Talk:International Vietnamese Youth Conference

Invasion is NPOV
Invasion is the neutral term. Presumably from the Latin for going in. It generally refers to any military action undertaken in a foreign land where you face armed resistance, regardless of whether it is good or bad. See Invasion, and List of invasions. Particularly note for example the following lines from List of invasions:


 * 1991 invasion of Kuwait by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States
 * 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq

As you can see, "invasion" is used for both sides, whether they are invading to establish a new government, or invading to restore the previous government, and does not imply which, if any, invasion was justified or unjustified. Because Wikipedia officially doesn't endorse or condemn anything, it merely states what happens.

This is a general problem with things or actions that are often looked down on negatively, particularly things that are illegal. There are still neutral technical terms for them, and the technical term should still be used, although people may have negative views regarding that action. For example "steal" sounds bad only because the action is usually frowned upon, not because it is a loaded POV term. It is still the word that should be used whether it is "the starving boy stole money for food" or "the bank-robber stole the money from the safe".

POV terms include things like "liberation", which both sides in a war usually claim their side to be. Other POV terms for things tend to be metaphors. For example "slaughter" or "butcher". Unless you are literally talking about an abatoir, these are loaded POV terms.

So it is an invasion whether it is a communist Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia or a US invasion of Vietnam. Carl Kenner 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By your own logic, the US and France were not invaders. South Vietnam was the internationally recognized government of southern Vietnam, and the US was there by the South Vietnamese government's invitation.  Since South Vietnam was also "propped up" by the French colonialists, how can they be invaders? DHN 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

US-centric
You may not enforce US spelling on articles. Believe it or not there are official international standards for things, while the USA goes off and does its own thing. That is fine within the USA, but it doesn't give US citizens the right to "correct" everyone who spells things the proper English way, especially on articles that are about Vietnamese organisations founded in Australia. Also Wikipedia says you can't. And, have you ever noticed how every other city in the world has its country listed? Even when it is a world famous city it is "Paris, France" not "Paris". Yet even lesser-known US cities like San Diego do not have their country listed. This is not deliberate, but it is a product of a US-centric mindset. It is necessary to state which country the third conference was in, as was done for every "foreign" country. So try to allow a little bit of balance in the article. And by the way, it is considered poor form to write glowing articles about yourself, or things you organised, in Wikipedia since you can't possibly be impartial. CarlKenner
 * Good point on being US-centric. Wikipedia's rules say that articles about topics of UK-based nature should be written in British English, and US-related topics should be written in US english, so in this case, I should be British English, given the conference's root and creation in Australia. I am making the changes ... enderminh 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it should be in UK English, I just don't think you should be deleting all my content and using British spelling as an excuse. There is no need to correct the article one way or the other regarding dialect. All are perfectly acceptable. Carl Kenner 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist Organization?!!
Far more important however is that the entire article is written from the point of view of your US-centric extremist ideology, which is totally opposed by the vast majority of the world. And any attempts to balance it by including the views of the rest of the world are deleted. It is like Osama Bin Laden writing the article on Al Qaeda and deleting all references to the fact that it is a banned terrorist organisation with evil fanatical beliefs, that blew up many US citizens and a couple of US buildings. Don't get me wrong, an article on Al Qaeda should also point out that Al Qaeda also does a lot of charity work, defends Kosovo Albanians from being slaughtered by Serbia's campaigns of genocide, kills far less people than the USA, and that half of the buildings they blew up were legitimate military targets. But one can't leave out the fact that they are a banned terrorist organisation of crazy evil sectarian religious nuts who kill lots of people.

Lenduong is also a banned terrorist organisation in Vietnam, like all the many Al Qaeda backed groups around the world are banned terrorist groups in the USA. Obviously it is not a fair comparison, since Al Qaeda, who these groups claim to follow, killed about 3000 people and destroyed two buildings in the USA (in retaliation), while the French/Japanese/US regime, who Lenduong claim to follow, killed far more than 3 million people in Indochina and destroyed about 3 million people's homes (in an unprovoked attack). CarlKenner
 * Lenduong is a non-profit organization that was founded, as you mentioned, in Australia. It has offices in Europe, Australia and the United States complete with address, non-for-profit tax code, etc. Where do you get the idea that it is a terrorist organization, and what does this organization has anything to do with Axis and World War II? In order to not violate WP:3RR we probably need other persons to chime in here, before we are just reverting ourselves. This is in regards to this change enderminh 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Al Qaeda is also a non-profit "charity" organisation with offices in all the many countries who share their islamic fundamentalist ideology. And I'm not objecting to articles on Al Qaeda stating that. But for the purposes of balance, articles on Al Qaeda also need to state that it is a banned terrorist organisation which calls for the USA to be bombed and defends the blowing up of the USA that they already did. I don't think the article stated that Len Duong was a terrorist organisation, only that they were a banned organisation, which they are. If you try to access the Len Duong website in Vietnam you will not be able to (unless you leave out the www in front of the URL, the government aren't very technically savy and only blocked the URL which has www). And if you become the leader of Lenduong you will receive threatening letters from Vietnamese officials. And if you try to organise an international Vietnamese youth conference in Vietnam it will be shut down and everyone will be thrown in jail, just like if Al Qaeda tried to organise a conference in the USA, presumably because of the mass death and destruction they inflicted upon them in the past. CarlKenner
 * Okay, then I'll rephrase the article to simply the fact that Len Duong is an organization that is banned only in Vietnam, otherwise your sentence just sounds like it's some secret underground organization that is banned throughout the world. enderminh
 * We don't need more people to work on the article, we just need to make an effort to include all sides of the argument. I realise that concept is totally alien to the Vietnamese exile community who are used to being able to kill all their opponents and censor everything that disagrees with them, but neutrality is wikipedia policy (although as most of the Wikipedia users are rich white americans who watch Faux news, the content rarely follows this policy). The 3 revert rule is not there so you can get someone else to come in and do your reverts for you (which you obviously could do since Wikipedia is dominated by people with your far-right ideology), but rather so that people can't just delete everyone's additions that don't follow their POV and instead are required to come to a compromise that includes everyone's points. Anyway, here is a list of the "anti-" conference points that I think need to be included in this article:
 * That Len Duong is a banned organisation in Vietnam, and that these conferences are banned from Vietnam.
 * That Len Duong and the conferences are organised by people fiercly loyal to the invasion and occupation of Vietnam and supporting the Vietnam war.
 * That (some of?) the conferences use the flag and national anthem of the South Vietnamese regime.
 * That some speakers at the conferences call for the overthrow of the Vietnamese government by western countries.
 * That the conference in the USA was partly organised by the US government's foreign affairs department's people in charge of overthrowing unfriendly asian countries. (Which is a VERY different thing from the multicultural affairs department that should be involved in such things).
 * And since I do actually try to be balanced, here is a list of the "pro-" conference points that I think need to be included in this article:
 * That although it is banned, several Vietnamese international students attended.
 * That half the point of the conference is to have fun and meet new people, or to discuss relevant issues about the needs of young Vietnamese people, and have nothing to do with far-right politics.
 * That I think the 4th conference didn't have the usual fascist flag saluting thing (or did I just not remember it).
 * That many people called for reconciliation and tolerance and the 4th conference (and possibly others)
 * That there was a debate and other such activities aimed at reconciliation and tolerance. Carl Kenner 05:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you so radically insisting on the fact that the Len Duong's people are following an US Centric extremist ideology. Some members of Len Duong are Europeans, some are Australians, some are Republicans, some are Democrats, some are environmentalists, some are more left wing, some are more right wing, some are "altermondialistes" like we say in French. The political orientation of the members is not a decisive factor in the identity of this group. "Fascist flag saluting thing": Fascism is an ideology and its definition is under a lot of debate. It has certainly nothing to do in this discussion (unless it's being used in a derogatory meaning which clearly isn't appropriate to this talk page). The history of the WWII, the history of the Vietnam was, the history of the Vietnamese boat people after the war or the history of the Vietnamese Overseas Communities are not the point of this discussion either. Let's not mix everything. The fact that in Vietnam the webpage of Len Duong is unaccessible doesn't mean that it has to be qualified as "banned organization". There are numerous websites blocked in Vietnam, as for instance Human Rights Watch website, which isn't qualified as a "banned organization" even though it also criticizes the United States, many coutries in Europe, as well as Vietnam. Elkouaisk 20:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that Len Duong's people were following a US Centric extremist ideology (although they are), I was suggesting that the original author was being US centric in leaving out what country US cities were in while including it for European and Australian cities, and for using British spelling in the article as an excuse to delete all my content. French and Australian people are also US centric, as evidenced by the fact that you know which parties exist in the USA, while probably not having a clue which parties exist in other countries. US citizens certainly could not list French or Australian political parties. Articles need a more balanced view than that, so it requires a concious effort to treat the USA the same way any other country would be treated in articles. That fact that an organisation is banned is sufficient to make it a banned organisation. And the fact that a Vietnamese organisation or conference is banned in Vietnam is absolutely essential in any neutral article on it, and I can't see why anyone for or against the ban would not consider it news-worthy. Perhaps if you are already familiar with the organisation, or Vietnamese politics you take these things for granted, but the average person who picks up an encyclopedia would not be aware of such controversies.Carl Kenner
 * I haven't read the Wikipedia article on Human Rights Watch recently, and I'm not brave enough to contribute to it, but the fact that unlike other "human rights" organisations, Human Rights Watch supports the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people in the middle east (and presumably Vietnam), and the outrageous human rights violations that would go along with such things, and the fact that Human Rights Watch is banned as a front for the US when other human rights organisations are not, would seem worthy of inclusion in an article about Human Rights Watch or its activities. And I suspect they are included in some form or other. The point of this discussion is to list what points you think need to be addressed in this article to cover all sides of the topic, so that people from all different mindsets can feel that it covers their points, and thus refrain from vandalising it (or if they do vandalise it, other people will feel inclined to restore it) or abandoning Wikipedia. So if you have any points you think should be covered in this article to make it more balanced, please list them so that we can have a more neutral article with some sort of consensus. Carl Kenner 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Conference has never been organized in Vietnam and I never heard that Len Duong tried to organize it there and was turned down by the Vietnamese government. So the Conference cannot be qualified as banned from Vietnam. In reference to the above argument "And if you become the leader of Lenduong you will receive threatening letters from Vietnamese officials...": speculating about what could happen if you were doing so and so is useless and cannot be proved or refuted without being totally partial. As mentioned above, in Vietnam, the website of Len Duong is blocked by the Vietnamese government which is part of the broader problem of censorship in Vietnam, and it's not about the conference itself.Elkouaisk 07:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Terrorism are acts of violence directed against civilians by groups with a political or ideological goal in mind. I do not believe Len Duong qualifies as a terrorist organization in that regard. Any attempt at armed insurrections in Vietnam were, to my knowledge, the actions of ARVN veterans. Yellowtailshark 11:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Themes
Does anyone remember the themes of the other conferences? I know the first was something about Vietnamese youth in the 21st century, but I don't remember exactly. If anyone can remember the themes, please add them to the article.CarlKenner

International Studnets
I removed your comment about international Vietnamese students being referred to as "Du Sinh", since it is irrelevant or inappropriate in an English language article, and also because I don't know whether it is a derogatory term or a term also used by the international students or people in Vietnam. I hope that is OK. Also I restored the word "unusually" to the comments about the reconciliatory nature of the fourth conference. I only attended the first and fourth conferences, so I don't know for sure whether the middle two conferences included such activities, but the first did not. People I have spoken to who attended the second or third conference but not the fourth were shocked to hear that the fourth gave such a platform for communists to defend the killing of protesters. I suspect that is not usual for these conferences, the people attending certainly felt it was unusual, and I think the conference organisers said it was unusual when they announced the activity. CarlKenner

Axis (see Empire of Vietnam), French (See First Indochina War), and US invaders
This is in regards to CarlKenner's |this, |this, |this and |this changes of putting the sentence "because these forces are staunchly loyal[3] to the former South Vietnamese regime backed by the Axis (see Empire of Vietnam), French (See First Indochina War), and US invaders" enderminh
 * I still don't see any relevance or need to mention the entire "Axis, Empire of Vietnam, French and US Invaders" thing into this sentence. First of all, this is unreferenced, and has really absolutely nothing to do with these conferences. It is true that the conference and lenduong is not accessible from Vietnam's internet (but a ton of things are firewalled in Vietnam). If you feel so inclined in stating that South Vietnam is backed by the Axis/Empire/French/US invaders, put that sentence into the South Vietnamese article, not here. I am removing this for now as it's unreferenced. enderminh 09:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason you don't see any need to mention it is because it is inconvenient and embarassing for you. That is why you are supposed to be banned from writing articles about yourself. I'm prepared to let you write articles about yourself, since you clearly know many things about yourself, but I won't let you delete all criticisms of the conference, its organisers, and its politics from the article. Obviously you have a glowing, saintly view of yourself, but an encyclopedia is required to cover all sides, including your side, Vietnam's side, and the side of independent, unbiased observers such as myself (don't laugh, unlike you I am not descended from any side in the conflict). Anyway, it is referenced, although it is not required to be referenced. It is relevant, since it is the reason why the conference and its organisation are banned in Vietnam, and also the reason why the conferences were held in Australia, France and the USA (I didn't mention Australia explicitly as the invaders, although there is a school of thought that the Vietnam war occured more due to the insistence of Australia than the USA, but that is controversial), and also the reason why the Malaysian conference will be smaller and harder to organise, and also the reason behind all the politics of the conference, and also the reason why the conference is held in the first place, and also the reason why the conference is funded and supported by those countries, and also the reason why non-vietnamese far-right politicians from those countries always get up and speak at the conferences. Carl Kenner 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you delete all the criticisms in articles about yourself again, I will delete the entire article (and any other articles you wrote about yourself, all 50 of them), since that kind of outright self-promotion is totally banned on Wikipedia. If you can't learn to accept criticisms in your articles, I suggest you sit back and wait for somebody independent to write articles about you, rather than starting them yourself. And if nobody other than you writes articles about you then you can assume you are not newsworthy. And if nobody other than you says good things about you, then you can assume you are not praiseworthy.Carl Kenner 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't delete articles in Wikipedia yourself, as that requires WP:AfD debate. I did not write any 50 article about myself either (how do you get this idea and make such a claim?). I am all for WP:NPOV and I welcome criticism on any Wikipedia article. I am just opposed against insertation of non-sense that have nothing to do with this article. The mentioning of WWII-related politics with this conference suggests that such a link exists, which is does not. I am not a descendent of any regime as you so claim, and I wasn't even born during WWII. It is true that the conference website is blocked in Vietnam, and we should phrase it as such. At any rate, I am trying to respectfully reason with you and find a WP:NPOV but at this point I question whether it has become a personal vendetta, as you have already perused my personal blogs here,here,here,here,here,here,here, and here, so I'll let others chime in and debate. However, I do ask that you criticize the article, not criticize me, and not remove other people's comments on this talk page. Thanks. enderminh 02:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the Axis forces, the article merely lists them as one of the invaders of Vietnam (from 1940 to 1945, specifically Vichy France on behalf of the NAZIs and Imperial Japan acting together) that established and backed your puppet regime that you are staunchly loyal to. For example the flag that Lenduong insists on flying in support of this defunct regime was established during this time by the puppet government under the Japanese empire. After the defeat of the Axis the French took over, although the French troops were of course the French foreign legion and thus consisted largely of former NAZI war criminals who joined the French foreign legion to erase their past. Starting from the year 1950 the French role was gradually taken over by the USA until Vietnam was liberated in 1975 and we have those wonderfully symbolic pictures of people fleeing the US embassy. While the puppet masters changed during these times, the puppets remained the same groups of people. The puppet government officials who served the Axis went on to serve the French, and the puppet government officials who served the French went on to serve the USA. Then when the Vietnamese liberated their country from these occupiers, the puppet government officials fled the country and founded all your favourite organisations. CarlKenner
 * The mentioning of imperial forces in this case implies there is a present-day relevance to the Conference or Len Duong, which isn't the case. Mentioning the Axis and French is unnecessary, as they have no influence over the organizations that the former South Vietnamese officials established following the end of the war. Mentioning the US is a stickier situation; on the one hand the US did set up an embargo against Vietnam. But despite the pleas of many anti-Communist Vietnamese American organizations, Congress decided to lift the embargoes, and Senator Kerry was known to block certain human rights bills regarding Vietnam. Implying that the US government backs these organizations is misleading and simplifying the complex relationship between the US government and the Vietnamese American community. Yellowtailshark 10:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Axis and French founded the regime Len Duong supports. Most of the regime's members are descendents of collaborators with those regimes. The French connection is the reason why the second conference was in France. And the US connection is the reason why oth other conferences were in Australia and the USA. The Japanese Axis invasion is still relevant for the conference as descendents of Japanese collaborators spoke at the most recent conference about why the Japanese collaborators had the right idea. So it obviously determines the conference's politics. As it was Ho Chi Minh and his forces who were leading the Allied war effort in Vietnam against the Axis invasion, it is understandable that the communist government are still annoyed with you about it, and want to ban you partially because of that. Carl Kenner 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The formation of North Vietnam and South Vietnam occurred after the Empire of Vietnam. To say that South Vietnam was backed by the Empire of Japan is inaccurate; Imperial Japan dominated over all of French Indochina until the end of WWII. Around this time, Viet Minh forces were supplied by the US in their fight against Imperial Japan (see August Revolution). After the surrender of Imperial Japan, in September 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared independence for North Vietnam. During this time, the French forces came back into Vietnam. In North Vietnam the Viet Minh negotiated with the French to keep Chinese forces in check who occupied territory along the Sino-Vietnamese borders. In the south, British forces came in and supported the French. Negotiations between Hanoi and the French broke down, as the French tried to regain control and assert their authority. In late 1946, the First Indochina War began. In 1949, the State of Vietnam was established by the French. As you can see, South Vietnam wasn't even a concept until 4 years after the Japanese surrender. Yellowtailshark 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't yet imply that the USA backs the conference or Len Duong, although that needs to be added to the article later, as specified in my list of points above. Currently it only implies that Len Duong is banned because Len Duong backs the US invasion of Vietnam, and that Len Duong's politics are largely based on their support for the US invasion of Vietnam. But later it needs to include the US government's backing of the third confernce through it's foreign affairs department's (not immigration or multiculturalism) Asian affairs chief, as documented somewhere on the Len Duong website at some stage. It should also include something about the US/Australian/French politicians who spoke at the conferences, calling for the overthrow of the Vietnamese government, and perhaps the somewhat lukewarm reception they got from some of the audience. I know John Howard spoke at the first conference, and I think Labor, Liberal, and Christian Democratic parties spoke at the fourth conference, but I can't remember. Carl Kenner 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in Len Duong's website that indicates that they support the Empire of Vietnam. The flag that they support, if any, is probably the flag of the Republic of Vietnam, which is the same as the Nguyen Dynasty flag between 1890 and 1920.  DHN 04:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there's obviously the flag as you mentioned. Versions of which were also used by the French and US invasions as you state. Other than that, I'm not sure if the Len Duong website has anything specific. Although the conference speakers were quite clear about it, and the book I bought from them goes into it. The entire Len Duong website would take a while for me to translate. Anyway, the overseas Vietnamese community is a mix of collaborators of various invasions, mostly the US one, but also the others to a lesser extent. Carl Kenner 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Until you can find proof that they support the Empire of Vietnam, you can not claim such things. I really doubt that they support the Empire of Vietnam. DHN 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only the mention of imperial forces is out of place but the use of many terms on this discussion page such as "puppet" (constantly repeated), "your favourite organisations", "you have a glowing, saintly view of yourself" etc... makes these comments judgmental and uncivil which we should avoid to maintain a constructive discussion. WP:CIV Elkouaisk 08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Request For Comment: Is International Vietnamese Youth Conference loyal to WWII/Axis Power/French/US Invaders?
There is a controversy about the politics of the International Vietnamese Youth Conference. The content has been reverted several times. 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Statements made by editors involved in the dispute:
 * The conferences are organised by individuals part of the Len Duong network, an organisation that is banned solely by the Vietnamese government, because these individuals are staunchly loyal to the former South Vietnamese regime backed by the Axis (see Empire of Vietnam), French (See First Indochina War), and US invaders. Many of these individuals are descendents of that government's officials and soldiers who are critical of the Communist Party of Vietnam and staunchly loyal to the former South Vietnamese regime. They have organised campaigns speaking against what they claim are human rights abuses in Vietnam, particularly the detention of people calling for the return of the former regime, or additional political freedoms or political freedoms for religious leaders, or calling for the formation of alternative political parties beside the sole Communist Party and the allowing of those loyal to the old South Vietnamese government to stand for election. CarlKenner statement first made 11:02, 9 March 2007, deleted and restored several times with minor changes, current revision 05:05, 16 April 2007
 * The conferences are organised by individuals part of the Len Duong network, an organisation that advocates for issues of human rights, social justice, and democracy in Vietnam. They have organised campaigns speaking against human rights abuses in Vietnam, particularly the detention of peaceful pro-democracy activists, calling for additional political freedoms or political freedoms for religious leaders, and calling for the formation of alternative political parties beside the sole Communist Party. DHN restored Phutopia's text 20:40, 15 April 2007
 * The conferences are organised by individuals part of the Len Duong network, an organisation that advocates for issues of human rights, social justice, and democracy in Vietnam. They have organised campaigns speaking against human rights abuses in Vietnma, particularly the detention of peaceful pro-democracy activists, calling for additional political freedoms or political freedoms for religious leaders, and calling for the formation of alternative political parties beside the sole Communist Party. Phutopia 15:44, 11 April 2007
 * The conferences are organized by forces behind the Len Duong network, which is banned by the Vietnamese government, mostly due to its past actions and initiatives speaking against the human rights abuses in Vietnam. Much of the conference activities are based around the organization's political motivation to provide a platform addressing issues concerning Vietnamese youth living in Vietnam and abroad, as well as to provide a world-wide social network among attendees. Recent conferences have addressed issues of reconciliation, and have been attended by international students from Vietnam studying overseas (also known as "Du Sinh"). L20c202tp 04:30, 9 April 2007
 * The conferences are organized by the Len Duong International Vietnamese Youth Network. Some of the conference activities are based around the politics of Vietnam, but much of it simply about the needs and concerns of vietnamese youth living in other countries, or just having fun and making friends. Recent conferences have moved towards reconciliation, and have been attended by international students from Vietnam studying overseas. Enderminh revised it based on CarlKenner's text 20:45, 29 March 2007
 * Comments
 * For the US invaders, yes definately, although their support is waning. For the French invaders, yes and no, they love them and hate them at the same time. For the Japanese invaders, it depends on the person. For the Nazi-puppet vichy invaders, I don't think people distinguish them from the French (especially since the French used former Nazi soldiers for most of its occupation force after 1945). But that wasn't the question the article was trying to address. The article was trying to address whether the conference was staunchly loyal to South Vietnam, and whether South Vietnam was created and backed by those forces for the benefit of those invading forces, and whether this is the main reason why the conference and its organisers are banned by Vietnam, and whether the conference's loyalty to South Vietnam is a significant part of their politics. That's quite different from listing the invaders that the conference is loyal to. Of course if I was going to list the invaders that the conference was loyal to, I might also need to include the Khmer Rouge invaders, and the Chinese invaders. But as I was listing the forces that backed South Vietnam, they were not included. Carl Kenner 13:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You did not produce any evidence that this organization supported the governments and/or policies of South Vietnam or the Empire of Vietnam. The only thing you can produce is their use of the flag, which they call the "heritage and freedom flag", which has a longer history than South Vietnam itself (it was used during the Nguyen Dynasty).  Next thing you know you'd equate the current Cuban government with the Cuban exiles because they use the same flag.  Please provide evidence when making your claims. Furthermore, the Vietnamese government claims that it DOES NOT ban these websites. Your edits will be more valid if you claim that they support groups that the Vietnamese government consider to be "terrorists" (the Viet Tan Party) or individuals that the government jailed as "spies". DHN 23:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For WP:NPOV I think it suffices to say that the conference is not endorsed/opposed by the Vietnamese government, that the website is blocked only by Vietnam, due to its actions and initiatives speaking against the human rights abuses in Vietnam and that organizers are critical of the Vietnamese Communist Party. References to WWII politics is out of the scope of a youth conference in the 21st century. enderminh 19:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim that this organization is loyal to South Vietnam is unreferenced, especially the claim that it supports people who want the return of the former regime. The claim that it is organized by descendents of officials or soldiers of South Vietnam is unreferenced. The fact that the Vietnamese government is opposed to that conference because this organization speaks about human rights and are critical of the VCP is likely to be true but I never read anything that confirms this idea, surprisingly. I agree that it should be mentioned that the website is blocked in Vietnam because of its content and because of this organization's actions and initiatives speaking against human rights abuses and the fact that it's critical of the VCP. Elkouaisk 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)