User talk:VnTruth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Diệm
Hey VnTruth,
Well, I'm not an official mediator, but I have helped resolve disputes in the past, so I suppose I could help you with this one. The main problem we have is that neither you or Yoohooboo have made any attempts to discuss your changes at Talk:Ngo Dinh Diem. That's the first step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I think Yoohooboo objects having Moyar's views being presented as facts. Perhaps we could add a view from one side, and then state the other POV. We need to make sure that everything follows WP:NPOV. Perhaps if there are any uncited statements, you could add {{fact}} tags to them instead. However, I think it's best to try to discuss this with him first, rather than reverting. If the edit war continues, the page might have to be protected. Hope that helped. Khoikhoi 05:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps is he busy right now. We should probably assume good faith for the moment. I deleted your version because it appeared to be disputed, so I reverted to the version before that. Khoikhoi 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] diem
Most literature I am aware of cites him as anti-Buddhist, but I agree that it should be NPOV by citing other scholarly views. The big smoking gun in the matter is the "barbecued Buddhist monk" comment by Madame Nhu.Bakaman 19:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ngo Dinh Diem
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) 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- As regards to the citations, I will fix them up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
{{edit protected}}
Please add the following to the article Ngo Dinh Diem under "Treatment of Buddhists" as a separate paragraph:
A revisionist view asserts that Diệm did not discriminate against Buddhists.[1] These historians point out that eight of his 18 cabinet members, including his vice-president and foreign minister, were Buddhist (compared with five Catholics), and that 26 of his province chiefs were Buddhists or Confucians, compared with only 12 who were Catholic.[2] Moreover, the revisionists say, more than one quarter of South Vietnam's Buddhist pagodas in were built during Diệm's rule, some with government funds, and the government also provided appreciable amounts of money for Buddhist schools and ceremonies.[3] The revisionists also cite Central Intelligence Agency reports showing that Buddhists numbered no more than four million, approximately 27% of South Vietnam's population, and that practicing Buddhists made up only half that number.[4]
This will be the second and last paragraph in the section. Please delete the last sentence of the preceding paragraph as it is now redundant. --VnTruth 12:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, since the article was just now protected due to edit warring, it would be inappropriate for anyone to make significant changes to the article. Once the dispute is resolved, the article will be unprotected. Also, in general, editprotected requests should go on the talk page of the associated article, not on user talk pages. CMummert · talk 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ngo Dinh Diem
I think the other user you mean is User:Blnguyen. That user has been making responses on the talk page. Be patient and work it out there; I can't force anyone into consensus. If you want to request that the page be unprotected, contact User:Shanel who protected it. But I think it is too soon to unprotect the page. It might be worthwhile to come back in a day or two, to give everyone a chance to cool off. CMummert · talk 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I protected the page because I saw an edit war happening, nothing more. --§hanel 19:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert
I was under an impression that you had removed a valid warning from your talk page, which is generally frowned on. Now I have discovered that it was made by a single-purpose account, so I am re-removing it. Regards, Mike Rosoft 12:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand me. I have noticed you remove a warning from your talk page and reverted it; then (after your question) I realized that the warning was made by a user with very little edits and to contributing to one article only, so I removed it again. - Mike Rosoft 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your request for arbitration
I see that you have attempted to file a request for arbitration concerning disputed edits to Ngo Dinh Diem. However, your request is not appearing on the arbitration page for people to read because you inadvertently typed it into the hidden template, rather than copy the template into the edit box. Please go back to the page and copy the template into the correct place so that your case can be considered. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Also, I see that you have given notice of the case to the other parties, but you did so by putting a comment in the middle of their talkpages where they might not notice it. Could you please place these notification comments in a separate section at the bottom of each of the talkpages. Thank you, Newyorkbrad 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Nishkid64 14:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked for 48 hours for 5 reverts on Ngo Dinh Diem within 24 hours. -- Y not? 00:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
