User talk:Trananh1980
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Chinese and Vietnamese names for Paracel Islands
[edit]Hi Trananh,
I saw that you added back the Chinese and Vietnamese names for every island in the Paracel Islands article. May I please submit to you why I don't think this is necessary?
Right now, the article is quite long for a grouping with a population in the tens. I think the article should be made shorter. Part of what makes the article so long is that when any island is mentioned, it is followed by its Chinese name and its Vietnamese name. The Chinese names are listed at least twice, once in the table, and once when the Island is mentioned. The Vietnamese names are listed at least three times since after the table listing the Vietnamese names, you have restored an additional listing of the Vietnamese names.
I recognize that the naming of the Islands is controversial, and that both the Chinese and Vietnamese sides wish to establish their own names for these Islands to push their own claim. I recognize that it may be important to list the Chinese and Vietnamese names at least once in the article, which is why I left them in the table (though the style manual suggests that even this may not be necessary) But they do not need to be repeated throughout the article. Using the common English names in the English Wikipedia is actually more neutral than using the Chinese or Vietnamese names.
At any rate, it is, I think, not proper to include Chinese Characters without a translation or transliteration as you have done. These are available in the table as appropriate. But duplicating them in the rest of the article would only make the article that much longer.
I can tell you that I am neither Chinese nor Vietnamese and have no personal stake in the outcome of the Paracel dispute. But I feel that the English Wikipedia article is not an appropriate forum for this kind of dispute, which is, unfortunately, all too common. Fortunately, the Paracel Islands have a well recognized way to avoid it-- simply bypass it by using the common English names throughout and only using the non-English names once.
If you feel that it is important to mention the Chinese and Vietnamese names in the text, here is an alternative: we could eliminate the table instead, and put the transliterations now in the table into the text. I feel that this would make the article less fluid and harder to read, recognize this is a question of taste. Also, I would only use the non-English names once, and for islands that have frequent mentions, such as Woody Island, use the English names after the first mention.
Am I missing something here? Are the common English names actually not common? Are they translations of the Chinese names but not the Vietnamese ones or vice-versa? My guess: since they appear in the CIA map, that qualifies them as modern names in common usage, suggesting that they should be used according to the style policy I quoted in the talk page, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.
David David s graff (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replay Trananh. After reading it, I think we agree: English names only throughout the article, except both Chinese and Vietnamese names in the table. English names from the CIA map. Looking over the introduction, I agree that it should mention that physical control passed from China to Vietname in 1974 (this is of course mentioned elsewhere in the article). I'll try to think of a way to represent this without the article either claiming that China justly enforced its ancient rights nor that it brutally occupied the sovereign territory of Vietnam. I'll implement these changes. David s graff (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Vietnam propaganda photos
[edit]You could try looking at Wikimedia Commons for posters or billboards or something. If you're asking about the photos I personally took two years ago, I never actually uploaded them. If you can't find any or take your own photos in the field, I might look into mine in a couple weeks. It'll depend on the state of the article. Try to get the article up and running first. - Zero1328 Talk? 01:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Re: Your banning at vi.wiki
[edit]I'm looking at your comments tonight and will respond at your user talk page at vi.wiki tonight. P.S. While your account is blocked, you can still edit your user talk page. DHN (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Xóa lịch sử hoạt động
[edit]Nếu bạn muốn xóa lịch sử hoạt động của mình và đổi tên thành viên, cách tốt nhất là mở tài khoản mới và ngưng sửa đổi dưới tài khoản cũ. DHN (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Theo tiền lệ thì lịch sử các trang chỉ được xóa để che giấu sự phá hoại hay thông tin nhạy cảm (như số thẻ tín dụng, địa chỉ, điện thoại, v.v.). Còn việc đổi tên thì bạn phải chính thức yêu cầu tại trang vi:Wikipedia:Đổi tên người dùng thì mới thực hiện được. DHN (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Propaganda Banner
[edit]Hi Trananh, I saw your addition of the "propaganda banner" to the section "Vietnam's report about human rights in UN human rights council" at Human rights in Vietnam. Does the UN council report address propaganda banners specifically, and link them to human rights issues? Unless it does, I'm not sure this is the proper place for this photograph. We'd also need a citation for the claim "Propaganda is widely and publicly used in Vietnam as a tool for controlling people's mind". It's a good photo, though, so maybe we can find a better fit for it elsewhere in this article or in another article. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, reading that section you put the image in, it looked pretty terrible altogether. Unsourced and purely pro-government, probably cut-and-pasted from govt releases, with no responses. I've blanked the section entirely. Take a look and let me know if you agree. -- Khazar (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. The important thing will be finding reliable sources that talk about propaganda in Vietnam as a human rights issue. But this seems do-able. Then that photo will be a great addition, I think. if you want to try to add this, I'll be happy to look it over. Cheers Khazar (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)