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 is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects 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.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cities,
towns and various other
settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
Comments
The population figure in this article says "1,123". Anyone have a correct figure?
Answer: according to the Vietnam Office of General Statistics, the 2006 population figure was 1,803,400
Also: On the list of Haiphong's sister cities in the article, Tianjin is in China, not Vietnam. Additionally, Seattle in the US is also a sister city of Haiphong's. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.190.108.125 (
talk)
09:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)reply
May I ask if there is a discrepancy? This article claims the 1881 Haiphong Typhoon killed 300,000 people in the Haiphong area. The article linking to it titled
1881 Haiphong Typhoon states that 23,000 people were killed, only 3000 of whom were in Haiphong. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
107.216.195.173 (
talk)
05:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Is it really called Hai Phong in English? I think it's called "Haiphong," as it almost always appears in English-language sources as a single word (as does
Hanoi).
Badagnani (
talk)
16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)reply
In the Vienamese language words are written with each syllable separate whereas in English an entire word is written as one regardless of the number of syllables.
Bmcchesney41 (
talk)
07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)reply
I agree with Badagnani. The English name of this town and its spelling is Haiphong, like Hanoi, one word. Unlike many other Vietnamese places it has an recognized English name and spelling. It doesn't matter how it is written in Vietnamese, because that is another language, even with another script (it just happens to use roman characters as the base, but then it modifies them and adds tone marks). The Wikipedia article about Vietnam uses also the English spelling (i.e. one word) and not a semi Vietnamized Viet nam or Viet Nam. stefanhanoi
113.168.21.87 (
talk)
10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Request Move: → Haiphong
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Cần Thơ per recent RfC - we have already had a RM for 14 towns at
Talk:Cần Thơ, followed by another at
Talk:Cà Mau to restore towns which were moved by a combination of undiscussed moves/misuse of db-G6 templates/IP manipulation of RM archives etc. And yet articles are still being moved around like
Talk:Thanh Hóa. This is counter 2 RM results and an RfC. Yes we all know the number of English publishers who use Vietnamese fonts is very small. It is expensive to proofread in Vietnamese, and even sources which do use the fonts, such as the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of the Vietnamese War may lose the fonts when going to second edition with a cheaper publisher. But en.wp isn't a print source. We don't have those limitations. The en.wp editors who have built up these articles, prior to the undiscussed moves of the last 12 months, had put the time and effort in to treat this Portuguese-based alphabet with the same respect as we treat 100% of all other Latin-alphabet languages on en.wp from
Chloë Grace Moretz to
Lech Wałęsa. At the very least the 39 editors who took part in the recent RfC should be notified on this RM. Since it goes against what the majority just decided.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The RfC you are referring to was closed as "no consensus." However it was resolved, editors can still vote in this RM based on its merits. For VOV and other English-language publishers in Vietnam, it would be less trouble to leave to the diacritics in. They take them out to make the copy easier to read. Why publishers drop the diacritics shouldn't make any difference. We are a reference work, so we should look like other reference works.
Kauffner (
talk)
15:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Cautious support for Haiphong. This is certainly how it was normally known in English-language news coverage during the Vietnam war, which even now is how many people will have heard of it.
PatGallacher (
talk)
16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Support for both, per English language usage in tertiary sources for Can Tho (the sources we're supposed to be using on Wikipedia) and normal English usage for Haiphong. --
70.24.247.127 (
talk)
08:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Wouldn't it be nice if we could have an RM that focused on the merits of the proposal? IIO has obsessively combed through my edit history for the last several years, and this is apparently the worst thing he could come up with. Shabazz moved the article at IIO's request.
Can Tho has been at an ASCII title for most of its life, from 2004 to 2009, when it was moved without any discussion or even an edit summary.
[3]Kauffner (
talk)
03:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
1. YigMgo ༆ has focussed on the merits of the proposal re Cần Thơ
[4],
[5]. Also as I said quality print sources like OUP do use full fonts. Use among academic imprints is increasing, for instance
University of California Press is now using Vietnamese fonts, see Amazon LOOKINSIDE for Charles Keith Catholic Vietnam: A Church from Empire to Nation UCP 2012 Page 184 "In his speech at the site of one memorial in Cần Thơ, ..." Amazon LOOKINSIDE is more reliable than Google Books OCR for such cases, though in this case GB OCR software has also picked "Cần Thơ" full font up. Older OCRs often don't even when the full font is there.
2. The description "obsessively combed" borders on
WP:NPA and is somewhat unfair given that many other editors have also had to "comb" your edit history to work out how these moves happened. Since a combination of deletion of RM tags, IP edits and history-self-deleting db-G6 "uncontroversial move" templates were used alongside logged in undiscussed moves to move all 14 of the
Talk:Cần Thơ articles counter RM result, several of the 14 moved counter RM more than once after admin reverts, a certain amount of "combing" by other editors is required to see what should normally have been visible on Talk pages. If IP edits and db-G6 templates hadn't been used then the moves would not have gone relatively unnoticed (admins Prolog, Gimmetoo, Edgar181, MalikShabazz, Graeme Bartlett having left messages on your Talk page to stop moves). You cannot blame other editors for the effort required to follow your moves when you yourself have used IP Talk page archiving, RM note deletion and according to Graeme's check around 500x db-G6 templates to accomplish moves. Yes it was difficult to follow. And this RM is gamed too as per Bob's comment above.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
03:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Who uses a book entitled Catholic Vietnam as a geography reference? This book leaves out the tone marks, and the quote given above is not accurate in this respect. What do the "reputable" sources say? Why
Lonely Planet and
Frommer's both give "Can Tho"!
Kauffner (
talk)
06:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Haiphong and Can Tho. Ignoring personal drama between editors, it's clear what reliable tertiary sources and English-language usage prefers, in the case of these two place names. Even if Vietnamese diacritics were the norm in English - which is disputable - certain place names like
Hanoi,
Ho Chi Minh City, and - yes! Haiphong and Can Tho - are customarily written without diacritics.
Shrigley (
talk)
05:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
Shrigley, (1) Haiphong is not "customarily written without diacritics" it is 100% written without diacritics because it is as 100% English as Munich or Cologne. (2) The above information about Cần Thơ is incorrect, see
[6].
In ictu oculi (
talk)
06:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: