Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vietnam/Archive 4

I've noticed some interest in the question of whether, and to what extent, Vietnam was a tributary of China during the Ch'ing dynasty. I'd like to explore this question further on this page. I have nearly completed a book on the Sino-French War, which was fought over precisely this issue, and I would welcome views, particularly from Vietnamese contributors, on whether my interpretation of this so-called tributary relationship is correct.

In my view, it did not exist between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries, and was only invoked out of expediency in the nineteenth century in response to the threat from France.

China's claim to suzerainty over Vietnam, which was implicitly renounced at the end of the Sino-French War under Article 2 of the Treaty of Tientsin (June 1885), was far weaker than the Chinese often made out. After the Chinese were definitively expelled from Vietnam in the fifteenth century, I find little record of tribute missions to Peking until Gia Long's mission of 1803. Gia Long had just reunited Vietnam, and the extension of his rule to Tonkin was bound to be of concern to China. Gia Long felt it prudent to give China some face. Thereafter, no tribute missions are recorded during the reigns of Minh Mang or Thieu Tri. They were revived by Tu Duc in the 1860s as a response to French aggression in Cochinchina. I see them as little more than the sort of appeal any small power faced with aggression would make to a powerful neighbour that might be persuaded to step in and help out. Whatever the Chinese thought, I don't think the Vietnamese considered themselves as tributaries in any meaningful sense.

In the following extract from my forthcoming book on the Sino-French War, I examine the issue in greater detail.

Given that the Vietnamese had long ago thrown off Chinese direct rule, it is worthwhile examining the validity of China's claim to suzerainty over Vietnam. It has been claimed that Vietnam was one of China’s most assiduous courtiers during the Ch'ing period. This is certainly not true for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and for the nineteenth century holds true only for Gia Long's mission of 1803 and for a flurry of missions sent by the emperor Tu Duc during the 1860s and 1870s. All these missions were motivated by pure expediency on the part of the Vietnamese. Gia Long had used the French to recover the Le throne, but thought it useful to entrench his position by seeking investiture from China. In China's eyes he and his successors were therefore vassal princes. But this was not how Gia Long saw himself. In 1806, only three years after his investiture as 'prince of Vietnam', he proclaimed himself emperor of Annam. For the rest of his reign he had nothing to do with China, and even claimed for Vietnam China's cherished title of 'Middle Kingdom', implicitly denying the centrality of the alien Manchu Ch'ing dynasty that had ruled China since 1644.

His successor Minh Mang (1820–41), warming to this theme, liked to contrast 'orthodox Vietnam' with 'decadent China'. The emperor Thieu Tri (1841–7) also ignored China. Only during the reign of Tu Duc (1847–83) are tribute missions to Peking recorded with any regularity. Five missions to China were sent between 1869 and 1880. But even Tu Duc did not think it worth sending a mission to Peking until the twenty-second year of his reign. He changed his mind in 1869 only because of steady French encroachment on Vietnamese sovereignty during the 1860s. The 1869 mission, crucially, was provoked by the loss of three Vietnamese provinces to France only two years earlier. This and subsequent missions to China were no more than the kind of diplomatic appeal any country threatened with conquest might make to a neighbour powerful enough to intervene. They were essentially pragmatic, and certainly not motivated by any sense of vassalage to China.

During its dispute with France over Tonkin, China would insist that Vietnam had been a vassal of China since time immemorial, and that China therefore had an inalienable right to be consulted on Vietnamese affairs. Surprisingly, the French diplomats failed to challenge this claim by examining its basis in historical fact. Instead, they accepted it at face value and simply argued that times had moved on. In fact, China’s pretensions to suzerainty over Vietnam were neither long-standing nor particularly impressive. The French might have saved themselves much later trouble if they had deflated them with a brief history lesson.

Does that represent a fair statement of the situation? I would welcome comments.

Djwilms (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikisir,

Would I, humble (book)worm in sino-vietnamese history, dare make humble suggestions to the honourable scholar Djwilms?

Yes.

1. First, you happily mix different terms (tributary, suzerainty, vassalage) which have different meanings in English (for example, there can be a tributary relation of A vis-à-vis B without sovereignty of B over A) – and may even mean different things when applied to different periods of (Western) history. These terms are themselves approximate translations of Chinese (and sino-vietnamese) terms which have themselves changed meaning over time.

2. Second, the subordinate relationship between China and Vietnam is not reflected only by tribute missions sent from Vietnam to China. It included also:

• a. The letters patent (tche-chou) issued by the Peking court to the Annam ruler. Devéria (1880)^[1] discusses the issue of the proper translation of tche_chou (footnote 1, p.7)
• b. The very humiliating investiture ceremonies during which the new Annam emperor had to kneel down three times and kowtow nine times in front of the emissaries of the Chinese court. The Chinese even insisted that at each of the nine kowtows, the front of the Annam ruler had to touch the ground. Lê-hiên-tông (1740-1786) could avoid the ceremony for 20 years because his uncle Lê Ý Tông (1735-1740) had resigned and was still alive (the investiture ceremony was usually combined with a ceremony for the former Annam emperor). When he received he imperial investiture in 1761 and tried to do only five kowtows, he was publicly scolded by the celest envoys and had got to comply. He was later sent a blistering imperial decree dated 1762 reminding him that he had better follow the proper étiquette and that his unruly behaviour was pardoned just because “the customs of this price have remained primitive”. Gabriel Devéria ^[2] The Vietnamese had paid some of the expenses of the imperial emissaries; this was unacceptable, and the decree ordered with the utmost contempt the money to be given back to the Annam envoy.
• c. The imperial seal provided by China to the Vietnamese emperor. When Lê Huyền Tông (1663-1671) asked for the imperial investiture to the new Manchu court, the latter requested Annam to return beforehand the seal given in 1659 by a Ming prince (a kind of unsuccessful de Gaulle) to his father Lê Thần Tông (1649-1662). Lê Huyền Tông dragged his feet for three years (who knows? The Ching may make a comeback!) and returned the seal only in 1666. He could then receive the official investiture. ^[3]
• d. Plenty of other testimonies of submission, such as the numerous missions to the viceroys of Guangdong and Yunnan.

3. I am very surprised that you could write “In my view, it (i.e., a tributary relationship?) did not exist between the fifteenth and eighteenth centuries”. In 1663, the Chinese court requested Annam to send a tribute every three years,^[4] a frequency strangely replaced around 1672 by two tributes every six years.^[5] Devéria (1880) lists a number of tribute mission sent by Annam before the reign of Gia Long.

4. You say that "no tribute missions are recorded during the reign of Minh Mang". Maurice Durand (1957) provides the details of such a mission (and indications on many others).^[6] As for Thiệu Trị, I do not know of his relations – if any - with the Peking court.

5. It seems clear that China’s "suzerainty" over Vietnam had been steadily eroding over the years. China was decaying and too busy with its innumerable revolts, its secret societies uprisings (down with the Ching, bring back the Ming!) and those incomprehensible foreign devils (the gun-toting and the bible-fundamentalist-martyrdom-seekers ones) to deal with its equally petrified southern neighbour. It also seems clear that Tự Đức sudden sinophily was politically motivated. If suzerainty implies control over foreign affairs and limited autonomy, it can be argued that China had lost "suzerainty" over Annam since Lê Lợi.

6. But it also seems that Annam remained a tributary of China until 1874, although mainly – and increasingly - at a symbolic level, and with increasing delays and "oversights" (Thiệu Trị?). Would I dare say that "the Vietnamese considered themselves as formally tributaries, but not as vassals in any meaningful sense"? Yes.

7. Anyway, are suzerain / vassal proper terms to describe the evolving relationship between China and Annam? One could even consider whether newer terms would be more appropriate. Annam was clearly not a puppet State a satellite State or a client State - there was not a single representative from Peking at the Huê court to influence local policies (or am I wrong?). Protectorate seems inadequate - China did not protect Annam against its neighbours. Buffer state looks awkward. But after all, China saw Annam as a hedge between the Middle Kingdom and faraway devils.^[7]

After having exposed my almost total ignorance of the subject, will the great Wikischolar forgive my impudent impertinence?

Three kowtows and best wishes for your book.--André de StCoeur (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Back around February I ended up suddenly going on a trip to Saigon on some urgent family matters and I ended up taking a large number of photos with the intention on putting them on Commons. A few days before that, I also went to a Tet Festival and took photos there. It's July now, and I've realised that I don't want to look over all the photos for uploading. This is because I do not want to think too long on what I experienced during those few weeks.

Because of that, I would like to ask if anyone is interested in sorting, editing, and uploading the usable photos for me. I also need a suggestion on how/where I'll make the initial uploading of the photos, since I am unsure of Commons and whether all the photos are actually valid. At the very least I'll give some general information on of the photos first, and I'll give additional info if required.

Looking over the folder again, there are 14 folders full of photos, that were numbered by the camera. There is actually nearly 1GB here, rather than the 700+MB I mentioned to YellowMonkey yesterday. There's probably nearly 1000 photos here, but many pictures were taken for redundancy. I have not touched the images at all since I left Vietnam, besides copying them to my PC.

Just going from memory, these are some of the photo's contents:

• Of the Tet Festival from Inala, Brisbane:

• Some foods, stalls

• Of Saigon:

• local and restaurant foods
• street vehicles, traffic, signs, conditions
• posters, ads/propaganda
• buildings
• anything interesting

• On the way to/from, and of the countryside:

• signs/propaganda
• rivers, fields, rice fields
• a grave or two
• cell phone towers
• flora
• some specific countryside constructs
• a bridge built with Australian assistance, and had a commemorative sign

Many photos were taken whilst driving, so I am unsure of window glare.

Any response/suggestions/assistance would be appreciated, as I do not know if or when I could do this myself. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

1000 images, that sounds great! I think except posters/ad/propaganda, everything sounds find for uploading. Use Commons:Commonist which is a free Java program for such the purpose - large quantity uploading to Wikimedia Commons. I learned how to use it yesterday, but it is easy to use and reduce time. If you're not sure about food name or something, just name them like File:Vitetnamese food-01.jpg.--Caspian blue 06:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My computer doesn't like big images and it would take too long to upload, even when I crop them to reduce size. Propaganda is definitely fine, as Viet govt stuff is PD. Not sure why a photo of an ad would be illegal beecause the ad is there to promtoe something else so advertising it doesnt make it stealing other people';s stuff we're effectively spamming for them. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Has this fellow Major Lien Thanh, the former head of police in Hue come round to your area to speak about his new book "Bien Dong Mien Trung" about the Buddhist crisis in 1966, the Tet Offensive and Hue Massacre in 1968 and the 1972 communist offensive? I presume he went around the US before Australia. Apparently 1000+ people turned up in Melbourne. About 300 people here came out of maybe 12,000 Viets in the city, although only about 1% were under 45. He made some quite sensational claims about Thich Tri Quang etc [which violated BLP so I won't repeat it here], and all these people he claimed to be communists. The crowd, as far as I can tell, was more like an organised Diemist demonstration. Actually more like any Asian country where teh govt cadres tell the villagers to applaud at the end. There were a stack of people who all started clapping and cheering in a raucous way each time he bagged Thich Tri Quang, and their way of doing it didn't appear surprised as though they were taking new info, it seemed feigned. Most of them were well known Catholic activists lol. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 03:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please pop over to wikisource:vi:Tập tin:Constitution vietnamese reformat 16apr09.pdf and put a speedy delete tag on it. You can use {{db-author}} - see request here or {{db-copyvio}} - the article says "by kind permission of" which is not good enough. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You are all invited to join WikiProject TRANSWIKI and join the Vietnamese language transwiki project. The aim is to draw up a full directory of missing articles from Vietnamese wikipedia and build a team of translators to work at bridging the gaps in knowledge and to improve existing articles by translation and finding reliable sources to back up information. We need your help, so if there are any Vietnamese speakers here please join up as your language skills are crucial. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This article says

On the side the Viet Cong had written in blood: "DU ME UC DAI LOI", loosely translated as "Aussies Get Stuffed"

and is referenced. Well the source is wrong, as the slogan is obscene, and I suspect that if it wasn't a mistake due to translating skill, if was a deliberate mistake to avoid a [rather strong] obscenity for perhaps Political correctness reasons. Should it just be changed to its real meaning? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 07:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, there is a contest against totally undiscussed cut-and-paste blanking/merging/splitting of East Asian calligraphy by Asoer (talk · contribs). I don't see any active discussion on the edit, so there is naturally no consensus for that. Since it is pertinent to at least "four WikiProject", I'm drawing your attention to the article and hope you would give some useful input on the matter on Talk:East Asian calligraphy. Any active members who are interests in East Asian culture/art would be greatly helpful for the issue. Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#What_to_call_East_Asian_calligraphy. Asoer (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Retain which category - only one is needed? Hugo999 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Transport disasters in Vietnam or Category:Transportation disasters in Vietnam (has more subcategories)

The latter. The parent category Category:Transportation disasters by country exists, but the corresponding "Transport" category doesn't. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that there are articles for Taiwanese units of measurement , Japanese units of measurement , Chinese units of measurement ... is there one for Vietnamese units of measurement ? 76.66.196.139 (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of Hán Tự names in introduction part of articles about Vietnamese provinces and cities (Tuyên Quang, Hải Phòng), is this really necessary? Because they are all modern administrative units and of course no one in Vietnam nowadays uses Hán Tự names for them. If necessary, I suggest that we include Hán Tự names only in the "History" part of articles, not in the introduction part. Please share your opinion about this issue. Thank you. 78.250.114.125 (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tuyên Quang, Hải Phòng is old provinces which was founded and named before 1954; so Han Tu version of their name is necessary. Nowadays, in Vietnam, Hán Tự is not popular as it used to be but Han Tu still is being used limitedly in historical or geographical books & researches. The issue here is not if Han Tu is necessary but how Han Tu would be included in these article. Your idea of including Han Tu in history section is good but how could we include Han Tu in short articles such as Tuyen Quang? I think the best way is that we should have a infobox template (like {{Chinese}}) and put all Han Tu there.--AM ^(talk) 15:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP's talk above is mine, I forgot to sign in, sorry for the inconvenience. The fact is using Hán Tự names in the introduction part may cause a wrong idea for non-Vietnamese reader that Hán Tự names are still used as a current name in Vietnam, that's why I'd like to avoid that confusion. I don't think a template like {{Chinese}} is better either, instead of that, I prefer one or two lines about "Etymology"/"Naming"/"Origin of name" below the introduction part like this one. How about that idea? Grenouille vert (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but how about short articles like Bắc Kạn Province, Lang Son Province?. Would you like to start a new section only to write "the old Han Tu for XXX is ..."?--AM ^(talk) 18:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually I don't have source about the origin of place-names in Vietnam, for example, I think Bắc Kạn is pure Vietnamese name without Hán Tự root but I cannot be sure without reliable source. In the case of Lạng Sơn, we can introduce one sentence like that: "Lạng Sơn (Hán Tự:...) means "Lạng mountain", that's enough. What do you think? Grenouille vert (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's good enough for me.--AM ^(talk) 00:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the source of Han Tu, you could try to locate an old edition of the book "Viet Nam Su Luoc" in Vietnam or in French major university's libraries. It's a excellent work which contains mostly all Han Tu we need for work.--AM ^(talk) 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's much more complicated than that, because as you know, some current provinces are result of merging or dividing former administrative unit, so are their names, for example: (past) Vĩnh Phú = (present) Vĩnh Phúc + Phú Thọ or (past) Hà Nam Ninh = (past) Nam Hà + Ninh Bình = (present) Hà Nam + Nam Định + Ninh Bình, so what we need here is a geographic book specialized in place-names origin, i.e. a "modern Dư địa chí", and that's what I do not have. (I've just changed some articles as my above proposition). Grenouille vert (talk) 10:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

After 1975, there are no much in-depth geographic books which have Han Tu. Therefore, locating a modern "modern Dư địa chí" is mostly impossible. I think we should stick in the old books. Since you are in Paris, I suggest you locating publications of École française d'Extrême-Orient such as the encyclopedia Connaissance du Vietnam. Vietnamese books which could be found online are very limited and mostly are published before 1975. i.e this page.

And I think we should place the etymology section in the beginning of the article, not in the end. If the article already have a history section, we should add etymology there; don't start another etymology section. An article with a lot of sections which contain little information is not a good article.--AM ^(talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You can change those articles for a better look. In French universities's library, books about Vietnam are not that abundant as you think and access to EFEO's catalogue is very difficult. But of course I will try to find something useful for this subject. And by the way, I don't live in Paris :). Grenouille vert (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the article it reads "Gothic architectural style". I'd rather say it's "Romanic". Any art students out there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.193.173.253 (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Up and running YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 14:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Article has been tagged as in need of wikification since December 2007. Does anyone know enough about Caodaism to do the final cleanup? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WEll, you don't really need any knowledge to link stuff, but I don't think it is badly underlinked anyway YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No, so I will just take off the wikification tag. I assume that if the article had any other major problems you would have mentioned them. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Biography of an architect, in need of translation. Saw it on the articles in need of translation page, just thought I'd copy here so more people will see it. If the subject proves not to be notable it can be speedied as a non-English page. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nguyen Ba Lang was author of many architectural books which became important reference book in Vietnam and he is also the architect of Vinh Nghiem Pagoda. So I think he is notable.--AM ^(talk) 13:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But the article has been speedied, so perhaps it could be re-created from VN wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC) It was speedied as a copyvio. There is another largely Vietnamese language there now: Những_đứa_con_Sóc_Trăng. Even I can recognise that one - a list of notable people from Soc Trang province. Could be another copyvio. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Which airport is Gialem Airport in Hanoi? Does it have another name today, or is it still the same airport? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's always Gia Lam Airport. Your document misspells the airport's name. Grenouille vert (talk) 07:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)