Talk:Ngô Đình Nhu

message: WTF?  Where's the discussion on the disputed point?  Otherwise it's not disputed.  ABart26 13:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Point 

message: Olson is listed as a source in the notes, but his book isn't in the list of references.  I'm just curious what book it is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.252.202 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citiations? 

message: He was an admirer of Hitler, and he collected Nazi paraphernalia. Neither of these make him either a Nazi or a neo-Nazi. In fact, the article gives the impression that he was not a person with any ideological foundation whatsoever, merely a megalomaniacal, bloody despot. Unless some backing can be shown for an assertion that he deserves the Nazi label, I'll remove the Neo-Nazi category shortly. __meco (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes remove it. Hardly anyone in Vietnam think of Ngo Dinh Nhu as a neo-Nazi.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardly a neo-Nazi 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Ngo Dinh Nhu's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "encyc":
From Ton That Dinh: Tucker, pp. 288–289.
From 1962 South Vietnamese Independence Palace bombing: Tucker, p. 302.
From Pham Ngoc Thao: 
From Nguyen Van Nhung: Tucker, p. 227.
From Le Quang Tung: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Ngo Dinh Nhu]] 

message: These statements seem to conflict. "The two brothers (Nhu and Diệm) were buried by the junta in a location that remains unknown ... there are also reports of cremation." vs "The two brothers are reburied in a cemetery in Lai Thieu." I suppose it is possible that someone who knew the secret location reburied them in Lai Thieu without revealing the temporary grave; but that seems very unlikely. Rather I suppose that the Lai Thieu graves are empty. Can someone clarify? Jmchutchinson (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting statement about burial 

message: A few months ago I added the file 'Covan ngodinhnhu.jpg' as the main infobox image, it was and still is under the license CC-BY-SA-4.0 and the description said that it was the author's own work which i was sceptical of. A month later the infobox image was changed to the file 'Photo of Ngô Đình Nhu.jpg' by another editor 
which was deleted by Filedelinkerbot as the image lacked copyright and licensing. I would like to re-add Covan ngodinhnhu.jpg, however it still lacks any sort of reliable license, is there any way one can find out if there is an actual license or not? As I would not want to add a copyrighted image. Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It most definitely is not by the uploader, see their upload log which includes a pic of General Macarthur from the 19th century as 'own work' Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  License of Covan ngodinhnhu.jpg