Talk:Nanyue/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Nanyue. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vietnam section

The text below is sourced.

Nam(Nan) means "south" and thus the term Nam Viet(Nan Yue) means "Southern Viet(Yue)" Nam Viet is the modern Vietnamese    
notation. Nan Yue the modern Chinese.  In historical studies "Nam Viet(Nan Yue)" is used in this way as either a geographical 
or a historic concept.^[1]

Sea888 (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The language

Most of the articles on the ancient Chinese history are written in the atrociously incorrect English. This article, as many others, needs to be thoroughly edited by someone with the actual knowledge of the language and its grammar. idiotoff 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Fujian

HenryLi is correct; modern Fujian was the domain of Minyue. --Nlu (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, if you insist. —Nightst a llion (?) 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move Nam Việt → Nanyue (2006)

Support moving Nam Việt to Nanyue. LuiKhuntek 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Since 越南 is Việt Nam → Vietnam and not Yuenan in English don't move 南越 Nam Việt to Nanyue. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 09:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

However, in the case of this kingdom, the 越 refers not to Vietnam or Vietnamese, but to the hundred Yue.--Yuje 10:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Support, since I think the Nam Viet name is unfair, when the Vietnamese make up only one of the hundred ethnicities, and the Vietnamese portions itself comprised only portions of the Nanyue/Nam Viet state. And the state was founded originally by a Chinese general among non-Vietnamese Yue peoples. As far as I know, Zhao Tuo first founded Nanyue, then conquered the territories that comprised modern-day northern Vietnam. --Yuje 10:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Only one day to discuss? Ain't that a bit short? @Yuje: If you read the article about the hundred Yue/Viet you linked to you find this: the Hundred Yue tribes (Chinese: 百越; Hanyu Pinyin: bǎi yuè; Vietnamese: Bách Việt). Sure 百越 are not Vietnamese alone but Vietnamese are the only descendants of 百越 who have their own country. --峻義 Jùnyì 論 03:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it was too short of a time, I extended it, and posted the requested move template on the article page. For your objection, I think the other Yue, such as the 粵 Yue do have their own country. It's called China. 粵 (Yue), for example, is the word used for modern-day Guangdong and the Cantonese language. --Yuje 10:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

If you take a character dictionary 字典 like the 汉语大字典 you will get the information that 越 and 粵 were interchangeably used in old times and meant the same. You can get the same information here: Yue (peoples): In archaic Chinese, a number of characters (越, 粵, 鉞) were often used interchangeably to represent the same meaning.

As far as I know 粵 is 广东的简称 (shortened form of Guangdong) and Guangdong is a province of a country but not a country of its own. You couldn't use 粵 to refer to China as a whole, could you? But you can refer to Vietnam as a whole using 越. The 壮族 Zhuangzu are also descendants of 百越 and also have no country of their own (cf: : 壮族就是古代百越部族 (The Zhuang were a part of the ancient hundred Yue/Việt). So as I stated above the Vietnamese are the only part of the ancient 百越 who have a country of their own today. Moving the article to Nanyue would be unfair to use your words, I prefer incorrect because the Han were definitely NOT part of 百越, so why use modern-day North Chinese pronounciation?

Look at this:

Character: 越

Modern (Beijing) reading: yuè
Preclassic Old Chinese: wat
Classic Old Chinese: wat
Western Han Chinese: wat
Eastern Han Chinese: wat
Early Postclassic Chinese: wat
Middle Postclassic Chinese: wǝt
Late Postclassic Chinese: wǝt
Middle Chinese: wǝt

Source

As you can see from this data việt is historically more correct than yuè because it is much closer to the historic pronounciation (remember we speak about 207 - 110 BC, so even the Hàn-Chinese pronounciation of the time was wat.)

For further reading I suggest: Sino-Platonic Papers #17 (1990) "Tatooed Faces And Stilt Houses: Who Were The Ancient Yue?"

Two last points:

Nam Việt makes sense since otherwise it would not become clear why the Jiaqing-emperor forced the Gia Long-emperor to change Đại Việt 大越 not to Nam Việt but to Việt Nam (namely to prevent any confusion or remembrance of the old state) if the article would be renamed to Nanyue. (In wiki zh and vi this connection is evident.)
the article is part of the history of Vietnam series and the ruling dynasty is filed under Triệu Dynasty not Zhao Dynasty.

--峻義 Jùnyì 論 12:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's true that the connection with Vietnam would be lost, but it's also just as equally true that by keeping the name, the connection with the Yue peoples, the Yue language, Yue opera, the Yue abbreviation of modern-day Guangdong, and other Yue states like Minyue and Wuyue would be lost as well. Keeping it at Nam Viet would imply that it was a Vietnamese state, which it really wasn't. I suppose you could argue its closeness to classical Chinese, but the name in other Chinese dialects such as Cantonese are closer as well. But, as I said, the Vietnamese aren't the only ethnicity in this state. In included others as well, such as the Zhuang, Li, Miao, Dong, Yao, and the ancestors of today's Cantonese people. While it might be impractical to have an article title in the names of each of these languages, it is true that Mandarin is used as a lingua franca by most of these groups. --Yuje 22:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Junyi I'm interested to know when did the shift from /wǝt/ to /jyt/ happen. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 17:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For now I just can say that it must have occurred first after the 10th because Sino-Vietnamese reading is việt /wjǝt˨˩/ and this reading conserved the Chinese reading from the time when most of the loan words were taken from Chinese after the indepence in 938 (even the older loan words got an updated pronounciation). And it is also a shift that is not finished yet in recent dialects of Chinese as you can see from this table below and that it is progressed more in the innovative North (even the final consonant disappeared) and less in the linguistically conservative South (see 闽 Min (Xiamen) pronounciation).

Beijing: ye 3

Jinan: ye 3

Xi'an: ye 11

Taiyuan: yǝʔ 41

Hankou: ye 12

Chengdu: ye 12

Yangzhou: yǝʔ 4

Suzhou: yo^ʔ 42

Wenzhou: ɦy 42

Changsha: ye 4

Shuangfeng: uɛ 12

Nanchang: yɔt 41

Meixian: jat 42

Guangzhou: jyt 42

Xiamen: uat 42

Chaozhou: uek 42

Fuzhou: ouʔ 42

Shanghai: yi^ʔ 42

Zhongyuan yinyun: ye 43 ([1])

--峻義 Jùnyì 論 01:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact vast majority of the state falls within the area of present-day Cantonese-speaking population and its capital is 番禺 (Pan Yue) (present-day Canton). I would suggest to move it to Nam Yuet as in Cantonese language. — HenryLi (Talk) 14:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That's much better than Nanyue, but then you'd have to rename Vietnam → Nam Yuet like in Cantonese to get the connection (name change from Đại Việt 大越, see above) secondly parts of the 越 (namely modern Vietnamese) moved southward when the Chinese settled in their country so it is logical that they must have lived somewhere more in the north (modern Guangdong) again: leave it here--峻義 Jùnyì 論 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Mild support (the proposed move). The reason is because the vast majority of the kingdom's territory wasn't in modern day Vietnam; it was in modern Guangdong and Guangxi, as such is a largely Chinese kingdom. I understand the historical and linguistic connections, but it's really more properly a part of Chinese rather than Vietnamese history, and therefore using the Mandarin transliteration would be more proper, I think. --Nlu (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Note that when I first edited this article, it was a redirect to History of Vietnam ([2]). I considered moving the article to Nanyue, but didn't because I noted that the Encyclopedia Britannica used Nam Viet [3]. DHN 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

About merging this article with Triệu Dynasty (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oppose since one is the name of a country (and the name of the country is related to the modern name of Vietnam) and the other one is the name of the dynasty that ruled it and this article covers the monarchs that are not of such relevance here. If you really want to merge them, leave this this lemma. (It would be much easier to discuss if those who prpose such a merging would give reasons.)--峻義 Jùnyì 論 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. Initial I opposed to the merge, but after I studied the Records of the Grand Historian written in Han dynasty. (Nam Yuet was mentioned in Roll 113 : Ch. 53.) Two articles of Nanyue and Triệu Dynasty are in fact ultimate sourced from this book. The term Triệu Dynasty (趙朝) was coined much later. In the Triệu Dynasty, the names are just the Vietnamese pronunciation of the Chinese character mentioned in the book. Some information is full of deduction without solid proof. It is surpried that Beijing was mentioned in article. Another surprise is that the article mentioned that Han Empire was distracted by the chaos in Northern China. The article also assumed that Yuet people in Nam Yuet were Vietnamese and simply ignored that the Nam Yuet was based in the city of Canton.

Second, while you claimed the country and the dynasty have no such relevance, when I moved the Template:History of Vietnam from Nanyue to Triệu Dynasty, you showed your contradition from your claim by putting it back. Did you notice that the template is dynasty-based (Triệu Dynasty) rather than country-based (Nam Yuet).

— HenryLi (Talk) 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mildly Support. Actually I think the Nanyue's History section can refer to the Trieu Dynasty article as a main article to describe the kings more in depth. And while we're at it, I also think that article should be renamed to Zhao Dynasty since Zhao Tuo was Han Chinese anyway. Yellowtailshark 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

conclusion statements

南越 can therefore be thought of as roughly meaning "southern Guangdong."

This statement implies that northern Guangdong is not part of Nam Yuet, but it is not ture.

The modern name "Vietnam" (Việt Nam) is 南越 (Nam Việt) with an adapted word order.

Although there might be a relation between two names, it does not mean the name of Vietnam is originated from the reverse of character order.

These two above-mentioned statements are somehow misleading.

A better interpretation:

Nam (南) means in the south and Yuet (越) means yuet people and the place of yuet people. Nam Yuet (南越) is a southern country in the place of Yuet people.

— HenryLi (Talk) 14:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NAN YUEH, NAM VIET, VIET NAM

Sirs,

Only a small proportion of Yueh prevailed, that broke away from China and kept going south in history.

The Vietnamese retain the name Yueh.

Those Yueh that stayed back in China have long become Chinese. Yet, they are still called Yue, Yueh or Yuet today. (The discussions on this page apparently disputed that the terms Yue, Yueh or Yuet should be associated with the Han-Chinese identity.)

Nan Yueh (Nam Viet) was originally so-named to distinguish from the early state of Yueh of feudal China (5th - 4th century BC) that had ceased to exist by the time of the Trieu dynasty (208BC - 111BC). In 1802, the emperor of China reversed the order of the two words Nam Viet into Viet Nam. The name did not find acceptance by the Vietnamese until 1945. The name Viet Nam may be taken to mean "The Viet South" where Viet is used as an adjective, also "Traversing Southwards", "Escaping South". The name Yueh or Viet happens to mean "to traverse", "to escape", also "far" and "beyond".

Yours sincerely,

T.Vd./

Put back the original title.

The reasons cited to changed it to Nanyue is baseless, not to mention the term Nanyue is NOT widely accepted as the proper transliteration for the name of the kingdom (in the English language). All the English encyclopedias, Encyclopedia Brittanica most notably use Nam Viet as the title. We're required to use the most widely cited and accepted name, not a name only Chinese people use.

Of note, Nam Viet was a predominate non-Han kingdom made up mostly of Viet people, ruled by an ethnic Han. Similarly to how China was ruled by ethnic Mongols (Yuan Dynasty) and Manchus (Qing Dynasty). We still don't call Yuan or Qing Dynasty China by its Mongolian or Manchu transliteration. The Viet transliteration of the ruling family name is used (Trieu Dynasty), so it's contradictory NOT to use the same form for the name of the state. BTW, if the Trieu Dynasty is changed to Zhao Dynasty to fit the 'criteria', Yuan and Qing should also be change to Yuan Guren and Aisin-Gioro, respectively. We have to be fair and non-bias if that's the case.

Frankly, though Wikipedia is user compose, it should be kept in line with the mainstream encyclopedias. We need to change it back to Nam Viet, A.S.A.P.

Sincerely,

L

To the unregistered user, actually, all other major English encyclopedias (Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Academic American Encyclopedia) doesn't even contain articles about this entity (Nanyue/Nam Viet), and it is rarely mentioned in reference books, Britannica is the exception. So when you state "All the English encyclopedias", that doesn't seem like a valid argument. The main reason that it is using pinyin is because all other international wiki articles about this entity (German, French articles) uses pinyin romanization as well.--Sevilledade (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When this article was created, none of the other language versions of this article exists (except Japanese and Chinese). DHN (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nanyue is the appropriate title, given that the state was largely (>75%, if not more) in what is now China and that there is no dispute that the ruling family was Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The original title should be reinstated accordingly and should accomodate the sources provided.75.7.149.115 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Final sentence of the article

Disclaimer: This section may contain CCP propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.98.117 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The last sentence of the article as it stands sounds very disturbing. Some time ago, someone had attempted to address it by completely changing it but that edit got removed on the grounds that claims of genocide are "unfounded". Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence within the article itself pointing to the existence of such a genocide (or at least extreme cultural damage in the wake of the military conquests); the real question is, therefore, not whether the Viet peoples suffered greatly at the hands of the imperial Chinese armies but rather whether the military acts against the Viet peoples (which included mass murders and slavery) amounted to genocide. In the light of the above statements, it should now be clear that to say that 'Other ancient "Yue" peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi were assimilated...' is not merely misleading, it is downright offensive. Such a statement simply downplays the horrors experienced by the Viet peoples during the actual invasions and subsequent conquests by imperial China, regardless of whether the said acts of occupation amounted to genocide or not. But this is not the end of the matter. The part of the last sentence that says that some Viet peoples became Han Chinese is even more offensive. Apart from the fact that such a comment will be perceived by some people as an attack on Viet cultures, this comment simply reinforces the 'us and them' attitude between various Viet peoples (particularly between the Vietnamese and Cantonese). Furthermore, there is an increasing awareness that the label of Han ethnicity was a genocidal imposition on the ancestors of many of today's Viet peoples (particularly the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples) against the wills of the local peoples, which has actually led to the founding of small and virtually unknown nationalist movements advocating independence for the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples. As a result, I have deleted the disputed sentence for the time being. If anyone has any ideas as to how the article should end, please leave them here (with justification). 122.105.144.89 (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Less than a day after this section first appeared, someone had the audacity to reinstate the controversial concluding statement referred to earlier. Surely, one should be able to give clear reasons if he or she feels strongly that such a conclusion should be in the article. Obviously, I have yet again removed the offending sentence pending further discussion. Also, note that this article is about not only the history of the Vietnamese people and nation, but also about the history of other nations of Viet peoples during the early days of imperial China. However, it is NOT (repeat not) about the history of China (contrary to what the top of this talk page claims). For the convenience of anyone who is not sure about how to end the article in a NPOV manner, I suggest the following conclusion:

"Other Yue peoples largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests."

What does everybody think about that? 122.105.145.47 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From your litany of "reasons" I still cannot find a single word based on historical records or other reliable sources. On the contrary, I only found more unfounded claims and "downright offensive" nonsense. --Sandycx (Talk) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So which ideas were you referring to when you talked about finding more "downright offensive nonsense" and "unfounded claims"? Were you referring to the talk page or parts of the article itself (or both)?

First, any claim that comes without a reliable source or evidence (which obviously applies to your claims of the so-called "genocide", "extreme cultural damage" and "slavery") is an unfounded claim.

Second, as a Cantonese, I'm proud to be "labeled as" a Han Chinese (and so does every one I've met during my 20+ years in Guangdong). So your baseless claim of our unwillingness to be Chinese is without doubt a "downright offensive nonsense" that cannot be more ridiculous in my eyes. It is you who is trying to fabricate (and propagand) an "us and them" attitude between Cantonese/Fujianese and people from the other parts of China.

Third, Yue people had been an active participant (rather than a conquered underdog) of Chinese politics from the very beginning. The state of Yue was once a major feudal power during the Spring and Autumn Period, and one of its kings called Goujian is a household name in China for being one of the Five Hegemons of the period. The so-called "military conquest" by Qin Shi Huang of the Yue people was actually a unification of the Hundred Yue tribes which became divided during the chaotic Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period.

The complete sinicization of the Yue people in Guangdong and Guangxi is actually a result of nearly one thousand years of immigration from northern China and economic and cultural integration with these immigrants. This is not a question of POV, but of historical facts, on which I'll list my sources below.--Sandycx (Talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the proposed conclusion (as it stands) is sound and in line with Wikipedia: NPOV, perhaps a little fine tuning won't hurt. How about "Other Yue peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests."? I say this because there were many other different Yue peoples (or Viet peoples as many people would call them) elsewhere at the time of the invasions.122.105.144.5 (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous sources and evidence against the claim of "other Yue peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests".

First, by comparing the structure and excavation of two mausoleums -- the mausoleum of the Nanyue King[4] and that of Qin Shi Huang[5], one can see major differences in their style, but the former was built on 121 BC, nearly a century after Qin's unification of Guangdong and Guangxi;

Second, Madame Xian (冼夫人, Madame Tẩy in Vietnamese spelling, born 512 AD), a female leader of the Yue people in Guangdong, who spent all her life introducing Han culture into Yue region and keeping the region unified with other parts of China, was worshipped as a goddess in numerous temples built by the local people after her death, and many of these temples are still well preserved today[6].

Third, for a complete study of the development of Yue areas and the ethnic relationship between Yue and Han, there is a great amount of literature. To list several Chinese sources here:

彭年：《中国古代海洋文化的先驱——从南越国遗迹看南越文化及其历史地位》，《南越国史迹研讨会论文选集》，文物出版社，2005年。ISBN 7-5010-1734-4 ("Harbinger of the ancient Chinese maritime culture -- the historical significance of Nanyue culture as revealed in the relics of Nanyue Kingdom", by Peng Nian);

张荣芳、黄淼章：《南越国史》，广东人民出版社，1995年。ISBN 7-218-01982-X ("History of Nanyue Kingdom", by Zhang Rongfang and Huang Miaozhang);

崔锐、付文军：《从考古发现看南越国在岭南地区开发方面的历史地位》，《南越国史迹研讨会论文选集》，文物出版社，2005年。ISBN 7-5010-1734-4 ("The historical role of Nanyue Kingdom in the development of Lingnan region, from the perspective of new archaeological findings", by Cui Rui and Fu Wenjun).

--Sandycx (Talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments are true, then something very disturbing has just been uncovered: parts of the article may contain factual inaccuracies too. How about 'The Yuè, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China'? What about the fact that there is a template on the right hand side of the page titled 'History of Vietnam' that lists the Trieu dynasty under 'First Chinese Domination' (which might constitute a neutrality problem by the way)? On the other hand, if the above comments are false, then the article as it stands now (without the conclusion) is true (save some minor errors) and the comments made by the user need to be disregarded (or even deleted if appropriate). In any case, whatever conclusion is put, it is guaranteed that someone out there will be angered by it. In the meantime though, the 'History of Vietnam' template needs to be reviewed for factual accuracy and neutrality as a matter of urgency. Any third opinions on this matter and the ones described in the preceding paragraphs?

PS: When I was talking about the 'us and them' attitude I was talking about the ongoing rift between the Vietnamese people and other Viet peoples. An example of this would be the use of the word 'Viet' to refer to ethnic Vietnamese only (this is a problem at Wikipedia; try keying the word in the search bar). Maybe this is a symptom that some people simply don't know very much at all about their homeland's history. 122.105.148.100 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just read the article Yue peoples and from the information provided, I conclude that a substantial portion of user Sandycx's comments are simply incorrect. Many of his comments simply do not relate to what the local peoples of the Nam Viet kingdom actually experienced during the invasions from Imperial China. The relevent paragraphs that put the user's claims into question are as follows.

Sinification of these peoples was brought about by a combination of imperial military power, regular settlement and Chinese refugees. The difficulty of logistics and the malarial climate in the south made the displacement and eventual sinification of the Yue peoples a slow process. When the Chinese came into contact with local Yue peoples, they often wrested control of territory from them or subjugated them by force. When a serious rebellion broke out in 40 AD by the Trung Sisters in what is now modern Vietnam, a force of some 10,000 imperial troops was dispatched under General Ma Yuan. Between 100 and 184 no less than seven outbreaks of violence took place, often calling for strong defensive action by the Chinese.

As Chinese migrants gradually increased, the Yue were gradually forced into poorer land on the hills and in the mountains. Unlike the nomadic peoples of Central Asia, such as the Xiongnu or the Xianbei, however, the Yue peoples never posed any serious threat to Chinese expansion or control. Sometimes they staged small scale raids or attacks on Chinese settlements - termed "rebellions" by traditional historians. The Chinese for their part regarded them as being highly uncivilised and prone to fight one another.

While most Yue peoples eventually lost their ethnic identities, the Kam-Tai (Daic):Zhuang, Buyi, Dai, Sui(Shui), Kam(Dong), Hlai(Li), Mulam, Maonan, Ong-Be(Lingao), Thai, Lao, Shan and the Vietnamese people retained their ethnic identity. The Vietnamese people eventually broke free from Chinese rule in the 10th century.

It should now be clear that the local peoples of Nam Viet suffered greatly at the hands of Imperial Chinese armies. In fact, their plights echo those of the plights of the Tibetan people today. 122.109.121.230 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Need citation

Need a citation for this

The Yue, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China.

Roadrunner (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Title of article revisited (2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Once again, I move:

that the title of the article be renamed from 'Nanyue' to 'Nam Viet' in line with English language academic usage.

I am almost tempted to say that there should be no objection to the motion. As user Webster121 has observed, 'Nam Viet' is preferred over 'Nanyue' in English language academia. We actually need to start a proper and comprehensive debate on this matter now. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: The motion is now under consideration.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Nam Viet part of the History of China? (2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) 122.105.150.197 (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nanyue is absolutely part of the History of China. It was founded by a Chinese general in present day Guangzhou which was already part of the Chinese empire for over 100 years. The Cantonese and Hokkien peoples you (122.105.150.197) mentioned are just as Chinese as all the other ethnicities that make up what we call Han Chinese today.

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you are again arguing for censorship just because you alone (or maybe with the IP editor) get "offended". Don't you see you do not have any sympathy here? You may have sounded reasonable if you had just stated your belief and sources, but you simply went on and criticized people for saying what seem natural and reasonable. HkCaGu (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The territory indicated by the article lies partly in China, therefore IT DOES QUALIFY. We could always reverse the argument and say that the portions of Vietnamese history under French and Chinese rule would not qualify for History of Vietnam... 70.51.9.124 (talk) 08:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. No move made. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

Nanyue → Nam Viet — Current title of article does not reflect English language academic usage. —122.109.121.8 (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Important: Appropriate evidence will need to be presented to justify any potentially controversial claims. Web search results are not admissible as evidence for the purposes of this debate.

Unverifiable or nonsense claims may be deleted without warning in accordance with Wikipedia policies.

Oppose on the grounds that the Vietnamese name would imply that the region was Vietnamese in language and ethnicity, when in fact they were a single one of the non-Sinitic ethnic groups ("Hundred Yue") in the very large region. Badagnani (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Support As mentioned previously on this talk page, Nam Viet is the preferred term in English language academia. There is no well known English language publication that has used the term 'Nanyue' without causing controversy; on the contrary, all reputable English language books on Vietnamese history invariably use 'Nam Viet'. Using 'Nanyue' is also problematic as it may give readers the wrong impression, i.e. it may promote the false idea that the Vietnamese people are somehow very different to some other Viet peoples such as the Cantonese people. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I also support for using the name Nam Việt or Nam Viet, because this is a Vietnamese kingdom and part of Vietnamese history, the people made up of this kingdom is mostly Vietnamese. This kingdom is not part Chinese history, and is separated from China until 111 BC. 207.233.67.181 (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I don't believe Vietnamese people made up the other 99 of the 100 Yue, or there would not have been 100 of them; similarly, does the editor above believe that the yellow portion of this map was entirely inhabited by Vietnamese people, who are actually from the Red River Valley? Badagnani (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to realise that the Vietnamese ethnic group is really a supra-ethnic identity that consists of many smaller ethnic groups that are now diificult, if not impossible, to distinguish. From this view point, it is conceivable that many of the ancestors of 'non-Vietnamese' Viet peoples today are also many of the ancestors of modern ethnic Vietnamese. Having said this, I do acknowledge that the Nam Viet kingdom was a very culturally diverse place; nevertheless, most of the peoples that lived there (and their descendants) during the kingdom's existence were virtually genetically identical but were very different - culturally and genetically - from the Han Chinese who lived thousands of kilometres away from Nam Viet's morthern frontiers. 122.105.150.76 (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose but it's not an easy one. Naturally sources from or about Vietnam will use the Vietnamese while those from or about China will use the Chinese and the result is a pretty even split. As this map shows, the state lay in parts of both present-day China and present-day Vietnam. However, since the information on this state (which was neither "Vietnamese" nor "Chinese" and these nationalist-era terms should not be applied to pre-national states) derives from Chinese sources and even the Vietnamese terms are the quốc ngữ of Chinese (hán tự), the Chinese term is best. Cf. other states outside of China that are known through Chinese writings that also use Chinese-derived spellings, e.g. Nanzhao, Dali, Yuezhi, Daxia, Dayuan. — AjaxSmack 05:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Please note that the discussion section is for discussion relating to the rename proposal only. Anyone who wishes to explicitly state their position on the proposal (i.e. 'oppose' or 'support' as the case may be) should do so under the 'Survey' section (which is just above this section).

Any additional comments:

It seems that some of the people who objected to this article being titled Nam Viet in the first place did so because of their prejudices towards non-Vietnamese Viet peoples. In particular, the Cantonese peoples appeared to have been a popular target among these would be extremists who perpetuate outrageous fictions such as the myth that all non-Vietnamese Viet peoples are somehow Yue peoples but not Viet peoples. I have noticed that these prejudices have been played out on a diverse range of articles about Vietnamese history, the most serious of which involved associating many non-Vietnamese Viet peoples with the Chinese ethnicity in a pathetic attempt to advance Vietnamese ultra-nationalist ideology. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The Vietnamese people originated in the Red River Valley. What percent of the yellow on the map is the Red River Valley? Badagnani (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Is the IP proposer the same editor who has proposed this again and again above? Badagnani (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

And all sensible people here know full well that none of the Viet peoples are ethnically Chinese and will never will! Never ever! Seriously, the fact that some Viet peoples (such as the Cantonese people) are being labeled 'Chinese' says something about the rampant marginalisation that is going on today.

By the way, I have initiated the debate only once; I had placed three notices before the debate was initiated. I assure everyone here that I am not the user Webster121, who appears to have been blocked from editting for serial policy violations.

Furthermore, the fact that Nam Viet is a transliteration of a Vietnamese term does not really matter; besides, 'Nam Viet' better reflects the languages and cultures that existed in Nam Viet than 'Nanyue'. It is far more important to consider the prevailing English language academic usage. 122.109.121.8 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The word "Nam" and the word "Viet" both have Sinitic roots in any case. Badagnani (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that the Cantonese, Teo Chew, and possibly other peoples that originated in what is now southern China are in fact offshoots of the Vietnamese people. Furthermore, it is now accepted by some people that the Vietnamese ethnicity is really a supra-ethnic identity that is meant to encompass a wide range of Viet ethnic groups and not just the Viet tribes that lived in and around the Red River Valley (note that 'Viet' is not a synonym for 'Vietnamese'). These possibilities need to be considered. After all, why did the academics in the English speaking world settle on 'Nam Viet' and not some other transliteration in the first place? 122.105.147.23 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I just checked out on what Britannica have to say about the origins of the Cantonese peoples and the short answer is that they are Tai peoples. However, it should be noted that the Tai peoples were and still are closely related genetically to many other peoples in South East Asia throughout world history. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article Vietnamese people remarks that ethnic Vietnamese are in fact descended from Tai peoples as well. 122.105.147.23 (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About the recent debate to rename the article

It seems that sometimes it is just simply a one-sided debate. For too long, Sino-centric editors have been allowed to have effectively free reign over the contents of the article; at the same time, many of the people who would find parts of the article biased (especially the title) are not motivated to address the problem (either because of apathy or lack of relevant knowledge). It is as though some propaganda organisation has hijacked the article and this talk page.
The History of China template must be kept off the article as well. No proper discussion has ever occurred regarding its use in the article in question. I am sure many people would find the template's presence in the article extremely insulting.
Given that a layperson is not likely to give a damn about whether this article is called Nam Viet or Nanyue whereas Sino-centric people and - surprise, surprise - some ultra-Vietnamese nationalists are likely to squeak if the article is titled Nam Viet, I believe it is time that the naming of this article be left to the decisions of experts rather than the general community. That way, the title will actually reflect English language academic usage, not what some people want it to be. 122.109.121.70 (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Big problem at Nanyue

Repeated uncommented/non-consensus removal of map by anon IP here. Input, please. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation of strongly POV map here. mage:NamBadagnani (talk) 00:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The map actually coincides with the correct academic usage of Nam Viet. It replaces the previous map seen here. Webster121 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just have one question for User:Badagnani: why are you calling user Webster121 an annon IP? He or she is a registered user that justs happens to not have a user page (the talk page exists though). Or is Badagnani trying to suggest that Webster121, 75.3.x.x and 75.7.x.x are sockpuppets? This is not to be taken lightly as I am starting to believe that this user has engaged in sockpuppetry, especially at Yue (peoples). 122.105.144.148 (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I just caught a sockpuppet of Webster121 in the act. It is 75.4.6.119. This user has persisted in putting illegal maps (by virtue of copyright violation) back into Nanyue. Someone needs to stop him now. 122.109.98.117 (talk) 00:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the anonymous user (or users, it appears there might be sockpuppets?) who started this whole discussion "Is Nam Viet part of the History of China?" is highly emotional and to the point of being incoherent. Wikipedia is not a place for ranting about ethnic politics or any kind of ranting at all. I think the user who started this got off on the wrong foot, and his writing definitely does not reflect mainstream academic view of history.--Balthazarduju (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Clean-up July 2008

I just finally read up on the whole debate from top to bottom. I'm not convinced EITHER way. For now I suggest you avoid any conflict and ensure users are not disrupting the discussion process. Please notify an administrator if Webster is suspected of sockpuppetry. My main concern is that the proponents of Nam Viet are not adhering to NPOV, they must offer their sources more often than simply stating "it's in all encyclopedias!" Similarly I suggest those in the middle and opposing move, recollect the sources they've stated and organize them in one section so outside objective visitors can view the evidence themselves. You've had what two move debates and three or so lengthy discussions, obviously this is not a case easily won by those active on the page. You need to involve others but present the data and arguments clearly and sufficiently because it's spread across this entire talk page in a haphazard manner. .:davumaya:. 01:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So in your opinion, the newly concocted maps are fine? Perhaps you should read through the discussion and article, and examine all of the maps, a bit more. Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooops i moved my comment below. As for this particular thread. The maps are troublesome because they are all in Chinese. Which is fine for illustrative purposes but of course not very helpful for the English wikipedia if its the main point of the article. The map conveniently eliminates our naming debacle. I would say the map should correspond with the article name for the meantime until Consensus is reached. .:davumaya:. 02:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the map can be translated into English from Chinese (with discussion and consensus here first). However, the new version of the yellow map simply has a single word, "Nam Viet," in enormous black letters, substituted for all the dozen or more regional toponyms. In your opinion, is that newly concocted map, which was imposed without any prior discussion, fine? Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The doctored maps that user Webster121 had been placing in the article are NOT acceptable as they have been created for deceptive purposes. Furthermore, they constitute breaches of copyright and should be purged from Wikipedia immediately on that basis alone. It seems that Webster121 is intent on censoring anything that he does not like, particularly any references that obviously suggest Chinese influence (this seems to be happening at Vietnam related articles only).

As for the existing map that contain Chinese characters only, all that is needed is for the words to be translated into their English equivalents, taking into account the Wikipedia guidelines for place names and the fact that the article is still titled Nanyue not Nam Viet.122.109.98.117 (talk) 05:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A new version will take time, isn't there an older map? .:davumaya:. 09:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The maps should be deleted and newly cited/referenced maps should translate the correct academic usage.Webster121 (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Toponym

Some questions:

What was the native language of the founder of this kingdom? Zhao Tuo was from Hebei, which is near Beijing, so one assumes he spoke Old Chinese.
What was the language used in the court by the emperor (Zhao Tuo), royal family, and court?
What was the official pronunciation of the name of the kingdom, as used by the above people during that period?

I ask this question because I believe even a few hundred years ago Chinese was pronounced in a quite different manner as it is today, following Manchu influence. For example, the modern Mandarin syllable "yue" was originally pronounced "yak" in Middle Chinese. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nam Viet is used today, though different transliterations have been brought up in the past, it should be mentioned but your rhetoric doesn't have means to change the title from Nam Viet to an ancient century usage.Webster121 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Nam Viet" is the name in the modern Vietnamese language; the Viet ethnolinguistic group was a single one of the 100 ethnolinguistic groups of the Hundred Yue. The questions above should be properly answered before we continue. Badagnani (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Cantonese language (which very often preserves older Chinese pronunciations, with consonant endings) preserves the pronuncation yut6 for 越, showing that the pronunciation "yue" is most likely a more recent pronunciation change, due to Manchurian influence on Mandarin Chinese. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pertaining to the title of the article Nam Viet is used in major english encyclopeadias today and the answer to this question and many others, if valid at all, were taken into account and Nam Viet was still used.Webster121 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't clear, as the sources seem equally divided between the modern Mandarin and modern Vietnamese readings of the Chinese characters. Nevertheless, the questions above should be answered before we continue. Please show good faith by not stating that you don't believe the questions above are "valid at all." If you wish to have a properly encyclopedic article, the actual official language and name used by the kingdom at that time (rather than a modern interpretation thereof, based on the interests of modern nation-states) would be of central importance. Badagnani (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Unihan database gives the reconstructed pronunciation of "*hiuæt" for 越, as the pronunciation during the Tang period (i.e., Middle Chinese).[7] Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Which are you refering to? Please specify the sources you questioned.Webster121 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Which what? Do you mean sources that use "Nanyue" as the name of the kingdom? There are a few hundred here:

http://books.google.com/books?q=nanyue+encyclopedia&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?q=nanyue+china&btnG=Search+Books

Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is insulting, you cannot source books with the word encyclopeadia as part of the title as valid sources. Furthermore the second reference you gave weren't encyclopeadias at all. Encyclopeadic sources are valid, but english language romanization can vary from book to book.Webster121 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is insulting anyone; please do not make the discussion needlessly heated.

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22nanyueh%22&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22nan+yueh%22&btnG=Search+Books

http://books.google.com/books?q=%22nan+yue%22&btnG=Search+Books

Alternate spellings may be found at the above links. Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if we could address the above questions rather than changing the subject. Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Books can be written using various forms of Chinese Romanization. All major english encylopeadias use Nam Viet for a specific reason. There are many books out there that use Nam Viet as well. And many with Nan Yueh. But books are not encyclopeadias. Wikipeadia should follow academic usage of Nam Viet just like its encylopeadic counterparts, for example Britannica and Encarta.Webster121 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. In fact, that doesn't address any of the questions. Let's address them before we move on to other subjects. Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed unnecessary duplication of comments. These comments were intentionally duplicated by an IP editor.)

Edit Warring

Ok, I've been seeing some edit warring going on here recently, and I want to step in to figure out what the issue is and what can be done about it. Right now, it looks like the problem is a disagreement on what maps should be used at the top of the article. I'm new to this article, so could both sides explain to me the reasoning behind their preferred map(s)? Who made each map?--Danaman5 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The disputes revolve around the question of the identity of the kingdom currently referred to as 'Nanyue' in the article. In particular, there was an indecisive debate earlier over the article's title (the result was no consensus).

Unfortunately, user Webster121 was not happy with the result and appeared to have taken matters into his hands, firstly using inconsistent labels ('Nam Viet') in the text, and secondly uploading doctored versions of the original maps and presenting them as though they were legitimate. In the case of the doctored maps, they all involved replacing 'Nanyue' with 'Nam Viet' and then failing to acknowledge that the maps are modified versions of other people's maps. The user has since received warnings for his actions and may also be listed as a suspected sockpuppeteer on the basis of his edits.

It might be helpful to read this talk page in its entirety to get an idea of the complex nature of the issues at hand. David873 (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct title is Nam Viet (2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Here are just a few modern and widely used english encyclopeadias that refer to the correct romanization. They list Nam Viet first, followed by the giles and pinyin romanization for specific academic reasons. This cannot be refuted.

Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/402150/Nam-Viet#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=Nam%20Viet%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

Encarta http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552648_10/Vietnam.html#p151

Encarta uk http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552648_8____87/Vietnam.html#s87

All articles in english wikipeadia pertaining to the matter should follow the same standard.Webster121 (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do your best to address the questions above first before bringing up new subjects, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone refute the sources listed?Webster121 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The English-language sources are clearly divided between the modern Mandarin reading and the modern Vietnamese reading of the Chinese characters/Hán tự. This is why the questions above need to be answered, before we move on to other subjects. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not move away from the ENCYCLOPEADIC Sources. Wikipeadia is an Enyclopedia. The English language is free to use yale or pinyin romanization or whatever for that matter. Everyone is free to use what they prefer, but in the case of an encyclopeadia, the major academic encylopeadic sources all use Nam Viet.Webster121 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Southern Yue" also appears in the English-language literature on this subject. Badagnani (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the paragraph above this one.Webster121 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Webster121, you do realise that you have been suspected of sockpuppetry and other forms of abuse do you not? Because of your record, I am afraid to say that other users may not take you seriously, even though most of your points you have made here are actually correct. David873 (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Geeze! how many sockpuppets are out there? Are all of them related to Webster121? Check out all these anonymous users' contribution history, it seems like all the recent crazy anonymous edits in articles about Chinese ethnicity (Overseas Chinese, Malayasian Chinese, Han Chinese, Canadian Chinese, British Chinese, Chinese Americans, ...) have all been made by similar users or perhaps by sockpuppets. It is down right ridiculous.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I assure everyone here that Webster121's serial policy violations are all coming from either his named account or from the 75.x.x.x IP address range. So I do not believe that he has been doing anything questionable at the articles that user Balthazarduju has named in the previous paragraph. David873 (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone refute the sources I've provided? Anyone?Webster121 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this, the two links of MSN Encarta does not seem like a valid support to Webster121's claim at all, because the two Encarta articles (one u.s. version, one u.k.) are articles about Vietnam and its history, obviously it is going to use Vietnamese-romanization. Here is what Encarta described this entity in the article titled "Vietnam" [8]:

"In 221 bc the state of Qin completed its conquest of neighboring states and became the first dynasty to rule over a united China. However, the dynasty collapsed soon after the death of its dynamic founder Qin Shihuangdi in 210 bc. In the wreckage of the empire, the Qin’s Chinese commander in the south, General Zhao Tuo (Chao T’o), created his own kingdom out of the Qin’s former southern provinces. Zhao, known in Vietnam as Trieu Da, named the kingdom Nam Viet (Nan Yue in Chinese, meaning “southern Viet”). He soon conquered the Vietnamese kingdom of Au Lac and added it to his kingdom."

It does use the name "Nam Viet" but only because the article is called "Vietnam". Britannica is the exception.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Britannica is recognized and acknowledged. That is all that is really needed to settle the discussion. It is not an exception because the list of academic english written encyclopeadias(not english literature, which can be romanized differently per author) is limited. Webster121 (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Webster121 (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica is a notable source. However, you have to give in consideration when other notable encyclopedia sources offer otherwise opinion. Here is Encyclopedia Americana, another major English-language encylcopedia's article History of Vietnam from its "print" version: (however if you are in a college or university, you can accessible the website with password [9]).

"In the mid-3d century B.C. the kingdom of Van Lang was conquered by the armies of An Duong, an adventurer from southern China. An Duong then united the Lac peoples with inhabitants of the neighboring mountains into a kingdom called Au Lac. The new kingdom did not survive long, for its emergence had coincided with the expansion of the Chinese state of Ch'in, which in 221 B.C. completed the unification of China and founded the first centralized Chinese Empire. When the Ch'in Empire began to disintegrate after the death of its founder in 210 B.C., the southern provinces lapsed into anarchy. There a Ch'in general, Chao T'o (in Vietnamese, Trieu Da), established under his rule at Canton the independent kingdom of Nan Yüeh, meaning "southern Yüeh," in reference to the peoples who then inhabited the area of coastal China south of the Yangtze River."

The Encylcopedia Americana used its Chinese Wade-Gile romanization when it comes to name Chao T'o and Nan Yueh in the "History of Vietnam" article.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If he was established in Canton, how is this not part of Chinese history? As for spelling, perhaps Cantonese romanizations should be added as well. 70.51.9.144 (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The identity of the Cantonese people

I am Hongkonger of Cantonese people root, please don't call us Vietnamese, we are Chinese. That's all. 218.102.133.110 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nanyue is history of Cantonese people, maybe some relation with Vietnam, but it doesn't mean that Cantonese area was / is part of Vietnam. Otherwise, Southern USA is part of Mexico, Turkey is part of Greece, Mongolia is part of Turkey. Pashtuns is Jew. 218.102.133.110 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"User:David873 is saying Vietnamese and Vietnamese language is way more similar to Cantonese than Chinese people and language"

sadly David873 the vietnamese troll is destroying his credentials as we speak. The Vietnamese language is known to have massive amounts of chinese loanwords,(see Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary) and on the chinese language page it shows a family tree with cantonese and mandarin being related, with no mention of vietnamese. its sad how people can lack mental faculties and destroy their own arguments.162.84.131.3 (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at any Wikipedia page.) 203.218.237.215 (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Nanyue (southern Yue) is definitely NOT part of Vietnamese (south of Yue) history! This ancient kingdom was founded and ended within Chinese borders by the Chinese. Therefore, Nanyue is definitely part of Chinese history. Can someone please explain why the History of Vietnam sidebar is on this article. It's not even on the article for Vietnam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.126 (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)David873 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Having things you (and apparently you alone) don't like doesn't mean we should censor the comments. The user may be ignorant to say Nanyue/Nam Viet has nothing to do with Vietnamese history (because it was based in Guangzhou, etc.)--in fact it is both--but he is simply equally offended when a previous IP user who wouldn't let Cantonese be Chinese and insisted the division be "Viet vs. Han" (as in 2000 years ago). Ignorant of history and exclusionism (something can't be history of two modern countries) are not ground for the label "vandalism" or censoring. If you have a point, add to the discussion, instead of shouting "this offends me and should be deleted". HkCaGu (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We should all endeavor to read the sources (even our own WP articles) before commenting, again and again, in a flagrant manner. It's clear from the history that both the modern Vietnamese and modern Cantonese were originally non-Sinitic peoples, both of whom were Sinicized to varying degrees: the Cantonese eventually adopting a Chinese ethnicity and language and the Vietnamese not (though retaining a great many Chinese linguistic and cultural traces). The genetic evidence apparently does show an affinity between the Cantonese and Vietnamese much as, I would assume, would be shown between Arabs and Sephardic Jews. Hoping or wishing that weren't the case (and in fact, eschewing to read any of the articles on the subject at our own encyclopedia) really does not assist in building the best possible article on this subject, as is the function of this talk page. Badagnani (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.) David873 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many editors from various Asian countries or regions edit Wikipedia primarily as a function of promoting their own culture's, nation's, or region's agendas. We do need more pluralism in this regard. Badagnani (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents. I think almost all of these talks and heated debate on this page has no merit in terms of actual studies of ethno-linguistics (as ethnicity is often based on ethno-linguistic designations). Because lingusitically Cantonese is a Chinese language, and in terms of mainstream academic studies, Cantonese people are Han Chinese people (how they view themselves and how academics labels them). That is why in terms of general Sinology, I don't think there was any actual controversy about their ethnicity.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The studies of the relationship between the people of Nanyue/Nam Viet and Cantonese people are vague (as does the studies of all of the ancient Yue peoples are). However, it isn't that unique. When we compare some other historical examples, i.e. much of modern-day central and south Germany during ancient time was inhabited by the Celts; it wasn't until the later Roman period did Germanic peoples migrated southward; much of modern-day France was also inhabited by the Celts (Gauls) during the Roman period, but of course France later became Latin-speaking; now does it mean that French people and Irish (or any modern-day Celtic speakers, Scottish..) people have the same roots? (as oppose to its relationship with other Romance-speaking peoples i.e. Italian, Spanish?) Does it mean that central and south Germans and Irish (and Scottish people) are both Celtic peoples? (as oppose to its relationship with other Germanic-speaking peoples?) Adding to the complexity of ethno-linguistic studies, is the fact that Vietnamese is a Mon-Khmer language (of Austro-Asiatic language family), while Cantonese is Chinese (of Sino-Tibetan language family); both belonging to two completely separate lingusitic families. That is why I don't think david873's argument of the relationship between Cantonese and Vietnamese (apparently not for the Cantonese themselves anyway) is really that convincing.

Over all, I find it incredibly puzzling that some East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Vietnamese... mostly internet users) are so hang up about the specifics of ethnicities (and often dragging in pointless debate with it). Remember most of us are 99.999 percent the same anyway.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A look at various related articles at WP (or other sources) shows that, contrary to the above comment, linguistics are not the only determinant of a people's identity or origin; actual ancestry and genetics (as borne out by DNA haplogroup testing) are also of great significance. Yes, there are pre-Celtic elements in the Irish population, Etruscan elements in the Italian population, etc. It's clear that France, Spain and Portugal, for example, are Romance-speaking regions due to hegemony of an imperial culture, imposing a new language on a population that originally spoke other, autochthonous languages (the way Chinese was eventually adopted by non-Sinitic populations in Guangdong over a period of centuries). Your examples are good, because those traces do exist in all those populations, and are acknowledged as such. Badagnani (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Woo! Badagani, you reply so fast that I almost didn't get to finish edit some of my last comment (edit conflict)! Of course WP (Wikipedia) articles often contain citations and sources from variety of sources (not just linguistics, but also genetic testing.. as such), and I think that is great. However, linguistics do play a paramount role in determining ethnic designation, because that's arguably the oldest and most well-known (in this field). I'm not saying Cantonese people are homogenous, obviously that is not true; intermixing of various ethnic groups has always been common throughout history. However, I'm just trying to say that don't be so hang up about it (ethnicity, linguistics or whatever), and trying to approve or disapprove such and such is inherently right or wrong. Because it is quite confusing.--Balthazarduju (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It must be realised that the differences between the Cantonese and (other?) Han Chinese are so great that the Cantonese really constitute an ethnic group in their own right (same goes for Teo Chew, Hokkien, Taiwanese, etc etc). Unfortunately, the currently geopolitical situation simply renders movements such as 'Cantonese independence' (or even 'Taiwanese independence') untenable.

Having said this, I need to point out that not every one agrees that Vietnamese is a Mon-Khmer language. There is actually a language family that has also been hypothesised called Vietic. Even then, we need to realise that the Vietnamese people are really a collection of barely distinguishable ethnic groups. After all, Vietnamese people states that they have originated from what is now southern China and northern Vietnam.

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)

You also said "Furthermore, spoken Cantonese has a grammar that is very different from that of any of the spoken dialects of Mandarin. On the contrary, spoken Cantonese is quite similar to spoken Vietnamese, both lexically and grammatically (though these languages are not mutually intelligible either). It is worthy to note that there exists a language called Written Cantonese (analogous to the way Vietnamese was originally written)" Cantonese is still a Chinese language according to any linguistic expert in any parts of the world. Similarities between Vietnamese...see Sino-Vietnamese i.e. loan words. And yes, Vietnamese, just as many other Chinese languages and many other East Asian languages, historically used Chinese writing systems, like chữ nho.--Balthazarduju (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I meant to say that some people do not even regard the Mon-Khmer group of languages as a proper language family. Indeed Mon-Khmer tells us that "... several recent classifications have abandoned this dichotomy, either reducing the scope of Mon-Khmer (Diffloth 2005) or breaking it up entirely (or equivalently reclassifying Munda as a branch of Mon-Khmer: Peiros 1998)." Furthermore, Vietic languages tells us that there is resistance to the idea that overall Vietnamese is more closely related to the Khmer language than to Cantonese or Tai languages.

My comments about the differences between the Cantonese and Han Chinese (or perception thereof) was really meant to demonstrate that given a slightly different geopolitical situation, the perceived ethnic composition of the region concerned could have been very different. It just shows that diversity has always been part of humanity and the situation in Nanyue was no different. Furthermore, it demonstrates the fairly arbitrary nature of ethnic designations (though there are limits on how far we can push them). Too many people fail to appreciate this diversity (such as the IP editor who recently abused this talk page).

(Removed soapboxing as per WP:SOAP. There is no excuse for racism of any kind at Wikipedia.)David873 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm reviving an old debate that had been settled already. I find it kind of funny that you could actually take anecdotal evidence from those who think Vietnamese is similar to Cantonese, even from people who don't understand Vietnamese at all, and then conclude that therefore Vietnamese is more similar to Cantonese than Mandarin is. Do these people also speak and understand Mandarin? Lexiconal similarities are often mistaken by people to conclude that there are ancestral or genetic similarities. On the other hand, a lot of times it only demonstrates the cultural influence of one culture over another culture. The Japanese language is increasingly using more loan words from English, does that mean the Japanese people and English people are increasingly sharing a more common ancestor over time?

As for ethnic differences in and of itself, ethnic classifications can be even more fuzzy than linguistics classifications, and most Chinese people already know that there are a lot of genetic variety within the Chinese people, just from the fact that China has historically assimilated and "Sinofied" many surrounding nations and tribes. My point? The Han Chinese identity is as much a cultural identity as it is a genetic one, maybe even more so in some cases. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

david872, i suggest YOU stop the irrational comments, the cantonese people are of mixed descent between chinese colonizers and native viets, but are mostly chinese blood, even on the vietnamese page it says viets have chinese and thai DNA, and their original DNA is almost gone.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this the same user who smeared Vietnamese people at Talk:Saudi_Arabia by using a user account with a rather silly but insulting name? In any case, who is "david872" anyway? That user account does not seem to exist. 122.105.148.204 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

the case is cleared, David873 has been indefinetly blocked for harrasing, and intimitating other users, and the block will not be lifted. if david dares try to accuse me of sockpuppetry again i will do the same to him after he constantly harrased me repeteadly with nonsense, considerin he was not an admin he had NO RIGHT to remove material from my use page, and i will find an admin who agrees.Nefbmn (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for giving away your adress david, anyone who wants to know is welcome Nefbmn (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

thank god the above editor has been blocked for harrasing, intimidating other users. he denied he was a vietnamese nationalist, but all his edits were centered around vietnamese related articles, trying to make chinese look bad, and anyways, he pretended he was an admin, harrasing and thretening me, removing things from my user and talk page which he had clearly no right to do considering the fact that hes NOT AN ADMIN, anyway he has proven to be a bully and is now indefinetly blocked.Nefbmn (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.148.204 (talk)

Lets get back on track

When some IP editor began spamming this talk page, I asked for someone who actually understood HenryLi's comments to tell us what that user had been trying to say. So did anyone manage to unscramble the ideas hidden behind his comments (some of which suffer from poor grammar)? Any help would be appreciated. I must also point out again that the History of China template only turned up in the article recently whereas the History of Vietnam template was already present for months. David873 (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I note that there is a box at the top of this talk page saying that the article is a featured article in another language version of Wikipedia. Is this still true? If so, is there any additional information from the foreign language article that is not currently in the English language version? We need someone fluent in both languages (but who does not have a conflict of interest) in order to do this. David873 (talk) 10:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello David. I have come here from seeing your message at WPVN. I would like to make some kindly but firm points - please excuse me if my tone is not right. Firstly, there is no excuse whatsoever for any kind of racism on any talk page. If it is seen it must be removed and a report must be made, probably to the administrators' noticeboard. Secondly, I think you are completely mistaken. Any "connection" between the present-day Cantonese and present-day Vietnamese must be shown and explained. If that cannot be done, then no connection must be assumed. Thirdly, it is vital to distinguish between language and ethnicity. Historical linguistics is used to discover if there is any connection of language. Archaeology and history study the movements and interactions of ethnic groups, peoples and nations back in time. Sociologists and social anthropologists study the present-day similarities between ethnic groups. Historians and political scientists study the interactions of nation states. Geneticists study the genetic connections between people. These questions are kept conceptually separate by scholars. Fourthly, there is absolutely no point in discussing the substantive issues on this talk page. The discussion must be all about what sources are relevant for citation in the article and how they should be summarised. Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hainan

Was any of Hainan included in Nanyue at any time during that entity's existence? Badagnani (talk) 07:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of "Yuet"

Why was "Yuet" just added on a huge scale, when the Cantonese term is actually "yut6" or "jyut6"? Badagnani (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no prescribed standard for Cantonese romanisation at either the national or international level. Even in Hong Kong, examples of inconsistent romanisation abound. David873 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yuet is the most common way to write character 越 for Cantonese in English. It is seldom write it in yut6 nor jyut6. — HenryLi (Talk) 11:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia we use standardized romanizations. Badagnani (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, the most commonly used rules. — HenryLi (Talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for page titles only. We don't select to use any romanization we like for foreign words in articles; if we want to romanize 谢谢 we don't write "shay shay," even though that's closer to the actual pronunciation. Badagnani (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of "Chiu"

Why was "Chiu" just added, when the Cantonese term is actually "jiu6" or "ziu6"? Badagnani (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above. David873 (talk) 10:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Chiu is the most common in English. It is seldom to write it as jiu6 nor ziu6.— HenryLi (Talk) 11:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Two suggestions

The "History" and "Kings" sections come from Chinese historical records (correct me if I'm wrong). But I don't believe there are any sources to support the "Controversy", "Archaeological findings", and "Guangdong and Vietnam" sections. I suggest we remove these sections, especially because the first and last of the three are obviously controversial and honestly, they read a little like somebody's own personal opinions formed around tidbits of history knowledge.
Remove the "History of Vietnam" and "History of China" templates. This article isn't even linked in those templates, and furthermore, there's no need to have those templates here just because the article is partly about Vietnam and Chinese history. There are plenty of articles about a country's history that don't need one of these templates be slapped on it, because they are not a major part of the study of the country's history. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the necessity of these removals. Both things seem quite relevant. Badagnani (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll go with majority opinion on number 2. But the issue with number 1 is that those sections are not sourced, and I find it troubling to keep them around when they are controversial and unsourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the "unsourced" information is going to stay because it is - you guessed it - too important to omit. 122.105.149.69 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It's just that nobody has gotten around to it yet. But hey, thanks for reminding me. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletion

See [10]. It's always much better to work to source, rather than to blank, especially when it involves text crucial to a complete understanding of this topic. Badagnani (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that no source exists to back those claims up. At any rate, they've been unsourced for a fairly long time, and nobody has bothered to "work to source" them. It's a pretty straightforward issue here - we shouldn't have unsourced information. And like I wrote in the edit summary, I have absolutely no objection to those passages if sources surfaced to back them up. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia article is a good start, as would be Google Books. Sources in Chinese on this obscure topic are probably more numerous than those in English. Our skills in reading Chinese are not all equal. Badagnani (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese WP article also has no citation for similar claims for the "Archaeological findings" section. And it has absolutely nothing similar to what's in the "Guangdong and Vietnam" section. I'll be removing these sections again soon if no sources surface. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Wikipedia is based on verifiability not absolute requirements of sources. Are you saying that a museum/tourist spot cannot be verified? HkCaGu (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so verify those claims for us. You can start by reading the first sentence of WP:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright it's been two months and the two sections remained unsourced. I have removed them.[11] But I am not opposed to their re-insertion if sources are found. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

David872 and his trolls

"User:David873 is saying Vietnamese and Vietnamese language is way more similar to Cantonese than Chinese people and language"

sadly David873 the vietnamese troll is destroying his credentials as we speak. The Vietnamese language is known to have massive amounts of chinese loanwords,(see Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary) and on the chinese language page it shows a family tree with cantonese and mandarin being related, with no mention of vietnamese. its sad how people can lack mental faculties and destroy their own arguments.162.84.131.3 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Truth is China also has a lot of loan words from Vietnam and Cantonese is a Vietnamese language and Southern China was originally inhabited by the Viet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.52.244 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-01T10:50:47

Truth is that vietnam was dominated by china more time than it was independent, and after hoe ho ho chi minh took over you fled to australia, which happens to be where your ip is tracing back too. the reason mandarin is different from cantonese was because of altaic language influnce from the north, southern chinese dialects are in fact closer to the ancient chinese language.

and southern china was originally inhabited by austronesian, tai, and [[burmese[[, note viet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.132.54 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Huge removal

Much of this text seems uncontroversial. Why not try yourself to source it rather than simply removing it, as in this edit? Badagnani (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no offence, but I'd ask the reverse - why have you not tried to source it if you want those two sections to stay? It's been two months already and nobody has even attempted. I am more interested in removing them because I think it's likely they are not based on reliable sources. I at least looked into the Chinese version of the article, which, as I've said above, is equally unsourced on similar content in the two sections. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As stated above, much of the text seems uncontroversial and you did not answer the question. Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I answered the question when I wrote: I am more interested in removing them because I think it's likely they are not based on reliable sources. Whether or not something is controversial is not a threshold for inclusion; verifiability is. But more importantly, if you are interested in keeping those sections in, then find sources for them. I am not opposed to their inclusion as long as they are sourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You "think" ? -- that doesn't seem to show great care or seriousness toward the improvement of our articles. Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This section has reliable sources just take a look.Sea888 (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please. It's been a month already and no sources have surfaced, and you want to restore the content still without any sources? Why don't you find some sources before you restore those sections? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I for one would like to see evidence that the above editor is interested in improving this article (which includes locating reliable sources), rather than simply removing material s/he believes to represent a particular POV. Badagnani (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Have good faith. The Battle of Bach Dang is significant in this period. The rest is uncited.Sea888 (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not relevant, because Nanyue existed in the late first millennium BC and early first millennium AD. Mentioning a 10th century battle doesn't make sense and is anachronistic. Badagnani (talk) 23:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. The SECTION shows the relation of Nanyue to Vietnam today, and the Vietnam section shows the continuing struggle to regain independence, with brief struggles from the Trung Sisters until the Battle at Bach Dang which is completely relevant to the article.Sea888 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that Nam Viet/Nanyue lasted under that name until the 10th century, when the country was renamed Đại Cồ Việt? If that's the case, you have a point. However, I think it was called Giao Chi and some other names of the various component provinces under most of the Chinese domination periods. Badagnani (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes exactly. That is why the Vietnam section should stay. As long as it has good sources also.Sea888 (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your source showing this? Keep in mind that "Nam Viet" is not Vietnam. Adding (as you've done four or five times in a single day) the name "Vietnam" when that nation did not yet exist is anachronistic. Badagnani (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Source[12]. It is, under both a historical and a geographical concept.Sea888 (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani - quite honestly, removing longstanding unsourced content is an improvement to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Much of the text removed was uncontroversial. I would like to see evidence that the editor in question is actually interested in having the most encyclopedic article possible. I have seen none thus far. Badagnani (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Badagnani. I would also like to see evidence that the editor in question(HongQiGong) is actually trying to improve the article.Sea888 (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks for assuming good faith! But like I've already said, removing longstanding unsourced content is an improvement to the article. On the other hand, Badagnani, I don't see evidence that you are trying to improve the article. The contrary seems to be demonstrated by the fact that you want to keep unsourced material in the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources added.Sea888 (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Title Change, Nanyue -> Nam Viet (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

According to this [13] and [14].

Google books: Nanyue- 1,275 hits, Nam Viet- 12,214 hits.

Google scholar: Nanyue- 2030 hits, Nam Viet-77,800 hits.

Google search:Nanyue- 313,000, Nam Viet- 28,000,000.

Google news: Nanyue- 3 hits, Nam Viet- 23,001

Modern encyclopedic usage:

Britannica- uses Nam Viet.

Columbia- uses Nam Viet.

Encarta- uses Nam Viet.

Case closed.Sea888 (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments might be more convincing if you performed searches on "Nam Viet" with quotes. Judging from the Google search results, most of the web pages containing "Nam Viet" are not about this political entity at all. DHN (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the modern usage in the Encyclopedia Britannica. According to the guidelines[15], Nam Viet is the correct title.

Google search, "Nanyue"- 287,000 hits, "Nam Viet"- 1,380,000 hits.Sea888 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's take a look at what kind of Google search results "Nam Viet" yields, shall we?[16]

Vietnamese restaurant with locations in Arlington and Cleveland Park, Washington DC.
This WP article.
Vietnam News - The First National English Language Daily.
Nam Viet -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia. (got one here)
Yelp review of Nam Viet Restaurant in Arlington, VA.
"Viet Nam - Early History & Legends" on asian-nation.org. (got another one, though not exactly a credible source)
Nam Viet Logistics and Transportation Co. Ltd
languagehat.com: NAN YUEH, NAM VIET, VIETNAM (so do they cancel each other out?)
Nam Viet News & Articles on washingtonpost.com... which actually consists of nothing... [17]
Vietnam (Nam Viet) in 211 BCE (BCE) (from askasia.org - got another one)
NAM VIET - Travel Agent
Another Yelp review, of Nam Viet & Pho 79 - Cleveland Park - Washington, DC
"United Nations Viet Nam - Viet Nam plays prominent role at..." (great Googling skills there)
Nam Viet Restaurant - 1127 N Hudson St Arlington VA
Việt Nam: Việt Nam Film Institute (again. Google search fail at life)
Travel to Vietnam (Viet Nam): Viet Nam: Ecotourism, Fair Trade (fail at life again)

Should I go on...? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pls go on explaining why Britannica uses Nam Viet(This should be good)?Sea888 (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Who knows. Good thing we're not Britannica. But I hope you're not suggesting we move the article to "Nam Viet" because of the results count of an utter failure of a Google search. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We? You are missing the point, it is not up to us to decide. According to wiki rules[18] if google search is not clear, which it arguably is, wiki should follow the steps that mainstream encyclopedias follow, that is Britannica,Columbia and Encarta.Sea888 (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's take an in depth look at modern encyclopedic usage:

Britannica- no results for Nanyue, uses Nam Viet.

Columbia- no results for Nanyue, uses Nam Viet.

Encarta- no results for Nanyue, uses Nam Viet.Sea888 (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

zh:广西#历史

Nanyue NamViet search results: Google returns the same hit-to-miss ratios for both keywords shown. (Hit/miss: Relevant/irrelevant refs, respectively.). The previous posts, see above, showed the absolute figures for the 2nd keyword to be higher however. Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/628349/Vietnam/52725/Nam-Viet. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Were they an Austronesian people?

at the beginning...Böri (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be, there are theories stated that Austronesian people in Taiwan was originally from Southern China until it was pushed to the island by the expanding Chinese settlements.--LLTimes (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Champa was also an Austronesian state...Böri (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Translation

White whirlwind (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference KeatGinOoi932 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[KeatGinOoi932-1] Cite error: The named reference KeatGinOoi932 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

Talk:Nanyue/Archive 1

Vietnam section

The language

Fujian

Proposed move Nam Việt → Nanyue (2006)

About merging this article with Triệu Dynasty (2006)

conclusion statements

Put back the original title.

About the Final sentence of the article

More about the title of the article

A drawn-out argument

Need citation

Title of article revisited (2008)

that the title of the article be renamed from 'Nanyue' to 'Nam Viet' in line with English language academic usage.

Is Nam Viet part of the History of China? (2008)

Requested move (2008)

Survey

Discussion

About the recent debate to rename the article

Big problem at Nanyue

Article Clean-up July 2008

Toponym

Edit Warring

Correct title is Nam Viet (2008)

The identity of the Cantonese people

Lets get back on track

Hainan

Addition of "Yuet"

Addition of "Chiu"

Two suggestions

Massive deletion

David872 and his trolls

Huge removal

Title Change, Nanyue -> Nam Viet (2009)

Copyright problem removed

Were they an Austronesian people?

Translation