Talk:Điện Biên Phủ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Ehrrr . . . isn't it Dien Bien Phu? Wiwaxia

This looks like a copyvio.Vancouverguy 15:02, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Needs to me merged with Battle of Dien Bien Phu 128.195.100.178 05:43, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page was originally about the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, and was then made into a redirect page to the Battle article. However, I would suggest that the two should not be considered identical - Dien Bien Phu is a still-existing town, with a population of over a hundred thousand. While the town is not all that important, it should still warrant a mention as a place, and not just be subsumed into the article about the event that happened there. There's more to Dien Bien Phu than the just battle.

As such, I've written a brief article about the town itself - it mentions the battle in introduction, so people will still be able to find it. I'll try to go through the links to this page and point them to the right article, too. Feel free to comment if you disagree with what I'm doing here. -- Vardion 12:35, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Quite right, Vardion. Good work. Tannin

The "Domino Theory"[edit]

Eisenhower wasn't the only one who belived in the Domino Theory. Lyndon B. Johnson rooted it into his "containment" plan.

WP:UE[edit]

Let's have a discussion why this well known town should not be spelt as anglophones usually spell it, following the guideline WP:Use English. The systematic representation with diacritics (and no doubt a source can be found for it) should certainly be preserved (as Athina - or indeed Ἀθῆναι - is mentioned at Athens and for the same reasons; some anglophone will eventually want to know it); but we are not writing in Vietnamese, any more than we write in Greek.

This boldness has gone far enough; I revert; let us, per WP:BRD, discuss. Use of {{move}} (remember to subst it, please), would be perfectly appropriate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note about leadership[edit]

"The following year, the important Battle of Dien Bien Phu was fought between the Việt Minh (led by Ho Chi Minh), and the United States-backed French Union (led by General Navarre, successor to General Raoul Salan)."

Ho was a political leader, Giap was the general in charge of the Việt Minh military forces. It would make more sense to either say that the French were led by Auriol, Coty, or De Gaulle, or say that the Việt Minh were led by Giap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.51.26 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 September 2017[edit]

The following is a closed 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: Page not moved. The consensus is that the diacritics are important to the title and comply with typical naming practices of these articles on Wikipedia. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 23:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Điện Biên Phủ → Dien Bien Phu – This place is much better known in English without the diacritic marks. See other reliable sources (https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Dien-Bien-Phu) and also the official website of the US government. (https://history.state.gov/milestones/1953-1960/dien-bien-phu). If the Style Guide of Wikipedia dictates that diacritics should be used for most foreign places, that's fine, but this is a place that is well known in English under a diacriticless version of the name. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen, though hasn't yet been archived at time of this edit In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner. also below In ictu oculi (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the exceptions to the general principle of using diacritics in the title apply only where there is an established exonym, which is the case with, for example, Hanoi/Hà Nội or Haiphong/Hải Phòng (two words in Vietnamese, one in English, not just stripping diacritics), but is not the case with Điện Biên Phủ, because the town itself is virtually unknown outside Vietnam. What's known outside Vietnam is the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, where the title has been left without diacritics, but the town itself should retain them. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Weak oppose. While I'm sympathetic to the argument here (Viet Minh was a very questionable recent move, since the new documentary on The Vietnam War doesn't use diacritics in general, and that should certainly count as a high-quality source), I think city names shouldn't necessarily have consistency with the related battles - it's entirely possible that a historic battle is using an "old" form of the name but the modern city should use whatever the "modern" standard is for Vietnam. In other words, probably all random smaller cities in Vietnam should either always use diacritics or never use diacritics, and right now it's "use diacritics." That can be overridden for the likes of Ho Chih Minh City, but probably not for smaller ones.
Also per IIO, it would not be particularly shocking if the editor here is a certain famous blocked user, since we have a new account citing Britannica, so I would recommend the closer not put a lot of weight on their opinion. SnowFire (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is absolutely no requirement for consistency between an article for a historical military battle and an article about a geographical place. For example, we keep Burma Campaign at that title but the modern country article is titled Myanmar. The nom has cited two sources, both of which actually refer to the 1954 battle, not the place. The nom has therefore unfortunately failed to present a credible reason for moving this article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this logic, the battle of Dien Bien Phu was fought in Điện Biên Phủ. At very least, that certainly looks odd. I wonder if any author has ever done it that way. Great scott (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this move fails, perhaps Dien Bien Phu should redirect to Battle of Dien Bien Phu? power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per established practice. No exceptional English usage can be demonstrated as the WP:COMMONNAME issue of a related subject cannot be used as evidence of a commonname of this subject. Agathoclea (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose My instincts are, in cases where the only difference is over diacritics, to use the version with them, those not familiar with this version can easily ignore them. There is no need for consistency, the Battle of Stalingrad was fought at Volgograd, even in official Soviet histories of WW2 after they changed the name of the city. PatGallacher (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Dien Bien Phu" is English, the way the name of the city is given in every relevant English language dictionary and reference work. Điện Biên Phủ is Vietnamese. There is no off-Wikipedia basis to claim that the diacritics are a military/civilian issue. Great scott (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per six years of stable naming consensus on all Vietnam name geos. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:To me it looks like personal preference is the main factor. Difficult. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does a city have a personal preference? The relevant guideline instructs us to consult Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia, and similar references. Great scott (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the personal preferences of editors. Both versions of the name are widely accepted, so that guideline isn't a lot of help. Andrewa (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of the references listed in the guideline to determined "widely accepted" status gives the name with Vietnamese diacritics. Look at the results that pop up on Google Books. The Vietnamese form is used in Vietnamese writing and only Vietnamese writing. Great scott (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the guideline is prefaced examples include and is not meant to be exhaustive. The claim that The Vietnamese form is used in Vietnamese writing and only Vietnamese writing is over the top. Some English writers like to use the diacritics, some don't. Personally I prefer to avoid them in web addresses (which our article titles generate) for the sake of low-end users whose software may not support them properly and because there seems no upside, but I'd use them consistently in the article text where it's of more benefit and less risk, and I'd make those two principles policy in order to reduce the time spent on the endless discussions this issue generates. But this is not andrewpedia. Andrewa (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how the publishing industry works. Publishers have guides with style rules. These rules are implemented by copy editors. A basic rule included in pretty much every style guide is to follow the spelling given in a major dictionary. No major dictionary gives this word with Vietnamese diacritics, as you can see here. For American publishers, Merriam-Webster spelling is more or less standard. Great scott (talk) 11:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but we do not follow these other guides with style rules. We have our own objectives which may or may not coincide with the rest the publishing industry. By all means propose a guideline or policy that we should follow Miriam-Webster. It would save a lot of hassle, but at the expense of wp:5P2, so good luck. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't follow the style guides used by major publishers, then someone needs to revise WP:MOS. It recommends various guides of this type. WP:DIACRITICS already tells us to consult "other encyclopedias and reference works" when deciding whether or not to include diacritics. Style should be as standard as possible so that the reader's attention is focused on content. If readers look at this title and think "Those Vietnamese sure use a lot of fascinating little marks, don't they?" they are distracted from whatever it is the article has to say. Great scott (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply in #Extended discussion from the above RM below, so as not to further clutter this RM. Andrewa (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended discussion from the above RM[edit]

Replying to this post above (extracts cited in italics below):

If we don't follow the style guides used by major publishers, then someone needs to revise WP:MOS. It recommends various guides of this type. This is blatant misquotation of the MOS.

WP:DIACRITICS already tells us to consult "other encyclopedias and reference works" when deciding whether or not to include diacritics. Yes. And some use these, and some don't.

Style should be as standard as possible so that the reader's attention is focused on content. Strongly agree.

If readers look at this title and think "Those Vietnamese sure use a lot of fascinating little marks, don't they?" they are distracted from whatever it is the article has to say. Yes. And conversely, if other readers look at the title and say "These ignorant Wikipedians can't even spell Vietnamese correctly", these others will be distracted. We can't please everyone! Andrewa (talk) 00:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a political issue now? How about Thanh Nien, Tuoi Tre, or VGP News, the government news site. More ignorant Westerners, I assume. Domestic Vietnamese papers run English-language editions mostly to help their readers practice English. They use standard English-language publishing style because their readers want to learn correct English, not a pidgin form of the language. Great scott (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not calling westerners ignorant above, I'm saying this is the claim and I assume the perception of some... and it's an understandable view, just as is the opposite one.
But yes, one of the problems is that this has political relevance. In disputed territories in particular, which language version English Wikipedia uses for geographical names has significant propaganda value.
They use standard English-language publishing style because their readers want to learn correct English, not a pidgin form of the language. Rubbish. There's no such correct English. There was in the 19th century, but even then Humpty Dumpty challenged this view. Times have changed, and Wikipedia has adopted a more modern approach to English... one that most if not all current linguists would regard as correct. Andrewa (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write correct English then don't misuse the term pidgin. PatGallacher (talk) 14:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point, and one that exemplifies the purism paradox: Those keenest to insist that the rules be strictly followed by others are those most likely to themselves break them. And it's an immediate corollary of this personal observation. Andrewa (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you reject the authority of dictionaries and style books, on what basis can you say that anything is a "misuse"? This is relativism eating its own tail. Great scott (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous. If you stand on your head all day I expect people will think you very silly. But I don't expect you will do that, any more than I reject the authority of dictionaries and style books. That's far too sweeping a statement to have any credibility. We need to respect these authorities, and also the limits of their authority. Wikipedia has its own unique requirements, and our own style guide and related policies, and we need to respect those too. For us to blindly follow other style guides would be as ridiculous as for print encyclopedias to attempt to blindly follow ours. Or are you going to claim that I think they should do that too? Andrewa (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viet Minh sold opium to buy rice?[edit]

Dien Bien Phu from 1945 to 1952 was occupied by France In 1952, the Viet Minh launched the northwest campaign and captured Dien Bien Phu In 1953, France recaptured Dien Bien Phu and then the battle of Dien Bien Phu

The French allowed the sale of opium to make the Vietnamese people unable to stay awake and stop supporting the Viet Minh 14.244.118.237 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Điện_Biên_Phủ&oldid=1201522908"