Image talk:East-Hem 200bc.jpg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Map issues?
I created this map using sources found in Wikipedia, through Google searches, etc. Most of the sources I used are listed on the actual image page. I don't claim perfection regarding this map due to conflicting or missing source information. Any possible errors can be corrected. If you see a possible error, please email me at talessman@yis.us with your concerns. However, you MUST provide your source information or proof that the map is wrong! Just saying that the map is wrong, or that some borders are wrong, doesn't help correct the map. If you have concerns, list them on this page WITH your source information AND let me know EXACTLY how I can correct the possible error (which includes listing correct names for any spelling errors, and showing me a map with correct borders for any possible border errors). Without that information, there's nothing I can do to satisfy your concerns. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous concerns re: Nanyue
Few problems with the map. First, why is there a Vietnam label with Nanyue? There shouldn't be nation labeling on these entries, it is like labeling Italy with the Roman Republic, India with Mauyra Empire... Plus, from the looks of it, it is a kingdom whose majority boundary (probably 70% or more) is in present China. Should get rid of the "Chinese" Han Dynasty as well, since it is unnecessary (as I mentioned above), Han Dynasty should just be just Han Dynasty. And, since these maps are uploaded onto Wikipedia, it should just use the Wikipedia articles' name (i.e. Roman Republic, Seleucid Empire, not Greek Seleucid Empire...). The editor should fix these labelings.--4.228.246.89 (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I got the boundries for Nanyue from a map I found on [1]. The Wiki-articles on this area are tragically lacking information, or are overwhelmed by mythological information that cannot be reconciled with existing sources. I also added the (Vietnam) label to show that Nanyue was the predecessor of that nation (origin of the modern Vietnamese people). If you have information I can use to correct the borders, please present it so I can make any changes if necessary. Thomas Lessman (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Talessman, did you try to read the Nanyue article, it is not like its only limited to Vietnamese history. Plus, you shouldn't insert modern identity with ancient kingdoms; you don't do it with other entities on your maps, why Nanyue?--Balthazarduju (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes Balthazar, I read the Nanyue article. I've seen several different names for this area, some from different eras, but often overlapping and conflicting. Nanyue, Annam, Au Lac, Lac Viet, Nam Viet, Hung Vuong, Bac Viet, Triệu Dynasty and Van Lang. I've been criticised for each one if they are displayed on a map. The Triệu Dynasty and History of Vietnam articles (and others) state that Nanyue was an early kingdom of Nam Viet (Vietnam). The most common version of the name I've seen used after 207 BC is Nanyue, and since several articles mention that it is an early kingdom of Vietnam, I thought it would be neat and informative to show that on the map. Thomas Lessman (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. Why shown Vietnam on an ancient entity when you didn't do the same for every other entities on your map (label modern name with ancient states, like putting France next to Gauls)? Plus, the Nanyue overlaps modern southern China and northern Vietnam, it would be quite sensitive to label Vietnam on areas of southern China. You should probably consult other wiki editors from these articles before putting labels on these.--Balthazarduju (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I did answer the question about why I put (Vietnam) in parenthesis under Nanyue. You didn't pay attention to my answer. As to why I didn't put labels on other ancient states? You example was France next to Gaul. But Gaul wasn't France - the difference is that the Franks were a different culture (Germanic) than the Gauls (Celts), thus they weren't the same entity, they only covered much the same geography at later dates. If the Franks hadn't conquered the region and changed the culture, it would still be called Gaul.
- And actually I DO put labels on other nations. Under Chernoles and Venedae I put (Proto-Slavs) to show they were the ancestors to the later Slavic peoples. Same thing with the Gaoche (Proto-Turks). Similarly, I put Hellenistic Kingdoms in dark blue text, and Iranian peoples in dark green text. It helps give readers a better understanding of the peoples and nations displayed in the maps. Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- But you didn't directly apply "nation" labels on these entities you mentioned above did you (what you've mentioned are ethno-lingusitic designations)? You putted the Vietnam label on Nanyue directly, whereas you could've put (say Yue peoples or something) along with Nanyue. However, I do think that is in inaccurate the apply modern political identities with ancient states.--Balthazarduju (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem here, however, really isn't the question of "was Nanyue/Nam Viet part of Vietnamese history?" It clearly was, and it is clear that some (whether it was a majority is more debatable) of the people of Nanyue/Nam Viet could be considered proto-Vietnamese. The problem, is that, it's not that Nanyue/Nam Viet became Vietnam; as far as what happened to its people, there is a clearly split heritage, with one part becoming (part of) modern Chinese and one part becoming modern Vietnamese -- who were also not exclusively from Nanyue/Nam Viet, as there were other ancient states whose people also contributed to the modern Vietnamese population's origins, both from a bloodline and from a cultural heritage standpoint. Moreover, the ruling family of Nanyue/Nam Viet was not "proto-Vietnamese" but clearly Chinese. You raised the point that you are merely trying to be consistent with the article itself. With all due respect, I don't think the article supports your point, because the article clearly addresses the issue of split heritage. (Perhaps it can be improved on in that area, but it does address it.) Nothing in the article states that 1) Nanyue/Nam Viet was exclusively proto-Vietnamese or that 2) Vietnam is close to conclusively derived from the people of Nanyue/Nam Viet, either bloodline-wise or cultural heritage-wise. I still do not believe that labeling Nanyue/Nam Viet as Vietnam is appropriate; a more appropriate labeling would be to label its name in both languages, and it doesn't really matter to me which one goes first. --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Nlu. Thank you again for your input. Don't necessarily agree with you, because I think it's helpful to point out that Nanyue was a predecessor of Vietnam. However, you keep saying Nanyue/Nam Viet. Perhaps we could make a good compromise there. IMO, "Nam Viet" does show some kind of connection with "Vietnam". So if I replaced the (Vietnam) with (Nam Viet) instead, would that be more accurate from your viewpoint?
- And again Nlu, thank you for your insight on this. My frustration is not with you, it's with Balthazar and certain other editors, who would rather criticise and trash, instead of working to help improve. There have been other editors who have been very helpful with these maps (editors like Quantum cyborg, Tourskin, and Cplakidas among them). Again, I have no problem correcting possible map errors when someone can point them out along with references to back up their claims. I appreciate your help, Nlu. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, so (Nam Viet) it will be. I'm waiting for some more input on other areas of the map so I can make other corrections if necessary, and then I will upload a corrected version of the map. Might take a week or two, but I will correct (Nam Viet) and upload it. Thank you again, Nlu. Thomas Lessman (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
