Talk:Nanyue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Vietnam Portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) 華 This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup. More information about this article... Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.   This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Southeast Asia-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

WikiProject Echo has identified Nanyue as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Chinese language Wikipedia.

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help!
	The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents 1 The language 2 Fujian 3 Proposed move Nam Việt → Nanyue 4 About merging this article with Triệu Dynasty 5 conclusion statements 6 Put back the original title. 7 About the Final sentence of the article 8 More about the title of the article 8.1 A drawn-out argument 9 Need citation

[edit] The language

Most of the articles on the ancient Chinese history are written in the atrociously incorrect English. This article, as many others, needs to be thoroughly edited by someone with the actual knowledge of the language and its grammar. idiotoff 08:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fujian

HenryLi is correct; modern Fujian was the domain of Minyue. --Nlu (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that when I first edited this article, it was a redirect to History of Vietnam ([2]). I considered moving the article to Nanyue, but didn't because I noted that the Encyclopedia Britannica used Nam Viet [3]. DHN 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About merging this article with Triệu Dynasty

• Oppose since one is the name of a country (and the name of the country is related to the modern name of Vietnam) and the other one is the name of the dynasty that ruled it and this article covers the monarchs that are not of such relevance here. If you really want to merge them, leave this this lemma. (It would be much easier to discuss if those who prpose such a merging would give reasons.)--峻義 Jùnyì 論 15:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. Initial I opposed to the merge, but after I studied the Records of the Grand Historian written in Han dynasty. (Nam Yuet was mentioned in Roll 113 : Ch. 53.) Two articles of Nanyue and Triệu Dynasty are in fact ultimate sourced from this book. The term Triệu Dynasty (趙朝) was coined much later. In the Triệu Dynasty, the names are just the Vietnamese pronunciation of the Chinese character mentioned in the book. Some information is full of deduction without solid proof. It is surpried that Beijing was mentioned in article. Another surprise is that the article mentioned that Han Empire was distracted by the chaos in Northern China. The article also assumed that Yuet people in Nam Yuet were Vietnamese and simply ignored that the Nam Yuet was based in the city of Canton.

Second, while you claimed the country and the dynasty have no such relevance, when I moved the Template:History of Vietnam from Nanyue to Triệu Dynasty, you showed your contradition from your claim by putting it back. Did you notice that the template is dynasty-based (Triệu Dynasty) rather than country-based (Nam Yuet).

— HenryLi (Talk) 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Mildly Support. Actually I think the Nanyue's History section can refer to the Trieu Dynasty article as a main article to describe the kings more in depth. And while we're at it, I also think that article should be renamed to Zhao Dynasty since Zhao Tuo was Han Chinese anyway. Yellowtailshark 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conclusion statements

南越 can therefore be thought of as roughly meaning "southern Guangdong."

• This statement implies that northern Guangdong is not part of Nam Yuet, but it is not ture.

The modern name "Vietnam" (Việt Nam) is 南越 (Nam Việt) with an adapted word order.

• Although there might be a relation between two names, it does not mean the name of Vietnam is originated from the reverse of character order.

These two above-mentioned statements are somehow misleading.

A better interpretation:

Nam (南) means in the south and Yuet (越) means yuet people and the place of yuet people. Nam Yuet (南越) is a southern country in the place of Yuet people.

— HenryLi (Talk) 14:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

NAN YUEH, NAM VIET, VIET NAM

Sirs,

Only a small proportion of Yueh prevailed, that broke away from China and kept going south in history.

The Vietnamese retain the name Yueh.

Those Yueh that stayed back in China have long become Chinese. Yet, they are still called Yue, Yueh or Yuet today. (The discussions on this page apparently disputed that the terms Yue, Yueh or Yuet should be associated with the Han-Chinese identity.)

Nan Yueh (Nam Viet) was originally so-named to distinguish from the early state of Yueh of feudal China (5th - 4th century BC) that had ceased to exist by the time of the Trieu dynasty (208BC - 111BC). In 1802, the emperor of China reversed the order of the two words Nam Viet into Viet Nam. The name did not find acceptance by the Vietnamese until 1945. The name Viet Nam may be taken to mean "The Viet South" where Viet is used as an adjective, also "Traversing Southwards", "Escaping South". The name Yueh or Viet happens to mean "to traverse", "to escape", also "far" and "beyond".

Yours sincerely,

T.Vd./

[edit] Put back the original title.

The reasons cited to changed it to Nanyue is baseless, not to mention the term Nanyue is NOT widely accepted as the proper transliteration for the name of the kingdom (in the English language). All the English encyclopedias, Encyclopedia Brittanica most notably use Nam Viet as the title. We're required to use the most widely cited and accepted name, not a name only Chinese people use.

Of note, Nam Viet was a predominate non-Han kingdom made up mostly of Viet people, ruled by an ethnic Han. Similarly to how China was ruled by ethnic Mongols (Yuan Dynasty) and Manchus (Qing Dynasty). We still don't call Yuan or Qing Dynasty China by its Mongolian or Manchu transliteration. The Viet transliteration of the ruling family name is used (Trieu Dynasty), so it's contradictory NOT to use the same form for the name of the state. BTW, if the Trieu Dynasty is changed to Zhao Dynasty to fit the 'criteria', Yuan and Qing should also be change to Yuan Guren and Aisin-Gioro, respectively. We have to be fair and non-bias if that's the case.

Frankly, though Wikipedia is user compose, it should be kept in line with the mainstream encyclopedias. We need to change it back to Nam Viet, A.S.A.P.

Sincerely,

L

To the unregistered user, actually, all other major English encyclopedias (Columbia Encyclopedia, Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Academic American Encyclopedia) doesn't even contain articles about this entity (Nanyue/Nam Viet), and it is rarely mentioned in reference books, Britannica is the exception. So when you state "All the English encyclopedias", that doesn't seem like a valid argument. The main reason that it is using pinyin is because all other international wiki articles about this entity (German, French articles) uses pinyin romanization as well.--Sevilledade (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

When this article was created, none of the other language versions of this article exists (except Japanese and Chinese). DHN (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Nanyue is the appropriate title, given that the state was largely (>75%, if not more) in what is now China and that there is no dispute that the ruling family was Chinese. --Nlu (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The original title should be reinstated accordingly and should accomodate the sources provided.75.7.149.115 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the Final sentence of the article

The last sentence of the article as it stands sounds very disturbing. Some time ago, someone had attempted to address it by completely changing it but that edit got removed on the grounds that claims of genocide are "unfounded". Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence within the article itself pointing to the existence of such a genocide (or at least extreme cultural damage in the wake of the military conquests); the real question is, therefore, not whether the Viet peoples suffered greatly at the hands of the imperial Chinese armies but rather whether the military acts against the Viet peoples (which included mass murders and slavery) amounted to genocide. In the light of the above statements, it should now be clear that to say that 'Other ancient "Yue" peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi were assimilated...' is not merely misleading, it is downright offensive. Such a statement simply downplays the horrors experienced by the Viet peoples during the actual invasions and subsequent conquests by imperial China, regardless of whether the said acts of occupation amounted to genocide or not. But this is not the end of the matter. The part of the last sentence that says that some Viet peoples became Han Chinese is even more offensive. Apart from the fact that such a comment will be perceived by some people as an attack on Viet cultures, this comment simply reinforces the 'us and them' attitude between various Viet peoples (particularly between the Vietnamese and Cantonese). Furthermore, there is an increasing awareness that the label of Han ethnicity was a genocidal imposition on the ancestors of many of today's Viet peoples (particularly the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples) against the wills of the local peoples, which has actually led to the founding of small and virtually unknown nationalist movements advocating independence for the Cantonese and Hokkien peoples. As a result, I have deleted the disputed sentence for the time being. If anyone has any ideas as to how the article should end, please leave them here (with justification). 122.105.144.89 (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Less than a day after this section first appeared, someone had the audacity to reinstate the controversial concluding statement referred to earlier. Surely, one should be able to give clear reasons if he or she feels strongly that such a conclusion should be in the article. Obviously, I have yet again removed the offending sentence pending further discussion. Also, note that this article is about not only the history of the Vietnamese people and nation, but also about the history of other nations of Viet peoples during the early days of imperial China. However, it is NOT (repeat not) about the history of China (contrary to what the top of this talk page claims). For the convenience of anyone who is not sure about how to end the article in a NPOV manner, I suggest the following conclusion:

"Other Yue peoples largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests."

What does everybody think about that? 122.105.145.47 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

From your litany of "reasons" I still cannot find a single word based on historical records or other reliable sources. On the contrary, I only found more unfounded claims and "downright offensive" nonsense. --Sandycx (Talk) 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

So which ideas were you referring to when you talked about finding more "downright offensive nonsense" and "unfounded claims"? Were you referring to the talk page or parts of the article itself (or both)?

First, any claim that comes without a reliable source or evidence (which obviously applies to your claims of the so-called "genocide", "extreme cultural damage" and "slavery") is an unfounded claim.

Second, as a Cantonese, I'm proud to be "labeled as" a Han Chinese (and so does every one I've met during my 20+ years in Guangdong). So your baseless claim of our unwillingness to be Chinese is without doubt a "downright offensive nonsense" that cannot be more ridiculous in my eyes. It is you who is trying to fabricate (and propagand) an "us and them" attitude between Cantonese/Fujianese and people from the other parts of China.

Third, Yue people had been an active participant (rather than a conquered underdog) of Chinese politics from the very beginning. The state of Yue was once a major feudal power during the Spring and Autumn Period, and one of its kings called Goujian is a household name in China for being one of the Five Hegemons of the period. The so-called "military conquest" by Qin Shi Huang of the Yue people was actually a unification of the Hundred Yue tribes which became divided during the chaotic Spring and Autumn Period and Warring States Period.

The complete sinicization of the Yue people in Guangdong and Guangxi is actually a result of nearly one thousand years of immigration from northern China and economic and cultural integration with these immigrants. This is not a question of POV, but of historical facts, on which I'll list my sources below.--Sandycx (Talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Although the proposed conclusion (as it stands) is sound and in line with Wikipedia: NPOV, perhaps a little fine tuning won't hurt. How about "Other Yue peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests."? I say this because there were many other different Yue peoples (or Viet peoples as many people would call them) elsewhere at the time of the invasions.122.105.144.5 (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous sources and evidence against the claim of "other Yue peoples in Guangdong and Guangxi largely lost their cultural identities in the wake of the military conquests".

First, by comparing the structure and excavation of two mausoleums -- the mausoleum of the Nanyue King[4] and that of Qin Shi Huang[5], one can see major differences in their style, but the former was built on 121 BC, nearly a century after Qin's unification of Guangdong and Guangxi;

Second, Madame Xian (冼夫人, Madame Tẩy in Vietnamese spelling, born 512 AD), a female leader of the Yue people in Guangdong, who spent all her life introducing Han culture into Yue region and keeping the region unified with other parts of China, was worshipped as a goddess in numerous temples built by the local people after her death, and many of these temples are still well preserved today[6].

Third, for a complete study of the development of Yue areas and the ethnic relationship between Yue and Han, there is a great amount of literature. To list several Chinese sources here:

彭年：《中国古代海洋文化的先驱——从南越国遗迹看南越文化及其历史地位》，《南越国史迹研讨会论文选集》，文物出版社，2005年。ISBN 7-5010-1734-4 ("Harbinger of the ancient Chinese maritime culture -- the historical significance of Nanyue culture as revealed in the relics of Nanyue Kingdom", by Peng Nian);

张荣芳、黄淼章：《南越国史》，广东人民出版社，1995年。ISBN 7-218-01982-X ("History of Nanyue Kingdom", by Zhang Rongfang and Huang Miaozhang);

崔锐、付文军：《从考古发现看南越国在岭南地区开发方面的历史地位》，《南越国史迹研讨会论文选集》，文物出版社，2005年。ISBN 7-5010-1734-4 ("The historical role of Nanyue Kingdom in the development of Lingnan region, from the perspective of new archaeological findings", by Cui Rui and Fu Wenjun).

--Sandycx (Talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If the above comments are true, then something very disturbing has just been uncovered: parts of the article may contain factual inaccuracies too. How about 'The Yuè, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China'? What about the fact that there is a template on the right hand side of the page titled 'History of Vietnam' that lists the Trieu dynasty under 'First Chinese Domination' (which might constitute a neutrality problem by the way)? On the other hand, if the above comments are false, then the article as it stands now (without the conclusion) is true (save some minor errors) and the comments made by the user need to be disregarded (or even deleted if appropriate). In any case, whatever conclusion is put, it is guaranteed that someone out there will be angered by it. In the meantime though, the 'History of Vietnam' template needs to be reviewed for factual accuracy and neutrality as a matter of urgency. Any third opinions on this matter and the ones described in the preceding paragraphs?

PS: When I was talking about the 'us and them' attitude I was talking about the ongoing rift between the Vietnamese people and other Viet peoples. An example of this would be the use of the word 'Viet' to refer to ethnic Vietnamese only (this is a problem at Wikipedia; try keying the word in the search bar). Maybe this is a symptom that some people simply don't know very much at all about their homeland's history. 122.105.148.100 (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just read the article Yue peoples and from the information provided, I conclude that a substantial portion of user Sandycx's comments are simply incorrect. Many of his comments simply do not relate to what the local peoples of the Nam Viet kingdom actually experienced during the invasions from Imperial China. The relevent paragraphs that put the user's claims into question are as follows.

Sinification of these peoples was brought about by a combination of imperial military power, regular settlement and Chinese refugees. The difficulty of logistics and the malarial climate in the south made the displacement and eventual sinification of the Yue peoples a slow process. When the Chinese came into contact with local Yue peoples, they often wrested control of territory from them or subjugated them by force. When a serious rebellion broke out in 40 AD by the Trung Sisters in what is now modern Vietnam, a force of some 10,000 imperial troops was dispatched under General Ma Yuan. Between 100 and 184 no less than seven outbreaks of violence took place, often calling for strong defensive action by the Chinese.

As Chinese migrants gradually increased, the Yue were gradually forced into poorer land on the hills and in the mountains. Unlike the nomadic peoples of Central Asia, such as the Xiongnu or the Xianbei, however, the Yue peoples never posed any serious threat to Chinese expansion or control. Sometimes they staged small scale raids or attacks on Chinese settlements - termed "rebellions" by traditional historians. The Chinese for their part regarded them as being highly uncivilised and prone to fight one another.

While most Yue peoples eventually lost their ethnic identities, the Kam-Tai (Daic):Zhuang, Buyi, Dai, Sui(Shui), Kam(Dong), Hlai(Li), Mulam, Maonan, Ong-Be(Lingao), Thai, Lao, Shan and the Vietnamese people retained their ethnic identity. The Vietnamese people eventually broke free from Chinese rule in the 10th century.

It should now be clear that the local peoples of Nam Viet suffered greatly at the hands of Imperial Chinese armies. In fact, their plights echo those of the plights of the Tibetan people today. 122.109.121.230 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More about the title of the article

Some time ago, there was a debate regarding what the title of the article should be. The result was then 'Nam Viet' was renamed to 'Nanyue'. A few arguments were made, some of which had some validity. Unfortunately, I believe that the name change, far from improving the article's quality. has led to a situation where readers may just simply 'get the wrong message'. To put it simply, the title as it stands does not really do justice to the subject's historical context and could even be regarded as being biased. There are many arguments in favour of naming this article 'Nam Viet' and not anything else. I will only touch on some of the main arguments. Firstly, the local peoples of Nam Viet did NOT speak a Sinitic language. It may come as a surprise to the uninformed but it is a fact that the ancestors of today's Cantonese and Hokkien peoples as well as all other Viet peoples, spoke languages from a diverse range of other language groups such as Hmong-Mien, Tai, and Austronesian. Since the kingdom's inception, the local peoples have referred to the country as 'Nam Viet'. For this reason, books on Vietnamese history invariably refer to the kingdom as 'Nam Viet'.

Secondly, the name 'Nam Viet' is the historically accepted name of the kingdom. Encyclopaedias the world over use this name when discussing the kingdom. There is no book on Vietnamese history (or even the history of 'Viet' nations) that distinguishes itself from the others by referring to 'Nam Viet' under some other name. Perhaps 'common sense' has prevailed in the more established books whereby the authors have wisely adopted the policy of using place names that reflect the region's local languages and cultures.

Thirdly, using anything other than 'Nam Viet' is asking for further trouble (and promote an 'us and them' attitude. Whereas the name 'Nam Viet' is in common use, other terms are far less common and even the name 'Nanyue' is obscure to all but a small handful of people. In fact, the current title even has the potential to leave the wrong impression to the readers. Indeed, some people insist that the term 'Viet' be used to refer to the Vietnamese people only, and then insist that all non-Vietnamese Viet peoples be called 'Yue'. Some people have even tried to associate 'Yue' cultures with the Han Chinese identity, convinced that the Vietnamese people have nothing in common with other Viet peoples such as the Cantonese peoples. Keeping the article's current title will only reinforce such attitudes.

So we can see that the article's current title as it stands is not merely misleading; it is simply wrong. In fact, it is an insult to humanity. We need to start a proper debate on this matter NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.145.4 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, "an insult to humanity"! I think we should sentence those supporters of this renaming to death by this crime. Okay, to put things right and to respect the humanity, I propose renaming it to the name in its original form -- in Chinese -- 南越. This is the name that appear in both Chinese and Vietnamese records (but note that even the nationalistic Vietnamese historical record, the "Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư", is also written in classical Chinese). The English name "Nam Viet" did not appear until the romanization of Vietnamese language was introduced in the early 20th century (a much much greater insult to humanity, I must say).

--Sandycx (Talk) 06:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, an even worse suggestion has appeared. The sarcastic tone aside, this suggestion illustrates once again that we must be extremely careful in the naming of articles. The suggestion is a bad idea as it is downright Sino-centric. For this article, the fact that Nam Viet is the only well known name of the kingdom and that it does not have point-of-view problems is strong motivation for renaming this article back to what it was originally called: Nam Viet.

122.105.148.5 (talk) 11:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose that this article be renamed back to what it was originally called: Nam Viet. There are many reasons why the article's name should be changed back to its original title, one being that 'Nam Viet' is more established and neutral than the obscure name 'Nanyue' which also happens to be inherently Sino-centric. Apparently, there is a formal process for proposing that an article be renamed. Could someone formalise the said proposal please?

By the way, the History of Vietnam template needs to be corrected for neutrality's sake. The listing of 'Trieu dynasty' under 'First Chinese Domination' is inherently a breach of impartiality.

Furthermore, the map of the Nam Viet kingdom needs to be ammended to include place names in English only.122.105.148.189 (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

So we should name it Zhao Dynasty? Yellowtailshark (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The answer to the above question (which sounds rhetorical by the way) is a resounding NO. The neutrality problem with the template has nothing to do with the name of the dynasty; it is the fact that not every one agrees that the Trieu dynasty was a period of Chinese domination for the Vietnamese and other Viet peoples. As for the map, we don't need a title on it; we just need the place names on the map to be in English and in English only (using the correct transliterations of course). Finally, naming the article 'Zhao Dynasty' is pointless since the article is about a country, not a dynasty.122.105.145.169 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I assumed your issue was with language usage (whether Chinese should be used or Vietnamese), going along your criticism on the name of this particular article as Nanyue as opposed to Nam Việt, I assumed that your critique on how the Triệu Dynasty was inherently a breach of impartiality was referring to the language usage as well. But if you're referring to the issue of whether the dynasty was considered Chinese rule or not, you should probably bring the point up within the Talk:History of Vietnam talk page, since it falls in the scope of how the history of Vietnam should be divided and named. The Triệu Dynasty article already mentions this point of contention in its first section "A Vietnamese Dynasty?". Yellowtailshark (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to get a better idea on sound editing processes. Yellowtailshark (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a dynasty or country established by the Chinese (and thus named by the Chinese), contemporarily recorded only by the Chinese (anyone to list some non-Chinese first-hand sources to this article?), preceded by unification with China (Qin Dynasty), followed by unification with China (Han Dynasty). Why shouldn't be the transliteration based on Chinese language? Can 122.105.*.* provide us with some concrete historical sources that justify your proposal? Don't tell us that it's all "what I believe" to be true or false, POV or NPOV, and correct or incorrect (as you did previously regarding the question of "genocide", "Cantonese independence" etc etc). This is the third time on this page that I am asking you for SOURCES. --Sandycx (Talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people just don't get it. Look up 'Nam Viet in any good encyclopaedia such as Brittanica and you will find an entry for it. But try looking up 'Nanyue' in the same encyclopaedias and chances are you won't find it (unless the encyclopaedia happens to be pro-China). Since Wikipedia needs to keep in line with the mainstream encyclopaedias, article names in Wikipedia need to reflect common usage, not what editors at Wikipedia believe are proper. 122.105.145.175 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A drawn-out argument

From Wikipedia:Naming Conventions, a principle of Wikipedia is that "the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." We must keep this in mind. Reading the article, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, gives us a list of criteria to consider. I'll go through it step by step. The key principles in summary are:

• If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó). There is no English version of the name, so this criteria would not apply.
• If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself. Unfortunately, written records, which were done using Chinese ideographs (南越), does not give us much clue to the pronunciation of the term during the 2nd-century BCE, the oldest being Middle Chinese from about 6th-century CE being wɘt (see Source), which is neither "yuè" (which dropped the final consonant) or "việt" (which has a different initial consonant and vowel). Since no one here seems to want to compromise it as "wuht" (or uưt if I could use Vietnamese alphabet), this criteria seems moot point. Oh, and 南 is pronounced in Middle Chinese as nʌm which sounds like "num" (or nơm using Vietnamese alphabet). Using the most ancient form of the pronunciation would be like using Latin to name regions that now comprise the modern nations and languages of Italy, France, Spain, and Greece. I'm not sure I want to establish a weird precedent like that. But otherwise, Num Wuht would be as close to the original transliteral pronunciation as one can gets.
• If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory). There is a dispute, not so much in the way it is written (as 南越), but in the way it is transliterated. There are two governing bodies who hold jurisdiction concerning this ancient state as well.
• If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name. No English equivalent exists.
• If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name. Let's use Google Books to see what published books mention Nanyue (~600 books), Nan Yueh (~600 books), or Nam Viet (~1,100 books). Now, I know what the pro-"Nam Viet" people are thinking, "Aha! We win!" But "Nanyue" and "Nan Yueh" are variations of the same pronunciation, so sum the totals and they get 1,200. Still, comparing 1,200 books vs 1,100 books is hardly conclusive.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources) No. And we shouldn't have to defer to experts either (i.e. historians).
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution) We're using old Chinese records. Now if we're referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), it says "In general, Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Exceptions would include: (1) When there is a more popularly used form in English (such as Taoism), (2) When the subject of the entry is likely to object to romanization in pinyin." So we should use the pinyin form, and there's no way we could ask Zhao Tuo if he prefers Nanyue over Nam Viet. Being an alpha-male type, he'd probably want something closer to the old pronunciation anyway. :-)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term) If we ask the modern descendants, we'd get back to the same problem. The Vietnamese and the Southern Chinese claim their lineage from this ancient state.

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

So, after stepping through all that, we probably got nowhere closer to reaching a consensus. But I do think that in describing this ancient state, that we maintain its connection to the Yue peoples first, which is the prototype to this state, just like how Latin is the prototype to all of the modern Romance languages of today. To say that the Vietnamese or Southern Chinese claiming sole authority over this identity or piece of history is like saying Italians, French, and Spanish claiming Latin and its associated Roman history as belonging solely to them. I think it's more accurate to say that Vietnam is an offshoot or breakaway country of Nam Viet/Nanyue, and that ancient state as an offshoot of the Yue peoples. When an issue divides, my philosopher-mentor tells me to go back to the primordial elements of the topic (our roots). Of course, if this means we have to question whether to rename Yue peoples to Viet peoples, then we should jump into that talk page (Talk:Yue (peoples)) and start arguing there! Yellowtailshark (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important to remember that the ancient Viet peoples were really made up of many different ethnicities that were genetically similar but culturally quite different. Furthermore, none of these peoples spoke Chinese or any related language; they spoke languages from a diverse range of other language families such as Hmong-Mien, Tai or Austronesian. So the label 'Southern Chinese' is quite unfair for the purposes of discussing the issues raised in this section, especially when it appears together with 'Vietnamese' (such usage only promotes an us and them attitude). 122.105.147.208 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

But of course. The Viet/Yue identity/label is similar in usage to that of Celts. But unlike "Celts", there's no consensus in the English-speaking world which term to use. It would be disingenuous if we portrayed that there was a difference that does not exist except solely in what language context we're using. But what's interesting is that the Yue/Viet label is a term given by the ancient Chinese dynasties, a POV term that is similar to how the ancient Greeks referred to the Persians and any other culture east (by virtue of difference) of themselves as "Orientals". Heck, even "China" is a POV term used by the West (they call themselves Zhonghua minzu). What did these Viet/Yue people call themselves? We may never know, or it may be irrelevant, because to bring up a related issue is the cataloging the tribes of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, where in the past, certain names given to tribes were not names that the tribe in question used to refer to themselves, such as Iroquois (they call themselves Haudenosaunee). I guess at the end of the day, the countries of the English-speaking world have the audacity to use whatever term they want, even if it's not something the people in question would use themselves. Use it long enough, and it becomes ingrained in our history, for good or for bad. See List of country name etymologies. Looking at the article name in other language Wikipedias, Nanyue is becoming more of the convention than Nam Viet. So even if we were to revert this article name to Nam Viet, you'd have to make the same case in just about every other language in the world. Yellowtailshark (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need citation

Need a citation for this

The Yue, under the domination of the Han (Han Wudi) was forced, wiped, tortured and enslaved to repair and enhance the Great Wall of China.

Roadrunner (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)