This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
The article seems to have an overtly Vietnamese nationalistic tone. No reliable references have been provided to support some of the opinions in the article and it is clear from the contents of this article that it is designed to promote ethnic hatred.
David873 (
talk)
12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This does not change the fact that the article has an overtly Vietnamese nationalistic tone though. Some sentences seem rather emotionally charged for an encyclopaedia such as "...the heavy Chinese warboats were all caught on the poles and lay helplessly trapped in the middle of the river" (italics mine) or "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again" (the latter quoted sentence was inserted in order to promote ethnic hatred perhaps?).
David873 (
talk)
00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
From what source you have "the fact that"? If there are some sentences or phrases not well built, you can freely correct them, why do you always try to put your argument for the whole article? Besides, I cannot see anything "ethnic hatred" comes from "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again"?! One more time, please hold your own argument for forums or blogs, save your time here in wikipedia to improve articles. Thank you.
RBD (
talk)
00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Sentences just removed need to be evaluated for inclusion:
"The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again."
"It was the first truly independent Vietnamese state."
These would seem to be important, first because dynastic China attacked Vietnam again and again, and the Southern Han perhaps multiple times; and the second, if true, seems important as well.
Yes, they certainly need to be evaluated. However, I was concerned that much of the material that I have deleted were either superfluous or essentially an emotional tirade that would not be allowed in an encyclopaeida such as Britannica. For example, if the first independent Vietnamese state did in fact begin after the battle, then why not simply say "It was the first soveriegn Vietnamese state" (note the omission of the word "truly")?
David873 (
talk)
01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Badagnani, sorry that I don't have English source, but here some source for those evaluation:
"The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again." - Ref: Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư - Ngoại Kỷ - Quyển V (External Note - Volume V) - 938.
"It was the first truly independent Vietnamese state." - Ref: Tran Trong Kim, Việt Nam sử lược (Summary of Vietnam's History), Chương V - Bắc thuộc lần thứ 3 (Chapter V - Third Chinese domination) - 938.
I don't know where one can find correlative English sources with above references, if you have them, please add to article, thank you.
RBD (
talk)
01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
That was quick! Non-English sources may be used, if they're reliable. David873, I agree that your other edits, making the text NPOV, were good.
Badagnani (
talk)
01:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)reply
Someone went berserk with the "fact/citation/reference needed" insertions. It makes the article almost impossible to read with any fluency at all. The notion at the beginning is more than enough. You don't need to mark every sentence!
85.200.102.184 (
talk)
06:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)reply
Undiscussed move
(cur | prev) 03:08, 26 July 2011 Kauffner (talk | contribs) m . . (4,305 bytes) (0) . . (moved Battle of Bạch Đằng River (938) to Battle of Bach Dang River: Move Vietnamese name to non-diacritical form per discussion at
Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, Britannica, WP:UE, and official use by the Vietnam News Agency.) (undo)
Hi, I was just reading this page when I got to the Significance section and was puzzled by this part:
In the first century CE, the population of Han's empire was over 57 million. At the time the population of Vietnam was just over 1 million. After the conquest of Vietnam, the Han Dynasty limited Vietnamese national sovereignty, exploiting the people, scavenging the treasures of Vietnam and sought to assimilate the Vietnamese people, annexing the lands into China. The Chinese assimilation plan is a feature of Han expansionism, was used from the Han's Dynasty to the Tang
I'm not sure whether the assimilation plans of 1st century CE Han Dynasty has anything to do with the Southern Han, a 10th Century Chinese Kingdom that has little to none continuity with the 1st century Han Dynasty and I am quite puzzled by this inclusion here.