Talk:Trưng sisters

message: I do understand that (Chinese, in particular) history is written by the victors, but the account of the Chinese administrators as being inordinately cruel is not confirmed by Chinese accounts -- specifically, from Hou Han Shu.  Hou Han Shu's account was that Trưng Trắc rebelled because she was not happy about submitting to Chinese laws -- which is a rather different characterization than the characterization here.  Not being a scholar of Vietnamese historical sources, I would like to invite somebody to look into how much confirmation there is as to the root cause of the Trung sisters' uprising.  If there is no real confirmation as to the cause of the rebellion, I would propose that the current account remain in place but with qualifiers such as "allegedly" and "reportedly." In particular, I also wonder how much of this was history and how much was fiction.  I find it exceedingly unlikely, given the Chinese mores of the time, that the Chinese army would fight naked.  Indeed, there was absolutely no record I can recall where a Chinese army (against the Vietnamese or not) fought naked.  --Nlu 00:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think much of it is embellishment.  This version is too biased.  Some modern historians allege that the "popular" version was created by 14th-century historians in order to address some hard questions about why women and not men led the insurrection.  Some modern historians claim that Trưng Trắc's husband was never killed by the Chinese.  He was simply a husband to a much more powerful wife.  He was simply "killed" in the stories in order to give an impetus to their insurrection.  Please do find another account and make this article more neutral.  The story of the naked battle is simply rejected by most modern historians. DHN 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a "Traditional Chinese account" section.  Please see what you think about it.  Again, my knowledge of Vietnamese history is not adequate, so I hope someone else will look at the issue from the Vietnamese point of view.  --Nlu 16:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Is Note: the use of the word barbarian below is historical, and is used to be faithful in translating the Chinese texts. No disrespect is intended in any way. really needed?  I'd think we can scrap that since the quote is offset, identified and in italics. Sherurcij 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I considered it necessary since this is an article about Vietnamese history -- and a Sinocentric view was necessarily entailed in the word "barbarian."  However, I'm open to ideas.  --Nlu 02:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: Two major problems with the article need to be addressed. Firstly, why are the names of the Trung sisters also given in pinyin? I thought that this article was about two famous figures in Vietnamese history. Secondly, the article leaves the readers with the impression that the Trung sisters stood for the Vietnamese people only. I seem to recall that they ruled a country that contained many non-Vietnamese Viet peoples in addition to the 'native' Vietnamese people.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.144.89 (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hán tự restored. In order to be properly encyclopedic, presenting the original manner words were written during Vietnam's very long history is our practice for ancient Vietnamese subjects. We can't simply "ignore," for political reasons, the fact that this script was used by Vietnam's elite, for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years--and provides invaluable etymological information in the case of Sinitic-derived names and terms. Badagnani (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Han tu is appropriate because modern english encyclopeadias do not follow this transliteration.Sea888 (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: We either aim to be 100% encyclopedic or 90% encyclopedic. If a particular spelling was used in official records and histories written during most of Vietnamese history, we would include that spelling (which was used by Vietnamese people in Vietnam, to write and read these individuals' names). Further, the Han tu spelling often also provides the etymology for Vietnamese individuals' names. Badagnani (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious problems with article 

message: This article does not say anything about whether they regarded the ancestors of modern-day Cantonese, Hmomg, etc as enemies, patriots or even simply as part of a multicultural "Vietnamese" ethnic identity. It should be noted that many ancient ancestors of the modern-day Kinh ethnic group originated in what is now Canton province. David873 (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They must have been against what they believed to be foreign control of the government and armies of dynastic China, not the local Tai- or Hmong-Mien speaking populations or nearby peoples of Guangdong or Guangxi. If you find sources for any of these speculations, you should add them, with the sources. Badagnani (talk) 02:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding Canton, Guangxi is closer to Vietnam than is Guangdong, and both provinces had been conquered and gradually sinicized since the early Han (and more solidly under Chinese control than Vietnam). Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trung sisters were from the Lac Viet which is what modern day Northern Vietnam is.Sea888 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That region also included parts of what is modern-day southern China. We need specific details regarding the exact locations they were born, lived, and died. Badagnani (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The region you are talking about is Nam Viet.  The Lac Viet of the Au Lac state(modern day northern Vietnam where the Trung sisters resided) was seperate and later included in Nam Viet.  The infomation on the Trung sisters deaths are scantly available.  They were born during the Chinese occupation and died in 43 A.D. yet the exact date of death is unknown.  There is a recent archaelogical discovery in North Vietnam that has information on a battle against the Han Chinese but I'll have to dig that up.Sea888 (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the Trung Sisters really stand for the Vietnamese people only?

message: Where exactly were they born? Where exactly did they live? Where exactly did they die?
Were they from Phong Châu? Is that in what is today Phu Tho Province? Badagnani (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Phong Chau is situated at the apex of the red river delta of Northern Vietnam in Vinh Phuc Province just north of Son Tay. Sea888 (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: Which language did they speak? Badagnani (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: With what culture/nation did they identify (using the name that was used at that time)? Badagnani (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously they were not Chinese.  They were born to a Lac lord(Lac Viet of Au Lac) and spoke Vietnamese.  Lac is documented as the region of the people of the red river delta of Northern Vietnam and it is the first recorded name of the Vietnamese people. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea888 (talk • contribs) 
How is it known that the Vietnamese language existed at that time? If they were Lac, it should be stated as such. I believe we will need an article on the Lac (right now it redirects to Van Lang). Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Liguistic research.  Recent linguistic research proves that all the "Yue" of ancient southeastern China were austrosiatic speakers along with the ancient Vietnamese.Sea888 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: Just removed from article (unsourced):
In that case, this is also removed (also unsourced).
Many people agree after reading this that this is purely legend (and therefore not appropriate in a HISTORICAL context, which is what this article was written in UNLESS verifiable historical records can be found saying this).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.72 (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea888 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a debate on whether the Chinese Ming dynasty confiscated and probably destroyed some of the pre Le Dynastic Vietnamese records.Sea888 (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article 

message: Where is/was the Hát River? We need an article about it. Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hát River]] 

message: The phrase and linking in the introduction confuses me.  I am no expert on the history of Vietnam, but the infobox at the right has First Chinese Domination lasting for 246 years.  The actual article, I can't make heads or tails of.  History of Vietnam seems to lump the First, Second, and Third Dominations together (which are about a thousand years), but not the Fourth?  Someone with better knowledge of Vietnamese history should find something more appropriate to link it to.
75.22.207.224 (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right--that was 200-something years, not 1000+. I don't know why it says 1000+. Badagnani (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thousand year occupation? 

message: Umm... I don't think the writing style is NPOV. The feel it gives... is like reading the daily mail to a lesser extent. Can somebody change the wording or something?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.118.80.53 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is what you get when you are reading a really, really old source that is likely biased (Chinese account) and a not-as-old-and-likely-more-biased-in-the-other-direction source (Vietnamese account).  I don't think that we have any other choices but to simply report what they reported.  --Nlu (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I propose that the dates in the article be changed from the AD system to the CE system.
Background, rationale:  made a couple of edits a while ago which were partly reverted here by , changing "CE" back to "AD". WP:ERA requires us, unfortunately, to discuss changing the way we date on the talk page, which is what I'm doing here. As it happens, the AD dating was introduced here, by someone who did the article a favor by doubling it in size--but that quick edit should not be a sufficient reason for us to keep an inappropriate system of dating."AD" is inappropriate geographically and historically since the topic, the area, the historical era, in short everything in it has no relationship whatsoever to Christianity. If we're going to use the Western system of dating (there is a non-Western dating in the article as well, in the quotes), we need to use a system that makes sense, and it makes no sense to date these subjects, these events, by way of a Christian system of dating. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Vietnamese Wikipedia uses "TCN" (trước Công Nguyên) for dates BCE; and nothing for CE, example: (207 - 111 TCN) and (40 - 43) at :vi:Bắc_thuộc_lần_1, although some pages use "CN" (:vi:Công Nguyên); trước translates as "before" per Google.  I don't speak Vietnamese, so I don't know how to translate "Công Nguyên".  Maybe a native speaker could help; here are three with recent contribs:  from :Category:User vi-N. Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial choice was undoubtedly arbitrary; the personal preference of the editor who began the article. It would be wrong, as per WP:RETAIN, to change it to some other editor's personal preference. But it is fine to hold a discussion on the best choice. WP:RETAIN doesn't mean that some arbitrary choice is set in wikistone and may never be changed. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD/CE dating 

message: The 'sisters' article already contains sufficient information on the person covered in this article. This can be a section in that article instead. Devopam (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The new article is poorly written and contains no new information. I've restored the redirect to this page. -Zanhe (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Trưng Trắc]] 

message: Can anyone further explain the supposed minangkabau connection, and what evidence there is for it? Is it local legend, or is there actual evidence regarding a migration of peoples from Northern Vietnam to Sumatra? 
Himeaimichu (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minangkabau connection 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion