This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Viet Cong article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
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. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Viet Cong. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Viet Cong at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions:
|
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Viet Cong and People's Army of Vietnam use of terror in the Vietnam War" is not linked here. I have added it to the "See also" list, but the article (and perhaps some other ones) should be integrated here. I really do not understand the idea of this Viet Cong article. US opinions about Viet Cong? German Wiki article contains a 'Recruiting' subsection. The Vietnames article is longer. I have no idea what it contains. Russian article may be based on Soviet advisors expertise. Xx236 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The section contains only one link. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Is there any source of the anti-imperialist forces in the south calling themselves Viet Cong and not Viet Minh?
At the very least, there should be a clarification of the name. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Funnily I came to make this very talk page topic. My understanding is that this is never what the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam called themselves and was the label given to them by the Diem regime. I do not think uncritically naming things like this is very good, for example one would not rename the Covid article the 'Kung-Flu China Virus' would they? It is not good and quite frankly calls into question the article in a more general sense if we cannot collectively get basic things like the title correct in an article that is years and years old. If nobody replies to this in a few days I will go ahead and change the title. SP00KYtalk 01:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter what they call themselves....what matters is what RS calls them. (Anymore than it matters what the Nazi party's proper name was.) I can't think of too many sources that didn't call them that. In probably one of the most notable books on the Vietnam War (which we reference in the article) Stanley Karnow's 'Vietnam: A history', the VC are called the "Vietcong" about 80 times. Even a former member of the VC wrote a book called 'A Vietcong Memoir'. So the fact of the matter is: this is their common name. And secondly, you may want to check the archives. This subject has come up several times in the past in requested moves. There was no support for making that change.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
That’s complete nonsense. By long-standing site-wide community consensus, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph Unless that consensus changes, we need to follow it and in the short term follow 89.253.73.146's suggestion to clarify the various names, including the widely used NLF in scholarship and Mat-Tran Dan-Toc Giai-Phong Mien-Nam in Vietnamese sources. In the longer term we need to consider moving it as per the suggestion by @W1tchkr4ft 00: especially as neither the 2008 nor 2017 discussions had more than minimal participation, and there was essentially zero analysis of scholarly usage or Ngrams in the 2019 discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
They made an effort to hide the fact that they were completely controlled by the Communist Party. Calling themselves the "National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam," or "National Liberation Front" for short, was part of that effort. Their enemies called them the "Viet Cong" to emphasize that they were essentially a Communist organization. In general, one should avoid calling a group by the name applied to that groups by its enemies. But in this case the label "Viet Cong" was truthful and the label "National Liberation Front" was deceptive, so I favor using "Viet Cong." Ed Moise (talk)
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)