Talk:Vietnam Television

Government Control

The sentence "Like all media of Vietnam, its programming is directly controlled by the government" is pretty much nonsense. First, "government" is used in the US differently than in e.g. Europe. The more appropriate term would be here "state-controlled", but even that is not really true, since the major influencer of the media is the Party, not the government or "the State". Stefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.168.25.169 (talk) 08:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

...

How profound. Carrionluggage 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Vietnam Television and refocused on the broadcaster VTV, to align better with the Vietnamese article on this subject. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Test Pattern

I can't find the test pattern of VTV in the 1965-1978. But my friend said it's the same as Magyar Televízió's test pattern from 50's to 60's.--125.25.34.117 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Talking between several users about sources

PLEASE MOVE NOW!!!--180.180.108.170 (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that put it as Unsourced is better, it keeps more information.--180.180.108.170 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

But the information is unreliable, as it is the same kind of stuff added by the same IP ranges as has been added to lots of TV articles recently - much of it has been incorrect (sometimes just incorrectly copied from elsewhere), and all of it has been unsourced -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

180.180.108.170, I disagree about putting it as unsourced, as Boing! said Zebedee said.--125.25.209.137 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding references.

PS:VTV.vn is not official website, but .org.vn is the official one. Be careful of adding.--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

VTV.vn is the official website, .org.vn is long gone.TPNamE231 (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you revert all my edits? I know about reliable sources, but this page is 100% unsourced--125.25.213.120 (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been told enough times - if you can't understand by now, there's no point trying to tell you again -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK but I have seen that another IP user with 125.25.x.x (same as me) edited, and he changed to Very Terrible Video, and can you plese tell him once he returned to Wikipedia about no longer editing this.

Removing all of the content is better. STOP DOUBLE STANDARDS!!!--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What's currently there can stay there, because it is mostly long-standing material and wasn't added by IP editors with a history of adding blatantly false information to articles. On the other hand, the recent IP 125.25.x.x editors (however many of you there are) have been adding blatantly incorrect information to articles, and so we can't risk trusting anything of what you add unless you provide reliable sources to back up every single assertion you make. I have now marked the article as being unsourced and needing references (and may look for references myself if I have time). -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that there will be no references, as no one posts about this, (Thailand is more developed than Vietnam, everyone knows this, but I still don't see any history of these in Thailand television, so never think or dream of finding this of Vietnam.) But for Magyar Televízió, I put it ages ago. but just removed last week???

In 2003, I was editing-war with other IP user from Sweden. At that time I am still living in America, (I go to Thailand in 2007, and still living now). and I requested a sysop of blocking that IP from Sweden. and that sysop blocked me instead. So never do this with me.--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now found and added some references -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That Thai IP user, I don't know good or bad faith, but I see he edits only Myanmar TV, which I have no knowledge of it. but as I see he edited this article, I think he did not did a bad faith, and not good faith, but he want to test Tw3435, I have told you more than 5 times already. Please tell him that please try with some other articles. And stop removing all of my edits as you say it is 'Unreferenced', but I see this article whole article is unreferenced too. But I provided FOUR reliable references. But the source that is 100% reliable is the first one - from official website.--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you add the "Appearances" part back? and add the {{Construction}} template please! Then tomorrow I will give references.--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide references to reliable sources first, and present them here - I will not add anything back on the strength of one of your "I will add references later" promises. And please STOP constantly adding comments to my Talk page - I am watching this page here and will see every change that is made, and I will comment/reply as and when I see fit, not when you demand it -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't say "I will add references later". As I have said you many times: Making news or references about test cards or clocks is pointless/stupid--125.25.213.120 (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You just said "Then tomorrow I will give references"! Tomorrow is later, yes? Now, please, I have no more time for this - unless you can come up with something of substance, I really don't see we have anything further to talk about here -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but your one reliable source made no mention of most of the information you added -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, adding news of the test cards or clocks is pointless and stupid in around the world, and unpopular in Vietnam (and the other countries in Asia)--125.25.213.120 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I took it out, together with all the rest of the unreferenced stuff that you added! -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The best to find is only in unreliable sources like YouTube. But still no one posted them. (I can't find Thailand, so it's impossible to find Vietnam.) but that is very good for encyclopedia. But I think at Magyar Televízió is not fair as that stayed for ages already.

But it's OK to restore the section. The best revision of this article is 02:49, 12 April 2010. --125.25.213.120 (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That article was full of unsourced and doubtful trivia that was not of encyclopedic value. The material I removed was all added this month. Another editor (actually an admin), GedUK, removed the rest with the comment "rm completely unsourced section. rm POV edits and irrelevant comparisons to the BBC", and I agree with that decision. (And if you want to discuss it further, please do so on the Talk page of that article, not here) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam Television → Đài Truyền hình Việt Nam — Native Name. 125.25.233.157 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This is the English language Wikipedia - and it's in English, not in Vietnamese -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose based on WP:USEENGLISH.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The official website calls itself Vietnam Television in English, so that how it should stay. --DAJF (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This is English Wikipedia and the title should be in English as described by WP:USEENGLISH.--WikiDonn (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not the Vietnamese Wikipedia. WP:UE. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Not as straightforward as most are suggesting. We use YLE for the Finnish broadcaster and ZDF for the German second channel; but Raidió Teilifís Éireann for the Irish broadcaster, Österreichischer Rundfunk for the Austrians, Česká televize for the Czechs, Eesti Rahvusringhääling for the Estonians and Westdeutscher Rundfunk for the regional German broadcaster; yet Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation for the Norwegian broadcaster. There isn't really a clear pattern. Whichever form is chosen, the others should be a redirect. I presume the proposer actually meant Đài Truyền Hình Việt Nam. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think those European broadcasters are named properly with non-English naming (well, except YLE) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Finally, It's unprotected. I'm not surprised or anything as I don't edit this article (I'm know nothing about VTV). For you, I suggest you must discuss before edit first. Here are some people you must discuss with (Other than Boing! said Zebedee): Shadowjams and me--125.25.160.227 (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not true. As has been explained many times, the requirement is to provide reliable sources (as per WP:RS), and to discuss any uncertainties or any contentious changes on the article's talk page (with anyone who wishes to take part) - there is most certainly no requirement to discuss things with any specific named editors (and especially not with an anonymous IP editor) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that Wikipedia have rule of everything must have source or not. I see he's asking for long time--125.25.11.17 (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:N and WP:RS -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello I'm American but OK I will try to talk with Shadowjams and you. PS:NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS REFERENCES--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it OK to add this while finding sources?--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No. Find your sources first, and don't touch the article until you have them - if you add unsourced material (with or without any templates), it will be reverted and the article will be protected again. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As he said "Citing about test cards are stupid", I agree, but where can I find sources? And Vietnamese people doesn't notice this--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea! YOU are making the claims, so it is up to YOU to find your sources, not for others to find them for you - try using Google. If you can not find sources, you can not add the material to the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I finded but there's no sources, even unreliable. And he said, not everything must have citations.--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Contentious and/or doubtful claims DO need sources, and your editing history makes all of your additions doubtful. If, having searched, you can find nothing to support your claims, then even YOU can't know if they're correct -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to re-add it first and then later add the sources?--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No! -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is possible. However, if others doubt that it is true, it is likely to be reverted unless there is a citation. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The problem is that this IP editor is a long-term troublemaker who repeatedly adds lots of unsourceable and unencylopedic trivia, much of which is blatantly incorrect - and so keeps having it all reverted. He keeps promising to add references later, but is never able to do so. There have already been two ANI reports about him - [1] and [2]

Thank you you all and so can I believe Skinsmoke? I will have to talk to GedUK--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I undo and edit and undo to your version? So if I've found enough RS, then I can undo easily. There are lots of things I planned to edit.--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to re-add the "Closing and Opening Times" as he provided one reliable source--125.25.11.17 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source that verifies your claims, that's OK -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The logo in the article is from 1965-2000--125.25.11.182 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide a reference -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

/draft

aaa--125.25.14.95 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I will wait for references before I make any specific comments - my general comments from Talk:Magyar Televízió#My draft apply here too. (And please note it is especially important to provide reliable evidence to backup controversial claims - like your claim that Vietnam Television uses a Hungarian test card which says "Magyar Televízió", for example) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Enough now

Never got vandalism since it has been unprotected.--125.25.28.158 (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible vandalism - Edit of 16:07, 14 July 2014 by 114.79.12.28

Parts of this edit look like vandalism. This edit changes many dates, which may be correct, but it also changes: "the United States set up 2-channels .... in Saigon for the Republic of Vietnam. ...., the network operated until the fall of Saigon." to: "the United States set up 2-channels .... in Hanoi for the Republic of Vietnam. ...., the network operated until the fall of Hanoi.", which is blatantly wrong.

Also this edit contains many grammatical errors, for example "from a mountainous region" changed to "from a mountainous regional" and "There are transmitters in" changed to "There are transmission in".

I cannot revert this edit because of later edits. It needs the attention of an expert on the subject to say whivh parts of this edit are correct and which not not. Thanks. TiffaF (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vietnam Television. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060703170229/http://www.vtv.org.vn:80/en/ to http://www.vtv.org.vn/en/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100127050950/http://www.vtv.org.vn:80/en/important.htm to http://www.vtv.org.vn/en/important.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430032052/http://www.vtv.org.vn:80/en/channels.htm to http://www.vtv.org.vn/en/channels.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 10:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)