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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
"While the true original inhabitants of Vietnam were the Hoabinhians, they had of course been replaced and absorbed by the East Eurasian-looking populace and the expansion of preliminary Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages, although linguistic is not totally interrelated with genetic." So, obviously, this is a run on, and I would just fix it, probably poorly, if part of the run-on didn't require a rework. The use of "of course" in the sentence is incredibly vague language. It also feels antithetical to the intent of providing contextualized knowledge. The related article on "Hoabinhians" provides no context that would imply that this was common knowledge, and to be honest I had never heard the term "Hoabinhians" before this article. Spicygarbage (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am planning to thin out the overweight intro. If anyone has specific requests or guidance to offer, please put it here. Rollo (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please simplify the modern history part (1945-present) of this article? I mean the points of this part should be retained but presented in a more concise manner because this part is rambling. 14.162.204.75 (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm doing it bit by bit. PS: this is about the lead section. If you mean the main section of the article, perhaps suggest it in another comment. The whole article needs pruning and rewriting IMO. Rollo (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this entire article needs a major edit, however I would like to remind you that this is a very important article and you should keep all of its points, just make it shorter and more readable. Regards! 14.231.202.51 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a mistake at the beginning of the article. As the article presented, France granted full independence to Vietnam (State of Vietnam) of the anti-communists on 4 June 1954, this was not related to the Geneva Conference that led to the communists taking power in the North in July. The information and link you wrote can easily mislead readers. By the way, you forgot link about the Vietnam War. 14.231.202.51 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fall of Saigon was symbolic but it was the whole offensive that put an end to the state. Can discuss if disagreement. Rollo (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But as I said, since Vietnam's complete independence from France in June 1954 had nothing to do with the Geneva Conference, you should move the link about the Conference from the independence section to the division section, since the Geneva Accords signed at the Conference in July only left Vietnam divided and the communists in power in the North. Furthermore, you should add "later" or "in July" to avoid confusing the reader that Vietnam gained complete independence and was divided at the same time. 14.231.202.51 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independence happened in the middle of the Geneva Conference, the two things are clearly closely related. But sure, not the same. Done. Rollo (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why there is a special presentation in the Post-war and unified era (1975–1986) section? Please review. Thank you and I hope you continue to improve the entire article by shortening the presentation while still keeping all of the points. 14.162.204.75 (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only intended to fix the introduction, i.e. the most important part of a relatively important article. I'm not an expert. Why not get yourself a proper account and have a go yourself? Rollo (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just talking about the presentation, I see that in that part there is a paragraph presented within a rectangular frame and written by smaller letters, I don't know if you accidentally edited it like that. In the scale of the whole article, especially in the modern history section (1945-present) of the article, I just hope you present it shorter because this part (and the whole article) is rambling, I don't ask for information editing, you yourself said you will gradually edit the whole article to make it more concise and easier to understand. I am usually very busy so I don't have time to edit, now I'm free but I am going to work and do other things soon. I hope you will help me fix it, only so. Thanks! 14.162.204.75 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rollo: According to the article, the Viet Minh communists defeated France thanks to China's support. You should add the detail at the beginning of the article that France was supported by the United States since 1950 and the Viet Minh was supported by China since 1950. Thanks! 14.231.202.51 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, in the early period after the official unification in 1976, Vietnam was still in a state of hostility towards the United States and the capitalist bloc. Initially, Vietnam had tensions with China and the Vietnamese army was bogged down in Cambodia until it withdrew in 1989 without being able to completely destroy the Khmer Rouge. In addition, in the early period, Vietnam's socio-economic situation was too difficult. I hope you will correct the last paragraph of the beginning of the article. This is my final request for the first part of the article. 14.231.202.51 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This and the other request are fine but the point of the lead section is to be short - this is why I removed the previous banner. Already there's as much on the last century as on the previous 2000 years. I think it's presentable for now. The priority is now the rest of the article, especially the modern part! So consider getting stuck in yourself - nobody will revert you if you proceed carefully and follow the rules. Rollo (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and support you, except that you have two minor errors in the first part of the article. Firstly, in the First Indochina War, before 1954, Ho Chi Minh's communist rebels never controlled the whole of the North, a small part including Hanoi was still under the control of the French and their native anti-communist allied government. Secondly, the war only officially ended and France lost the war with the Geneva Accords dividing the country in July 1954, before that France had not lost. The Battle of Dien Bien Phu was indeed a great defeat for France, but according to the article, in the modern part, France agreed that they would grant complete independence to Vietnam on April 28, 1954, so the Battle of Dien Bien Phu had no impact on the decision to grant Vietnam complete independence in June, it only had an impact on the Geneva Conference with the Geneva Accords that would divide Vietnam and France agreed to stop the war to withdraw troops from the North as the modern part of the article mentioned. 14.231.202.51 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's correct as an outline. Many governments do not control all of their territory. "Following defeat" is not equivalent to "due to defeat". The lead section is intended to be an easily understandable digest, not an exhaustive recapitulation. This is getting silly. Instead of passing orders to me, consider making the changes yourself if you think they'll stand - bearing in mind that the intro needs to be short and it's already at the limit. The Modern section is substandard, as you say - why not work on it? I've done enough here for now. Rollo (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, perhaps I will stop here. Before you gradually shorten the entire article while still maintaining the points, I urgently request you to add one piece of information in the modern part (only one), in the part of Vietnam War and division, that is: after the Geneva Accords when Vietnam was divided, the Viet Minh left roughly 5,000 to 10,000 cadres in the south as a base for future insurgency. Here is source:[1]: 104 14.231.202.51 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this IP address, this is a basic and very important information about the division of Vietnam and the Vietnam War that needs to be added. 27.3.67.16 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Then add it yourself - with the source reference. The instructions on how to do this are easily available. But put it in the main body of the article, not in the lead section, which is detailed and accurate enough already. Rollo (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing with me, but I think it's important now to gradually make the whole article shorter and easier to read while still keeping its points. 14.231.202.51 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, at the beginning of the article, you left extra space between paragraphs. And as I replied to you, before 1954 the Viet Minh rebels had areas of control in the North, Center, and South. Look at the map of Indochina in late 1950, the Viet Minh de facto controlled most of Vietnam.
Just one more time about this very important article here, in the beginning of the article you stating that the rival and communist state founded by Ho Chi Minh controlled the northern part of the country is ambiguous, it is true that after 1954 this state officially controlled North Vietnam, but before 1954 this state controlled practically most of the country even though at that time it was a rebel organization. 14.162.204.75 (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more request, we all know the Soviet Union was actually a Russian state, but you should still replace the word "Russia" with "Soviet Union" to be more specific. 14.162.204.75 (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
