Talk:Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh

Photos

Photo discussion can be found here. SusunW (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Her Name

Discussion of how to name the article is here SusunW (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Levy Uliman prize

I'm going to propose that was the Henri Lévy-Ullmann prize. Lévy-Ullmann was a French legal scholar, and you can see at https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep24971.5.pdf that there was such a prize, from French law schools. I can't find a Levy Uliman prize anywhere. --GRuban (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

GRuban you are the best! Thank you. Yes, the translation of names was not good. Dag Hammarskjöld was broken into a lot of syllables, but fortunately I could figure out what that was. I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Copied from Ipigott's talk page in connection with title

If you have the time or interest, I would appreciate your review and copyedit of this article. I have asked George for help with the photos. As much as it pains me to obscure her identity behind her husband's after consultation, this seems the best way to style it. I'd like to nominate her for WIG's editathon this month, if we can finish the review and get photos. SusunW (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again after quite a long break. Looks interesting. I'll go through it tomorrow.--Ipigott (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Whatever they say, I really think you should title it Phạm Thị Thanh Vân with any Mrs/Madam redirects you think are necessary.--Ipigott (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought so too, but was overruled. I did a bunch of redirects. It's difficult because "my" instinct is that it is disrespectful to call her by her first name and hide her identity behind her husband's, but culturally, after numerous on and off wiki discussions, that is the respectful way to name her. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as disrespectful to use the name she used for all of her publications. I don't think we can just decide to use her personal name instead of the name she used professionally, at least not without some evidence that she would have preferred to use her personal name. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It looks very odd, to me, to refer to her in the article by a name which is not part of the article title: very confusing, even if it's what an expert recommends. PamD 22:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

PamD I totally get it. But WP rule says call her by what the sources call her, which is most often her husband's name. No title, no changes, his exact name. That to me seemed absolutely ludicrous, so I began asking what to do. SusunW (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• SusunW: You've certainly made a great job of researching her life. I've carried out an initial copy edit but I have the feeling that in the light of her considerable importance, it might be necessary to undertake a more careful review. I feel quite strongly about the title. Although the Vietnamese article is titled Bà Ngô Bá Thành (Mrs Ngô Bá Thành) and her writings are ascribed to "Ngô, Bá Thành (Mrs.)", despite the advice you have received from Wikipedia experts, I think you should call her by her own name rather than that of her husband. Otherwise the article is well written and there was not much to change expect the link to what should have been Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. I see that the French National Library includes this reference to her own name, which should eventually appear under authority control. Jimmy Wales keeps reminding us that there are no rules on Wikipedia. I think this is a case in which we should stand on our principles, break the so-called rules developed by others, and restore Phạm Thị Thanh Vân as the title of the article. You can then use a note to explain the alternatives. On this, I would welcome reactions from Rosiestep, Victuallers, Tagishsimon and Johnbod.--Ipigott (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  I would definitely appreciate the input as it is a conundrum. I should point out that I put the Mrs. in her publications. Both her husband's and her own publications in worldcat are simply listed as Ngo, Ba Thanh, so one must wade through whether they are about fish or law. I am happy to call it by whatever consensus is, and perhaps that should take place on the article talk page? Thank you so much for your copyediting expertise. I appreciate your help very much. Repinging Johnbod. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You're really quick in picking things up Susun. I was in the process of reviewing my changes and discovered one or two errors had already been fixed (but not too happy about removing the wl on Nixon who might not be known to everyone). And here you repinged Johnbod although I had fixed the typo within less than a minute! But it's great to know there's such reliable double-checking. In future, I'll be more careful and make better use of "Show preview"---Ipigott (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

End of copy.--Ipigott (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging @Kusma and GRuban: for input on this issue. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My first instinct would also have been to use her own name, but the sources I was looking through for images do call her Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh without exception. (It's sort of like Jimmy Carter in that way; respectful usage vs common usage.) So I can support Susun's choice. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too surprised if sources turn up in a couple of years that do prefer her personal name, but as long as we don't have them, I don't think we can ignore the sources and substitute our own opinion. Note also that the only reason this is an issue is that the name she used professionally was her husband's name; we would use any pseudonym with this level of usage without hesitation. —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in GRuban and Kusma. I appreciate the robust discussion. My instinct is never to obscure a woman's identity, regardless of what was customary in her era. But as both of you have pointed out, it was not only common to refer to her by her husband's name, it was her professional identity and the name she published under. And yes, I also took into consideration the pen name angle. Do I like calling her Mrs. him, no. Do I think it is the best solution, probably. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agree with that. The first line, currently "Phạm Thị Thanh Vân, often referred to as Mrs. or Madame Ngo Ba Thanh", should probably be switched around so the article title comes first. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion Johnbod. I've given that a go. Please feel free to edit it if you can think of a better way to word it. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mrs. Ngo Ba Thanh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one on for review. Thanks for improving this as part of Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! Apologies it took so long for a review to materialise. Per my usual reviewing style, I'll give section-by-section comments, followed by a check against the GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for picking her up Grnrchst I appreciate your thoughtful review and will work through the comments. SusunW (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Early life and education

• Could you add a comma or two to the first sentence to break it up a bit?

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Might be worth making it doubly clear that he missed out on his university education and was sent to rural areas because he was indigenous. This could be done by rearranging the sentence slightly, so the explanation of "as he was an indigenous Vietnamese" comes after him qualifying for university; and adding an "instead" to "he was sent [...]", so "he was instead sent [...]".

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• "Well-to-do" strikes me as a bit euphemistic. Consider a clearer synonym.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Consider adding a piped link to French Indochina in World War II.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [10] Can't find text here about her father fleeing to South Vietnam, although it does mention he was the High Commissioner for Refugees in South Vietnam. Is this citation placed correctly? Or should it come after "and served as a government minister."?

• Good catch, and yes, moved it. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Actually, is the detail about Vân's father fleeing the North and serving as a Southern minister strictly relevant to her own biography?

• I think it gives necessary context. He didn't one day just decide to relocate the family to Saigon, he was forced to flee. (Ironically, the refugee becomes a minister for other refugees.) He was clearly giving support to Vân and his other children (he sent them abroad in the first place, and then sent other family there to help her when her husband had to return to Vietnam) and it explains why, when each of the family returned they did not go back to Hanoi, but instead went to Saigon. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks for the explanation. Absolutely keep it in then. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Early career (1959–1963)

• Spotcheck: [11] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
• This is a rather long run-on sentence at the end of the paragraph. Consider breaking it up.

• done SusunW (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• What does Diem being assassinated have to do with Vân establishing the Comparative Law Institute? This being together in the same sentence implies a connection, but I don't see it here.

• I'm confused? She was an advisor to him, he died; one cannot work in an administration that doesn't exist anymore. She needed another job because he died. The connection seems clear to me, sorry. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Ah got it. Think I just didn't make that connection when reading, it's fine :') --Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.

Activism (1964–1974)

• "Vân's fluency in English and French led to her being invited [...]" Consider "As Vân was fluent in English and French, she was invited [...]"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Ignoring her advice and proceeding with the bombing raids forced Vân to become [...]" Consider "They ignored her advice and proceeded with the bombing raids, which turned Vân into [...]" or something similar. Mainly I'm taking issue with the word "forced", which I think implies a lack of agency on her part in this decision.

• Changed forced to led. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• "American imperialists" Might be worth putting this in quotes, just to make clear that this is the opinion of Vân and not something we're saying in wikivoice. Might also be worth pipelinking to American imperialism#Post-1954: Korea, Vietnam and "imperial internationalism".

• Good catch, thanks. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
• "with no trial" Consider "without trial"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [22] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• If we're going to be red-linking and referring to the English language names of these organisations, consider putting the Vietnamese name in brackets instead.

• I'm sorry, but that seems weird to me. Typically one gives the original name before a translation, not after. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• No worries. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Third Force coalition was both anti-war and anti-communist which worked towards [..]" Confusingly worded. Consider "The Third Force coalition, which was both anti-war and anti-communist, worked towards [...]"

• done SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [28] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [34] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [12][35] Both sources verify she was on hunger-strike for five months, New York Times source verifies her weight dropping from 132 to 88 pounds.

  Was momentarily confused, but got there The Charlotte Observer, i.e. NY Times agency. (I rarely am able to access the Times from here. Paywall unless the link is in wayback.)

• Consider specifying 44 pounds and using a conversion template in order to clarify what this means in kilograms. (I personally have no idea how much a pound is)

• I usually am a failure at templates, and typically have to phone a friend o.0, but I think I managed. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looks good! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [36][37][38] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [42] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [44] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [45] Verified.

Politics (1975–2002)

• Spotcheck: [48] Couldn't find text about her being an "architect of the 1992 Constitution". Am I missing something?

• "Thanh [sic] also helped overhaul Vietnam's Constitution—adopted by the National Assembly in April—to guarantee wide-ranging economic freedoms…" Courtney, 1992, p. H3 SusunW (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Cheers! --Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [48] Verified that she lost her seat and established the Fund for Assistance to Women's Innovation.
• Spotcheck: [51] Source says she served from 1977 to 1997. Doesn't mention her final term ending in 2002.

I think An Thuy Nguyen is misleading. It says she was "She was elected to the National Assembly four times, serving from 1977 to 1997" p. 97. She couldn't have served 4 terms in that time frame, as she lost the 1992 seat. Terms of the National Assembly are five years. For her final term to end in 1997, she would have had to be elected in 1992 and we know she was not. Nguyễn Túc says she served as a National Assembly delegate in the "VI, VII, VIII and X" terms. I don't have a clue where those Roman numbers come from but if the first election was in 1976 (call that VI), then by adding 5 we get VII is 1981, VIII is 1987, IX is 1992 (when she wasn't elected), and X is 1997. Simple math? SusunW (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Hrm ok, I'll trust your maths on this one then. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:09, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Death and legacy

• Spotcheck: [53] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [54] Verified.
• "The Women's Right to Live, which she founded," We already know she founded it, is it necessary to repeat?

• deleted SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• "other feminist groups of the times" Shouldn't it be "of the time"?

• done SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Nice work to you on figuring out the name for the article. I can assume from the explanatory footnote and talk page discussion that it was quite the head scratcher.

• Indeed . It takes a village... SusunW (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A couple cases of unclear prose. Should be easily fixed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All good on the MOS.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   References are impeccably formatted.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   All sources are reliable and every section of text has an inline citation. Assuming Good Faith on Vietnamese language sources.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Had a couple verification issues, largely in the politics section. Assuming Good Faith on Vietnamese language sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig hasn't found any issues, nor have I on spot-checks.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Everything I'd expect to be covered has been. No big gaps in the timeline anywhere.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   One small case where I think it over-contextualises on what her father is doing, but easily cut/moved.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   A couple marginal cases where I think it edges into non-neutrality, but should be easily fixed.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No major changes since it was nominated for GAN. Only reversion was over a category.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   All images are in the public domain, with valid rationales - published in the early 1970s without a copyright notice.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All images are relevant to the subject. They are suitably captioned, although alt text should be provided for the two in the "Career" section.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @SusunW, @Ipigott, @GRuban: Excellent work on this article, as always! There's a few minor issues I've found that have held me back from quick-passing this, but I think they should be easily dealt with. Ping me when you've addressed my comments and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst I think I have answered everything, but am open to discussing anything. Thank you so much for helping to improve the article. Let me know if I need to address anything further. SusunW (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

SusunW All good! Thanks for seeing to everything so promptly. All my concerns have been addressed, so I'm more than happy to pass this now. Fantastic work! :D --Grnrchst (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.