Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "History of Vietnam" in English language version.
Vu Tuong: There is no reason to expect, and no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate, that the actual executions were less than planned; in fact the executions perhaps exceeded the plan if we consider two following factors. First, this decree was issued in 1953 for the rent and interest reduction campaign that preceded the far more radical land redistribution and party rectification campaigns (or waves) that followed during 1954–1956. Second, the decree was meant to apply to free areas (under the control of the Viet Minh government), not to the areas under French control that would be liberated in 1954–1955 and that would experience a far more violent struggle. Thus the number of 13,500 executed people seems to be a low-end estimate of the real number. This is corroborated by Edwin Moise in his recent paper "Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953–1956" presented at the 18th Annual Conference on SE Asian Studies, Center for SE Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley (February 2001). In this paper Moise (79–) modified his earlier estimate in his 1983 book (which was 5,000) and accepted an estimate close to 15,000 executions. Moise made the case based on Hungarian reports provided by Balazs, but the document I cited above offers more direct evidence for his revised estimate. This document also suggests that the total number should be adjusted up some more, taking into consideration the later radical phase of the campaign, the unauthorized killings at the local level, and the suicides following arrest and torture (the central government bore less direct responsibility for these cases, however).cf. Szalontai, Balazs (November 2005). "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56". Cold War History. 5 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1080/14682740500284630. S2CID 153956945. cf. Vu, Tuong (2010). Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-139-48901-0.
Clearly Vietnamese socialism followed a moderate path relative to China. ... Yet the Vietnamese 'land reform' campaign ... testified that Vietnamese communists could be as radical and murderous as their comrades elsewhere.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)...In contrast, mainland East and Southeast Asians and other Pacific islanders (e.g., Austronesian speakers) are closely related to each other [9,15,16] and here denoted as belonging to an East and Southeast Asian (ESEA) lineage (Box 2). …the ESEA lineage differentiated into at least three distinct ancestries: Tianyuan ancestry which can be found 40,000–33,000 years ago in northern East Asia, ancestry found today across present-day populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Siberia, but whose origins are unknown, and Hòabìnhian ancestry found 8,000–4,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, but whose origins in the Upper Paleolithic are unknown.
our results reject previously suggested sources of gene flow into the Tibetan lineage13,35,36, including deeply branching Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as the 45,000-year-old Ust'-Ishim individual from southern Siberia, the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from northern China, and Hoabinhian/Onge-related lineages in southeast Asia (Supplementary Fig. 10), suggesting instead that it represents yet another unsampled lineage within early Eurasian genetic diversity. This deep Eurasian lineage is likely to represent the Paleolithic genetic substratum of the Plateau populations.
McColl et al. suggested that ancient SEA hunter-gatherers (Hòabìnhian) share some ancestry with the Onge, Jehai, Papuan, and Indian populations. We, therefore, ran the ADMIXTURE analysis including the Jarawa, Onge, and the Papuans as possible founder populations in addition to the previous set of AAI, AAM, TB, and EA. Contrary to their claim, we found no evidence of Onge, Jarawa, and Papuan ancestries in the ANC samples (results of ADMIXTURE run hence not shown). We regressed the AAI ancestry (and the EA-like ancestry) of the ancient genomes jointly on the age of the sample and the latitude where these samples were found (Supplementary Table 7). While latitude was only marginally significant for the AAI-like ancestry, it was extremely significant for EA-like ancestry, showing a decreasing trend of EA-like ancestry as one moves from North to South (Fig. 6e, Supplementary Figure 14 in Additional file 1). This bolsters the hypothesis of the origin of EA-like ancestry in Southern China and a movement due south... The current study emphasizes the importance of both geography and language in reconstructing the population structure of India and SEA. Our study suggests that the ancestors to present-day AA speakers were the resident native population extending from Central India to mainland Southeast Asia. They were hunter-gatherers and spoke possibly some proto-AA language that has given rise to the present-day AA language family. The present-day Indian Austroasiatics and Malaysian Austroasiatics shared a common ancestor until about 10.5 KYA. Post-separation they had a disparate genetic history. Around 7 KYA, with the advent of agriculture, there was an ancestry shift in Southeast Asia. The distribution of AA hunter-gatherers started to shrink and their population size kept declining. As farmers from EA began migrating southwards to Mainland Southeast Asia, the population size of AA hunter-gatherers residing in SEA decreased further. Moreover, the East Asians (Eastern Eurasians) interbred with local AA hunter-gatherers introducing "East Asian ancestry" in SEA. With subsequent migration waves, substantial EA ancestry was added to the native Austroasiatics residing in MSEA, including AAM in our study. The continuous migration also resulted in rapid fragmentation and isolation of the AA huntergatherer population. On the other hand, since the East Asians did not enter peninsular India, the "East Asian ancestry" was not introduced in AAs in India, who mostly retained their genetic ancestry while interbreeding locally with populations of ASI ancestry.
Vu Tuong: There is no reason to expect, and no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate, that the actual executions were less than planned; in fact the executions perhaps exceeded the plan if we consider two following factors. First, this decree was issued in 1953 for the rent and interest reduction campaign that preceded the far more radical land redistribution and party rectification campaigns (or waves) that followed during 1954–1956. Second, the decree was meant to apply to free areas (under the control of the Viet Minh government), not to the areas under French control that would be liberated in 1954–1955 and that would experience a far more violent struggle. Thus the number of 13,500 executed people seems to be a low-end estimate of the real number. This is corroborated by Edwin Moise in his recent paper "Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953–1956" presented at the 18th Annual Conference on SE Asian Studies, Center for SE Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley (February 2001). In this paper Moise (79–) modified his earlier estimate in his 1983 book (which was 5,000) and accepted an estimate close to 15,000 executions. Moise made the case based on Hungarian reports provided by Balazs, but the document I cited above offers more direct evidence for his revised estimate. This document also suggests that the total number should be adjusted up some more, taking into consideration the later radical phase of the campaign, the unauthorized killings at the local level, and the suicides following arrest and torture (the central government bore less direct responsibility for these cases, however).cf. Szalontai, Balazs (November 2005). "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56". Cold War History. 5 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1080/14682740500284630. S2CID 153956945. cf. Vu, Tuong (2010). Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-139-48901-0.
Clearly Vietnamese socialism followed a moderate path relative to China. ... Yet the Vietnamese 'land reform' campaign ... testified that Vietnamese communists could be as radical and murderous as their comrades elsewhere.
our results reject previously suggested sources of gene flow into the Tibetan lineage13,35,36, including deeply branching Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as the 45,000-year-old Ust'-Ishim individual from southern Siberia, the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from northern China, and Hoabinhian/Onge-related lineages in southeast Asia (Supplementary Fig. 10), suggesting instead that it represents yet another unsampled lineage within early Eurasian genetic diversity. This deep Eurasian lineage is likely to represent the Paleolithic genetic substratum of the Plateau populations.
our results reject previously suggested sources of gene flow into the Tibetan lineage13,35,36, including deeply branching Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as the 45,000-year-old Ust'-Ishim individual from southern Siberia, the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from northern China, and Hoabinhian/Onge-related lineages in southeast Asia (Supplementary Fig. 10), suggesting instead that it represents yet another unsampled lineage within early Eurasian genetic diversity. This deep Eurasian lineage is likely to represent the Paleolithic genetic substratum of the Plateau populations.
McColl et al. suggested that ancient SEA hunter-gatherers (Hòabìnhian) share some ancestry with the Onge, Jehai, Papuan, and Indian populations. We, therefore, ran the ADMIXTURE analysis including the Jarawa, Onge, and the Papuans as possible founder populations in addition to the previous set of AAI, AAM, TB, and EA. Contrary to their claim, we found no evidence of Onge, Jarawa, and Papuan ancestries in the ANC samples (results of ADMIXTURE run hence not shown). We regressed the AAI ancestry (and the EA-like ancestry) of the ancient genomes jointly on the age of the sample and the latitude where these samples were found (Supplementary Table 7). While latitude was only marginally significant for the AAI-like ancestry, it was extremely significant for EA-like ancestry, showing a decreasing trend of EA-like ancestry as one moves from North to South (Fig. 6e, Supplementary Figure 14 in Additional file 1). This bolsters the hypothesis of the origin of EA-like ancestry in Southern China and a movement due south... The current study emphasizes the importance of both geography and language in reconstructing the population structure of India and SEA. Our study suggests that the ancestors to present-day AA speakers were the resident native population extending from Central India to mainland Southeast Asia. They were hunter-gatherers and spoke possibly some proto-AA language that has given rise to the present-day AA language family. The present-day Indian Austroasiatics and Malaysian Austroasiatics shared a common ancestor until about 10.5 KYA. Post-separation they had a disparate genetic history. Around 7 KYA, with the advent of agriculture, there was an ancestry shift in Southeast Asia. The distribution of AA hunter-gatherers started to shrink and their population size kept declining. As farmers from EA began migrating southwards to Mainland Southeast Asia, the population size of AA hunter-gatherers residing in SEA decreased further. Moreover, the East Asians (Eastern Eurasians) interbred with local AA hunter-gatherers introducing "East Asian ancestry" in SEA. With subsequent migration waves, substantial EA ancestry was added to the native Austroasiatics residing in MSEA, including AAM in our study. The continuous migration also resulted in rapid fragmentation and isolation of the AA huntergatherer population. On the other hand, since the East Asians did not enter peninsular India, the "East Asian ancestry" was not introduced in AAs in India, who mostly retained their genetic ancestry while interbreeding locally with populations of ASI ancestry.
our results reject previously suggested sources of gene flow into the Tibetan lineage13,35,36, including deeply branching Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as the 45,000-year-old Ust'-Ishim individual from southern Siberia, the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from northern China, and Hoabinhian/Onge-related lineages in southeast Asia (Supplementary Fig. 10), suggesting instead that it represents yet another unsampled lineage within early Eurasian genetic diversity. This deep Eurasian lineage is likely to represent the Paleolithic genetic substratum of the Plateau populations.
McColl et al. suggested that ancient SEA hunter-gatherers (Hòabìnhian) share some ancestry with the Onge, Jehai, Papuan, and Indian populations. We, therefore, ran the ADMIXTURE analysis including the Jarawa, Onge, and the Papuans as possible founder populations in addition to the previous set of AAI, AAM, TB, and EA. Contrary to their claim, we found no evidence of Onge, Jarawa, and Papuan ancestries in the ANC samples (results of ADMIXTURE run hence not shown). We regressed the AAI ancestry (and the EA-like ancestry) of the ancient genomes jointly on the age of the sample and the latitude where these samples were found (Supplementary Table 7). While latitude was only marginally significant for the AAI-like ancestry, it was extremely significant for EA-like ancestry, showing a decreasing trend of EA-like ancestry as one moves from North to South (Fig. 6e, Supplementary Figure 14 in Additional file 1). This bolsters the hypothesis of the origin of EA-like ancestry in Southern China and a movement due south... The current study emphasizes the importance of both geography and language in reconstructing the population structure of India and SEA. Our study suggests that the ancestors to present-day AA speakers were the resident native population extending from Central India to mainland Southeast Asia. They were hunter-gatherers and spoke possibly some proto-AA language that has given rise to the present-day AA language family. The present-day Indian Austroasiatics and Malaysian Austroasiatics shared a common ancestor until about 10.5 KYA. Post-separation they had a disparate genetic history. Around 7 KYA, with the advent of agriculture, there was an ancestry shift in Southeast Asia. The distribution of AA hunter-gatherers started to shrink and their population size kept declining. As farmers from EA began migrating southwards to Mainland Southeast Asia, the population size of AA hunter-gatherers residing in SEA decreased further. Moreover, the East Asians (Eastern Eurasians) interbred with local AA hunter-gatherers introducing "East Asian ancestry" in SEA. With subsequent migration waves, substantial EA ancestry was added to the native Austroasiatics residing in MSEA, including AAM in our study. The continuous migration also resulted in rapid fragmentation and isolation of the AA huntergatherer population. On the other hand, since the East Asians did not enter peninsular India, the "East Asian ancestry" was not introduced in AAs in India, who mostly retained their genetic ancestry while interbreeding locally with populations of ASI ancestry.
...In contrast, mainland East and Southeast Asians and other Pacific islanders (e.g., Austronesian speakers) are closely related to each other [9,15,16] and here denoted as belonging to an East and Southeast Asian (ESEA) lineage (Box 2). …the ESEA lineage differentiated into at least three distinct ancestries: Tianyuan ancestry which can be found 40,000–33,000 years ago in northern East Asia, ancestry found today across present-day populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Siberia, but whose origins are unknown, and Hòabìnhian ancestry found 8,000–4,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, but whose origins in the Upper Paleolithic are unknown.
Vu Tuong: There is no reason to expect, and no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate, that the actual executions were less than planned; in fact the executions perhaps exceeded the plan if we consider two following factors. First, this decree was issued in 1953 for the rent and interest reduction campaign that preceded the far more radical land redistribution and party rectification campaigns (or waves) that followed during 1954–1956. Second, the decree was meant to apply to free areas (under the control of the Viet Minh government), not to the areas under French control that would be liberated in 1954–1955 and that would experience a far more violent struggle. Thus the number of 13,500 executed people seems to be a low-end estimate of the real number. This is corroborated by Edwin Moise in his recent paper "Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953–1956" presented at the 18th Annual Conference on SE Asian Studies, Center for SE Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley (February 2001). In this paper Moise (79–) modified his earlier estimate in his 1983 book (which was 5,000) and accepted an estimate close to 15,000 executions. Moise made the case based on Hungarian reports provided by Balazs, but the document I cited above offers more direct evidence for his revised estimate. This document also suggests that the total number should be adjusted up some more, taking into consideration the later radical phase of the campaign, the unauthorized killings at the local level, and the suicides following arrest and torture (the central government bore less direct responsibility for these cases, however).cf. Szalontai, Balazs (November 2005). "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56". Cold War History. 5 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1080/14682740500284630. S2CID 153956945. cf. Vu, Tuong (2010). Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-139-48901-0.
Clearly Vietnamese socialism followed a moderate path relative to China. ... Yet the Vietnamese 'land reform' campaign ... testified that Vietnamese communists could be as radical and murderous as their comrades elsewhere.
Vu Tuong: There is no reason to expect, and no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate, that the actual executions were less than planned; in fact the executions perhaps exceeded the plan if we consider two following factors. First, this decree was issued in 1953 for the rent and interest reduction campaign that preceded the far more radical land redistribution and party rectification campaigns (or waves) that followed during 1954–1956. Second, the decree was meant to apply to free areas (under the control of the Viet Minh government), not to the areas under French control that would be liberated in 1954–1955 and that would experience a far more violent struggle. Thus the number of 13,500 executed people seems to be a low-end estimate of the real number. This is corroborated by Edwin Moise in his recent paper "Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953–1956" presented at the 18th Annual Conference on SE Asian Studies, Center for SE Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley (February 2001). In this paper Moise (79–) modified his earlier estimate in his 1983 book (which was 5,000) and accepted an estimate close to 15,000 executions. Moise made the case based on Hungarian reports provided by Balazs, but the document I cited above offers more direct evidence for his revised estimate. This document also suggests that the total number should be adjusted up some more, taking into consideration the later radical phase of the campaign, the unauthorized killings at the local level, and the suicides following arrest and torture (the central government bore less direct responsibility for these cases, however).cf. Szalontai, Balazs (November 2005). "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56". Cold War History. 5 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1080/14682740500284630. S2CID 153956945. cf. Vu, Tuong (2010). Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-139-48901-0.
Clearly Vietnamese socialism followed a moderate path relative to China. ... Yet the Vietnamese 'land reform' campaign ... testified that Vietnamese communists could be as radical and murderous as their comrades elsewhere.
Vu Tuong: There is no reason to expect, and no evidence that I have seen to demonstrate, that the actual executions were less than planned; in fact the executions perhaps exceeded the plan if we consider two following factors. First, this decree was issued in 1953 for the rent and interest reduction campaign that preceded the far more radical land redistribution and party rectification campaigns (or waves) that followed during 1954–1956. Second, the decree was meant to apply to free areas (under the control of the Viet Minh government), not to the areas under French control that would be liberated in 1954–1955 and that would experience a far more violent struggle. Thus the number of 13,500 executed people seems to be a low-end estimate of the real number. This is corroborated by Edwin Moise in his recent paper "Land Reform in North Vietnam, 1953–1956" presented at the 18th Annual Conference on SE Asian Studies, Center for SE Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley (February 2001). In this paper Moise (79–) modified his earlier estimate in his 1983 book (which was 5,000) and accepted an estimate close to 15,000 executions. Moise made the case based on Hungarian reports provided by Balazs, but the document I cited above offers more direct evidence for his revised estimate. This document also suggests that the total number should be adjusted up some more, taking into consideration the later radical phase of the campaign, the unauthorized killings at the local level, and the suicides following arrest and torture (the central government bore less direct responsibility for these cases, however).cf. Szalontai, Balazs (November 2005). "Political and Economic Crisis in North Vietnam, 1955–56". Cold War History. 5 (4): 395–426. doi:10.1080/14682740500284630. S2CID 153956945. cf. Vu, Tuong (2010). Paths to Development in Asia: South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Indonesia. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-139-48901-0.
Clearly Vietnamese socialism followed a moderate path relative to China. ... Yet the Vietnamese 'land reform' campaign ... testified that Vietnamese communists could be as radical and murderous as their comrades elsewhere.
...In contrast, mainland East and Southeast Asians and other Pacific islanders (e.g., Austronesian speakers) are closely related to each other [9,15,16] and here denoted as belonging to an East and Southeast Asian (ESEA) lineage (Box 2). …the ESEA lineage differentiated into at least three distinct ancestries: Tianyuan ancestry which can be found 40,000–33,000 years ago in northern East Asia, ancestry found today across present-day populations of East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Siberia, but whose origins are unknown, and Hòabìnhian ancestry found 8,000–4,000 years ago in Southeast Asia, but whose origins in the Upper Paleolithic are unknown.
our results reject previously suggested sources of gene flow into the Tibetan lineage13,35,36, including deeply branching Eastern Eurasian lineages, such as the 45,000-year-old Ust'-Ishim individual from southern Siberia, the 40,000-year-old Tianyuan individual from northern China, and Hoabinhian/Onge-related lineages in southeast Asia (Supplementary Fig. 10), suggesting instead that it represents yet another unsampled lineage within early Eurasian genetic diversity. This deep Eurasian lineage is likely to represent the Paleolithic genetic substratum of the Plateau populations.
McColl et al. suggested that ancient SEA hunter-gatherers (Hòabìnhian) share some ancestry with the Onge, Jehai, Papuan, and Indian populations. We, therefore, ran the ADMIXTURE analysis including the Jarawa, Onge, and the Papuans as possible founder populations in addition to the previous set of AAI, AAM, TB, and EA. Contrary to their claim, we found no evidence of Onge, Jarawa, and Papuan ancestries in the ANC samples (results of ADMIXTURE run hence not shown). We regressed the AAI ancestry (and the EA-like ancestry) of the ancient genomes jointly on the age of the sample and the latitude where these samples were found (Supplementary Table 7). While latitude was only marginally significant for the AAI-like ancestry, it was extremely significant for EA-like ancestry, showing a decreasing trend of EA-like ancestry as one moves from North to South (Fig. 6e, Supplementary Figure 14 in Additional file 1). This bolsters the hypothesis of the origin of EA-like ancestry in Southern China and a movement due south... The current study emphasizes the importance of both geography and language in reconstructing the population structure of India and SEA. Our study suggests that the ancestors to present-day AA speakers were the resident native population extending from Central India to mainland Southeast Asia. They were hunter-gatherers and spoke possibly some proto-AA language that has given rise to the present-day AA language family. The present-day Indian Austroasiatics and Malaysian Austroasiatics shared a common ancestor until about 10.5 KYA. Post-separation they had a disparate genetic history. Around 7 KYA, with the advent of agriculture, there was an ancestry shift in Southeast Asia. The distribution of AA hunter-gatherers started to shrink and their population size kept declining. As farmers from EA began migrating southwards to Mainland Southeast Asia, the population size of AA hunter-gatherers residing in SEA decreased further. Moreover, the East Asians (Eastern Eurasians) interbred with local AA hunter-gatherers introducing "East Asian ancestry" in SEA. With subsequent migration waves, substantial EA ancestry was added to the native Austroasiatics residing in MSEA, including AAM in our study. The continuous migration also resulted in rapid fragmentation and isolation of the AA huntergatherer population. On the other hand, since the East Asians did not enter peninsular India, the "East Asian ancestry" was not introduced in AAs in India, who mostly retained their genetic ancestry while interbreeding locally with populations of ASI ancestry.