Talk:Ngô Đình Diệm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
  • /Archive1

Contents

[edit] exiled to china

why would he be exiled to china if hes openly anti communist? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.62.233 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] diem was a good leader

it is more and more evident to me that diem was embraced by most south vietnamese as a good leader, whereas in american history texts, diem is often portrayed as a corrupt leader who alienated many of his countrymen. my discussions with my father (police officer, numerous talk with elder vietnamese and some books (such as nixons: no more vietnams, moyars: triumph forsaken) strengthen this view. i suggest we give him an article worthy of the way he led our country. Tridungvo 18:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong successor

The article does contain one obvious mistake which we should all agree to change. It gives his successor as Minh, who was really president for 2 days in 1975, but of course it was Thieu. PatGallacher 12:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Minh led the junta that overthrew Diem and ruled briefly before being ousted by Khanh. DHN 16:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ngo Dinh Diem

From User talk:Blnguyen Hello, Binguyen.

I liked a lot of your changes on the Buddhist issue. It makes sense to put the events of May-August, 1963 under the section regarding the coup. However, on the question of Diem's general treatment of Buddhists (under "Rule"), you are presenting one (albeit majority) POV as fact, and excluding the other. The revisionists make a good case, and their views deserved to be aired. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me on my talk page.

I would also point out that although you have added some much-needed citations, they are not presented in a form that can be checked. Specifically, one cannot tell what books by "Tucker," "Gettleman" and "Buttinger" you are attempting to cite. I'm not sure who Tucker and Gettleman are, and Joseph Buttinger wrote at least two books on Vietnam.

--VnTruth 18:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the general discussion about where NDD was anti-Buddhist, I did not conclude that he was an anti-Buddhist, but simply stated that the majority of scholars felt that he was anti-Buddhist. Hence the word regarded.
“ As a member of the Catholic Vietnamese minority, he is regarded by a majority of historians as having pursued pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists. Specifically, the government was regarded as being biased towards Catholics in public servant and military promotions, as well as allocation of land, business favours and tax concessions. ”
I then pointed out some instances cited by the scholarly majority in their arguments that he was biased. The other thing to note is the WP:NPOV "Neutral Point of View policy" that requires that the proportion of space given to the evidence of various theories needs to be in proportion with the scholarly consensus of reputable historians. As a result, I trimmed and condensed the Moyar things, because as he notes in his own writing, he is very much in the minority "very few" and is attempting to change academic consensus. In the preface of his book he states
“ The revisionist school,...has published much less, primarily because it has few adherents in the academic world. ”
As such I removed his 27% figure because the Buddhist % is almost universally put at 70-90% in the overwhelming number of sources, rather than have a separate line for a very much miniscule minority estimate, and simply stated that almost all believe that there is a majority, and estimate it in the 70-90 range. Otherwise we would need maybe 20 sentences quoting many many people saying that Buddhists are the majority, to keep things in proportion. I also removed the religious composition of his cabinet, since I found one other mainstream book which has 3/18 cabinet ministers as Buddhist. Although people can interpret things in different ways, it is difficult when one minority group has a large disparity in the statistics that they use. It may not be particularly relevant anyway, since NDD's brothers were not cabinet ministers yet controlled the secret police, services, special forces, etc, and most power lay with the these bodies as well as the army generals. Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I also note that the composition of the cabinet is not part of policy towards the people. It is what the govt treatment of the populace that counts, rather than who the people nominally were. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
you're 27% also comes from the CIA. Since they strongly backed Diem's campaign in becoming president, they have a horse in the race, and cannot be considered to be a reliable source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
As regards to the citations, I will fix them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed the claim that Thich Tri Quang asked for all Buddhists to be above the law. The other books do not say that this was part of the agreement what was asked for in June 1963. I am disputing this fact. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moyar and WP:RS

The views of Moyar are very much fringe. Moyar notes so himself, that he is a revisionist. He is attempting to overturn academic historical establishment on what is fact. Many of factual events that he records as having taken place directly contradict the records of the established history, and Moyar is frequently stating in the book that the account of events by the orthodox historians is false and spends much of the book attempting to discredit the historical events they describe. So it is definitely fringe and does not even really pass WP:RS since his version of events contradicts what is accepted. WP:NOT states under the headline Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought point 1 that

“ Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge ”

Moyar's work is as yet not accepted knowledge, since his attempt to debunk "orthodox-fact" has with "revisionism-fact" has not yet changed the consensus of what Diem did. I am not referring to what people evaluate of Diem, but black and white statements about what events happened and what did not. As such I do not believe his claims and attempts to reestablish another sequence of events can be considered to be taken as a reliable source. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE is quite clear about this. It says,
“ Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. ”
If Moyar or atleast his book as opposed to his views are notable and encyclopedic, then one might actually create an article for the book and then present a summary of his views there(in NPOV fashion ofcourse and not as a matter of fact). And btw, almost every reviewer and review of the book is unanimous that the book is revisionist. That it overturns accepted historical facts. It would no doubt make for interesting reading, but his views surely cant fight for space on this article. Sarvagnya 08:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Being an encyclopedia, only popular theories are acceptable. fringe theories such as the book by Moyar is better of in a different article.Dineshkannambadi 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
While there may be a dispute over the number of Buddhists, the consensus is that Buddhists formed the majority in South Vietnam. Moyar may be notable, but writing full fledged biography based on one man's view is not NPOV.Bakaman 16:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Especially when the source that Moyar cites for 27% Buddhist is a CIA report and the CIA helped organised and promote Diem's rise to power, they have a COI and the report cannot be taken to be indepenedent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Since Moyar is a self proclaimed minority viewpoint revisionist, and since he seeks to overturn established historical fact, he cannot be taken to be a reliable source for describing factual events or statistics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Nick. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 09:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. - Y (Y NOT?) 14:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Moyars views may be fringe, especially among western scholars, but his material is new. Much of the statistics and information he published is new to the spotlight, and thus should be aired. Does anyone know how the Communists in Vietnam view Diem as a fighter of Communism? I do not mean morally, as they most certainly view him poorly there, but as a talented leader. I believe if they did view him as a talented leader, those views should be aired also. I remember reading from a governmental historian, that under his rule, in 1959-1963, 9 out of 10 party members in the south were killed or capturedTridungvo 13:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC),
Found the source: http://www.dsp.org.au/links/back/issue27/Nguyen.htm I'm sure there's more information from the Communist side that confirm his talent in fighting the them.Tridungvo 14:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Piero Gheddo and RS

Looking again at Moyar's book, some of his counter-statistics are sourced to a book called the "The Cross and the Bo-Tree". Gheddo is an Italian Roman Catholic priest. He is an active missionary trying to convert people to Catholicism (see google). On the blurb of the book, it says that his credentials include being a magazine editor for the Second Vatican Council. Also note that Ngo Dinh Thuc, brother and advisor of Ngo Dinh Diem, who lived in the same Presidential Palace in Saigon, was the Archbishop of Hue, and was a member of the Vatican voting conclave for the papacy. Thuc was one of the most powerful figures of the Vatican in Asia. As such, these statistics can in no way be taken to be reliable at all. Imagine using a Fatah or Hamas website for statistics about Israel, or Tamilnation for statistics about the Govt of Sri Lanka. The fact that Moyar takes information written in a book by a missionary of the same church of an archbishop who is the brother of the country's President, and tries to use this to reveal "truth" speaks volumes about him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This book "The Cross and the Bo-Tree" seems to be a propaganda oriented material, well connected at the highest levels to those attempting to propagate a revisionist theory.Dineshkannambadi 12:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not defending the source where it came from, but the 27% figure, at least in Moyar's book, was a figure for the percentage of South Vietnamese who were strongly observant Buddhists, not for the percentage of people in South Vietnam who were Buddhist.91.17.176.36 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] % Buddhists

  • Time magazine article [1] - 80%
  • Maclear, p63 -> 95%
  • Dr Charles Fasanaro, Santa Fe, NM, Encyc of Vietnam War p49 (ed Spencer C. Tucker) -> 80%
  • Dr Cecil B. Currey, U S Florida, Encyc of Vietnam War p291 (ed Spencer C. Tucker) -> "predominately" [sic]
  • William Head, Encyc of Vietnam War p293 (ed Spencer C. Tucker) -> "most"
  • Frank N Trager, Professor NYU, pg366 in Gettleman -> "majority"
  • David Halberstam, Pulitzer Prize, Gettleman p275 -> 69-76%
    • Note that contrary to the claims in Moyar's book that Halberstam got this statistic from communists, Halberstam in the article notes that it was an estimate by the "Asia Foundation" a non-profit US organisation.
  • [Wesley Fishel, Professor MSU, Gettleman's book -> "largely"
  • CIA report: 27%

Google results

  • (12)[2] - "predominantly"
  • (15)[3] "70-80%"
  • (19)[4] "80%"
  • (21) This site is an encyclopedia, but may not be very good [5] - 66% in 1995....Has Buddhism increased during Communism?
  • (29) [6] - "predominantly"
  • (30) [7] - "In an eerie parallel, the percentage of Sunni Muslims to Shiites in Iraq is roughly that of the Catholic-Buddhist ratio in Vietnam in the 1950s."

These are the google results for academic publications in the top 30

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Merely a note to widely acclaimed figure David Halberstam would have been enough to debunk Moyar.Bakaman 02:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What was Diem and Nhu's political party called, again? The name escapes me. 71.193.93.176 12:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Can Lao. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Question

In the 'Aftermath' section of this article, is there something wrong with the last word of the article? I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be 'communism' rather than 'colonialism.'

No it's correct. Diem was known for taking a lot of US aid money and not doing what he was told. The subsequent junta allowed more US personnel etc and towed the line more, and they got a worse reputation for being American puppets than Diem did. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

I've included this article in Category:Prime Ministers of South Vietnam. I realize that at the time the government in question laid claim to all Vietnam, but the position held by the person is commonly called "PM of South Vietnam". Snocrates 02:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead said President of South Vietnam (as in the post 1955 Republic of Vietnam). Before Geneva, there wasn't a border and there were two parallel administrations, the French backed State of Vietnam and the Ho Chi Minh Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Before Geneva there was fighting everywhere and there wasn't a communist anti-communist zone. It was only in 1955-56 after the national elections didn't occur that "south" and "north" became concrete and when teh RoV was created, Ngo Dinh Diem proclaimed himself President and stayed there until he was killed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)