Talk:Ho Chi Minh

If this is simple English then why is it cluttered with Vietnamese diacritical marks? 158.143.8.12 11:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about 'cluttered', but without diacritics, these things are missplelled. Diacritics can do no harm. When it says 'Simple English', it means 'English with simple grammar', so that it is easier for learners of the language. -Ionius Mundus 02:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some one should give an explanation about the diacritical marks on the article, so the reader will know and understand and not think there was something wrong with the formating. LoNdIuM ^{Speak to me}_{Contributions}

It's quite obvious that nothing is wrong with the formatting if the names written with diacritics are Việtnamese. Otherwise we should go to pages like those about places in France and explain why there are diacritics. -Ionius Mundus 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea of simple English is to keep the vocabulary and structures simple.

I don't believe that diacritics present a problem for the average reader. On the other hand, for those with a deeper knowledge of Vietnam and/or some Vietnamese, there is nothing more frustrating than not knowing precisely how to pronounce a name or word because some well-meaning but misguided person has not bothered with them.

What was far more shameful was the blatantly pro-Communist, pro-Hồ content of the article. I am pleased to see that balance has been restored.

I thought it was pretty neutral. Seems OK to me

Dates in section names[change source]

I do not believe we need to include dates in the section titles. After all, there are only three sections. Also, we do not need a Reference section with no citations. I left it there assuming you are going to add some citations.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]