Talk:Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Nguyen Ngoc Tho)
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 4, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
April 9, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 3, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?[edit]

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not an obscure neologism. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If it is not an obscure neologism then it would be easy to provide multiple reliable sources books, peer reviewed articles etc. I am waiting. I am also waiting for use of the phrase in the context of this article. Andries 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

These are some refrences for you dharmic word dharmic is adjective of dharm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dharmicUknown Dost (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA hold[edit]

Another solid article! One minor fix and one larger question:

  • Tho oversaw South Vietnam's failed agrarian reform policy, and was accused of allowing it to do so since he was a large landowner. - something is amiss here
I've tried rewording. What it means is that people accused him of only making a half-hearted attempt to implement land reform. The point of the land reform was to redistribute land to landless peasants, with a forced buyback of land from large landowners but because Tho was a large landowner he had a reason for not implementing the program.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
It is definitely clearer now. Awadewit | talk 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Tho after 1964?
There just isn't any information that I could find in my uni library. He doesn't appear to have done anything in the public eye since then. After the Fall of Saigon in 1975, if he was still living, he would have either fled to the US/UK/France etc, and if he didn't it's an absolute certainty that the communists would have jailed him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if it is possible to put in a sentence about nothing being known about him after that point, then? I was kind of left hanging. Awadewit | talk 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I noted that he was still alive as of 1992...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would also be nice to have bolstering citations, so that we can see that this information really is a scholarly consensus. That is obviously not a requirement for GA, but it is something I would recommend that you work towards after GA. Such notes assure readers that sections of the article aren't just one historian's view of events, but the mainstream interpretation.
This is a problem and I wasn't thinking of ever going beyond GA with this one since there isn't any more info that I could find. All the military infighting after the Arrest and assassination of Ngô Đình Diệm did not involve US manoevring, unlike during the Diem era, so we don't have everything on the public record - most of the Diem era stuff is derived from US documents. In Vietnam government documents don't routinely become available for reading so there is a dearth of material, especially when it is a junta that lasted 3 months. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm continually surprised by what subjects have a dearth of material. Did you know that there are only three or so biographies of Harriet Tubman? Shocking. :) Awadewit | talk 13:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not good. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you want me to re-review this article. Awadewit | talk 17:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Error[edit]

Reference 27 has a citation error (as seen in the reflist near the bottom of the page) TIM KLOSKE|TALK 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

nevermind, already fixed. TIM KLOSKE|TALK 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Information[edit]

Ok, I understand after reading the above there is just no records of his life after his leaving of politics. Still, since this is an FA article, shouldn't information above some kind of activity or at least where he fled to have to be noted somewhere. Shouldn't there be a note of his personal life too? DarkGhost89 (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for a man who turned 100 today (which explains the FA choice), the omission of the last 44 years (44% of his life) is a bit odd. Doesn't feel FA without something about his life afterwards. --Bobak (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
How do we know he is still alive? Mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
We should at least know whether he was caught in the 1975 takeover or escaped. Brutannica (talk) 03:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there isn't even any published record of him living past January 1964. Given the length of Diệm's retirement (and the amount of uproar it engendered) it seems likely Thơ's successors had him quietly disposed of with no further comment. And if only a few were involved, his fate may never be known. Assuming he met no catastrophe, and no further mishap, he should be 105 today. I hope Mr. Thơ discovers Wikipedia, and posts a comment on this talk page before senescence and atropos take their inevitable due.--R.S. Peale (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to put this article in to past tense, for it is getting extremely unlikely that Mr. Nguyễn Ngọc Thơ is still alive. Since he was born in 1908, he would turn 106 in this year. --Bbenjoe (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (CET)

Orphaned references in Nguyen Ngoc Tho[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Nguyen Ngoc Tho's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "encyc":

Reference named "j":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 01:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Lbj tho.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Lbj tho.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Corpse pic[edit]

Has been getting removed on somewhat spurious grounds, see WP:NOTCENSORED Darkness Shines (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)