Talk:War Remnants Museum

Maintaining that all important objectivity
The Vietnam War still, and understandably so, arouses strong emotions from both sides. Let's simply follow Wikipedia's rules on editing. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit.
To avoid a editwar, I will post my argument here:

"According to travel reports from foreign visitors" - There is only one travel report, "War Remnants Museum. Visiting the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam" by Gregory Rodgers, as source.

"One building reproduces the "tiger cages" in which the South Vietnamese government allegedly kept political prisoners" - The tiger cages's existence have been confirmed by two U.S. Congressional representatives, Augustus Hawkins and William Anderson.

"Three jars of preserved human fetuses allegedly deformed by exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, contained in the defoliant Agent Orange" - Agent Orange's effect is also confirmed.

"A heavy dose of anti-American (and South Vietnamese) propaganda" - The original text is: "Many exhibits in the museum contain a heavy dose of anti-American propaganda". Both the existence of the tiger cages and guillotines and their uses have been confirmed and referenced in their respective Wikipedia article.--Zeraful (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC) My response:

1. "According to travel reports from foreign visitors" doesn't necessarily mean only written/recorded travelers' experiences/opinions. Schwenkel, based on reading this a while back when i added this source myself, was also summarizing viewpoints, opinions and experiences heard from other visitors.

2. I never denied the use of Tiger Cages used to detain suspected Viet Cong etc. Did i ever deny it? The cages were used to imprison suspected Viet Cong. Period. How could you "torture" someone by simply locking them up in a cage, as YOUR EDIT CLEARLY SAYS? Here you complained that i somehow "denied" the use of tiger cages for imprisonment (WHICH is something you deleted from the article and I had to REINSTATE it). On the contrary, you changed the idea of the sentence from one about Saigon using them for imprisonment of political opponents ("One building reproduces the "tiger cages" in which the South Vietnamese government allegedly kept political prisoners.", which is the original long-standing compromise version that i'm upholding), to a totally different sentence with different context about tiger cages being used for torture ("One building reproduces the "tiger cages", tiny enclosures used to torture prisoners"). Detainment/imprisonment and torture ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. You decried that the use of tiger cages to imprison people as "torture", yet i'm still waiting for you to decry the  IMPRISONMENT OF PRISONERS IN CONEX BOXES WHERE DETAINEES SUFFER FROM THE 40+ C HEAT AND SEVERE LACK OF VENTILATION by the communists after the War in political hard labor camps! I will not compromise on this one whatsoever, it's changing the complete idea of the sentence.

3. The word allegedly used in "... and three jars of preserved human fetuses allegedly deformed by exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, contained in the defoliant Agent Orange." is used to make an assumption that the 3 fetuses itself were deformed by Agent Orange. For the word "allegedly'' to be removed, the 3 fetus specimens on display must be independently scientifically examined and verified that they were deformed resulting from exposure of Agent Orange.

4. If you like I could change the quote to "Many exhibits in the museum contain a heavy dose of anti-American propaganda". However, the other quotes i reverted are there to stay as they are sourced in the same source, word-for-word. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

1. If you must undo all the changes i've made, I suggest finding more sources. Also, by delete the prase "worth a visit no matter your opinion of the US involvement in Vietnam" is mean that you used the same tactic in Swenkel's book "using images of the War to substantiate their version and views on Vietnam War history".

2. "i'm still waiting for you to decry the IMPRISONMENT OF PRISONERS IN CONEX BOXES WHERE DETAINEES SUFFER FROM THE 40+ C HEAT AND SEVERE LACK OF VENTILATION by the communists after the War in political hard labor camps! I will not compromise on this one whatsoever, it's changing the complete idea of the sentence." - Deflecting it by another argument? Really? And may I ask for the sources of this accusation that the Vietnamese communist "allegedly" used them?

3. If necessary, there is evidence that the "tiger cages" were used as a form of torture, since the guards regurlaly thrown Calcium hydroxide, a harmful material into the cells to prevent prisoner from talking (documented in Lady Borton "After Sorrow"), not mention other kind of tortures that makes an US Congressman to demand the President to launch an immediate investigation.

4. Finally, I don't believe in any kind of compromise or NPOV in this article. An editor have stated that "A wikieditor has put in a POV piece with sources that are just backpacker and tourist reports from various sites" and according to your OWN argument " 00:16, 12 October 2012‎ Nguyen1310 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,036 bytes) (+250)‎ . . (→‎Exhibits: no it ain't POV, it reflects the true nature & purpose of the museum and even said as a propaganda museum in the source." which is again, an example of the POV attitude that you have displayed in many of your edit. So no, I don't looking for any compromise at all, and if you keep reverting my edit without any reasonable argument, I will take it up a notch.

This is English Wikipedia, not Anti-Communist Wikipedia.

(And if you may, I suggest your next argument to goes straight to the point. I'm tired of your constant "propagandist" and "50 cent party" accusation--Zeraful (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In response:

1. I initially deleted the quote "worth a visit no matter your opinion of the US involvement in Vietnam" because it can be considered a promotion for the site, and promotions (effectively advertising) is prohibited here on Wikipedia. It's not a "using images of the War to substantiate their version and views on Vietnam War history tactic" as you claim, which is ironic because you consistently practice this scheme, like using pro-communist, anti-war sources like from Gareth Porter, the Lady Burton book, the American Killing Anything That Moves book, and many other instances to push and substantiate your personal opinions on an ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE.

2. Actually YOU were trying to distort and deflect to another topic by completely changing the context of the sentence i mentioned in point 2 of my first response my deviously changing several words. This is one of many instances when you tried to use this hard-to-detect tactic to move article content and talk page discussions off tangent. The example i used about the communists using Conex boxes is exactly in the same idea about your claim that tiger cages were used for torture.

3. The Vietnamese communist regime's use of conex boxes for torture and imprisonment were from many reports made by eyewitness former "Reeducation camp" prisoners and from prisoners' personal experiences collected after they were released from jail and fled Vietnam, some of which were collected and reported by Ginetta Sagan in Newsweek magazine in May 1983.

4. I will reiterate again, YOU have a very clear POV stance clearly exhibited most of your edits, past and present. I will not negotiate or make any compromise WHATSOEVER with deceptive, distorted, inexistant, biased content on any Wikipedia article. My value here on Wikipedia is that truth is the truth and it must not be censored, and i guarantee all my contributions follow that and i will ensure that will be enforced. This is Wikipedia and its in the global domain, not a blog site, not a Vietnamese government site, not, and not under the jurisdiction of the Vietnamese regime where bias, censorship, distortions, deception and blatant POV is considered "the truth" and accepted. You've seen my determination to defeat bias, censorship, distortions, deception and blatant POV in the past and present, so i recommend you to edit in a truthful, transparent manner or further action is required. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)