Talk:Van Tuong Nguyen

"explained" is not neutral

It doesn't matter what word is used in the reference used. We can find information in sources as biased as we like, but here, on this page, the idea is to write neutrally. The person "explained", according to the source you've found. According to my personal judgement, he "claimed". Perhaps, in my judgement, he might even have "lied". But from a neutral point of view, he "said".

Dave1185 has tried very hard to retain "explained", on the grounds that changing it is vandalism, or that changing it is original research, or on the grounds that you can't change the words that appear in the sources you're citing. None of these reasons are valid. Neutrality demands that "explained" is not used in this sentence. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's all explained very clearly at WP:SAY. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion? Why don't you just find an alternate source where "said" is used in the place of explained?Zhanzhao (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Doesn't work like that. We do not actually copy and paste from sources. There is no obligation to use a word just because a source did. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopaedia. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well thats your personal opinion. There are instances where using exact wording is required, i.e. Using exact wording prevemts introduction of biasness by the editors. The source itself may have some bias, but thats where we can attribute the phrasing to them (in prose) as a disclaimer. There are rules and guidelines, but there are also exceptions. The important thing is to understand the intention behind a guideline rather than following it blindly. And just because some editors have differences in opinions on how the guidelines are interpreted doesmnot exclude them from editing/participation. We are a community here. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not following any guideline blindly. I am arguing for the removal of bias from the article, which some editors are insisting must remain because that particular word is used in a source. That argument is entirely specious. Yes, there are circumstances where you'd report the exact word. This is not one of them. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"explained" is not supported by the sources

I don't see where the source says "explained" with regard to the letter being sent a day early. Here is the statement in the article that needs support:

Lee explained that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated.

Here is the cited source (actually a collection of sources): [1]. When I search for "explained" there, the only hit is in a different context which says:

But Mr Lee explained that after careful consideration and looking at similar cases, the clemency appeal had to be rejected. Mr Lee said: "I explained to him why we were unable to accede to the request even though we understood where he was coming from and I respected his views."

That is, what Lee explained was why they "were unable to accede to the request", not anything about the letter.

About the letter, it does say this:

In a statement, Mr Lee's press secretary said Mr Lee apologised to Mr Howard for the embarrassment of not informing him of Mr Nguyen's execution date during their morning meeting.

This was because the letter informing the family of the execution date was mistakenly delivered a day earlier.

So we can say Mr. Lee apologised for not informing Howard about the decision during their meeting. But the sources don't say, and therefore we can't say, that Lee explained "that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated". I don't even see support for saying that he said it. There is a source that says the Singapore government (without mention Lee or anyone else specifically) revealed that the letter had been sent a day early, and that there will an investigation. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That would imply that a good wording would be that "the Singapore Government revealed that the letter was sent a day early and apologized to Mr Howard for the embarrassment saying that there would be an investigation" --Snowded ^TALK 05:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even for that I think we need more than one source before we put it in the article. But the "Lee explained" thing in there now is not supported at all, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not by the cited source. I can't believe so many got on this guy's case for replacing "explained" with "said" on the grounds that "said" was not supported without verifying that "explained" was even supported. I'd like to see better treatment of each other than that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but it certainly doesn't help matters when editors start saying things like "There is no obligation to use a word just because a source did. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopaedia." His user page's content does not exactly make him out to be very reconciliatory either. I always thought that Talk Pages was a way to suggest solutions, discuss issues and resolve differences, not to put other editors down..... Zhanzhao (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue was not the word change, rather the report and the abusive language along with not using the edit page to reach agreement to changes. I thought there was too much templating of the IP, and too much abuse by the IP. --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue originally was the word change, which I imagined would be entirely uncontroversial. A separate issue then became the attacks on me from all sides led by Dave1185, to which I responded angrily. My anger has then been used to justify the original attacks. The issue here is still the word change. The other issue, you can discuss elsewhere if you like. On the word change, it still seems very simple to me. Slavishly adopting the wording of the source is wrong. The word "said" is entirely neutral, while the word "explained" carries connotations that the article should not be carrying. It doesn't matter at all if the source said "explained". Insisting that a word must be used because it appears in the original source makes a complete mockery of the concept of writing an encyclopaedia. The aim here is a bit higher than a massive copy and paste exercise, is it not? Anyway, it seems to me from the source that Lee did not "explain" or "say" but the Singapore government did. So, where it says "Lee explained..." it could say "The Singapore government said...". This is accurate and neutral.

Incidentally I think the protection of this article is a disgrace, and looks to have been done simply to gain the upper hand in this strange dispute. There is no "persistent sockpuppetry". 2.220.204.70 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Technically, "There is no obligation to use a word just because a source did." is correct. "Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be attempting to edit an encyclopaedia" is unnecessary hyperbole, but that does justify reverting on dubious grounds based solely on the claim that "said" is "nothing like" "explained". It takes two to tango, and I tend to give IPs and new editors more latitude with respect to learning how WP works and how to communicate and cooperate effectively here. But seasoned editors should know better and act much more authoritative and much less authoritarian. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The protection is standard given the edit war that was going on. There has been some disgraceful behavior here, but not the protection. It will be unprotected soon enough, but we really should work out what we can say about the letter being sent a day early, if anything, that's supported by the sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically there is no obligation to use the word in the source, but there is no rule against it either. As mentioned, exact words can be used in quotes with proper attribution. This happens a lot in articles where possibility of subjectivity is very high. Anyway I was "late to the party" and did not know about the earlier report, but just based on the IP's response to me he is actually the one taking the higer ground of being the more knowledgeable editor. The only thing I did was make a suggestion.....Zhanzhao (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No rule against it except, in this case, the rule of NPOV. Edit warring to force the inclusion of a biased word is crazy, and Dave1185's attempted justification is utterly, utterly spurious. Anyway, sorry for snapping at you up above, Zhanzhao - when you're being attacked from all sides for trying to improve an article it's easy to lash out indiscriminately. Born2cycle, if the reason given for the protection was edit warring that would be one thing. The claimed reason is "persistent sockpuppetry" and that's just dishonest. 2.220.204.70 (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad we are getting all this sorted out, 2.220.204.70. Everyone is here to make Wikipedia a better place. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've asked for an explanation. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Next steps

Some progress has been made on resolving the issue regarding the sentence "Lee explained that the letter sent to Mrs Nguyen had arrived a day earlier than anticipated." What does seem to be clear is that the present sentence is not supported by the cite. I thought about removing the entire sentence while we reach consensus as to the proper wording. I was concerned that the removal would leave a reference dangling. However, that reference is supportive of the prior sentence, so that's what I am going to do. Now we need to craft a sentence to put back in place. It is not as simple as replacing "explained" by "said", as the source does not support the implication that the claim was made by Lee. One place in the source traces it generically to the Singapore government, another place suggests it was said by Lee's press secretary.

I see four possibilities, there may be more:

• A statement, attributed to Lee's press secretary, using neutral phrasing (e.g. "said" rather than "explained")
• A statement, attributed to the Singapore Government, using neutral phrasing (e.g. "said" rather than "explained")
• A statement, without attribution, using neutral phrasing (e.g. "said" rather than "explained")
• A direct quote, attributed to the news source

I'm not suggesting all of these are acceptable, but this list gives us a starting point for a discussion of what sentence should be inserted.--SPhilbrickT 12:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a lot of discussion; I think the article is acceptable without any form of the sentence, so I'm going to leave it as is, but this discussion remains, in case someone wishes to revisit it.--SPhilbrickT 13:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)