Talk:Cochinchina

mistakes
There are a number of mistakes:

Almost all authorites use the two-word spelling Cochin China rather than Cochinchina. See  Encyclopedia Britannica, and Merriam Webster's Geographical Dictionary. Then try a Google search on the two spellings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.71.253 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 November 2007
 * "Almost all" is a pretty broad statement to make. If I remember correctly, all of the books I used for my MA dissertation this summer spelled the term as a single word "Cochinchina". These were professional academic works by scholars of Southeast Asian history, and I would trust them over general use dictionaries and encyclopedias, and over the assorted personal websites, blogs, business newspapers, and whatever else may come up on a Google search. More to the point, there is a lot of variation in Vietnamese place names (Tonkin/Tonking, Ha Noi/Hanoi, Da Nang/Danang, Viet Nam/Vietnam), and so while one spelling may be more common, that does not make the other ones "mistakes". LordAmeth 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition
Yes, Cochin China is the southern Part of Vietnam, locally also called Nam Bo.

No, it is not Jiaozhi (Vietnamese: Giao Chỉ).

At the time of the Chinese rule, Cochin China area was Khmer land.

Jiaozhi was called Tonkin, not Cochin China.

See the page History_of_Vietnam for the details. Also the page about Wudi_of_Han_China says that his empire stretched only to the North of Vietnam, not the South of it. The page about Zhao_Tuo says at the end something about the beginnings of Jiaozhi.

Stefan, living since 1990 in Hanoi

--210.245.53.3 15:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Please note that "Cochinchina" can refer not only to that southernmost region, the Khmer land, but also, in earlier times, to the area north of that, also known as Quang Nam, Quinam, or Dang Trong. LordAmeth 08:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying the word cochin comes from Jiaozhi/交趾/Giao Chỉ>Kuchi is far stretched.

The most probable origin of that name is Jiuzhen/九真/Cửu Chân wich was another district.

See the page First_Chinese_domination_of_Vietnam

87.88.93.126 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why named for Indian city?
The article should say why Cochin China was named for a city in India. Badagnani 02:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, is there any evidence that it was named after the city in India? None is cited. Neither is there a source for the assertion that the name was given by the French (rather than, say, the Portugese, which is another assertion one finds). Piers Fletcher 11:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

stub article?
why this article does not have a suitable map (the current map is confusing) with the regular infobox flag, language, everything, and proper governement section as found in all other countries? Paris By Night 00:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't even mention Cambodia?
The Wikipedia needs to be objective, but it also needs to incorporate more than one subjective view of this history:

Prior to 1949, the land belonged to Cambodia, and there are still political protests in the streets of Phnom Penh to have the land returned to Cambodia. (Cf. Khmer Krom; this is currently a separate article about exactly the same "place", though the toponym Cochinchina was, of course, a colonial invention).

Every King of Cambodia during and since the French Protectorate has re-asserted the fact that the lower Mekong belonged to Cambodia since antiquity, and the last act of King Norodom Sihanouk was to re-assert this before his retirement.

There are plenty of published sources on all this. And, as I have suggested, the history is ongoing.

Currently, this article is written almost as fiction, from a pro-Vietnamese perspective, with shockingly few citations for its supposedly factual claims.

I have a detached perspective on it; plenty of readers will simply respond with outrage.

So, my advice to the Wiki-editors is: flag it, revise it, demand citations, or else expect the worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.244.228 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is Cochinchina, the French Indochina colony. Not the Cambodian colony, not the Chinese colony. South Vietnam's background subheading already has the Khmer history detailed.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed split
I think it would be a good idea to split the article in two and have one page about Cochinchina proper as a historical region, and one called French Cochinchina, about the French colony. Not only were there political differences, but French Cochinchina was consisted only of the southern part of Cochinchina : what became known as Cochinchina after the French conquest was only called Lower Cochinchina before 1862. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I had proposed this three years ago and completely forgotten about it. No one has raised any objections, so I guess there's no opposition ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Cochinchina, France-colonized South Vietnam has Khmer and Chinese names?
Did you read the talk page? There was already discussion that went ahead with it just being Cochinchina, the French colony of Vietnam and as such, the Khmer and Chinese names are irrelevant. Is Cochinchina the colony of Cambodia? China? I don't understand why there is a Chinese name for South Vietnam when Chinese' small relevancy with South Vietnam warrants a special name for it, and as such can't be put into Wikipedia. Is South Vietnam ancient Chinese territory? Tonkin and Annam (French protectorate) don't have Khmer or Chinese names listed. It's because they were both under the control of the French with Vietnamese citizenry.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 23:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Khmer and Chinese names have historical significance. As earlier editors have mentioned, the term "Cochinchina" has been used to refer to the whole of Vietnam and areas north of the actual region. Also, the region had historical minority Khmer and Chinese populations, they would have referred to the land in these languages. French Cochinchina was split into a separate article so that it is not to be confused with this article, which refers to Cochinchina as a historical term. --Valorant (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The Chinese don't have historical significance relevant enough to warrant a whole new name for South Vietnam. Only the Khmers do and even then this still isn't the right article. The US has Native Americans, Spanish and Germans as historical people living there, not just minorities. Do we call the US the Native American, Spanish and German names? Should we edit the article for the United States of America with their additional names? Should we edit China's article of the names or it from the ethnic minorities? Also, according to Christofo Borri's Views of Seventeeth century Vietnam
 * "The shape of their faces is exactly like the Chinese, with flat noses, little eyes, but of an indifferent stature, not so small as the Japoneses, nor so tall as the Chineses. Yet, they are stronger and more active than either of them, and braver than the Chinese, but are out-done by the Japoneses in one thing, which is the contempt of life in dangers and battles"
 * If there were Khmer populations it would have been miniscule in comparison compared to the majority Vietnamese population. The Khmer name is already listed in Vietnam in its background subheading, Cochinchina is known and refers to what the Portugese and later, the French, see of South Vietnam consisting of the Vietnamese people. The "china" part of it is because the Vietnamese wore clothes similar to Qing clothing, but that isn't to be confused with actual Chinese people. Since this is going to get in circles, I will just leave it.Norewritingofhistory (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)