This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Van Tuong Nguyen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Van Tuong Nguyen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Van Tuong Nguyen at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Van Tuong Nguyen:
|
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)
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)
Some progress has been made on resolving the issue regarding the sentence "Lee explained that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated." What does seem to be clear is that the present sentence is not supported by the cite. I thought about removing the entire sentence while we reach consensus as to the proper wording. I was concerned that the removal would leave a reference dangling. However, that reference is supportive of the prior sentence, so that's what I am going to do. Now we need to craft a sentence to put back in place. It is not as simple as replacing "explained" by "said", as the source does not support the implication that the claim was made by Lee. One place in the source traces it generically to the Singapore government, another place suggests it was said by Lee's press secretary.
I see four possibilities, there may be more:
I'm not suggesting all of these are acceptable, but this list gives us a starting point for a discussion of what sentence should be inserted.-- SPhilbrick T 12:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why a Yahoo group:
- is now given as the source for this explained/said thing.
The original source is:
- and the archived version is here:
Surely it would have been better to replace the URL for the actual source with one which closely mirrors that source, rather than just includes it in a compilation? The current situation seems misleading - it references one source, then when you try to get it you see a handful. I find this distracting - the discussion should be about what the original source said. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Van Tuong Nguyen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Van Tuong Nguyen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Van Tuong Nguyen article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Van Tuong Nguyen. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Van Tuong Nguyen at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Van Tuong Nguyen:
|
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)
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)
Some progress has been made on resolving the issue regarding the sentence "Lee explained that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated." What does seem to be clear is that the present sentence is not supported by the cite. I thought about removing the entire sentence while we reach consensus as to the proper wording. I was concerned that the removal would leave a reference dangling. However, that reference is supportive of the prior sentence, so that's what I am going to do. Now we need to craft a sentence to put back in place. It is not as simple as replacing "explained" by "said", as the source does not support the implication that the claim was made by Lee. One place in the source traces it generically to the Singapore government, another place suggests it was said by Lee's press secretary.
I see four possibilities, there may be more:
I'm not suggesting all of these are acceptable, but this list gives us a starting point for a discussion of what sentence should be inserted.-- SPhilbrick T 12:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand why a Yahoo group:
- is now given as the source for this explained/said thing.
The original source is:
- and the archived version is here:
Surely it would have been better to replace the URL for the actual source with one which closely mirrors that source, rather than just includes it in a compilation? The current situation seems misleading - it references one source, then when you try to get it you see a handful. I find this distracting - the discussion should be about what the original source said. Best wishes DBaK ( talk) 08:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Van Tuong Nguyen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Van Tuong Nguyen. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)