Talk:Sang Nguyen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Ambi claims that the "allegations" against Nguyen are not made by the people listed. Not so, there are very general allegations anyway with no evidence from a reporter and then a series of Nguyen's factional opponents making variously negative and general statements about stacking.

You can't have it both ways. It's either about Nguyen or it's not. If the link is to stay, then the reference should be put in its full context so it does not mislead readers.

Ambi professes on her user page not to be a member of a political party, implying she has no political agenda. I believe that claim sits uncomfortably with her constant reverting of this and other articles about ALP figures. DarrenRay 03:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome to link to the interview so people can read it in context, but you're entirely not welcome to put your own personal slant on it - something not backed up by the source. I'm only having to revert articles about ALP figures because of your flagrantly biased editing of those same articles. Ambi 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You are reverting without regard to the content, that much is clear from this and other articles. I am very disappointed about conduct of that nature. DarrenRay 04:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a point of linking the programme in the article and reading it. I think that the allegations are fairly vague at best and were purported to have come from some unnamed people so I have concerns about the analysis that has been added. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"I think that the allegations are fairly vague at best." I think that says it all really and goes to Darren's point which is that it's either relevant and substantial or it isn't. It seems not to be anything other than POV, from people who think every Jew, Chinese person, Arab, Cambodian or whatever in the ALP must be part of some branchstacking nonsense. The link should be explained in full and explained or the claim removed. I personally don't like deleting without good reason, but in this case there probably is good reason to delete the lot. What do others think? --2006BC 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it for now, as I think Garglebutt makes a fair point. I'll see if I can find some better sources in the next few days, but otherwise I think it's fair to concede that the transcript on its own is not strong enough to warrant mentioning here. Ambi 05:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's very welcome but let's not have a re-run of the same debate. Any allegations of branch-stacking must be put in context and the context is that everyone makes these claims. Many people say Carlo Carli is a branch-stacker, what are the status of these allegations? Not much, they come from his factional rivals. So we need to see these claims in context, they are almost never followed up. Very few people are ever charged with it in the ALP, I can only think of one case involving Mohammad Abbouche and that was tossed out due to lack of evidence. So let's keep this standard factional claim into perspective. --2006BC 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. If I put this material back in, it'll be markedly better sourced. Ambi 05:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

I think this guy is pretty non-notable and the only reason I'm not suggesting deletion is that in principle we keep articles on Australian politicians. That said, let's not over state their achievements; he's had a fair run and done little so comments to that effect are not POV. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

In the Vietnamese community he has achieved a great deal. So let's not impose racist assumptions on his achievements. --2006BC 08:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop always assuming bad faith in others when you don't share the same view point! There are many people in the community who do more for society than most politicians, but are not noteworthy in Wikipedia's eyes. That doesn't mean what they do is worthless, it just doesn't justify an article. My point is that there are many minor politicians who have done great things in their own area but are virtually unknown outside of their area of focus; hence my comment on non-notability.

Whether Victorian Members of Parliament are notable or not for Wikipedia is a separate issue but what I don't enjoy are presumptions that a very active community leader and MP has "done little." I remember someone telling me he was on the front page of Vietnamese local newspapers most weeks doing one thing or another. Most editors wouldn't know, unless they are someone other than who they say they are. Nguyen is very active in the ALP, provoking great opposition from some. He was one of the first people in his ethnic community to be a local mayor and is in his own way a big wheel. So will a non-POV article say "he's had a fair run and done little"? I don't think so. Perhaps you should re-read Wikipedia guidelines and come back to us then. --2006BC 08:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course I didn't make those comments in the article, and they were in the context of not overstating issues during his term in the article. If he has done so much for the Vietnamese community, and you seem to know a bit about it, why don't you add that rather than fighting over bullshit about branch stacking. And please stop asking experienced editors to read Wikipedia guidelines as it is condescending and a little ironic coming from a n00b editor who has spent most of their brief time on wikipedia warring with other editors. Your edits are becoming gradually more acceptable to all so I don't understand this constant hostility. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not hostile. I just call it how I see it. If people cite rules, they must comply with them. If they denigrate an MP because he "has not done much" then they should probably expect to be called on it. I understand you weren't proposing to insert it in the article -- you just had the incorrect assumption. I encourage you to read the guidelines not to be patronising but because I have -- quite recently -- and I think you might be a little rusty otherwise you would not have vandalised Darren's user page and broken 3RR with I think 6 or 7 reverts in 24 hours. I will always call you on what you might call "bull." It's not being hostile, just being fair. --2006BC 09:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see now the error of my ways. You are always right and everyone else is always wrong. All of your edits are NPOV and everyones else's are POV. I apologise on behalf of Wikipedia for what we make you suffer through. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, I encourage you to read the guidelines more frequently to keep up to date, esp on 3RR, civility and not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --2006BC 22:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we please avoid emotive and sensationalist language in this article. I have removed it. DarrenRay 09:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)