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)