# Talk:Politics of Vietnam

Hi! It seems to me that the first phrase "a single-party socialist republic, a seeming contradiction in terms." is a bit POV.
Let people decide for themselves whether it SEEMS a contradiction or not.
Vietnam are STALINIST. Socialism is democratic, and a Socialistik state would never kill and assault its own citizens, or anyone else for that matter! Socialism is great, the best thing for the world, but Stalinism destroyes the face of socialism all over the world. People hunt us communists, for bringing socialism, because they belive a socialist state to be dictatoral. The only TRUE socialist/communist states yet, are currently Cuba, and Venzuela. The Sovjet union was to, until stalin.
A concerned communist, Emil Petersen. (Emilpetersen@hotmail.com), og the Danish communist party.

The government section of the "Outline of Vietnam" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process.  Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Politics of Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Oakley77 (talk · contribs) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


### Review
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:  (Quality is very good.)

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  (Everything is perfect in this section.)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:  (All the sources come from 3 different websites but still provide reliable info.)

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  (Every paragraph has at least one source/reference.)

C. No original research:  (No original research found.)

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:  (Covers all the details prior, during, and after the matches.)

B. Focused:  (Always stays on topic about the PPV.)

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:  (No bias found.)

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:  (Took a look at the article history and everything seems to be fine.)

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  (All the images are properly sourced and copyrighted. Non-free images have fair use rationales.)

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  (Captions and pictures are good)

Overall:
Pass or Fail:  Very good article and I am also very impressed...PASS!!!--Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that contributions to this review are greatly encouraged!Oakley77 (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
also this is a bit confusing for me could you simplify it down a bit. sincerely lisa  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.3.108 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC) 

Any particular reason why the name of #19 Đinh La Thăng is stricken off under Politics of Vietnam#Central Committee. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It is rather telling that the article, nor any of the articles linked to it, have any mentioned criticism, recent reporting, competing viewpoints, or much mention of its violent recent past. The article reads remarkably like a very pro-Vietnam (and by extension, pro-Socialist) individual or set of individuals went through and wrote the most positive article they could without overt falsehood. That is, in fact, a strong form of bias. A more honest article would mention and address criticisms of their Communist histories. This is a whitewash.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.twelve (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC) 

If anything, the current article arguably has an anti-communist/anti-Vietnam bias. Take, for instance the first sentence
"The politics of Vietnam is dominated by a single party under an authoritarian system, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV)"
It is fair to think that single-party systems are authoritarian, but that conclusion is a subjective opinion and should be left to the reader.
Furthermore, there is this whole paragraph:
"The Vietnamese political system is authoritarian, with the freedom of assembly, association, expression, press and religion as well as civil society activism being tightly restricted. There are no freely elected national leaders, political opposition is suppressed, all religious activity is controlled by the CPV, and dissent is not permitted and civil rights are curtailed. Elections in Vietnam occur under a single-party authoritarian political system. Vietnam is among the few contemporary party-led dictatorships to not hold any direct multiparty elections at the national level. The competitive nature of the elections is highly constrained by the Communist Party's monopoly on power in Vietnam, limitations on free speech, and government interference with the elections."
While this paragraph does contain some objective fact, most of its content is very vague and subjective. "Activism is restricted"(how?) "There are no freely elected national leaders"(free in what sense?) "dissent is not permitted"(how so?) "civil rights are curtailed" and so on. It is also rather telling that the sources for this paragraph are Freedom House (funded by the US state department) and the state department itself. Hardly unbiased sources when it comes to geopolitics. There's no need for censorship, it is perfectly fair to include criticisms of the country and its politics, it's even fine to cite the US state department. However, this paragraph should be presented as a subjective criticism rather than an introduction to the article which is supposed to be fairly objective. 154.5.183.87 (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Emblem of Vietnam.svg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Võ văn thưởng.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I am unaware of what this sentence means: "However, the president has the right to decide on executive brands." It is in the introduction section. If someone understands the meaning, maybe it should be clarified for someone like myself. The sentence is in a section related to the President's control of the military. Boone888 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)