Talk:Ho Chi Minh

Template:Vital article

Fixing references

Whoever created all the cites to Robert Turner's Vietnamese Communism, I just completed combining them all into one reference. For those who don't know how to do this, you use the construction <ref name=Turner>. Then, for all future references to the same work, you use <ref name=Turner /> and follow it with this for the page numbers: {{rp|91-93}}. See WP:REFNAME for details.

The portrait of Ho Chi Minh was from 1957 not 1946

The portait was from 1957 not 1946. https://thehehochiminh.wordpress.com/media/hinhanh/chan-dung-chủ-tịch-hồ-chi-minh/#jp-carousel-904 Timedscars (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2018

Atheist ?

Leninism obviously advocates atheism as an ideal. but there was some religious leninists, like Thomas Sankara. However, i have seen in some sources that Ho Chi Mihn was a confucian deist, not a an atheist. is there any source that confirms either ?

I suggest you take a look at this Link, as it provides sufficient evidence to conclude Ho Chi Minh was Confucian. --𝕰𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗𝖔𝖗 𝕮𝖍𝖆𝖗𝖑𝖊𝖘 𝖁 (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ho Chi Mihn Genocide

The article conveniently leaves out history like this:

http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/vietnam/hochiminh.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6143:9600:99C3:7EF4:CFA8:789F (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Leaving out propaganda from bullshit sources isn't convenience, it's a necessity. --78.35.81.116 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Communist genocide is real and it has to be accepted. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Even the most vehemently anti-communist scholars would certainly agree that this is not a scholarly article and should not be cited as such. It has no place in a Wikipedia article. Mushika Vahana (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Is Ho Chi Minh's article full of pro-VCP autocratic supporters?

There is no talking about Ho Chi Minh's genocide and mass murders. There is no talking about anti-Ho Chi Minh sentiment. All are written in a distorted view of praising. Shame. 27.79.240.89 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes Ho Chi Minh does deserve criticism. However, a lot of these were a consequence of war. But anti ho chi minh sentiments or criticisms should definitely be included. Changeanew (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2021

Ho Chi Minh → Hồ Chí Minh – There was a discussion about this back in 2005. A lot has changed on Wikipedia since then; the most compelling reason to move this article to use Vietnamese diacritics is that we do it with many other Vietnamese people -- for example, everyone in Category:Vietnamese revolutionaries has articles named with the proper diacritics. Llightex (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Llightex I think the most compelling reason not to move is if the diacritics cause accessibility issues. If, as certain editors mentioned, the title will display as boxes, then it shouldn't be moved. Otherwise, I have no issues with this. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl Yeah, I don't think that's much of an issue these days because technology has improved since 2005 (that user was using Windows NT, perhaps before Unicode was in wide use?). Moreover, people haven't been complaining about other Vietnamese articles showing boxes today, so unless there's still a significant portion of people who would see boxes for this article, I think we should move it. Llightex (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think so. I support this move. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Almost all sources continue to refer to him without the diacritics, and thus it appears that the common name is without them; these include both encyclopaedias such as Britannica, news sources, including non-Vietnamese and English-Language Vietnamese, as well as full biographies. BilledMammal (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per User:BilledMammal, but still keep the proper Vietnamese spelling in the article lede. JIP | Talk 22:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, though outside specification of his Vietnamese name, the article should use the common form. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:UE. His name in English does not use diacritics, which are untypeable and unpronounceable by the vast majority of English-speakers. Station1 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think all these rationales for "Oppose" makes sense, but the only question that remains is that it appears that this standard doesn't apply to other Vietnamese names. For example, see Võ Nguyên Giáp -- it's spelled "Vo Nguyen Giap" in Britannica, nearly every other source, etc. And spelling out article names entirely with diacritics seems to be a convention on Wikipedia already, see Category:Vietnamese_revolutionaries. Do you think those should also be changed based on the common forms of those names (or as per WP:UE, changed to remove diacritics entirely)? Llightex (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I do. A number of English-speakers (though I doubt a majority) might recognize the significance of an umlaut or an accent grave, but beyond that, diacritics are meaningless to most readers. Station1 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would think it should, but a broader discussion may be required - indeed, I believe this issue extends beyond Vietnamese names, and it might be worth a RfC to clarify WP:UE that diacritics should only be used if they are commonly used in recent English-language sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that a number of these prominent Vietnamese people like Võ Nguyên Giáp were at titles without diacritics prior to an RM with 5 participants there in 2014. Station1 (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC

That is interesting; based on the discussions there and here, it seems there are two "schools" of thought in regards to when diacritics should be used; either they should be used almost without exception as using diacritics or not doesn't change the "name", while others prefer to reflect whether diacritics are typically used in English-language sources.

I think this actually reinforces my wish for an RfC, perhaps even at CENTRAL; we should clarify the use of diacritics at a broad forum as there seems to be significant confusion over their use, resulting in local consensus' that may or may not reflect broader consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: In many recent English-language scholarly sources, where the authors do use Vietnamese names with diacritical marks, many still explicitly omit the diacritics for Ho Chi Minh (and by extension the city named after him). Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. DHN (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I also support showing or using the diacritics. Polish names, Scandinavian names such as Swedish names, etc, also retain their diacritics when used as a title of a Wikipedia page. Dropping the diacritics is often not from laziness but from previous lack of access to software or physical keyboard that can produce specific diacritics. Many other Vietnamese names also have accents written on them when used as a title. Changeanew (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support per encyclopaedic consistency high quality English sources do not suddenly drop into Daily Mail MOS when passing from one Vietnamese name to another. Not have the full pronunciation on this name simply because it's a Vietnamese person people of heard of is inconsistent. (I won't mention the trolling and sock farms that used to be active any time Vietnamese people were spelled with full names like Europeans with their accents, evidently Vietnamese fonts are slightly more shocking to some westerners than Eastern European names, but the main issue here, I regret, is something I won't name, but we all know.) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The sources presented above show the current title remains the common name. -- Calidum 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)