Talk:War Remnants Museum

message: The Vietnam War still, and understandably so, arouses strong emotions from both sides. Let's simply follow Wikipedia's rules on editing. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Maintaining that all important objectivity

message: A wikieditor has put in a POV piece with sources that are just backpacker and tourist reports from various sites like trip advisor/lonelyplanet forum and about.com.Edits The other link to the examiner.com was blacklisted by wikipedia. These are not reputable sources at all. Please try and find something that is before putting your piece back in.I have removed all the sources and the piece. Zrdragon12 (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the WP:COATRACK part which wasn't actually referenced. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: To avoid a editwar, I will post my argument here:
"According to travel reports from foreign visitors" - There is only one travel report, "War Remnants Museum. Visiting the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam" by Gregory Rodgers, as source.
"One building reproduces the "tiger cages" in which the South Vietnamese government allegedly kept political prisoners" - The tiger cages's existence have been confirmed by two U.S. Congressional representatives, Augustus Hawkins and William Anderson.
"Three jars of preserved human fetuses allegedly deformed by exposure to dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, contained in the defoliant Agent Orange" - Agent Orange's effect is also confirmed.
"A heavy dose of anti-American (and South Vietnamese) propaganda" - The original text is: "Many exhibits in the museum contain a heavy dose of anti-American propaganda". Both the existence of the tiger cages and guillotines and their uses have been confirmed and referenced in their respective Wikipedia article.--Zeraful (talk) 11:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In response:
1. I initially deleted the quote "worth a visit no matter your opinion of the US involvement in Vietnam" because it can be considered a promotion for the site, and promotions (effectively advertising) is prohibited here on Wikipedia. It's not a "using images of the War to substantiate their version and views on Vietnam War history tactic" as you claim, which is ironic because you consistently practice this scheme, like using pro-communist, anti-war sources like from Gareth Porter, the Lady Burton book, the American Killing Anything That Moves book, and many other instances to push and substantiate your personal opinions on an ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE.
2. Actually YOU were trying to distort and deflect to another topic by completely changing the context of the sentence i mentioned in point 2 of my first response my deviously changing several words. This is one of many instances when you tried to use this hard-to-detect tactic to move article content and talk page discussions off tangent. The example i used about the communists using Conex boxes is exactly in the same idea about your claim that tiger cages were used for torture.
3. The Vietnamese communist regime's use of conex boxes for torture and imprisonment were from many reports made by eyewitness former "Reeducation camp" prisoners and from prisoners' personal experiences collected after they were released from jail and fled Vietnam, some of which were collected and reported by Ginetta Sagan in Newsweek magazine in May 1983.
4. I will reiterate again, YOU have a very clear POV stance clearly exhibited most of your edits, past and present. I will not negotiate or make any compromise WHATSOEVER  with deceptive, distorted, inexistant, biased content on any Wikipedia article. My value here on Wikipedia is that truth is the truth and it must not be censored, and i guarantee all my contributions follow that and i will ensure that will be enforced. This is Wikipedia and its in the global domain, not a blog site, not a Vietnamese government site, not , and not under the jurisdiction of the Vietnamese regime where bias, censorship, distortions, deception and blatant POV is considered "the truth" and accepted. You've seen my determination to defeat bias, censorship, distortions, deception and blatant POV in the past and present, so i recommend you to edit in a truthful, transparent manner or further action is required. Nguyen1310 (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit.