User talk:Lệ Xuân/Archive 2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

PD-South VietnamGov

Please see "{{PD-South VietnamGov}}", I have long thought that South Vietnamese government works were long unrecognised and this is likely true, this doesn't mean that the template will stick around, but your input is welcome. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I actually got to grips with these questions when previously searching for media about Vietnam War. As I'm not yet a lawyer or law student (I'll be one at the end of this year), I'm not sure what I'm thinking is correct at all. I fully understand your arguments and I also agree with you that South Vietnam or the State of Vietnam have been described by the current Vietnamese government as puppet regimes and thus as "illegitimate". From an international point of view, however, one could assume that the current government is the de facto successor to the Republic of Vietnam (just like the current Vietnam, South Vietnam was a member of several international organizations). For this reason, I have come to the conclusion that while Hanoi never had and probably never will recognize the Republic of Vietnam, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam still inherits its copyrights. Since Wikimedia is some sort of multinational organisation, I think a work must meet both local and international copyright requirements in order to stay here. LX | Talk 14:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Good points, oddly enough I didn't get your ping, but the notification 🔔 system has been broken for me for years now... Anyhow, I know that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam entered a number of international organisations through the previous membership of South Vietnam including a number of sports. But then the question becomes, how to treat the governments of the State of Vietnam and the Republic of Vietnam? As private companies? Like PD-VietnamGov? As giant mafia's? As far as I know foreign governments are often treated like private companies for the purpose of a law.
I know for example that the Federal Republic of Germany doesn't see the German Democratic Republic as ever having joined it but the individual Länder, so who owns the DDR's copyright? The federal government or the Länder? I assume that the answer would be similar, if East German copyright is owned by its countries (a more literal translation as a "Land" can also mean "sovereign state" outside of the German and Austrian political contexts, though I obviously mean what are called "states") then it's safe to assume that South Vietnamese copyrights are corporate copyrights, but if owned by the federal government then perhaps PD-VietnamGov does apply. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung I'm not sure about South Vietnam, but in FR Germany Urheberrecht is part of federal law enacted by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. According to the Grundgesetz, everything that is not regulated by the federal government is a matter of the Länder. In reality, however, there are currently quite a lot of regulations at federal level that severely restrict the jurisdiction of the Länder. Regarding East and West Germany, there is a treaty called Einigungsvertrag, which was signed by both parties before the official accession of East Germany to West Germany. So I think it's safe to say that the current federal government inherited all legislation and jurisdiction of East Germany after the latter legislated its own abolition as a sovereign state. LX | Talk 12:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Sinophobic mentality and old seals

I found a sentence here (The Premodern Past that Haunts Modern Vietnamese) that reads: "However, in Vietnam the situation is different, because it strikes at the core problem that Vietnamese intellectuals have struggled with for the past century – how do you create a modern culturally-unique nation from a premodern universal culture that was centered in a country that you now try to define your modern national identity in opposition to?". I am quoting this to try to understand people like "Truong Guy", my experience is that you have two major types of Vietnamese nationalists, most who define Vietnamese culture as being almost "the binary opposite" of whatever is "Chinese culture", and the South Vietnamese refugees and their descendants that define Vietnamese history as either "the Vietnam War" and to them "all aspects of Vietnamese history lead into the war", in a similar way that some German historians cannot write about the Frankish Empire, Germanic tribes, the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, Prussia, Etc. without somehow including that it "sets the stage for the holocaust" (for example anti-Jewish laws and riots, which were common throughout Europe and often worse in places like Italy). In fact, for many of the South Vietnamese diaspora Vietnam isn't a country, Vietnam is the war (also how most foreigners see Vietnam) and searching "music of the Republic of Vietnam" will get you a large number of military parades and traditional music played over the burials of ARVN soldiers but very little actual pop-music or indy-music produced in that era (I actually prefer modern pop-music, but I do like to listen to multiple styles). The problem with most of these mentalities is that it tries to reduce Vietnamese history to single defining events or certain doctrines. To me the largest issue is with how Classical Chinese texts are translated, often old books are translated into modern vernacular Vietnamese but their original texts and/or transliterations into Sino-Vietnamese are completely omitted. Although I am somewhat of the opinion that Wikisource can solve all these issues.

Anyhow, I have noticed a sub-culture more interested in studying Classical Chinese and understanding the culture of that time without the "whitewashing" present in most modern history books, so I don't think that that Sinophobic trend will last forever.

Also, you can install the 1ClickArchiver to archive talk page posts, it is much easier and automatically archives old discussions if you want it.

Anyhow, I have been looking for "a national seal" of the Later Lê Dynasty but have been unable to locate one, if the Nguyễn Lords had a national seal then it would not be unrealistic for the Lê to also have one. I don't think that the seals of the Revival Lê Dynasty were melted down after the establishment of the Nguyễn Dynasty as many of them survive and the Nguyễn had some level of respect for the Lê. I know that very few Trần Dynasty seals survive, but many documents do and I wonder if prints from that era survive. I haven't been able to find an index of golden and jade pre-Nguyễn seals in the National History Museum in Hanoi but that would probably be the best place to look. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung I'm not sure if your definition of "Sinophobic" refers to the rejection of Vietnams sinospheric past, or the hatred of Chinese culture and China as a country. Cuz not all Vietnamese who study Classical Chinese can be considered as China-friendly. LX | Talk 22:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
"Sinophobic" is a complex spectrum, on one hand it is people that reject anything even mildly perceived as "Chinese" such as the people that went against guardian lions at Vietnamese buildings because they perceived them to be "Chinese". And on the other hand you have people very well versed in Classical Chinese but insist that things "localised" when they entered Vietnam like "Vietnamese Confucianism" Vs. "Chinese Confucianism", "Vietnamese Daosim" Vs. "Chinese Daosim", Etc. The problem isn't understanding the language, it's understanding the mentality, from "Westphalian sovereignty" "The backdrop of this was the previously held idea that Europe was supposed to be under the umbrella of a single Christian protectorate or empire; governed spiritually by the Pope, and temporally by one rightful emperor, such as that of the Holy Roman Empire. The then-emerging Reformation had undermined this as Protestant-controlled states were less willing to respect the "supra authority" of both the Catholic Church and the Catholic-Habsburg led Emperor." This problem with historiography isn't unique to Vietnam, most modern countries do this, I often see this with nationalistic British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Etc. history works. It is not uncommon to see a work about early medieval European history speak about the countries of Europe in very modern term. History exists, it is up to modern people to have their perspectives on it.
By the way, do you primarily use Inkscape to make seals? How did you find the font the for the Nguyễn Dynasty's heirloom seal? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung I primarily use Illustrator (Adobe apps are expensive af, but I got them cheaper thanks to student discount). There aren't any matching fonts for the Nguyễn Dynasty's heirloom seal. I drew it myself. My BF is a amateur graphic designer so I borrowed his sketchpad, which is why I was able to make the characters look so clean.
Anyway, I don't know much about seals, but while I'm not sure if there are any seals from Tran era left, I think there are definitely some seals from the Lê Trung Hưng era that still exist to this day. This is due to the fact the Nguyen only considered Tây Sơn as their enemy. They even allowed descendants of the Trịnh to build temples to worship their ancestors, despite the fact that the two families were like arch enemies for nearly two centuries. I recently saw few decrees from Le Trung Hung era, but unfortunately, none of them has any seals that are of relevance.
P/S: Well, until the dawn of the Protestant Reformation, HRE emperorship was still regarded as a prestigious title, which could be seen by the fact that all three of the most powerful monarchs of Europe at the time (Charles I of Spain, Francis I of France, Henry VIII of England) were running for the emperorship. I think one of the main factors that reduced the emperor's authority besides the one you mentioned is that they were no longer crowned by the Pope. Before Maximilian I, a "King of the Germans" had to be crowned by the Pope in order to become emperor of the HRE, but after his death, emperor became almost a hereditary title that belongs exclusively to Habsburgs (with only one exception). – LX | Talk 23:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that I should probably contact a number of museums. I will see if I can pirate some Adobe software (probably shouldn't confess to an intent to commit a crime online...). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, software piracy is not something "terrible" (at least for Vietnamese standard) =)))) To be honest, I used to have some pirated Microsoft software on my laptop few years ago. All you have to do is search for things like "tải Microsoft Word full crack" on Google and you will find a bunch of vietnamese websites that provide these software for free. LX | Talk 23:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-writing Vietnamese history by deliberately omitting information

For the record, you can archive the above, I don't really think that the Korean history Infobox headers are useful as long as Korea still has two (2) different names and it works for showing Korean history over a long time, not since the late 1940's onwards, that aside, I do think that they can be useful in the future or for someone who wants to write about Korean history and isn't shy about using one name over the other.

Anyhow, I ran into an interesting user and want your advice on how to deal with the situation. This user seems to able to write a large number of articles in a short period of time and many of which are good articles (generally speaking, not by the Wikipedia definition) and this user seems to translate a lot of work from the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia to the English-language Wikipedia. They also use good academic sources and have wrote multiple articles that I really like and I have requested them to write a dozen more. But going over several of their contributions I came to realise something, while most of what they write is factually correct and good they seem to have a very specific style in editing that I didn't notice before... Namely, they try to write Vietnamese history by omitting any reference to anything that can vaguely be considered to be "Chinese", they kind of came on my radar after this edit and then I saw a number of wonderful articles they recently launched. Now the earlier edit summary said "Neutralization" as if there was something not neutral about it so I responded on the talk page as I didn't realise (but did suspect at the time) that the "non-neutral" elements were the Traditional Chinese characters and likely the Seal script. Later I found out that I had pointed some bad historiography on their part out for example the use the term "Royal Vietnamese Army" but then go on to define it as all Armies in Vietnamese history before 1802 which seems random and without equivalent on the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia. I know that Vietnamese history constantly "reforms" as the Vietnamese Communist Party loves to re-write history (not unique to it, both the South Vietnamese and the Anti-French resistance were equally guilty of that) but I haven't been able to find anything about that definition. Then they started creating articles like Tây Thanh Province which look like a censored version of the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's article where the Traditional Chinese seal, the Sino-Vietnamese name of Phnom Penh, and any references to Chinese characters seem completely omitted. Furthermore, they created the article "Kingdom of Vietnam" which is a very ill-defined version of "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập (1802-1884)". Generally speaking I really hope that this user writes a large number of articles because for decades most of the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập (1802-1884)" has been extremely neglected on the English-language Wikipedia, though I could say that about almost all Nguyễn dynasty topics other than their Emperors, but I am noticing a very strong trend of omitting both Chinese characters and references to things this user perceives as "Chinese", this is despite this user being quite well-versed in historians quite critical of their perspective. I want to address this, but I don't want to discourage them from writing, I just don't want them to "re-write" History with bad historiography.

Most notably yesterday they launched two (2) articles that I was planning on writing after "finishing" the Manchu Qing Dynasty coinages, so I am quite grateful for their contributions, but I am also noticing a trend that while not directly false, seems to paint history one way by what seems like deliberately omitting facts while writing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To be clear I don't want to "bite the hand that feeds", I want to be able to address these things without "scaring them away", there are hundreds of Nguyễn Dynasty articles that need to be written and I think that this user can write a fair amount of them, I think that it's better to just improve their articles rather than "start from scratch", but they seem to follow "the 1885 divide" really closely and this is very visible in articles like "Military of Nguyen Vietnam". History is gray and blurry, but they really want the "Imperial period" and "Colonial period" to be divided clearly in black-and-white. The omission of (Traditional) Chinese characters isn't a long-term issue because other editors will add them, it is just the odd way that they seem to add largely undefined historiography that combines different periods of Vietnamese history into one and splits others. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-writing the Later Lê Dynasty

Yep, they're at it again. Notice how they use "Fix definition" and compare that with their earlier comments about "Not using the Chinese definition of Dynasty" and how removing Traditional Chinese characters and references to anything remotely East Asian is "more neutral", they are subverting Wikipedia's policies. I must say that I am impressed with how long they have flown under the radar, at least until a Viwiki admin thought that their neologisms were a hoax. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung The enwp article about Later Lê Dynasty is a mess. I actually planned to rewrite that article, but just a day after I started, an IP from California (who actually wrote most of the current text) jumped in and added texts en masse. I gave up after seeing them add hoaxes like "Vũ Văn Uyên (Chúa Bầu) is descended from Vũ Văn bộ, Xianbei tribe (the Yuwen clan in Hà Giang and Hưng Hóa (now southern Yunnan) which had Xianbei origin rebelled against Mạc Đăng Dung and set up their own government). At least Laska666's articles looks better, apart for his strong push for the "Southeast Asianization" of Vietnamese history. LX | Talk 17:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Suspiciously similar.

I found more, for future reference, but I don't think that it's relevant enough to discuss, if you want to bring it up in the future you can, but this is systemic and only a few users ever stood up against it. It is surprisingly easy to manipulate Wikipedia, no wonder very few people say to trust it. People say "cite Wikipedia's sources" but if even those get manipulated then Wikipedia can not have any value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Fragile Han syndrome

I don't really have anyone else on-wiki to talk to about this as most editors that were interested in a non-nationalist view of history seem to be retired or "moved on", but I noticed a similar re-writing of Chinese history, all references to conquest dynasties are being re-worded, I have noticed things like this for months, from what I can tell this user mostly adds good historical content but pushes this sinocentric view because of the changing Chinese historiography. A few decades ago the Liao Dynasty for example was seen as a Khitan Empire which had Chinese subjects and adopted Chinese culture but was still a separate empire due to cultural and ethnic differences, today the historiography changed to see all of these states as first and foremost "Chinese" and then ascribe the fact that they were "foreign-led" / "minority-led". Personally I think that this is likely a Chinese patriotic push to make "China" seem more historically significant in periods when it wasn't, and while I don't disagree with adding "-led" to such instances it is more that the Yuan Dynasty is described as a Chinese Dynasty that happens to have been ruled over by the Mongols than what it is, a division of the Mongol Empire that emulated the administrative structure and culture of the peoples they conquered. It would somewhat be comparable to calling New Spain "a European-led Aztec Empire" because it uses its name (Mexico), capital city (Mexico), and territories as its administrative centre, and unlike China the Mexican aristocracy actually managed to retain some of their power under foreign rule (although "China" has usually emphasised the competitive examination model for bureaucratic selection over a landed aristocracy). These changes are to some extend a more subtle and intellectually grounded version of the "Pure Land" Vietnamese historiography above. I'm an eventualist so I don't see much use in changing such things back as I believe that Chinese historiography will become more neutral when the Chinese Communist Party and their fragile feelings are gone (seriously, just search the term "Hurt the feelings of the Chinese people", it's bizarre!) and books from "Taiwan" thankfully haven't adopted Mainland thinking, but the "Pure Land" historiography actually is dangerous for Wikipedia because it can make fixing the the neo-historiography very difficult and good faith new people that try will be attacked as "vandals" when they do as most of the anti-vandalism patrollers and sysops don't really know about most content they're patrolling, if something "looks like vandalism" it is treated as such, I saw a number of new users get banned for removing hoaxes because it appeared as if they were removing good content or engaging in edit wars with more experienced editors that were perpetuating hoaxes (note that usually new users get indefinite bans while experienced users, if punished, get so for a relatively short amount of time).

As usual complex problems require complex solutions.

By the way, the "Kingdom of Vietnam" AfD can probably use your perspective on the re-writing of history as well, while I am very much against deletion I do believe that the article should either be merged or re-written, you noted above some examples of how they manipulate the reliable sources by misinterpretation and often I don't have access to those sources so you pointing a few examples out could benefit it. Usually when admins see a content dispute they stay clear of those and tell people to "sort it out" but if it actually gets pointed out more people are usually called to investigate the issues. I barely have the time to work on the projects I am busy with here, so I can't really go over dozens of articles and re-word misleading terms, but if we can point out how the sources are being manipulated someone with the free time can come along and help. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Re-writing the Nguyễn Dynasty

Please take a look at these:

I noticed this user sometime ago and at first I was quite happy to finally see someone actually write new articles about Vietnam in the 19th century as that "field of Wikipedia" has been quite stale for a large number of years and very few new articles have been written on expanded there in quite some time. I noted before how at the Nguyễn Dynasty article there was a push by a small number of users to push its date back to 1884 rather than 1945, well, I see that one user found "a solution", simply go around that article and create other articles to go around it. I prefer to be cautious as I don't want to scare a user away that actually owns the books to write about 19th (nineteenth) century Vietnam as much as this user, but... They have an agenda as they said here: "The Chinese concept of a dynasty or state shall not to be adopted upon other civilisations without careful check.". This makes me think that they wish to "de-sinicise" Vietnamese history and also push for the 1884 end date of the Nguyễn Empire as a part of it (as it looks kind of embarrassing for Vietnamese nationalists who define their whole identity on not being Chinese that a Chinese-style Dynasty existed in Vietnam as late as 1945 while the last "Chinese Dynasty" fell in 1911). Also note the odd ahistorical name "Kingdom of Vietnam", likely to make it more equal to Cambodia, Laos, and (what I assume is his native) Thailand rather than an Empire. I have no idea how to get this user to continue with their massive contributions without pushing this narrative.

I think that "a damage control" strategy might be smart, where nobody does anything now, wait for them to be "finished" and then fix and merge all articles with the correct wording. Because I am afraid that if they won't write most of these articles that we won't see them for over a decade. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung Sorry for not being able to answer you yesterday. Since I don't have the time to check out the two articles you linked above yet, I will share my opinion about Laska666 based on my personal experiences. The first time I encounter this user was when I was asked to copy-edit Chiến tranh Việt–Chiêm (1367–1396) that was translated from the English version they have written. At first I was surprised to see someone write a new excellent Vietnam-related article, a topic that has apparently lost the attention it deserves. I think anyone who sees this article for the first time but doesn't actually read it will think the same way as I do. However, if you read carefully, you will notice some notable problems. In some passages, for example, he interpreted the information differently than the original in the source. I'm not sure if it was intentional or unintentional, but for someone who could write a long article like this in English, I doubt they got the source wrong. Another thing to note is that some terms probably seem to be their self-invention. For example, the term Continuation War (imitating the second phase of the Finno-Soviet War) and probably the term Nguyen Vietnam or the Kingdom of Vietnam to describe the independent era of the Nguyen Dynasty you mentioned above. Unless these terms appear in reliable sources, they can be regarded as original research and should be avoided on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's main job is to convey reliable information, not a place where people express their biased opinion.
(I'm not sure I'm right, but I remember someone telling me he is ethnic Cham and made quite amount of posts about Cham history in some history groups on Facebook. This could explain the "pro-Cham" tendency in his idiolect.) LX | Talk 15:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I read about it here, when I wrote the above I thought that I was the only one who saw this, but thankfully some Vietnamese-American user noticed it too. They seem to be pushing their own historiography and often seem to be re-interpreting reliable sources. It is their motivation that I can't seem to identify. I really want them to continue writing articles because the early Nguyễn, heck, the entire Nguyễn Dynasty is severely underrepresented on the English-language Wikipedia, but this user launches articles with their own motivations what I term "lying by omission" which I explained in more details on the AfD for the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article. I just don't see who this re-writing benefits, unless they just hate anything remotely "Chinese" as they seem to omit Chinese characters the most and often writes about how "not Chinese" Vietnam is. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung I just notice that they used a bunch of sources from the early 19th century as references for the terms "Kingdom of Vietnam", which strikes me as ridiculous. It is quite strange to see someone like him, who is trying to imitate "western-style" historiography, use primary sources to back up his statements. By using this name, they simply skipped the name "Đại Nam" (The great state south (of the middle Kingdom)), which was the official name of the country for over 100 years. Many people are anxious to "desinize" pre-1945 Vietnam, others are trying to "sinize" post-1945 Vietnam. As a person trying to maintain the balance, these non-stop wars cause headaches. A few days ago there was a discussion about the use of chữ Nôm etc. in articles. This was because someone kept adding chữ Nôm in articles about modern Vietnam on enwp as well as viwp, such as Việt Cộng. If you have time, take a look at it. LX | Talk 16:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
This is probably largely because people forget that "Chinese" before the 20th (twentieth) century didn't mean in the "civilised world" what it means today in a "nationalistic world", before the Vietnamese saq themselves as a "Văn hiến chi bang" but today as a sovereign state with its own culture and that culture has "an essence" (whatever that means). As Lê Minh Khải said "Historians can seek to understand how people in the past understood these concepts differently, but they should never try to find modern ideas (like sovereignty) in the past where they did not exist." But the conversation about when and when not to use Traditional Chinese characters to me is easy to solve, use them for people that were notable in a period when they were used and for places and organisations from periods when they were still used. For example "North Vietnam" on the English-language Wikipedia has the Traditional Chinese name because that name actually used during the Democratic Republic of Vietnam until the early 1950's, I added it there because it's relevant. Someone saw that and added it to the "South Vietnam" article, but the Republic of Vietnam never used Traditional Chinese characters. Although, something people forget is that the Kinh ethnicity in the People's Republic of China speak Vietnamese and write it in chữ Nôm, there is literally a group of Vietnamese people today that speak Vietnamese and write it in chữ Nôm, but they don't live in Vietnam, Texas, or California, they live in Guangdong. Vietnamese people hating "Chinese culture" today is like Americans hating Christmas trees because the tradition was originally Scandinavian or German (it was "non-island Germanic" or however one describes Germanic people without the English), at the time people just saw themselves as "Christians" and "countries" were the domains of rulers. The modern idea probably has to do with "Cultural appropriation" and that cultures have some sort of "Copyright" on their ideas, therefore Vietnamese, Koreans, Ryukyuans, and Japanese are "stealing Chinese culture" and Việt Nam should try to be its own unique thing. Regarding Chinese characters, French Cochinchina actually had a Latin-only policy since the 1860's, but the Nguyễn Dynasty continued using it until its end, but the final documents from the Nguyễn were completely written using Latin script. There is no date one can pinpoint to and say "this is the date that Vietnamese people stopped using Chinese characters", it was a slow process that took 90 (ninety) years.
Regarding Laska666, I think that he adds primary sources with correct names but misinterprets them to "appear more legitimate", but Wikipedia has a policy called "WP:ASTONISH" which means that you have to use modern names to talk about historical things, so you introduce that at one point Thailand was called "Siam" but will exclusively use "Thailand" and "Thai" instead of "Siam" and "Siamese" for the rest of the article, thankfully not everyone follows this policy, but they try to hide the "Kingdom of Vietnam" as a translation under this policy, but they haven't articulated it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I was right. The moment you're so nationalistic that you even see French as a better language for the infobox than the language Vietnamese people have used for literally thousands of years. 🤣🤣🤣 --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung Before adding the infobox, he even used an old German map from 1844. Beside the odd French name (odd because French is a "barbarian language" that has not gained ground in the "centre of Huaxia civiziation" (with which the Nguyen like to describe themselves)), which is as ridiculous as someone adds the Arabic name to the article on Rome, I am also skeptical of the name "Nước Việt Nam", which seems to be another self-invention of this guy. The name sounds too vulgar to me (at least for this period), simply because Classical Chinese was still the official written language of the court up until 1945. I doubt that there are any documents from this time contain this name. LX | Talk 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, they clearly stated their motivations in the AfD for the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article, I didn't see the major re-writes they were up to because usually I just focus on the Nguyễn Dynasty period because that is the one I find the most interesting, but apparently they have consistently tried to make Vietnamese history "more South-East Asian" to make it more like Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Etc. They did so by redefining Vietnamese historical periods to be like those from the aforementioned countries and less like those from China, I would say that in general I am not necessarily opposed, but I think that Vietnam is more comparable to Korea than Thailand in its historiography, Champa clearly is "a typical South-East Asian country" but Vietnam as a whole is difficult to put firmly into a "South-East Asian" or "Chinese" box, while countries like Korea and Japan are firmly "Chinese" their historiography is also more "State-based" or based on other things than "just dynasties" as if one would make a Yamato Dynasty article it would literally be from 660 BCE until today, how European view "Barbadian" Celtic and Germanic tribes the Japanese saw the period in which their current dynasty started. An example of how their influence completely changed the face of an article just look at "Đại Việt" before them and during their last edit. I can't say that I universally disagree with them, but I see a clear "South-East Asiafication" of Vietnam in their historiography. It is kind of odd how they omit Chinese characters at every given chance as if Latin letters are "more Vietnamese", this would be like a Filipino saying that Latin script is "more Pinoy" than Baybayin (which was used until the early 20th century when the Americans made Latin the standard) or an Indonesian script saying that Latin script is somehow "more Indonesian" than Arabic and Javanese scripts (both continued to be used under the Netherlands until the new Republican Indonesian government replaced them with Latin). Their historiography strikes me as if Việt Nam was invented today and tries to retroactively project modern Vietnam on its past, whenever Confucianism or any other "Chinese ideology" is mentioned they explicitly do so as something "Chinese" but anything remotely South-East Asian isn't seen as "foreign". If they are an ethnic Chăm it could be them trying to process "their national trauma" by viewing it as if Champa was conquered by like-minded "typical South-East Asian people", but I probably shouldn't speculate on their motivations as much and just address their issues. I think that their ideology provably isn't too different from Trương Guy who also tries to "de-sinicise" Vietnam, note that whenever Laska666 removes something they perceive as "Chinese" they call it "more neutral", like removing the image from the "History of Vietnam" template and replacing it with a French map, almost as if Early Modern France is "more Vietnamese" than the scripts and symbols the Vietnamese have used for literal thousands of years.
To be fair, these debates remind me of how Koreans do the exact same thing with trying to "de-sinicise" their history as well, at least some Koreans. In North Korea the government promotes this, historically in South Korea too, but not the current government. I think that this is because a "Hoa nhân" was a "civilised person" in pre-20th century Vietnam/Korea and now modern Vietnamese/Korean people have to create an identity that is no longer rooted in them being "Hoa", also note that Chinese people completely monopolised the term, "Hoa ngữ" is Mandarin-Chinese, "Trung Hoa" is China, they still have "echoes of arrogance" from the old civilisation and completely monopolised those names, this is also why the Japanese Empire completely rejected these names and called them "Chi Na Cộng Hoà" instead "Trung Hoa Dân Quốc", the name is completely arrogant and usurps the identity of all "civilised" people until that point. Vietnamese revolutionaries specifically chose the name "Việt Nam" because it still contains a strong reference to "China" and "Chinese culture and history". But then again, you cannot isolate Vietnam from Indochina either, it fought a lot of wars with Siam and was usually more concerned with Champa than with China. Vietnamese history is like a tug-of-war (or "tug-of-peace" as y'all Zoomers would call it), on one hand you have people like Trương Guy and Laska666 pulling it into "a strong South-East Asian character", and on the other hand you have people like Musée Annam and the Nipponese Dpg Calvero trying to make it "Tiểu Trung Hoa". Both are right and both are wrong, just not in the same ways. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: In Vietnamese history groups on FB, there are sarcastic terms that describe people like Trương Guy or Laska666, namely "Bách Việt", "Thuần Việt tông" (a name that imitating some buddist sects, e.g. Tịnh độ tông). Oddly enough, Musée Annam used to call me "Thuần Vịt" and "Bài Tàu" because I criticized his excessive use of unusual Hán-Việt vocalbulary, which no modern Vietnamese would understand. Btw, Trương Guy has a FB account called "Trương Hữu Nhật". Quite funny to see how he tries to promote his thoughts when everyone is against him =)) LX | Talk 14:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Two sides of the pendulum.
This is actually a global phenomenon, like how Vietnam and Korea were Chinese civilisation countries Pre-French Revolution Europeans considered themselves to be a part of "the Christian civilisation" and Muslims had a similar deal (with Latin and Arabic filling in the place of Classical Chinese), Ancient Jews referred to all non-Jews as "pagans" (this actually survives in the Bible). History is always problematic for modern nationalists, the Franks were a Germanic tribe, during the 19th century both the French and Germans demonised the Franks as "foreign invaders" with each side calling the other "Franks", but eventually in France they started seeing themselves as "a continuation of the Franks" (after a period of extreme Gallophilia) and the Germans started viewing the Franks, a Germanic tribe, as predecessors to the modern French. Hitler's historians referred to the genocide of the non-Christian Saxons by the Franks as "a French attack on the German people" and the French collaborative division in the German Wehrmacht were called the "Charlemagne legion" but today no city celebrates its "Frankish pride" more than Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) and the only countries that speak a variant of Frankish as their national language are the Benelux. People look at modern maps and names and will try to retroactively fit history into the modern story, this perpetuates "the myth of nations". Most modern historiography is written in what I refer to as being based on "Inevitablisms", that events in history were inevitable and were some sort of "spiritual will of the nation", most of it actually being based on the stupid thinking of German nationalist philosophers from the 19th century. This is also the origin of the ideology of “essentialism” (bản chất luận) so common in modern Vietnamese nationalist historiography. This is often based on the idea that there was this continuous "Vietnamese culture" that existed from the Hung Kings until the present that has withstand a thousand years of Chinese domination. It is the idea that modern German culture is a direct continuation of the culture of the Germanic tribes except for the Franks (ironically the Franks are the Germanics with the most influence on modern European laws and culture), it is the ideology behind almost all the stupidity of both the far-right and far-left, the pendulum swings two ways and these people are the antithesis of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, neutral and as factual as possible. With European history we have seen the nuances of history be covered correctly and nationalist historiography has been on its way out since the 1950's, but most or the world nationalist historiography and "nation state inevitableism" is the dominant ideology. Japan is actually the first Chinese cultural country that moved beyond it and I see South Korea moving towards a more "scientific historiography", but this is still something that has yet to be adopted by historians that cover Vietnamese history. Lê Minh Khải being the only one I know of that actually tries to objectively analyse Vietnamese history. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

When you have the time, can you make an SVG version of "File:Đại Nam Hoàng đế chi tỷ (大南皇帝之璽) 03.jpg" for an infobox? I want to pre-emptively make a good infobox for "The House of Nguyễn Phúc" before Laska666 re-writes the whole Nguyễn Empire article. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Vietnamese translation for templates

Mình đã dịch bản tiếng Việt cho một số bản mẫu, ví dụ Template:No source since/vi nhưng nó không hiển thị cái nút Tiếng Việt nhỏ nhỏ ở trang chính Template:No source since. Không hiểu sao. Băng Tỏa (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Băng Tỏa: Cái này Băng phải thêm tay, chứ nó không tự động như mấy bản mẫu hoặc trang sử dụng cái Special:Translate. — LX | Talk 04:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
[Personal attacks removed by LX | Talk 03:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)]
@Sinh tử hữu mệnh: Nếu có xích mích với thành viên khác xin đừng xả rác tại trang thảo luận của tôi, cảm ơn. LX | Talk 03:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Không quen biết thì đừng có báo cáo. Lo làm việc với lũ rối đi. Sinh tử hữu mệnh (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

License review

Can you confirm licenses of these images?

Ltn12345 (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ltn12345: ✓ Done. Tks for finding and uploading these lovely images to Commons. I think you should nominate some of them for COM:FPC. Anyway, I can't review File:Bac Son paddy field waterscape, Vietnam.jpg cuz it was uploaded to Pixabay after January 2019 (files uploaded since the site's recent license change is not considered to be freely licensed and can't be accepted on Commons). LX | Talk 13:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

License review (2)

Can you confirm licenses of these images?

Ltn12345 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done LX | Talk 11:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: LX | Talk 11:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Review Request

Please, review this. --Owais Al Qarni (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Excessive copyvio — LX | Talk 13:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: LX | Talk 13:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Category:Nón tơi

Lệ Xuân ơi, cái thể loại này chắc cần phải đổi tên thành Nón lá chứ nhỉ? Băng Tỏa (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Băng Tỏa ✓[OK] Đã sửa. Cái này là đống rác của thằng bệnh Ngọc Giao để lại ấy mà.
@Ngọc Giao Tao biết thằng bệnh mày suốt ngày lượn lờ trên này nên nhắn cho mày biết. Tao thừa biết mày đọc được tin nhắn tao gửi hôm Việt Nam đá với Ả Rập Xê Út. Nhưng mà cái loại đụt như mày hôm đấy đọc xong chắc vãi đái nên mới vội chạy đi ẩn hết mọi post FB lại và câm như hến mấy bữa nay. Nhưng tao nói thẳng cho mày biết là tao vẫn đợi đấy, giỏi thì kéo cả họ nhà mày xuống đấy chơi. Tao muốn xem thằng bệnh hoạn thức tới tận nửa đêm để spam ảnh ku, ăn nói mất dạy, hổ báo, quấy rối phụ nữ trên mạng như mày ở ngoài đời có nhìn giống như thằng chơi đá không nào. Mày phá ai chứ quấy tao là mày động nhầm người rồi con ạ. — LX | Talk 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: LX | Talk 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Quang Trung flag

  •  Myth or legit?, I saw this flag at the unveiling of a statue of Quang Trung in the United States of America 🇺🇸 (quite obvious with all the in-your-face South Vietnamese flags). I am also aware of this South Vietnamese banknote that also seems to feature this flag.
I know that several others have seen this flag as Flags of the World (FOTW) reported on it, though they misattributed it. Since you managed to dig up that old Nguyễn dynasty military flag perhaps you would know where to look as I haven't been able to confirm this flag. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung Do you mean the one with the name Quang Trung written in golden Hán tự characters? I don't know where they got the information from, but the flag itself looks exactly like the five-color flags that you can see at almost every village festival in Northern Vietnam (however the color composition of this fancy Californian version looks a little bit weird).
I managed to confirm and redraw the old military flag of the Nguyễn dynasty because I saw it with my own eyes when visiting the Invalides (the flag was in the same room as Nguyễn Tri Phương's mandarin costume). Meanwhile all other flags on the internet supposed to be from that era (or before) may just be pure imagination. LX | Talk 19:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I personally trust South Vietnamese sources as much as I trust Communist sources, which ain't much. Despite Communists and And-Communists seemingly coming from different places both sides seem to have the same nature of nationalism that tries the same stupid techniques in re-writing history, this is why I am not sure if the banner on the South Vietnamese banknote is accurate or not and sources are extremely rare. South Korea used to be like Vietnam, but its history department "matured" in the past few decades and has become "fully academic" while Vietnamese history is probably closer to a religion at this point than an academic field. (More on that in the future) I am won't believe in the Quang Trung flag until I see proof with my own eyes, so I will continue to research it, after the pandemic I am probably going back to Hanoi to see if I can find this flag. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Article idea for you

Perhaps you can write an article about the French loan words in Vietnamese based on resources like this (Danh·sách từ gốc Pháp trong tiếng Việt) as "a daughter article" to "Từ mượn trong tiếng Việt". Perhaps you can add the Nôm to showcase why French words were re-shaped in the way they were (as English words tend to get borrowed wholesale due to the current usage of Latin script).

Passing this onto you as I know that you are quite interested in linguistics and many people forget how many common words are actually of French origin. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:32, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Tks for the suggestion, but I think I have to do a lot of research before being able to write about this topic. While my French – which I've had as a second foreign language at school from 7th grade till graduation – is quite okay, I've never really made or tried to make any connection between Vietnamese and French. The only Vietnamese-French connection that came to my mind are common words like rideaux, gateaux, équipe etc =)))) It's certainly an interesting topic and I will definitely do it sometime in the near future. LX | Talk 20:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lệ_Xuân/Archive_2&oldid=606086078"