Talk:Hồng Bàng dynasty

message: Hong Bang is not a dynasty. It is a period of time.
I'm not sure but seems like "Hong Bang" was named by historians later, not a existent during its own time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophisticate20 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hong Bang etymology

message: This article is full of mangled English and legends confused with history. Not the least of its problems are that section headings don't always seem to have anything to do with the section text (such as the "Creation" paragraph). It really needs to be re-written by someone knowledgeable in the field such that it can be properly cited and worded. Cerowyn (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write recommendation

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Nguyen dynasty which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hồng Bàng dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120913045620/http://e-cadao.com/Vanminhco/anhsangmoi.htm to http://e-cadao.com/Vanminhco/anhsangmoi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hồng Bàng dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103200218/http://asia.isp.msu.edu/wbwoa/southeast_asia/vietnam/history.htm to http://asia.isp.msu.edu/wbwoa/southeast_asia/vietnam/history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On April 1, 2013, someone claimed that Vietnam knew how to produce silk since 2000 BCE. In a later article, the same author stated that it was known in Ly dynasty 1700-1600 BCE. Both of these edits (to articles on viet myths!) are sourced with a quote supposedly from the Book of Han. That book has several dozen volumes (impossible to look up quickly) and was written 1500 or even 1800 years after the alleged fact in a time when there was no possibility of scientific verification of the claim.
That's reason enough for me to delete this dubious statement in both articles. --Enyavar (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silk production 

message: how are "tribal states", as distinct from others, definded? for some ethnologists this sounds like a contradiction in itself or a mixing of two different developmental stages with one skipped... (comp.  "band" > "tribe" > "chiefdom" > state" according to Elman Service). elsewhere the social organisation of that time is described as "tribal federation". so please could you say more about that? was a describable development von independent tribes to losely confedereated ones and finally firmly and formalized federated ones, this stage being defined as state? thanks! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  tribal states? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved.  – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hồng Bàng dynasty → . Preferably, I would like to see these two have their own articles, but @ has decided to merge them by his own choice. Văn Lang is the more popular concept when talking about this period. The dynasty's name is less relevant when referring to the whole area under its reign/rule (if any), as well as its population, language, economy, culture, etc. Although both terms have legendary elements, Hồng Bàng basically means chaos and ambiguity, and it is likely that it was never a real name at that time. Meanwhile Văn Lang has a more historical basis, meaning that at least there once existed a socio-political entity etymologically named so. Greenknight dv (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: The merge was done 3 years ago because the actual content in the two articles at the time covered the same scope - the legendary/semi-legendary state & period of Vietnamese history.We would need substantive evidence (based on strong reliable sources, e.g. peer-reviewed academic articles/books) that the two concepts are discussed in sufficiently separate and distinct ways that this warrants having two articles for a WP:SPLIT. Alternatively for a rename, we need evidence that "Văn Lang" is more common among reliable sources than "Hồng Bàng dynasty" for this. — MarkH21talk 15:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Southeast Asia has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Vietnam has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 January 2024 

message: A person named Nhượng Tống believed that "Xích Quỷ" was created by historians based on the story of Thánh Gióng and Guifang. 
"Người Tầu tự cho mình là văn-minh, và người giống khác là dã-man, là quỷ. Cho mãi đến đời gần đây, họ còn gọi người da trắng là Dương-quỷ, Bạch-quỷ. Như vậy, rất có lẽ đời xưa họ gọi người mình là Xích-quỷ. Vì ta ở phương Nam mà theo thuyết Năm-Hành của họ thì xích (đỏ) là mầu của phương Nam. Nhưng có lẽ nào vua nước ta lại tự đặt lấy một cái tên xấu-xí như vậy? Chuyện này chắc là tự các nhà Dã-sử bịa ra! [...] Họ đã căn cứ vào truyện thần « Phù-Đổng Thiên-Vương » trong sách Lĩnh-Nam Trích Quái của Vũ-Quỳnh. Theo đó thì thần đã đánh nhau với giặc Ân... Và vào sử Tầu, có chép truyện Cao-Tông đời Ân « đánh nước Quỷ-phương, ba năm không được! » Nhà Dã-sử ấy đã tinh-nghịch đổi chữ Quỷ-phương ra chữ Xích-quỷ cho nó thêm mầu-mè, thế thôi!" 
(means "The Chinese believed that they are civilized while other groups of people are barbaric, are devil. In recent time, they even called the White people Yang devil, Pale devil. Because of this, there is a chance that our people were called Red devil. Because we locate south [to them] and in their philosophy of Wuxing, xích (red) is the colour of South. But why would our ancestorial kings chose this ugly name [as national name]? This story must have been invented by historians! [...] They created this based on the story of « Phù-Đổng Thiên-Vương » in Lĩnh Nam chích quái of Vũ Quỳnh. This story was about a god that fought the Shang enemy... And in the Chinese textbook, there is a story about Gaozong of Shang « battled Guifang [Quỷ Phương in Vietnamese] for three years » Those historians simply changed the name from Quỷ Phương to Xích Quỷ, that's all!")
:vi:Nhượng Tống was a a writer, a journalist, a translator (include Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư), and a member of Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng. So should his speculation be put in this article?
— Daeva Trạc (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xích Quỷ - Guifang