This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Doesn't the term "mountains and rivers" actually mean "land" or "country" in most East Asian languages? Badagnani (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "sơn hà" or "non nước" is usually used to mean "land". This article's name seemed to have been created by someone with limited grasp of English. Personally, I'd prefer "Nam quoc son ha". DHN (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no official translation of this poem, so a English title for a old Vietnamese poem is unnecessary. I suggest renaming this article to Nam quốc sơn hà. Please voice your idea.--AM(talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anyone who is monitoring this page?--AM(talk) 15:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was moved. I'm inclined to relist, but given that the discussion has already been relisted, I can't see that it would do much good. Where that leaves us is a title that, as far as I can see, no one supports. This leaves us with three editors in favor of the proposed title, two favoring a translated title, and one more favoring either of those options. It's not much to go by. So for now, the article is moved as requested, but this should not preclude another RM regarding a translation if desired. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is dealt with above by User:DHN in Talk above, "mountains and rivers" is a euphemism for "land" hence Brown & Ganguly 2003 translate as "Land of the Southern Kingdom." - one of many possible English translations, therefore it is better to avoid variations and keep the original, on which everyone agrees. The search above shows again failure of Google OCR to pick up diacritical marks, but click through on sources in article and they are there in original. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I notice that Brown & Ganguly doesn't use diacritics. Must be a low-quality source. You realize that the primary source is in diacritics-free Chinese, and not in Vietnamese? Pretty much everything can be translated in more than one way. This argument is just a dodge around the "use English" principle. Kauffner (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
In response to the accusations made against me in the nomination, I note that the current title is the one the article was originally created with. It does not appear that it was ever RM'd to something else. Kauffner (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Scroll up, see discussion above. The title arrived where it was by a process of discussion. No one asked you to undiscuss move and lock it. Now please, let other Users have a say. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
An English-language version of the title would be more useful to our readers. Even though there is no standard English name for this poem and the translations vary, they're all much the same:
In fact most English-language sources don't give it a name; they just plunge straight into an English translation of the first line, 南國山河南帝居, of whose first 4 characters the above are reasonably literal translations. We should just pick one and redirect from the others. Kanguole 23:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Kanguole, I understand your first choice, though neither of those two sources looks particularly standard, this is usually referred to in Vietnamese. But for the record, what is your response to the actual RM as proposed to restore as other Vietnamese text articles (even it is not your first choice). Note that Vietnamese is not Chinese (even though this text is originally written by Vietnamese in Chinese). Vietnamese is a Latin language like French or Polish, and it is not common in academic sources to translate very ancient Vietnamese book titles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I realize that diacritics are of great importance to some, but in this case both versions are approximately equally unhelpful to our English-speaking readers. In fact it is quite common for sources aimed at an English-speaking readership to use translations of the titles of similar works, such as the Call to the Officers of the Army, the Great Proclamation upon the Pacification of the Wu and the Address to the Army, all similar statements of Vietnamese resistance to Chinese aggression written in Literary Chinese. (These are from DeFrancis (1977), the survey of Vietnamese writing that everyone cites.) As I mentioned above, most English-language sources don't give this 28-character poem a name, but just give the whole thing or the first line in English translation, invariably starting with some combination of "mountains" (山), "rivers" (河), "south(ern)" (南) and "land/country/empire" (國). A name like "Mountains and Rivers of the Southern Country" would be recognizable to anyone who knows the poem under any of the minor variations one encounters. Kanguole 10:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Kanguole, as above I completely understand your first choice. What is your second choice? Of the two remaining options - Vietnamese or ASCII? - Which is more helpful to readers with an interest in Vietnamese ancient poems? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
You know what? Procedural rename without prejudice towards a later move request. I can't stomach the moving/locking deal--I'm not perfect either, but things like this should be undone ASAP. RedSlash 07:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Between RMs, ANI, SPI, and admin user talk pages, we must be up to 40 or 50 forums by now where IIO shopped the issue of the page moves I made years ago. He wasn't involved in Vietnam-related issues at that time. The only reason he knows about this stuff is because he researched my edit history later on looking for dirt. You'd think I was running for public office. Anyway, here are the post-1980 English-language GBook hits:
Vietnam "Mountains and rivers of the South" -wikipedia : 172
Vietnam "Nam quốc sơn hà" -wikipedia : 6 (These are misclassified Vietnamese-language books)
Vietnam "Mountains and Rivers of the Empire of the South" -wikipedia : 6
Vietnam "Mountains and Rivers of the Southern Country" -wikipedia : 2Kauffner (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Request close - leaving aside the lack of an apology for being caught and blocked for socking above, that is 4 for restoring Nam quốc sơn hà in line with WP:BRD, with previous RMs, with RfC, consistent with Category:Vietnamese history texts and Category:Vietnamese poems. Can an admin close please? That will clear the way for anyone to propose an RM if they want to move the article using legitimate community process if they wish to do so. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
The comments above strongly suggest that this RM was presented in bad faith, for use as yet another forum for IIO's vendetta against me. Wikipedia has over a thousand admins. Just keep going from one to another with whatever your new accusations are. Somebody will bite, I'm sure. Kauffner (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
1. Again no hint of an apology for being caught and blocked for making exactly these kind of moves and locks while socking only 1 week ago.
2. there is no bad faith here, an article was controversially undiscussed moved and locked contrary to consistency with the other articles. By rights a technical restore would have been reasonable.
3. "caught vandalizing" is a somewhat loaded description for restoring a "[historical]" tag on what is a 1-man essay masquerading as an adopted guideline contrary to RfCs and RMs. Alternatively the earlier "[draft]" tag could have been restored.
Whadayouknow, another IIO post bashing me over issues that are way off topic here. There must be thousands of these by now. As far as my block goes, I notice that you approached Rschen, but he didn't see things your way. But, hey, that was no biggie. Because there is always another admin you can ask. That's why we have so many admins, isn't it? Kauffner (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the second revision of Nam quốc sơn hà, so if someone wants to move this back per BRD, then that's probably the simplest answer. Kauffner can start a new RM if he wishes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how one title is any more "BRD" than the other. You are encouraging someone to preempt the RM? Why do we even have RMs? Kauffner (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do we even have RMs? In this case the RM is because you went back and locked the move preventing WP:BRD, in the same fashion as the new series of undiscussed moves and redirect locks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner for which you were blocked again a couple of weeks ago. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Can the next passer by please close and get this done. Admin MSGJ has fixed it so anyone can close. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.