Talk:Land reform in North Vietnam

message: Why is "The" in the title? Badagnani 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This article badly needs to be reworked for compliance with Wikipedia's core policy on the neutral point of view.  As it stands now it is full of controversial interpretation and opinion, and was clearly written in order to advance a particular view of the history it describes.  -- Rbellin|Talk 19:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I don't understand the "dabconcept" note in the head of the article. Can you please explain in other words? --Erel Segal (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  dabconcept what? 

message: Original read 172,000 "executed" without providing a page number. Digging around, I tracked down multiple Vietnamese discussions of the source. It is crystal clear that the source talks about CLASSIFICATION, NOT EXECUTION! All we need now is a page number for these figures from 'The History of the Vietnamese Economy (2005)'. If anyone has access to the book please add a page number.
I just want to mention that this is an example for an absolutely outrageous error that would not have occurred had the NPOV policy been followed throughout the article. Sadly it is reflective of wikipedia's standards on lesser know Communist regimes, where quality scholarship is not easily available. Moral of the story: think twice, and check your sources before typing!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.180.196 (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Changed "Official Sources"

message: The Reader's Digest piece cites no sources relevant to this page. Furthermore, it is heavily propagandistic in tone and published in the American mass media at the height of the war. Naturally the article does not discuss the human rights violations by the US and its allies. Due to the availability of scholarly sources, I see no reason to cite Reader's Digest. One might as well cite Russia Today to get  "the real facts" about Ukraine. This is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's policy on sources. Let's discuss this, please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.16.154 (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Readers Digest Article

message: removing the few citation needed, page number needed, dubious source tags. Who needs scholarship when youre writing a propaganda puff piece, masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Also who cares than Dang Phong's book never stated that 170,000 were executed, only that they were classified as landlords. Just make sure to nobody corrects the glaring error and you have your "communist bloodbath" wrapped up and ready for public consumption. This is where wikipedia breaks down entirely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:190:4000:8100:981F:5E3D:DD86:16C3 (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: good job

message: Sigh. Do we have to go through all this to delete an unsourced claim? To put it in meme-speak: 'One does not simply claim that 172,008 people were executed'.  To so by misrepresenting the source ( Economic History of Vietnam, edited by Dang Phong) is to lose credibility for all eternity. I will delete all mentions of this canard and move them to the talk page for future reference. 
So just how ridiculous is this claim?
—
We are to take it on faith that (a) Dang Phong's book contains this claim and  (b) Dang Phong's book endorses this claim as correct. Whoever injected this story into the article did not provide a page number, and it seems like its more than an "oops, i forgot'. It is very likely that the story is simply gleaned from the numerous websites run by Vietnamese exiles, all of which simply repeat the claim without proving that it can be sourced to Dang Phong's book. It is difficult to get a hold of Dang Phong's book and the claim is discussed in exactly 0 scholarly journal published in english. So at the moment the "official 172,008 executions" can only be attributed to some anti-communist bloggers. 
 
Now let's back up and think about what the claim means. It means that:
(a) the number of executions is much higher than most previous scholarly estimates as well as the cold war estimates of the CIA and the South Vitnamese government, which were responsible for playing up the bloodbath story in the first place. 
(b) the Vietnamese government has freely admitted to being little better than Pol Pot. 172,000 out 14,000,000 = 1.2% executed. This is one of the highest internal execution rates in all of human history. Much higher than Stalin's Great Purge and about 10 times higher than the Chinese land Reform.
 
So this is a claim that strains rational belief and threfore requires exceptionally stong evidence. No such evidence has been provided, but this is apparently no problem for the ever credulous wikipedians.
—
Now lets take the look at some of the anti-communist websites that make the claim.
[A] Here is the only  the only english article i could find that actually discusses how it arrives at the claim. Read this very carefully:
"The government of the SRV [Socialist Republic of Vietnam], however, does not provide the complete statistical information, including the actual number of executions, and it is likely that this number will never be known accurately. Nevertheless, the government of the SRV provides statistics regarding the landowners and the classification. According to data provided by the government of the SRV, the total number of landowners was 172,008 of which 123,266 were wrongly treated (“bị oan”) (Đặng 2005, 85). Although the government of the SRV never states whether the number 172,008 represents the total number of landowners or the total number of executed landowners, it is clear that the number 172,008 is the total number of executed landowners. This is because the total number of landowners was much higher than 172,008 based on calculations from the information provided by the government of the SRV. There are 3,314 villages with 10 million people (ibid.). During the rectification of errors, the government of the SRV admitted that they set the percentage of landowners to be 5.68% of the local population (ibid.). Accordingly, with a population of 10 million, 5.68% would equal 568,000 landowners. Since it is clear that there were 568,000 landowners as set by the government, the number 172,008 cannot be the total number of landowners; therefore, the number 172,008 has to be the total number of executed landowners. This number is also consistent with the number 170,000"
--So there you have it. I'm pretty sure that if the 'official Vietnamese' source wanted to say that "172,008 were executed" it would have said so. It is still unclear exactly what the Vietnamese source says, but you can always use boneheaded logic to make the source "confess".
[B] Here's another article , this time from the Vietnamese 'vanews.org'. The source repeats the wilder bloodbath estimates, but I helpfully discusses Dang Phong and even provides a scanned copy of the page:
Recently Deng Feng, editor of the book History of Vietnam Economy from 1945 to 2000, giving statistics are 172 008 people with local regulations Home or rich peasants, including 26 453 who were landowners strengthen their oppressors. The landlords who allegedly strengthen their oppressors were executed. Thus at least 26 453 people have been executed. [Google Translate]
[C] Here's another web article this ["the numbers speak"] that purports to "prove" the claim:
Official statistics state posted in the economic history of Vietnam set two said that 172 008 people have been provided to the landlord and rich peasant, who is classified as an enemy of the people, was "digging roots, grub them take root" means not being shot on the spot, was also sentenced to prison and die in prison. [...]
1956 was also the year that Mr Ho Chi Minh and the Labour party publicly recognized flaws in the process of implementing the land reform, and made ​​some disciplinary action and carry out corrective. The inventory Official said that the number of 172 008 people were provided as landlords and rich peasants in agrarian reform, the 123 266 people were provided false, ie being unfairly. Prorata is 71.66%. Perhaps there never was and where the ratio between the number of petitioners and the victims were high coming back like that. [...]
Communist poet To Huu then it was propaganda chief of the central committee later recalled had to say: "I can not even describe the tragic scenes that people falsely accused of landlords, bad publicity (which in fact middle peasants) suffered in these places has been launched." [...]
According to the book History of Vietnam Economy 1945-2000 episode 2 , written in the period from 1955 to 1975, published in Hanoi in 2004 (document new communist state of Vietnam) said the land reform 5th tranche (1955- 1956) was performed in 3.563 communes, around 10 million people, and the total number of people killed in this round of land reform to 172.008 people, of which 123.266 people (71.66%) were later confirmed killed Petitioners. (Google Translate)
--This author does not seem to know where to have it. Were 172,008 people "officially" executed, imprisoned, slandered or what? But the author is still claims elsewhere that Ho Chi Minh is worse than Hitler. Enough said.
—
So from the above, all we know for sure is that Dang Phong's book contains the claim that it was "172,000 something", but we don't seem know exactly what that something is. We will if we get to the source. Whatever the number represents, there is no evidence for it being the number of executions. The fact that this outrageous canard  has remained on this page for so long truly says something about the quality of wikipedia. When it comes to the undisputed crimes/excesses/blunders of lesser known Communist Regimes, wikipedia's approach is to take the most outragious number availiable with no questions asked, all other scholarship be damned. I've already had to edit two other articles for this exact reason, replacing them with careful estimates by respected scholars. This is a very serious credibility issue.
Guccisamsclub (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Former North Vietnamese official Nguyen Minh Can told RFA that the figure referred to executions. This seems worthy of mention, as he would have been in a position to know. The lower conventional estimates ranging from 8,000-60,000 are also cited.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  When it comes to lesser-known Commie "bloodbaths", any claim will stick apparently, even after being proven wrong. Also your range of the "lower conventional estimates" includes some of the higher estimates produced during the cold war, including those of the US govt. This remains the range of reasonable estimates. But the first half of the article says "whatever, the range is actually 50-200 thousand". Apparently Fall's problematically deduced 50,000 (accepted by Nixon) is now considered DRV apologia. And we are already seeing an "at least 172,008" emerge. The larger point is wikipedia has become a warehouse for extreme claims not fit to be published in any scholarly journal.  Unless you have something more constructive, I don't plan on discussing this further. The the case for rewriting the article is overwhelming and I will do so if I get the time. I will certainly delete the false claim I discussed. Anyhow, see my analysis of the RFA source below if you're interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 05:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "official 172,008 executions" claim 

message: What exactly is so difficult to understand? The "official" source (Dang Phong) does not contain the claim that 172,008 were executed. All references to the source from anti-DRV websites prove that the source contains no such claim (btw, did you ever read the evidence I presented? Did you read part B?). When you cite a passage from a book you cite that actual passage, not sombody's opinion about that passage. This is doubly true if you are citing an "offical source". There is no ambiguity here. 
Now lets turn to the very source you mention, RFA . The RFA series consists of an introduction in English and the main "expose" in Vietnamese. The introduction was NOT written by Nguyen Minh Can, only the multipart expose is.  Nguyen Minh Can defected and naturally has an axe to grind. But lets's hear him (or rather his source) out:
""1.Ngay 10,12.2005: On Announcement Topic No. 197 (May 11.2005), Vo Xuan Minh has discovered a remarkable thing, but we want to put, no comment, for your reference:
In "Vietnam Economic History 1945-2000" by the Vietnam Economic Institute published, I wrote about the stage set 1945-1954 (662 pages thick), vol II, the period 1955-1975 (177 pages), (Volume III not out), have made the most obvious figure ever: there are 172 008 people are punished in land reform, of which 123 266 people were later officially confirmed that petitioners (accounting for 71.6% ). Yes it is in the book did not specify the numbers 172 008 people are killed or trial.
Vo Xuan Minh to make assumptions that he believes are unfounded: numbers 172 008 people were murdered in land reform. He argues that: the book mentioned above have been made that land reform in 3563 commune with a population of 10 million, that percentage is specified prior landlord is 5.68% (page 85, volume II), and the Group Land reform and the team are trying to speed up rate coercion landlords to 5% as a prescribed mandatory (page 86, volume II), so the total number of landowners who are considered to be on trial is over 500,000 people, not 172,008. So to understand that numbers 172 008 people are killed in the more than 500,000 were on trial.
Vo Xuan Minh also pointed out that among 172,008 victims given in the table, there are statistics indicate 586 people belonging to the resistance, if compared with the report of the politburo, the party members "were management" up up to 84,000 people, so obviously the numbers 586 people belonging to the Resistance is the number killed, and 172 008 people figures presented in statistical tables are also some people killed. Political Department report confirmed: "thousands of party members have made great contributions was treated unfairly, have a very cruel punishment barbaric".
Statistical tables given in "Vietnam Economic History 1945-2000" specify: 172 008 victims of the evil landlord bullies - 26 453 people, including 20 493 who were unjustly (77.4%) landlords often - 82 777 people, including 51 480 who were unjustly (62.1%) landowner resistance - 586 people, 290 people were unjustly (49.4%), rich peasants - 62 192 people, including 51 003 who were unfairly (82 %)
Total: 172 008 victims, including 123 266 people suffering from injustice (71.6%)."
1
Now hopefully this footnote settles once and for all that Dang Phong's "official" volume contains no claim that 170,008 were executed. But here we have the origin of the whole claim, which is very interesting.
Note that this footnote does not contain Nguyen Minh Can's own analysis, so his authority cannot be invoked. What we have here is, if I am not mistaken, Nguyen Minh Can reproducing the original author's (????) discussion of a certain Vo Xuan Minh's "reinterpretation" of the original analysis and data, which is then spun in RFA's introduction as "over 170,000 killed". The original author (???) does not appear to endorse this "reinterpretation" of his data. It's hard to tell, but I certainly don't see any endorsement. If this emphatically unofficial reinterpretation of the the original source is correct, then the official source is wrong. One can't have it both ways.
If you read closely however, you will find that this "reinterpretation" (attributable only to Vo Xuan Minh, whoever he is) engages in truly staggering leaps of logic. (Example: every single landowner was on trial ... ok, if you say so.) Vo Xuan Minh's claim is truly extraordinary (I've already discussed why) and it needs stronger evidence, as well as at least some elaboration and debate, before it can be regarded as anything other than a fringe hypothesis.
===RE: Vo Xuan Minh. Quite probably (according to Bing Translate) he is just some guy who wrote a comment to Nguyen Minh Can's own article, and Ngyen is reproducing its main points. If that's the case, wow what a joke. You can check Ngyen's website for another copy of this footnote here
As for the actual RFA intro, it wastes no time on examining sources and magically tranforms "classified" into "killed":
"It [Dang Phong ed.] says 71.66 percent of victims were wrongly classified."
"More than 172,000 people died during the North Vietnam campaign after being classified as landowners and wealthy farmers, official records of the time show."
"Unofficial estimates range from 200,000 to 900,000" 2
Elsewhere on RFA (if you do a search for 172,008) you can find gems like this, which again puncture the "executed" myth:
"Official statistics indicated that among 172 008 or be branded as landlords and rich peasants in agrarian reform, the 123 266 people who were prescribed the wrong, which is suffering from injustice."
3
I've wasted enough time wading though the mountains of crap articles making this claim. Everytime they discussed it in detail they admitted that the claim had no "official" standing. It's even worse than Rummell's numbers because at least Rummel does not falsely claim that his numbers are "official". Anythow, people are always entitled to their own facts, but they are not entitled post them to wikipedia. As it stands this wiki article is about as scholarly as flame war on reddit. But some people will mistake it for an encyclopedia article and become terribly misinformed.   Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  172,008, again (RFA source fakery) 

message: The article has a very large concentration of references. Some of these are quite long. I would like to start consolidating these into a reflist, because reading the markup in its current form is very painful.
Any objections?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guccisamsclub (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consolidate referencences in a reflist? 

message: Naturally, execution does not exhaust the topic of repression. Substantive discussion from credible and non-hysterical sources about the victims of harsh imprisonment, isolation, humiliation, suicide etc. needs to be added. Of course many were rehabilitated, but some never lived to see the day or had their lives irreperably damaged.Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other victims of repression 

message: Land reform affected the livelihoods of millions of poor and middle peasants. How does their position before and after land reforms compare? How did village life and society change? What were the driving factors of the reform? The article has nothing to say about any of this (an accurate title for the current article would be "Numbers executed during land reform").Guccisamsclub (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi ! I welcome your contributions. This article would benefit from some Vietnamese sources. Guccisamsclub (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes and effects of land reform 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Land reform in North Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151120174444/http://123.30.190.43:8080/tiengviet/tulieuvankien/tulieuvedang/details.asp?topic=168&subtopic=463&leader_topic=981&id=BT19121236285 to http://123.30.190.43:8080/tiengviet/tulieuvankien/tulieuvedang/details.asp?topic=168&subtopic=463&leader_topic=981&id=BT19121236285
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: After reading Gareth Porter’s 1973 article “The Myth of the bloodbath: North Vietnam's land reform reconsidered”, I reckon that anything sourced from Chi should be replaced or reviewed, since his background as a landlord plus the fact that he was a preschool teacher (not a DRV member as mentioned in the current article) before fleeing south seriously diminishes the reliability of his claims about the DRV’s activities. For one, he claimed a wholesale policy of terror was indiscriminately adopted against landlords, with the quote “Better kill ten innocent people than let one enemy escape.“ (which later turned out to have originated from Saigon) being used as evidence to show a bloodbath. This was not reflected in party policy, since in 1953 a Nhan Dan article had already stated:
“The object of the struggle is not all the landowners but only those who refuse to abide by the policy, who refuse to reduce rents and debts," while those who essentially abided by the law, it added, "even though they have a few shortcomings," would be "pardoned.”
Adding to this, he also blatantly manipulated his information: most notably, when translating Giap’s acknowledgement of reform issues, he translates “the unjust disciplining of innocent people” as “executed too many honest people”, “repressive measures” as “terror”, and “coercive methods” as “torture”  - significantly altering the meaning of the speech, especially when he adds that these methods “came to be regarded as normal practice during party reorganisation”, something Giap never said. This, plus his involvement in the Diem government’s psychological warfare activities makes his book untrustworthy.
He is to the subject of DRV land reform what David Irving is to the subject of the Holocaust: almost totally unreliable as a source. Portwineconsumer (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Hoang Van Chi as a source