Talk:Viet Cong/Archive 1

message: :This archive page was originally the page Talk:Vietcong.
I would recommend you research the word before you revert. It is a racist phrase, adopted mainly by the American's and Europeans.
: The entry clearly states that the phrase was used by the South Vietnamese to describe their political opponents (who were, like them, Vietnamese). Unless you are now going to suggest that there was some kind of relevant racial divide, it thus cannot possibly be a "racist tern". I'm going to remove it again in a moment, and will continue to remove it unless and until there is some reasonable evidence that this usage was indeed racist. 
: If it were written that the phrase as used by foregners was racist, that would be a different matter. Even this, though, is fraught with difficulty, as we would then have to explain how it is that an American soldier saying "Viet Cong" is being racist, but a South Vietnamese soldier using the same words is not. 
: I have not the slightest doubt that the entire American & Allied involvement in Indochina was racist in its nature (nor would any other serious historian), but the term "racist" in this particular context makes no sense. Tannin
The Viet Minh soldiers who were trained and armed in the North started a Guerrilla war against the national government of the south. The Americans gave the guerrillas a new name, "Viet Cong." This was a derogatory/racist (perhaps moreso as it (and the war) evolved) and slang term meaning Vietnamese Communist. 
Be sure to check the Racial Slur database http://www.rsdb.org/rsdb.csv or http://gyral.blackshell.com/names.html
-- search for Viet Cong. For what it is worth (although I wish I could find my source) I have heard it being compared to Westerners use of the word "nigger."
In the end, I suppose it depends on how you define racism. BTW, I know nothing of SV calling their own people VC, however, it is well documented that the American's and Europeans used it frequently. 
205.162.222.223 06:49, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Even at Viet Cong, though, it was supposed to be an article about the movement. Either way, the article needs significant work. 172 03:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Yeah, and he put it one requests for review of admin actions as well. Maybe he's constipated or something. 172 04:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Excuse me?  I was moving it back.  I don't know whether Snowspinner is referring to the move by 172 or the undoing move in his comment.  But, this has been discussed before.  Lots. - VV 23:57, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Splitting the article like that isn't totally unreasonable, but it's a major change we should discuss first.  Redirecting VC to NLF, however, is far more troublesome. - VV 23:59, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was mostly noting that I (and some other people) seem to agree that an article on the group should be at NLF, and not here. And that the debate was pretty active right now, and that the move could probably wait until it settled down to consensus. But whatev, largely. Snowspinner 00:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay....  It's just that John seemed to be citing you as validation for the poor form attribution. - VV 02:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and Snowspinner was talking about your move - there was no active discussion when 172 moved it. john 02:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand this standard.  It seems to me that major changes should not be made if it's controversial (whether the controversy was noted before and after the move).  Returning to the status quo is the antidote if such controversy erupts.  Anyway, I already have a pretty good idea what you think of me; my comments were to Snowspinner. - VV 03:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Well, I mean, I think you shouldn't have moved it until the debate resolved, and that it's poor form to take decisive action like that. (Clarify: When something is under heated debate. Snowspinner 02:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well it's somewhat clarified.  My position remains that a major controversial reorganization should be discussed before being set in stone, and the status quo should default. - VV 03:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 172's move was well within the realm of the directive to "be bold." Had I noticed it, it's certainly an edit I could see myself making. In any case, enough of this. Let's figure out where this page should go. :) Snowspinner 03:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, call me being bold back.  One issue for me is that 172 has a habit of reverting others' changes and insisting on a long process of justification, but doing as he pleases on his own.  Further, in this case it's a change that has been proposed and rejected before.  Anyway, I agree we should talk about content.  I'll flesh out my opinions below. - VV 04:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd like to think consensus is possible; most people I've seen on this page seem reasonable.  But with 172 at the table it might prove difficult.  We need "users" who actually favor consensus.  Anyway, I noted my position a bit above. - VV 03:30, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

text: As I said, the redirect is not so satisfactory, but a two article solution might be a reasonable one.  The VC article may degenerate into a purely terminology-oriented one (as it now sort of is), which I don't like since that's not what people who look up VC want to read, but the NLF article could sensibly be the history of that specific organization, which could be helpful in light of the possible ambiguities in VC, if that's really such an issue. - VV 04:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, obviously if we go with the two articles, the VC article should containa a prominent link to the NLF article.  john 04:45, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. - VV 05:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

message: The problem is that we do not have a written history of this specific organization anywhere on Wikipedia, not the recent move. 
My move clearly coincides with our policy and naming conventions. "Viet Cong" is not a common name, as Soviet Union is to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (redirected to Soviet Union), as United States is to United States of America (redirected to United States), and as Bill Clinton is to William Jefferson Clinton (redirected to Bill Clinton). It is a pejorative term widely used among U.S. troops in Vietnam, and later among the U.S. public and media, not one that this specific organization used to identify to itself. In a similar vein, Viet Cong is to the slang "Wobblies" (redirected to IWW) as NLF is to Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Notice that the IWW article is directed to the name of the organization, not the slang.
To the user trying to provoke an edit war, whose name I shall reserve, please find another way to retaliate against me for my involvement on other pages. 172 06:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the article itself was in bad form. Either way, it's unfair to expect anyone to leave the article in perfect form after a single edit. This article needs significant work, and that should now commence on this page.  172 07:14, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I have split the pages, with Viet Cong currently on the version VeryVerily keeps reverting to, and National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam on the version 172 keeps reverting to. Since there's at least some support for the idea of a split, I ask that we treat this as a truce and stop reverting each other. --Michael Snow 21:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: The term Viet Cong was not used within the U.S. military as a derogatory term, especially not in a racist sense. It was used in a descriptive sense to distinuish between the guerilla forces and PAVN, who were North Vietnamese regulars. If the term was intended as a slur, all opposing forces would have been Viet Cong. Now someone here claims that the term translates literally to "Vietnamese Commie." Do we have a native Vietnamese speaker who can confirm that? The term (it says right in this article) is derived from Vietnamese: Việt Nam Cộng Sản. This is apparently a currently used phrase. I did a Google search and its had 2100 hits on the phrase, and about 170 primary hits. These appear to all be in Vietnamese language except for this article in Wikipedia and its mirrors. Unless someone can come up with an authorative explanation I'm going to make the opening a little more neutral and accurate. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Vietnamese, the usual (neutral) term for "Vietnamese communist" would be "Cộng sản Việt Nam" and not "Việt Nam cộng sản".  "Cộng sản Việt Nam" is used by the both the current government (e.g. "Đảng cộng sản Việt Nam" - Vietnamese Communist Party) and its detractors.  Use of the term "Việt Cộng" is restricted to opponents of the communists, while "Việt Nam cộng sản" is really awkward and thus likely a back-formation from the English term Vietcong.  While "Việt Cộng" is a derogatory term, it is hardly racist.  Ngo Dinh Diem regularly accused his detractors of being Vietcong, but Diem himself was from the north.  Vietcong has more to do with ideology, not race. DHN 23:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viet Cong Derogatory? 

message: how do you write viet cong in chinese? im interested in knowing the cong character, i already know the view character 越
:Cong should be 共. — Instantnood 16:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VC IN CHINESE 

message: *Keep separate articles.  Gene Nygaard 20:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: This article has been split from the article Viet Cong for reasons discussed at Talk:Viet Cong. --Michael Snow 21:35, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split from [[Viet Cong]] 

message: * the US-Nope.  That was the Viet Minh, a different organization. john 00:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viet Cong / Viet Minh 

message: Now is it National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam as in the text, or National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam, as in the title? Currently this article and Viet mien partly duplicate each other, which should be handled. Get-back-world-respect 16:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry I can't give you a definitive answer, since I can't translate the Vietnamese, but I highly doubt the word "south" is in the name of the organization, since the NLF and People's Republic didn't rhetorically acknowledge a separate country of "South Vietnam." -- Cecropia | Talk 16:39, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of this article must be changed - the organization was called the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam, in both English and Vietnamese.  I don't know how to go about changing the title page myself. Cripipper 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct title is "National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam" (literally: National Front for the Liberation of the southern region of Vietnam).  "Southern Vietnam" implies that Vietnam is a whole country and that the South is not "liberated".  If they wanted to say "South Vietnam", they'd have said "Nam Việt Nam" and not "miền Nam Việt Nam" in their title. DHN 21:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Can a more clear introduction of the "VC" be added? For example, a summary of their key activities (e.g. "guerilla warfare against..." and over what period?). I think the article assumes a basic level of knowledge that at least I do not have.Hu Gadarn 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction? 

message: according to who? and who benefits from the redundancy? Sam [Spade] 04:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: really, 'cuz i see a lot of duplicate info in these articles. personally, i think it should redirect. and "Viet Mien" isn't perjorative any moreso than "Khmer Rouge" is instead of "Communist Party of Cambodia" J. Parker Stone 22:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: ah, ok. Sam [Spade] 04:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate entries? 

message: Sorry for being lousy, but I am only thirteen. Is it that... Viet Minh got rid of the French, and the Viet Cong took this advantage to form an  communist party? Ho Chi Minh is old man with long white beard! VC... or as people call them "gooks". I am sure that someone out there would not delete me out... this is a discussion, right?
:Here's a tip. Read some more and draw out a little chart then ask more specific questions. --Gbleem 15:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me, A Kid's Understanding 

message: Did Charlie exist as a racial slur before the vietnam war? --Gbleem 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a slur, but not a racial one. Dubc0724 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry Charlie 

message: I removed the following
::...the Viet Cong played a highly successful role in scaring the American public away from the war in Vietnam.
There are several things wrong with this statement, especially the way it was situated in the paragraph. It seemed to imply that it was a public relations coup, but it was simply the nature of the war that made people dislike the war. Of course the Viet Cong was involved in most of the fighting so in a trivial sense they were responsible for the nature of the war. But saying the American public was "scared" away by there tactics is highly speculative about the very complex feelings people had about the war--fear is a oversimplification at best, inaccurate at worst.--Brentt 02:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Public "Scared" 

message: NLF is an incorrect translation from Vietnamese (it's advocating the liberation of "Southern Vietnam", not "Vietnam"), and is not as well-known as Viet Cong in English.  According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), it should be in Viet Cong.  If you're interested, please also see the suggested move at Talk:Hanoi Hilton DHN 09:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, some terms are in common usage but are commonly regarded as offensive to large groups of people (Mormon Church, for example). In those cases use widely known alternatives (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). 
My impression is that Viet Cong is considered offensive by the Vietnamese.  Is this not true? Nareek 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: By WP rules, this article should be called National Liberation Front--the simplest, most commonly used term that isn't offensive. Nareek 19:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How the heck is Viet Cong a racial slur?  It's mostly used by ethnic Vietnamese against other Vietnamese. DHN 08:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not racially offensive.  The term 'Việt Cộng' is a derogatory propaganda term used to create the notion that all members of the NLF were communist.  That's why it's not appropriate for common use here. --Ionius Mundus 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why at NLF and not VC? 

message: The article says that "all VC members were Communists."  Assuming that the meaning of VC in this sentence is synonomous with the NLF, I find that hard to believe.  The NLF might have been overwhelmingly Communist, but it's hard to imagine that out of the thousands upon thousands of peasants who supported the VC, not even one of them was a non-Communist.  I'm willing to bet that at least one or two Buhddists supported the NLF just to get back at Diem --Descendall 04:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were non-Communists in the NLF? 

message: It has been alleged that, after Tet, the NLF had to depend more and more on Hanoi for support, effectivley becoming a pseudo-arm of the NVA. Tet had crippled them as an independent fighting force. This may have been part of the goal of Tet: to eliminate the agrarian offshoot southern communists so as not to have to share power with them after the eventual victory.  The absence of NLF/VC leadership in the Hanoi government in the post-war years would seem to support this theory, as does the weakness of the RSV government suggested in the article.
* This accusation has been well-developed since the end of the war. It is quite interesting that relatively few PAVN regulars took part in the Tet attacks. The exceptions were the battles of Khe Sanh and Hue. RM Gillespie 07:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VC and the NVA 

message: ===Programme du Front National de Libération du Sud Viêt Nam===
I - COMBATTRE
1 – Renverser le régime colonial déguisé par les impérialistes américains et le pouvoir dictatorial de Ngo Dinh Diêm et instituer un gouvernement d’union nationale démocratique.
2 -- Le régime sud vietnamien d’aujourd’hui est un régime colonial camouflé sous domination yankee et le gouvernement sud vietnamien servile applique avec dévotion les politiques des impérialistes américains. Ainsi, ce régime doit être renversé et doit être remplacé par un gouvernement d’union nationale démocratique composé de représentants de toutes les classes sociales, de toutes les nationalités, de différents partis politiques, de toutes les religions: d’imminents citoyens patriotes doivent prendre la commande culturelle, économique, politique et sociale dans les intérêts du peuple et ainsi ramener la démocratie et l’indépendance, aussi bien que le bien-être, la neutralité, la paix et les efforts pour une unification pacifique. Du pays.
II – INSTITUER UN RÉGIME LARGEMENT LIBÉRAL ET DÉMOCRATIQUE.
1 – Abolir la constitution actuelle des pouvoirs dictatoriaux de Ngô Dinh Diem, le serviteur de Américains. Élire une Assemblée Nationale par le suffrage universel.
2 – Mettre en place les libertés démocratiques : Liberté d’opinion, de presse, de déplacement, de commerce, d’association et de religion, sans discrimination et mettre en place le droit d’avoir des activités normales de toutes les organisations patriotiques, quelque soient les tendances politiques.
3 -- Proclamer l’amnistie générale pour tous les priso0nniers politiques, dissoudre les camps de concentration de toutes sortes, abolir la loi fasciste de 1969 ainsi que d’autres lois antidémocratiques et autoriser le retour au pays des personnes persécutées et réfugiées à l’étranger
4 – Interdire les arrestations, détentions illégales ainsi que les tortures et punir tous les complices de Diem qui ne se repentent pas de leurs crimes commis contre le peuple.
III – ÉTABLIR UNE ÉCONOMIE SOUVERAINE ET AMÉLIORER LES CONDITIONS DE VIE.
1 – Supprimer les monopoles imposés par les impérialistes américains et leurs serviteurs, établir une économie et une finance souveraines en accord avec les intérêts nationaux et confisquer au profit de la nation les propriétés nationales et particulières des impérialistes américains et de leurs serviteurs.
2 – Soutenir la bourgeoisie nationale dans la reconstruction et le développement de l’industrie et du commerce pour apporter une protection de la production nationale par la baisse des taxes de production et la limitation ou l’interdiction de l’importation des produits dont l’industrie locale est capable de fabriquer, ainsi que réduire les taxes d’importation des matériaux bruts et de la machinerie.
3 – Revitaliser l’agriculture, moderniser la production agroalimentaire, la pêcherie, l’élevage, aider les fermiers à labourer les terres en friche pour développer la production agricole, ainsi que prtéger la récolte et garantir un revenu minimal.
4 – Encourager et renforcer les relations économique entre la ville et la campagne, la plaine et la montagne, ainsi que développer les échanges commerciaux avec l’étranger sans considération pour le régime politique, sur la base d’égalité et des intérêts mutuels.
5 – Instituer un système d’imposition rationnel et équitable et éliminer les pénalités harassantes.
6 – Implanter un code de travail en interdisant les mises à pied abusives et les mauvais traitements des salariés, ainsi que l’amélioration des conditions de vie et de travail des travailleurs publics et privés, de l’échelle salariale et des mesures pour les jeunes apprentis.
7 – Organiser la sécurité sociale du chômage, de l’invalidité, de la vieillesse, de la protection de la jeunesse, des victimes de mauvaises récolte, de cataclysme et des Américains avec leurs partians diemistes.
8 – Aider les personnes déplacées à retourner chez eux et à d’autres qui désirent s’installer au Sud ainsi que améliorer leurs conditions de vie et de travail.
9 – Interdire les expulsions, spoliations et concentrations compulsives de population ainsi que garantir une sécurité d’emploi pour les populations laborieuses rurale et urbaine.
IV – RÉDUIRE LES FERMAGES EN IMPLANTANT UNE RÉFORME AGRAIRE POUR DES PAYSANS SANS-TERRE.
1 – Réduire les fermages, garantir au fermier le droit d’usage de la terre, l’accès à ceux qui la cultivent et le droit de propriété à ceux qui l’ont déjà reçue
2 – Dissoudre les "zones de prospérité" et mettre fin au recrutement pour les camps nommés "centres de développement agricole" et autoriser ceux qui sont forcés d’y être de retourner librement chez eux.
3 – Confisquer les terres des Américains et de leurs serviteurs pour les distribuer aux paysans pauvres sans terre ou avec terre insuffisante ainsi que les distribuer au registre communal sur une base rationnelle et équitable.
4 – Négocier aux justes prix avec les grands propriétaires les terres en excès suivant certaines limites convenues et selon des particularités régionales et les distribuer aux fermiers bénéficiaires sans paiement et sans autres conditions.
V – DÉVELOPPER UNE CULTURE ET UNE ÉDUCTION DÉMOCRATIQUE.
1 – Combattre toute forme de culture et d’éducation inféodée aux modes yankees, développer une culture et éducation nationales et progressives au service de la patrie et du peuple.
2 – Liquider l’analphabétisme, augmenter le nombre d’écoles générale et technique de différents niveaux à la campagne ainsi que adopter la langue vietnamienne vernaculaire et réduire les dépenses d’éducation, exempter de paiement ceux qui n’ont pas de moyens et simplifier les systèmes d’examens.
3 – Promouvoir les sciences et technologies.
4 – Surveiller la santé publique et développer le sport et l’éducation physique.
VI – CRÉER UNE ARMÉE NATIONALE DÉVOUÉE À LA DÉFENSE DE LA PATRIE ET DU PEUPLE.
1 – Établir une armée nationale dévouée à la défense de la patrie et du peuple et abolir le système de conseillers militaires américains.
2 – Abolir le service militaire et améliorer les conditions de vie du soldat en garantissant l’égalité des droits, supprimer les mauvais traitements du soldat et prendre soin de sa famille et dépendants sans ressources.
3 – Récompenser les officiers ayant participé à la lutte contre la domination Américaine et ses serviteurs ainsi que adopter une politique de clémence envers d’anciens collaborateurs des Américains et diemistes coupables de crimes, mais repentis et prêts à servir le peuple.
4 – Abolir les bases militaires étrangères sur le sol du Viêt Nam
VI – GARANTIR L’ÉGALITÉ DES ETHNIES ET DES SEXES’ PROTÉGER LES INTÉRËTS LÉGITIMES.
1 – Implanter le droit à l’autonomie des minorités nationales, établir des zones autonomes avec égalité des droits et intégrées à la nation vietnamienne dans des endroits avec populations minoritaires. Garantir l’égalité entre les différentes nationalités avec le droits de chacune à l’usage et le développement des langues, mœurs et coutumes en abolissant la politique américaine et diemiste de discrimination raciale et assimilation forcée et en permettant aux minorités nationales d’atteindre le niveau de progrès de la population générale, ainsi que développer leur économie et leur culture et former des cadres de ces minorités nationales.
2 – Établir l’égalité des sexes dans tous les domaines.
3 – Protéger les intérêts légitimes des étrangers établis au Viêt Nam
4 – Défendre et prendre soin des intérêts des Vietnamiens résidant à l’étranger.
VIII -- PROMOUVOIR UNE POLITIQUE DE PAIX ET DE NEUTRALITÉ.
1 – Annuler les traités inégaux conclu par les serviteurs des Américains
2 – Établir des relations diplomatiques avec tous les pays sans considération des régimes politiques en accord avec les principes de coexistence pacifique établis à la Conférence de Bandung de 1955.
3 – Développer des solidarités avec les pays neutres, pacifiques et ceux du Sud Est Asiatiques, en particulier le Cambodge et le Laos.
4 – S’écarter des alliances militaires avec d’autres pays.
5 -- Accepter l’aide économique de tout pays qui veut le faire de façon inconditionnelle.
IX – RÉÉTABLIR DES RTELATIONS NORMALES NORD-SUD POUR RÉUNIFICATION PACIFIQUE.
La réunification pacifique du pays constitue le désir le plus cher de nos compatriotes dans tout le pays. Le Front National de Libération du Sud Viêt Nam plaide la réunification pacifique par étapes, sur la base des négociations pour trouver des voies et moyens, en conformité avec les intérêts de la nation vietnamienne.
En attendant cette réunification sur la base des négociations, le gouvernement des deux zones promettra de ne pas utiliser la force, de bannir toute propagande haineuse et séparatiste, d’implanter des échanges commerciaux et culturels et la libre circulation des habitants de ces zones pour des raisons familiales et commerciales et de garantir le libre échange postal.
X – COMBATTRE LES GUERRES D’AGRESSION ET DÉFENDRE LA PAIX UNIVERSELLE.
1 – Combattre toute guerre d’agression et toute forme de domination impérialiste ainsi que soutenir tout mouvement d’émancipation nationale de tous les peuples.
Takima 23:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLN Program 

message: I - COMBATTRE
1 – Renverser le régime colonial déguisé par les impérialistes américains et le pouvoir dictatorial de Ngo Dinh Diêm et instituer un gouvernement d’union nationale démocratique.
2 -- Le régime sud vietnamien d’aujourd’hui est un régime colonial camouflé sous domination yankee et le gouvernement sud vietnamien servile applique avec dévotion les politiques des impérialistes américains. Ainsi, ce régime doit être renversé et doit être remplacé par un gouvernement d’union nationale démocratique composé de représentants de toutes les classes sociales, de toutes les nationalités, de différents partis politiques, de toutes les religions: d’imminents citoyens patriotes doivent prendre la commande culturelle, économique, politique et sociale dans les intérêts du peuple et ainsi ramener la démocratie et l’indépendance, aussi bien que le bien-être, la neutralité, la paix et les efforts pour une unification pacifique. Du pays.
II – INSTITUER UN RÉGIME LARGEMENT LIBÉRAL ET DÉMOCRATIQUE.
1 – Abolir la constitution actuelle des pouvoirs dictatoriaux de Ngô Dinh Diem, le serviteur de Américains. Élire une Assemblée Nationale par le suffrage universel.
2 – Mettre en place les libertés démocratiques : Liberté d’opinion, de presse, de déplacement, de commerce, d’association et de religion, sans discrimination et mettre en place le droit d’avoir des activités normales de toutes les organisations patriotiques, quelque soient les tendances politiques.
3 -- Proclamer l’amnistie générale pour tous les priso0nniers politiques, dissoudre les camps de concentration de toutes sortes, abolir la loi fasciste de 1969 ainsi que d’autres lois antidémocratiques et autoriser le retour au pays des personnes persécutées et réfugiées à l’étranger
4 – Interdire les arrestations, détentions illégales ainsi que les tortures et punir tous les complices de Diem qui ne se repentent pas de leurs crimes commis contre le peuple.
III – ÉTABLIR UNE ÉCONOMIE SOUVERAINE ET AMÉLIORER LES CONDITIONS DE VIE.
1 – Supprimer les monopoles imposés par les impérialistes américains et leurs serviteurs, établir une économie et une finance souveraines en accord avec les intérêts nationaux et confisquer au profit de la nation les propriétés nationales et particulières des impérialistes américains et de leurs serviteurs.
2 – Soutenir la bourgeoisie nationale dans la reconstruction et le développement de l’industrie et du commerce pour apporter une protection de la production nationale par la baisse des taxes de production et la limitation ou l’interdiction de l’importation des produits dont l’industrie locale est capable de fabriquer, ainsi que réduire les taxes d’importation des matériaux bruts et de la machinerie.
3 – Revitaliser l’agriculture, moderniser la production agroalimentaire, la pêcherie, l’élevage, aider les fermiers à labourer les terres en friche pour développer la production agricole, ainsi que prtéger la récolte et garantir un revenu minimal.
4 – Encourager et renforcer les relations économique entre la ville et la campagne, la plaine et la montagne, ainsi que développer les échanges commerciaux avec l’étranger sans considération pour le régime politique, sur la base d’égalité et des intérêts mutuels.
5 – Instituer un système d’imposition rationnel et équitable et éliminer les pénalités harassantes.
6 – Implanter un code de travail en interdisant les mises à pied abusives et les mauvais traitements des salariés, ainsi que l’amélioration des conditions de vie et de travail des travailleurs publics et privés, de l’échelle salariale et des mesures pour les jeunes apprentis.
7 – Organiser la sécurité sociale du chômage, de l’invalidité, de la vieillesse, de la protection de la jeunesse, des victimes de mauvaises récolte, de cataclysme et des Américains avec leurs partians diemistes.
8 – Aider les personnes déplacées à retourner chez eux et à d’autres qui désirent s’installer au Sud ainsi que améliorer leurs conditions de vie et de travail.
9 – Interdire les expulsions, spoliations et concentrations compulsives de population ainsi que garantir une sécurité d’emploi pour les populations laborieuses rurale et urbaine.
IV – RÉDUIRE LES FERMAGES EN IMPLANTANT UNE RÉFORME AGRAIRE POUR DES PAYSANS SANS-TERRE.
1 – Réduire les fermages, garantir au fermier le droit d’usage de la terre, l’accès à ceux qui la cultivent et le droit de propriété à ceux qui l’ont déjà reçue
2 – Dissoudre les "zones de prospérité" et mettre fin au recrutement pour les camps nommés "centres de développement agricole" et autoriser ceux qui sont forcés d’y être de retourner librement chez eux.
3 – Confisquer les terres des Américains et de leurs serviteurs pour les distribuer aux paysans pauvres sans terre ou avec terre insuffisante ainsi que les distribuer au registre communal sur une base rationnelle et équitable.
4 – Négocier aux justes prix avec les grands propriétaires les terres en excès suivant certaines limites convenues et selon des particularités régionales et les distribuer aux fermiers bénéficiaires sans paiement et sans autres conditions.
V – DÉVELOPPER UNE CULTURE ET UNE ÉDUCTION DÉMOCRATIQUE.
1 – Combattre toute forme de culture et d’éducation inféodée aux modes yankees, développer une culture et éducation nationales et progressives au service de la patrie et du peuple.
2 – Liquider l’analphabétisme, augmenter le nombre d’écoles générale et technique de différents niveaux à la campagne ainsi que adopter la langue vietnamienne vernaculaire et réduire les dépenses d’éducation, exempter de paiement ceux qui n’ont pas de moyens et simplifier les systèmes d’examens.
3 – Promouvoir les sciences et technologies.
4 – Surveiller la santé publique et développer le sport et l’éducation physique.
VI – CRÉER UNE ARMÉE NATIONALE DÉVOUÉE À LA DÉFENSE DE LA PATRIE ET DU PEUPLE.
1 – Établir une armée nationale dévouée à la défense de la patrie et du peuple et abolir le système de conseillers militaires américains.
2 – Abolir le service militaire et améliorer les conditions de vie du soldat en garantissant l’égalité des droits, supprimer les mauvais traitements du soldat et prendre soin de sa famille et dépendants sans ressources.
3 – Récompenser les officiers ayant participé à la lutte contre la domination Américaine et ses serviteurs ainsi que adopter une politique de clémence envers d’anciens collaborateurs des Américains et diemistes coupables de crimes, mais repentis et prêts à servir le peuple.
4 – Abolir les bases militaires étrangères sur le sol du Viêt Nam
VI – GARANTIR L’ÉGALITÉ DES ETHNIES ET DES SEXES’ PROTÉGER LES INTÉRËTS LÉGITIMES.
1 – Implanter le droit à l’autonomie des minorités nationales, établir des zones autonomes avec égalité des droits et intégrées à la nation vietnamienne dans des endroits avec populations minoritaires. Garantir l’égalité entre les différentes nationalités avec le droits de chacune à l’usage et le développement des langues, mœurs et coutumes en abolissant la politique américaine et diemiste de discrimination raciale et assimilation forcée et en permettant aux minorités nationales d’atteindre le niveau de progrès de la population générale, ainsi que développer leur économie et leur culture et former des cadres de ces minorités nationales.
2 – Établir l’égalité des sexes dans tous les domaines.
3 – Protéger les intérêts légitimes des étrangers établis au Viêt Nam
4 – Défendre et prendre soin des intérêts des Vietnamiens résidant à l’étranger.
VIII -- PROMOUVOIR UNE POLITIQUE DE PAIX ET DE NEUTRALITÉ.
1 – Annuler les traités inégaux conclu par les serviteurs des Américains
2 – Établir des relations diplomatiques avec tous les pays sans considération des régimes politiques en accord avec les principes de coexistence pacifique établis à la Conférence de Bandung de 1955.
3 – Développer des solidarités avec les pays neutres, pacifiques et ceux du Sud Est Asiatiques, en particulier le Cambodge et le Laos.
4 – S’écarter des alliances militaires avec d’autres pays.
5 -- Accepter l’aide économique de tout pays qui veut le faire de façon inconditionnelle.
IX – RÉÉTABLIR DES RTELATIONS NORMALES NORD-SUD POUR RÉUNIFICATION PACIFIQUE.
La réunification pacifique du pays constitue le désir le plus cher de nos compatriotes dans tout le pays. Le Front National de Libération du Sud Viêt Nam plaide la réunification pacifique par étapes, sur la base des négociations pour trouver des voies et moyens, en conformité avec les intérêts de la nation vietnamienne.
En attendant cette réunification sur la base des négociations, le gouvernement des deux zones promettra de ne pas utiliser la force, de bannir toute propagande haineuse et séparatiste, d’implanter des échanges commerciaux et culturels et la libre circulation des habitants de ces zones pour des raisons familiales et commerciales et de garantir le libre échange postal.
X – COMBATTRE LES GUERRES D’AGRESSION ET DÉFENDRE LA PAIX UNIVERSELLE.
1 – Combattre toute guerre d’agression et toute forme de domination impérialiste ainsi que soutenir tout mouvement d’émancipation nationale de tous les peuples.
Takima 23:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Programme du Front National de Libération du Sud Viêt Nam

message: During the First Indochina War, the French used to call their opponents "VM", "Viet Minh", short for the "League for Indépendence of Viet Nam" until the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. Starting with the Ngo Dinh Diem Regime, it's been "VC" for the opponents until the Fall of Saigon in 1975. It may be usual to downgrade and demonize opponents by the losers.
In "The Art of War", written over two thousands years ago, Sun Tzu says:
"Know the ennemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril."
Takima 14:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VM & VC 

message: Is it true that the United States had certain soldiers in Laos and Cambodia during the war in Viet Nam to...well for lack of a better word..chase...the Viet Cong?
Actually, I believe it was because the Communists had several supply trails that lead from North Vietnam to the NLF cadres in the south. The U.S. and SVN did have some operations that lead into the neighboring countries to disrupt the supply chains. Disrupting the supply chains was also an aim of the unapproved bombing in Cambodia.--Asteion 07:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viet Cong in Laos and Cambodia during Vietnam War 

message: In the mention about the Tet Offensive, it said "These goals were not achieved, but the US military, media and public were all caught very much off guard by the offensive, thanks largely to Westmoreland's rather faulty prognostications." I had thought that the U.S. and SVN forces had anticipated an attack, but were not particularly prepared due to the truce that had been announced prior to Tet, not because of Westmoreland's "faulty pronostications".--Asteion 07:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tet Offensive Section? 

message: How can you write Viet Cong in the articles, when it is a word the american soldiers and the opinion positive to the war used? They never called them self Viet Cong, so why use it?
:Correct.  It should only be used to say that the Americans refered to them as this. --Ionius Mundus 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 2 things wrong with this. Firstly, although it is true that the term was first coined by the Vietnamese, it was the South Vietnam government who coined that term. The North never used to refer to the NLF as Viet Cong, they called the NLF "quân giải phóng" (Liberation Army). Although now most Vietnamese refer to the NLF as Viet Cong, it is only because it is shorter and most movies refer to the NLF that way. Secondly, NLF members were not exclusively communists, calling them Viet Cong is just inaccurate.--lt2hieu2004 09:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viet Cong are american propaganda 

message: Every time this page gets moved, it creates a load of double-redirects (now fixed). Let's come to a consensus on the true title of the article. Does anybody want to start the discussion? - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: It seems that the contributors to this article are mainly concerned with debates over terminology. Whatever you want to call the organization in question (NLF, Viet Cong, whatever!), all I want from this article is a little history. 
* When and where was the organization founded? 
* What did the organization do, and when?
* If "Viet Cong" is considered derogatory, who came up with that name, when, where, and why? 
* I remember, growing up in the US, only hearing the term "Viet Cong" in the constant news reporting on the conflict, from as early as 1960 (when I was just 4, so I wanted to check if my memories were accurate). What is the history of the use of these terms and the reporting on the organization itself in the international press, and the US press in particular? 
These are just some of the questions that I wish the article would address, as you (the good people working on this article) move beyond an evidently fruitless debate towards the construction of a useful article on an important aspect of world history.
--Potosino 11:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about some history? 

message: In 1969, the NLF formed the Provisional Revolutionary Government which operated until the end of the Vietnam War. But it was a front organization that had no real authority and no other function than propaganda. When the North Vietnamese army captured Saigon in 1975, the NLF and the PRG were set up as a legal front as part of the process of reunification. The PRG never effectively functioned as a real government in South Vietnam. After the Liberation of Saigon, administration was organized by the Vietnam People's Army. The country was reunified under the leadership of the Communist Party of Vietnam as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1976.
---
Hey, at least State of North Vietnam and "Viet Cong" were VIETNAMESE experiments, unlike the the colonial puppet of the state of South Vietnam. The article REALLY needs to be cleaned up from anti Vietnamese and Pro USA bias.
Cheers.
Oh, look, a Euro-Marxist crawled out of its hole and started bleating about "imperialism"...
Never mind that North Vietnam was the USSR's creature.
: No, not really. They were nationalists first, and were supported by the USSR in the context of the Cold War. But both North Vietnam and the NLF were genuine nationalists movements. Unlike South Vietnam, which was completely artificial and unsupported by anyone except a tiny ruling caste created during French rule. 190.17.55.192 (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legitimacy 

message: 1) what was the heuristic applied to distinguish northerner from southerner and communist from non-communist? For example, when the British tried to geographically seperate the colonies along an important river in the northeastern portion of the U.S. during the American Revolution, would the population within the British held areas under threat of immediate reprimand and inclined to not express dissatisfaction be called British loyalists while those whom are outside of occupied areas, the rebels? Did the British think or claim the minorty or majority of Americans..excuse me colonialists were opposed to England? I think a distinction made of southerner/northerner and communist/non-communist ignores the impact of colonialism and nationalism on a people of a nation. This is unconscionable given the emphasis of the aforementioned two forces commonly used to disseminate the history of this nation and more specifically the American Revolution. Were Vietminh that lived in South Viet-nam during the Ngo Dinh Diem's regime really "stay-behinds" or were they originally southern? How can we tell? Please explain.
17:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions 

message: As I mentioned above, the literal meaning of the Vietnamese name Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam is "National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam" and not "National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam".  In their view, Vietnam is one country, and the southern region is unfree.  If they wanted to say "South Vietnam", the proper terminology would be "Nam Việt Nam".  "Miền Nam Việt Nam" means "Southern Region of Vietnam". DHN (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I changed it to "Southern Region of Vietnam" so that the translation is as literal as possible. But I don't think there is a political issue involved. The Vietcong's most official English-language name, the one they signed the 1973 Paris Peace Treaty with, is "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam." (Chính Phủ Cách Mạng Lâm Thời Cộng Hòa Miền Nam Việt Nam) That name also has Miền Nam in it, but they didn't translate it as "Southern region". The Vietcong could recognize that South Vietnam did in fact exist as a separate country while at the same time plotting its destruction. Kauffner (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A third option is that the NLF recognized the illegal existence of South Vietnam and plotted its liberation and the eventual reunification that was required by international law. As far as "plotting its destruction", that was the United States, judging by the Pentagon Papers and actual history.Tomblikebomb (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The communists recognized Thieu's government as legit in the 1973 agreement. The agreement also states: "the South Vietnamese people shall decide themselves the political future of South Vietnam through genuinely free and democratic general elections under international supervision." The treaty does provide for reunification, but only by "peaceful means." Kauffner (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had the 1954 agreement in mind. But the 1973 agreement only further proves my point. The "communists" recognized Thieu's organization as, according to the language of the agreement, an equal party in what was to become a democratic South Vietnamese government, which in turn would eventually merge with North Vietnam. Thieu's government as THE legitimate government of all South Vietnam most certainly was not recognized by the PRG, nor the South Vietnamese population in general, for that matter.Tomblikebomb (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Literal name 

message: There needs to be some clarity. At present the article intro says "The Vietcong was a communist army based in South Vietnam that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War (1958-75).". Using the term 'Viet Cong', the concepts get sort of blurry. FNL was not 'a communist army', it was a united front, i.e. a political movement. If this article is to deal with the armed forces of FNL, then move it to 'People's Liberation Army (Vietnam)' and create a separate article for FNL. --Soman (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vietcong's united front was called the "Alliance of National Democratic and Peace Forces," at least if you mean a branch of the organization in which non-Communist "fellow travelers" played a significant role.  If you Google "People's Liberation Army", with or without Vietnam, you just get stuff about the Chinese army. But by all means feel free to create a page entitled "People's Liberation Army (Vietnam)". "FNL" is just a redirect to a TV show now, so that's up for grabs as well. I hope to read to all about united front activities on one of those pages sometime in the near future. But surely readers who type in "Vietcong" as a search term are most likely looking for information about communist military activity. Kauffner (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're most likely looking for information on the U.S.'s enemy in Vietnam, whoever that may have been. "Viet Cong", by not redirecting to an English translation of their chosen name or its abbreviation, falsely confirms the U.S. line that the enemy were communists by definition. The article's content goes on to repeat the propaganda.Tomblikebomb (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  basic error 

message: I edited a link to Viet Minh because Vietminh is a redirect. Then I see in the history that someone had changed all instances of Vietcong to Viet Cong and this was later reverted. So I came here to see what's up and I find all these discussions about it. There needs to be a decision and it needs to be consistently applied (to instances of Vietminh as well, which are inconsistent with that article). The article titles, URLs and content should all be the same. It makes no difference to me which is used, since I'm not a Vietnam buff, but as a casual reader I found the inconsistency annoying and confusing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need consistent name 

message: This image has been repeatedly put into the article by an IP user. It's a copyrighted image and no fair use claim has been made with respect to this article. To qualify for fair use, the image itself has to be the subject of sourced commentary in the article. (See WP:FU.) Since this article will go on the CD edition and will be distributed to schools, I think we need to be careful about these things. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddie Adams image as fair use 

message: There is a proposal to move NLF (disambiguation) to NLF. The page NLF would no longer redirect here. You might want  to comment at Talk:NLF. Sam5 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move proposal 

message: Trần Văn Trà ( Nguyễn Chấn ); 1919–1996,  born in Sơn Tịnh, Quảng Ngãi,
Trần Nam Trung (Trần Khuy, Trần Lương) 1914  born in Mộ Đức, Quảng Ngãi
Hoàng Văn Thái 1915–1986 born in  Thái Bình, North Vietnam 
Lê Trọng Tấn(1914–1986), born in   Hà Đông ,North Vietnam 
Poliburo of the Vietnam Workers' Party  1960- 1976
1. Hồ Chí Minh -death 1969 
2 Lê Duẩn 
3.Trường Chinh   
4 Phạm Văn Đồng 
5 Lê Đức Thọ 
6 Phạm Hùng   
7 Võ Nguyên Giáp 
8 Nguyễn Chí Thanh - death 1967 
9 Nguyễn Duy Trinh   
10 Lê Thanh Nghị   
11 Hoàng Văn Hoan   
12 Văn Tiến Dũng  
13 Trần Quốc Hoàn  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.71.169 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This source gives Trần Văn Trà as Vietcong defense minister and COSVN chair. This one says that the name "Trần Nam Trung" was just a fictional cover. Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History often refers to Trà as if he was the guy in charge. The book's index does not even have a listing for Trung. After Trà published his memoirs in 1982, the Vietnamese government put him under house arrest and now it seems that he has become an unperson. Kauffner (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I put some of this in, but you should know that Wikipedia articles in Vietnamese or otherwise don't count as RS. As far as Trần Nam Trung goes, several sources identify this as a fictitious name. The standard histories of the war don't mention him. Trà was senior PRG representative at Độc Lập when South Vietnam surrendered. This suggests that whatever his official title, Trà was the guy in charge. According to Vietnamese Wikipedia, Trung is still alive. You'd think he'd be giving interviews, publishing memoirs, or at least protesting the way mainstream historians have overlooked him. Kauffner (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Do you think these pictures prove that Trung was really defense minister? There were lots of pictures of Nguyen Van Be. They even erected statues to him in Hanoi. But he turned out be a fake as well. Kauffner (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trần Văn Trà 

message: Given Wikipedia's English language policies, can we form a consensus on the English to use for this article:
#en-gb: No particular reason to (unless first construction was en-gb, can someone check?)
#en-us: Large historical reasons
#en-au / en-nz: Minor historical reasons
 Fifelfoo (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version of English to use 

message: Forgive me for being forward, but it seems to me that the first sentence does not convey the name of the organization accurately. Apparently those fighting against the US and South Vietnam governments called their organization the "Front" or the "Vietminh." If so, the first sentence should communicate that. Here is one way to get that across:
:The Vietcong (Việt Cộng) was a name used by the US and its allies for the National Liberation Front for South Vietnam, an army fighting against the South Vietnamese and American governments during the Vietnam War (1959-1975). 
Would anyone object to this change? Olorinish (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As Kauffner states, the issue is covered in detail under "Names" which says that members called it the "Front." As Kauffner states, "Vietcong" is standard in English, but this is an encyclopedia, and we should indicate the correct name in other important languages in the first sentence. Kauffner is correct that there is no single established english translation of the name, but that should not stop us from making the first sentence as accurate as possible.
What do other people think? Olorinish (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for first sentence 

message: spelling of organization in the first sentence is incorrect
Kjohnson1225 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's spelled according to British English and should be consistent throughout.  fetchcomms☛ 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Kjohnson1225, 11 April 2010 

message: I think that Viet Cong was a common and general way to call Vietnamese army fighting against the South. It is not necessary that they had to be in the South Vietnam or Cambodia.
viet cong was the vietnamese goverment  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.185.106 (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time, the distinction between VC and North Vietnamese was considered hugely important. The Vietnamese don't seem to emphasize it nowadays. In the official media, the soldiers are all "PAVN", whether they are from the North or the South. Kauffner (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Viet Cong (Việt Cộng), or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia" ...? 

message: There are multiple Geneva Conferences, the one in the article should link to the Geneva Conference (1954) page. 72.207.247.50 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to correct Conference 

message: 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, 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pending changes 

message: Why are all the images negative US propaganda?
Should there not also be images of heroic freedom fighters?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Images produced by the U.S. federal government are all copyright-free, which simplifies the paperwork/bureaucracy aspect both in terms of uploading them and in terms of putting them in the article. There is now a "heroic freedom fighter" image near the bottom. People have complained about the images of bombings, but that's what the group is famous for. The PRG flag has been suggested as an alternative. But the Vietcong usually flew the North Vietnamese flag, so I think this would exaggerate the flag's historical importance. Kauffner (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: China State TV carried a report some years ago connecting the flag of the the Vietcong () (1960-1975) to that of the Fujian People's Government () (1933-1934). The two flags certainly look remarkably similar. But it seems more likely that the VC flag is a variation on the Flag of North Vietnam (). The Asian communist flags have no nationalistic elements at all, just red field, star, hammer, sickle, etc. So perhaps the same combination turned up on two independently designed flags. Kauffner (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of the Fujian People's Government 

message: I am generally very impressed by the quality of this article - I've read very few Wikipedia articles on controversial historical topics with this level of balance and verifiability - but I think some claims and sources used are problematic according to neutral point of view and reliable sources principles:
* Two claims on the relationship between the VC and the South Vietnamese populace are sourced from Ralph Zumbro's Tank Sergeant. These claims are "Many Vietcong units operated at night, and employed terror as a standard tactic" and "Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Vietcong". I do not know Zumbro's books, but Google Books describes it as an "evocative, action-packed memoir" from a US veteran. A soldier's memoir is hardly a reliable source in this context - at least not without a disclaimer ("According to US Sergeant Ralph Zumbro's memoir ..."). And what exactly does "Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Vietcong" mean? That the entire VC based their rations on rice produced at gunpoints, that some VC units did this, or that some VC soldiers did this? Such general statements are only justifiable if they cite academic sources.
* The information about the My Canh and Dak Son massacres cite only contemporary news reports. According to WP:RS, "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports".
* I find the citation marks around "2d Liberation Battalion" problematic ("The "2d Liberation Battalion" ambushed two companies ..."). I do not believe it is customary to use citation marks for military units - we write German Sixth Army and not "German Sixth Army". I suspect whoever wrote the paragraph wants to make it clear that the VC was not objectively a liberation army - which is of course true, but this is clear from the context and using citation marks around a unit's name discredits it, making it seem like it's not a "real" unit and certainly not a "real" liberation battalion. By WP:NPOV, we are not in a position to make such subtle political statements.
Peace, 96T (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To add another RS issue, there is a pictorial citation of a prisoner of a VC internment camp, but no mention of the subject in the article proper. This aspect of the VC should be included in the article, not mentioning that every other picture in the article is accompanied by textual analysis. --Retrospector87 (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the article and reflected that it is very unbalanced and negative towards Viet Cong, who on the North Vietnam side could be regarded as liberators from the corrupt South Vietnamese regime, and also as national heroes, perhaps. The war was certainly foul and US troups were known to be nasty indeed with massacres of civilians, so it would be better if the tone of the article just states things as they were, not as it was some evil communist insurgency kicking the ass of brave american soldiers. This is no place for martyrist propaganda, wars are evil even if told according to WP:NPOV. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and RS concerns 

message: "By the terms of the Geneva Accord (1954), which ended the Indochina War, France and the Viet Minh agreed to a truce and to a separation of forces. The Vietminh became the government of North Vietnam and communist forces regrouped there. Non-communist forces regrouped in South Vietnam, which became a separate state."
I really question calling South Vietnam a separate state here.  There was not a formal state in the south by any stretch of the imagination.  Certainly the Geneva Accord did not establish one, and really couldn't have anyway because that was for the Vietnamese people to decide.  I propose deleting "became a separate state" or changing it to something like "under a government formed by Diem and backed by the US."
 curt 3/27/2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioprof (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm assuming from your name that you're familiar with the academic generation of knowledge.  On wikipedia we don't follow that model, we report what is said in the best quality sources available.  You would need to compare the source used to sustain the statement you question, with other sources, and follow the preponderance of highest quality sources on the matter.  Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I do not understand the objection.  The new state may have been illegimate and not universally recognized, but it was a state nonetheless - it had its own army and civil service and had some degree of control over the area over which it claimed jurisdiction.  TFD (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

text: We have WP:HISTRS which strongly mirrors both the long standing opinions of reliable sources noticeboard editors and the system for determining current scholarly opinion in academia: review articles in scholarly journals, historiographical works, historiographical chapters in edited collections. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: Origin 

message: 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) 03:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Vietnamese diacritics 

message: :"A divided Vietnam angered Vietnamese nationalists, but it made the country less of a threat to China. Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai negotiated the terms of the ceasefire with France and then imposed them on the Vietminh."
I am student at the University of Washington, currently studying specifically the relationship between China and Vietnam. It is my understanding that this claim is misleading; additionally, no source is given to substantiate it. It should be rephrased to a more balanced statement. The situation was much more nuanced then the above statement makes it seem; here is the analysis of the Chinese role in the Geneva accords given by Duiker:
A divided Vietnam angered Vietnamese nationalists, but some leaders would go on to speculate that it made Vietnam less of a threat to China (or that the Chinese government had greater designs in the area). Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai put substantial pressure on the Vietminh delegation, who reluctantly agreed to compromise on the terms of the ceasefire, offering a number of key concessions.
I'm also not sure if I'm opening up a really old debate here, but the title of this article really should not be "Viet Cong." That was not the formal name of the organization, and is considered (by some) to be a derogatory name for the Vietnamese Communists who were members of the National Liberation Front. I personally think this really should be changed and the first sentence should reorder the two names to say "The National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong..." primarily because the group's official/formal name was the National Liberation Front. Just my two cents on ways to improve this article. --BenjaminMalin (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a  requested move on this issue a while back. Britannica, Merriam-Webster and other references give the name of this subject as "Viet Cong"/"Vietcong" with no notation to the effect that it is derogatory. Whether it actually is derogatory or not shouldn't matter. But I have looked into this issue and talked to several Vietnamese about it. "Viet Cong" is the common name in Vietnamese as well and there is no sense of it being derogatory. Why would it be derogatory? It is a conventional way to abbreviate "Vietnamese communist." At one time, Hanoi denied the communist character of this group. But that is no longer the case. In today's Vietnam, there is only the communist party, and they take credit for the entire war effort. Kauffner (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Role in Geneva Conference & Article Name 

message: Sources being cited are US information service, and the Reader's Digest, among others, publicized during the war. None of these are reliable sources. I suggest this entire paragraph be deleted. This is merely questionable propaganda. 68.226.57.161 (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This entire paragraph is of questionable accuracy 

message: Adelson Velsky Landis converted this page into a redirect and performed a cut and paste move to National Liberation Front for South Vietnam.  There are two problems with this;
Firstly, from a technical point of view, this is not how you move an article.  Please read this and this.   Unfortunately we cannot perform the move properly now, because the created National Liberation Front for South Vietnam article is now in the way.  A request to a moderator will have to be made to delete this page first.
Secondly, this moving is likely to be controversial and should be discussed first.  You should follow the procedure described here.
Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving this page to [[National Liberation Front for South Vietnam]] 

message: Please rename this to National Liberation Front (Vietnam). Using this name is so subjective! Wikipedia should be neutral, not a propaganda place for planting the US point of view by even using propaganda names! The article CAN'T be called Viet Cong! Rename it now. --188.113.91.110 (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And now I see that the real name is even taken out of the infobox, as well as that it stays "Viet Cong, also known as National Liberation Front" in the introduction (and when Viet Cong stays first, it seems more like Viet Cong was the organization's prefered name, and NLF was another name used on them - exactly opposite of reality!) --188.113.91.110 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but what can we do to have it changed to NPOV? Revlurk (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I've started a formal request to have the article moved, see the bottom of the talk page. Revlurk (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Liberation Front 

message: Please replace the current "Infobox war faction" code at the start of this article with the following, which attempts to present the infobox's information in a more organized way. (To see the result, remove the  and  tags.)

Thank you, 
213.246.83.192 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done: thanks for these improvements. I've made the changes you suggested to the leaders list and the headquarters section, as these seem to be improvements at no cost. I've left the others, because somewhere along the line, at least with larger text size choices, it makes the infobox wider (and therefore the lead text narrower). Not that I object to that personally, but I'd rather wait for consensus. --Stfg (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus, also when the perennial sockpuppetry of a community banned user is ignored. Favonian (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Viet Cong →  – Viet Cong is pejorative colloquialism for the NLF used by American soldiers and the Saigon regime and newspapers (see Viet Cong#Names and also History.com). It would be more NPOV to use the official name of the group as the article title as well as in the article itself. This is in line with point #2 of WP:POVNAME. The name could be either "National Liberation Front" (NLF) (short for "National Liberation Front for South Vietnam"), or it could be "Liberation Army of South Vietnam". I suggest "National Liberation Front" as that seems to be the most commonly used NPOV term (used for example on Encyclopædia Britannica and History.com), and is also precise, in line with WP:PRECISE. Revlurk (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Post-close comments===
I am currently reading STREET WITHOUT JOY by Bernard Fall. I quote from the book; "...the National Liberation Front military forces —on our side they are being referred to as Viet-Cong, a disparaging term for "Vietnamese Communists"..." STREET WITHOUT JOY (First SCHOKEN PAPERBACK edition 1972 Third Printing 1975
I consider Bernard Fall to be a definative, expert source, as he was in Vietnam as a journalist with first the French, and the then the U.S forces. He was an expert on all political and military aspects of the war. I have read elsewhere in the same book, and in sources by other authors, that the term "Viet Cong" was a propaganda term used as a pejoritive by the French, the Americans, and their minions in Vietnam. The use of the term "Viet Cong" clearly represents a point of view, though it is probable that many who do so don't realise that. I also remind the editors that one does not look for an entry/article on the Wehrmacht under "Heinie", "Boche", "Jerry", or "Kraut". Anthony Gumbrell 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree. Viet Cong is an insult. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tonygumbrell, interesting, a shame your comment didn't come up top when the RM was opened. Bernard Fall does clearly state it is a disparaging term. User:Gob Lofa yes vi.wp (article :vi:Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam) attributes the term to Ngô Đình Diệm  Tổng thống đầu tiên của Việt Nam Cộng hòa Ngô Đình Diệm đã phổ biến cụm từ Việt Cộng để chỉ những người "Cộng sản Việt Nam". I note that http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q174423#sitelinks-wikipedia shows the official name being used by most other large wikis. :fr:Front national de libération du Sud Viêt Nam. But a lot of these wikis have no WP:COMMONNAME equivalent rule. The question would be whether there are enough Bernard Fall type sources in English to make it not WP:OR in English that "Việt Cộng" is pejorative. We generally don't name movements by pejorative names. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, source 8 in article William S. Turley The Second Indochina War 2008 does clearly say "The term Viet Cong, originally a contraction of Viet gian cong san (Communist Traitor to Vietnam), was a pejorative label ..." which supports User:Soman's first comment about WP:COMMONNAME above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know how long we must wait until another vote can be taken?Gob Lofa (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rule of thumb is generally six months. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See you all in April. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And two months will never fly -- try again August. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two months from the vote (finished October 12) would have been December. Six months gives you April. August is a full ten months after the vote. Will that fly? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gob Lofa. I agree it's time to review this. However a new RM must very clearly show (1) a print source Google Book evidence that "Viet Cong" is a loaded/biased/rude term, (2) cite the relevant titling guidelines that we do not use rude/offensive titles such as Gypsies for Romany. I'm not 100% sure where that guideline is located.... but it does exist... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2013 

message: I am currently reading STREET WITHOUT JOY by Bernard Fall. I quote from the book; "...the National Liberation Front military forces —on our side they are being referred to as Viet-Cong, a disparaging term for "Vietnamese Communists"..." STREET WITHOUT JOY (First SCHOKEN PAPERBACK edition 1972 Third Printing 1975
I consider Bernard Fall to be a definative, expert source, as he was in Vietnam as a journalist with first the French, and the then the U.S forces. He was an expert on all political and military aspects of the war. I have read elsewhere in the same book, and in sources by other authors, that the term "Viet Cong" was a propaganda term used as a pejoritive by the French, the Americans, and their minions in Vietnam. The use of the term "Viet Cong" clearly represents a point of view, though it is probable that many who do so don't realise that. I also remind the editors that one does not look for an entry/article on the Wehrmacht under "Heinie", "Boche", "Jerry", or "Kraut". Anthony Gumbrell 16:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Viet Cong is an insult. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Tonygumbrell, interesting, a shame your comment didn't come up top when the RM was opened. Bernard Fall does clearly state it is a disparaging term. User:Gob Lofa yes vi.wp (article :vi:Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam) attributes the term to Ngô Đình Diệm  Tổng thống đầu tiên của Việt Nam Cộng hòa Ngô Đình Diệm đã phổ biến cụm từ Việt Cộng để chỉ những người "Cộng sản Việt Nam". I note that http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q174423#sitelinks-wikipedia shows the official name being used by most other large wikis. :fr:Front national de libération du Sud Viêt Nam. But a lot of these wikis have no WP:COMMONNAME equivalent rule. The question would be whether there are enough Bernard Fall type sources in English to make it not WP:OR in English that "Việt Cộng" is pejorative. We generally don't name movements by pejorative names. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, source 8 in article William S. Turley The Second Indochina War 2008 does clearly say "The term Viet Cong, originally a contraction of Viet gian cong san (Communist Traitor to Vietnam), was a pejorative label ..." which supports User:Soman's first comment about WP:COMMONNAME above. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone know how long we must wait until another vote can be taken?Gob Lofa (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Rule of thumb is generally six months. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See you all in April. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And two months will never fly -- try again August. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Two months from the vote (finished October 12) would have been December. Six months gives you April. August is a full ten months after the vote. Will that fly? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Gob Lofa. I agree it's time to review this. However a new RM must very clearly show (1) a print source Google Book evidence that "Viet Cong" is a loaded/biased/rude term, (2) cite the relevant titling guidelines that we do not use rude/offensive titles such as Gypsies for Romany. I'm not 100% sure where that guideline is located.... but it does exist... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-close comments

message: Although the term "Viet Cong" was used by the Western media throughout the Vietnam War, it is in fact a derogatory term that was invented by the anti-communist regime in the South.  The article itself admits this (in the section on the name).  The standard name (which was also extensively used in the Western media) is "National Liberation Front (NLF)".  In keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality policy, the article title should be changed to that, and searches for "Viet Cong" should be redirected to "National Liberation Front".  If you're an editor who agrees, please make this change.  Thank you.2601:602:8900:EF1A:2D9B:76E8:2189:FABD (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate title of article 

message: I want to supply information on National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army by the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_South_Vietnam_army
Hanam190552 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 11:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015 

message: I propose that National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army be merged into this page. National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is an unnecessary duplication of this page, Viet Cong and Vietnam People's Army logistics and equipment, Viet Cong and PAVN strategy, organization and structure and NLF and PAVN battle tactics whatever useful reliably-sourced information contained there should be merged here and that page deleted. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Smallchief (talk  14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanam190552 has moved the page to Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) without moving the merger tag that I have reinstated on the new page. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I propose that the article Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) to the article of Viet Cong because Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) is the army of Viet Cong, a political organisation.Hanam190552 (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not merge proposal 

message: I propose that National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army be merged into this page. National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is an unnecessary duplication of this page, Viet Cong and Vietnam People's Army logistics and equipment, Viet Cong and PAVN strategy, organization and structure and NLF and PAVN battle tactics whatever useful reliably-sourced information contained there should be merged here and that page deleted. Mztourist (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Smallchief (talk  14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hanam190552 has moved the page to Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) without moving the merger tag that I have reinstated on the new page. Mztourist (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Should not the article be called National Liberation Front instead of Viet Cong? Viet Cong is a name America imposed on these freedom fighters and is not their name. Viet Cong seems to be a jingoistic or racist name. 77.100.129.163 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name