Template talk:History of Vietnam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


An anonymous user keeps making unnecessary additions this template. The period before history was written down, by definition, is "prehistory" and does not belong in "history". The Hong Bang section barely fits the description of "history" because there is no evidence of it. DHN 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

  • To the anonymous user who wants this page unprotected. Please discuss here and state your reasons for making the changes that you made. DHN 01:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, anything prior to Hong Bang Dynasty should be included in a Prehistoric Southeast Asia article. Yellowtailshark 08:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Trần Dynasty[edit]

I need someone to change "Later Trần Dynasty" to "Posterior Trần Dynasty". I just finish the page "Talk:Vietnam during the Great War", unfortunately it's a talk page, can you make it become an official article, because I can't log in.

Done. DHN 05:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but: what's about my second request?

Already done. DHN 06:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Domination / Northern Dependency[edit]

Thank again! And I want change something may be not important, I want to use the name "Union of Indochina" instead of "French Indochina", even though they're the same. Also, the Vietnamese word "Bắc thuộc" in the dictionary, it really means "Northern dependency" or "Northern domination", and sometime it is also translated as "Period of domination by Northern invaders". So, may you change all 4 period of "Chinese domination" become "Northern dependency" or "Northern domination", ex. "First Northern domination". I tell you my idea, I don't want to use any name from foreign countries in this Vietnamese template.

"Northern domination" might be understandable in Vietnamese context, but in English the reader might not know who the "northerners" are. Saying "Northern domination" is also not neutral, since it's clearly in the POV of the Vietnamese. Saying "Chinese domination" makes it perfectly clear who the invaders are and does not use anyone's POV. DHN 04:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Union of Indochina; World War I[edit]

I would like to change the name "French Indochina" to "Union of Indochina" and add Great War (1914 - 1918) into the template. 05:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to rename that page first. Standard Wikipedia practice links directly, not to redirects. As discussed ad naseum in the Vietnamese Wikipedia, the two world wars have limited effect in Vietnam and are not considered periods in Vietnamese history by mainstream historians. DHN 06:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! Then "Lady Triệu's Rebellion and Mai Hắc Đế are also not periods but events. But I can tell you real reason why I want to add 2 world wars.

"Trung Queen"[edit]

It is a name that is unsupported by literature (in particular, nothing in the Trung Sisters article itself suggested the use of "Trung Queen" is accepted). --Nlu (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

About the Trieu dynasty[edit]

Can we all please stop pretending that everyone believes that the Trieu dynsaty was a period of Chinese domination? The template as it stands does not reflect reality. There are still history books out there that list the Trieu dynasty as a Vietnamese dynasty. So would be all right to fix the template to reflect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Governments[edit]

Do we recognize the dates when the government was in power, or when it existed? Yellowtailshark (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for when it was in power. But then it gets muddy in some instances, like the Later Le Dynasty and the Mac Dynasty, who competed for power in different regions. I'm sure the PRG also held power in areas in the South during various stages of the war. DHN (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct dates[edit]

According to vi:Bắc thuộc, the first Chinese domination started in 111 BC, the Later Le Dynasty ended in 1527 and continued in 1533, the DRVN last continuously until 1976 and there is no interruption. Although in 1949 the State of Vietnam was formed, but the DRVN still existed, both declared themselves the governments of VN, there's no boundary between 2 gov. until 1954. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vietanmese vi:Bắc thuộc article's history template shows Bắc thuộc lần I (207 TCN - 40) and Nhà Triệu (207 - 111 TCN), which is similar to the template's dating before you started to change it.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha ha. Don't you realized that template is nonsense and wrong. Also there are several discussions about it in the talk page in Vietnamese wiki, but no one answers, those administrators in Vietnamese wiki had lock the temple for themselves so nominal users can't edit. So it's wrong, why should we copy it. Many Vietnamese historical books also said that Bắc thuộc lần I (first Chinese domination) started in 111 BC, which means Trieu Dynasty is an independence dynasty ruling Vietnam, (ex: Việt Nam lược sử by Trần Trọng Kim 1919, the template in Dutch also said started in 111 BC). Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Kinh Duong Vuong probably should be ignored for the time being. This user has been suspected of sockpuppetry and a case will be brought against him soon. David873 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


Does any RS refer to the post-1945 period as "Republic"? It strikes me as an unusual terminology. There should separate entries for 1945-1975 and post-1975. Kauffner (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I don't understand the problem with pipelinks. But I can take them out if there is no objection to the other changes. Kauffner (talk) 10:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Change 1 - the reason Hồng Bàng is divided is because it links to Timeline of Vietnamese history#Early Hồng Bàng etc.
Change 2 - the stripping of Vietnamese names - should have been mentioned in edit summary as per DHN's comment on revert.
Change 3 - splitting S and N Vietnam, may be useful. But the rest links to Timeline of Vietnamese history where 45-76 is missing needs making. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my. This is a surprise. Don't tell me. I want to guess. You worked on Vietnamese archaeology in the late 1950s? Kauffner (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Kauffner, User:P.T. Aufrette described your tone of speaking with other editors as "snark". Do you realise how the way you talk to other users sounds? Yes, I have created and worked on WP Vietnam's history and prehistory articles, but the reason I reverted you was because you were edit warring, and because the changes you were making were detrimental to the template. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps he doesn't have to deal with the level of harassment that I get. Kauffner (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You're not being "harassed" you've been reverted for edit warring and because changes 1 and 2 were detrimental to the template. The 3rd set of changes would contribute to the template, even though the timeline article the template links to is missing the 1945-1976 sections. You're more than welcome to add back in this 3rd set of changes:
Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No Partition of Vietnam. Vietnam had been divided several times in its history: during the 12-Warlord period, the Le-Mac division, Trinh-Nguyen division, Tay Son-Trinh-Nguyen division. The 20th century division is NOT the most precious one of its kind to be in the template. No need N-S Vietnam and Socialist Republic either because we already have the super article History of Vietnam since 1945.
I took this idea from {{History of Egypt}}. Since 1953 proclamation of the republic, Egypt has had been know as Republic of Egypt (1953–1958), United Arab Republic 1958–1971, and afterwards Arab Republic of Egypt. But there no need to fill out all different governments/country names. The most useful idea to simplify the template is only to put History of the Republic of Egypt. Same for {{History of Syria}}. The article Modern history of Syria also mentions most of the whole thing.
I want to keep all period balanced. The Hong Bang period, right away, go all the way for more than 2000 years. But all the other periods last no more than 550 years. So I divided up the Hong Bang period to maintain the almost same lengths.
Furthermore, keep the diacritics and capitalizing "dynasty". Waorca (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Waorca, thank you for your work on this template/these articles. I fully agree with all the above: No Partition of Vietnam. I didn't know who made the Hong Bang division, but I could see immediately that dividing 2000 years made good sense. Common sense, and the comparison with the Egypt template is reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Periods that are of greater interest should be covered in greater detail. Doesn't everyone realize that a huge percentage of the interest in Vietnam relates to the war? In Vietnamese usage, the republic is South Vietnam. It doesn't matter how the Syrians or Egyptians do it. The Hong Bang dynasty lasted 2000 years? Trời ơi! The Hung kings are a story for children, all about kings who ruled for 150 years each, dragon lords, immoral fairies, and babies who were hatched from eggs. As far as capitalizing "dynasty" goes, I wrote about that here. Kauffner (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
And I don't see the 20th century and the war are greater periods here. The only reason people treat it great and importance is ONLY because....................it recently happened in the previous century. 500 or 1000 years later, I bet nobody gonna treats the 20th century greater anymore. They say "Việt Nam Cộng hòa" to prefer to South Vietnam, yes. And "Cộng hòa" alone doesn't simply refer to that state.
Check out Sumerian King List. A king ruled for 28,800 years? Holy god. A king ruled for 36,000 years? You'd gotta be kidding me. And also Egyptian mythology. See, even well-know civilizations like Sumer and Egypt has some child-style stuffs. So it's no exception when the history of Hong Bang is mixed with some legends.
According to your past comments about the word "dynasty". You did mention Chinese dynasties. I challenge you to decapitalize the word "dynasty" in {{History of China}}. Then I'm pretty sure some extremist guardians of that template will revert immediately. The same occurs here. Waorca (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Golly, who could this be? I know you’ve heard it all before, but since you’re pretending to be someone new, I’ll play along: Using Viet-lish doesn’t make a patriotic statement. It just makes people think you can’t write English correctly. Viet Nam News knows that “dynasty” is supposed be lower cased, and that the names of Vietnamese dynasties should be given without diacritics. The chart should look the way it might if it appeared in a reference work edited by professional copy editors who follow style guides, without idiosyncratic spellings and capitalizations. Kauffner (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
"Who could I be" doesn't matter. The only matter is that I don't abuse multiple accounts in a same article/page/template. Did you read my words carefully? I told you to go ahead with your desire and decapitalize the word "dynasty" in {{History of China}} and then you will meet with opposition from some extremist protectors of that template. Here is no exception. There are still countless articles out there with capitalizing "dynasty". Waorca (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility issues[edit]

this sidebar is currently using colouring to distinguish between BC and AD, which is problematic for screen readers and the colour blind. I plan to fix this in a moment. Frietjes (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your version is better. Thanks for fixing it! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The background colouring is a bit much, we should consider removing that as well. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes it better when it makes the template wider? Oh wait, all u discuss is about the color, nothing about the style. ༆ (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
nice edit warring, a block may come shortly if you continue. Frietjes (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Frietjes, the one who suddenly appeared and changed new skin is the one who started the war. B4 u came here, everything was fine, isn't it?????? ༆ (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)