User talk:2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E

Chu Nom

Please stop your attempt to indiscriminately add Chu Nom characters to modern concepts with no references. Most of these terms are modern and Chu Nom had been out of use for almost 100 years. DHN (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Those dishes appeared hundreds of years before the Quốc Ngữ character was officially used. 2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Then add references to show that they were actually written that way. If you continue to add unreferenced original research, I will report you to the WP:ANI. I'm pretty sure you're a sock of a banned user. DHN (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I got it from a lot of Han-Nom dictionaries, you can find it yourself. You can report me anyway I'm not sabotaging. 2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Admin who knows what Chu Nom is and can read a little Chinese here. Which dictionaries are these? Presumably they have names and ISBNs. Peter in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shirt58: It's clear that this user just did a character-by-character lookup to get these characters, without regard of whether they actually were ever written that way. For example, the word "bò" in "bánh bò" has multiple meanings, and they just randomly picked one that they think fits. Even if those terms were used 100 years ago, adding them in the lede without context is misleading at best, and POV-pushing at worst. DHN (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain more, where is the misunderstanding? 2402:800:61B1:74AE:7C93:FF9B:1C17:AA4E (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please find sources where these terms appear in full. When you do a character by character lookup, that's synthesis. Also, even if you find a soure that showed it was in use 100 years ago, that's only relevant for the "etymology" section of the article. As you're well aware, Chu Nom has no modern relevance in the modern language, and adding it in the lede without context will give a wrong impression to people unaccustomed to the modern language about its current state. DHN (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

hm, why does the Chu Nom have no relevance to the present? Without the past, there can be no future. A tree without roots has no top Choixong di (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you and the anon user are the same person trying your POV-pushing. DHN (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Wow, what makes you so sure and you still haven't answered my question Choixong di (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've had enough experience dealing with these "cổ phong" socks in the Vietnamese Wikipedia to not waste my time responding. DHN (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, first of all, what is "co phong" and why are you showing off your experience here? I need you to answer the question that. Choixong di (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you don't know what it is? You and your socks practically messed up that article in Vietnamese Wikipedia, adding your POV all over it. DHN (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Correcting typos is to mess them up? Just because I fix them doesn't mean I know them. Oh, you have really interesting logic. Choixong di (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

---