Talk:Lý Long Tường

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ly Long Tuong)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Military / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Korea (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Korean military history working group.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Korean name[edit]

Was his Korean name Yi Nyeong-sang? Badagnani (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried Googling but got zero results for "이융상 베트남". --Kjoonlee 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you help us to find information about this Korean? Because it's him who proclaimed descendent of Prince Ly Long Tuong. Thank you. RBD (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
He's Korean name is "Lee yong-sang"(Hangul:이용상) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Syngman Rhee wasn't from Hwasan Lee clan[edit]

Therefore this must be corrected, Syngman Rhee's bongwan is Pyungsan Lee clan (平山 李氏)of Korea according to his bio. [본적 = 황해도 평산]--Korsentry 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

He was born in Pyungsan, Hwanghae province but he is a member of Jeonju Lee clan(全州李氏) which was Royal clan of Choseon dinasty not Pyungsan Lee clan. Noropdoropi (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hoax tag[edit]

What does the editor who placed the "hoax" tag believe to be fradulent/falsified in this article? Badagnani (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

See Google Books search here. Badagnani (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another article here. Badagnani (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I placed a hoax tag because there are currently rather wild rumours flying all over the place regarding the supposed connections between certain political figures in the Korean peninsula and modern-day Vietnam. It is likely that the historical figure that the article is discussing actually exists; however, the information given does make me wonder whether a large chunk of it is just pseudo-history (I should add that the edit history is conspicuously short; obviously; this must an obscure topic). This actually reminds of how even an article like Trung Sisters tends to accumulate a lot of blatant pseudo-history and misrepresentations.
Also, many books are written for deceptive purposes. I would not rely too heavily on book searches (unless it comes from a place like a reputable University) from the Internet if I were you.
By the way, the website you have just provided seems to lead to a communist controlled website as it resolves to the .vn domain. This immediately trashes its credibility, regardless of the factual accuracy of the material being presented. David873 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Many sites that resolve to capitalist domains are full of misinformation as well. Let us begin evaluating the information now. Badagnani (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

We've found only sources that are newspapers in Vietnam. Here is a good one (but in Vietnamese, sorry)[1] with information on Ly Long Tuong's decendents, who are now Korean citizens, some have visited and now do business in Vietnam, some even brought the whole family to live in Vietnam. This "Tuoi tre" is one of the 4 or 5 biggest newspapers in Vietnam. I don't see any reasons to say that "Tuoi tre" does not satisfy WP:V, unless WP:V said something like "any communist-related sources are not reliable".
Anyway, I'll ask vi editors to find non-Vietnamese sources and tell you as soon as we find one.
Tmct (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
@ David873: See for yourself Vietnamese people in Korea, and if you want to claim that article POV, unreliable or even hoax, place "some" templates there too. RBD (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hoax or not, some of the details are clearly wrong. In the absence of good sourcing, that casts doubt on the reliability of the rest. For one example, Pusan is nowhere near South Hwanghae province. --Amble (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
With the above sources, I removed {{hoax}}. If David873 have further question, please put it here before place template, thank you. RBD (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just done a Google search and I am still unconvinced that the article is not hoax. I noticed that the Google search is literally littered with links to websites that are either commercial, this Wikipedia article itself, references books whose authenticity and reliability cannot be ascertained or websites whose neutrality is questionable due to their association with either Vietnam or Vietnamese culture. Furthermore, not a single reliable English language publication on this historical figure could be found (note that sources from the Vietnamese government or its agencies are NOT to be trusted for obvious reasons). On the contrary, I have strong reasons (mostly geographic) to believe that at best, this historical figure only had tenuous links to Vietnam and far more likely that there were, in fact, no connections at all.
Again, I have to reiterate the fact that the conspicuously short edit history (prior to the hoax tag being placed) speaks for itself, considering the fact that this article has existed for more than 12 months. Until a valid and reliable source in English surfaces, the hoax tag will remain in the article. Furthermore, I am seriously considering deletion of the article should it become clear that a substantial number of editors from the relevant WikiProjects believe that the article is a hoax and that there are simply no reliable sources in English available. David873 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
So if we agree with your suggestion (websites whose neutrality is questionable due to their association with either Vietnam or Vietnamese culture), from now on, all articles relating with American culture must remove all source coming from CNN, NYTimes,...? Furthermore, "Institute of Southeast Asian Studies" is of course NOT a Vietnamese publisher but you still try to ignore that one (with your argument)?
"I have strong reasons" - show us your references because we have shown you valid sources (after Wikipedia:Verifiability, not after your criteria). If you think this article must go to deletion discussions, so do it, the result will tell for itself. RBD (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

@David873. If you had looked at the Google link that Badagnani provided above, you would have seen the following:

Modernity and Re-Enchantment: Religion in Post-Revolutionary Vietnam
By Philip Taylor
Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007

Would you insist that Institute of Southeast Asian Studies is unreliable and a place where a hoax can be published? Tmct (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the author. We could contact him and ask for more sources. Badagnani (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. That way, we can see if it is genuine or if it is just another example of fraud or forgery. Don't get me wrong here; I have literally seen a plethora of fake books and fraudulent references on the internet. One of the worst cases I have seen so far involved a fraudulent "e-book" that was either made up or was a modified version of a publication by a University staff member).
Also, I advise all editors who have even the slightest doubt as to the truthfulness of the article in question to actually examine a modern world map and ask themselves the following question: "Given the distance from Vietnam to Korea, does the article sound plausible?" I ask this because a lot of events and historical figures in Vietnamese history are blatant misrepresentations, yet there is often a lack of evidence to offer an alternative view.
The reason why I have not cited any sources was because, in my opinion, there are simply no sources whose reliability can be ascertained. Yes, I found forum posts that also shared my views (and even gave alternative views) but they are no suitable for citing either.
I also noticed that there has been no input from any editor from WikiProject Korea so far. Perhaps I should inform them about this discussion. David873 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The story about the long-lost Korean who showed up one day is compelling and newsworthy (you read the part where he produced genealogical records "proving" that he descended back to the Vietnamese ancestor?), but I agree we need to verify it. Otherwise it could simply be a falsification used to strengthen relations between the two countries, and picked up on by an unsuspecting academic who wouldn't imagine something like that could be made up. It wouldn't be the first time. Badagnani (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that such claims have been made and accepted by a significant number of people certainly makes the claims notable. My main concern here is whether the claims can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whether there is no conclusive evidence to prove either way or whether the claims are simply blatant examples of pseudo-history. David873 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier visitor to Korea[edit]

There's an even earlier visitor to Korea, Lý Dương Côn, mentioned at Vietnamese people in Korea. Badagnani (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is that there are simply scarce English language literature out there about many historical figures in Vietnamese history; of most concern though is that of the sources that are available, there are virtually none whose reliability can be ascertained. Indeed, there is not even a Wikipedia article on Lý Dương Côn and the article on the supposed adopter has inadequate references. David873 (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I must also add that there is clearly a pattern of bias here. Unless we actually see a proper source produced by a reputable organisation with no strong links to regimes known for promoting blatantly false information on a large scale (such as Vietnam and North Korea), I am afraid we will be stuck here. David873 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
regimes known for promoting blatantly false information on a large scale - one more time, do not use your criteria for wikipedia's articles, there are a lot of forums, blogs where you can talk anything without proper arguments, so unless you have sources claiming this historic event (and other event of Vietnam's history) false, please stop judging and editing here after your "sad thing". Thank you. RBD (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for telling you this but this is not the first time - nor will it be the last - that someone else has pointed out elsewhere on Wikipedia that communist sources should generally not be used for they are not reliable as per WP:SOURCE; they are questionable as they have "a poor reputation for fact-checking" due to the fact that they only serve the communist governments' agendas (this should remind you of the severe consequences that strong government control of the press can have such as censorship?). Clearly, some of the claims made in the article fall under the heading "Exceptional claims" as they are "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Please remember that this is the English Wikipedia after all so our point of reference here will be the mass media as seen by English-speaking communities; Yet, we have seen no more than a couple of sources (at most) that could possibly be deemed to be borderline and none that are indisputably high quality. For example, we have not seen a single source from a source like CNN or the BBC. I also believe that all Korean sources seen so far are all coming from the communist side.
In any case, I will be waiting for meaningful input from a member of WikiProject Korea. David873 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
So you are still trying to ignore this source?
Modernity and Re-Enchantment: Religion in Post-Revolutionary Vietnam
By Philip Taylor
Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2007
Moreover, "someone else" is not the final decision of WP:SOURCE so we will continue using sources from Vietnamese publishers. If you wait for "meaningful input" (means ours is meaningless?) from WikiProject Korea, why don't you go there and request them instead of staying here and showing your argument? RBD (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have already posted a message at WikiProject Korea about this article. I have already commented at User:Badagnani about a possible irregularity with the source by Philip Taylor (it seems the subject was only mentioned in passing and might have qualifiers such as "Legend has it that..."; the actual paragraphs are needed for verification). Furthermore, three other editors of WikiProject Vietnam have been contacted for comment. David873 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

@David873: Although I do agree that we should have doubt about the reliability of communist sources, I don't think your outright dismissal of the said source is constructive. First off, as a historian, a piece of communist article could contain valuable information. Take, for example, numerous historians who studied the USSR's foreign and domestic policies through careful analyses of PRAVDA, the USSR's main newspaper. Would you then discount all of those works as well? Overall, though, I do agree that we need to do more research on this, but we should be critical and unbiased (not preemptively support or dismiss any source) in our approach.