Talk:Names of Vietnam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Nam? Of wat?!

Does Nam (south) mean the south of The Han Realm (China/Central-Kingdom) or is it refering to something els? --82.134.154.25 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Yue.--刻意(Kèyì) 10:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
its also supposed to mean axe! but this is said nowhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.236.88 (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In ancient times, various peoples in southern China were also called called Việt, so the Vietnamese were the southern Việts. Later on, "Nam" was reinterpreted in sense of China as "the North" and Vietnam as "the South." The Chinese character for Việt is derived from the character for "axe", but this relates to phonetics and not to lexical meaning.[1] Kauffner (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of Chinese 越

I've removed the following sentence:

[The character 越] was derived by combining the pictogram 走 (pinyin: zǒu; literally "walk" or "leave") with the phonetic 戉 (pinyin: yuè; literally "battle-axe").

This is both irrelevant to the article and misleading. As the article explains, the character 越 is used here because it refers to the 百越 people, meaning "a hundred more" or more loosely "hundred tribes". The internal composition of the (much older) Chinese character 越 'more' has nothing to do with why the character appears in the name for Vietnam. This would be similar to an article on the name Washington stating that the character W is derived from two V's, to represent a new sound in Germanic. It's true, but not relevant to the origin of the name. Including this information about walking and battle-axes will lead people who don't know better to assume that this is a meaningful part of the name, chosen intentionally. Note also that if a reader is interested in the Chinese etymology, they can already click on the character 越 to get to Wiktionary. --Clearish (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cham name for Vietnam

The Cham called Vietnam Yavana or Yavanna. The word "Yuon" which is used to describe ethnic Vietnamese, may derive from Yavana.

http://www.phnompenhpost.com/national/ionia-vietnam

117 118 119

http://books.google.com/books?id=vH9uAAAAMAAJ&q=Yavana+vietnam&dq=Yavana+vietnam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FMkKUruaI-b_4AOCvYEQ&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCA

http://books.google.com/books?id=yaeESYegRXMC&pg=PA11&dq=Yavana+vietnam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FMkKUruaI-b_4AOCvYEQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Yavana%20vietnam&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=AJy2GXNxaxQC&pg=PA241&dq=Yavana+vietnam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FMkKUruaI-b_4AOCvYEQ&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Yavana%20vietnam&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=H1c1UIEVH9gC&pg=PA64&dq=Yavana+vietnam&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iMkKUo7RBfXE4AOr54CoDg&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=Yavana%20vietnam&f=false

http://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2009/Yuan%20and%20Mien.html

Yavana Kingdom

Zhongguo as name for vietnam during the nguyen

Nguyen Emperor Minh Mang claimed that the Vietnamese had the right to call themselves Han people 漢人

http://books.google.com/books?id=py5Xh0-pw18C&pg=PA115&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q5C3Sbe1iMoC&pg=PA209&dq=minh+mang+han&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cOZSUqPkLcbgyQHVzYD4AQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=minh%20mang%20han&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=2j6GNiMMc1oC&pg=PA474&dq=kinh+people+of+capital&hl=en&sa=X&ei=g7xJUs2iMoO48wSzq4GYBg&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=kinh%20people%20of%20capital&f=false

http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html

page 14

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89821/bria?sequence=1

Minh Mang called Vietnam "Zhongguo" 中國

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-asia&month=9906&week=e&msg=28mq4qDZEWt3sD%2B6t6h/lw&user=&pw=

Sinocentrism#Vietnam

http://books.google.com/books?id=LkTO2_-XDa8C&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Barbarian hostel incident

http://books.google.com/books?id=0LgSI9UQNpwC&pg=PA117&dq=Vietnamese+barbarian+hostel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8ZflU8mVFozNsQSduIKQCg&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Vietnamese%20barbarian%20hostel&f=false

Page 67

http://books.google.com/books?id=u6YKAQAAMAAJ&q=Vietnamese+barbarian+hostel&dq=Vietnamese+barbarian+hostel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8ZflU8mVFozNsQSduIKQCg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=u6YKAQAAMAAJ&q=Additionally,+with+the+adoption+of+Chinese+administration,+Vietnamese+leaders+and+elite+also+imported+more+Chinese+...+labeled+as+%22Vietnamese+Barbarians'+Hostel%22+The+outraged+ambassador+then+wrote+an+essay+called+%22On+Distinguishing++...&dq=Additionally,+with+the+adoption+of+Chinese+administration,+Vietnamese+leaders+and+elite+also+imported+more+Chinese+...+labeled+as+%22Vietnamese+Barbarians'+Hostel%22+The+outraged+ambassador+then+wrote+an+essay+called+%22On+Distinguishing++...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TpjlU9MX7syxBIKjgvAO&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

Pages 317 and 325

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-g-AQAAIAAJ&q=Vietnamese+barbarian+hostel&dq=Vietnamese+barbarian+hostel&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8ZflU8mVFozNsQSduIKQCg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBg

http://books.google.com/books?id=f-g-AQAAIAAJ&q=The+great+Shun+was+from+among+the+Eastern+Barbarians,+and+became+the+most+distinguished+of+the+Five+Emperors.+...+decorum.2%221+Le+Van+Hu'u+begau+this+passage+by+discussing+four+individuals+who+represent+two+kinds+of+people,+Efflorescents+and+Barbarians+—+that+is,+people+who+represented+the+two+main+divisions+of+the+world+that+Ly+Van+Phtfc+referred+to+in+his+response+to+the+derogatory+hostel+sign.&dq=The+great+Shun+was+from+among+the+Eastern+Barbarians,+and+became+the+most+distinguished+of+the+Five+Emperors.+...+decorum.2%221+Le+Van+Hu'u+begau+this+passage+by+discussing+four+individuals+who+represent+two+kinds+of+people,+Efflorescents+and+Barbarians+—+that+is,+people+who+represented+the+two+main+divisions+of+the+world+that+Ly+Van+Phtfc+referred+to+in+his+response+to+the+derogatory+hostel+sign.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lpjlU8ncE7fMsQT-uICYCg&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

page 325

http://khoavanhoc.edu.vn/attachments/381_Liam%20Kelley_%20Confucianism%20in%20Vietnam,%202006.pdf.

If you use these sources you could include this, though this name wasn't only claimed by Vietnam as Korea had also used it occasionally, so perhaps a note related the ambiguity of "Trung Quốc" (中國) and what the name means outside of just meaning "China". --Donald Trung (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The Jiaqing Emperor came up with the name Vietnam

The Jiaqing Emperor created the name "Vietnam" in 1803 in response to a request by the Gia Long Emperor to name his country Nam Viet.

http://books.google.com/books?id=0LgSI9UQNpwC&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q&f=false

18:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Vietnam's names in relation to China

Vietnam was called 'our country' or 'southern country'

"Narrating an Unequal Relationship: How Premodern Viet Literati Explained their Kingdom's Relationship with 'the North'"more by Le Minh Khai

http://www.academia.edu/3561498/_Narrating_an_Unequal_Relationship_How_Premodern_Viet_Literati_Explained_their_Kingdoms_Relationship_with_the_North_

Thank you, Wikipedia

   I find this article great for a last minute save. Thank you! Vietnam was my Google Drawings report, and I put ALL (/chaotic) names for Vietnam on it. 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)321721@studentswcsoh.org

= Comment for "Zhongguo as name for vietnam during the nguyen" 

Really? sounds like a name I know...

162.225.76.212 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)32173721@studentswcsoh.org

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Names of Vietnam. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

European and other names for Vietnam

I think that this article could use a section for various European names for Vietnam, for example the Dutch used the term "Quinam" and many Southeast Asians also had different names for Vietnam, for example "Kausangsin" in Khmer. But as this article now largely seems to include native names would these fall within its scope? --Donald Trung (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Annam

Is there any information on when most Western sources started replacing the term "Annam" with Vietnam, I found an American government report from 1946 that included terms like "Annam" and "the Annamese", so when did most countries switch to Vietnam? It might be important to note this switch as well. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The report about the first Vietnamese killed by an American soldier after World War II ended.
My bad, it was still 1945. But while the French were willing to accept the term "Vietnam" in 1947, they didn't seem to like it in 1946, did the rest of the world change with France? Or did others use the name earlier? --Donald Trung (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
According to Encyclopedia Britannica the name (Annam) wasn't ever used by the Annamese but in reality several contemporary documents list it as the correct translation of "Vietnam / Dainam" during the 19th (nineteenth) and early 20th (twentieth) century. I assume that in 1945 the word "Annam" stopped being an official translation but I couldn't find any non-Communist sources that did this before 1948. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Poetic names

Seeing the above comments, wouldn't it be wise to separate poetic names and official names, perhaps also separate the mentions of the name "Vietnam" to "Early references", "Etymology", Etc. While having separate sections about other (official) names and then adding unofficial names separately. For most of its history "Vietnam" wasn't its official name so it should not be presented as if it was a very common name before it was as it was just one of the many poetic names, but this article makes it read like "the people" desired the country to be called "Vietnam" for centuries before it did through neglecting other poetic names and over-emphasising the usage of "Vietnam". This isn't wrong if it was about the name "Vietnam" but it's about the names of Vietnam. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The Prophecies of Principal Graduate Trình

This is an extremely unrealiable source, because no one has try to verify if the prophecies was truly written by Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm, or if it was truly written in the 16th century. People just accept it as if it's an undeniable fact (it's not) --KomradeRice (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@KomradeRice:, plus in Gia Long's decision to create "Nam Việt" none of the supposed origins of the term "Việt Nam" were ever cited by contemporary sources, according to Lê Minh Khải. The problem with modern Vietnamese historiography is that a lot of it is based on "essentialisms", "inevitablisms", and other forms of projecting modern Việt Nam onto the past, kind of how modern South Vietnamese nationalists start anachronistically adding their symbols into the past in order to legitimise the current nationalistic discourse. Unfortunately until you can produce a reliable modern academic source that actually questions the validity of the claims made around this poem it cần't be removed. If you have such a source please add it and write why the modern claims are bullshit, I beg of you to do it because Wikipedia is currently used by too much ultra-nationalists to spread and/or repeat myths about Vietnamese history. --Donald Trung (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
@KomradeRice: & @Donald Trung:. There's this amateur researcher named Trương Thái Du (formerly a Marine Engineer) who compiled this list of attestations of the name 越南 (SV: Việt Nam; Mandarin: Yuènán). I think we can use Trương & Tích Dã (a commenter who's less nationalistic than Trương & who critiques Trương for nationalistically reading into the sources), not as sources, but as guides to the sources, which can be included in this wikipedia article.Erminwin (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Specifically the comment "Cũng có thể thấy ngoài tên gọi Việt Nam xuất hiện trong thơ văn để chỉ nước mình, người Đại Việt còn dùng tên gọi Nam Việt. Việt Nam hay Nam Việt chỉ là đảo lại lẫn nhau, nhưng thời Lí-Trần chỉ mang nghĩa là nước Việt ở phương nam, là một phần của nước Nam Việt xưa. Nhưng sang thời Nguyễn thì khác, tức là nói tên gọi Việt Nam đồng nghĩa với tên gọi Nam Việt, nhưng mang nghĩa là ghép giữ từ Việt Thường (越裳) và An Nam (安南) có từ thời nhà Nguyễn. Bởi thế ở cửa đền Hùng có câu văn rằng là 南越肇祖 – Nam Việt triệu tổ – Vị tổ mở đầu của nước Nam Việt. Câu văn ấy có nghĩa là vua Hùng họ Hồng Bàng là thủy tổ khai quốc của nước Nam Việt/Việt Nam là vùng đất An Nam và Việt Thường thời xưa." by the person in the comment section named "Tích Dã". I have actually seen this a few times referenced by historians and wanted to add this to the origins of "Việt Nam", as a name "Việt Nam" also doesn't mean "Southern Việt" but "South of the Việt" indicating that they are south of where "the Việt" live and could be used in numerous contexts referring to the historical 100 (one-hundred) Việt peoples, this name may have appeared poetically in many instances before 1804 but this wasn't unique either as many other poetic names were used for the country, it is just that people specifically look for "Việt Nam" because that is the modern name and try to retroactively justify its current usage by inserting it onto "the ancestors" by creating a link between the past and the present that more often than not isn't there or is merely coincidental. I think that by heavily focusing on the early usage of the term "Việt Nam" but neglecting similar poetic names that this article does its readers a disservice. The focus is fine, but the lack of other names that never became official from the same period could be expanded upon. Of course it would be difficult to compile how often a name was a used by analysing preserved ancient texts and inscriptions, but we could look for sources that clarify the names used by the historical polities themselves. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Annamese names

 

  • 遂交南方，為子孫基址 / Toại giao Nam phương, vị tử tôn trụ chỉ (Ứng Thiệu, Hán quan nghi ; Thái Bình ngự lãm chap. 157).
  • 南方曰蠻，雕題交阯 / Nam phương viết man, điêu đề giao chỉ (Lễ kí).
  • 其俗男女同川而浴，故曰交阯 / Kì tục nam nữ đồng xuyên nhi dục, cố viết giao chỉ (Hậu Hán thư, Nam man Tây Nam di ngoại truyện).
  • 交趾之地頗爲膏腴，徙民居之，始知播植，厥土惟黑壤，厥氣惟雄，故今稱其田為雄田，其民為雄民，有君長亦曰雄王，有輔佐焉亦曰雄侯，分其地以為雄將。（出南越志） (Thái Bình quảng kí).
  • 交趾昔未有郡縣之時，土地有雒田，其田從潮水上下，民墾食其田，因名為雒民，設雒王、雒侯，主諸郡縣。縣多為雒將，雒將銅印青綬 (Thủy kinh chú, Giao châu ngoại vực kí).
1. Legendary
Time Name Polity
2879 - 2524 BC Xích Quỷ, Thích Quỷ
Txiv
赤鬼 		Hồng Bàng clan - Kurung[1]
2524 - 258 BC Văn Lang[2], Mê Linh[3]
Minang[4][5], Maleng[6]
文郎, 麊泠 		Hồng Bàng clan - Kurung
257 - 207 BC Âu Lạc[7]
Urang?, Anak
甌雒, 甌駱 		Hồng Bàng clan - An Dương Vương[8]
40 - 43 Lĩnh Nam
Minang?, Maleng?
Niálâm, Niannang
嶺南, 麊泠 		Hồng Bàng clan - Turun[9]

I would argue that the entire section above this comment is likely fictional or was never used, this period in Vietnamese history is more of "a prehistory" that many modern Vietnamese scholars invent in order to give Vietnamese history "an ancient history like China", this is actually something Professor Liam Kelly (Lê Minh Khải) discusses in depth and he notes that prior to 1945 no serious Vietnamese historian viewed this "legendary period" as anything more than legends. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

2a. Official pre-1945
Brick Đại Việt quốc quân thành chuyên (大越國軍城塼) at ancient capital Tràng An.
Đại Nam nhất thống toàn đồ (大南ー統全圖) by Nguyễn dynasty in 1838.
Time Name Polity
204 BC - 111 BC Nam Việt [quốc]
南越[10] 		Triệu dynasty
111 BC - 938
1407 - 1427 		Giao Chỉ [xứ][11]
交址, 交阯, 交趾 		Chinese domination
203 - 544
602 - 607 		Giao châu
交州 		Chinese domination
544 - 602 Vạn Xuân [quốc]
萬春 		Anterior Lý dynasty
679 - 757
766 - 866 		An Nam [phủ]
安南 		Chinese domination
757 - 766 Trấn Nam [phủ]
鎮南 		Chinese domination
866 - 965 Tĩnh Hải [quân]
靜海 		Chinese domination
968 - 1054 Đại Cồ-việt [quốc][12]
大瞿越 		Đinh dynasty
Early Lê dynasty
Lý dynasty
1054 - 1400
1428 - 1804 		Đại Việt [quốc][13]
大越 		Lý dynasty
Trần dynasty
Hồ dynasty
Lê dynasty
Mạc dynasty
Tây Sơn dynasty
Nguyễn dynasty
1400 - 1407 Đại Ngu [quốc]
大虞 		Hồ dynasty
1804 - 1839 Việt Nam [quốc]
越南 		Nguyễn dynasty
1839 - 1945 Đại Nam [quốc]
大南[14] 		Nguyễn dynasty
2b. Official since 1945
  1. ^ Word Kurung or Khun [kʰǔn] (ᨡᩩᩁ, ᥑᥧᥢᥴ, ၶုၼ်, 𑜁𑜤𑜃𑜫, ຂຸນ, ខុណ, ខុន, ឃុន, ขุน, 君) means the "chief, lord, master, leader, ruler, administrator, person in authority, person in charge, monarch, sovereign..." in ancient Tai languages.
  2. ^ Arrcording professor Lê Văn Lan : Word văn-lang (urang) means the "people" in Malayo-Polynesian languages.
  3. ^ Shorto, H. A Mon-Khmer Comparative Dictionary, Ed. Paul Sidwell, 2006. #692. p. 217
  4. ^ As word Minangkabau.
  5. ^ Michel Ferlus. "Formation of Ethnonyms in Southeast Asia". 42nd International Conference on SinoTibetan Languages and Linguistics, Nov 2009, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2009. pp. 4-5
  6. ^ A. Dirk Moses (1 January 2008). Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History. Berghahn Books. pp. 209–. ISBN 978-1-84545-452-4. Archived from the original on 2008. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |archive-date= (help)
  7. ^ Old viewpoint (by professor Trần Quốc Vượng in North Vietnam about 1960-80s) : Word âu-lạc means the "country" or "núi nước" (Viet), "rú rác" (Muong).
  8. ^ Word an-dương (安陽) may be means "urang" or "oyang" in ancient Tai languages.
  9. ^ Turun Cicik (Trưng-trắc) and Turun Nyi (Trưng-nhị).
  10. ^ Norman, Jerry; Mei, Tsu-lin (1976). "The Austroasiatics in Ancient South China : Some Lexical Evidence". Monumenta Serica. 32: 274–301. doi:10.1080/02549948.1976.11731121.
  11. ^ Arcording professor Trần Như Vĩnh Lạc (Đoàn Thế Ngữ), word giao-chỉ (交址, 交阯, 交趾) may be Annamese pronounciation of the "Việt" (old as k'yượt, gượt, vượt, rượt, lướt).
  12. ^ Theo khảo cổ gia Nguyễn Thị Hậu, cồ-việt có thể tương ứng giao-chỉ về nghĩa, tức là đọc Việt (越) theo lối cổ. Vậy Đại Cồ-việt là 大越.
  13. ^ Theo bà Nguyễn Thị Hậu, đại-việt là sự giản hóa lối phát âm quốc danh Lý triều, nhưng nguyên nghĩa.
  14. ^ Elijah Coleman Bridgman; Samuel Wells Willaims (1847). The Chinese Repository. proprietors. pp. 584–.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:4802:131:4460:40DA:4057:DCD4:85A4 (talk • contribs)

Is there anything in this section that needs an improvement? Perhaps better splitting. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Poor grammar, pseudo-linguistics (like this one: "Arcording professor Trần Như Vĩnh Lạc (Đoàn Thế Ngữ), word giao-chỉ (交址, 交阯, 交趾) may be Annamese pronounciation of the "Việt" (old as k'yượt, gượt, vượt, rượt, lướt)."), & pushing claims which are not even accepted at the Vietnamese-language version of this page (e.g. The national name of "Lĩnh Nam" allegedly proclaimed by Queen Trưng Trắc). I deleted the whole section so it can't be misused again by ultra-nationalistic vandals. Erminwin (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I've restored the list that you've removed, I am actually willing to discuss the content here and prefer to see it directly. I don't think that we should be in the business of censoring misinformation if it's in talkspace, rather this is the exact place to discuss why it's wrong and should be excluded from the article. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Thing is, the vandals put the misinformation in here for ease of copy-pasting, their preferred method to continue their bad-faith vandalism. Erminwin (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the problem with "Ancient Vietnam" is that most of it is just speculative history or pure fiction, a lot of "Ancient Vietnam" was just made up with no direct references to any period before the Lạc. Regarding the more modern names, I know quite a bit about Vietnamese numismatics and regarding "Đại Nam đế quốc (大南帝國) or Empire d'Annam (1858? - 1945) : The diplomatic name and on the piastre." this is not true at all, while the term "Đại Nam đế quốc (大南帝國)" was used extensively on official government documents from the Nguyễn Dynasty under French domination, it wasn't ever used on its currency. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:. Good info. Also, I should not have overlooked the fact that Empire d'Annam was attested since at least 1829. Erminwin (talk) 06:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
3. Non-official
  • Việt Thường thị[1] (越常, 越嘗, 越裳氏) : The name of people who lived at the South of Nanling Mountains.
  • Nam Cương vực (南疆域) or Lĩnh Ngoại vực (嶺外域) : By the Sui-Tang dynasties which to difference the Lǐngnán.
  • Hoàng Việt quốc (皇越國) : The diplomatic name and on the old books. It means "Country Viet in the South".
  • An Nam quốc (安南國) or Giao Chỉ quốc (交趾國) : The calling by Viet people and foreigns.
  • Nam Việt quốc (南越國) : Nguyễn dynasty had proposed but Qing dynasty rebuffed.
  • Đại Huế quốc (大化國) : Request for changing national name in 1839 but emperor Nguyễn Thánh Tổ has refused. Huế/Hóa means Thanh Hóa, Thuận Hóa/Huế, giáo hóa (nurturing).
  • Đại Nam đế quốc (大南帝國) or Empire d'Annam (1858? - 1945) : The diplomatic name and on the piastre.* Union indochinoise (1887 - 1945), Fédération indochinoise (1947 - 1953) or Liên bang Đông Dương.
  • Đại Hùng đế quốc (大雄帝國, 30 August 1917 - 11 January 1918) : Only Thái Nguyên uprising.
  • Việt Nam dân quốc[2] (越南民國, 1929? - 1930) : Only Yên Bái mutiny.
  1. ^ 漢語大詞典編輯委員會，漢語大詞典編纂處，漢語大詞典，第九卷，p. 1115，上海辭書出版社，1992.
  2. ^ Stein Tonnesson, Hans Antlov, Asian Forms of the Nation, Routledge, 1996, pp. 117.

The "Non-official" section is somewhat problematic because it names proposed names together with Misattributed names and sometimes semi-official names, the problem isn't the list, it is that the list is misleadingly arranged. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC) 58.186.61.239 (talk) 05:10, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

A passage filled with unverified misinformation

"Trung Quốc" 中國, or the 'Middle Country', was also used as a name for Vietnam by Gia Long in 1805.[20] Minh Mang used the name "Trung Quốc" 中國 to call Vietnam.[24] Vietnamese Nguyen Emperor Minh Mạng sinicized ethnic minorities such as Cambodians, claimed the legacy of Confucianism and China's Han dynasty for Vietnam, and used the term Han people 漢人 to refer to the Vietnamese.[25] Minh Mang declared that "We must hope that their barbarian habits will be subconsciously dissipated, and that they will daily become more infected by Han [Sino-Vietnamese] customs."[26] This policies were directed at the Khmer and hill tribes.[27] The Nguyen lord Nguyen Phuc Chu had referred to Vietnamese as "Han people" in 1712 when differentiating between Vietnamese and Chams;[28] meanwhile, ethnic Chinese were referred to as Thanh nhân 清人 or Đường nhân 唐人.[29]


Here is that passage and it contains false information. In 1804 the name Việt Nam was used and recognized, but in the paragraph it was written Trung Quốc (China) and the following quotations were also from junk newspapers. I wonder if this article has been edited by the Chinese or here are all Chinese and uneducated people who write articles.


"Giáp Tý, Gia Long năm thứ 3 [1804] (nhà Thanh năm Gia Khánh thứ 9), mùa xuân, tháng Giêng, sứ nhà Thanh là Án sát Quảng Tây Tề Bố Sâm đến cửa Nam Quan. [Trước đó] mùa hạ năm Nhâm Tuất [1801], [Gia Long] sai Trịnh Hoài Đức vượt biển đưa những sắc ấn của Tây Sơn trả lại nhà Thanh. [Sau đó] lại sai Lê Quang Định sang xin phong và xin đổi quốc hiệu: "Các đời trước mở mang cõi viêm bang, mỗi ngày một rộng, bao gồm cả các nước Việt Thường, Chân Lạp, dựng quốc hiệu là Nam Việt, truyền nối hơn 200 năm. Nay đã quét sạch miền Nam, vỗ yên được toàn cõi Việt, nên khôi phục hiệu cũ để chính danh tốt". Vua Thanh trước cho rằng chữ Nam Việt giống chữ Đông Tây Việt nên không muốn cho... Vua Thanh gửi thư lại nói: "Khi trước mới có Việt Thường đã xưng Nam Việt, nay lại được toàn cõi An Nam, theo tên mà xét thực thì nên tóm cả đất đai mở mang trước sau, đặt cho tên tốt, định lấy chữ Việt mào ở trên để tỏ rằng nước ta nhân đất cũ mà nối được tiếng thơm đời trước, lấy chữ Nam đặt ở dưới để tỏ rằng nước ta mở cõi Nam giao mà chịu mệnh mới, tên [Việt Nam] xưng chính đại, chữ nghĩa tốt lành, mà đối với tên gọi cũ của Lưỡng Việt ở nội địa [Trung Quốc] lại phân biệt hẳn"... Ngày Quý Mão, làm đại lễ bang giao... Sứ giả nhà Thanh đến, vào điện Kính Thiên làm lễ tuyên phong... Tháng 2, đặt quốc hiệu là Việt Nam. Ngày Đinh Sửu, đem việc cáo Thái miếu. Chiếu rằng: "... lấy ngày 17 tháng 2 năm nay, kính cáo Thái miếu, cải chính quốc hiệu là Việt Nam, để dựng nền lớn, truyền lâu xa. Phàm công việc nước ta việc gì quan hệ đến quốc hiệu và thư từ báo cáo với nước ngoài, đều lấy Việt Nam làm tên nước, không được quen xưng hiệu cũ là An Nam nữa".[1] [2]

  1. ^ Đại Nam thực lục. Bản dịch của Trung tâm khoa học xã hội và nhân văn quốc gia, Viện sử học Quốc sử quán triều Nguyễn, Tổ Phiên dịch Viện Sử học phiên dịch. Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục xuất bản năm 2007. Tập 01.
  2. ^ https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%90%E1%BA%A1i_Nam_th%E1%BB%B1c_l%E1%BB%A5c
The use of Trung Quốc as a name for Vietnam is well known. For example in the Hịch tướng sĩ, Trần Hưng Đạo wrote 為中國之将侍立夷酋而無忍心 (which the Vietnamese translation incorrectly translated to "làm tướng triều đình phải hầu quân giặc mà không biết tức"). However, it's merely a poetic name, similar to Nam Việt, Nam Giao, or Tràng An (the poetic name of Thăng Long), etc. and was never used as an official name.--KomradeRice (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@KomradeRice: Obviously, ultra-nationalist IP user 58.186.61.239 can not understand the sourced statement "ethnic Chinese were referred to as Thanh nhân 清人 or Đường nhân 唐人." signifies that Vietnamese, however Sinophilic & Sinicized they are, still distinguish themselves from Chinese. 22:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC) Erminwin (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@58.186.61.239: Through this, I confirm that you have no knowledge at all. those are all Chinese names. Chinese people often call themselves people of dynasties that they consider civilized. O people who read ancient letters with google translate, you should think. And this is not the problem that the article I want to talk about. You should re-read my post dozens of times before commenting.

I see that you do not understand any of the content of the poem and the history of Vietnam at this time. That verse has the opinion that it evokes hatred against the enemy's soldiers and that Vietnam is now a servant of China, Vietnam is not part of China and has never been throughout history called Trung Quốc. The poem was written when Vietnam was now called Đại Việt [quốc]大越. And one more important thing is that the poem was written in 1285, it cannot attest to the name of 1804. Here I see you have no knowledge of the history and poetry of my country. And the last word I want to say is that you don't understand anything about the Vietnamese translation, don't say it's wrong when you don't understand. Hope you can be smart enough to understand the problems.

Ok smart guy, what does 為中國之将 means then, and how it should be translated? --KomradeRice (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't say I'm smart but enough to understand the meaning of 為中國之将 is just a general loyal to the country, not its meaning is China, but when using Google translate it will mean China. And the meaning of this verse is that a general loyal to his country will not serve the enemy. I use google translate so I don't understand, do you understand what I mean? And this poem has nothing to do with the name of the country more than 500 years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.186.61.239 (talk • contribs)

For context, Google Translate, as of August 2021, doesn't translate Classical Chinese (the language of the above text) but only Mandarin Chinese and Yuè-Chinese. While all these languages are considered "Chinese" using a Mandocentric translation machine for Classical Chinese would be like translating Latin language texts with a French translation machine, French is Latin, but Latin isn't French. Mandarin is Chinese, but Chinese isn't Mandarin.
So using such a translation tool wouldn't actually be translating the original language, just a different language that developed over a thousand years after it was spoken. This isn't a comment about the arguments above, just that Google Translate wouldn't be useful for Classical Chinese. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@58.186.61.239: I don't know if you can help me correct the mistake of the article that historians using google translate wrote wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.186.61.239 (talk • contribs)
Professor Lê Minh Khải uses a Chinese-Chinese dictionary, but I'm not commenting on the issues above as I don't have the time to (also) research it. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Lê Minh Khải/Liam Kelley, while reliable, is not at all perfect and got it dead wrong about who the 吳 (Mandarin: Wú; SV Ngô) referred to in Bình Ngô đại cáo (Hán tự: 平吳大誥). Here are some critiques (one, two) Erminwin (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Erminwin:, here is my somewhat lengthy reply. In short, it is best to be careful with Vietnamese nationalist historiography and especially those that wish to censor its critics. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The reliability of Lê Minh Khải and Vietnamese nationalistic historiography

  • First (1st) of all I split this off the top discussion simply because it is "out of scope" there but requires some in depth analysis to be responded to. Let me first of all thank you for pointing these things out to me, as I was looking for more sources to put in a future article about Lê Minh Khải, unfortunately User "Laska666's" version got moved to draftspace (read: slowly deleted) so I have to write one that adds more notability to him, and while I completely disagree with the criticisms you liked here I will add those to "his" article as I believe in the neutral mission of Wikipedia and I believe that every possible argument should be presented here now matter how much I personally disagree with them. That being said, concerning this edit with the caption of "Delete 2 paragraph (weak argument, unreliable source).", well, if we actually take a look at "Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid" we would find "Self-published works are sometimes acceptable as sources, so self-publication is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While many self-published sources happen to be unreliable, the mere fact that it is self-published does not prove this. A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved. Self-published sources can be reliable, and they can be used (but not for third-party claims about living people). Sometimes, a self-published source is even the best possible source or among the best sources." Well, Lê Minh Khải writes on a blog because he admits that it is an easier way to reach wider audiences than through the traditional publishing methods which he claims will only be read by a handful of people will read it and that the internet is searchable and accessible for people all over the world. Is he incorrect? Nope, in fact I would say that a century from now people will call Lê Minh Khải "well ahead of his time", note that he rarely just posts opinion pieces and he almost never posts anything that is unsourced, on his blog he uses and discusses various reliable sources and then goes through them. Had he published this very same information in a book then nobody would have questioned the removed section. In fact, having it easily accessible online should be preferable to a source only a handful of people can check out and verify actually states what the information says, unfortunately it ain't uncommon for people to deliberately re-interpret reliable sources to fit their own narratives. At "Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are weblogs reliable sources?" we find the statement: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report). Usually, subject experts will publish in sources with greater levels of editorial control such as research journals, which should be preferred over blog entries if such sources are available." At this point I am genuinely convinced that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are like the Bible, people always talk in WP:WIKIWORDSOUP and cite WP:POLICY yet if you actually click on their links more often than not it's almost a direct contradiction of what they say. WikiPractice and WikiPolicy live in separate worlds apparently, in fact I would almost say that "Wikipedia is a smart encyclopedia with smart policies but its editors are stupid"... oké, that is an exaggeration, but I have seen it plenty of times that people remove good sources because they misdefine policy. Practice should never take precedent over policy and especially rational thought, I often see people remove expert websites because "Blogs are unreliable" and no other argument is given than "Blogs are bad sources" despite policy actually disagreeing with them. Perhaps these people internalised a common misconception that "Only books may be cited on Wikipedia" (something I've actually heard a lot of people say in real life). I am genuinely convinced that most people who city WP:ABBREVIATEDPOLICIES probably don't read them at all, it isn't common for someone to evoke WP:NEVERDOTHIS to tell users to never do that.
Now that we've established that a well-sourced work written by an expert isn't automatically "unreliable" because it's a blog let's look at the editor who removed it. About who the 吳 (Ngô) referred to in Bình Ngô đại cáo (Hán tự: 平吳大誥) is always assumed to be "the Chinese" and the removed sections only showcase a different perspective by different experts. If we look at the other contributions of user "Lvhamsntt" we find that they had a total of three (3) edits, with their first edit removes Tăng Tuyết Minh from Hồ Chí Minh's arricle with the caption "Ho's romantic relationships is controversal" (SIC) and their last and third (3rd) edit moving Vietnam up in a list of declaration of independences in Asia, this is based on the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's proclaimed independence rather than the State of Vietnam's, which is an issue when two (2) countries become one (1). Two (2) of these three (3) edits removed content and all of them essentially take the Communist Party of Vietnam's position on these issues. The other source cited at Bình Ngô đại cáo is "https://www.lib.washington.edu/SouthEastAsia/vsg/elist_2010/Question%20about%20Binh%20Ngo%20Dai%20Cao", well the Univeristy of Washington is hardly an "unreliable source", they just said "bad arguments" and removed any references to them. This is censorship and that is how Communist Party's tend to handle opinions they don't like. They can't censor his blog but they sure as hell can censor Wikipedia.
Speaking of the Communist Party, well Nhân Dân is literally the mouthpiece of the Vietnamese Communist Party and the Vietnamese Communist Party is known to wish to present their own version of history (as do all Communist Parties, please see: "Historiography in the Soviet Union#Theoretical approaches" and "Chinese historiography#Marxism"). A good example of how they formulate history is this:
  • Primitive-communism
  • Slave society
  • Feudal society
  • Capitalist society
  • Socialist society
  • The world communist society

The official historical view within the People's Republic of China associates each of these stages with a particular era in Chinese history.

Now project this onto Vietnamese history you get:

The same applies to North Korean historiography, notice how common the term "Phong kiến" (封建) appears in Communist Chinese, Communist Vietnamese, and Communist Korean historiographies, Joseon is called "Triều Tiên Phong kiến Vương triều" (朝鮮封建王朝) in North Korea. Meanwhile go over any South Korean history text book and look for the term "Phong kiến", it's simply much rarer. The problem with Vietnamese historiography is that the Vietnamese communities in France and the United States aren't producing anything that goes against the Socialist narrative, Chinese historiography has Taiwan (for what that is worth with the strong anti-Chinese sentiment in the Taiwanese nationalist movement that often love to adopt Communist Party frameworks to mis-represent what it means to be "Chinese") and Korean historiography has the much more influential and scientifically based South Korean historiography. Most foreign historians won't criticise Socialist Vietnamese historiography because that would mean losing access to Vietnam and its archives, archaeological sites, and other resources and if you're a historian specialised in Vietnam you would have to follow the party line, Overseas Vietnamese might criticise the historiography but they aren't as influential.
The first linked Nhân Dân article calls Lê Minh Khải a "đốt đền" ("Burner of temples" or "Temple-burner"), a lot of the criticism of both articles are appeals to emotion that "Vietnamese history is a feeling" conforming my hypothesis that "Vietnamese history" is a religion that exists to promote narratives (note that both Communists and Anti-Communists believe in this "religion", just different denominations). Some good criticisms are that the Minh Dynasty destroyed a lot of Vietnamese-language documents and books during their brutal twenty (20) year long occupation, we have no idea how much this "Vietnamese Cultural Revolution" actually destroyed, but as we simply can't know what was lost it is better to analyse the historical record that is left rather than relying on "folklore". In fact, Lê Minh Khải semi-unknowingly debunked a lot of the criticism towards him at "A New Vietnamese History. - JUNE 1, 2013". He lists several reasons why Vietnamese history is in the state it is, he begins the article talking about the book itself being for sale "A few days ago someone pointed out to me that a new general history called A History of the Vietnamese by Keith Taylor is now listed on Amazon, and is soon to be available for purchase." At the time that book was written it wasn't available fully for purchase so I will note that he didn't have direct access to the full book as he says: "I went online and was able to read some of it on Amazon and some on Google Books. In the introduction, Taylor has a section called “Vantage” (pages 2-4) that is absolutely beautiful.". Which means that he was able to read its introduction and how the book was written and some notes by Taylor himself. But Lê Minh Khải has a lot of praise for this book for a number of reasons which are directly at odds with the Vietnamese Communist Party articles from Nhân Dân. Vietnamese people, and more specifically Kinh people, often feel a sense of ownership over "their" history / "our" history.
In his comments on Taylor's superior historiography Lê Minh Khải notes: "I would like to cite here a few of the statements that he makes in that section as I think that they are extremely important. - history - Taylor begins this section by stating that, “Vietnamese scholars have endeavored to project a sense of national identity back into the past as far as possible. In the modern period, it became common for Vietnamese to affirm a national history going back four thousand years to when archaeologists date artifacts that they have assembled and categorized under the name of Phung Nguyen Culture.”" This mentality is also directly visible in the content of this article, the "Names of Vietnam" exclusively includes Việt (or "Kinh" / "City people") names and excludes most minority names for the country and often their own historical countries.
The "Vietocentic", "Vietcentric", or "Kinhcentric" view of Vietnamese history is re-affirmed here: "He then notes that “Many Vietnamese scholars are inclined to draw a line of continuity, and even ethno-linguistic, development from Phung Nguyen to modern Vietnam. This inclination, however, makes an exuberant use of evidence.”" this is also why I am very skeptical of any of the legendary names used in this article, only a handful of names are attributed with non-Chinese names, as "the Vietnamese" only became "Chinese" during the Han Dynasty period I highly doubt that the ancestors of the Vietnamese used names like "Văn Lang" but it's no different than Europeans naming ancient civilisations after "their" legends. "Taylor then goes on to say that this practice of searching for origins has been common to many peoples around the world throughout history. In the case of the Vietnamese, certain individuals at the courts of the Trần and Lê engaged in this practice." This means that this tradition of inventing Vietnamese history isn't something that was pioneered by the Vietnamese Communist Party (they only put it on steroids and still try to gatekeep against anyone that wishes to challenge this understanding of Vietnamese history). The Nguyễn Dynasty adopted a Social Darwinist lens after contact with the French and the Nam tiến (南進) suddenly became "a great event in history" as it was evidence of "the strong" Vietnamese people people destroying "the weak" Cham and Khmer peoples. But even before this a strong sense of inferiority towards the North existed in Đại Việt quốc, as Lê Minh Khai notes: "Taylor explains that “They did this not only by culling references from classical Chinese texts about what they imagined to have been their ancestors in antiquity but also constructed a ‘southern’ history for themselves that is largely parallel with and a response to ‘northern’ imperial history.”". So to compare themselves positively with the North the South has to create a better history. Note that it's common to hear Chinese people talk about "their" supposed "5000 (five thousand) years of Chinese history" and like the Vietnamese speak of "our history" and responses to academic review of Chinese history often receives the same responses as Nhân Dân wrote. Likewise, as this article in its current state shows the oldest "name of Vietnam" starting with "Xích Quỷ" in the years 2879–2524 BC. But can we actually confirm anything before the Âu Lạc? "This effort to imagine origins and to connect oneself to an imagined past is, according to Taylor (but I certainly agree), “a means of self-affirmation, not a scholarly endeavor.” To put this in my own more simple terms, what (I think) Taylor is saying is that scholars at the courts of the Trần and Lê created histories about antiquity not because they were true, but for political (and perhaps also personal) reasons." This isn't different from what the Nguyễn Dynasty did, what the Democratic Republic of Vietnam did, what the Republic of Vietnam did, and what the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is currently doing, somehow ironically the only "long tradition" that the Vietnamese seen to have is inventing long traditions. This is why I'm highly skeptical of the ancient names of Vietnam listed in this article, other than Vietnamese historians very few foreign academics accept most of their claims, interestingly during the 1940's a lot of prominent Vietnamese historians like Trần Trọng Kim (陳仲金) didn't subscribe to most of this ancient history either, a lot of it was pushed by North Vietnamese historians during the 1950's and 1960's.
The reason Nhân Dân criticises Lê Minh Khải in such a way is the same reason why he praises Taylor at: "Taylor then goes on to talk about the role of the historian and what historians can say about the Vietnamese past. He says, for instance, that, “I believe that the task of historical scholarship is to look at what survives from the past as coming from people with their own existence, not as evidence of people who attain significance primarily as precursors of people today.”" This is what Lê Minh Khải did at the Bình Ngô đại cáo and why a (Communist-centric) Vietnamese nationalist decided to remove the entries. Vietnamese history is often presented as "Vietnamese people have been successfully resisting foreign invasions for thousands of years" but this myth was created to rally people against the French and is today used to rally people against the Chinese. Often I see Communist Vietnamese nationalists tell Anti-Communist Vietnamese nationalists (whom they usually see as "American puppets" like the latter sees the former as "Soviet puppets") to set aside their differences and get mad at the Chinese together. In these instances the internal political differences are set aside for shared nationalistic rhetoric, history is a political tool. This is why I don't see these criticisms as legitimate and why I don't think that Khải was "dead wrong" about the Bình Ngô đại cáo.
Just like the criticisms you shared a commenter named "Duy Đoàn" wrote on FEBRUARY 10, 2017 AT 8:26 AM: "Another review of this book, by a Vietnamese teacher living in Australia: http://www.viet-studies.com/NguyenMinh_DocKeithTaylor.htm" This linked to a criticism of Taylor that seems similar to Nhân Dân's and Lê Minh Khải responsed on FEBRUARY 11, 2017 AT 8:07 PM with an interesting reply, namely "Thanks for sharing this! This reviewer criticizes Taylor for “elevating China and diminishing Vietnam” (Đề Cao Trung Quốc, Hạ Thấp Việt Nam) and for seeing regionalism as an important aspect of Vietnamese history (Lịch Sử Việt Nam Là Lịch Sử Tranh Chấp Vùng Miền). That’s a very standard nationalistic response. There’s nothing surprising about what this reviewer wrote." This is no different from the way he analyses Vietnamese history himself and is also why he's so critical of the current Vietnamese historiography. The end note of the comment explains why historians like Taylor and Lê Minh Khải are viewed as "temple burners". I am open to reading criticism of Lê Minh Khải and I saw a number of good criticism of his work, but I highly doubt that his methodology is bad.
Taylor also radically changed his view on Vietnamese history: "What I think that reviewer, and people who share the same view, should think about, however, is WHY is it that Taylor thinks the way he does now, when his first book (The Birth of Vietnam, 1983, based on his 1976 dissertation) in many ways presented the opposite view of Vietnamese history from what he now holds? In other words, in the 1970s and early 1980s, Taylor held views that were very similar to the views that this reviewer holds today, but now Taylor no longer thinks the way he did 30 years ago. Why is that? This seems to be a common phenomenon among academic foreigners reviewing Vietnamese history, the largest "criticism" of Lê Minh Khải is probably that he understands Classical Chinese and actually understands it (including the Confucian and Daoist thinking behind old texts), meanwhile most Vietnamese historians are dependent on translations of Classical Chinese texts into modern Vernacular Vietnamese which often contains a lot of (deliberate) errors. Retroactive insertion of modern ideas and modern thinking is very common, plus a lot of Hegelian and Marxist blindfolds lenses filter modern Vietnamese historiography. Likewise, how many of the names of Vietnam before Nam Việt were actually attributed by contemporaries? How trustworthy are sources written centuries later? I don't think that we should just take "the Vietnamese" (notice how collectivist "our historians" always speak about "our history") for their word, especially since a lot of the archeological evidence doesn't actually support these myths and legends. During the 1950's and 1960's North Vietnanese archeologists were instructed to go look for evidence of this ancient past and often found ancient artifacts that were retroactively attributed to tribes with the names from folklore. In science if you have a conclusion and then research only to look for evidence of your conclusion it is considered a bias and is generally not a preferred way of doing research, yet North Vietnamese and later Vietnamese archeology are very much guided by such principles of looking for continuation. "China" is the only Bronze Age Civilisation that didn't collapse so in light of modern knowledge they (the Chinese and Taiwanese) developed a sense of "historical superiority" out of it which the Vietnamese constantly compare themselves with. When historians start to question the narrative they can expect such treatment.
I noticed that for some time people have been systematically removing Lê Minh Khải's SEAsian History Blog from various Wikipedia articles such as the Wikipedia entry here that lists these biases that seems to have been removed from Wikipedia. I can't find it and I would genuinely want to know why it was removed. Unsurprisingly user "Laska666" removed one of Lê Minh Khải's actual books so the "War on Kelley" isn't even exclusive to his blog.
This article too has been severely affected by these biases. Currently the article does name these ancient names as legendary which is good, but unfortunately the "Names of Vietnam" template doesn't make such a distinction.
Disclaimers: To note my own ideological biases, I am a card-carrying member of a Communist Party and consider myself "a Socialist", this doesn't mean that I should be blind to bad actions of Communist Parties and Communist Parties in democracies function very different from those in dictatorships (as do all parties regardless of ideology), so I stand by my criticisms of the Communist Party of Vietnam and think that it has a vested interest in keeping both articles like this and scholars of Vietnamese history following their narrative. Furthermore, while I have attempted to contact Lê Minh Khải several times to ask for information about a number of Classical Chinese sources he discussed he has always ignored me and I have yet to successfully establish contact with him (so I can assume that talking to me is unwanted by him) so (as far as I define it) I don't have a COI (Conflict of Interest) with him other than me being a reader of his websites and pirating his books (but to some Wikipedians this means that I am as much of "an interested party" to him as actual paid editors, so how you view this depends on your own personal definition of "COI".). To me maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) is the most desirable outcome of any Wikipedia article and that should mean exploring all possible biases and preferably also listing them. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
TL;DR version: Lê Minh Khải and others like Taylor are often "criticised" for what can best be described as "unnationalistic" interpretations of history, the pointed out edit and should probably be seen as vandalism rather than a productive edit and blogs aren't against wikipolicy as "the context of the blog" (expertise of the author, cited sources, methodology, Etc.) which is why blogs aren't blanket blacklisted in Wikipedia. Most of the time Lê Minh Khải's SEAsian History Blog should be allowed to be posted here as he writes on the blog in a very academic (though somewhat informal) style with cited sources. Even if he is not always right expert perspectives on their field should be included but it's clear that Vietnamese nationalists don't seem to want any of his criticisms on Wikipedia. While this violates the "WP:NPOV" the fact that a lot of Vietnamese nationalists keep censoring such criticism (from anyone not just Lê Minh Khải) makes this issue systemic and therefore more difficult to solve. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Donald Trung:: Points taken! Still, Taylor's emphasis on regionalism in Vietnamese history might stem from Taylor's advocacy for imperialistic interventionism (including into Vietnam. So much that Taylor produced borderline apologetics for many Republic of Vietnam's politicians.) Generally, I'd quote works by Taylor, Lê Minh Khải, & others striving for neutrality to be objective-reality-oriented. Erminwin (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Erminwin:, a better criticism of Lê Minh Khải can be found here, by Ben Kiernan. In "Stretching the Sinitic Interpretation of Vietnamese History" he challenges the Chinese-centric focus of Lê Minh Khải. --Donald Trung (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sobriquets of Vietnam

Perhaps we could emulate "Names of Korea#Sobriquets of Korea" here? This seems like a good way to incorporate the numerous sobriquets that have been used throughout Vietnamese history. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Names_of_Vietnam/Archive_1&oldid=1069569709"