Talk:Politics of Vietnam

Concerned...
Hi! It seems to me that the first phrase "a single-party socialist republic, a seeming contradiction in terms." is a bit POV. Let people decide for themselves whether it SEEMS a contradiction or not.

Vietnam are STALINIST. Socialism is democratic, and a Socialistik state would never kill and assault its own citizens, or anyone else for that matter! Socialism is great, the best thing for the world, but Stalinism destroyes the face of socialism all over the world. People hunt us communists, for bringing socialism, because they belive a socialist state to be dictatoral. The only TRUE socialist/communist states yet, are currently Cuba, and Venzuela. The Sovjet union was to, until stalin. A concerned communist, Emil Petersen. (Emilpetersen@hotmail.com), og the Danish communist party.

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of Vietnam" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

also this is a bit confusing for me could you simplify it down a bit. sincerely lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.3.108 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg

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


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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Vietnam.svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Vietnam People's Army Military Court.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Võ văn thưởng.jpg

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