Jump to content

Talk:Nguyen Ngoc Bich

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Nguyen Ngoc Bich)

Comments to readers and reviewers

[edit]
Notes on this revised version

InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) made some suggestions at Need_suggestions_for_Draft:Nguyen_Ngoc_Bich, in particular, read WP:ESSAY, Wikipedia:Writing better articles, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS.

Below are the features of this revised version based on these suggestions:

  • Biography models: Lenin, Qian_Xuesen, Roger_Y._Tsien: I used these articles as biography models, while including extensive and precise Notes with quotations from on authoritative history books. I identify the following problems that are solved in the format that I created for the present article Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich:
    • Problems in Lenin, version 02:34, 25 July 2024: In Section Rererences, there are "footnotes," which are actually "citations," whereas the actual references are in Section "Bibliography." Very confusing. There are just three and very thin Notes, with no quotations. The statements in the article are thus not easy to verify. The foreign-language sources are not easily accessible. In contrast, the article Nakba, version at 21:11, 24 July 2024 has extensive quotations, mixed with references, and is thus still not well organized as in the present article Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich (see also "Verifiability and readability" below).
    • Problems in Qian Xuesen, version 10:40, 17 July 2024: In Section References, there are citations mixed with references, with no Notes. Citing the same reference, but with different page numbers, led to many duplicated lines (with different page numbers), e.g., citations No.32-34, 36-37, 39-40, 43, etc. are all from the reference Chang (1995), to which there is no link. One has to scroll down to find the book by Chang (1995) in Section "Sources," Subsection "Work cited." There is thus no links to connect the citations to the book and vice versa. The present format in Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich is more compact, avoiding repetitions (with the cited page numbers next to the cited reference as superscripts in the text), and with forward and backward links between the citations, notes, and references.
    • Problems in Roger Y. Tsien, version 22:52, 22 June 2024: Like the above two articles, here Notes and quotations are also mixed with references.
    • Other biographies: Chas Freeman, version 16:45, 15 September 2024 (No Notes, extensive quotations).
  • Verifiability and readability: Unlike the article Lenin---which has extensive references, but few quotations from the referred sources, and thus left much to be desired (such as it is hard to access certain foreigh-language sources to verify)---the article Nakba, version at 21:11, 24 July 2024, also had extensive quotations, mixed with the references, in its Section References, and therefore quite messy. Here, I designed a format that allows for quotations from authoritative sources to be gathered in Section Notes, and yet keep the Notes (with quotations) separated from the references (which are not mixed with quotations). Flexibility: There can be as many sources as needed that can be cited in each Note, which in turn can include references (citations) to other Notes. Such referencing (or citation) is not possible using the template {{efn}} and {{sfn}}, since it is not possible to refer to another Note within a Note.
  • Avoiding problem with {{efn}} in image caption: When using the template {{efn}} in image caption, there is an error, as documented in Section "Error when using {{Efn}} in figure captions and galleries" in c:User talk:Egm4313. Using the present format, there is no such error when referring to a Note in an image caption.
  • Style, version 22:14, 22 March 2023: Inverted pyramid: The most important historical facts that yielded notability are presented first, followed by facts with decreasing importance and/or notability. See also Information style and tone.
  • New structure with shortened titles: Broke down the article into smaller sections with concise titles in WP:NPOV style (removed praising adjectives, except for praises in quotations from established historians such as "resistance hero," "one of the most popular local heroes," etc). See Point 4 "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each" in Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which is referred to in Wikipedia:Good articles.
  • Additional historical facts with extensive references: Extended the article to add many historical facts surrounding Nguyen Ngoc Bich, together with extensive references and notes. See Point 2 "Verifiable with no original research" in Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which is referred to in Wikipedia:Good articles.
  • Historic photos: Added relevant historic photos to pique the interest of readers. "A picture is worth a thousand words." An article without pictures is boring. See Point 6 "Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio" in Wikipedia:Good article criteria, which is referred to in Wikipedia:Good articles.
  • The current Draft:Nguyen Ngoc Bich has much more extensive content than a VERY large number of existing stub biographies, such as Nguyễn_Văn_Tố, version 20:54, 22 April 2024 (very poor since 2013), Matt_Keeling, version 21:02, 15 November 2023 (egregiously poor since 2020), Edmund_F._Robertson, version 07:48, 2 January 2024 (very poor since 2008), Carl_Naibo, version 04:33, 26 January 2024 (very poor since 2007), etc. to cite a few. See a HUGE number of all stubs in w:Category:Stubs. The application of the "standards" has thus been highly uneven and unfair. Would you move all these stub articles back to "DRAFT" status?
  • Before a reviewer talks about "standards," they must learn about the existence of a HUGE cache of sub-standard articles, for without such knowledge, they just display their own ignorance. If they did know about the existence of such HUGE cache of sub-standard articles, and still talks about "standards," they were utterly hypocritical and unfair.
  • Format: There is NO standard format mentioned in Section Style and format, version 23:54, 3 May 2024. In fact, the HUGE cache of sub-standard articles contains a large number of format variants, in particular biographical formats. There is a difference between a "standard" and the reviewer personal preference. See also Section Official rule or personal preference? on Wiki Commons.

Updated Egm4313.s12 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC) ◉ Started Egm4313.s12 (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other talks

[edit]

@Slgrandson: The image in the right column is reserved for a portrait when this article is accepted. This portrait can be seen in Nguyen Ngoc Bich (1911-1966): A Biography. I still have a long way to go. So I am moving the image back to where it is intended. I will also restore the gallery. I need some peace to work, and not an edit war. That's why this is a draft. Thanks for your kind suggestions in Version 03:03, 28 May 2023. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Slgrandson: I kept for your formatting for insertion of a portrait in the right column, and just replaced the portrait with another one.

There is one thing you could help is to prevent map removers from vandalizing the article (see the early history of this article before it was moved into a draft). These map removers confused personal preferences with official rules, and imposed their own preferences on others, claiming maps were hard to read (!), and in doing so violated a key advice for good articles, which should be well illustrated with images. If you looked into articles written by these map removers, you would see that their articles had zero illustration (images)! Your help here (in convincing them not to remove maps) would be great. Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Egm4313.s12: Sources saved for future use:

Egm4313.s12 (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Egm4313.s12: Reminder in case of continued harassment by anonymous users, with no public credentials, who confused official rules with personal preferences, which they imposed on others: Use WMF Global Ban Policy, Criteria for consideration of a global ban, Requesting a global ban, Trust and Safety


Comments to readers and reviewers

[edit]

Removed "Comments to readers and reviewers" to avoid duplication; see above. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted this article though the formatting is ghastly there is much work to do to improve it including removing excessive quotes. I have removed swathes of inappropriate commenting/editorialising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do I suggest improvements for the reviewing process? Is there a discussion page on this important issue to improve the experience of other content creators? Thanks. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation but in part answer to your huge wall of text above see other crap exists. Theroadislong (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "crap" are you talking about? I don't consider that as crap, as personal opinions differ. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you meant: "Craps" exist elsewhere all over Wikipedia. That I agree 100% (who would not?) Egm4313.s12 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia links??

[edit]

Why are we using The German Gen. Chang Fa-kwei article links when we have an English version Zhang Fakui? Theroadislong (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about (or find) the English article when I wrote this part. Essentially, I was looking for a photo of this person, and found it in the German Wikipedia. (But then I replaced this photo with another one that I scanned and uploaded myself.) The link about this person can be changed to the English article. Thanks for your dedication and care. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium

[edit]

@Jac16888:, @Theroadislong:

[NOTE: I am replying to User:Jac16888 regarding his reversion and comment, and inviting User:Theroadislong as witness. ENDNOTE]

The article by Vu-Quoc, Loc (2024), Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium, with much deeper and broader historical context and images, serves as the foundation to build and to support the Wikipedia article Nguyen Ngoc Bich.

This is not self promotion or spam, as per the Wikipedia rule: "legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia," and thus not "Citation spamming." For more details, see Wikimedia Commons User_talk:Egm4313.s12 § Citation spam, official rule.

See also Section Documents to build Wikepedia articles, where many similar articles are listed.

See also Section Official rule or personal preference? on Wiki Commons, where this issue of "self-promotion" or "spamming" was discussed at length. As mentioned there:

  • If you were familiar with real-world citation impact measures, and had looked at the citation impact of my engineering publications on Google Scholar, you would know that I don't need to spam in Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, which bring no real-world citation impact, and thus no real-world glory.

I don't want to get into an edit war with you, as with others, who do not contribute any content. I still have a lot more content to add in Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium.

Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, vuquocloc@yahoo.com, Publications, Google Scholar, Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any self promotion, Citizendium absolutely cannot be used to source anything here, it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that rule? Or is that personal opinion? It is strange to say "Citizendium absolutely cannot be used to source anything here, it is user edited." You cannot edit sources like books or newspaper articles that were cited, can you? Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USERG and WP:BATTLEGROUND for your attitude editing here. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, This is not self promotion or spam, as per the Wikipedia rule: "legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia," and thus not "Citation spamming." For more details, see Wikimedia Commons User_talk:Egm4313.s12 § Citation spam, official rule. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said it was self promotion? I said Citizendium cannot be used to source anything here as it is user edited. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong: Why not? The article Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium is a source like any other sources, and it was written and being expanded by me ONLY, as the content creator. Already, the content and context of the article Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium is where the article Nguyen Ngoc Bich came from. Again, I want to focus on adding content to Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium. I don't understand what it means by "user edited." I am the only one who created and will create content, for both articles Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium and Nguyen Ngoc Bich. I have the Byline at the top of Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium as the sole author (content creator). Please take a look. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reasons, I don't get a notification when you added something to the discussion, so I added a ping to be sure that you are notified. On the other hand, I leave this article Nguyen Ngoc Bich to your good hands, and concentrate on adding content to Nguyen Ngoc Bich on Citizendium. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We CANNOT use content from Citizendium, it is irrelevant that you are the "sole author". Anyone can edit Nguyen Ngoc Bich you are not the only one creating content for that article.Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the ONLY one who created and will create content for that article on Citizendium, just like Nguyen Ngoc Bich, which was referred to in other articles on Wikipedia. Could you send me the rule on "user edited" articles? But Wikipedia articles always refer to "user edited" articles, do they not? Egm4313.s12 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As linked above WP:USERG. You don't appear to be understanding anything I say or how Wikipedia works. You can ask for other opions at The Wikipedia:Teahouse . Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are linking to your own personal profiles on multiple sites, that could be seen as an attempt to promote yourself, and anyway as Theroadislong has already said, none of those links consistute any form of reliable source: Wikipedia:Wikiversity, WP:USERG, WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia:User pages#Userspace and mainspace--Jac16888 Talk 10:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jac16888:, @Theroadislong:. This document is now NOT "user edited": Vu-Quoc, Loc (2024), Nguyen Ngoc Bich: Engineer, doctor, politician, and serves as "legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia,", per not self promotion or spam, as per the Wikipedia rule, notwithstanding personal interpretation. User:Theroadislong wrote: "I haven't said it was self promotion? I said Citizendium cannot be used to source anything here as it is user edited." So the problem is solved.

In the upper academic world, authors published with their names indicating that they are responsible for the content, and the credit that goes with the work. That's not necessarily self promotion. (Anonymous publications are not acceptable in science and history.)

Is Wikiversity not reliable? It is part of the Wikipedia system, is it not? Perhaps you could explain?

Prof. Loc Vu-Quoc, vuquocloc@yahoo.com, Publications, Google Scholar,

No Wikiversity is NOT reliable, neither is Wikipedia, they are user edited. Documents uploaded to Drive Google are also not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive is down because of hacking. I will upload the document to the Internet Archive when users can log in again. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jac16888:, @Theroadislong:. This webpage should do then: Dr. Loc Vu-Quoc named Co-Editor-in-Chief of Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, archived 2024.10.27. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should do for what exactly? Theroadislong (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replace Wikiversity, which I linked to my name. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't need any links to your work where ever you host it. Theroadislong (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Egm4313.s12! As someone who active in academia and on Wikipedia, I understand that it can be difficult to recognize the writing conventions across platforms, especially regarding the use of sources. In academia, we are generally looking for primary sources because they are considered reliable, and we aim to verify information. On Wikipedia, we are looking for three things from sources:
  1. Does the source verify the information provided?
  2. Is the source reliable?
  3. Does the source establish the subject's notability?
To the first and second points, we have some strict rules about which sources are considered reliable for verifying information and agree as a community that user-generated sources are not reliable because anyone can create and edit them. This is why Wikipedia does not even consider itself a reliable source (WP:REFLOOP)! Even if an expert in the field created a Wikipedia article, it is not considered a reliable source. The same goes for all websites that allow users to edit content. Citing a document uploaded to Google Drive is also generally unacceptable unless it is something that has been published elsewhere (e.g., a copy of an old newspaper), though the original publication is preferred. After all, anybody can upload a document to Google Drive; that doesn't mean the information on the document is true.
As for the third point, Wikipedia uses sources to establish whether something is notable, i.e., whether it deserves to have a Wikipedia page. Reliable, secondary sources are important here! For example, looking at someone's birth certificate may provide accurate information about when they were born, but it doesn't tell us they are notable. To be notable, that person needs to be discussed in-depth in reliable, secondary sources.
I hope this makes sense! Thank you for reading through to better understand how Wikipedia works. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing style

[edit]

I have edited here for 18 years and have never come across such a hideous mess of citation and notes use, it also seems that the creating editor is determined to link to his own self published content where ever possible. I am at a loss as to how to improve this without WP:TNT. Theroadislong (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Hideous mess of citation and notes use". Nice comment per "WP:BATTLEGROUND for your attitude editing here." It is time for me to go. Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest

[edit]

I only learned about Nguyen Ngoc Bich since 2022, while working on my family history and read his open letter to the author of a Sino-Vietnamese dictionary; see the Foreword in Nguyen Ngoc Bich (1911-1966): A Biography Egm4313.s12 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nguyen_Ngoc_Bich&oldid=1254453003"