Talk:History of Vietnam (1945–present)

Deletion of sourced material

Nguyen1310 and TheTimesAreAChanging are both deleting sourced material for no good reason. Please stop your constant deletions with feeble excuses.Zrdragon12 (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deleting that specific content because it was POV commentary, despite it being sourced, it has no place on this article because it's not fair analysis of historical events, and its clearly a comment with no reasoning behind it. So, if a scholar were to make non-academic remarks and this was documented, should it be allowed to be included on a reputable schorlarly artice, or not? No, absolutely not. The other content on South Vietnam was redundant, Diem's rigging of elections was mentioned 2 TIMES in the article, thus its redundant and inconcise. Funny how Zrdragon wants to repeat content she likes, but stringently objects to repeating content, also sourced, that's against her political views, like about the Vietnamese famine in the 80s in the Vietnam War Casualties article. Funny how Zrdragon herself deletes whole sections of information she doesn't approve of, including sourced ones (on VN War Casualties article again, view the edit history on that), and accuses others of deleting sourced content. Funny how someone guilty of wrongdoing tries to report on innocent people. Zrdragon also engages in wording wars, changing the word communist to something else, when referring to communists in article content. Nguyen1310 (talk) 06:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zrdragon even tried to remove the source for the famine, just so they could later tag it as unsourced.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i removed a reference to the famine because there were two in two sentences in the same section and you and your mate reverted it a few times, so I went and removed the other one. You cannot have two pieces about the famine in a tiny section, it only needs one as you well know because you then came back with just one. You are just trying to stir it up.Zrdragon12 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete lie, and I want to try to get through to you so you can see the truth. In reality, I proposed this compromise edit with only one mention of the famine and a source. You reverted, restoring the second mention, but removing the source! Do you understand how irrational that looks to me?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you start your links towards the end of the edits. So here is how it actually happened and not your skewed version.I removed the famine because it was in 1988 and thus when the war had ended and the Vietnamese had consolidated.You came and changed the titles here [1] and removed my citation needed tag.You changed it to post war killings which obviously does not include a famine.You then put the famine back into a section called post war killings.I then reverted you because a famine does not belong in a section with that name.You then put it back in.I then removed a piece about deaths in the war in 1975 as that did not belong in a section name by you as post war killings.Then your mate turned up again to put communist back in the boat people who I had taken out because they do not belong in a section titled post war killings.You then turned up again and changed the title [2] again.

You replaced what I removed about the famine,boat people and deaths in the war.You then spent some time before and after that reverting VC to communist even though you stated on my talk page that you did not mind VC being used here [3] .I removed one of the references to the famine as there were two,you turned up put that back in and removed my citation needed tag again.I removed it as there were two references to the famine there and obviously only one is needed.You then came back and made a compromise over the famine enteries and after missing it once, I left it as you put it.I even revterted for you when you buddy came and changed it.Your buddy continued to edit VC for communist and so did you when you stated I see no consensus even though you came on my talk page and said that you were ok with VC, as linked to above.And that just about covers that, not your short edited version of events skewed in your favour. btw calling people liars is a personal insult and against the rules. Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, which is why I refrained from doing so.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You never refrained, you just called me a liar in your post above. Is this like the twilight zone? Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You did tell a lie, and I proved it was untrue, but I wouldn't assume that you are a liar. In fact, I made it clear--both at the time and in this discussion--that I am confident you did not mean to say anything false, but merely reverted without checking to see what you were reverting. That's why I said "I want to try to get through to you so you can see the truth". I'm sure that your actions are best explained by misunderstanding.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you go calling me a liar again when I have proven that I am not with links and you claiming that you never called me a liar but have now done it twice.Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly and unambiguously said the opposite. And, no, that isn't calling you a liar, either.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is calling me a liar,that is what you have done twice now. It is there for everyone to see, no need to deny it.Zrdragon12 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]