Talk:Trưng sisters

NPOV?

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)

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)

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)

I've added some historical works in the Vietnamese version. My translation is from a version translated into Vietnamese from Classical Chinese. If you can find the original text, please help me translate it. DHN 07:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So let's vote to delete this unsourced fictional account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.90.59 (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Warning

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)

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)

Not in Unicode?

Really not in Unicode? What character? 邾?

Citations

This article, which seems to differ from what I've been reading on Vietnam (Such as "Vietnam" by Spencer Tucker,) and is in need of citation for the information presented.

Serious problems with article

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)

         I don't recall any other people, apart from Vietnamese, regard the Trung Sisters as heroes.  In fact, I think it's 
         rather hard for the Chinese to view them in a positive light, as the Trung Sisters usurped what the Chinese 
         considered their territory...

If anyone is wondering whether pinyin transliterations of the names of the Trung Sisters are appropriate for inclusion in this article, then the answer is an emphatic NO. Seriously, whoever put those transliterations in the first place either is culturally insensitive or is simply unaware of the fact that the pinyin transliterations were NOT the way how names of the Trung Sisters were originally recorded (as someone falsely claimed recently in the edit history). 122.105.144.183 (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

         Facts have nothing to do with cultural insensitivity.  Your emphasis NO represents a bias that is definitely not 
         worthy of encylopedic entries.  If we were all supposed to be culturally sensitive to such a degree that information 
         is NOT PRESENTED then articles like the Holocaust wouldn't exist.  When Chinese characters are shown, most often 
         transliterations are given in either Pinyin or Romaji(for Japanese), and to a lesser degree Hangeul(for Korean).  
         Uninformed readers would not draw connections between Chinese characters and their Quoc Ngu transliterations, simply 
         because Modern Vietnamese doesn't use Chinese characters in any way.  Pinyin is therefore appropriate in these 
         situations.

A user has finally managed to correctly state that the names of the Trung Sisters were originally recorded in Classical Chinese. That is all very well but guess what? Very few people would be interested in such matters, especially considering the fact that this is the English language Wikipedia. So, on this count alone, the recently added links are also pointless and, therefore, should not be there at all (whether they are also offensive is another matter). 122.109.121.12 (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

        I don't think it's up to you to decide who's interested in such information.  Some people might, and encyclopedias 
        are written to be as informative as possible.

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)

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)

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)

Did the Trung Sisters really stand for the Vietnamese people only?

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)

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)

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)

Trung sisters were from the Lac Viet which is what modern day Northern Vietnam is.Sea888 (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Birthplace

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)

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)

Another source says that it is in modern-day Phú Thọ Province, and was spelled 楓周 in Han tu. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Language

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

Culture

With what culture/nation did they identify (using the name that was used at that time)? Badagnani (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

I don't believe that's entirely accurate, as there were probably also Tai-Kadai and Hmong-Mien in that area at that time. Where/what are these sources about the Hundred Yue? Badagnani (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed from article

Just removed from article (unsourced):

“ The motivation of the Trưng sisters and what happened is open to dispute. The traditional Vietnamese account has been alleged by many to be a highly fictionalized account created in the 14th century to encourage Vietnamese patriotism. The traditional Chinese account, of course, could have been simply a history written by the victors. ”

In that case, this is also removed (also unsourced).

“ Legend has it that the Chinese army did this by going into battle unclothed. The enemy's brazenness so shamed the Vietnamese female warriors that they fled the battle scene, leaving the weakened forces easily defeated by the Chinese. Phung Thi Chinh, a pregnant noble lady was the captain of a group of soldiers who were to protect the central flank of Nam Việt. She gave birth on the front line, and with her baby in one arm, and a sword in the other, continued to fight the battle.

There is a story of one woman who would randomly charge through Chinese camps, screaming and slaying random men. Finally, after killing many more, she committed suicide in the hope of returning to her respected commanders.

”

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)

Would the person readding those paragraphs (Yellowmonkey) STOP doing it unless you have a source. Ugly fictional unrecorded legends are not welcome in proper history, especially if they are not even sourced. Please give a REASON for your re-addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.122 (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Any attempts to readd the above paragraphs will result in the user being tagged. Three attempts by the same user will result in an official complaint to Wikipedia moderators for editing abuse. Tag counts will be removed after one week of non-abuse. I suggest the article vandals YellowMonkey and Badagnani read this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO#Revert_wars_are_considered_harmful Your reverts are unexplained; therefore they are invalid. You are vandalising the article and restoring it to a previous, unsourced, dubious and lower-quality state. Tag count: Yellowmonkey: 2, Badagnani: 1

125.238.169.225 (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea888 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is such a debate about this story, and it's sourced, we can re-add it. Badagnani (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

The Traditional Vietnamese account itself is unsourced. I think it should be removed, unless a decent source can be found. With no source, it seems like an attempt to ridicule the invading Chinese army, saying that they didn't conquer Vietnam using proper warfare, and it seems like a feeble attempt at patriotism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.23.159 (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hát River

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

Was it the same as the Sông Đáy (vi:Sông Đáy)? Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thousand year occupation?

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)

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)

I believe it is because the cumulative years of China's rule over Vietnam added up to 1000+ years. The periods of China's rule over Vietnam is often referred to collectively in Vietnamese as "1000 years of occupation," hence the reference to it in the original article.Hbnh1 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

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)

AD/CE dating

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to use CE dating. The majority opinion is that the topic is in the historical era and AD is inappropriate for this topic. The minority cite WP:ERA and WP:RETAIN. These are guidelines and should be followed, but they can be occasionally be overcome by consensus on specific articles. AlbinoFerret 00:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose that the dates in the article be changed from the AD system to the CE system.

Background, rationale: Ogress 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)

• Support using Common era dating. They lived at a time when Christianity did not yet exist (or was in its infancy). It does not make any sense at all to use BC/AD dating in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support using CE, for reasons stated. In addition, I wondered what they do in Vietnamese.

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: @Nguyen QuocTrung, Nhantdn, and Ngoclong19: from Category:User vi-N. Mathglot (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support using CE. In Vietnamese, "Công Nguyên" has its origin from "公元", which is short of "公历纪元" (Công Lịch Kỷ Nguyên). In textbooks, authors use "TCN" for dates BCE, and often nothing for CE. They rarely use "CN" or "SCN" (sau Công Nguyên, sau means "after" in English), except when they want to emphasize something that happens in common era. As I can remember though, in English textbooks in Vietnam, they often use BC/AD notation, and BCE/CE notation is less common. Ngoclong19 (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - no valid reason for the change. Actually, AD was introduced in the third edit in 2004 and remained AD exclusively thru at least 2009 (I stopped checking after five years). In any case, this is an exercise in futility as CE and BCE increasingly become know as Christian Era and Before Christian Era. No matter what, it is a dating system created by Christians, so it will always be the Christian dating system regardless of how many times you call it something else. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • No, they are not becoming known as that, and CE is also an explicitly non-sectarian dating system, which is appropriate here, unless you think it's right that one group gets to impose its sectarian dating on the rest of the world. From our own article Common Era: "use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications and more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize secularism and/or sensitivity to non-Christians", which is what my concern here as well. And yes, I linked, above, to the introduction of the AD dating, thank you. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The point is that it is a sectarian dating system; the years are Christian years regardless of whether or not you call them that. BC is the actual meaning of the BC (BCE) years. Why should we try to hide the actual fact/truth of the matter? Simply so we can feel happy that we are being so politically correct? FWIW, I have applied WP:ERA in both directions in numerous articles. The only reason I see here for making a change is "personal preference" (i.e., I want to be secular/sensitive) which goes directly against WP:ERA ("A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change"). The reasons given are bogus in that the sources use AD/BC. If the source authors had no problem, why should we? VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • William Safire, NYT, 1997: "Evidently many think B.C.E./C.E. is religiously neutral; others hold that the change is silly because the count remains from the birth of Jesus Christ and confuses those who think the C stands for Christ and not Common." VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
    • British Dictionary: Christian Era - noun - the period beginning with the year of Christ's birth. Dates in this era are labelled ad, those previous to it bc. Also called Common Era.
    • Merriam Webster: Common Era - noun - Definition of COMMON ERA: Christian Era - VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
      • "Personal preference" applies also to the author who first applied it to this article, I presume unthinkingly. And sure, my personal preference is to not have an explicitly Christian date in an article from a non-Christian world. As for Safire, he's dead and your quote is almost twenty years old--besides, he's a linguistic conservative who's been wrong more than once. Here's the Chicago Manual of Style: "Those who want to avoid reference to Christianity are free to do so". That's what I propose here. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Rationalwiki: The Common Era, also known as the Christian Era
        • Your use of the word "unthinkingly" tell me all I need to know. You think the author made a mistake by not being 'sensitive' enough to do the RIGHT thing. You believe you know what is right and what is wrong. It's that type of thinking which WP:ERA was intended to prevent from affecting Wikipedia articles. You are of course free to avoid references to Christianity in any articles you write, and I would of course support that in your article. What you are proposing here is to ignore a long time policy with long time consensus. As a longtime editor, you really should know better. If you want to change WP:ERA, then there is a clear process for doing that. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
          • No, I presume the editor made a quick edit using the dating system they were used to using. That's all. Your level of presumption is really astounding; you should consider a career as a mindreader. Drmies (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, in the name of clear communication with the reader. The BC/AD system is more familiar and more widely understood, which is presumably why so many authors use it, in so many fields. Kanguole 14:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support using Common Era dating. BC/AD a minority view and quite inappropriate for this topic. --Pete (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:ERA and WP:RETAIN, the article began with BC/AD naming scheme. ༆ (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

• Support per Drmies and Mathglot. I am particularly opposed to VMS Mosaic's statements here, as they don't fit this context and sound rather hypocritical; they themselves are based on personal preference to avoid an effort to be sensitive to legitimate concerns. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 18:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

  Huh? I thought I made it clear that I would be just as opposed if the change was in the other direction (i.e., I fully support and agree with the intent of WP:ERA which is mainly to prevent this exact argument taking place). While I of course have a personal preference, my arguments were intended to be a counterpoint to show that personal preferences have no place here. The problem here is 95% of the support arguments are nothing more than personal preference. There are no 'legitimate' concerns here other than a personal preference to be politically correct by being 'sensitive'. If there were legitimate concerns, then this should have started with the top level Vietnam article (uses AD/BC) and would result in all Vietnamese articles being changed. Sorry, but being 'sensitive' is in direct opposition to Wikipedia's foundation principles. Those who believe otherwise need to edit the Wiki which matches their political/sensitive/politically correct personal preferences instead. Straight to the point, those who want to force their personal preferences on other editors need to leave here. There are personal preference based wikis available to edit (religious, politically correct, whatever floats your personal boat). VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  If someone wanted to "force" this change in, there would be an edit war rather than an RfC. This is a discussion, which is always a reasonable step even where there is a guideline (the rules are only principles, after all), and we simply happen to be on opposite sides of it. —烏Γ ^(kaw), 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, we are on opposite sides. Follow the principle/rule vs. don't follow the principle/rule. Not following the principle/rule usually requires a valid reason. Personal preference (includes the personal preference that political correctness/sensitively is good) is not a valid reason regardless of the amount of discussion unless the discussion leads to changing the principle/rule. If we want to change the rule/principle instead of simply ignoring it, then we need an RfC on WP:ERA or an RfC making personal preference/sensitivity/political correctness an overriding reason for using WP:IGNORE. Until then, I say we follow the rule/principle. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2015 (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.

Proposed merge with Trưng Trắc

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)

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)

Minangkabau connection

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Hai Bà Trưng.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)