Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tran Van Ba

Discussion moved from the project page. Votes have been copied and pasted back so they still show on VfD. This is something of an experiment aimed at reducing the length of VfD, comments on it to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion or my talk page. Andrewa 20:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vanity page by User:Tran Van Ba. He claims to be the His Excellency the Imperial Dragon of Ping Pong (or whatever it was), but appears not to have done anything notable except flood the wiki with lots of POV pages on Asian royalty who are "tirelessly campaigning for human rights", etc etc etc. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I am not an Imperial Dragon. ping 08:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment What he claims to be is "Chancellor of The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam to Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh." I see no reason why you should not state this claim correctly. I think the opening paragraph should be edited to read as follows. I considered doing this myself but decided that would be out of line. If you accept my suggestion, then please delete this comment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:17, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed rewording: He claims to be the Chancellor of The Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, but appears not to have done anything notable except flood the wiki with lots of POV pages on Asian royalty who are "tirelessly campaigning for human rights", etc etc etc.

NOT BEING TREATED FAIRLY BECAUSE I CONCENTRATE ON HISTORY OF ASIAN ROYALITY

This should not be tolerated here on Wikipedia Duncharris:"Dragon of Ping Pong (or whatever it was)" This is not acceptable and you do not have any standing once again.

I have served as the last Colonel-in-chief of Emperor Bao Dai's Imperial Guard, The Imperial Guard of That served Vietnam is over 1,000 years of history. This is a pivotal role that shaped Asian History and is the equivalent of any European men, that influence their Royalty.

The reason, my name appears also, I have been assigned the Chancellor of the Order of the Dragon of Annam, which is history that was first established in 14th of March 1886 in the ancient Vietnamese city of Hue, by His Majesty, The Imperial Emperor of Vietnam, Emperor Dong-Khanh, ancestor of the current Grand Master, His Imperial Highness Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh of Vietnam.

Why is it wrong to speak about Asian Royalty if it is lacking here on Wikipedia ?

Is it the case that Asian Royalty is inferior ?

Also human rights is a pivotal platfrom in Asia and Royals Families especially in Asia are involved with bring peace to their nation.

Just like other Royals in Europe what peace and prosperity in their country, ie. King Simon: Bulgaria, Prince Zog: Albania, King of Greece.

What is this a direct attack on Asians sir ?

This user has personally attack Asians on another deletion request that he propose now he has started another one.

Asian history and the Order of their countries are just as important as any other part of the world.

If you do not have interest in Asian Culture or Asian history of Royals that is your progative, but you are not being fair to other members that have interest.

Please take your personal attack and your insensitive remarks elesewhere it is not acceptable here. Duncharris:"Dragon of Ping Pong (or whatever it was), Asian royalty who are "but appears not to have done anything notable except flood the wiki with lots of POV pages on tirelessly campaigning for human rights", etc etc etc"

There is not claim to be Chancellor of the Order of Dragon of Annam, I am listed on the website: http://www.orderofthedragon.homestead.com/index.html as the Chancellor.

Please also see below for Duncharris insensitive remarks below please.

This is a Pattern of statements that should not be acceptable in todays society.

This is not Pre-Apartied nor Jim Crow laws.

Culture and History of one people belongs to the whole World ! Tran_van_ba14:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Stop it NOW. DO NOT accuse us of racism. Your behavior is not remotely acceptable, and if you are a decent human being, you will apologize to Dunc Harris right away for your unjust remarks. This is not a matter that I'm willing to trivialize or let you get away with. No vote. --Ardonik.talk() 18:28, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, Tran, but you're just not supposed to write articles about yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 18:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Gwalla is quite correct. Fire Star 19:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Note that anonymous User:198.26.120.13 deleted Dunc Harris's note on this page that there was an ongoing RfC on Tran Van Ba, replacing in with the copied and pasted screed below (it was actually pasted from the RfC page!) If any of our words are removed again, I'm reporting the IP to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I'm not in the mood to humor cranks this afternoon. --Ardonik.talk() 20:16, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Okay, there it is again. Well done, 198.26.120.13. --Ardonik.talk() 20:50, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

- We have a much bigger issue here than for a Vfd debate. see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tran Van Ba Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply Tran Van Ba

Duncharris has mistated facts presented here at this hearing. If you mistate facts at a hearing please throw this case out of court. He has no standing and his evidence is flawed. In the above paragraph he states " Royal families in Asia, who hold no power but appear to pretend to thrones." The Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League are not made of pretenders.

1. I checked H.R.M. King Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia is NOT a PRETENDER, he is the head of state.
2. Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is the Regent of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vientam.
3. Prince Mangkra Souvannaphouma of Laos has been involved with this country poltics for over 60 years and 30 of those years were in exile, HE IS NOT THE CROWN PRINCE, who lives in exile in France.
4. Prince Hso Khan Pha of Yawnghwe is the religious leader for his people the Shan similar to the Dali Lama.
5. Prince Shwebomin of Burma has been involved with Madame Marie de Roland-Peel, General Secretary of the British Committee for Free Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia & Burma for over 10 years, while living in exile in the United Kingdom to assist his country to honor the elections that Aung San Suu Kyi, who was elected Prime Minister in 1990 and freedom human rights for his people.
6. Rajah (Prince) Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah of Jaffna (Sri Lanka) has been involved in religious ceremonies and also advocating peaceful plans for his nation of Sri Lanka that has been at War with the Tamil Minorities for over 30 years.
7. Prince Norodom Ranariddh of Cambodia has been involved in politics once the Kingdom of Cambodia was established in 1993, for over 10 years which excludes him from taking the throne since

In closing, NONE OF THESE ROYALTY are pretenders, they are involved in politics within their country and also have aligned themselves within the Southeast Asia Imperial & Royal League to gather strength and support to work for human rights and freedom of speech, religion and liberty and rights for their countries.

There is no, statement that they want to be King, Where does the "Duncharris" get the idea that they are "PRETENDERS" ?

Sir, if these is not your concentration of knowledge please do some research before you present your case because you are not only wasting my time but others too. But if you want to learn more I have offered to bring some insightful knowlege to you, and offered you my email address so that I can recommend some reading material that can back up the factual basis.

Again, this is not factual statement like that above which he disrespect to Upstanding Gentlement that are working to serve their nations as Ambassadors of Peace and to fullfill their right to bring happiness to their people.

In Closing, I state that the other users that "Duncharris" refers to do not have a understanding of Asian Royalty I have served the Late Emperor Bao Dai and was his Colonel-in-Chief of his Imperial Guard and I not only have knowledge of many Royal Houses in Southeast Asia by first hand experiance I am also have been studying Southeast Asian Royalty for over the past 40 years.

I am just here to spread knowledge of all Southeast Asian culture and the people and the Royal Families play a pivotal role in their country lives to the broader world that do not have knowledge of it.

I wonder if I was writing about European Royality exiles that are seeking thrones or political peaceful agendas for their country such as King of Greece, King of Albania, Ramonov family, Duke of Paris, Italian Royalty, Romanian Royal Family, would this be a issue ?

Why is he making personal Attack and call these gentlemen Pretenders ? please answer ?

Why does he make slur against very prestigious Dragon of Annam of Vietnam that is in existance since 1812 ?

Why does he defame Asian men as Pretenders ?

Why are European Men of Royalty allowed to be biography here and not Asian Royalty ?

These are his statements he attack Asian ?

If these is not Racial motivated what is it ?

Culture and History of one people belongs to the whole World ! Tran_van_ba14:41, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran_van_ba 11:00, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Right now, nobody's taking you seriously, and I would really like for you to go away. --Ardonik.talk() 20:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
• If autobiography, delete. The page and most of the edits were done by User:Tran Van Ba. The similarity between this user's name and that of the subject of the article creates an impression that the article was written by Tran Van Ba, the subject of the article, himself. Long-established Wikipedia policy calls for deletion of autobiographies. This is completely separate from any issues about the importance of Asian royal families. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:10, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran Van Ba's racism accusations are nonsense. And until he calms down and stops foaming at the mouth, nobody is going to take him seriously. Delete. RickK 02:57, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete for being vanity/autobiography. If the subject deserves an article, let it be written by an unbiased and hopefully more reasonable third party. —Triskaideka 05:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Looks like the issue is about to resolve unexpectedly. Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Tran_Van_Ba. If Tran Van Ba is not real-life Tran Van Ba, then the "autobiography" argument is inapplicable. Mikkalai 08:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tran Van Ba, the term pretender (definition 2) to a throne simply means "one who sets forth a claim" to a throne the claimant does not (yet) occupy. Therefore the former royal families in Vietnam, Albania, Romania, France, Bulgaria etc. etc. (the list is almost infinite) are almost all pretenders to the respective national thrones. That is to say, those who wish to restore monarchy in those countries and see a pivotal roles for themselves in that monarchy are pretenders to the throne. In the South East Asia region, only the royal families of Cambodia, Thailand and Brunei and the governing sultan in Malaysia hold the throne in their countries.
Noone in here is waging a vendetta against you or against Asians. What is simply being reviewed here, is the Wikipediability of your article. And you may disagree with those feeling your article ought to be deleted all you want, but that is no reason for your attacking them. Besides, your rants are only working counterproductively, and I can't imagine that that is something you'd want.
My vote(s): If an autobiography, then delete, if a biography, then clean up. Aecis 16:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Comment edited afterwards)

Those interested in Tran Van Ba and the recent "revival" of the Order of the Dragon should read the correspondance on the [alt.talk.royalty] group. It would seem that Wikipedia is once again being used to present questionable claims as if they were unquestioned, and as a mean of publicising those claims. - Nunh-huh 20:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)