Talk:Song–Đại Việt war

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lý–Song War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718200818/http://www.asienkunde.de/content/zeitschrift_asien/archiv/pdf/Vuving79.pdf to http://www.asienkunde.de/content/zeitschrift_asien/archiv/pdf/Vuving79.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hoa-pham-hieu-uc-quoc.jpg

Transliteration
User:Norewritingofhistory has converted all Zhuang/Nung names in the article to Vietnamese style names despite the fact that none of the articles except for Nùng people and Vietnamese specific pages use that transliteration system. For example, of the articles related to the subjects referenced in the article such as Nong Zhigao, A Nong, Nong Quanfu, and Nong Zhigao rebellions, none use that transliteration system. I created Nong Zhigao rebellions in the same format as all the other articles related to Nong Zhigao, but Norewritingofhistory accused me of creating it to push my own POV. The problem is that now that he has changed the names to Vietnamese style, all the links require extra work to link to their WP articles, requiring extra formatting. In addition to being different from all the other articles related to the subject since there are multiple names used on different articles for the same subject. Perhaps Norewritingofhistory can explain why this is preferable to the previous version. Qiushufang (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The original formatting of this article already used Vietnamese naming conventions for the ethnic minority Nùng people. The sources and references use the Vietnamese naming conventions. Splitting it apart from the original source makes it confusing for the reader. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also want to mention that, again, a majority of sources relating to the Nùng people use more of the Vietnamese naming convention than the Chinese ones. Especially in the well documented sources from K. W. Taylor's A History of the Vietnamese, J. A. Anderson's Treacherous Factions: Shifting Frontier Alliances in the Breakdown of Sino-Vietnamese Relations on the Eve of the 1075 Border War, Ben Kierman's Viet Nam: A History from Earliest Times to the Present, etc... A majority of sources detailing about the Nùng people not from Vietnamese or Chinese sources mostly use the Vietnamese naming convention. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That's why the V. version was included as well. How is it less confusing for the reader to click on the links and find articles that are talking about the same subjects in a different transliteration system? Qiushufang (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why I put the Vietnamese name down first and linked it to the article. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You broke article links that I had to fix. Some of the changes you made even broke images. And you didn't put the Vietnamese names down "first", the transliterations were completely deleted. How is someone supposed to know that Nong Zhigao is Nùng Trí Cao then? Or that any of the people mentioned in this article are related to him at a glance? The people mentioned here are also Zhuang as well, not just Nung. By deleting the C. versions of their names, it also makes it harder for Chinese Zhuang to read the article when they themselves are of the same ethnic group. If your intention was to improve readability, why didn't you also keep the C. transliterations as well? Qiushufang (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is English wikipedia. What zhuang is going to read it in English? Won't they just read it on zh wikipedia? And can they even access en wikipedia in the first place? Even the some of the sources listed in those articles you mentioned use the Vietnamese naming convention. Also, is this so hard to do? Nùng Trí Cao. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But why? The article is already Nong Zhigao, why would you make it harder to read by changing his name on another article? Zhuang aren't the only people who have to read the article either, also English readers as well. Again, how are they supposed to know who is who with two different spellings as well ad diacritic marks? Why not just have one spelling with additional transliterations as I have done? By your logic, it shouldn't be in Vietnamese either, because Vietnamese people can just read Vietnamese wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the source lists Nùng Trí Cao and is documented as such in those well documented academic scholarly works from K. W. Taylor, J. A. Anderson, Ben Kiermanm. You act like as if Wikipedia's content overturns the source... when the source is the content itself. And again, the source listed uses the Vietnamese naming convention. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, how does that improve readability? WP is not the source, it is WP. For example, academic articles for Korean subjects commonly use McCune–Reischauer but is converted into another system for WP. Similarly Chinese academic articles commonly use Wades Giles and gets converted into Pinyin. WP is not the source itself. Why not have both transliterations like I did so that any reader can understand who is who instead of having only Vietnamese? Qiushufang (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So are we going to include all the names for them? The Nùng name too? It is simply too chaotic. Those characterisions you mentioned are there because the subject is by itself. I can accept the two translations of Vietnamese and Chinese, but only if the Vietnese name is first per the source, as the source only uses the Vietnamese naming. In those Nùng articles you mentioned, I am fine if they have Chinese only or the Vietnamese translation being second if the source mentioning them only lists its Chinese naming convention. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Then please add those names back in immediately. Thank you :) Qiushufang (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it would be too chaotic. That's what I did previously before you deleted them. Qiushufang (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Vietnamese perspective (from a Vietnamese quoran user)
Hi dear all,

I understand that using sites such as Quora is off limits on Wikipedia but after visiting this site: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Vietnams-Ly-Dynasty-invade-China and reading Giao Vu's answer, it's quite clear to me that there is a strong mismatch in perspective between Chinese and Vietnamese perspective. His answer as follows:

''In 1070, Wang Anshi (王安石 - Vương An Thạch) appointed as Prime Minister (宰相) pushed through a series of reforms, including a military buildup. To test readiness of the new military force, the Song government sought a war. The northern Liao (遼 - Liêu) and Xi Xia (西夏) were simply too strong. A border official fingered Đại Việt as a future threat, but presently easy prey as the state was weakened by constant war against Champa. The Song government slapped trade sanctions against Đại Việt and encouraged a border region tribal leader to rebel, while making preparations in border towns for an invasion. After Vietnamese diplomatic inquiries were unanswered, the Lý king Nhân Tông sent 100 thousand soldiers under the command of Lý Thường Kiệt and a Nùng tribal leader named Tôn Đản to attack Guangxi by water and by land. Qinzhou (欽州 - Khâm Châu) and Lianzhou (廉州 - Liêm Châu) quickly fell to troops under the command of Lý Thường Kiệt, but Yongchou (邕州 - Ung Châu - now Nanning of Guangxi) held out for 40 days against a siege by Tôn Đản. In March 1076, the fortress fell as Lý Thường Kiệt's troops arrived, most of the 50 thousand people of Ung Châu either committed suicide or were massacred as they had refused to surrender. Some were brought back to Đại Việt as slaves.

''The Song’s retaliation was swift, but perhaps premature. It transferred 45 thousand soldiers from the northern front and recruited about 50 thousands more, and began the invasion toward the end of 1076. Coordinated with Champa and Chenla armies attacking from the south, the Song army took Quảng Nguyên (part of the current-day Cao Bằng), drove deep into Vietnamese territory until hitting the defenses that Lý Thường Kiệt set up along the river Như Nguyệt (now the river Cầu) east of the current-day city of Bắc Ninh. In a futile, but costly series of battles along the river of Như Nguyệt, neither side came on top. During the battle came the first officially documented use of public war propaganda in Vietnam in the form of Lý Thường Kiệt’s short poem (even though Lĩnh Nam Chích Quái - a collection of Vietnamese myths and legends - had a similar story about the earlier war against Song in the Early Lê dynasty.) Tiring of the costly war, the Song government readily accepted the Vietnamese proposal for an end to the fighting, and began the withdrawal in March 1077. Quảng Nguyên remained under Chinese control until the relationship between the two countries were fully normalized in 1084.''

''From the Vietnamese point-of-view, the destruction of the important towns in Guangxi played a critical role in diminishing the strength of the invading Song army. Had the Song court been able to spend the time necessary to prepare for a proper invasion, the invading army would have likely been much larger than the 45,000 trained troops that it had in the invasion of Đại Việt - the rest of the 100 thousands were either too green, or were support troops only. That was the reason for the preemptive war that Lý Thường Kiệt led in the brief few months between 1075 and 1076.

Hence, I believe it would be wise for Wikipedia editors with more time then me to edit this article in favour of a more neutral point of view to prevent sentiments inflaming from Vietnamese and Chinese perspectives.Vpha (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The majority of this article is written based on references to sources written by non-Chinese and non-Vietnamese authors. Quora is not a suitable source as you noted. What would make this a more neutral article and what are the biases you see? What academic and non-biased sources would you use? Qiushufang (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)