Talk:Viet Cong/Archive 1

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)

The term "Viet Cong" lacked racist intent, except as one may view any term used to describe someone in another country as racist. By that light, a French person described someone as anglaise is racist, because that person would describe himself as English, while the generally derogatory term "Russkie" to describe someone from Russia is not ethnocentric, because it is a better transliteration of the Cyrillic than "Russian."

The term "Viet Cong" was used descriptively to designate NLF fighters, as opposed to the ethnically identical Army of North Vietnam, who were called by the acronymn "PAVN." There were racist phrases for Vietnamese, notable "Gook" and "Slope".

BTW, virtually every war is racist, even between combatants who would others would consider ethnically similar.

This article should be moved to NLF. Viet Cong is NOT the name of the movement. // Wellp

Gah, the entire article is about the use of the term "Viet Cong" rather than the movement itself. Bad news overall, I think. I'd support having this article at Viet Cong and discussing the use of that term, and then having a separate article on the NLF as such. john 03:32, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

Well, yes. It would appear that most of the effort put into the article revolved around making sure that the use of the term "Viet Cong" was NPOV, rather than making sure that it was an informative article about the NLF. You do know that RickK listed your move of the article in Wikipedia:Requests for review of admin actions, though, don't you? john 03:45, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

I think that it is unprofessional to use colloquial terms for things that have proper names. I also think that if there is a question of offensiveness, which there clearly is here, it's better to err on the side of calling a group what they prefer to be called - c.f. the policy on the words "gay" and "homosexual". However Viet Cong should be an article on that term - not a redirect to this article. Snowspinner 19:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to note that, as this is still under fairly hot debate, it was probably poor form to move the article without at least a note on the talk pages as to what's going on. Is Viet Cong to be a separate article from NLF? Or what? Snowspinner 23:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that this article is, very largely, a discussion of the usage of the term "Viet Cong". I think we need to split it up, with that part in an article called Viet Cong, and the stuff on NLF on an article with the official name (and it's not as though "NLF" is some sort of obscure name - it was and is very commonly used). And yes, very poor form VV. john 23:46, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, and Snowspinner was talking about your move - there was no active discussion when 172 moved it. john 02:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)) I'm also not upset enough to move it back or take some other heavy action beyond muttering about it on the talk page. I didn't mean "poor form" as any sort of devestating criticism. In any case, let's carry on the debate on this. I agree with Plato/Comrade Nick that we should take a vote. Snowspinner 02:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I prefer National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam because "Viet Cong" is more informal word, like the term "VC." However, I suggest we take a vote on the issue--Comrade Nick 02:29, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't see that there's need for a vote unless we find we can't come to a consensus. john 02:56, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Of course. - VV 05:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Move

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)

The NLF article should give an overview of the history of this specific organization and go over the origins of the term "Viet Cong," in the sense that there is a single IWW article that gives an overview of that specific organization and notes the use of the term "Wobblies." 172 06:53, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that's no reason to do cut and paste moves. Furthermore, we seemed to be working towards some sort of consensus on the talk page. Just as it was bad form for VV to move the page back in the middle of discussions aimed at arriving at some kind of consensus, it is very bad form to do cut and paste moves on the page while discussion is ongoing. john 06:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

Since we're getting analogy-happy here, I submit that a better comparison is to the Irish situation. That is, I see Viet Cong as a term used by Americans and the South Vietnam government with little attempt to identify the actual organization(s) covered by the term. A lot of people use Irish Republican Army the same way. Meanwhile, the specific organizations covered in this article, the National Liberation Front and the People's Liberation Armed Forces, can be described as political and military wings of the same movement, corresponding roughly to Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army. I don't necessarily see Viet Cong as equivalent to National Liberation Front, though, in the same way that Wobblies is equivalent to Industrial Workers of the World.

Anyway, while the historical reasons for the terminology are different for the Irish and Vietnamese situations, the practical effects are similar. Check out the Irish situation and you will find that we have separate articles to handle the various organizations involved (and I fervently hope that I haven't simply given people new ideas on where to conduct their edit wars). As a consequence, I support the idea of splitting this into separate pages, each of which should provide appropriate context and prominently link to the others. --Michael Snow 16:26, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

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)

Viet Cong Derogatory?

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)

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)

Doubled article

Given that Viet Cong seems to be only a kind of abbreviation westerners made out of Việt Nam Cộng Sản, which apparently translates to something different from the subject described on this page, I think this article should be shortened to an explanation of this fact and direct to National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam. Get-back-world-respect 16:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Because the split was designed to solve a difference of opinion that produced a heated revert war, I would recommend against redirecting. I've rewritten the article a little so that it sounds less like Viet Cong is equivalent to National Liberation Front. --Michael Snow 20:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Move this page to National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam that's the proper name ^_^--Gustuv 22:40, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This has been discussed and debated and the current page is the page that follows the naming conventions of Wikipedia. RickK 23:05, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. --mav 03:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

VC IN CHINESE

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)

The point

As I already explained in my edit summary, the reason the allegation was inserted was because 1) its a serious allegation and 2) there are similar allegations against South Vietnam on its page. CJK 30 July 2005

Yes, and I kept your allegation in my edit. Now the question is: What are your objections to my version of the article? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

My objection is that you claim the NLF said being a puppet was impossible due to slow communications, which is untrue. Communications may have been delayed for several days, but that does not imply it would be impossible for orders to get in. CJK 30 July 2005

Hmmm, fair enough, I removed that part. See? Talking is good... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer using "puppet" unless the language on the South Vietnam article is changed. CJK 1 August 2005

I see. Well, it's only fair to use the same language then. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. CJK 2 August 2005

Why is this a separate article again?

The history of why this is a separate article seems to have been lost in argument about reverts and illegitimate edits and so forth. Could someone explain to a newcomer to the debate why this no longer redirects to the NFLV article? — ciphergoth 07:44, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• Keep separate articles. Gene Nygaard 20:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Split from Viet Cong

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) I am of the same opinion that images and examples used do not provide a balanced, object account of events. In fact, this is what has brought me to this discussion. I see I am not the first to protest about the grotesquely one sided images and arguments used here. Who is editing this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Clifford (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Viet Cong / Viet Minh

• the US-Nope. That was the Viet Minh, a different organization. john 00:23, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
• OK, thanks. RickK 02:19, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Title

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)

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)

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)

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)

Introduction?

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)

separate entries?

according to who? and who benefits from the redundancy? Sam [Spade] 04:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After lengthy discussions, the community consensus was that the NLF article should deal with the organization, as the organization referred to itself as the NLF (and never as the "Viet Mien," which was a pejorative term), while the VC article deal with the origins and use of the term "VC" among the South Vietnamese and Americans. 172 04:09, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

ah, ok. Sam [Spade] 04:25, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The title should be "National Front for the Liberation of Southern Vietnam" as translated word by word from "Mặt Trận Giải Phóng Miền Nam Việt Nam".

Me, A Kid's Understanding

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)

HAHA Imperialist racist kid! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Is it only me who sees sarcasm? Timeline as follows: End WW2 VN (Vietnamese) ask US for help; US says yes; US changes mind and supports return of French; USSR & China start supporting VN; VN get rid of French; US fearing communism support alt south VN govt; VN get rid of US; VN get rid of unwanted dictatorship; VN always nationalist before communist; VN pay price as USSR help(?!) and VN end up isolated under USSR system; USSR collapses; VN finally free(ish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.182.242 (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Charlie

Did Charlie exist as a racial slur before the vietnam war? --Gbleem 15:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Charlie isn't a racial slur. It is short for "Victor Charlie", which is the radio alphabet equivalent for "VC": Viet Cong. See the article. Racial slurs were terms like "gook", "slope", "zipperhead" and other wonderful bon mots.--Social theorist 10:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Charlie is a racial slur, as is Viet Cong. They never refer to themselves as the title. Being called that by aggressors is most certainly a racial slur.

The term "Charlie" did not exist as a "racial slur" prior to American involvement in the war. The origin of the term (note the word origin, about which we are talking) was not racist, but rather as described above: "Victor Charlie" is the American military phonetic spelling of VC, the abbreviation for Viet Cong. (Obviously, before America encountered a group called the Viet Cong, there would be no need for the abbreviation, would there???) Viet Cong was a term used by South Vietnamese government personnel, and was adopted by American forces upon their entry itno the war. It is therefore no suprise that the communist forces would not call themselves "Charlie"; Germans in WWII didn't call themselves "jerrys" or "krauts", either. The point is that all historical sources agree that this is where the term came from, and aside from the obvious effect of cheapening of an enemy, in the same way jerry or kraut or does, there is no inherent racial connotation to the term. If you wish to insist otherwise, I suppose that you have a right to remain ignorant.Chesty95 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Might be a slur, but not a racial one. Dubc0724 14:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________

Did "Boche", "Scleuh", "Jerry" exist for "German" exist to demonize and dehumanize the opponent? Takima 13:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. After all, that is why they were created. Also Jap, chink, raghead, etc. VC was a moniker cooked up for the Diem regime by USAID in the late 50's. Until that time, communists (and I use the term loosely) were generallly refferred to by the SVN government and media as "Vietminh." This carried the connotation that those opposed to the government were nationalists (as well it should have). That connotation had to be debunked and the term Viet Cong was cooked up. Enter the US and the same quandry pokes up its ugly head. National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam? That had to go. Too many heavy connotations to overcome. Call them Viet Cong instead. Ditto the People's Army of Vietnam. Call them the NVA instead. Get it? Viet Cong was not a derogatory term? You have got to be kidding. Try replacing every instance of the title "Confederate States Army" with the word "rebel" in an article on the American Civil War and see what happens. Yet, the same is not true for virtually every article on the Vietnam War where the correct title NLF has been replaced by "Viet Cong" (I know since I wrote most of them). I know the argument. Most common title versus historical accuracy. Guess which one wins out. So much for Wiki's accuracy. Let the lowest common denominator win.74.177.109.240 (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

American Public "Scared"

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)

Why at NLF and not VC?

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)

But see from that article:

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)

It depends on who you talk to. For many Vietnamese people that I have met hailing from Westminster (the Little Saigon area), calling the NLF the "Viet Cong" is almost too nice. For others, such a term is a slur concocted by the corrupt Diem regime. Personally, I think this page should be termed NLF instead, whether or not the translation is wholly accurate since the members of that group did not refer to themselves as the Viet Cong. Whether or not this term is as "well known" in English seems to me beside the point.--Social theorist 09:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Viet Cong is without a doubt a racial slur. Would we call the African American page Negros?

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)

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)

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)

• The NLF was an organization of nationalists and communists who fought against and outlasted the governments of Diem, a whole lot of other fantastically talented generals, Thieu, and the militaries of South Vietnam, the U.S, ROK, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the PI and God only knows who else. They fought, bled, and died under the name and banner of the NLF, not the VC. That's their official title and I'll grant them that much. Or would you like an article on the American Civil War to describe the Confederate States government and army only as the "damn rebels?" RM Gillespie 06:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Were non-Communists in the NLF?

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)

Yes, there were "non-communists" in the NLF. The standard historical stance on the NLF is that they were made up of various groups, including remnants of the Cao Dai, Hoa Hao, Binh Xuyen, various Buddhist groups and others who were unhappy with the Diem regime. It seems to me that this article is quite slanted toward the notion that the NLF were only communists and elides what is considered their central raison d'etre: the overthrow of Diem. I would like to see from whence the grounds for this assumption come. --Social theorist 09:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Truong Nhu Tang, Social Theorist is correct. Not all NLF members were communist, but all were certainly Nationalists. There could be more changes to make this article NPOV. --UnfathomableJ

VC and the NVA

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)

_________________________________

It has happened well before in 1940, when the South "Trotskists" have upraised and been repressed by the French colonial forces. The Strategical drive of Ho Chi Minh Communist Party was to wait for a more favorable moment and momentum. See OSS Maj. A. Peter Dewey, the first American casualty in 1945, around Saigon's Tan Son Nhut Airport. http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/apdewey.htm

Takima

FLN Program

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)

VM & VC

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)

Viet Cong in Laos and Cambodia during Vietnam War

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)

• See Studies and Observations Group RM Gillespie 07:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Tet Offensive Section?

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)

• Tou are quite correct. Allied intelligence correctly predicted the offensive and the Tet truce was cancelled, also negating the NLF/PAVN violation of it. Only the scale and scope of the offensive came as a surprise. RM Gillespie 07:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Viet Cong are american propaganda

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)

Uhh no, not correct, Viet Cong is just short for the Vietnamese phrase for the communist party Viet Nam Cong San. It was first coined by the Vietnamese and then it bled over to the U.S. troops. Asteion 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Page move

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)

How about some history?

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) you dont mention in your article how extremely ruthless the nlf were towards their opponents they often killed entire familys.

The debate over terminology is evidently very important, as the article appears to take "Viet Cong" quite literally, despite the fact that the communist party constituted a minority in the NLF.

Given the behavior of the U.S. and its client, the NLF's "often" killing entire families would seem rather restrained. War is by nature "extremely ruthless", whether one is the invader or, as in the NLF's case, the invaded. Tomblikebomb (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Legitimacy

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)

Never mind that those "VIETNAMESE experiments" led to millions of dead throughout southeast Asia.

Back under your rock, Marxist trash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.96.221.79 (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Viet-Cong defintion

This stray piece of text was not well placed on the page by some editor. If someone else wants to integrate it, go ahead. -- Bovineone 00:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Viet-Cong = Việt is standing for Vietnam or Vietnamese. Cộng is standing for Cộng Sản that means Communist. During the war time before year 1975, the South Vietnamese people and the Soldiers of the Republic of Vietnam in the South called the Soldiers of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in the North Viet as "Việt Cộng" (Vietnamese Communist).

questions

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)~~collective conscious

Nguyen Huu Tho (chairman), Huynh Tan Phat (General Secretary, vice-chairman),Vo Chi Cong, Phung Van Cung (vice-chairman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.67.119 (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Viet Cong

National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam → Vietcong

• Support "Vietcong" has always been the common name for this organization. The current article title is absurdly long and unwieldly. The official name of the group was changed several times and this is just one of the names. "Vietcong" is short for "Vietnamese communist." At the time, the group objected to this name because it wanted to emphasize that it had non-communist members as well. As soon as the war was over, the communists were eager to boast of thier role. They don't object to the name nowadays. Post-war Vietnam was a pure one party state. In contrast with China, the non-communist Vietcong supporters who seemed so important during the war didn't even get token representation. The alternative spelling "Viet Cong" puts a space between the syllables because that's the way the Vietnamese writing system works. In Vietnamese, Vietnam is "Việt Nam," Saigon is "Sài Gòn" and so forth. There is no reason to follow this convention when writing in English. If you want authenticity, why not accents as well as spaces?Kauffner (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, FNL is the correct name for the organization, 'VC' is a title given to it by its enemies. --Soman (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment It's hardly unusual for an organization's name to be chosen by others. "al-Qaeda" is a name chosen by the CIA. The group uses a different name in almost every message it sends out, so what else can you do? The Vietcong used various names as well, so I don't think the the concept of a "correct name" applies here. FNL? It is a French-language abbreviation. It's like calling NATO "L'OTAN." Kauffner (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You might notice that I do not suggest a move. FNL is the french-language abbreviation, used by the organization internationally at the time. As per the al-Qaeda comparison, it doesn't really hold. In the case of al-Qaeda the entire naming issue is a bit unclear, it is a secret society rather than a formalized organization. --Soman (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the 1973 Paris Peace Accord, the full official name of the Vietcong was "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam"[1]Kauffner (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to prove my point? The problem with terms like 'Viet Cong', 'Khmer Rouge' etc. is that they are blurred and diffuse. FNL was a united front, which led a guerrilla army. The Provisional Revolutionary Government has a separate article, being a para-state structure. --Soman (talk) 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Provisional Revolutionary Government is just another name for Vietcong, so the term should redirect to here. Currently, it redirects to an article about the post-war transition period. I think this is a mistake that needs to be corrected. Wikipedia has articles entitled Khmer Rouge and North Korea. Following common English-language usage is an established rule and this article is a glaring exception to that rule. "FNL was a united front and led an army" -- even the communists dropped that line a long time ago. Vietcong military operations were directed from Hanoi.Kauffner (talk) 12:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Provisional Revolutionary Government, founded in 1969 forwards to Republic of South Vietnam, which is the name adopted by the PRG after the 1975 victory. The argument that the communists were all the same anyway doesn't hold. FNL and the Vietnam Workers Party had separate leadership structures. PRG was another structure. These organization did of course share the common goal of national liberation, but that is not to say that they are identical (if they indeed were, please cough up some sources). Not all FNL members were full members of the VWP. --Soman (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to write the same the thing? The offical name of the group was "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam." PRG and RSV are just parts of the full name, two ways of shortening it. There was no name change in 1975.

You don't seem to understand how Communist Parties work. Actual membership is an elite status. You first have to rise through the ranks in an affiliated group like the Fatherland Front or the Youth League. This type of group is obviously communist as well!

Tran Van Tra is probably the best-known Vietcong leader. He was Giap's deputy chief of staff in the 1950s, a general in the North Vietnamese army, a central committee member in North Vietnamese communist party, chairman of COSVN (i.e. the top commander in the National Liberation Front), and PRG defense minister.[2] In other words, NVA, VC, NLF, and PRG were just different hats worn by the same guy.Kauffner (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for assuming that I'm ignorant. Noone is disputing that FNL was politically under the leadership of the Workers Party of Vietnam (which was not the 'North Vietnamese communist party', but the Vietnamese communist party). That is not to say that they are the same organization. Two organizations/structures can have same or similar orientation, but still deserve a separate article. FNL, PRG, VWP, etc. are all notable in their own right. We do have separate articles for the Workers Party of Korea and the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland, even though the political line is identical. --Soman (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Workers' Party" was the North Vietnamese communist party. In South Vietnam, it was the People's Revolutionary Party.Kauffner (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding has been that PRP was a front of WPV in South Vietnam, not a fraternal party. The article Communist Party of Vietnam doesn't really give any insight to that issue, but notably PRP was not represented in international meetings of communist parties, in those meetings WPV represented all of Vietnam (however, the party boycotted the 1969 conference, so there is some uncertainty on that issue). This highlight the need for the creation of a separate article on the People's Revolutionary Party (Vietnam) and an expansion of the history section of the CPV article. --Soman (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support to Viet Cong. The two-word form is more common in English than Vietcong, as Whatlinkshere attests. VC is the common term in English, and "National Liberation Front" is more common than "National Front for the Liberation..." As for the argument that VC is a term chosen by their enemies, Wikipedia has other article locations like Contras and Nazi Party (though in that case I'd prefer National Socialist German Workers Party), where the "common name" rule has trumped concerns about bias or "proper" naming. By the way, is this just a straw poll, or is it for real? If you're serious, it should be listed at WP:RM. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The Contras analogy doesn't hold. The Contras article deals with the generic umbrella term 'contras'. We do at the same time have separate articles, under correct names, for Nicaraguan Democratic Force and Nicaraguan Resistance. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (for Viet Cong) from WP:RM as the most common name in English. This could be resolved by expanding this article to explicitly discuss the (fairly numerous) associated organizations, which were VC, but not strictly NLF. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I talked to a Vietnamese about this subject and I can report that in present-day Vietnam the two most common names for Vietcong are Việt Cộng and Cộng Sản (communist). You can't be more Catholic than the Pope, you know.Kauffner (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See Sedevacantism ;-> But that ain't consensus, either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, one learns something new everyday whilst editing. I'm not sure exactly what would be the character of a umbrella article, but certainly there could be a Communism in Vietnam article, covering the entire history of the Vietnamese communist movement. The term VC was however, at least in English literature and media, mainly used in military terms. It is analogous to the usage of the term 'CT' (short for 'Communist Terrorist') during the British war in Malaya. --Soman (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why Viet Cong?

I read the above arguement but still don't understand why many of you think that has always been the common name for this organization (National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam). Viet Cong is a Vietnamese root word, so please consult Vietnamese dictionary for this word. You can ask any Vietnamese you want that did they distinguish "North Vietnam" and "Communist Guerilla in the South" for "Viet Cong" word? Vinhtantran (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "[Việt cộng] -- Vietnamese Communist; Viet Cong; Vietcong" from Lac Viet (2002)
• "Việt cộng Vietcong or Viet Cong (called by the Americans in the Vietnam war) the armed forces of the National Li-beration Front of South Vietnam." from Từ điển Việt-Anh by Bùi Phụng (2003). Kauffner (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Viet Cong is the English term, and as this is *not* Vietnamese Wikipedia, we use what English speakers use. Do you understand that Vinhtantran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.157.102 (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Việt cộng a word given in modern-day Vietnamese dictionaries, quoted above. The word is redirect in Vietnamese Wikipedia. I've talked to Vietnamese, they certainly know what the word means. The official name of the group in Vietnamese is Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam, but that's quite a mouthful to say in conversation. I watched Apocalypse Now with Vietnamese subtitles. They translate "Charlie" as Việt cộng. Kauffner (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Viet Cong is not the English term for NLF, which for some reason redirects to Viet Cong. Viet Cong, as used by American forces and a certain South Vietnamese minority, was the term for the fictional, unified Communist organization supposed to be centrally controlling all rebel forces. "Viet Cong" meant "Vietnamese Communists". If Wikipedia wants to make an article on Vietnamese Communists, it should, but the fact is the NLF is not the same thing as Vietnamese Communists. "Charlie" on your DVD translates to "Viet Cong" because "Charlie" is short for "Victor Charlie", which is military code for "VC", which is short for Viet Cong. Your Apocalypse Now DVD translates what is said by the characters, not the facts. Many English-speaking people refused to use the term Viet Cong, precisely because it was inaccurate. Among those is renowned linguist Noam Chomsky. If 99%of English-speakers use "Viet Cong", then "Viet Cong" perhaps deserves to be a page. It should be a page that discusses the term itself and is LINKED to the NLF page, the same way the N-word might be linked to a page on African-Americans. "Viet Cong" should redirect to "NLF", and the content of the page should be changed to reflect the same difference. Is Wikipedia objective or will it incorporate U.S. propaganda into the language itself as in Newspeak? Tomblikebomb (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the comments above where you will find answers to your questions. There has already been a formal page move vote on this issue. Vietnamese say Việt cộng, not for any political, N-word, pejorative sort of reason, but because the various official Vietnamese names of the group are too long for casual use. Today's Vietnamese government is proudly communist and eager to give communists all the credit. So it's not like Vietnamese will be offended if the Vietcong is described as communist. Kauffner (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the Vietnam Workers Party is offended or not. Firstly the NLF or NFL or FNL was multiparty, and this was significant to orientation and structure of the revolution in the South to 1965ish. The "Popular Front" nature, in a kind of VWP Post-Stalinist manner, was a significant feature of the NLF. Secondly, as far as English usage goes, NLF and PLAF are more commonly used by specialists, and VC is used in popular language. The popular language (Viet Cong) is imprecise as it improperly conflates three phenomena: the PLAF local forces and main line units; the NLF political structure and cadre structure; and, seperately to the VWM, an actual "communist" movement (as in for the communisation of social production and distribution) of rural proletarians for spontaneous land division. The distinction between the Nationalist anti-colonial struggle, the VWP struggle for hegemony of all Vietnam, and the actual rural revolution is significant. It explains who got it in the neck and why in 1975, and why the PLAF main line forces could be callously used as disposable assets by the VWM in 1968. 129.94.79.65 (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Literal name

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)

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."[3] (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)

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)

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)

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)

basic error

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)

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)

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)

Need consistent name

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)

Eddie Adams image as fair use

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)

Corrupted definitions should be corrected

As has been pointed out numerous times, the name "Viet Cong" is a pejorative (not racially) term used against the NLF. While it is commonplace for the victors to write the history, this is one instance where such an occurence has not taken hold. Nationalist organizations being smeared as ideological ones clouds the understanding of the vietnam war. As the war was one of the worst humanitarian tragedies in history, understanding what really happened is of paramount importance. By mislabeling the NLF as the Viet Cong, the perception still exists that the war was primarily one of ideological roots between capitalists and communists. It ignores the larger, more accurate assessment of the war as a struggle against colonialism. This is a reflection of American arrogance (yes, I am a US citizen) that we cannot let our failed understanding of a conflict take root in history. A victorious liberation against vastly superior forces (in terms of funding, equipment and numbers) deserves an honest telling of their story, even if honesty here is a black eye against US pride. brorlob 09:43, 18 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.222.98 (talk)

If you look above, you can see that this issue has been discussed endlessly and voted on at least once. Wikipedia standard is to use common names. See WP:COMMONNAME. Vietcong/Viet Cong is way more common than NLF, as you can verify using Google Trends. The vast majority of NLF examples don't refer to Vietnam -- many are people misspelling NFL. Not that it matters, but it's just not true the "Viet Cong" is pejorative -- it is the common Vietnamese name as well. Kauffner (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I have talked to a Vietnamese man who was a coworker of mine on this subject, and he assured me that Viet Cong is pejorative. In point of fact, he'd never even heard the term until his twenties when he first saw Hollywood movies. It implies significant untruths about a group which had a major influence on its region's history. The first untruth being that it was a primarily communist organization. This implication is indefensible as it contributes to a misunderstanding of the larger conflict. I also had a history professor who made a damned convincing case which included source material from linguists and regional experts. I have never heard a single person who is familiar with the nuances of the politics of Vietnam who believes Viet Cong is a satisfactory term for the NLF. And the fact that Viet Cong is the more common name is irrelevant. In 1930, nigger was far more common than "black" or "african american" in parts of the US. Just because a word is popularly misused does not validate the usage.

Which name is more common might not matter to you, but it is the way article titles are chosen on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if Vietnamese like the word or not, but the idea that they consider it pejorative is ridiculous. Việt cộng ("Việt+cộng"&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryVN) gets almost four times as many hits in Vietnam as Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam ("Mặt+trận+Dân+tộc+Giải+phóng+miền+Nam+Việt+Nam"&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryVN), (NLF in Vietnamese). Of course the Vietcong was a communist organization -- Tran Van Tra's memoirs show that North Vietnamese army officers gave the orders. Kauffner (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your skills of logic need some work. Just because an organization (or person) accepts orders from communists does not define that organization (or person) as communist. It is not surprising that many Vietnamese believed the communists were the best choice for a free nation given their experiences with the French and Chinese. Any truly nationalist movement would by necessity organize with the communists against the Diep regime and the Americans, regardless of political persuasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brorlob (talk • contribs) 07:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Just because an organization (or person) accepts orders from communists does not define that organization (or person) as communist." Maybe not, but it certainly means the group was controlled by the communists, and eventually the other token parties were destroyed after the revolution. The united Front was simply a tactic to lead "nationalist" into the Communist camp. Brush up on your Lenin "united all who can be united" "focus revolutionary energies etc."--Dudeman5685 (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Brush up on your history of the NLF (or NFL or MTDTGPMNVN), which wasn't a simple "Leninist" organisation in any sense. I am in favour of the article title remaining Viet Cong, but the internal name rapidly changing to NLF, PRG, PLAF as appropriate, with appropriate mentions of the Vietnam Workers Party cadre in the NLF, and with a clear differentiation between NLF policy and the local implementation. Why? The Southern Revolution, generally but not completely in alliance with the VWP lead anti-colonial struggle, was internally divided albeit externally united. Its important to not gloss over the difference between the NLF and PLAF, nor the difference between the Southern VWP cadre, and the NLF. Encyclopedic precision should over rule "Common name" when the common name refers to 5 different groups (VWP cadre in NLF, NLF, PRG, PLAF, the local level revolution). Common name should over rule encyclopedic precision when it comes to the name of the article: people interested in the Viet Cong are generally interested in one of those five facets of the Southern struggle, and often also have an interest in the PAVN, and Northern VWP as well. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed a member of the alphabet soup brigade: the People's Revolutionary Party, the "paramount member" of the NLF. Did the NLF have any non-paramount members? If so, I've never heard of any. Vietnam is a single party state today without even token non-communist parties of the kind China has. Non-communist leaders in the NLF like Trương Như Tạng were played for fools. Individuals were typically members of several organizations, so it was just the same people wearing different hats. Official Vietnamese sources use "Viet Nam People's Army" (Quân đội Nhân dân) for both North Vietnamese and VC forces. Kauffner (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Move proposal

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)

Trần Văn Trà

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)

Trần Nam Trung joined the Communist Party of Indochina in 1931, became an official member Central Committee of the CPV 1960, Colonel General 1974 Trần Văn Trà became an official member Central Committee of the CPV 1960 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.71.169 (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Tiếng Việt -Vietnamese language

Trần Nam Trung Trần Văn Trà —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.71.169 (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

COSVN: secretary: Nguyễn Văn Linh (1961-64), Nguyễn Chí Thanh (1964-1967), Phạm Hùng (1967-1975). vice secretary: Võ Chí Công (1961-1975), Phan Văn Đáng (1961-1975), Nguyễn Văn Linh (1964-1975) see: Trung ương Cục miền Nam

Trần Nam Trung (minister of defense),

Liberation Army: commander: Nguyễn Hữu Xuyến (1961-1963), Trần Văn Trà (1963-1967), Hoàng Văn Thái, (1967-1973) Trần Văn Trà (1973-1975), vice commander: Lê Trọng Tấn (1964-1975), Lê Đức Anh (1964-1969, 1974-1975)), Trần Văn Trà (1968-1972), Nguyễn Thị Định (1965-1975. see: Quân Giải phóng Miền Nam Việt Nam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.67.120 (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Picture Trần Văn Trà and Trường Chinh (left) 1949[4]

Picture Trần Văn Trà[5][6]

Picture Trần Nam Trung[7]

Picture Trần Nam Trung and Fidel Castro Ruz 1973[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.67.81 (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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.[9] Kauffner (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trần Nam Trung (Trần Lương) (1912-2009) died in Ho Chi Minh City, 10 May 2009[10][11]

Which version of English to use

Given Wikipedia's English language policies, can we form a consensus on the English to use for this article:

1. en-gb: No particular reason to (unless first construction was en-gb, can someone check?)
2. en-us: Large historical reasons
3. en-au / en-nz: Minor historical reasons

Fifelfoo (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for first sentence

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)

Definitely an improvement. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kauffner reverted my change, but I intend to change it back soon, for the following reasons:

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)

Edit request from Kjohnson1225, 11 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

spelling of organization in the first sentence is incorrect Kjohnson1225 (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's spelled according to British English and should be consistent throughout.  fetchcomms☛ 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Viet Cong (Việt Cộng), or National Liberation Front (NLF), was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia" ...?

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)

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)

Link to correct Conference

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)

Pending changes

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).

Images

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)

I agree. These images are all US propaganda and do not reflect a balanced, objective viewpoint. --Karaff (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Me three! Those non-neutral images should be removed by someone. I wish I could do that right now--Phuyem (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree with you guys, it´s really parcial and real propaganda no impartial images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.190.185 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the problem with the images. They give a heavily POV slant to the article. Since there seems to be an overwhelming consensus that the images are too heavily weighted toward a US POV, I've gone ahead and made some changes.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is just the images, the whole thing is US propoganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL 24.214.238.86 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag of the Fujian People's Government

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)

Viet Cong or Vietcong?

Probably not as heated an issue as some other questions here re etymology of "Viet Cong", but I might also note that this should really be rendered as Vietcong... in much the same sense that we no longer write Viet Nam (as was once common practice). see this: http://www.history.uk.com/styleguide/u-w.htm#V

Viet Cong is better (VC). Victorcharlie or Victor Charlie? Viet Nam is also better.

The name should be FNL and nothing else. "Viet Cong" was a propaganda sticker name invented by the Pentagon and the reliant U.S. media. Though widely used in the mass media at the time, it was soon recognized as a POV labeling. Most other WPs have opted for FNL because it's the name this movement called itself by.

You think that they called themselves by a French abbreviation? Kauffner (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ever heard of translation of names? FNL is legitimate in the same way that Mexico City, Moscow or the Republic of India are correct names, even though they read differently in the local tongues. Viet Cong is just as derogatory as if an article on African-American musical traditions were called "Negro grooves".

And the organization is question freely accepted to be referred to as FNL (or FLN) by media outlets and by people supporting it in the West. It never accepted "Viet Cong", period. Everyone who has taken the trouble to learn something about the Vietnam War knows this.Strausszek (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Names can be translated, but why would you translate the name of a Vietnamese organization into French and then use that name in English? FLN?? A Spanish abbreviation? That's even more bizarre. AFAIK, neither abbreviation was ever got significant use in English language media. I checked a Vietnamese dictionary. It has Việt cộng, but not FLN or FNL. Kauffner (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

US media conflated the NFL, PRG, VWP (in South Vietnam) and PLAF (all anglicised acronyms, of course). US media tended to distinguish the DRVN and PAVN, but often conflated the DRVN and VWP (in the DRVN). Due to this conflation, Viet Cong is used commonly in English to refer to the PLAF, NFL/NLF/FLN, VWP and PRG. And yes, I'm very aware of the current VWP line on all of the Southern revolutionary organs being front organisations—they're producing a whig history to invalidate the role of the buddhists, cults, democratic bourgeois nationalists, and local revolutionaries in the national liberation struggle. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the Google News archive for 1958-1975, it's "Viet Cong" over NLF by 100 to 1. FNL, FLN, PAVN, DRVN, and PLAF never had significant usage. They get a few scattered mentions each. Kauffner (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree in US media use. In scholarly texts focusing on the precise topic NLF, PRG, PLAF and PAVN come forward much more often. But, the core issue here is providing the article to readers where a common single name is used in contemporary non-scholarly English. At least for naming the article. The content should be based out of scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article must of course change name to what it is really called! "Viet Cong" is a propaganda name used by U.S. authorities. I haven't seen an article about Dushman (Afghan guerrilla) either, so why should names used in state propoganda be used? What was called "Mujahedin" in the medias in the West and in most muslim nations, was called "Dushman" in Soviet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.110.194.139 (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've also heard the name Viet Cong is US propaganda but in the article it says it is a contraction of the Vietnamese for Vietnamese Communists. Which is the correct version, conclusively? 180.93.204.159 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Viet Cong" is usually used by Americans to refer to the political-military complex dominated by the Vietnamese Workers' Party in South Vietnam. The correct name for this would be Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam, or "National Front for Liberation" or "National Liberation Front," as this organisation had political control of the day to day business of the General Uprising. Later, however, the NFL subsumed itself into the Chính Phủ Cách Mạng Lâm Thời Cộng Hòa Miền Nam Việt Nam, or "Provisional Revolutionary Government." In both cases the NFL/PRG maintained limited control over the People's Liberation Armed Forces, the armed forces of the NFL/PRG. In practice the NFL displayed much more control over local forces, directly associated with communities controlled by the revolutionaries. Operational forces worked closely with People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN) forces in the South, in operations and strategic efforts controlled by VWP policy, which was largely established by the political bureau of the VWP, based in Hanoi. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Vietcong" originated as a shortened form of "Vietnamese communist," at least according to Oxford. The Vietnamese press in Saigon coined the term in the 1950s. The group called themselves at least a dozen different names, just to create confusion. When it was in founded in 1954, it was the "Saigon-Cholon Peace Committee." Later on it was the "National Liberation Front" (NLF) or the "Provisional Revolutionary Government" (PRG). So there is no "correct name". VC commanders were appointed by Hanoi, and they followed the orders of North Vietnam's military commission. The term "Viet Cong" is usually understood to refer to an independent southern communist military force. But such a thing never actually existed. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You do this kind of subsumption of the diversity of practice beneath one, if quite significant practice, a lot; we've talked about it before, in that it gives an unnaturally VWP centred account of the totality of the war and the revolution. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and RS concerns

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)

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)

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)

History: Origin

"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) 

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)

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)

Okay, but there is no source cited. And, of course, who determines what are the "highest quality sources on the matter"? At any rate, if that is true of the South then it is of the North as well. Mar 30, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioprof (talk • contribs) 05:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Again, there is no source for this claim. So what am I supposed to do with that? And statehood should be accorded to the North then as well. This is not good scholarship. It is misleading. It shows a bias toward the South against the North. I could cite plenty of sources that would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clioprof (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Have I been blocked from editing WIkipedia? I go there now and there are no edit icons on the side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.79.203 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

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)

Chinese Role in Geneva Conference & Article Name

"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)

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)

This entire paragraph is of questionable accuracy

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) Gerard Briardy jerrybriardy@yahoo.com

"Many Viet Cong units operated at night,[46] and employed terror as a standard tactic.[47] Rice procured at gunpoint sustained the Viet Cong.[48] Squads were assigned monthly assassination quotas.[49] Government employees, especially village and district heads, were the most common targets. But there were a wide variety of targets, including clinics and medical personnel.[50] Notable Viet Cong atrocities include the massacre of over 3,000 unarmed civilians at Huế, 48 killed in the bombing of My Canh floating restaurant in Saigon in June 1965[51] and a massacre of 252 Montagnards in the village of Đắk Sơn in December 1967 using flamethrowers.[52] During the war, the Viet Cong reportedly sliced off the genitals of village chiefs and sewed them inside their bloody mouths, cut off the tongues of helpless victims, rammed bamboo lances through one ear and out the other, slashed open the wombs of pregnant women, disemboweled random civilians and draped their mutilated bodies on fences, machine gunned children, hacked men and women to pieces with machetes, and cut off the fingers of small children who dared to get an education.[53] Viet Cong death squads assassinated at least 37,000 civilians in South Vietnam; the real figure was far higher since the data mostly cover 1967-72. They also waged a mass murder campaign against civilian hamlets and refugee camps; in the peak war years, nearly a third of all civilian deaths were the result of Viet Cong atrocities.[54] Ami Pedahzur has written that "the overall volume and lethality of Vietcong terrorism rivals or exceeds all but a handful of terrorist campaigns waged over the last third of the twentieth century".[55]"

Article Title, and content is atually grossly offensive. The Wermacht wiki page isnt called 'Gerrys' or 'Krauts', so why is this NVA (thats north vietnamese army, or the NLF, you know, their actual name?) page entirely revolving around the insulting pejorative that the US troops and government used for the north vietnamese? The vietnamese themselves make clear distinctions between viet cong (communist guerrilas) and NVA /NLF regulars, while this article effectively treats them as one in the same.

Moving this page to National Liberation Front for South Vietnam

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)

National Liberation Front

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)

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)

I agree, but what can we do to have it changed to NPOV? Revlurk (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

This whole article examines the NLF from the perspective of their enemies, so it's not surprising that it use the name they used. It's still a travesty, though. 99.248.241.9 (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

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 <pre> and </pre> tags.)

{{Infobox war faction
|name = {{resize|120%|Viet Cong}}
|war = the [[Vietnam War]]
|image = [[Image:FNL Flag.svg|250px|Flag of the Viet Cong (FNL)]]
|caption = The flag of the Viet Cong, adopted in 1960, is a variation on<br/>{{raise|0.5em|the [[Flag of Vietnam|Flag of (North) Vietnam]]. {{lower|0.5em|<ref>{{cite web |url=http://flagspot.net/flags/vn-vcong.html |title=National Liberation Front (Viet Cong)}}</ref>}}}}
|active = 1954 – 1976
|ideology = {{unbulleted list |[[Communism]]{{·}}[[Marxism–Leninism]] |[[Left-wing nationalism|Left-wing]] and Vietnamese [[nationalism]] |[[Ho Chi Minh Thought]]{{·}}[[Anti-revisionism]]}}
|clans = {{unbulleted list |{{longitem|style=line-height:1.3em|National Liberation Front for Southern Vietnam (NLF)}} |{{longitem|style=line-height:1.3em|[[Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam]] (PRG)}} |{{nowrap|[[People's Liberation Armed Forces]] (PLAF)}} |{{longitem|style=line-height:1.3em|Alliance of National Democratic and Peace Forces}} |{{nowrap|[[Central Office for South Vietnam]] (COSVN)}}}}
|leaders =
{{center|'''PLAF Commander'''}} {{unbulleted list |Nguyễn Hữu Xuyến  {{smaller|(1961–63)}} |[[Trần Văn Trà]]  {{smaller|(1963–67, 1973–75)}} |Hoàng Văn Thái  {{smaller|(1967–73)}}}}
{{center|'''COSVN Party Secretary'''}} {{unbulleted list |[[Nguyễn Văn Linh]]  {{smaller|(1961–64)}} |[[Nguyễn Chí Thanh]]  {{smaller|(1964–67)}} |[[Phạm Hùng]]  {{smaller|(1967–75)}}}}
{{center|'''NLF'''<ref name="Burchett">Burchett, Wilfred (1963): "[http://www.marxists.org/archive/burchett/1963/the-furtive-war/ch05.htm Liberation Front: Formation of the NLF]", ''The Furtive War'', International Publishers, New York.</ref>}} {{unbulleted list |[[Nguyễn Hữu Thọ]]{{smaller|, chairman}} |[[Huỳnh Tấn Phát]]{{smaller|, vice-chairman<ref>Also general secretary.</ref>}} |Phung Van Cung{{smaller|, vice-chairman}} |[[Võ Chí Công]]{{smaller|, vice-chairman}} }}
{{center|'''PRG'''}} {{unbulleted list |Nguyễn Hữu Thọ{{smaller|, president}} |Huỳnh Tấn Phát{{smaller|, prime minister}} |[[Madame|Mme]] [[Nguyễn Thị Bình]]{{smaller|, foreign minister}} |Trần Nam Trung{{smaller|,<ref name="Trung">Possibly a pseudonym for [[Trần Văn Trà]]. {{cite news |title=Man in the News: Lt.-Gen. Tran Van Tra |url=http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/38-1-104.shtml |date=February 2, 1973}}</ref> defense minister}} |[[Trương Như Tạng]]{{smaller|, justice minister<ref>{{cite web |first=Dr. Ernest |last=Bolt |publisher=[[University of Richmond]] |url=http://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/PRG(1969-1975)TVT.html |title=Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam (1969–1975)}}</ref>}} }}
|headquarters = {{unbulleted list |[[Memot District|Mimot (Memot), Cambodia]] {{small|(1966–72)}} |[[Loc Ninh]], [[South Vietnam]] {{small|(1972–75)}}}}
|area = [[Indochina]], focused on [[South Vietnam]]
|strength = |partof = 
|previous = [[Viet Minh]]
|next = [[Vietnam Fatherland Front]]
|allies = {{hlist |[[North Vietnam]] |[[Soviet Union]] |[[China]]}}
|opponents = {{hlist |[[South Vietnam]] |[[United States]]}}
|battles = {{nowrap|''[[Vietnam War (lists)#Major battles of the Vietnam War|List of major battles of the Vietnam War]]''}}
}}

Thank you, 213.246.83.192 (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

Nguyen Huu Tho conflicting status as a communist

Under the heading "Relationship with Hanoi, the final sentence reads "NLF Chairman Nguyễn Hữu Thọ was not a communist.[23]" Nguyễn Hữu Thọ according to historians (even the Wikipedia article about him) cite him joining the Communist Party in 1949. He held various positions in communist controlled government particularly after it was unified. I am not questioning the source (footnote #23 "Karnow, p. 693.") only the validity of the statement. It seems to me that he was verifiably a communist. I suggest rewording this statement to reflect a more historically accurate approach. If we want to include the citation (footnote #23) then we need to amend the statement. Correct me if I'm wrong, I just see a conflict of historical references here. — Preceding unsigned comment added fuck vietnam america all day'Bold text' by Achimmer (talk • contribs) 05:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Neither of the two sources used for Nguyen's article in Wikipedia say he was a Communist and one of them (Saigon) says the Communists met with him and others, suggesting he was not a member. His biography in The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War, pp. 825-826, says he "never officially joined the Communist Party".[12] Can you provide any source that says he joined in 1949? TFD (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does Nguyễn Hữu Thọ wikipedia article say as much? According to the page he joined the community party is at the opening sentences of the article (in the late 1940's) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyễn_Hữu_Thọ. It cites an interview with him. (Citations aside, you can't hold important political office in Vietnam without being in the communist party leadership.) Achimmer (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not why the article says that, and the source does not support it. And yes, one could hold high office in Vietnam without being a member of the Communist Party. Even if one could not, you would need a source saying that he was a member. TFD (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

He was chairman of the NFLSV Presidium [13] which was described as the political arm of the Viet Cong. [14] appears to meet WP:RS ( A Vietnam War Reader: A Documentary History from American and Vietnamese Perspectives By Michael H. Hunt; 256 pages; Publisher:University of North Carolina Press Place of publication:Chapel Hill, NCPublication year:2010) and states The US now respects the Party and Government in Vietnam led by President Ho, respects the NLF led by President Nguyen Huu Tho [a French-educated lawyer and secret member of Vietnam’s Communist Party]. where the bracketed claims are made by the author in an RS source. [15] states "he would later join the party" which appears also to meet WP:RS. ( The Second Indochina War: A Concise Political and Military History William S. Turley; Rowman & Littlefield, 2009; 301 pages ) I suspect other sources might well be found as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The National Liberation Front for South Vietnam (NFLSV) was not tthe Communist Party, rather the Party was part of the Front. The Front contained other groups and parties such as the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party. The fact that Tho was reported to have said he would later join the party is not evidence that he ever did, but is evidence I do not think you can say someone was a member of the Party when there are reliable sources that say he was not. Also, what period of time is your source referring to when it says he would later join the party? Was it before or after 1949, the year claimed? TFD (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I point out that we now have two reliable sources for him being a member of the Communist Party. The second source does not give a precise date, and I suspect the precise date does not need to be "proven" by any Wikipedia editor, all we do is see what the reliable sources state, and it appears that we have at least two making the claim. As to "conflicting sources" the normal Wikipedia requirement is that we say

"some named sources say he was not a member, while other named sources state that he was, indeed, a member."

At least that is how I read WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think npov applies, he either was or was not a member of the party. If the Turley source does not say when he joined the party, it is not helpful to the article, because the article merely says that he was not a member of the Communist Party when he was the leader of the Viet Cong. When sources disagree on facts, it is usually better to determine whether there is a dispute about the facts or whether a source is in error. You can look at the source Turley used and see if it supports his claim. The source is The anti-U.S. resistance war for national salvation 1954-1975, publ. by the War Experiences Recapitulation Committee of the High-Level Military Institute, trans. by Foreign Broadcast Information Service (Hanoi: People's Army Publishing Houses, 1980, pp. 45-46. Incidentally your first source does not say he was a member of the Communist Party, merely that he was a member of the Vietcong. But this article does not question that, it says he was the leader of the Vietcong. TFD (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We have RS sources making both claims. It is not up to use to determine the "truth" - it is our task to represent all views accurately and properly sourced. I gave three sources - of which two, as I mentioned, specifically stated that he was a member of the party. The third is an interesting view on your part ... "Cong" means "communist" in Vietnamese. ( cộng sản ). Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Viet Cong is the name the U.S. gave them, they called themselves the "National Liberation Front for South Vietnam." A front is a group of Communists and others joined in a common objective. Since you have no source that contradicts what this article says, that Nguyen Huu Tho was not a member of the Communist Party when he was head of the Viet Cong, I do not see what the problem is. I have an rs that says Obama was born in Kenya, a newspaper article published when he was elected senator. It would be tendentious to include it in his article as one view about where he was born, because it is an obvious error. And no you have not provided three sources that he was a member of the Communist Party, you have provided only one. TFD (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny -- I have known Vietnamese who said it was the name used in Viet Nam. And that "cong" means "communist" in Vietnamese. Can you give me a reliable source which says cộng sản does not mean "communist" in Vietnamese? I would live to see your alternate etymology. With a reliable source to back it up. Collect (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC) BTW, the Obama reduction comment is unworthy of any comment. We have multiple reliable sources found in a major academic search in the case at hand, not a small Kenyan newspaper which is not RS by Wikipedia standards for much of anything. Collect (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See Painful Choices, p. 121, "The NLF was a political umbrella group that included noncommunist nationalists opposed to the southern regime, but that the communist party controlled. Diem took to deriding it as the Viet Cong San, or "Vietnamese communists," and in American parlance "Viet Cong...."[16] TFD (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)/books?id=k6VJbfckQAkC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false] TFD (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

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)

---

Viet Cong → National Liberation Front (Vietnam) – 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)

• Support, WP:COMMONNAME should not be used to promote pejoratives. FNL was predominately labelled as 'Viet Cong' in American news media, but English Wikipedia isn't an exclusively American encyclopedia. Searching FNL OR NLF Vietnam gives 146,000 book results, so this is hardly a fringe name. Doing a quick glance of the results compared with googling 'Viet Cong', I'd say that the the former gives more academic and less US-centric results. --Soman (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed title should be either Liberation Army of South Vietnam or National Liberation Front for South Vietnam. This is not the National Liberation Front for Vietnam, but for south Vietnam, the only part that needed liberating. Indeed, if we go with the proposed title, aren't we casually affirming American propaganda that the NLF was just an arm of the PAVN? If we go with the more formal titles I've suggested, aren't we affirming communist propaganda that the NLF was an indigenous southern insurgency? Let's just stick with the common term we've got: Viet Cong. Srnec (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Natural disambiguation is preferred over parenthetical. Viet Cong does that job just fine; I'd be happy with one of the suggested alternatives if they're actually backed by more strong sources and if we can resist the urge to glue some brackets onto the end of it. bobrayner (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Revlurk. Zocky | picture popups 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The term Viet Cong/Vietcong is certainly more common than "National Liberation Front", as you can see from this ngram. Britannica is being misrepresented in the nomination. Their main article on this subject is titled "Viet Cong". The NLF article describes the Viet Cong as the NLF's "military arm." I don't see any reason to consider the name "Viet Cong" to be pejorative, and Britannica certainly doesn't describe it that way. The name suggests that the group was communist, but that is hardly a controversial claim at this point. As far as what they called themselves, they had many names. When they were first organized in 1954, they were the "Saigon-Cholon Peace Committees". After 1969, they dropped NLF and switched to "Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Vietnam." In military terms, there was a single communist army with commanders who reported to Hanoi. Modern Vietnamese writing normally drops the North/South distinction -- everyone is described as "PAVN" or whatever. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This comment explains why the move is necessary. What by your standards is this mysterious 'Viet Cong'? In this comment the armed movement, united front movement and government structure are conflated into one and the same. Using the actual names of actual organizations/entities helps the reader to navigate and learn (as opposed to reaffirming popular misconceptions). --Soman (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Aren't we talking about what to call the military forces? Or do you see NLF/PRG as some offices in Hanoi and Cambodia? Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The current state of the article states "The Viet Cong (Việt cộng (About this sound listen)), or National Liberation Front, was a political organization and army in South Vietnam and Cambodia that fought the United States and South Vietnamese governments during the Vietnam War (1959–1975), and emerged on the winning side. It had both guerrilla and regular army units, as well as a network of cadres who organized peasants in the territory it controlled." In you scroll further down to the "Names" section the confusion is total (including the somewhat bizarre claim that "Although the NLF was not officially abolished until 1977, the Viet Cong no longer used the name after PRG was created". So what we perhaps, rather than a move discussion, should discuss would be to separate between the political organization (i.e. the united front, i.e. NLF/FNL) and the armed forces (Liberation Army of South Vietnam). In any case the label 'Viet Cong' is unhelpful as article title (like 'Khmer Rouge' which is another case...) as it is a derogatory label applied broadly to smear opponents (both military and civilians) of the Saigon government. --Soman (talk) 01:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
        • There already is an article for PRG, which is exactly the same organization as NLF, except that the name was changed. If you want to write a separate article on the NLF, that's fine with me. FNL? You think this group should get a French name? Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
          • PRG was not the same 'organization' as NLF/FNL, PRG was a state that sought diplomatic recognition on the international scene (with ambassadors, ministers, etc.). NLF was a united front. FNL was the French name of NLF, and was commonly used internationally at the time. Having two separate articles for NLF and the Liberation Army would make some sense, but having separate articles for NLF and 'Viet Cong' would just confuse as VC was the label applied to both NLF civilian and military structures in the Saigon/US propaganda. --Soman (talk) 03:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Thebes, and if you wanted the US name, it'd be "Charlie" -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Viet Cong" is the most common name in English, including British English, and we use the common name in English even when some consider it offensive; see the etymology of Apache or Slav. If you think that the subject shouldn't be called "Viet Cong", just convince English speakers to use some other name and Wikipedia will follow them. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Offensive or not, this is the common name amongst English speakers. If it's offensive to some, then that is a suitable topic for the article. But giving it a different name so that most readers end up going through a redirect to find it is silly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oh come on, WP:COMMONNAME makes it perfectly clear what the name should be. Common name. Whether this title may be offensive or not, it is overwhelmingly the common name throughout the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral - although the South-Vietnamese/American title is problematic, the offical name is mainly restricted to academic sources and requires "of South Vietnam" not to be ambiguous. Irrespective, the lead sentence in article body does need to put the official name first, I have reversed the order as follows: The National Liberation Front for South Vietnam (Mặt trận Dân tộc Giải phóng miền Nam Việt Nam), known to the South Vietnam government as the "Việt Cộng" . In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see other articles done this way. Italy is "Italy...officially the Republic of Italy." A six-pack of whupass (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I think Viet Cong is common among English speakers, and the proposed name in this case would be overly pedantic. --Article editor (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:TITLECHANGES. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current title is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. The opening should of course be reverted to correspond with the title, assuming this article stays where it is. A six-pack of whupass (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC) !vote by sockpuppet of community banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

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"..." 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonygumbrell (talk • contribs)

References

I agree. Viet Cong is an insult. Gob Lofa (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Does anyone know how long we must wait until another vote can be taken?Gob Lofa (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Rule of thumb is generally six months. Collect (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

See you all in April. Gob Lofa (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

And two months will never fly -- try again August. Collect (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

inappropriate title of article

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

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)

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)

Merger proposal

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)

I agree. Smallchief (talk 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk)Please, do not merge —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Do not merge proposal

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)

Merger proposal

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)

I agree. Smallchief (talk 14:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hanam190552 (talk)Please, do not merge —Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2015

I want to supply People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF) in the box to become People's Liberation Armed Forces (PLAF)

Thank you Hanam190552 (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Your edits are against consensus and constitute POV-pushing Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

P.S. Mztourist, edit requests are not for establishing consensus, contributors are expected to concisely request non-controversial edits. Please see WP:PER for more information. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 04:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow your comment, I didn't make any edit request. Mztourist (talk)

Article name

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)