Talk:International Vietnamese Youth Conference

message: Invasion is the neutral term. Presumably from the Latin for going in. It generally refers to any military action undertaken in a foreign land where you face armed resistance, regardless of whether it is good or bad. See Invasion, and List of invasions. Particularly note for example the following lines from List of invasions:
* 1991 invasion of Kuwait by a coalition force of 34 nations led by the United States 
* 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq 
As you can see, "invasion" is used for both sides, whether they are invading to establish a new government, or invading to restore the previous government, and does not imply which, if any, invasion was justified or unjustified. Because Wikipedia officially doesn't endorse or condemn anything, it merely states what happens.
This is a general problem with things or actions that are often looked down on negatively, particularly things that are illegal. There are still neutral technical terms for them, and the technical term should still be used, although people may have negative views regarding that action. For example "steal" sounds bad only because the action is usually frowned upon, not because it is a loaded POV term. It is still the word that should be used whether it is "the starving boy stole money for food" or "the bank-robber stole the money from the safe".  
POV terms include things like "liberation", which both sides in a war usually claim their side to be. Other POV terms for things tend to be metaphors. For example "slaughter" or "butcher". Unless you are literally talking about an abatoir, these are loaded POV terms. 
So it is an invasion whether it is a communist Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia or a US invasion of Vietnam.
Carl Kenner 23:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your own logic, the US and France were not invaders.  South Vietnam was the internationally recognized government of southern Vietnam, and the US was there by the South Vietnamese government's invitation.  Since South Vietnam was also "propped up" by the French colonialists, how can they be invaders? DHN 23:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasion is NPOV

message: You may not enforce US spelling on articles. Believe it or not there are official international standards for things, while the USA goes off and does its own thing. That is fine within the USA, but it doesn't give US citizens the right to "correct" everyone who spells things the proper English way, especially on articles that are about Vietnamese organisations founded in Australia. Also Wikipedia says you can't. And, have you ever noticed how every other city in the world has its country listed? Even when it is a world famous city it is "Paris, France" not "Paris". Yet even lesser-known US cities like San Diego do not have their country listed. This is not deliberate, but it is a product of a US-centric mindset. It is necessary to state which country the third conference was in, as was done for every "foreign" country. So try to allow a little bit of balance in the article. And by the way, it is considered poor form to write glowing articles about yourself, or things you organised, in Wikipedia since you can't possibly be impartial. CarlKenner
* Good point on being US-centric. Wikipedia's rules say that articles about topics of UK-based nature should be written in British English, and US-related topics should be written in US english, so in this case, I should be British English, given the conference's root and creation in Australia. I am making the changes ... enderminh 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centric

message: Far more important however is that the entire article is written from the point of view of your US-centric extremist ideology, which is totally opposed by the vast majority of the world. And any attempts to balance it by including the views of the rest of the world are deleted. It is like Osama Bin Laden writing the article on Al Qaeda and deleting all references to the fact that it is a banned terrorist organisation with evil fanatical beliefs, that blew up many US citizens and a couple of US buildings. Don't get me wrong, an article on Al Qaeda should also point out that Al Qaeda also does a lot of charity work, defends Kosovo Albanians from being slaughtered by Serbia's campaigns of genocide, kills far less people than the USA, and that half of the buildings they blew up were legitimate military targets. But one can't leave out the fact that they are a banned terrorist organisation of crazy evil sectarian religious nuts who kill lots of people.
Lenduong is also a banned terrorist organisation in Vietnam, like all the many Al Qaeda backed groups around the world are banned terrorist groups in the USA. Obviously it is not a fair comparison, since Al Qaeda, who these groups claim to follow, killed about 3000 people and destroyed two buildings in the USA (in retaliation), while the French/Japanese/US regime, who Lenduong claim to follow, killed far more than 3 million people in Indochina and destroyed about 3 million people's homes (in an unprovoked attack).  CarlKenner
* Lenduong is a non-profit organization that was founded, as you mentioned, in Australia. It has offices in Europe, Australia and the United States complete with address, non-for-profit tax code, etc. Where do you get the idea that it is a terrorist organization, and what does this organization has anything to do with Axis and World War II? In order to not violate WP:3RR we probably need other persons to chime in here, before we are just reverting ourselves. This is in regards to this change enderminh 05:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist Organization?!! 

message: This is in regards to CarlKenner's , ,  and  changes of putting the sentence "because these forces are staunchly loyal[3] to the former South Vietnamese regime backed by the Axis (see Empire of Vietnam), French (See First Indochina War), and US invaders" enderminh 
* I still don't see any relevance or need to mention the entire "Axis, Empire of Vietnam, French and US Invaders" thing into this sentence. First of all, this is unreferenced, and has really absolutely nothing to do with these conferences. It is true that the conference and lenduong is not accessible from Vietnam's internet (but a ton of things are firewalled in Vietnam). If you feel so inclined in stating that South Vietnam is backed by the Axis/Empire/French/US invaders, put that sentence into the South Vietnamese article, not here. I am removing this for now as it's unreferenced. enderminh 09:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Axis (see Empire of Vietnam), French (See First Indochina War), and US invaders 

message: There is a controversy about the politics of the International Vietnamese Youth Conference. The content has been reverted several times. 06:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Comment: Is International Vietnamese Youth Conference loyal to WWII/Axis Power/French/US Invaders?