Talk:President of Vietnam

Vice President

Is there a Vice President position? Badagnani 02:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the current vice president is Nguyen Thi Doan since July 25, 2007. Nguyen Thi Binh had held this position since 1992. DHN 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:President of Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Osiris (talk · contribs) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Waiting on a response from the nominator. I see two obvious problems impeding a detailed review: there are two maintenance tags that need addressing, and there is a placeholder image, which is not encouraged. Osiris (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Done, I can't do anything with the placeholder image... There is no image of him. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Checklist

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review

This has the makings of a good article, but there are some issues that will need to be delt with.

Firstly, there is a lack of secondary sources: a large percentage of the information in the article is sourced directly to various segments of the constitution. While some statements are simply descriptive and would be difficult to interpret differently, a couple of them rely on comparisons of different versions of the constitution. It would be preferrable for these kinds of analyses to be sourced to a secondary source, in order to comply implicitly with WP:PSTS.

The section titled "duties, powers and responsibilities" is based almost entirely on the descriptions of these traits as given in the constitution. A rehashing of how the constitution writes it is not my idea of a comprehensive description of the subject. There is also often a great discrepancy between an office's theoretical power and duties and those it actually entails. So the natural question would be: how do seconday sources interpret the president's role?

Its all about Politburo rank... All major decisions in Vietnam are made through the Politburo... Other than that, the constitution is followed. But a president, such as the current president of Vietnam, is the leader of Vietnam.. The last Vietnamese head of state to be leader of Vietnam was Ho Chi Minh.. No office in Vietnam has de jure power, the only body which has remained powerful, without losing much influence, is the Politburo, but the power of that body is weakening... This is already mentioned, but should it be clarified?? --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. You've said that nobody has de jure power, so perhaps explain the de facto power (or lack thereof?) that the president has. The section we're talking about here only describes the role as it's given in the constitution (i.e., de jure power). So what the section needs is a description of the de facto situation as reliable secondary sources put it. Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

But there is none; the only thing a person need really, is majority support in either the Politburo or the Central Committee or both. There is no system. --TIAYN (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Great. So then... write that in the article? To balance out theory vs. reality. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a sentence or two about it in the history section... --TIAYN (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Smaller sourcing issues

• Done Ref 4 links to quite a large document, so should specify specific page(s) or section(s).
• The section of the document linked to in Ref 5 looks like a reproduction of a section in ref 4. It might be preferrable to merge the refnotes, to mark that as public-domain material also (since some of it appears word-for-word in the article).

They are similar, but not the same... --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done Is the page in ref 8 correct? Page 51 appears to be about Vietnam in the Middle Ages...
• Could you please clarify what ref 11 is? Are the links down the bottom important? because they're all dead.

None of the links are dead (at least for me)... If that link is dead for you, it might be a software issue.... none of the links are dead (I just checked them). --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the links in the article... the reference leads to what looks like a contents page with a list of links. Which links, or which sections, verify the text? Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the links are used.. --TIAYN (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well several of them are dead, according to a quick 404 check. Osiris (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Prose and style

• The quality of the prose is excellent.
• The lead is a good summary, although some items don't seem to appear in the body... which is okay, I guess, but they should probably have citations. One example is the bit about the Vice President assuming the role of acting president. Another is the opening description, and it sounds a bit like a line from a political pamphlet. Was this taken from the lead of President of Croatia?

I was inspired to write the article after reading the President of Croatia article, so yes, the lead is heavily influenced by that article. --TIAYN (talk) 13:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the opening sentence is taken pretty much word-for-word from that article – that's fine (I've put an attribution template at the top of the talk page), but since it comes from the Croatian constitution, one could reasonably challenge its applicability here while it's not verified. Osiris (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not really, the constitutions are very similar. --TIAYN (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

So then what part of the Vietnamese constitution verifies the statements written? It needs a source... is what I'm saying. Osiris (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

everything which is mentioned in the lead is mentioned in the body - I have checked five times... If you see something which is not mentioned in the lead, please say what it is. --TIAYN (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I listed them directly above, but I'll do it again: the part about the Vice President assuming the role of acting president, and the opening description. The first predicate of the opening sentence is fine, but the second and third ("maintains the regular and coordinated operation and stability of the national government system and safeguards the independence and territorial integrity of the country") are not sufficiently reflective of what's written in the body. There are, of course, references to his role in government and defence, but it never goes quite as far to say that he maintains stability or safeguards territorial integrity. The line is pretty loaded, so I'd like it to have a reference. If it's true, it shouldn't be difficult to source. Osiris (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Done To comply with guidelines on reusing public-domain material, where text from the constitution appears in the article, please attribute the source, as you have with the U.S. government document.
• Done I'm not keen on the gallery, especially with the placeholder image being there... but it could be argued that there is an encyclopaedic purpose to it. You might also want to include a {{commonscat|Presidents of Vietnam}} box.

That's my full review of this article. Thanks for your patience! Osiris (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this review now done? Looks like it but can't fully tell. Wizardman 15:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Its active, but its a slow process... --TIAYN (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the article is very well written but there hasn't been any response to my prompts regarding the issues with sourcing (unsourced claims, possible original research, a reference using dead links). It's been a fair while now, and I don't think this appears to be going anywhere any time soon. So let's close this for now and we can try again at a later stage. Thanks for your patience and good luck for your other nominations! Osiris (talk) 06:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Some of the claims in the article appears to be original research or synthesis from published sources. The claim that presidents before Sang have never held the top position in the Politburo is not supported in the source given. In the source given, for the 11th Politburo], Trong is listed first. If the author wants to make that claim, he needs to find a source that shows that Sang is listed first in the list for the 11th politburo while the GS is listed first in all other politburos. DHN (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHN: Its not original resource, they've change the layout of the thing (that's what I atleast remember)... It won't be that hard to find it. Secondly, you've already had this discussion before (at the Truong article)... And at last, I think you've misconstrued what highest-rank actually means; read this (from the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam article); --TIAYN (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The Central Committee when it convenes for its first session after being elected by a National Party Congress elects the Politburo. According to David Koh, in interviews with several high-standing Vietnamese officials, the Politburo ranking is based upon the number of approval votes given by the Central Committee. Lê Hồng Anh, the Minister of Public Security, was ranked 2nd in the 10th Politburo because he received the second-highest number of approval votes. Another example being Tô Huy Rứa of the 10th Politburo, he was ranked at the bottom because he received the lowest number of approval votes. This system was implemented at the 1st plenum of the 10th Central Committee. Before the 10th Party Congress Politburo rankings functioned as the official order of precedence, but it doesn't any longer (however, there are some who disagree with this view).

My point is that there is NO source given that made the claim that was made in the article, either directly or indirectly. The claim was derived from synthesizing from multiple sources, which is against Wikipedia policy. It is already established that Sang was top-ranked in some list, but which source states that ALL the other top-ranked politburo members were party secretary? DHN (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHN: The point thing - every Politburo has a ranking, the 11th Politburo is no exception... The Vietnamese Communist Party's agenda for reform: a study of the eighth national party congress (page 86) ranks the 6th, 7th and 8th Politburo, in Everyday Life and Popular Culture in Contemporary Vietnam it is clearly stated that Nong Duc Manh was ranked, Vietnam: Current Issues and Historical Background ranks the 8th Politburo (before and after the 4th plenum) and so on.. The Politburo has always been ranked (the Chinese CPC ranks its Politburo, the Politburo Standing Committee, Secretariat and the Central Committee), the Workers' Party of Korea officially ranked its Politburo, Secretariat and the Central Committee according to ranking until Kim Il-sung died, the Lao People's Revolutionary Party ranks its Politburo, Secretariat and the Central Committee, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ranked its members (not always, but they did in many instances).. This is normal communist procedure (and very common with the remaining four communist states; China, Cuba, Laos and Vietnam) . --TIAYN (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: I don't dispute the notion that the Politburo list is ranked. I contend that the claim made - that Sang was the first top-ranked politburo member who was not general secretary - is not supported with the sources given. You gave two sources, one showing that Sang is top-ranked, while another source listing all members from past politburos, but without any explicit ranking (or at least using a different ranking, since in these lists the general secretary is always listed first); how are we supposed to conclude that all the other party secretaries were top-ranked from that source? DHN (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@DHN: Nguyen Phu Trong is not top-ranked, but the most powerful official in the Communist Party of Vietnam (and that's why is pictured first and Truong Tan Sang second, and the rest of the list following the formal rankings), if you've read the statement above, the ranking has nothing to do with power (anymore, its now a listing of "yes" and "no" votes the candidates earned when they were elected to the Politburo...) ... TO compare, its similar to under Leonid Brezhnev, the Politburo members were listed alphabetically (but Brezhnev was listed first in official pronouncements and the rest listed alphabetically)... The Vietnamese (along with the CPV, the PCE and the CPC) are the first communist system to institutionalize powers in official bodies (and not in a person); the CPV General Secretary is the party's leader. ... I'm guessing this is why you're against its inclusion.--TIAYN (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@Trust Is All You Need: The fact that Trong is listed first instead of Sang in that list directly undermines that source's usefulness to your claim. It shows that the lists' orderings are inconsistent, and the fact that someone is listed first in that list has no bearing on their rank. How are we to know whether the party secretaries in the other lists were listed first because they were first-ranked or because they were secretaries?I would be happy with a source that makes this claim explicitly, or at the very least shows the explicit ranking for every politburo so that we can verify that they have all been general secretaries except for Sang. DHN (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on President of Vietnam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130125053016/http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/Modules/News/NewsDetail.aspx?co_id=30106&cn_id=443473 to http://www.cpv.org.vn/cpv/Modules/News/NewsDetail.aspx?co_id=30106&cn_id=443473

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

what's with the red POV?

I know I'm paying compliments, but why is Ho Chi Minh - who at no point controlled all of Vietnam - called "1st President of Vietnam" when he never controlled the whole of Vietnam at any point? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2018 (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:

• President Trần Đại Quang.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dang Thi Ngoc Thinh.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Dang Thi Ngoc Thinh.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mr Vo Van Thuong 2023 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:08, 4 March 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:

• Mr Vo Van Thuong 2023 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)