From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China / History (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Southeast Asia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Hong Kong (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Macau (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Former countries (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon

The name "Vietnam"[edit]

Nlu added:
(However, it has also been stated that the name "Vietnam" was derived from a combination of Quảng Nam Quốc (the domain of the Nguyen Lords, from whom the Nguyen Dynasty descended) and Đại Việt (which the first emperor of the Nguyen Dynasty, Gia Long, conquered). (See, e.g., Bo Yang, Outlines of the History of the Chinese (中國人史綱), vol. 2, pp. 880-881.))
The "Việt" in Đại Việt is derived from "Nam Việt", so even if this theory is true it would still be valid to say that "Vietnam" is derived from Nam Việt. But there are two distinct meanings of "Nam" involved here. The "Nam" in "Quảng Nam Quốc" means the southern part of Vietnam, but the "nam" in Vietnam is understood to mean the entire nation, viewed as being south of China. In the poem Nam quốc sơn hà, dated 1077, Nam quốc (southern nation) is a poetic name for Vietnam. If the "nam" in Vietnam is from "Nam Quốc", which is certainly the usual explanation among Vietnamese, it would mean that both syllables of Vietnam are ultimately from "Nam Việt".
Bo Yang's account assumes that Gia Long came up with the name Vietnam by combining the names of the earlier northern and southern states. But we know this is not how the name originated. It was used earlier, for example by poet Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm in the 16th century -- and Khiêm's poetry certainly had a bigger influence on modern usage than Gia Long. Here is a reference, but unfortunately it is in Vietnamese only. Kauffner (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Kauffner, you yourself admitted that Nanyue was founded before chinese civilization or vocabulary and writing got into vietnamese culture. It is clear that the name "Nan Yue" itself, is a chinese invention, since why would the Vietnamse name THEMSELVES "southern" viet? Because only from the chinese perspective is Vietnam south. The vietnamese would have logically viewed themselves as the center. "Nanyue" or "Nam Viet" clearly originates the Chinese language and not whatever Vietanemse people spoke a the time. So when Zhao Tuo named his kingdom it is clearly from a chinese perspective, not vietnamese.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And by the way Kauffner, the modern state of Ghana has almost absolutely nothing to do with the ancient Ghana Empire, they stole the name and appropiated it to their own country even though the people and land were far apart from the modern state of ghana.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
In ancient times there were two Yuè kingdoms, Nányuè and Mǐnyuè, and Nányuè was south of Mǐnyuè. So 南/nán/nam was not originally a reference to China. Sima Qian gives the name of the kingdom as simply "Yuè", so perhaps "nán" is a disambiguator rather than an official part of the name. Regardless of where the name came from, Vietnamese do associate their country with the direction south and have done so for a long time. Everyone is south of one thing and at the same time north of another, so this sort of thing is entirely subjective. But Vietnamese are hardly the only ones to associate their identity with a direction. Europeans consider themselves "the West", Canadians are "North Americans", and the Russians think of themselves as eastern Europeans, "the south" is a euphemism for poor countries, etc. Since there are four directions, to identify with one is not as exualted as identifying with the center, but it is still claiming a place at the top table. In this case, it puts Vietnam on the same level as China, at least linguistically. Kauffner (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

(unident) Kaufner, I don't know how you are getting the assertion "Sima Qian gives the name of the kingdom as simply 'Yuè[.]'" The plain text is quite contrary. (See Records of the Grand Historian, vol. 113 [referring to "Nanyue" throughout].) Again, I find your logic throughout this discussion, trying to justify a reading that Nanyue was a primarily Vietnamese, rather than one that was mixed Chinese/Vietnamese in its legacy, to be strained and untenable. Let history be history and not nationalist propaganda. --Nlu (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I have stated more than once already that I would classify Nányuè/Nam Việt/Nam Yut as a proto-Cantonese and Việt state and thus neither Chinese nor Vietnamese. I can only read the English translation, but this is from Shǐjì 97: "In the end Master Lu [Lǔ Jiā] awarded [Zhào Tuō] the title of king of Yue and persuaded him to acknowledge allegiance to the Han and enter relations with it." (Records of the Grand Historian: Han Dynasty I by Sima Qian, Burton Watson, p. 226) This hardly the only example of the kingdom being referred to "Yuè" -- and this passage gives the sense that it is an official name. Kauffner (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
That quote came from the biography of Lu Jia, not the volume that is specifically on the history of Nanyue. I would say that the volume in question that I cited (113) which was the history of Nanyue, is the more reliable reference here. (Not only this, but even in the same biography of Lu Jia, an earlier quote was this: "高祖使陸賈賜尉他印為南越王", which would be, "Gaozu commissioned Lu Jia to bestow the seal of King of Nanyue on Weita (which apparently was an alternative name for Zhao Tuo).) If you're going to use one quote, you have to use both; don't selectively choose the one that supports your position. --Nlu (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: in User:Nlu's translation the Wèi Tuō (not "Weita") means "Governor [Zhao] Tuo", a reference to his position as leader of the Commandery of Nanyue.  White Whirlwind  咨  09:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please translate越國 and - China into English. The term 越 are a board term that was used by the ancient Chinese people (ie 華族) of whom lived in what we now call the northern China to describ the people that lived in the lands to the south of 華. The term 越 wasn't refer to a single group of people but a simple generalisation of what we now call southern China. 南越 have nothing to do with 越南. The capital of 南越 wasn't located in 越南 but are in facts located in what we now call the modern day city of Guangzhou. Please read or just google for Nanyue palace and you will understand is the people of 南越 Cantonese or Vietnamese? Also there is a district in Guangzhou that is call 越秀区 as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

China claim[edit]

Nam Viet was founded separately from China when China north of Nam Viet was under Han control. Much of the territory today lies under China of today, but during the time of Nam Viet's founding of the Viet tribes then were in unclaimed territory. Chinese apologist like to claim this and that but the name of the page should be Nam Viet as per encyclopedic standards. This page is not worth referencing because of that alone. To claim the Viet History template should fall under Trieu section is the claim of Chinese apologists. Please discuss here. Tiladkransin (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Both Britannica and Encarta give this subject "Nam Viet." "Nanyue" follows modern northern Chinese pronunciation. The ancient state was Cantonese/Vietnamese. "Nanyue" is also the name of mountain and a temple in Hunan which are quite well-known in China, so the google results can be misleading. Kauffner (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me asked you a question, did you changed anything significant? None. So why is there a need to move around the templates? Putting Vietnam template next to Zhao Mo sounds fine to me. Also, this map was based from 参照《中国历史地图集》(谭其骧主编,中国地图出版社出版,1982年). No so Original content as you claimed. It's even shown here Also we have been through the talks of the title. It's over. unless you want to merge this with Zhao Dynasty which many of you blocked. --LLTimes (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask you, if the Vietnam template were put above the Chinese would you move it? Exactly, it should be on the same level. Apologists on wiki are pathetic, the truth is out there for everyone to see. You apologists are just making yourselves look foolish.Tiladkransin (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, apologists like to keep this page in pinyin to make it look more like Chinese history when in fact China existed separately in the north of the Yangtze River. This is an english page and should follow the encyclopedic form. The map is not up to par with academia and flickr is not a better source than Britannica. End of story. Nam Viet was founded in 204 BC and to put the Chinese template first, then the Vietnamese template below is trying to imply that Nam Viet was founded later. Foolishness from Chinese apologists.Tiladkransin (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Tiladkrasin that the article's main title should be renamed "Nam Viet", as from my experience the name "Nam Viet" is a much more common name for the kingdom than the name "Nan Yue". So, changing the article's main title to "Nam Viet" would make this article more recognizable to fellow readers. The name "Nan Yue" also implies that this was a "Chinese" kingdom when it's not, remember the Chinese (original Han, Mandarin-speaking) nation only spanned over current-day northern and central China at that time, what's now southern China had a few indigenous kingdoms, including Nam Viet. As well, even though Nam Viet did have some ethnic Han Chinese immigrants living there and the kingdom was gradually "Sinocized" in culture, the people, the main language, and overall culture was still Yue/Viet. The western and southern Yue/Viet would (along with the Lac peoples) form today's Vietnamese people. Northern and eastern Yue/Viet will become assimilated and intermarry with Han Chinese to form today's Cantonese Han Chinese. Given that Nam Viet helped to give rise to an entire nation and people, the Vietnamese, rather than just form a small region of another (China), the article's main title should be changed to Nam Viet. Just because Nam Viet was somewhat Sinocized throughout it's existance, NOT assimilated DURING its existence, it cannot be classified as a "Chinese" nation, as other countries in the Sinosphere (Vietnam, Korea) were also to a degree Sinocized themselves, yet with their independence, separate distinct culture, separate distinct language, separate distinct ethnicity, and separate distinct identity, can they still be called a "Chinese" nation? Northern Vietnam and northern Korea, and Mongolia, were a part of the Chinese empire at some time in it's history, yet can they still be called a Chinese nation? As well, just because Han Chinese from the north immigrated to Nam Viet and settled there, just as how Han Chinese have immigrated to other nations like Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore (even forming the majority in Singapore), does it justify in calling all these countries "Chinese"? The name Nan Yue should stay, like in the first line in the first paragraph for example, but the main article's name and title should be changed to Nam Viet. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner's logic is illogical, because neither the Vietnamese, Cantonese, nor Mandarin pronunciations resemble the Old Chinese pronunciation which Zhao Tuo used to describe his kingdom. Nam is in fact a Chinese loanword in Vietnamese and certainly doesn't represent the ancient Vietnamese (Yue) pronunciation. The Old Chinese pronunciation, which was used by Zhao and his government, is gone and we don't know it. Mandarin is the descendant of Old Chinese, not Vietnamese. The fact remains that the majority of Nanyue is in China today so we use Mandarin. Genetic tests also reveal that the majority of the patrilineal (father's side) ancestry of Cantonese is northern Chinese. The Cantonese are descended mostly patrilineally from northern chinese immigrants to guangdong, like lots of hispanics in the Americas descending patrilineally from Spain. It doesn't matter that most of their blood is indigenous, their distant patrilineal spanish ancestry overshadows the rest. And Spanish is used in Mexico today, not Mayan, Olmec, Zapotec or Aztec.Rajmaan (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If we classify this entity as a Chinese state, it comes under the Wikiproject China guidelines, and therefore WP:PINYIN. But otherwise, it comes under guidelines like WP:EN and WP:WIAN, which recommend following the usage of the other encyclopedias and reference works. These generally use "Nam Viet". How the word was pronounced 2,000 years ago, or who is descended from who, doesn't have anything to do with it. Kauffner (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

about Prime Minister of Nanyue (Nam Việt)[edit]

According to Shiji, the prime minister of Nanyue (Nam Việt) is Lü Jia (呂嘉, Vietnamese: Lữ Gia) instead of Lu Jia (陸賈).--El caballero de los Leones (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Zh template[edit]

Don't use it. Pinyin is not a language on par with Cantonese; Cantonese Yale is not a language; etc. It may be in common use and its scriptor may refuse to improve it through the misguided notion that it only appears on Chinese-only pages, but there is never any reason to remove improvements to its (terrible) formatting. If you don't like my format, use the {{Chinese}} infobox. — LlywelynII 07:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll use whatever I deem most prudent, thanks all the same. If you have an issue with the template, you should raise it at Template talk:zh. If you don't get the support you're looking for over there, it might be a sign.
I'm not sure what your concern is regarding the templates' fields being "languages on par with" others. The template simply allows a concise listing of different romanizations as appropriate to the context.  White Whirlwind  咨  07:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that Vietnamese isn't a Romanization of Chinese. It's an entirely separate language, which we indicate by using semicolons. Similarly, the name of the language is Cantonese. Yale is just a romanization of that language and not Chinese or a separate language of its own. — LlywelynII 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: These are fairly obvious facts, and I'm still not sure what your concern is. Are you concerned that lay readers will interpret them incorrectly?  White Whirlwind  咨  17:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
They are obvious facts being misrepresented by the template. On this specific page, "Chinese", "Pinyin", "Cantonese Yale", and "Vietnamese" were being treated as semantically equivalent, which you seem to concede they are not. This is in violation of standard formatting across Wikipedia. Transliterations of Greek &c. do not bother with any link at all and just provide transliterations italicized next to their characters. Pinyin is completely standard on Wikipedia (and now even formally on Taiwan). I do agree the link is helpful for those curious about the tones and the letters not pronounced similarly to English; a link also obviates the need for {{IPA-cmn}} which sometimes unhelpfully appears. But in similar situations, {{lang-rus}} (sensibly) doesn't treat its romanization link as a separate language and it's an unhelpful local consensus that {{zh}} still does. That it's misguided was shown by the scriptor's rationale when I mooted the point: he felt it was unnecessary as Chinese "shows up by itself"... which (as here) is just untrue. It is, in fact, profoundly untrue since many areas within China pronounce the same characters differently. Confused readers could follow the links and clarify the issue, sure; that has no more relevance than that fact that you; CAN; understand; this; means it should be fine to follow every single word on a page with a semicolon or reformat them randomly to suit our mood. It's unhelpful, regardless.
All of that should mean that the template should be fixed. As it hasn't been and as the talk page of the template sees very little discussion and as the scriptor can't be arsed and as the MOS-ZH discussion was half on board, half "why bother", but too small to get it changed, it means that we should just correct uses of the template to something better. If you don't like my {{lang-rus}} style approach, {{Chinese}} is still vastly superior. In any case, we're here to improve the project. It's fine if neither of us wants to script a bot to correct all of the uses of this lousy template, but you shouldn't be actively returning to its use when it's been corrected.
But you mostly saw that and shunted things to the {{Chinese}} infobox; together, we've improved and greatly expanded the information provided. A side problem was the bolding that treated the Cantonese name as equally important and common in English; it isn't (not even remotely), and that misleading formatting is now gone while the information is still available for the curious. Things have been improved (good job). Further discussion here seems off-topic. (Technically, WP:MOS-ZH advocates not including the Chinese in the lead at all if it's already included [twice] in the infoboxes to the right but I'm not really interested in fighting you over it, since the main problems have been addressed.) — LlywelynII 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: Which specific standard formatting [policy] does it violate? I can't think of one myself.
You know, I thought this all sounded vaguely familiar... I went back and re-read the talk pages to find that this stems from your personal dissatisfaction expressed back in 2011 at Module_talk:Zh/Archive_1#Template_badly_constructed:_Should_use_commas.2C_not_semicolons (and, it seems, Template_talk:Bo#Wylie.2C_Semicolons).
I am in general agreement with your ideas on this, and actually have largely discontinued the use of {{zh}} in my own editing (I do something like " 'precious words' (wěizǐ 瑋字)..." as in the scholarly literature, adding ancient/dialect forms as appropriate), but I see no large-scale befuddlement of lay readers that would give me a compelling reason to go on some change crusade. In actuality, such moves tend to produce similar resentment as the actual Crusades did. Perhaps you should consider renewing a discussion of some updating and/or modifications to {{zh}} over at its talk page, maybe we'd get some more interest now.
P.S. Incidentally, that bit in the MoS that makes it sound like adding an infobox makes it so the lead doesn't need characters/pinyin is a very old edit (July 2004!) and I'm not at all convinced is correct. I personally think that retaining the characters is appropriate, though most other parameters I agree are much better off in an infobox.  White Whirlwind  咨  00:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not "personal dissatisfaction": it's just a badly-formatted template. That I'm actually right shows in how—despite being unpleasant enough that you feel you have to throw in gratuitous and inaccurate disparagements like that—you (and other editors that I've pointed out the problems to) do generally realize that they are problematic enough that it's better to look for a work around.
I'd personally support your following Wiki's standard gloss practice and format yours ({{lang|zh|{{linktext|瑋字}}}}, ''wěizǐ'') with or without the wiktionary link but it's not a major thing.
Like I said, this is the wrong forum for the rest of this discussion: none of it is about improving this page. I will ask, though, that before you push the kill switch on that accurate and helpful bit of MOS: try to note that it's completely correct.
  • If they are not immediately linked to Wiktionary, characters in the lead do not actually provide any improved functionality: any reader has the exact same characters available from two infoboxes, one of which is immediately to the right of the lead.
  • Any scholarly or hanzi-focused reader wanting more... will want more. They'll prefer to access the characters along with the rest of the info which is downpage in the infobox.
  • There's a very good argument to be made about putting the Chinese name infobox first before the other templates in Chinese pages. That's not what you're doing, though.
  • If you start to allow more into the lead, they'll just start adding back the rest of it to the lead as well. ("Yeah, but you also need..." "It's cultural chauvinism if this is here but...") Names with variant simplified characters will have people using {{zh}}. You'll even get the IPA added back. The whole point of the infobox is to make the information easily accessible without throwing unnecessary roadblocks into the running text.
There's a much better argument for removing the characters but keeping the tonal pinyin. You want that available but without any movement towards the eyesore Vietnamese pages have become. It's still better off in the infobox, although it should display by default. (The fact it doesn't already makes me think there may be political pushback from older editors, though.) — LlywelynII 13:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Glitch. And apologies. — LlywelynII 13:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)