Talk:Government of Free Vietnam: Difference between revisions

California Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Vietnam Start‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

did this claim contiunity with the Republic of Vietnam back in 1995? Morwen - Talk 12:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a continuation, and a joke as far as I'm concern.Canpark 06:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Government of Free Vietnam recognized as the legitimate government of Vietnam by any nation? If not, then they can hardly be called a "government in exile". They don't meet the historical requirements of such. Since the US has official diplomatic relations with Communist Vietnam, even if Communism fell in Vietnam tomorrow, this organization would not be recognized by any legitimate government anywhere. So, let's stop calling it a "government in exile". Jlujan69 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joke and I am surprised nobody has already removed this. I have done so. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-This is not a joke, as the Government of Free Vietnam aspects and goals fits within the definition of the Government in Exile. But I would argue that as their stated goals and methods stated on the Article page appear to suggest those as charter goals or in other words the constitutional basis for them to be construed as a 'governmanet in Exile' rather than a 'Terrorist Organization' as Terrorists their Association can not be registered in any form in USA or anywhere else as far as recognised World Law allows, and they should be hunted down by USA FBI if they are that, and they should not be able to receive donations of the $1mn a year they claim, contributed by members. As USA is already well on the way to becoming SRV's biggest FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) partner within the next few years it would appear in the USA Governmants best interest to tackle both the illegality of the conflicting claims in state goals "Peaceful actions" and the stated since objectives and demonstrable acts of trying to blow up things with explosives etc. Secondly to tackle the aspects of an unregisterable body, being based on USA soil, collecting money from the public, having neither tax exemption charitable or other legitimate rigtht to receive money and not pay tax as an income. Even Al Capone fell for that one to be put down. Whatever is decided I think Wikipedia editorial committees might look to curbing such entries to pure fact, detail their dirty deeds by all means but not allow the stated conflicting goals and actions to snowjob their public image thereby created.--203.99.251.119 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Governments_in_exile

A government in exile is a political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Governments in exile usually operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power.

-This is their claim and they are supported by Vietnamese and well as other foreigners and other asians such as General Vang Pao.Bnguyen 09:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governments_in_exile: "government in exile is a political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power" ---> This group is not a continuation of the Republic of Vietnam and has no legal basis, unlike an expelled monarchy which has a claim to still being the head of state. It is just a random group of people who think that they own Vietnam. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping with the discussion on the Government in Exile Talk page that all governments in exile are disputed, as long as they claim to be the legitamite government, claim to have a legal right to have an authority over a territory, and want to "retun to be the legal authority" than they are a government in exile because they say they are, regardless of whether we believe them to be a serious or viable option to be. That is not for us to decide.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, is this the exile government of South Vietnam? Or is it just an NGO of some sort? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Never mind. According to some sources, it began claiming itself as the continuation of the South Vietnamese government in 1995, so it is an exile government by definition. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a story about the GFVN here: http://www.ocweekly.com/2013-11-14/news/government-of-free-vietnam-garden-grove-nguyen-huu-chanh/ 66.214.35.23 (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this government in exile still exist? Most of its leaders are dead, and It's head of state stepped down and is know the executive of a company that broadcasts television shows in Vietnamese. The website is for sale, and I haven't heard of any recent activity from this group. I think it may have disbanded. (Toolen (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi all,

Royalmate1 seems to feel strongly about this, so I thought it'd be best to bring it to talk. Although it's a government in exile, the Government of Free Vietnam claimed to be a government, not a country in its own right. As such, the "former country" infobox is totally inappropriate. I'm very skeptical, for instance, whether it would have considered a US city its capital (Saigon, presumably, would have remained de jure capital anyway). Infoboxes are not something all articles should have.

I have reverted attempted restorations here by two users and Dadapotato has done the same on at least one occasion and users like Srnec and Nug have done the same on other government in exile articles. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And to what are former governments the owners of? Former countries... This was the government in exile of South Vietnam which was a real country. No one is doing the same for past countries like Nazi Germany so if you have instances of these ocurring Id like to know about them. RoyalMate1 10:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, former governments claim to be former governments of former countries only. South Vietnam, as you identify, is a former country - its government is not. I'm unsure what it is you're asking for in the second part, but by all means please compare with Yugoslav government-in-exile, Belgian government in exile, Estonian government-in-exile Provisional Government of the Algerian Republic etc. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually all of those pages you've listed are either movements or ought to have an infobox as a government. The problem isn't whether it's a country. We give micronations infoboxes. We can give governments-in-exile infoboxes. It never ceases to amze me the length people will go to to make information harder to acquire on Wikipedia. (See Vichy France and List of governments). RoyalMate1 20:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]