Talk:Nguyễn Văn Thuận

Neutrality Disputed

I have placed the neutrality and factual accuracy warning at the top of this article. It reads like something from a Diem Government newspaper in 1963, not like a Wikipedia article. It is more or less a straightforward Vietnamese Catholic propaganda piece. Writtenright 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

Could you please specify the passages in the article, which seem to you as lacking neutrality? If there are some (I can not find any personal judgements in the article), they could be rewrited.Ans-mo 07:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also dispute accuracy.... ordained a priest at 12 years of age? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nguyễn Văn Thuận. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1407591/Cardinal-Nguyen-Van-Thuan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606064013/http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25397 to http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25397
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607224515/http://www.zenit.org/article-22959?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-22959?l=english
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rc.net/southwark/londonbridge-lasalette/Lavang.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Phanxicô Xaviê Nguyễn Văn Thuận.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Phanxicô Xaviê Nguyễn Văn Thuận.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Use of "Roman Catholic" in the article

The article frequently refers to Cardinal Văn Thuận, his diocese, etc. as "Roman Catholic." The "Roman" qualifier is fine for distinguishing the actual see in Rome from other sees, or the Roman rite from other rites, but it's especially confusing in this article because Cardinal Văn Thuận is Vietnamese, not Roman. The article refers to him elsewhere as a Vietnamese Catholic. This is the qualifier that should be used, if any qualifier is used at all. Otherwise, he and his diocese should be called Catholic, since the official name of the organization to which he and his diocese belong is the Catholic Church. Using the "Roman" qualifier in such a nebulous way runs the risk of suggesting pejorative or political implications.

Edit: To be clear, I'm aware that a few documents from the 20th century use this qualifier in somewhat similar ways, but it is by far the less common self-designation, and is virtually nonexistent in recent decades. Broadly speaking, in English media, "Roman Catholic" is an exonym often chosen for its specific connotations. Catholics themselves, and especially Catholics outside the Anglosphere, are immensely more likely to call themselves "Catholic" than "Roman Catholic." Needless to say, Wikipedia should respect their self-designation unless there's a pressing encyclopedic interest in rejecting it.

Also, the Wikipedia article for the Catholic Church is called Catholic Church, and the "Roman Catholic Church" is only mentioned in the lede as another name by which it is known. The article itself discusses this controversy. So Wikipedia readers who aren't already familiar with the terms will be confused, since Wikipedia refers to the same entity with different names.

And one of those names only constitutes an additional adjective, which makes it seem like it's a narrower subset of the other group; after all, that's what "Vietnamese Catholic Church" generally means. It's just a regional subset of the Catholic Church proper. But "Roman Catholic Church" is used in this article to refer to the Catholic Church as a whole, since it describes Cardinal Văn Thuận as a member of it. He can't be both a Roman Catholic and a Vietnamese Catholic unless 1) he has some hitherto-unknown ancient Roman heritage; or 2) the phrase "Roman Catholic" refers to the same group as "Catholic."

Clearly, the addition of "Roman" to the name does not change its referent; it only changes the political and religious connotations. And that's essentially what Wikipedia itself says on the Catholic Church article. So the distinction would only be useful for someone who denies that the "Roman Catholic Church" is the actual Catholic Church, which is an idea only expressed in some fringe religious invective; not any kind of scholarly minority opinion. —Aminomancer (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)