Talk:South Vietnam/Archive 1

Hello, I am learning about Vietnam's elections, and I went to the source ^3. "In July 1955, Diệm announced in a broadcast that South Vietnam would not participate in the elections specified in the Geneva accords.[2] As Saigon's delegation did not sign the Geneva accords, it was not bound by it.[2] He also said the communist government in the North created conditions that made a fair election impossible in that region. This view was confirmed by independent observers from Canada, India, and Poland.[3]" Yet, when I went to read the source, it said that report said that "neither South or North had honored armistice agreement."(pg.8)It seems the the wikipedia is misleading on this subject. Can someone fact check this and fix it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.235.7.33 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the name of this article be renamed to "Republic of Vietnam". Problem is that the word "South" never appeared in the official name (i.e., it never officially referred to itself as "South Vietnam"), while the name of the successor government after the end of the war but prior to unification WAS "South Vietnam". 64.72.137.241 19:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this. This article should be "Republic of Vietnam," and a "South Vietnam" article should be created which is either a redirect to this article or a disambiguation page. 216.162.196.34 (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME Kauffner (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

...which clearly favors an alternative wherever the common name can be confused with something else. South Vietnam, the territory, was nominally governed by the RVN until Paris, and governed by the RVN and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (both having been given equal status) between Paris and the RVN's defeat in 1975. Tomblikebomb (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support changing the name of this page to Republic of Vietnam. In addition to 64.72.137.241's note that "South" was never used by RVN, the Geneva Conference of 1954 mandated elections throughout the whole of Viet Nam, to determine control of the whole of the country. Diem refused to hold elections, declared the formation of the RVN, and in fraudulent elections, himself the ruler. The RVN itself is thus lacking integrity as a state, but at least it doesn't lead to the conclusion that the separation of of North and South Vietnam was a bona fide partition. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Why "until Paris"? PRG was proclaimed in 1969 and received recognition from communist states at that time. As far as the situation on the ground goes, the communists lost control of their "liberated zones" after Tet, but regained some of this territory during the Easter Offensive ("Burning Summer") in 1972. The Paris Accord was renounced in January 1974, so its provisions wouldn't be relevant after that. Kauffner (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If I thought Wikipedia cared about the opinion of Communist states, I might have said 1969. 1969 would certainly be closer to the date the RVN lost public support(not that it ever had any). As to the renunciation, I don't see how that would downgrade the PRG's status. Presumably, the renunciation reflected a resumption of hostilities and not a loss of PRG control. As you correctly note, 1973 is years after one reasonable date. Given the significance of Paris, then, 1973 seems a perfect compromise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 20:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Perfect compromise"??? Some say the Earth is round, others flat, so let's compromise. You need mainstream historical references, not Chomsky. South Vietnam collapsed in 1975 -- I've never seen anyone else argue for some other year. Kauffner (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no question, this is a flat-Earth/round-Earth situation. I'm not so sure you know which side of the analogy you're on, though. A source as "mainstream" as the U.S. government, admitted repeatedly(which we know thanks to the Freedom of Information Act) that the RVN's control was basically limited to Saigon. That covers the de facto test. As for de jure, you yourself admit it was disputed as of '69. Paris is significant because there both the PRG's enemy and the PRG's enemy's proxy gave the PRG equal status, thus making 1973 quite UNLIKE the flat-Earth/round-Earth compromise. As the timetable you've taken dictatorial control of suggests, South Vietnam "collapsed" in 1976, which contradicts the RVN = South Vietnam equation and begs an obvious question: if your definitions confuse even you, what chance does the casual reader have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.150.79 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As a small step towards NPOV, I'm removing the 1975-1976 section of the opening timetable, as it contradicts the intended meaning of "South Vietnam". 71.125.150.79 (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you have yet to present a reference of any kind to support the idea the South Vietnam's history ended in 1973. Britannica doesn't have a "South Vietnam" article, but I checked their article on the Vietnam War. The "Republic of Vietnam" is given only on first reference. Otherwise, it's "South Vietnam" right up to 1975. Their article doesn't even mention PRG. RVN was only Saigon? The Vietcong attacked 100 towns at the beginning of Tet -- I don't think they were attacking towns they themselves already held. VC headquarters was in Cambodia at that time, which implies that no part of South Vietnam was a safe haven. Kauffner (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that no part of S. Vietnam was safe for the "Viet Cong"(by virtue of their membership in the human race). It's not terribly uncommon for a legitimate government to relocate; it's very much uncommon, however, to call any part of its territory the territory of another country on the basis of the latter's complicity in making such territory unsafe, with no consideration of capacity to govern. Even by the most conservative interpratation of your own words, as of 1972 the PRG had real control over parts of S. Vietnam and recognition by other nations as the legitimate authority. That, combined with the direct English translations of the two governments' names, and it's amazing Wikipedia's exception to the most-common-name-rule hasn't gone into effect. Britannica's space constraints make its notorious but relatively modest one-sidedness a bit more forgivable, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unintelligible rant. Gajabman (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Revision of 01:33, 16 February 2007 changed the statement that Cochin China "elected" a deputy to the French National Assembly to saying that they "killed" a deputy. This is vandalism, yes?

This is more a Q than an outright edit. I read the commentary regarding the use of the correct characters for people's names and was wondering why the same is not done for the country's name. We have Việt Nam as the name of the country in the heading of the article, but then we see Vietnam in all the text. Why not Viet Nam? JoeSchmuckatelli 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• If I remember correctly, there was a pretty lengthy discussion of this in the Vietnam talk page, and (most) agreed to use the common variant of Vietnam--66.16.19.198 00:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the last dated comments regarding the merged/conquered controversy are from 2003, I'm assuming that this has been settled, and so I am removing the NPOV tag from the article for now. It can be restored if further controversy arises. -- Jonadab, 2006 Jan 19.

Vicki, thanks for restoring South Vietnam to stub status from redirect. Many U.S. veterans who think they fought for a good cause there will appreciate having an article. Of course, the Vietnam article should still exist. The situation is perhaps similar to the West Germany and East Germany articles vs. the Germany article. Ed Poor, Thursday, June 27, 2002

Ed, about "merged" vs "conquered": The sentence now doesn't read very well; "it was conquered by ... to form"??? "merged with ... to form" makes better grammatical sense, and we should use a word that reflects this. That a conquest was involved is already stated in the first part of the sentence anyway; this part of the sentence describes the neutral fact that the countries were combined. So we should find a term that doesn't imply consent but fits in with the sentence. I claim that "merged with" is exactly the term that we need. It's a neutral term, because mergers are not necessarily voluntary. This was what in the business world is called a "hostile takeover", which is more neutrally referred to as a "merger" in that context too. If you disagree that "merged with" is neutral, claiming that it implies consent, then can you suggest another term to use instead? As it is, it doesn't read well at all, IMO. — Toby 20:03 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

"merged with"... is neutral but "conquered"... is biased to one side

Actually, NPOV isn't my concern; I'm convinced that "conquered" is a reasonable factual word to use. The sentiment is already expressed in the phrase "the fall of Saigon", and I wouldn't even object to rephrasing that to be more explicit. When I say that "merged" is neutral, I don't mean that it's unbiased but instead that it simply doesn't say whether the merger was voluntary or not. If that point were under contention, then we'd have to use a neutral word to remain NPOV. To my knowledge, however, that point is not under contention; even those who find the government of South Vietnam illegitimate would concede that it was conquered by the other government. So I say "neutral" not to argue that we must use that word but rather that we can without being factually incorrect (since the fact of the matter is that it was not voluntary, as Ed is correct to imply). The reason that we must (or rather, should) use "merged" is simply the way that it fits into the sentence. If the fact of conquest were not expressed at all, then I would agree that it should be added (albeit in a way that reads well), but that fact is already mentioned. — Toby 21:23 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

Merged vs. Conquered.

South Vietnam was conquered by North Vietnam in 1975. vs, South Vietnam and North Vietnam merged in 1976.

While both may factually correct, the nuance of the second is that it was voluntary, and the first more accurately reflects that the South lost the war to the North.

I vote conquered.

See also Saigon for similar problem.

DavidLevinson dml

I vote merged. The South Vietnamese government was certainly conquered. But they were to a large part defeated by South Vietnamese guerillas. But then again, look at my nick. -- GayCom

My argument against "conquered" is now where it should be (I forgot to move the talk page). But I agree that Saigon has a problem. As I mention above, that the merger was the result of a conquest is already mentioned here, and on North Vietnam. (It's even clearer now, thanks to a wise anonymous poster.) But it's not mentioned on Saigon, and that's an omission. — Toby 00:48 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)

Ed, I think that this new version is better than the old in several ways. — Toby 16:32 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)

Re:

The communist Republic of South Vietnam which had been established in 1969 ...

I think the phrase "had been established in 1969" ought to go in the Republic of South Vietnam article, rather than here. I will research and try to find out:

• when the Republic of South Vietnam got its start
• what happened between its start in 1969 (?) and its assumption of power in 1975.

--Ed Poor

Well to be accurate it was the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PRG) (established in '69) of the NLF that was the official government of South Vietnam between the fall of Saigon and formal reunification in July '76.

A picture of the flag of South Vietnam should be added to the article. Den fjättrade ankan 01:11, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"but many others claim that it was genuine democracy" Muhahaha. At least that statement is not claimed to be a fact.

Can someone change that location map so only South Vietnam is coloured in like the map at West Germany PMA 18:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. -- Vardion 18:45, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the currency was the "dong", but this might be American soldier's slang.

Sorry, your indication is correct. Please wait for edit.

The currency IS đồng, as clearly shown here. When the region was under French rule, the currency was called the piastre, which was translated into Vietnamese as đồng (see here). But South Vietnamese currency has no French writing in them, so they should no longer be called by their French name (else we'd be calling the current Vietnamese currency the piastre as well). DHN 11:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but it might be worth noting that there was a brief time (I think) before the piastre was phased out and the new đồng was introduced. I've noted this in the article — I hope it conveys what I mean, but feel free to rephrase it if it makes things unclear. -- Vardion 11:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An anon (68.101.223.149) apparently clicked on the red link for Bui Van Mau and typed "Vu Van Mau instead of BUI Van Mau." I've speedily deleted that, but thought I would mention it here. It seemed he was trying to let us know we had the name wrong. Google returns three (WP) hits for "Bui Van Mau" and none for "Van Van Mau." Anyone? SWAdair | Talk 06:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the anon is correct, and "Vu Van Mau" is the proper name. See, for example, here and here. Our own Leaders of Republic of Vietnam article says the same thing. I'll change the article accordingly. -- Vardion 07:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that every record of history has a certain amount of bias, but doesn't this article lean too far towards justifying American intervention in Vietnam? The historical record is pretty clear in showing the justification for stopping "murderous" communism to be largely irrational and McCarthyist. Although there were murders under Stalin's rule, it is unreasonable to put such a biased and charged statement in an encyclopedia. I don't want to insult somebody by changing their work willy nilly, but I think someone should revise the opening paragraph of this article since it definitely justifies American intervention rather than simply stating the facts. ~Andy

I agree, the first paragraph has some severe NPOV issues. I'm going to slap a {{POV-section}} on it. It's also pretty garbled in how it talks about Ho Chi Minh - I don't know reading the article who he is, whether he's a North Vietnamese figure or a Southern one, and it's hard to figure out what the whole "election" thing is about. Yelyos 15:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I see people changing his middle name ad naseum. Đ, eth, and D are two distinct letters in Vietnamese with two totally different sounds. Are we going to treat eth as just a diacritical D? I vote for Đinh. Any comments?--hvn73 16:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please note that eth (Ð, ð) is distinctly different from the Vietnamese letter đ (Đ, d) in the internal representation (eth: U+00D0, U+00F0, đ: U+0110, U+0111). Please DO NOT use eth in place of đ. See D with stroke. Furthermore, it should be all or nothing; it doesn't make sense to just show some of the diacritics while ignoring the others. They're all essential. DHN 04:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the parts relating to contemporary Vietnamese culture should be moved to the Culture of Vietnam article, as this section should strictly be concerned with culture in South Vietnam prior to 1975. Viking880 05:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Edited out the caution that was at the bottom of information box. Utterly useless to tell people that the informaion is about an Anti-Communist regime.

I have reinstated some of the changes I made last week.

Firstly, it is illogical to say that South Vietnam came into existence in 1954 and then delete references to the State of Vietnam in the preview.

Any claims of South Vietnam to be the government of all of Vietnam were spurious, and to all intents and purposes, irrelevant to this article.

The P.R.G. did not "claim to be as such"; they were.

While an interesting fact, I am not sure how important the movement of Catholics from the North to the South is - it seems like a bit of an orphan factoid in the middle of that particuar section, but I left it in for others to decide.

It is incorrect to say that ARVN drove the North Vietnamese out of South Vietnam in a counter-attack in 1972.

I also tidied up some pretty loose language within the body text, and re-deleted the caution at the bottom of the information box: totally pointless.

Cripipper 22:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

To make in short and simple, in september 2nd 1945 came the Democratic Republic of Vietnam with ensuing French-Vietnamese War (1945-1954) turned to civil War by France with the creation of State of Vietnam (Quoc Gia Viet Nam) when the French called back Empereur Bao Dai self exiled in Hong Kong to lead this State in 1948.

At the time of Geneva Conference, Bao Dai callef back Ngo Dinh Diem from the US to be his Prime Minister. Diem threw Bao Dai in a coup and made the Republic of Vietnam. One Vietnam since 1945 has been temporary divided to group the armed forces for full evacuation of the French Expeditionnary Force from Vietnam in 1955.

After Unconditionnal Surrender of April 30th 1975 started the process of reunification and both RVN and DRVN went out os stage to make a single Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

Takima 00:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have searched extensively, but have never come across anything that qualifies as a declaration of independence/statehood by the political entity of South Vietnam. I'm not aware of any admission to the UN or even application thereto, any recognition by foreign governments, including the USA or in short, any pretense of a formal independent state in the southern part of the country post-1954. Can anyone supply this? Asgrrr 05:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NO, because both Hanoi and Saigon claimed to be the legitimate capitals of the entire nation of Vietnam. That is why Saigon's complaints about 'foreign' troops/aggression from the D.R.V. were slightly disingenuous, given that Saigon claimed to be the legitimate government of what was North Vietnam. Cripipper 14:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanoi recognized the South as independent and accepted the Geneva Accords that divided the country. Saigon rejected the accords. This is why the communists placed so much stress on the claim that the Vietcong were indigenous the South. In 1969, the Vietcong changed their offical name to "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam." At the same time, communist nations recognized the Vietcong as the legitimate government in the South.Kauffner (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the "Declarative theory of statehood" here ^[1] and the definition of "What is a country, and how is a country defined?" here ^[2] then South Vietnam or Republic of Vietnam is a country. It (RVN) has a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and capacity to enter into relations with the other states (by established diplomatic relation with other nation such as Saudi Arabia, USA, France and other nations - mutual establishment of Embassy and Ambassador; and by signing the "Paris Peace Accords" January 27, 1972, which lead to the "International Conference On Vietnam" ^[3] (page 2647-2648) from February 26 to March 02 of 1973).--71.131.7.247 (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"The government preferred more chaos and loss of life in what amounted to battles which no longer had any meaning."

This isn't a fact! It is an opinion. Alot of this article looks like an essay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.216.244.127 (talk • contribs) .

one of the authors of this article (i don't care which author) suggests that catholics fled the north in what was perceived "communist persecution" now that that is all well and fine if it is consistent but with the parenthesis it is suggesting that persecution of catholics in the North is a propaganda or a myth which indicates a non NPOV. since rvn presidents persecution of anti-communists or anyone else are not parenthesized i have removed the previous parentheses for consistency and NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.79.70 (talk • contribs) .

I have edited the time zone of the South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam) during 1955-1975. They use the time zone UTC+8, not UTC+7. During those times, North Vietnam used UTC+7 but South Vietnam used UTC+8.

In 1965 was a bombing in a civilian area classed as a terrorist act in this conflict? Cause I havn't heard of it especially from sources close to the time period. Enlil Ninlil 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The Economy section discusses causality repeatedly with what would be called a right-wing bias if such discussion were consistently scrutinized. There's therefore no reason why the Economy section shouldn't mention the long-term affects of deliberate ecocide on an agricultural nation. Ecocide is an often overlooked part of the war. Without its mention, one might get the intended impression that non-capitalist economies are inherently flawed or that U.S. involvement was less criminal than it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomblikebomb (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "ecocide" is a neologism and blatantly POV. If the U.S. military was responsible for the production problems, surely the decline would occurred during war. But this section refers to things that happened long after the war over. Kauffner (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the article called South vietnam and covers the history from 1950 whilst the leadership section only covers the period of the republic of south vietnam?[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)]]

The problem is that the article is conflicted as to what start date should be used. I would suggest defining "South Vietnam" as the State of Vietnam (1949-55) plus the Republic of Vietnam (1955-75) and thus a start date of 1949. This seems to be the way most historians use the phrase. The term South Vietnam relates to the communist vs non-communist issue whereas the name change from SVN to RVN relates to rivalry between Bao Dai and Diem over the issue of monarchy. Conflating South Vietnam with RVN confuses these two issues. Kauffner (talk) 05:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As such the leadership section should be renamed to "leaders of South Vietnam" the list removed and the link to the page retained. Is I read your sugestion correclty[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)]]

Is there any particular reason that this article offers a link to a Dutch footballer at the top? --85.81.86.44 (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Doesn't this deserve to be addressed much more extensively? No details are provided at all, and both are only mentioned as part of lists. 68.200.70.196 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement that television was introduced in South Vietnam in 1999 is really dubious, as it's more than 20 years after the dissolution of South Vietnam. If typo, please fix. If it's about some government-in-exile television station, please state so. There is no reference for that claim, as well. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 15:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this biased? Following this logic should Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, and other former enemy countries also be considered American client states?--24.171.6.27 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the citation from Wiest. It attributes the "client state" view to the communists, so I don't think we should interpret the claim as factual. A throwaway line buried deep inside a book about the Vietnam War isn't much of a source anyway. You need a source more like this, where the issue of client states is examined in some detail. Even if it was properly sourced, the infobox is not the right place for this sort of opinionated claim since these boxes are written in a very specific style. Kauffner (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I would stick with the "stable" version unless there is consensus to change it. --Mollskman (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the change considering how far the US took the war in Vietnam. M D Potter. Any comments? 21:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

South Vietnam was hardly a client state of the U.S. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

But at the same time other states are labelled as "satellite states" of the USSR, and thats not biased? Come on, stop that ideological sectarianism... Unless not any state infobox contain that denominations (client state, puppet state, satellite state, etc...) and that definition is well-sourced, it must be leaved like that, as WP is all about sourced relevant content, not personal views or opinions...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Here, I've been asked to intervene and page-protect the article. I haven't [yet?] done that. The concern, as I understand it, is over a content dispute between editors over the infobox presentation of the status of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War as a Sovereign state, said to be the original longstanding text, vs. a Client state of the United States. A look at the article's edit history suggests that a WP:edit war may be developing over this issue. If an edit war does develop, I'll consider temporarily protecting the page and participants in the edit war can expect to be warned and possibly blocked by me or by others. I urge editors engaged in this dispute to avoid edit warring and instead to work through the issue using the WP:BRD technique to arrive at a consensus on this issue by discussion on this talk page.

I observe that the Sovereign State is said by WP to be "a nonphysical juridical entity of the international legal system that is represented by a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area." I observe that a Client state is said by WP to be "a state that is economically, politically or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs." It looks to me as if the choice between these characterizations would turn on the question of whether South Vietnam can be shown to have been economically, politically or militarily subordinate in international affairs to the United States during the Vietnam War period and/or whether reliable sources characterizing South Vietnam as a U.S. client state can be cited. On that second point, I see [1][2][3][4][5][6], and I hit other similar sources while googling. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(added) Hmmmm... It strikes me that |status_text= might be used in the infobox, with content something like

1955–1963 Sovereign state

1963–1973 Client state of the United States

1973–1975 Client state of the United States

post-1975 Incorporated into the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

Also, it seems to me that the subsections of the History section should provide some clarification -- particularly the Relationship with the United States subsection.

Also, I see that |status=Client state is allowed/supported in {{infobox former country}} but |status=Sovereign state is not. I don't see how these complexities of the situation re South Vietnam status can fit with that template's categorization scheme. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can't have Sovereign sate you should just have republic or what ever comparable description is befitting. Client state is far too disputed for inclusion. Accusation of being a client state etc can be in passing mentioned in the relevant section. Regards. Stumink (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What I am simply saying, and anyone not close-minded would see it, is that we cannot remove the sourced "client state" from here and maintain the "satellite state" in, for example, South Yemen. That would clearly show a bias towards US client states in comparison with USSR satellite states, that means, a breach of NPOV policy. If the client state status is disputed, satellite state status is disputed too, it only depends on what book you read and what author/expert writes it. Finally, all the content I had added here is most and better sourced than in the majority of similar cases. (See South Yemen, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, etc...)--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

See also #RVN Status Proposal below.

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of the claimed continuation of the government of the Republic of Vietnam by the Government of Free Vietnam, who consider themselves a Government in exile?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The article syys South Vietnam was formed in 1954 but North Vietnam is stated to begin in 1945. So why aren't they reconised as seperate states from the same date? --120.151.106.44 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The names "South Vietnam" and "North Vietnam" came into use at the time of the Geneva Conference in 1954. But both entities existed earlier. There was a division between the "Bao Dai government"/"State of Vietnam"/"Empire of Vietnam" and the "Viet Minh"/"Democratic Republic of Vietnam" going back to 1945. Kauffner (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a link to the text of the South Vietnamese constitution in English?

The 1960s era constitution, I mean. Josh (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, only have the 1956 one from Pres. Diem Nguyen1310 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

See also #"Client state of the United States" above.

I approve of Wtmitchell`s proposed change to South Vietnam`s status. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

fixed here. (concerned another matter -- placed here by mistake. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID hasn't yet commented on this. I'm guessing that he would agree, but I now see a couple of problems with what I proposed above.

The first problem is that the status of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam, which existed from 1975 to 1976 has not been discussed in re |status= in the infobox. It seems to me that this government was a Vassal state (or perhaps a Puppet state) of the government of North Vietnam (the Democratic Republic of Vietnam). This article (which is named "South Vietnam", remember) says that the successor to the multi-charactered RVN government was the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (notice: "South Vietnam"). I'll get back to this after covering the second problem.

The second problem is a WP-technical one. It appears that the designers of {{Infobox former country}} presumed that it would be used on articles where the topic was a country with a less complicated history than South Vietnam -- articles with a topic covering a single political entity. The topic of this article is the government of a geographic locus during a timespan wherein it was governed by

• 1955–1963 the RVN government as a Sovereign state
• 1963–1973 the RVN government as a Client state of the United States
• 1973–1975 the RVN government as a Client state of the United States
• 1975-1976 the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam (perhaps and, if so, probably as a Vassal or Puppet state of North Vietnam)

It seems to me that the PRG-of-the-RSV was as much of a government of an entity known as South Vietnam as the pre-coup Diem government was. One way (option 1) to handle that would be to add a short section on the PRG-of-the-RSV to this article, with a {{main}} link to the separate WP:SS article about that government. Another way (option 2) to handle this would be to fork off the pre-coup Diem government into a separate article describing a predecessor-government to the one covered by this article. Either way would involve corresponding changes in the {{succession}} parameters.

(added inline) I've had another thought re option 1. If government over the geographic locus of South Vietnam is the topic of this article, this article should also include a short section on the Bảo Đại government over South Vietnam installed by State of Vietnam referendum, 1955 with a {{main}} template linking that WP:SS article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Option 2 would simplify the complications with {{infobox former country}}, but I favor option 1. The infobox coding uses the |empire= parameter along with (one of) Client/Puppet/Vassal (or supported synonyms) to categorize the article, placing it into Category:Former country articles requiring maintenance if it has problems. Rather than try to adapt the infobox to handle the complications here, I think it would be better to add special-case coding to {{infobox former country}} to avoid placing this article into the "requiring maintenance" category and to do the categorization (if there is any categorization to be done) here.

Whew!!!

Can we agree on option 1? If so, I'll bring this up at Template talk:infobox former country. If not, then what? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I think your current edit version is good as it is and there's no need for a change, so let's stick with option 1. The Vietnamese wikipedia article for South Vietnam (Viet Nam Cong hoa), has absolutely no status listed in the infobox, and doesn't address it as sovereign state/republic/client state, so by adding the description in footnote A is more than enough for the Viet wiki article standards.

The inclusion of a status should still be rejected, reason being is that this status is highly disputed and inconsistent, and also highly politicized, with communists and their sympathizers, anti-war supporters are usually the ones labelling RVN as client state, (as they are pro-North), and anti-communists calling RVN sovereign and independent. Now consider the Kingdom of Bhutan, which is reliant on Indian military assistance and fully dependent on the Indian Air Force for their aerial defense. As well, India controlled Bhutan's foreign affairs, military defense, and communications systems from the 50s to the 1990s, as well as being the biggest trading partner with Bhutan even until today. Bhutan still has very close and strong political, economic and military relationship with India. Bhutan, however, has always conducted it's own domestic, and now foreign, affairs independently, and has always been considered sovereign and independent. Now consider the RVN, which was quite dependent on foreign military aid - the US, and the US was RVN's largest business and trading partner, but RVN maintained their own communications system, domestic political, economic and foreign affairs (albeit with some US influence on foreign affairs), but some claim RVN to be a "client state", or by socialists as a "puppet state", so does this mean other sovereign countries like Bhutan, must also be called "a client state of India", or "puppet kingdom of India"?? Just to clarify, the "PRG" is just a puppet transitional "government" under actual direct control of Ha Noi, so the "PRG" is not a government of the Republic of Vietnam, with the last real government of the South fell 04/30/1975, and the country fell that same day. So, whatever happened 05/01/1975 onwards is not part of RVN. I am Vietnamese and i know exactly what i'm talking about. Nguyen1310 (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "anti-war supporters are usually the ones labelling RVN as client state, (as they are pro-North), and anti-communists calling RVN sovereign and independent.", see WP:DUE in WP:NPOV.

If this were an article more in my focus area, I would be arguing strenuously that an article named South Vietnam ought to include sections on all of the governments of South Vietnam, rather than focusing on one of them and only giving the others a passing mention, if that. That, however, is best left up to a consensus of regular editors of tthe article -- which I am not.

I've edited the article re this. As I've done it, the infobox will place the article in (only) Former republics. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Re "with communists and their sympathizers, anti-war supporters are usually the ones labelling RVN as client state, (as they are pro-North), and anti-communists calling RVN sovereign and independent" - just to explain a little more, this is gathered from various books and articles i've read in the past, written by North Vietnamese, former South Vietnamese, and American authors. Again, the inclusion of a status should still be omitted, reason being is that this status is highly disputed and inconsistent, and also highly politicized, even the 1954-1963 period is disputed in academic circles (not to me though). Nguyen1310 (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I repeat again, my major point is that we have to made a common position for this type of issues, what is not acceptable is to avoid the client state status here but put the satellite state status on DDR, for example. That would be a clear example of POV-pushing and lack of neutrality.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone explain the reason for the inclusion of French and Chinese names for this former country, as well as the Chữ Nôm transliteration? Vietnamese was the only official language during the entire existence of this entity. Although Chinese was used by the fairly large population of Hoa people and French favored by the elites, both of them had no legal recognition. More importantly, the use of Chữ Nôm here is redundant as it has never been widely used by the vietnamese people themselves, let alone in official discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.185.22.79 (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we use the official name of Republic of VietnamAnhhunghanquoc (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:COMMONNAME and stop making these changes. Mztourist (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Radio Vietnam (Tiếng nói nước Việt Nam) from Saigon, Republic of Vietnam (VNCH) circa 1974.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Duong Van Minh In Saigon, 1975.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@User:Mztourist. OK, now that I put this matter in the talk page. What reason is that you are reverting my edit? Twainkinky (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

the changes that you are making are not supported by consensus and are unnecessary, what is written there is fine as it stands without your changes.Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Mztourist. Fisrtly, there hasn't been any consensus made that is about my edit.

Secondly, it isn't fine and it is nececessary to change the lead aka make it shorter while modifying some phrase to be more encyclopedic and professional. I stated the reasons for curtailing some content in the lead. It is that the lead writes too much detail in some area, including stuff about the Vietnam War....Well, this article is about a state, not a war right? A long lead unproportional to the article's length is not good, also. It harden the readers ability to comprehend the content.Twainkinky (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the wording has been stable until you made these recent changes, you need to establish a new consensus. Your changes are not an improvement and do not make it easier for readers to understand. The state and the war were intimately bound together.Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Mztourist. Oh really? May you point me out to where that particular consensus about that is? I see none in this talk page. There is not even a discussion about the lead.

"Not an improvement" and "not easier to understand". Yeah, it's your opinion. You are the only one not in consent with my edits, up to now. Can you tell me exactly how and why is it not an improvement?

"The state and the war is bound together". So what about the economy, the politics, geography, culture, demographics, education.... Are they not bounded with the state? Would you mind put all of those other information into the lead, also?

Furthermore, I don't aim to "improve" anything. I just want to remake the lead into Wikipedia basic standards. The lead shown imcomprehensive point of view (wrote too much about the war and history, too little about other aspects) and is too long for a not so big article below. You might read the State of Vietnam's lead. Its lead is short, while this one is too long, and most writing is about the Vietnam War, not the country itself. Don't you see the garbage?Twainkinky (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

You need to read WP:CONSENSUS, I don't need to explain it to you. Also your English isn't good enough to determine if or how the lead should be rewritten. Mztourist (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to explain consensus, mate. I have read it and understand what is it. Now, I'm trying to reach a consensus with you via debating and discussing. However, it seems you are not so interested in revoking my arguments above? Writing two lines and critiquing English skills, that's that? Fine then, where is my English not good at exactly? In the edits or in this talk page? You need to talk with evidences and not just writing some little judgement, mate. Twainkinky (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

"You need to talk with evidences" says it all. I am trying to figure out who you edited as previously. Based on your edit history I am guessing User:Trung tá Moore and User:Albertpda Mztourist (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@User:Mztourist. Seriously? So now what an initial discussion has turned into? Even looked at my edit history, for what? What is your motive?

What are you talking about, User:Trung tá Moore and User:Albertpda ?? What do those users have to do? Speak vaguely does not make you smarter. ""You need to talk with evidences" says it all" It says what? Get to the point and make it clear. Jesus christ.Twainkinky (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Twainkinky was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Albertpda on 3 March 2020. Mztourist (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh, Mztourist, why would you not agree with the changes. I think that the lead is too long, un-proportional to the article's length overall.MrSimpleNg (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I addressed these issues immediately above when User:Twainkinky a sockpuppet of User:Albertpda made similar changes. Its amazing how a new user like you comes straight to this page to make similar changes. Mztourist (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I found it weird, too, not quite knowing the same discussion occurring above. Well... what is BDR anywayMrSimpleNg (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD. I have opened a sockpuppet investigation concerning you here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Albertpda. Mztourist (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

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

• Radio Vietnam (Tiếng nói nước Việt Nam) from Saigon, Republic of Vietnam (VNCH) circa 1967.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I am aware that there are no countries on Earth (except the two Chinese government PRC and ROC) that recognized the Paracel Islands being part of the Chinese territories except China-mainland and Taiwan. As the island was occupied by PRC in 1974, however, I think that we should not include the "Chinese" Paracel Islands as South Vietnam's successor here.

Again, even though I have to admit that I am Vietnamese, I believe that my message is completely neutral as no non-engaged country nor any neutral international organization recognized this as a legal part of both Chinese and Vietnamese territories. --Bdhuyvn (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Bdhuyvn

China has controlled the islands since seizing them in 1974, whether that is recognised by other countries or not isn't really relevant, those are the facts on the ground.Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Colloquially Việt Nam at this time was referred to as Nam Việt, while North Vietnam was referred to as Bắc Việt, perhaps the intro should be changed from:

South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam (RVN; Vietnamese: Việt Nam Cộng Hòa; French: République du Viêt Nam), was a country that existed from 1955 to 1975.

To:

South Vietnam, officially the Republic of Vietnam (RVN; Vietnamese: Việt Nam Cộng Hòa; French: République du Viêt Nam), colloquially known as Nam Việt, was a country that existed from 1955 to 1975.

Note that this name is also still used in Chinese today (南越, Naam Jyut). --Donald Trung (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some valuable resources that including more military insignia if you want:

• http://truclamyentu.info/the-environmental-activist/quan-su-viet-nam_huy-hieu-quan-luc-viet-nam-cong-hoa.html
• https://nhayduwdc.org/st/hhqlvnch/ndwdc_st_hhqlvnch_2011JUL16.htm
• http://anloc471.com/LogoQLVNCH/LOGO_QLVNCH.htm
• https://anhxua.net/album/hinh-anh-phu-hieu-quan-luc-vn-cong-hoa_432.html

--Great Brightstar (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This image clearly shows them as blue, I'm not sure if I have ever seen any contemporary claims that they were green. But if anyone else might know where to find more images that would be great. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Bumbubookworm: in this edit you noted how the section added by user "Laska666" was "undue" weight, but despite their many year insurgency FULRO isn't mentioned anywhere (else) in this article. The FULRO insurgency lasted between the years 1964–1992 and was actually centra to the Cham people and other "Montagnards" ("The Mountain people" in French), so how is this "undue weight", perhaps this shouldn't be under the header "demographics" but something else, but it's not irrelevant nor does it seem to exaggerate the fact that there was a struggle, it is simply not worded neutrally enough. The latter issue was fixed just before you removed everything. I don't think that we should jump to calling any discussion of racism in history as lending the topic "undue" weight as I've noticed a trend that whenever racism is mentioned somewhere in Vietnamese history you remove it like at the "First Indochina War" article, if actual history scholars discuss it and they see it as significant then I don't think that it's "undue" to mention it.

As for user "Laska666", I've actually been one to call out their manipulative tactics when writing Vietnamese history but lately with Champa and Cham people history their record is a lot less bad, sure they are still a POV-pusher, but they do it a lot less so with minority history as they do with "Kinh history" with their largest complaint seeing that discussions about ethnic minorities and their histories being completely left out when discussing the rest of Vietnamese history, this is one way how user "Laska666" is correct and it's why I'm honestly sad to see them go, that aside they're not banned from Wikipedia, they can participate in this discussion as they haven't been banned from any talk pages and can theoretically explain why they made the choices they did here on this discussion page. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)