Talk:Ho Chi Minh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

The sections on Ho Chi Minh living in the US and the UK are questionable

The evidence for Ho having lived in either place is rather thin. Other than a plaque in London at the Drayton Court Hotel (which may or may not be true), the only evidence is postcards postmarked from Boston, New York and London and the content of some of Ho's hagiographic writings within which he was known to obfuscate and lie. It's at least equally possible that he was working aboard ships of the Compagnie des Chargeurs Re'unis the entire time and simply mailed the postcards from ports of call. Since he used his real name, Nguyen Tat Thanh, and the French police were known to be looking for him, it's at least possible that the postcards were simply an attempt to throw them off his trail. (His assumed name aboard ship was Van Ba.) He had a long history of subterfuge to throw the authorities off his trail. I've contacted the owners of the Compagnie des Chargeurs Re'unis records (Air France) for evidence but have not yet received anything.

Sophie Quinn Judge (pg. 25) cites two postcards; one undated, sent to Phan Chu Trinh in Paris and another, sent from a different address in London. Neither is proof of anything, and no scholar has found any concrete evidence that he ever lived in London. Duiker, in his magnum opus, writes that the British intelligence agencies, at the request of the French Embassy, searched for Nguyen Tat Thanh fruitlessly for 3 years. It's illogical that they would never have searched at the addresses given on the postcards, and yet he was never found.

Judge cites even less evidence of any residency in New York, mentioning briefly a postcard postmarked from there to the résident supérieur in Annam requesting help finding his father.

Duiker mentions that postcard and another postmarked Boston and sent to Phan Chu Trinh in Paris where he mentioned that he was working at the Parker House Hotel.

I think both entries should be marked until more concrete evidence is forthcoming - or reworded to indicate the doubtfulness of the information.

If anyone in France can go to Air France and track down his employee records for Compagnie des Chargeurs Re'unis, that may or may not clear up this very murky period of his life. --Txantimedia (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Added to both sections. These claims need a lot more proof before they can be accepted as fact. Scholars disagree about both claims, and the proof for them is very weak. Also, noticed my sig was not appended to the original note, which I made on 4/30. Don't know why the bot didn't catch that. --Txantimedia (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Full Vietnamese title?

This is prompted by the RfC and RMs of the last 2 years at WP:VIETCON. But also since it has been raised that Hồ Chí Minh may be an exception because of (1) the City, (2) nom de guerre not birth name, (3) well known in the West, including in non-specialist sources which rarely have Unicode for Polish and Czech, let alone Vietnamese. I thought however I would note this as an example of where Amazon LOOK INSIDE is more accurate than Google Book OCR: Amazon.com LOOK INSIDE Tucker Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, page 4 article 'Agricultural Reform Tribunals' "The December 1953 Land Reform Law called for confiscation of the land and property of most of the landlord class, which Hồ Chí Minh described as "a class struggle in the countryside"...". This is typical it seems of all Vietnamese carrying English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, article name should be kept as is, esp. for reasons 1 & 3 mentioned above Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Eating Chinese shit quote has been challenged as fake by a historian

https://leminhkhai.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/ho-chi-minh-said-what/

http://leminhkhai.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/chiang-kai-shek-and-vietnam-in-1945/

The blog can be used as a valid source since it's a notable historian who runs the blog, Professor Liam Kelley of the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Le Minh Khai is the name he uses for his blog.

http://manoa.hawaii.edu/history/node/44

http://manoa-hawaii.academia.edu/LeMinhKhai

https://twitter.com/LeMinhKhai

https://vi-vn.facebook.com/leminh.khai.3

http://leminhkhai.wordpress.com/

https://leminhkhai.wordpress.com/category/burma/

http://leminhkhaiviet.wordpress.com/

Other works by the author

http://www.academia.edu/3561498/_Narrating_an_Unequal_Relationship_How_Premodern_Viet_Literati_Explained_their_Kingdoms_Relationship_with_the_North_

http://www.academia.edu/3554290/Vietnam_as_a_Domain_of_Manifest_Civility_Van_Hiến_Chi_Bang_

http://www.academia.edu/5378567/PowerPoint_slides_for_Imagining_the_Nation_in_Twentieth_Century_Vietnam_

https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao.html

http://www.academia.edu/3561583/PowerPoint_slides_for_Localization_and_Knowledge_Worlds_in_the_Southeast_Asian_Past_and_Present_

Miscellaneous

http://nguvan.hnue.edu.vn/Nghiencuu/VanhocVietNamtrungdai/tabid/102/newstab/209/Default.aspx

Rajmaan (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Cremated?

My father once told me that Uncle Ho wanted to be buried and to be planted rice on top of the grave. Please, put an accessible source where I can see that he wanted to be cremated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.72.247.25 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

His will said so, in Vietnamese wikipedia. Tuanminh01 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some pro-Bao Dai material that's been inserted into this article and the Bao Dai article.

So, User:202.82.141.40 has inserted this phrase into this article and the Bao Dai article: "It has been widely held that Vietminh or Ho Chi Minh founded the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam by themselves. However, the fact is, as Stanley Karnow in his classic book "Vietnam - A History" has put it, "Nothing has reinforced the Vietminh cause more than the mercurial Bao Dai's decision to abdicate. For his gesture conferred the "mandate of heaven' on Ho, giving him the legitimacy that, in Vietnamese eyes, had traditionally resided in the emperor." Thus, the last emperor Bao Dai played a crucial role in the founding of the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam; his benevolent willingness to transfer the power to Ho results in a peaceful change of government."

It's not cited in either article and its reference to Bao Dai's "benevolence" strikes me as being POV and seems to be pushing an agenda. What would people think about removing it from this article and the Bao Dai article, for that matter? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as no one has raised any objections, I'm going to go ahead and remove the content in question. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Correcting cites

I've been doing a great deal of work trying to correct cites on this page. An author should be cited only once. All other cites for the same author should use WP:REFNAME. If you want to add a page reference, which should be done in most cases, use Template:Rp. If anyone has problems with my edits, please let me know. Txantimedia (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Did Ho ever express any thoughts on religion? Txantimedia (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Brutality of Ho's Government

The article makes no mention of the severe torture - Americans were actually tortured to death - during Ho's leadership of Vietnam. After Ho's death in 1969, American POWs were still treated like animals, in violation of the Geneva Convention and in violation of all that is decent, but the daily torture sessions of American servicemen did decline dramatically, both in severity and frequency.

Also, Ho's main accomplishment (besides defeating the French military - not a difficult thing to do, and besides torturing Americans to death - not an accomplishment that could make any person proud) was turning Vietnam into a police state. The Vietnamese hated their colonial masters, and rightly so; but the French colonizers were simply replaced by a totalitarian dictatorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acopersi (talk • contribs) 10:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a separate article. There is an article on Land Reform in Vietnam. I don't see one on the reeducation camps. If you want to start that, feel free, but it has to follow WP:NPOV Txantimedia (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

On the location of his birth place

For obscure locations it's always a good thing to give the casual reader an idea of it's geographic location. And for important landmarks (in this case, his hometown) there should be some kind of reference given for its location. Can someone at least give a general location, something like "xx kilometers/miles N.E. of such-and-such city"? Remember, many people will assume that Saigon was renamed Ho Chi Minh City because he was born near there. __209.179.29.71 (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015

| spouse =

Zeng Xueming

​

(m. 1926⁠–⁠1969)​

Jjjimmy john (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- ferret (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Typo under 'In the United States'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#In_the_United_States

"Enquires to the Parker House management revealed no records of his ever having worked there"

'Enquires' should be 'Inquiries'

174.97.2.51 (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ho Chi Minh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070714171151/http://www.cpv.org.vn:80/english/archives/?topic=14&subtopic=99&leader_topic=39 to http://www.cpv.org.vn/english/archives/?topic=14&subtopic=99&leader_topic=39

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Legacy and personality cult

"Both Vietnamese and foreign activists, writers, reporters and commentators who criticize anything about Ho in the slightest are arrested and imprisoned or fined for "opposing the people's revolution".

This and other derogatory text in this section are not supported by the text. If in fact they are true the proper source should be used.

Jackhammer111 (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Marriage & Relationships

Why is there no mention of his marriage(s) or romantic relationships in personal life or elsewhere? There are only links to pages for his wife and other partners in the 'personality cult' section, which only says that the VN govt suppresses this information. Is this page just doing the party's work for them? 128.250.0.192 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) 5/4/2016

I have dubious-tagged the "none" under marriage, clearly he was.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

According to various sources Chi Minh had romantic relationships with Nguyễn Thị Minh Khai, Nông Thị Xuân, and Tăng Tuyết Minh. There is no current mention of them as far as I can tell in the article, although I vaguely remember them being mentioned in past revisions of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty much indisputable Ho Chi Minh was married to Zeng Xueming. However, evidence of any relationship with those other women is shaky at best. --4idaho (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

This article should be written in English

In many parts of the article there are many non-english characters, symbols, and well, I don't know what. I am sure that if this article was written for a Vietnamese person in vietnamese, where perfect pronunciation was important, agreement between the written word and how the word sounds in vietnamese, then maybe then all the non-english characters would be meaningful. The ham-handed effort to make english sound like vietnamese only serves to make this article difficult to read. This is no different that trying to mimic a modem audio stream sound where the data (00110010100111001010101010) is the pertinent content.

english for english readers vietnamese for vietnamese readers binary for computers ...regardless of what it sounds like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C381:1C4C:103F:D96A:2956:44FE (talk) 23:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ho Chi 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/20091006235045/http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/van_kien/declar.html to http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/van_kien/declar.html

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) 17:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace

His birthplace is listed as "Vietnam," but would it not have been officially known as French Indochina at the time of his birth? Brad E. Williams (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been. That should be changed to accurately reflect where he was born. Txantimedia (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Duelling edits

What is up with the duelling edits? Shouldn't this issue be discussed in Talk:Ho Chi Minh before making any more changes? Duelling edits (Skysmith—Minh.Sweden—Brad E. Williams) Txantimedia (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Potsdam, UN approval of Geneva

Maybe add something about Potsdam, which agreed to return Indochina to the French after the Chinese and British cleared it of Japanese post-WW2. Possibly something about the UN approval of the Geneva conference (1954) which was also a failure.

172.58.22.155 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's appropriate for his biography. It might be better as additional information in the 1954 Geneva Conference article. Txantimedia (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ho Chi 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/20150510160521/http://www.vietquoc.com/hcm-04.htm to http://www.vietquoc.com/hcm-04.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150617060828/http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150876&CO_ID=30034 to http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150876&CO_ID=30034
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151016113410/http://www.dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=11422&CO_ID=10048 to http://www.dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=11422&CO_ID=10048
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150904073600/http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150896&CO_ID=30035 to http://dangcongsan.vn/cpv/Modules/News_English/News_Detail_E.aspx?CN_ID=150896&CO_ID=30035
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cpv.org.vn/details_e.asp?id=BT2750372918

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) 15:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a translation of this?

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phan_Văn_Trường The English version doesn't yet have an article on Van Truong, but it's linked here (therefore red.)

Also, Nguyễn Thượng Huyện is linked as well, with no article. I'm not sure an article could be written about him, so perhaps remove the link? Txantimedia (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism?

ISTM this individual is deliberately making nonsensical changes to the article - Lien Tran - can something be done about this? Txantimedia (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bogus refs

I just reverted the most recent edit, which was a bogus ref used to editorialize. While doing that, I found a second one. I removed it as well. Txantimedia (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring?

I reverted a ref that had a msssive paragraph of prose inserted into it. Now TheTimesAreAChanging has reverted my revert. Since when are refs supposed to be filled with massive ammounts of prose that are not part of the article? Txantimedia (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You blanked valid references from three academic sources including Cambridge University Press, falsely calling them "bogus," while leaving the material supported by said references intact. That's not even vaguely constructive behavior. In response to your question, Wikipedia's reference formatting allows for quotation, and when dealing with controversial questions of methodology and sources that are likely to be challenged, it can be extremely helpful to include relevant excerpts in the citation. Consider WP:IAR and WP:PRESERVE, and don't arbitrarily delete thousands of bytes of content without thinking it through. Thanks,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The ref was just added today. Why is the material in the ref not in the article? And since when do refs contain full paragraphs of prose? I deleted it because the ref was bogus, not because the information contained in it was bogus. Did you look at the ref in the reference section? It takes up almost an entire column and generates a CS1 error. Is this really the way refs are supposed to be done? ISTM, at a minimum, the article shoud be reworked to include the information in the ref in the main article and make the refs normal refs. Perhaps there should be a note that includes the prose and at least two refs for the relevant sites? Txantimedia (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The ref has been there for more than a year. It isn't "bogus." You're free to try to improve the article, but deleting valid sources doesn't serve the reader. There's really nothing else that needs to be said.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll fix it tomorrow. It should be two refs and a note. The way it's done is ugly. Txantimedia (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I replaced the cite that was causing errors with three cites: a mailing list cite, a book cite and a journal cite. See what you think. Txantimedia (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit looks fine to me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I confused this one with the ones done by another person, whose edits I have now reverted twice. Once you pointed out the problem, I grabbed the ref and put it in my sandbox and worked on it until I fixed all the errors. Txantimedia (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Fixing references

Whoever created all the cites to Robert Turner's Vietnamese Communism, I just completed combining them all into one reference. For those who don't know how to do this, you use the construction <ref name=Turner>. Then, for all future references to the same work, you use <ref name=Turner /> and follow it with this for the page numbers: {{rp|91-93}}. See WP:REFNAME for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txantimedia (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The portrait of Ho Chi Minh was from 1957 not 1946

The portait was from 1957 not 1946. https://thehehochiminh.wordpress.com/media/hinhanh/chan-dung-chủ-tịch-hồ-chi-minh/#jp-carousel-904 Timedscars (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The portait of Ho Chi Minh was from 1957 not 1946.

The portait was from 1957 not 1946. https://thehehochiminh.wordpress.com/media/hinhanh/chan-dung-chủ-tịch-hồ-chi-minh/#jp-carousel-904. Jannaalo (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced statements regarding Ho Chi Minh's death

The section concerning Ho's death already has one "citation needed" affixed to a doubtful claim, and I've added another one to go with this: "The true date of his death was falsely reported by the North Vietnamese government on 3 September 1969 and remained so officially for over 20 years because he had died on the anniversary of the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam." The first reports were actually made on 4 September, at which time the announcement was that Ho had died at 9:47 the day before (in other words, on 3 September). The editor alleges that at some point in 1989 or 1990, a government conspiracy was revealed and that the date was changed for what would seem to be an unlikely reason. In any event, until someone can actually cite to a reliable and verifiable source for this claim, the dates have been changed back from "2 September" to "3 September". Mandsford 20:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup/work

This article is somewhat messy. A few sections repeat some of the same information (and close to each other, not a summary) and sometimes ramble on for far too long (maybe even undue weight issues?). Anyway, part of the problem is probably worsened by editors working on each section, instead of the article as a whole. Also, in some sections the tone veers too much on the informal, as if it was an opinion piece, or at the very least, not a biography. Here are some examples of prose that I have recently rewritten:

In 1954, after the crushing defeat of French Union forces at Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 2300 French soldiers died during the Battle of Dien Bien Phu more than 10000 french soldiers have surrendered to Viet Minh. France gave up its fight against the Việt Minh, losing 70,000 soldiers from the eight years of the First Indochina War.

This is classic rambling on too much, takes way too long, doesn't get the point. It also doesn't really elaborate on what Ho's role in that battle was (if any), so the amount of detail devoted might be misplaced and better suited to the article on the war itself.

According to journalist Bernard Fall, Ho decided to negotiate a truce after fighting the French for several years. When the French negotiators arrived at the meeting site, they found a mud hut with a thatched roof. Inside they found a long table with chairs. In one corner of the room, a silver ice bucket contained ice and a bottle of good champagne, indicating that Ho expected the negotiations to succeed. One demand by the French was the return to French custody of a number of Japanese military officers (who had been helping the Vietnamese armed forces by training them in the use of weapons of Japanese origin) in order for them to stand trial for war crimes committed during World War II.

Again, this part is very wordy, and the tone gets a bit too conversational. I haven't yet rewritten this part.

Nevertheless, he received a French education, attended lycée in Huế, the alma mater of his later disciples.

This is a really weird sentence, as it describes the type of education without naming the school, which is later linked to in the next section. We should be naming the school on the first mention and then referring back to it later. (I have fixed this part.)

Hồ Chí Minh led the Việt Minh independence movement from 1941 onward, establishing the Communist-ruled Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945 and defeating the French Union in 1954 at the battle of Điện Biên Phủ. He officially stepped down from power in 1965 due to health problems. After the end of the Vietnam War, Saigon, the former capital of the Republic of Vietnam, was renamed Ho Chi Minh City. He was a key figure in the People's Army of Vietnam and the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.

This part of the lead jumps around way too much. It should link to the First Indochina War and briefly describe its importance. Then the Vietnam War is name-dropped without describing who the major participants were or how it figures into Ho's life (I think it's important to mention that he died before the war ended, for instance). it doesn't even stop to mention that the DRV = North Vietnam or that the RVN = South Vietnam, or the significance of renaming the city. It doesn't tell much about Ho's role with the PAVN or what even the Viet Cong is in relation to the Vietnam War. I rewrote it to flow more logically, but it could use more work.

I'm trying to do the best I can, but I'm bogged down by not being an expert on this field, and can't rely too much on the Vietnam War article, which also has issues with tone, prose, sourcing, and parts where it's too detailed and then jumps over too much. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Source 25 is not correct

This picture not from Versailles but from Tours Congress of French Socialist Party.
Beyaz Deriili (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Памятник Хо Ши Мину (Москва).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Ho Chi Mihn Genocide

The article conveniently leaves out history like this:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6143:9600:99C3:7EF4:CFA8:789F (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving out propaganda from bullshit sources isn't convenience, it's a necessity. --78.35.81.116 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Communist genocide is real and it has to be accepted. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Even the most vehemently anti-communist scholars would certainly agree that this is not a scholarly article and should not be cited as such. It has no place in a Wikipedia article. Mushika Vahana (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Atheist ?

Leninism obviously advocates atheism as an ideal. but there was some religious leninists, like Thomas Sankara. However, i have seen in some sources that Ho Chi Mihn was a confucian deist, not a an atheist. is there any source that confirms either ?

I suggest you take a look at this Link, as it provides sufficient evidence to conclude Ho Chi Minh was Confucian. --𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖊𝖘 𝖁 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2021

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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Ho Chi Minh → Hồ Chí Minh – There was a discussion about this back in 2005. A lot has changed on Wikipedia since then; the most compelling reason to move this article to use Vietnamese diacritics is that we do it with many other Vietnamese people -- for example, everyone in Category:Vietnamese revolutionaries has articles named with the proper diacritics. Llightex (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Llightex I think the most compelling reason not to move is if the diacritics cause accessibility issues. If, as certain editors mentioned, the title will display as boxes, then it shouldn't be moved. Otherwise, I have no issues with this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Yeah, I don't think that's much of an issue these days because technology has improved since 2005 (that user was using Windows NT, perhaps before Unicode was in wide use?). Moreover, people haven't been complaining about other Vietnamese articles showing boxes today, so unless there's still a significant portion of people who would see boxes for this article, I think we should move it. Llightex (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think so. I support this move. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all sources continue to refer to him without the diacritics, and thus it appears that the common name is without them; these include both encyclopaedias such as Britannica, news sources, including non-Vietnamese and English-Language Vietnamese, as well as full biographies. BilledMammal (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per User:BilledMammal, but still keep the proper Vietnamese spelling in the article lede. JIP | Talk 22:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, though outside specification of his Vietnamese name, the article should use the common form. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UE. His name in English does not use diacritics, which are untypeable and unpronounceable by the vast majority of English-speakers. Station1 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think all these rationales for "Oppose" makes sense, but the only question that remains is that it appears that this standard doesn't apply to other Vietnamese names. For example, see Võ Nguyên Giáp -- it's spelled "Vo Nguyen Giap" in Britannica, nearly every other source, etc. And spelling out article names entirely with diacritics seems to be a convention on Wikipedia already, see Category:Vietnamese_revolutionaries. Do you think those should also be changed based on the common forms of those names (or as per WP:UE, changed to remove diacritics entirely)? Llightex (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I do. A number of English-speakers (though I doubt a majority) might recognize the significance of an umlaut or an accent grave, but beyond that, diacritics are meaningless to most readers. Station1 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would think it should, but a broader discussion may be required - indeed, I believe this issue extends beyond Vietnamese names, and it might be worth a RfC to clarify WP:UE that diacritics should only be used if they are commonly used in recent English-language sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that a number of these prominent Vietnamese people like Võ Nguyên Giáp were at titles without diacritics prior to an RM with 5 participants there in 2014. Station1 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC

That is interesting; based on the discussions there and here, it seems there are two "schools" of thought in regards to when diacritics should be used; either they should be used almost without exception as using diacritics or not doesn't change the "name", while others prefer to reflect whether diacritics are typically used in English-language sources.

I think this actually reinforces my wish for an RfC, perhaps even at CENTRAL; we should clarify the use of diacritics at a broad forum as there seems to be significant confusion over their use, resulting in local consensus' that may or may not reflect broader consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: In many recent English-language scholarly sources, where the authors do use Vietnamese names with diacritical marks, many still explicitly omit the diacritics for Ho Chi Minh (and by extension the city named after him). Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. DHN (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I also support showing or using the diacritics. Polish names, Scandinavian names such as Swedish names, etc, also retain their diacritics when used as a title of a Wikipedia page. Dropping the diacritics is often not from laziness but from previous lack of access to software or physical keyboard that can produce specific diacritics. Many other Vietnamese names also have accents written on them when used as a title. Changeanew (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support per encyclopaedic consistency high quality English sources do not suddenly drop into Daily Mail MOS when passing from one Vietnamese name to another. Not have the full pronunciation on this name simply because it's a Vietnamese person people of heard of is inconsistent. (I won't mention the trolling and sock farms that used to be active any time Vietnamese people were spelled with full names like Europeans with their accents, evidently Vietnamese fonts are slightly more shocking to some westerners than Eastern European names, but the main issue here, I regret, is something I won't name, but we all know.) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sources presented above show the current title remains the common name. -- Calidum 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BilledMammal, JIP, Station1 and Calidum. The names Ho Chi Minh (as well as Ho Chi Minh City) are very well known in the English-speaking world in their form without the diacritics and, until the manuals of style that were used to support the move of Kiev to Kyiv counsel the use of diacritics, Ho Chi Minh should remain without the diacritics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as a special case, not as a general rule about Vietnamese names. Ho Chi Minh is so well-known in the English speaking world without the diacritics that this is clearly the common name. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear common name in English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2021 (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.

Is Ho Chi Minh's article full of pro-VCP autocratic supporters?

There is no talking about Ho Chi Minh's genocide and mass murders. There is no talking about anti-Ho Chi Minh sentiment. All are written in a distorted view of praising. Shame. 27.79.240.89 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes Ho Chi Minh does deserve criticism. However, a lot of these were a consequence of war. But anti ho chi minh sentiments or criticisms should definitely be included. Changeanew (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho_Chi_Minh#cite_note-168 I got quite the opposite impression based on this claim of the "Four Asian Tigers" being "democracy-based, multiparty systems". South Korea barely became democratic in 1993 Taiwan had first elections in 1996 and Hong Kong colony was transferred from UK back to PRC in 1997. Ho Chi Minh died in 1969. Most of the criticism I came across in the article references articles and government studies from USA. Not exactly unbiased source of information. 2601:201:8000:F0D0:A0D0:A049:CA72:4FF1 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The article begins with this false statement. "Hồ Chí Minh led the Việt Minh independence movement from 1941 onward. Initially, it was an umbrella group for all parties fighting for Vietnam's independence, but the Communist Party gained majority support after 1945."

The reality is quite different. Ho Chi Minh was a dedicated communist, a member of the Soviet Comintern, and completely disinterested in Vietnamese Independence. In the early 20th century he helped found the French Communist Party, catching the eye of dedicated Communists. He traveled to Russia, where he trained for years to become the leader of an Asian Communist movement. He became a protege of Dmitry Manuilsky, the right hand man of both Lenin and Stalin.

When he returned to Southeast Asia in 1924, his goal was to establish a communist Southeast Asia, not to free Vietnam from the French yoke. He founded the Indochinese Communist party in 1924. As early as 1930 he routinely had leaders of Vietnamese independence movements either assassinated or (as in the case of Phan Bội Châu) conspired to have them arrested by the French and imprisoned, effectively neutering any opposition to his communist movement. He has so many Vietnamese independence leaders that he earned an official rebuke from Russia. During the Hue Massacre his military bragged about assassinating South Vietnamese politicians and leaders of independence movements.

He even worked to eliminate any "impure" communists in his midst.

If you want this article to be less laughable, it at least needs to acknowledge that Ho was NOT the leader of any Vietnamese independence movement and the Communists did not gain "majority support" of the Vietnamese people. They simply eliminated anyone who disagreed with them and destroyed the sovereign nation of South Vietnam to establish their rule over the entire country, whether or not the Vietnamese people wanted him to.

At least the other Wikipedia articles cited attempt to protray the reality of what took place rather than act as a hagiogrphy for Ho. Txantimedia (talk) 06:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

"Quốc (Ho)" and "Thành (Ho)"

I think it makes no sense to refer to Ho Chi Minh as "Quốc (Ho)" or "Thành (Ho)". "Quốc" and "Thành" are not surnames, but parts of the given names "Tất Thành" (the name that was given by his father when he was 10) and "Ái Quốc" (the pseudonym he chose later). In Vietnamese, the surname comes first and it is followed by the given name. During this period, the only surname used by Ho Chi Minh was "Nguyễn", so we should refer to him as "Nguyễn (Hồ)" or simply "Hồ" or "Nguyễn", but not "Quốc (Ho)" or "Thành (Ho)". BrightRaven (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@BrightRaven: Vietnamese people are normally referred to by their given names, not surnames, even in formal situations (see Trọng, Phúc, and Chính, not Nguyễn, Nguyễn, and Phạm). In only a few situations (for example, prominent Confucian scholars), that they are referred to by their surnames. With respect to the pseudonyms Nguyễn Ái Quốc and the Confucian name Nguyễn Tất Thành, it's normal to refer to him by those given names. DHN (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

But the article is written in English, not in Vietnamese. In English, we usually use surnames to identify people. However, I read here that it is advised to use given names to refer to Vietnamese people, so I guess there is a consensus about it (imho the recommendation should be more specific and specify if we should use only the second given name, or both given names when there are two). I still think that "Quốc (Ho)" or "Thành (Ho)" are quite confusing, since it is a first name ("Quốc" or "Thành") followed by a surname ("Ho"). BrightRaven (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Note: this article reserves the term "given name" for the name that comes in the end, so the recommendation is not as unclear as I thought. BrightRaven (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@BrightRaven: Note that the convention I linked to above is for English (the CIA World Factbook). In Vietnamese, calling someone in a position of power by just their given name is quite rude. They are usually referred to by their full name or title (Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr./President/etc) + given name. DHN (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

False information, false history

The article includes a lot of reactionary information about President Ho Chi Minh, distorting the truth about history. Ho Chi Minh was and is still the greatest Viet Cong leader of all time. Not because you disagree with an ideology that you can distort the truth about such a great president. You may support other political parties and Ho Chi Minh supported Communism and he had the right to do so, now this is what we call democracy! Ho Chi Minh lives forever in the hearts of all Vietnamese patriots and we are proud to be Vietnamese. No matter how much you misrepresent about Ho Chi Minh, you will never win because not only the true Vietnamese patriots but also true foreign friends of Vietnam will always trust Ho Chi Minh and his great contributions and sacrifice of his whole life to our country's independence, freedom, and happiness. Vietnamese people can also understand English so we know what you have been doing out there distorting the truth about our country. Remember: We gained back our independence because we have love, and only love for our people and our country will last. Hatred can never win! 2A01:CB18:8BE:1800:6BA:F073:4E31:2523 (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You talk a lot about how the article is reactionary or contains false history or information but fail to make clear what specifically within the article you are upset about. If you have problems with statements or sections or references used it's better to be specific about the changes you wish to see and why (with references also) D1551D3N7 (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)