Talk:Viet Cong

Revisions

I couldn't tell if others have made this comment, so I apologize in advance if I am repeating things. Assuming that there is some point to having it as a separate article in Wikipedia, and I make no judgment on that, the original possibly and certainly the various revisions have turned it into a mess that is repetitive but contradictory in part. Given the amount of new scholarship and Vietnamese material available in English and Vietnamese, the errors and contradictions aren't inexcusable. I don't question the various writers and editors efforts. But the article needs to be rewritten from scratch in my view if it has an accepted place in Wikipedia. A glaring example of an out of date viewpoint expressed in the article is the following: "The Viet Cong's best-known action was the Tet Offensive, an assault on more than 100 South Vietnamese urban centers in 1968, including an attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon. The offensive riveted the attention of the world's media for weeks, but also overextended the Viet Cong. Later communist offensives were conducted predominantly by the North Vietnamese." First, this statement perpetuates the idea that the National Liberation Front was some sort of independent organization supported by the North with its own armed forces. The NLF had administrative and propaganda responsibilities and indeed some members did believe that they were a partner organization and not a wholy owned and controlled subsidiary of the politburo. But it's supposed military force was always fully integrated into the structure of the Army of North Vietnam, it's commanders were officers (southern born included) in the Army of North Vietnam, it was trained and supplied and directed by North. Moreover in this specific example it had no separate role in the planning and execution of the Tet Offensive. That offensive was planned by Le Duan and Van Tien Dung and commanded by Dung. By the time of the offensive, many or most of the so-called NLF units were already manned chiefly by northern soldiers because of the heavy losses suffered by the Communists in 1967, and the difficulty the Communists had in recruiting replacements in the South. I don't know what Wikipedia's network of historians is but recruiting someone professional to write a new article from scratch would seem to be a sensible way to produce a high quality article. Sciacchitano (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs work. It's a big challenge, however, because things are far more controversial than you acknowledge. Your assertions about the nature of the NLF and its relationship to the PAVN do not at all reflect a consensus among scholars. These are not settled questions about which reasonable people no longer disagree. The point of this talk page is to recommend improvements, and I know that's what you intend, as do I. But we should acknowledge that cleanup of an article may be quite difficult when some of the core factual content is quite disputed. D.Holt (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

RS has said the NLF/VC was controlled by the North Vietnamese for quite sometime.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

VC

Is there any reason why the abbreviation VC shouldn't be used? Per WP:COMMONNAME it was the standard abbreviation used during the war and in most books and other resources. Mztourist (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Viet Cong is an extremely derogatory term in referring to the force, don't you think ?

Why is it ? Read this: [1]

Nobody ever in Vietnam would use this term. As a native Vietnamese growing up in Vietnam, I have no hesitation in addressing this issue. The term "Viet Cong" was mostly used by the anti-communist movements outside of Vietnam, by either the misled American or the veterans of the fallen Saigon government. Obviously, I don't have any intentions to denounce any opposite ideologies, yet I'm speaking to defend my people's army, which has been internationally recognised. While the outsiders use this term quite frequently, the term is in fact intented to deny both the national and democratic characters of the resistance, that "the communist North invaded the "democratic South"" (ridiculously false, if you search "My Lai massarce" and hundreads of other massacres executed by the Saigon army and its American "mother"), instead of "the country united to liberate itself from the foregn invaders (American troops and their allies)". What is your view ? Is it a tactic of the American who caused the conflict ?

Here's a link to an interview with General Giap in French with English subtitles below (sorry, I can't insert the link here, but you may search on Youtube: "[iMarx] English sub - Vo Nguyen Giap in interviewing by French reporter"). In 2:32, the interviewer said: "Some in the West think you are still inspiring the Viet Cong strategy" (... d’inspirer la stratégie du Viet Cong). On the contrary, the general replied: "Viet Cong, what do you mean ?" (Viet Cong, que veux-tu dire ?), which forced the interviewer to clarify her point - "the South resistance" (la résistance du Sud).

I myself can't speak on behalf of all Vietnamese. But at least, as a Vietnamese patriot whose a family member lost to the war, I can't agree that this term - "the Viet Cong"- is anyway friendly to me and most of my Vietnamese fellows. Hoangnguyenaloha (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:COMMONNAME. VC were just part of the PAVN. Mztourist (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It gets brought up a few times a year i think. But the issue is we have many, probably American, users unwilling to entertain the change and will just clobber you with circular arguments and a kafkaesque command of beurocracy. As Rja13ww33 stated well above, it is frankly embarrassing on behalf of the project.

My advice, dont waste your time, you will be unsuccessful and only end frustrated. SP00KYtalk 11:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

If you see an account or IP address writing information that is biased towards the Vietnamese communist government on English Wikipedia, it is likely that this is Sotavino (talk · contribs), a banned account. If you feel suspicious, please report it here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sotavino 14.248.129.174 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If you Google 'BBC Nguyen Van Thieu President in war time' and 'DTIC General Ngo Quang Truong Easter Offensive', you will see a BBC interview and a DTIC book, in which president Thiệu and general Trưởng said Viet Cong and VC regularly. I believe president Thiệu could speak on behalf of South Vietnam people, while general Trưởng could speak on behalf of South Vietnam I Corps. Leemyongpak (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This entire article reads like cheap propaganda. There are virtually no sources from the Vietnamese side. It is hardly a surprise it is listed under the term "Viet Cong". 2001:EE0:519B:7340:FF37:BEF4:12A9:DC2D (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Provide some Vietnamese sources that aren't WP:PROPAGANDA then. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The name Viet Cong is basically US propaganda, right? So there is a double standard where US propaganda is the norm on Wikipedia, but everyone else is held to much higher standards. LouMichel (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's it exactly. I've given a lot of thought to how one edits wikipedia without simply repeating and strengthening hegemonic narritives.

I sincerely think it can't be done. This site will more than likely fall deeper and deeper into being a mouthpiece for American hedgemony as, as we see the the beginnings of now, the core of the empire slips more and more into a nakedly reactionary position, as it becomes more and more out of step with the rest of the world and others become less willing to see the world through american exceptionalist eyes.

I say this to say; You're probably wasting your time on this. Most of the people here are die-hard stormtroopers of American Empire and Wikipedia will die before it changes. SP00KYtalk 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Quite frankly, Wikipedia editors, you included it seems, will regurgitate propaganda about anything and everything opposed to American national interests and ignore completely that it's propaganda but call anything from the other side propaganda just because it does not fit the approved narrative of Wikipedia.

It's a joke that Wikipedia claims to be neutral but on any topic like this, never uses sources not from a pro-American POV.

That is also why the Japanese Wikipedia uses Japanese propaganda to deny that the war crimes in China by Japan never happened: because Wikipedia's policies do not acknowledge that the sources they approve of are propaganda themselves. 2600:4040:F0D1:6600:E3FE:F9BC:ED89:A54 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

We call them what RS calls them. And plenty of high quality RSs call them exactly that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you aware of the fact that Wikipedia's concept of a reliable source for things like this consists solely of sources that support the American view of the war? 2600:4040:F0D1:6600:E3FE:F9BC:ED89:A54 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What reliable Vietnamese sources are there? See Censorship in Vietnam. In 2024 Press Freedom Index ranked Vietnam 174 out of 180 countries. Mztourist (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am Vietnamese so I agree with you, Vietnam is a closed environment where education and propaganda are one-sided, even the internet here (especially on Youtube and Facebook) is flooded with accounts and false information supporting the Vietnamese communist government. Most Vietnamese people now have low knowledge of history and politics. When we doubt the reliability of English Wikipedia, why can't we doubt pro-communist Vietnamese Wikipedia and other leftist sources?! 2403:E200:96E:5E44:B591:4D79:EB6C:F8CB (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

So let’s look at Vietnamese Wikipedia, which is always biased and siding with the Communist Party when it comes to politics and modern Vietnamese history. I think distorting the information that you (presumably an American leftist) want in order to support the current Vietnamese government is not in line with Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality and objectivity. Most Vietnamese people today have a distorted view of history and politics and they want English Wikipedia to follow their will, unfortunately for them we will never let this happen. By the way, this is to improve the article, not to argue in a forum. 2401:D800:2B6:D485:D978:7E9:3F0D:25CD (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yet none of this is true for our wikipedia? Come on. SP00KYtalk 08:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

You want to turn this place into a place manipulated by false propaganda of Vietnamese communists?! Come on. 2401:D800:D221:9561:349A:EC90:1CFB:23D4 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

If you take issue as to what is RS, I'd bring it up here: [2]Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can convince this leftist who supports the communist government of Vietnam. It's obvious that this person wants to turn this place into a forum to one-sidedly favor the communists instead of improving the article. Even though the war has been over for 50 years; many people still want Wikipedia to write about it in a communist, leftist, or old anti-war perspective. This is against Wikipedia's rules. 2401:D800:D221:9561:349A:EC90:1CFB:23D4 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that this article does reflect US bias on the subject, using sources that support the US view. I don't know. However, this is the English language Wikipedia and therefore uses the common name used by most English language sources and readers. Inevitably that will be affected by American's preferences. It's also important not to re-write history. If this was the name used historically, we shouldn't be changing it simply to suit modern sensibilities. If it is offensive to Vietnamese readers, then there is certainly scope for the article to include a section explaining why. (With good reliable sources, of course.) --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure the English Wikipedia is much more neutral and objective than the pro-communist Vietnamese Wikipedia (I'm Vietnamese). 2403:E200:96E:5E44:616E:711E:B2F0:FF6D (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that there are accounts and IPs from Vietnam who support the Vietnamese government and occasionally edit articles or sections related to Vietnamese politics and modern Vietnamese history on English Wikipedia to distort information, we need to be careful. 2403:E200:96E:5E44:B591:4D79:EB6C:F8CB (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2025

31.211.247.150 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you want to change? Don't come here to propagate history in the direction of Vietnamese communists! We all know that Viet Cong, like Viet Minh, were tools of the Communist Party. "Viet Cong" comes from Vietnamese language, which is an abbreviation of "Việt Nam Cộng sản" (Vietnamese communists). And as this article shows, it was first used in Saigon newspapers in the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) in 1956. Don't just believe the form and propaganda, do you intend to say that communist North Korea is "democratic"?! The North Korean government still propagates that South Korea is a "vassal" of the United States and many Vietnamese and Chinese people today believe so, how funny! In general, remember, this is Wikipedia, not a page of the Vietnamese government. 116.106.98.244 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The VC created the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam in December 1960 at Tân Lập village in Tây Ninh as a "united front", or political branch intended to encourage the participation of non-communists.[30

I mean seriously, NLF created the armed forces later to be called VC by the americans. NLF and the peace movement was for many years a political force to reunite Vitenam.

What change are you requesting to be made? Yue🌙 20:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Just ignore this kind of person. 116.106.98.244 (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)