. So we'll see if my Kauffner reborn worry is unfounded or not. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have a qualm with my editorial efforts, drop me a message on my talk page or, if you deem in necessary, report me on the ANI. Otherwise, the consensus for this article has already been achieved and actioned upon. If you seriously think there was an oversight, request a move review, or wait a few months and propose a reversed move - there's no benefit right now in grousing about stuff here. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 22:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of "Communist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vi%E1%BB%87t_Minh&diff=prev&oldid=971300429

Adding local short description: "Communist Vietnamese independence movement between 1941 and 1951", overriding Wikidata description "National independence coalition 1941->51." (Shortdesc helper) undothank

I'm not 100% clear how adding "Communist" here benefits the article? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the entirety of the Viet Minh's leadership were communists (many of which were trained by the Comintern), and communism was the main ideologies of the movement alongside independence and nationalism. This is particularly important because the Viet Minh's use of guerrilla warfare relied on the support of rural agricultural workers, and the idea of agricultural communes and joint ownership of agricultural infrastructure (instead of it being owned by the French and being inaccessible to most) was the only reason why the movement was able to garnish the support of farmers. The ideological basis, communist nationalism, is also the central action of the Viet Minh, and as such should be represented in the short description. Many reliable sources present this as such: Encyclopedia Britannica, ThoughtCo, Infoplease, Dictionary.com, BBC, NSA, US Department of State Office of the Historian. ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 10:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Removed material from self-published source

I just removed the material apparently cited in " Now We Can All Go Home" by Oren Hays, page 157. See Diff. The work is published by Lulu.com, which is considered one of of the biggest self-publishing houses. Ltncanada (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)