Jump to content

Talk:Hồ Quý Ly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Ho Quy Ly)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: majority after 38 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ho Quy Ly → Hồ Quý Ly – Restore. I am not by any means convinced myself about the need for treating Vietnamese names as we do French or Czech ones, but this and other moves today come after several users have requested this stop. (i) Freshly moved 20:17, 16 July 2012‎ and redirect edited preventing revert. (ii) WP:IRS "best such sources" "sources reliable for the statement being made" Dutch-Vietnamese Relations, 1637-1700 2007 "By the end of the following century, however, the Trần had declined and the dynasty was eventually usurped by Hồ Quý Ly, who founded the Hồ Dynasty in 1400 but failed to preserve independence of the country from Ming invasion ..." ; Postcolonial Vietnam: New Histories of the National Past 2002 "The combination of the Trần court's incompetence and the treachery of Hồ Quý Ly, who first inserted himself in the royal family and then, in 1400, usurped the throne, provided the Ming Chinese with a pretext to invade." In ictu oculi (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
I'm afraid that "Whatever I did to upset IIO, I apologizes" might work when someone is five-years old, but isn't going to deflect from the issue here. There are in fact sections of Category:Vietnamese people you have not yet moved, or had moved, as illustrated by the mass move of Category:Vietnamese footballers this morning. When several users have asked you to at least pause, the community should be given the opportunity to review at least. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historical figures have been around for while, so there are established conventions regarding their names. These various grievances don't belong here. Kauffner (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I suggest that people take Kauffner's numbers with a big grain of salt. I clicked on the first page of google book hits (also, I got fewer than him);, and at least 3 of the sources had diacritics. Google's OCR does not always detect VN dicritical marks, but they are there in the original sources, so simple google book searches are *not* sufficient here. --KarlB (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. For a tonal language like Vietnamese, diacritics have extra importance for correct pronunciation, and are easily ignored by those for whom they have no significance. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the pinyin system of representing Chinese, diacritics also indicate tonal information. However, the academic convention is to strip the diacritics from the pinyin, because a native speaker can determine the correct words from context. Same for computer input systems. Even though the article title is Ho Quy Ly, the diacritics are in the text so we gain accessibility and don't lose any information. Shrigley (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - we have the technology, so we should use it. Non-diacritic redirects can adequately cover search purposes. Mjroots (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We have the technology to have Chinese character and Arabic script titles, yet we don't do it because it's not in the convention of English-language literature. Shrigley (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - I dislike having to say this but since you have made five comments here, User Shrigley you should ideally have noted that you were directly canvassed 20 July & again 20 July.
    • Second - this theme that has come up on several discussions recently where Users do not seem to be familiar with WP:AT which distinguishes alphabets on the basis of whether they are Latin-alphabet or not, hence Hawaiian, Czech, Vietnamese, Malaysian, French are Latin-alphabet, Georgian, Armenian, Chinese, Arabic, Greek, Russian are non-Latin-alphabet. See WP:AT. We do not need to provide a "romanization" for Vietnamese because the Portuguese-influenced alphabet is already a romanization of the Sino-Vietnamese name, there is no such thing as a romanization of a romanization - despite the current stance of National Geographic vs this Latin-alphabet language only. En.wp has no such stance, en.wp generally treated Vietnamese as any other Latin-alphabet language until the 1700 undiscussed moves of the last 12 months. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If we're going to use them for German (& we do), not using them for other languages is biased & wrong. Any issues of search can be (& are) addressed with redirects. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not the ones making the distinction between Vietnamese and languages like French; the reliable sources are, and we are simply following the distinction that reliable sources make. Shrigley (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Many good English sources use the fully-elaborated real name; no reason not to then. Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of 100 post-1990 Gbook mentions of this subject, five or six have diacritics -- and they are far from the most authoritative. He is given by Encarta without a diacritic, which is cited in our guidelines as a spelling reference. The norm on both Wiki and in published English is not to use Vietnamese diacritics. This move would give the subject his own unique little style. Kauffner (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on, Kauffner, stop giving us that bullshit. This book search (since 1990) finds 4 of the first 10 with diacritics. You have to actually look at the books, since the OCR drops them, as do many other technologically limited styles. Dicklyon (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree; Kauffner, you have been told many times that your google searches are flawed. the OCR drops the diacritics, so you have to look at each book result individually. Every single post of yours where gbooks results have been claimed, when I checked I have found the numbers to be flawed, and many of the non-diacritic hits are found to have diacritics in the source. Please cease this dishonest peddling of false "facts".--KarlB (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would anyone care to dial down the rudeness, per WP:CIVIL? Checking the actual text does indeed yield four books that give this name with diacritics on first page of GBook results, namely Tran, Pelley, Li, and Colonial Armies. There are three more such books in the following pages, Tai, Silk for Silver, and Crossroads. That makes seven results with diacritics out of about 100 relevant hits. Kauffner (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is it rude to point out how you consistently and repeatedly distort search results in RM discussions? Anyway, I only see 26 relevant (English-language) books in total. Many of those I can't find any occurrence of the name in, so they don't count one way or the other. Many others have the name only in a reference to a paper that didn't use diacritics in its title, so they don't count one way or the other, either. The point is that the diacritic is not at all rare, even if perhaps less common than the plain style (which is yet to be established if so, since nobody has counted books that use the name without the diacritcs). Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The most serious arguments relate to which sources are the most reliable, and I see that while it is possible to cherry-pick a few exceptional sources that intersperse English-language text with Vietnamese, the most relevant sources to Wikipedia - that is, tertiary sources like Britannica and Columbia; the most authoritative histories like Cambridge History of Southeast Asia; and contemporary newspapers like VietnamNet Bridge - all omit the diacritics. Shrigley (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Britannica and Columbia are only generalist tertiary sources, see WP:PSTS, wheras the books among those Dicklyon links to such as Việt Nam: Borderless Histories 2006 Page 69, Colonial armies in Southeast Asia 2006 Page 100 are secondary sources. [PS, as regards media, since English Vietweek and English Baomoi/VGP started upgrading that is no longer true]. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CANVASS. There may now be a problem with this RM. Kauffner, have you been sending out invitations to this RM? If so, to whom? Before answering please bear in mind that this is a move to restore an undiscussed and locked controversial move - You have already had your way with this article once, you should at least allow an RM over restoring the article to proceed cleanly. Hopefully if selected users have been directly canvassed they will be able to resist. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

[edit]
  • Comment. Does anyone think that having one bio at a different format than the others improves the encyclopedia? I know I asked before, but I don't see a response. The title should be the name of the subject in the form that is most recognizable to an English-speaking reader. It should not be expected to give pronunciation and tone. The article is where such things should be explained. In fact, the opening already gives the form of the name with diacritics in boldface. If you look over the GBook results, Cambridge is easily the most authoritative source that mentions this subject, and the obvious one for us to follow. Kauffner (talk) 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Vietnam bios were largely consistent with all other Latin-alphabet bios until the moves started. Your question would raise three obvious counter-questions:
(i) If you were concerned about consistency last year why start moving a few of them then, when most of them were consistently at Vietnamese spellings?
(ii) Does this mean that all French and Czech BLPs should have French and Czech spelling? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(iii) Why should all European (including Turkish) Latin-alphabet bios be treated on way, but Asian Latin-alphabet bios be treated another way (except that Hawaiian isn't Kalanikūpule). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Ngo Dinh Diem, Phan Boi Chau, and all the dozens of articles on military commanders? You think I moved them all? But let's skip past the trip down memory lane and look at WP:DIACRITICS: "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." Published encyclopedias may not mention this individual, but they consistently give other Vietnamese names without diacritics. There are also dozens of books, some quite authoritative, where this name appears in the form that is currently used in the title. Kauffner (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For modern military figures, no you didn't move every single one. No, but since the failed Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 on August 7th 2011 you have moved around 950 Vietnam articles to non-diacritics without an RM and counter the result of the last RM. So question (i) (ii) and (iii) stand.
Even though you haven't addressed (i, ii, iii) I'll answer your question re WP:Naming conventions (use English). Answer; it is only the product of recent edits, such as this, but if "reliable" is understood by the "definition of reliable" then there's no problem, and no reason for the nonsense of e.g. websites with no Czech are reliable sources for spelling Czech names. Evidently some reliable sources do treat classical Vietnamese figures with full Vietnamese names, witness the nomination. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent RM on this issue was for Vo Chi Cong (23 September 2011). There were three votes for the form with diacritics, six against. So it wasn't even close. Do you expect a large number of the articles to move after this RM closes? Perhaps you could define the scope of this request more precisely. Nhan Dan, the Vietnam News Agency, Voice of Vietnam, and the other official sources do not use these diacritics. As these sites are based in Vietnam, they certainly have the expertise and software to put diacritics on if they wanted to. I asked an editor why they don't use them and she told me, "Some people can't see them." That doesn't make much sense. But it is clearly a policy decision, not a technical issue. They have a lot more experience with this issue than we do. Viet Nam News has tried publishing both with diacritics and without. Wiki should use the format that allows English speakers to understand what we have to say with the least amount of difficulty, not out-Vietnamese the Vietnamese. Kauffner (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, could you have the courtesy to address (i) (ii) (iii) please. In answer to your question, no. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see I actually registered an oppose [to anglicized names] at the Vo Chi Cong RM, this is long before I became aware of the diacritics problem on en.wp, I must have been attracted to it purely because it was Vietnam related. I also had no knowledge of the failed Can Tho RM move before it, nor that several 100 articles had already been moved without RM. Nor most importantly was I aware that Vo Chi Cong's name does appear with diacritics in the VGP/Baomoi English article of his obituary. Hardly a license to move 950 articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you were opposed, who is this? Kauffner (talk) 09:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To anglicized names. Kauffner, could you have the courtesy to address (i) (ii) (iii) please. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counting up Google Books

[edit]

There's been a flurry of complaints and various proceedings against me recently, and my use of Google Books being prominent among the issues. So I have counted up the post-1980 English-language GBooks results below to provide a more detailed view of this matter. I have indicated which references are bibliographic. These books all follow the same style in the text as in their bibliographies, i.e. if the text uses diacritics, so does the bibliography. So I consider these references to be valid. But of course a bibliographic is less significant one in the main text.

Books that give “Hồ Quý Ly”

[edit]
  1. Nhung Tuyet Tran, Việt Nam: Borderless Histories, (2006)
  2. Patricia Pelly, Postcolonial Vietnam: New Histories of the National Past, (2002)
  3. Tana Li, Nguyễn Cochinchina, (1998)
  4. Anh Tuấn Hoàng, Silk for Silver, (2007) (bibliographic)
  5. Crossroads, Volume 17, Issues 1-2. (2003) (bibliographic)
  6. Karl Hack, Tobias Rettig, Colonial Armies in Southeast Asia, (2006) (bibliographic)
  7. Keith Weller Taylor, John K. Whitmore, Essays Into Vietnamese Pasts (1995)
  8. 75 years of the Communist Party of Viet Nam, 1930-2005 (2005)
  9. O. W. Wolters, Early Southeast Asia: Selected Essays, (2008)
  10. Thiện Đỗ, Vietnamese Supernaturalism: Views from the Southern Region (2003).
  11. David G. Marr, Anthony Crothers Milner, Southeast Asia in the 9th to 14th Centuries (1986) (This pre-unicode and looks almost like someone put the marks in by hand.)
  12. William H. Nienhauser, The Indiana Companion to Traditional Chinese Literature (1986)
  13. Choi Byung Wook, Southern Vietnam Under the Reign of Minh Mạng (2004).
  14. Claire Sutherland, Soldered states: nation-building in Germany and Vietnam, (2010).
  15. George Edson Dutton, The Tây Sơn Uprising: Society and Rebellion in Eighteenth-century Vietnam (2006) (bibliographic).
  16. Vietnamese ceramics: with an illustrated catalogue of the exhibition (1982).

Books that give “Ho Quy Ly"

[edit]
  1. Justin Corfield, The History of Vietnam, (2008).
  2. Tarling, Nicholas, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: From early times to c.1500, Vol. 1, (2000), p. 149.
  3. Encyclopedia of Asian history, Volume 2, (1988).
  4. Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor (2004).
  5. L. Shelton Woods, Vietnam: A Global Studies Handbook, (2002).
  6. Encyclopedia of Modern Asia: China-India relations to Hyogo (2002).
  7. Hue-Tam Ho Tai, The Country of Memory: Remaking the Past in Late Socialist Vietnam, (2001). (The subject is given in main text without diacritics, although listed in an index with them).
  8. Kiernan, Ben, Blood and Soil: Modern Genocide 1500-2000, (2008).
  9. Victor B. Lieberman, Strange Parallels: Southeast Asia in Global Context, C 800-1830, Volume 1 (2003).
  10. Brantly Womack, China And Vietnam: The Politics of Asymmetry, (2006).
  11. Trai Nguyen, Beyond the Court Gate, (2010).
  12. Philip G. Altbach, Tōru Umakoshi, Asian Universities, (2004).
  13. Robert S. Wick, Money, Markets, and Trade in Early Southeast Asia, (1992).
  14. Brantly Womack, China Among Unequals, (2010).
  15. Yuan-Kang Wang, Harmony and War, (2010).
  16. D. R. SarDesai, Vietnam: the Struggle for National Identity, (1992).
  17. Vietnam Foreign Policy and Government Guide (2007).
  18. Linh Hoang, Rebuilding Religious Experience- Vietnamese Refugees in America (2008).
  19. Ralph Bernard Smith, Beryl Williams, Pre-Communist Indochina’‘ (2009).
  20. Kim Ngoc Bao Ninh, A World Transformed: The Politics of Culture in Revolutionary Vietnam, 1945-1965 (2002).
  21. Georges Boudarel, Văn Ký Nguyêñ, Hanoi: City of the Rising Dragon (2002).
  22. The Journal of Asian studies, Volume 47, Issues 1-2 (1988).
  23. Mark Philip Bradley, Vietnam at War’‘ (2009) (bibliographic).
  24. Andrew A. Wiest, Triumph Revisited: Historians Battle for the Vietnam War, (2010).
  25. Diana Lary, The Chinese State at the Borders (2007).
  26. Barbara A. West, Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania (2010).
  27. Tài Thư Nguyễn, The History of Buddhism in Vietnam (2008).
  28. Audrey Seah, Charissa M. Nair, Vietnam (2005).
  29. Trãi Nguyễn, Beyond the Court Gate: Selected Poems of Nguyen Trai (2010).
  30. James Anderson, The Rebel Den of Nùng Trí Cao (2007) (bibliographic)
  31. Mark Moyar, Triumph Forsaken: The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, p. 4. (2006). “In the year 1400, the cunning regent Ho Quy Ly orchestrated the strangling of the young king and massacred huge numbers of his supporters...”
  32. Owen, Norman G., The Emergence Of Modern Southeast Asia: A New History (2005).
  33. Yonglin Jiang, The Mandate of Heaven and The Great Ming Code (bibliographic) (2011).

I note that the material with diacritics is heavy with highly specialized, articles from journals like Crossroads, and former journal articles collected into books such as Essays Into Vietnamese Pasts. Our guidelines refer to a style limited to this kind of literature as specialist fancy style. Material intended for a wider audience, such as Cambridge History, Corfield’s History of Vietnam (currently one of the top-selling books on Vietnamese history) or multivolume reference works Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia of Modern Asia are without diacritics. Any of those would be appropriate sources for this article, and none of them can be dismissed as popular literature. It is particularly appropriate to use other references as a model, per WP:EN. National Geographic may have more experience more experience publishing a wider variety of diacritics than anyone else. Here is what their style manual has to say: “Although Vietnamese is written in the Latin alphabet, the number of accent marks can be distracting and may therefore be omitted." The Vietnamese English-language press, for example VOV News, has considerable experience with both using and omitting these marks, and their usual style is to drop them. Kauffner (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. However, I think the more interesting question is, in sources that *do* use diacritics, which ones omit the diacritics for Ho Quy Ly. For example, this book [1] uses diacritics for Ho Quy Ly, but it does not use them for Saigon and Vietnam. There, you have an editorial decision that Saigon and Vietnam do not need them, but other, lesser known entities do. If an editorial decision was made to not use diacritics for anything, then pointing out that they don't use diacritics for Ho Quy Ly is a tautology (and thus provides no additional information). Thus, the only sources IMHO which are valid for determining the spelling are sources which use diacritics, but choose not to for Ho Quy Ly. I'm sure there are many VN subjects which are so well known that even those who use diacritics drop them when referring to those things (the book above is an example). We need to find other examples like this book, and then use that as our source. Editorial decisions to simply drop all diacritics are like editorial decisions to publish in black and white - they don't help us if we want to determine color.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you found a book that follows a style you like. Is there anything wrong with Việt Nam: Borderless Histories? They go all the way and give Sài Gòn and Hà Nội. Kauffner (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "a style I like", it's just one of the books you linked to above. I noticed in the Bordless Histories book however that they use Vietnam in the running text. The point is, not to choose a particular book, but to have a corpus of books, and then look at what happens within that corpus. I think if you did so, you would find that even in sources which use diacritics, the majority will probably not use them for Vietnam, Saigon, Hanoi, and a few others that are broadly known, but do use them for other words. The same arguably could be said about something like Pho - I bet you could find books that use VN diacritics for other less-well known VN foods, but that don't use them for Pho. However, arguing that diacritics should be removed from one article based on sources which don't use diacritics at all doesn't help your case - that's a broader discussion, happening at the RfC now. This book for example doesn't put diacritics on Hue [2], but in this case it's a moot point since we need to disambiguate between the english Hue. The authors explanation is as follows: [3]

Because Vietnamese is a tonal language that is unpronounceable and meaningless without diacritical marks, I have included them when they were present in the original text. However, recognizing that nonspecialists may find the diacritics difficult to manage, I have omitted them from terms that are familiar to an English-speaking audience. Widely known toponyms (for example, Vietnam, Hanoi, Haiphog, Hue, Saigon and so forth)appear without diacritical marks, as do proper names such as Ho Chi Minh, Ngo Dinh Diem, and Vo Nguyen Giap. The major exception to this practice is that proper names familiar to ethnologists, who may or may not be specialists in Vietnamese studies, are written as they normally appear in English. Without doubt this solution is imperfect, but I am convinced that it is preferable to the alternative of omitting the diacritics altogether or, worse yet, using only those that occur in Western languages - the circumflex, for example, and accent marks.

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pelley's book is just one of thousands on Vietnam, the vast majority of which do not use diacritics. If Wiki is supposed to be a reference work, we should follow the usage of other reference works, like Britannica, Encyclopedia of Modern Asia, or Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia. There are various tonal language besides Vietnamese, but there does not seem to be issue of putting tones in titles for other languages. Tones are even more important in Chinese than in Vietnamese, yet we use non-tonal pinyin. Officially, tones are part of the pinyin system. Kauffner (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If en.wp articles on Vietnamese historical figures are to be a reference work on Vietnamese historical figures there is no rule that says that en.wp must follow Britannica which has few such articles, rather than following more specialist sources. As for the French-given Latin alphabet script, the reason the French included these diacritics is that without them characters and names become ambiguous. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even by that standard, Cambridge History is certainly a respected specialist source on this subject. A style limited to journal articles is a specialist style fancy. WP:DIACRITICS says to "follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works)." No, the Vietnamese alphabet is not based on French, or "French-given". Perhaps you should look at this book. Kauffner (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kauffner, there's no point rehashing this again, you've had all these (largely spurious) arguments countered before by various Users. And if you were so sure of the logic and strength of your arguments, why did you on July 16, after several editors had asked you to stop (i) do an undiscussed move and (ii) edit the redirect to prevent a revert:
  • 20:17, 16 July 2012‎ Kauffner (+52)‎ . . (added Category:Redirects from titles with diacritics using HotCat) (undo)
  • 20:17, 16 July 2012‎ Kauffner (+23)‎ . . (Kauffner moved page Hồ Quý Ly to Ho Quy Ly:
Having single-handedly removed the Vietnamese from 1700 or so article titles, you need to stop your gaming and start listening to other Users. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As noted above; the name is not in common use in English language sources as Ho Chi Mihn, Saigon, etc. are, and therefore in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME we should refer to it by the more correct of the two options, i.e. the one with diacritics. Hopefully this post will get the attention of an admin, and pull this RM out of the backlog. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hồ_Quý_Ly&oldid=1202247148"