Talk:1955 State of Vietnam referendum
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1955 State of Vietnam referendum article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
| 1955 State of Vietnam referendum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 3, 2013. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
The question asked
editBeing as referendums are questions asked to an electorate it would be good to say upfront what the question was rather than just saying that the referendum was about the future form of government Tommo_87 —Preceding undated comment added 11:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC).
- It is a critical flaw of the article that nowhere is the question actually given. What were people voting on?Royalcourtier (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
what's this article?
editfirst dien bien phu didn't ended the war it was the geneva agreements. the Geneva conference started during the battle of dien bien phu. the french wanted to use the victorious battle (they were sure to win DBP) as a political pressure measure against Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh used the battle the same way and thanks to Giap's strategy and a massive chinese support (trucks, heavy artillery, katysuha) the french chief of staff leader Navarre did not believed despite intelligence reports, and so the viet minh won the siege after ceasefire order was given to the french garrison from Saigon based Cogny. second there is no mention about Bao Dai's State of Vietnam that existed from 1949 to 1955 prior to these elections. the current article is strongly oriented and does not follow the neutrality policy. Paris By Night 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can you check to see if the background is factually solid? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Successful good article nomination (Temporarily Revoked)
editI am glad to report that this article nominee for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of September 2, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: yes
- 2. Factually accurate?: No (as of 21 July 2023)
- 3. Broad in coverage?: yes
- 4. Neutral point of view?: yes
- 5. Article stability? yes
- 6. Images?: Looks good.
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — T Rex | talk 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Factually accurate - no.
- I've recently provided evidence of fabrication/vandalism below. Hopefully it will be corrected as soon as possible :)
- I've only found one example so far - I'll try to look out for more evidence of fabrication/vandalism.
. D3trmd (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- D3trmd, appeal your block in 6 (six) months and then you can correct the misinformation. There's no hurry. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any current article on the canceled 1956 election?
editIs there any current article on the canceled 1956 Vietnam election? I see scant references to the election, but I see no article on what lead up to the cancelation. Travb (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can make one for you. Geneva Conference (1954), South Vietnam and Ngo Dinh Diem probabbly have bits around. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- No need. I was under the mistaken impression, from reading leftists books, that the US was behind the cancelation. It is much more nuianced than this. If you do decide to write the article, see User_talk:Travb#References_on_Vietnam_election which has referenced quotes from four books. Thanks for the response. Travb (talk) 07:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Bảo Đại wasn't emperor in 1955
editThis article keeps calling Bảo Đại "emperor", but he abdicated back in 1945. In 1949-55, his title was "head of state" (Quoc Truong). So there was no issue of monarchy involved in the referendum -- it was just Bảo Đại vs. Diệm. Kauffner (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Kauffner, contemporary sources style him both as "Emperor" and "former emperor", in his own autobiography he noted that the French promised him the title "Emperor-Chief of State" and his cabinet in Dalat was still referred to as "the imperial cabinet" and his palaces "the imperial palaces". While many Vietnamese regarded his abdication as final, several contemporary sources seemed to disagree. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Correcting hoax.
editDear Editors,
I discovered a severely neglected case of vandalism/fabrication in this wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_State_of_Vietnam_referendum
In the section titled, "Organisation of the Referendum," in the end of the third paragraph, there's this part:
"Lansdale cautioned Diệm against electoral fraud, confident that Diệm would win a free election: "While I'm away I don't want to suddenly read that you have won by 99.99%. I would know that it's rigged then." U.S. officials thought that a fair election would have seen Diệm poll between 60% and 70% of the vote."
I discovered that this part is completely fabricated by a user - and it's been sitting there for 15 years. What was written was found nowhere in the source it cited (Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History, First Edition, Page 223-224). In fact, the source completely contradicts what was written.
Upon investigating the source, it is revealed that the quote from Lansdale is non-existent, and Lansdale never cautioned Diem against electoral fraud; he was complicit in the rigging of it. And the US only advised Diem to claim 60-70% of the votes to make the election look plausible - they never said that they think Diem would poll 60-70% in a fair election.
Here, from the source that it cited (Page 223-224):
"Five months later, Diem consolidated his power. With Lansdale and other Americans helping, he deposed Bao Dai in a referendum, and promoted himself to the rank of chief of state.
The election, like others to follow, was a test of authority rather than an exercise in democracy. With Bao Dai far away, Diem's activists could easily exert pressure on the voters. Lansdale, with his talent for advertising, showed them how to design the ballots in order to sway the electorate. Those for Diem were red, which signified good luck, and those for Bao Dao green, the colour of misfortune. Diem's agents were present at the polling stations. One voter recalled the scene in a village near Hué: 'They told us to put the red ballot into envelopes and throw the green ones into the wastebasket. A few people, faithful to Bao Dai, disobeyed. As soon as they left, the agents went after them, and roughed them up. The agents poured pepper sauce down their nostrils, or forced water down their throats. They beat one of my relatives to a pulp.'
In several places, including Saigon, the tally of votes for Diem exceeded the number of registered voters. He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for amore plausible 60 or 70 percent. What the Americans failed to understand was that his mandarin mentality could not accept the idea of even minority resistance to his rule. With no compunctions whatsoever, Diem again renounced the nationwide elections prescribed by the Geneva agreement because, he said, they could not be "absolutely free."'
I also attached a screen grab of those two pages it cited from, as additional evidence:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/198755574@N05/53059262176/in/dateposted-public/
The vandalism/fabrication dated 15 years ago, on April 5th 2007, from a user called “YellowMonkey." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:YellowMonkey
Originally, the vandalism did not include a source. Here is a log of when he/she first wrote it:
An hour later, he or she made a new edit that also included a reference:
He/she cited a Penguin edition of the book, so it's a different page (239) - but still the exact same words and information as the screen-grab I showed.
Here's page 239 of the edition that was originally cited:
It was until August 20th 2016 did another unknown user changed it to pages 223-224 of the book’s first edition - which is the current one being cited now.
The article’s August 20th 2016 edit:
CONCLUSION
Could an editor please delete the original fabricated paragraph I pointed out, and change it to: Diem later claimed 98.2% of the votes, against US advice to claim a more plausible number of 60-70%. Thank you all very much :) D3trmd (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- D3trmd, Ah, this is the information that I was referencing below, apparently they have already come here. — Donald Trung (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, the above user means the following sentence:
- "He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for amore plausible 60 or 70 percent. What the Americans failed to understand was that his mandarin mentality could not accept the idea of even minority resistance to his rule."
I am not sure if we should remove hoaxes if the requesting party is blocked / banned as I've often seen misinformation reinstated to enforce "WP:EVADE", so I'm not willing to correct the hoax, but anyone else is free to do so at the risk of having the same sanctions applied to them. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I just read at "WP:EVADE" that "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons." which seems to indicate that reinstating hoaxes should not be done, however per "WP:PROXYING" "Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." So, I think that removing this hoax is risky for anyone willing to do it and can result in them also being banned, so it's probably better to leave the misinformation up and just tag it as being unverified or disputed. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 10:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Possible misinformation
editEarlier user "@Kauffner:" (I presume) alerted me to the fact that the claim in this article "U.S. officials thought that a fair election would have seen Diệm poll between 60% and 70% of the vote." is sourced from a section that actually reads "He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for amore plausible 60 or 70 percent. " While I have been able to find a PDF online I'd rather not be reinstating edits by user "Kauffner" as that would be acting on their behalf. Anyone is free to check out the original work and correct the information. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the hoax, because as far as I can tell policies don't seem to claim that removing misinformation is wrong, as far as I can tell this was inline with current policies and if it wasn't I'd prefer it to be discussed first as the policies are very cryptically written in this regard and I'm not aware of the practice (I just read the policy pages so I'm not sure if there's an unwritten rule that misinformation is fine as long as the only people that oppose it aren't allowed to edit). As there's no venue where I can ask about their interpretation I simply added it like this. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I accidentally reinstated "Civilians were free to move to whichever zone they preferredd. The issue was a topic of concern for either side throughout the course of the 300 days: Operation Freedom Passage followed with transportation options for civilians to move to the south, and Diệm authorizing U.S. CIA adviser Colonel Edward Lansdale to stage campaign intended to convince more people to move to South Vietnam. The campaign was particularly focused on Vietnam's Catholics, who were to provide Diệm's power base in his later years, with the use of slogans such as "God has gone south", while the Viet Minh attempted to prevent the transport in rural areas, and spread rumours of its own considering the threats of moving south, and Task Force 90 in particular." I did not mean for this particular part to be restored, only the part about the voting itself.
The cited book does indeed contradict the earlier information in the article, I really didn't mean to put that part back, but it's quite difficult to copy the correct sentence as recently the software was updated to completely scramble the changed words rather than show what was moved in an easier to interpret way. I did not mean to reinstate that part for context, only the part about the voting as I have actually seen the source and can confirm that in this particular instance Kauffner (I suspect) was correct. — Donald Trung (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)- I'm unclear on the concern. "U.S. officials thought that a fair election would have seen Diệm poll between 60% and 70% of the vote." appears to align with "He claimed to have won 98.2 percent of the vote having spurned American advice to aim for amore plausible 60 or 70 percent. " Both statements are saying that the Americans thought that 60 or 70 percent would be a more believable result. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- I accidentally reinstated "Civilians were free to move to whichever zone they preferredd. The issue was a topic of concern for either side throughout the course of the 300 days: Operation Freedom Passage followed with transportation options for civilians to move to the south, and Diệm authorizing U.S. CIA adviser Colonel Edward Lansdale to stage campaign intended to convince more people to move to South Vietnam. The campaign was particularly focused on Vietnam's Catholics, who were to provide Diệm's power base in his later years, with the use of slogans such as "God has gone south", while the Viet Minh attempted to prevent the transport in rural areas, and spread rumours of its own considering the threats of moving south, and Task Force 90 in particular." I did not mean for this particular part to be restored, only the part about the voting itself.