Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen

Untitled

WikiVigil Moved to /Vigil.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005)

air route denial

I don't think the "air route denial" is relevant to this article. As far as I know, both Austrialia and Singapore governments did not link the rejection to Nguyen's case. The rejection is not a consequence of the execution, but a decision to protect Qantas. --Vsion 16:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Item 3 of the to do list is the "Proposal by some Australian politicians for economic sanctions". Prior to the execution some politicians (non-government I think) proposed a direct link between the air route and the negotiations over clemency. The original comments made in parliament haven't made the article but the subsequent stance of the government have. Softgrow 20:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note about Bruce Baird under Pleas for Clemency. Softgrow 21:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the infor., Baird's statement is certainly relevant, especially coming from the Liberal Party, I wasn't aware of it until now. --Vsion 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Baird was the first though. I thought some Federal senators suggested it first. At some stage I need to go through the to do list and fill in the gaps. Softgrow 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Caleb Nguyen?

Is it appropriate to redirect this name to the article?--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk) Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 05:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is appopriate. For example Tony Blair has a redirect from Bliar. --

No. Catholics do not refer to themselves using the Baptised name. Bliar isn't a Baptised name, and I don't think we should even be giving redirects for typos. Kransky 15:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Terence Ong 04:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Kransky, Bliar isn't a typo, it's a neologism of Blair's name due to the fact he lied to his people to get them into an illegal invasion of the midle east. It's a very common taxonomy applied to him. Jachin 01:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Appeals for clemency

didn't Helen Clarke appeal for clemency when she went to Singapore, i remember her being on TV saying that she doesn't support people being executed and that she would appeal to the President when she visited... i really remember this!! lolAustralian Jezza 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably since she is really anti death penalty. Also its spelt Clark

I think the majority of the world is anti-killing, as a whole. Clark being 'really anti death penalty' isn't that relevant for her plea for clemency. It's a minority of countries and people who encourage such behaviour, and will eventually be phased out as education increases due to a better understanding of social ecology and the fact that killing is, under all circumstances, an inappropriate punishment. Jachin 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it important that the judgment on the appeal did not address all issues in the appeal? Someone deleted this from the story but it seems relevant. I am concerned that the article is misleading on the nature of the appeal and its rejection without this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.34.18 (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Confusing wording

"After his brother Khoa got into legal trouble, Nguyen wound up the business."

What's this suppose to mean? Closed the business or got the business? Anyone that's more familiar with this person please clear this up.

```` LRguy, 24 June 2007

Cleanup of 13 July 2009

I happened across this article, and found it in desperate need of cleanup. Much of the article appears not to have in-line sources. In addition, I thought is was full of excess detail whose origins were unclear. There were points which I felt were in breach of WP:NPOV - quite a lot of the text, about how he got there, the appeals for clemency, vigil and funeral gave a very favourable impression of Nguyen. Of course, not being Australian and not having followed the case, I cannot understand what happened, not the importance given it by the politicians and the public, thus I would apologise if I have incorrectly changed the emphasis of the article. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something should be said of the impression the public had of nguyen, i remember people didn't draw comparisons with the bali 9 and nguyen, because nguyen became a drug traffiker out of neccessity - trying to pay back debts for his brother and himself. that was another thing, i had originally heard that these debts were made with loan sharks - thus the neccessity. nguyen's case was much more sympathetic because he wasn't ignorant, just desperate. levi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.74.131.228 (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that capital punishment is cruel and inhumane is one thing, but saying he was a top bloke who was "just desperate" is laughable. If somebody goes around bashing and robbing senior citizens allegedly to pay off loan sharks (even though they get caught and fail to pay off the debts, while no apparent harm is carried out against their family), would you say that they are "just desperate"? Regardless of whether the punishment was wrong, the fact is that he committed a parasitic crime with the intention of preying upon the vulnerabilities and weaknesses of others. 118.138.216.140 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Darshan Singh

I'm not sure what if anything can be said about Darshan Singh on this page except that his alleged attempt to gain publicity prior to Van Tuong Nguyen's execution received disapprobation in Australia and Singapore. --Bejnar (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"explained" is not neutral

It doesn't matter what word is used in the reference used. We can find information in sources as biased as we like, but here, on this page, the idea is to write neutrally. The person "explained", according to the source you've found. According to my personal judgement, he "claimed". Perhaps, in my judgement, he might even have "lied". But from a neutral point of view, he "said".

Dave1185 has tried very hard to retain "explained", on the grounds that changing it is vandalism, or that changing it is original research, or on the grounds that you can't change the words that appear in the sources you're citing. None of these reasons are valid. Neutrality demands that "explained" is not used in this sentence. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all explained very clearly at WP:SAY. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion? Why don't you just find an alternate source where "said" is used in the place of explained?Zhanzhao (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't work like that. We do not actually copy and paste from sources. There is no obligation to use a word just because a source did. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopaedia. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thats your personal opinion. There are instances where using exact wording is required, i.e. Using exact wording prevemts introduction of biasness by the editors. The source itself may have some bias, but thats where we can attribute the phrasing to them (in prose) as a disclaimer. There are rules and guidelines, but there are also exceptions. The important thing is to understand the intention behind a guideline rather than following it blindly. And just because some editors have differences in opinions on how the guidelines are interpreted doesmnot exclude them from editing/participation. We are a community here. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not following any guideline blindly. I am arguing for the removal of bias from the article, which some editors are insisting must remain because that particular word is used in a source. That argument is entirely specious. Yes, there are circumstances where you'd report the exact word. This is not one of them. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"explained" is not supported by the sources

I don't see where the source says "explained" with regard to the letter being sent a day early. Here is the statement in the article that needs support:

Lee explained that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated.

Here is the cited source (actually a collection of sources): [1]. When I search for "explained" there, the only hit is in a different context which says:

But Mr Lee explained that after careful consideration and looking at similar cases, the clemency appeal had to be rejected. Mr Lee said: "I explained to him why we were unable to accede to the request even though we understood where he was coming from and I respected his views."

That is, what Lee explained was why they "were unable to accede to the request", not anything about the letter.

About the letter, it does say this:

In a statement, Mr Lee's press secretary said Mr Lee apologised to Mr Howard for the embarrassment of not informing him of Mr Nguyen's execution date during their morning meeting.

This was because the letter informing the family of the execution date was mistakenly delivered a day earlier.

So we can say Mr. Lee apologised for not informing Howard about the decision during their meeting. But the sources don't say, and therefore we can't say, that Lee explained "that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated". I don't even see support for saying that he said it. There is a source that says the Singapore government (without mention Lee or anyone else specifically) revealed that the letter had been sent a day early, and that there will an investigation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that a good wording would be that "the Singapore Government revealed that the letter was sent a day early and apologized to Mr Howard for the embarrassment saying that there would be an investigation" --Snowded <sup>TALK</sup> 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even for that I think we need more than one source before we put it in the article. But the "Lee explained" thing in there now is not supported at all, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not by the cited source. I can't believe so many got on this guy's case for replacing "explained" with "said" on the grounds that "said" was not supported without verifying that "explained" was even supported. I'd like to see better treatment of each other than that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but it certainly doesn't help matters when editors start saying things like "There is no obligation to use a word just because a source did. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopaedia." His user page's content does not exactly make him out to be very reconciliatory either. I always thought that Talk Pages was a way to suggest solutions, discuss issues and resolve differences, not to put other editors down..... Zhanzhao (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue was not the word change, rather the report and the abusive language along with not using the edit page to reach agreement to changes. I thought there was too much templating of the IP, and too much abuse by the IP. --Snowded <sup>TALK</sup> 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue originally was the word change, which I imagined would be entirely uncontroversial. A separate issue then became the attacks on me from all sides led by Dave1185, to which I responded angrily. My anger has then been used to justify the original attacks. The issue here is still the word change. The other issue, you can discuss elsewhere if you like. On the word change, it still seems very simple to me. Slavishly adopting the wording of the source is wrong. The word "said" is entirely neutral, while the word "explained" carries connotations that the article should not be carrying. It doesn't matter at all if the source said "explained". Insisting that a word must be used because it appears in the original source makes a complete mockery of the concept of writing an encyclopaedia. The aim here is a bit higher than a massive copy and paste exercise, is it not? Anyway, it seems to me from the source that Lee did not "explain" or "say" but the Singapore government did. So, where it says "Lee explained..." it could say "The Singapore government said...". This is accurate and neutral.

Incidentally I think the protection of this article is a disgrace, and looks to have been done simply to gain the upper hand in this strange dispute. There is no "persistent sockpuppetry". 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)