Talk:Bình Ngô đại cáo

Source

North and South in Binh Ngo Dai Cao might have referred to internal divisions in Vietnam (Hanoi vs Thanh Hoa) rather than China vs Vietnam

https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao.html

Heavily Vietnamese POV

http://www.thewriterspost.net/V12I2_ff2_vudunhdinh.pdf

Rajmaan (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bình Ngô đại cáo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20141008125617/https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao.html to https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of the established historiography by Lê Minh Khải and others

Concerning this edit with the caption of "Delete 2 paragraph (weak argument, unreliable source).", well, if we actually take a look at "Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" we would find "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources." Well, Lê Minh Khải writes on a blog because he admits that it is an easier way to reach wider audiences than through the traditional publishing methods which he claims will only be read by a handful of people will read it and that the internet is searchable and accessible for people all over the world. Is he incorrect? Nope, in fact I would say that a century from now people will call Lê Minh Khải "well ahead of his time", note that he rarely just posts opinion pieces and he almost never posts anything that is unsourced, on his blog he uses and discusses various reliable sources and then goes through them. Had he published this very same information in a book then nobody would have questioned the removed section. In fact, having it easily accessible online should be preferable to a source only a handful of people can check out and verify actually states what the information says, unfortunately it ain't uncommon for people to deliberately re-interpret reliable sources to fit their own narratives. At "Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources?" we find the statement: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available." I have seen plenty of times that people remove good sources because they misdefine policy. Practice should never take precedent over policy and especially rational thought, I often see people remove expert websites because "Blogs are unreliable" and no other argument is given than "Blogs are bad sources" despite policy actually disagreeing with them.

Now that we've established that a well-sourced work written by an expert isn't automatically "unreliable" because it's a blog let's look at the editor who removed it. About who the 吳 (Ngô) referred to in Bình Ngô đại cáo (Hán tự: 平吳大誥) is always assumed to be "the Chinese" and the removed sections only showcase a different perspective by different experts. If we look at the other contributions of user "Lvhamsntt" we find that they had a total of three (3) edits, with their first edit removes Tăng Tuyết Minh from Hồ Chí Minh's arricle with the caption "Ho's romantic relationships is controversal" (SIC) and their last and third (3rd) edit moving Vietnam up in a list of declaration of independences in Asia, this is based on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's proclaimed independence rather than the State of Vietnam's, which is an issue when two (2) countries become one (1). Two (2) of these three (3) edits removed content and all of them essentially take the Communist Party of Vietnam's position on these issues. The other source cited at Bình Ngô đại cáo is "https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao", well the University of Washington is hardly an "unreliable source", they just said "bad arguments" and removed any references to them. This is censorship and that is how Communist Party's tend to handle opinions they don't like. They can't censor his blog but they sure as hell can censor Wikipedia. Note that I am not accusing this user of being a member of the Vietnamese Communist Party, only of having a bias that matches the Vietnamese nationalist historiography promoted by it. I suggest restoring the removed perspectives as they don't claim to be absolute and just showcase a different interpretation by experts which promotes Wikipedia's neutral point of view. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, at "WP:!TRUTHFINDERS" we can read the following: "Wikipedia doesn't reproduce verbatim text from other sources. Rather, it summarizes content that some editor(s) believes should belong in the Wikipedia article in the form of an encyclopedic summary that is verifiable from reliable sources. This process involves editors who are not making claims that they have found truth, but that they have found someone else who is making claims that they have found truth. If there is more than one set of facts or explanations for the facts in the article, there's a guideline for that where multiple points of view (Wikipedia's term for versions of truth) are included." This removal of content did nothing short of violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view in favour of a Vietnamese nationalistic historiography, so I will restore it and ask anyone critical of this to go to this talk page. --Donald Trung (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)