Talk:Trà Vinh province

Literal meaning/Han Tu
Article needs literal meaning of this province name, and Han Tu. Badagnani 08:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Travinh Province.png

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Emblem of Travinh Province.png

Constant addition of Khmer name in title and content.
This issue has happened multiple times stretching since wikipedia's creation. There's always a few particular users adding Khmer names to Vietnamese articles. User Pierrevang3 is the latest one. His argument is because 30% of the population are Khmer then the Khmer name must be added - which by the way, the source for the Khmer name is non-existent as it does not exist on any historical source. 30% of California are Mexicans so California should be renamed to its Mexican name is his argument. Can experienced editors advise along with admins. 101.119.73.102 (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is the source on the part of the Khmer population, which is already mentionned in the article.
 * It is not about "renaming" the region - the analogy with California is not even relevant as California is by itself a Spanish name - but rather mentioning a local name, all the more so when it refers and is used by a significant part of the population that is indigenous. Just like the Yanji (city in China) article mentions the Korean name, the Hohhot (city in China) article mentions the Mongolian name or even the Stung Treng (city in Cambodia) article mention the Lao name for the same reason. Vietnam is a multi-ethnic country and the Khmer are part of the 54 ethnic groups recognized by Vietnam, obscuring their presence is pointless, they are an integral part of Vietnam. Putting the local name in the local language won't give the territory back to Cambodia, it is just highly relevant considering the huge Khmer population in the city. Tra Vinh and Soc Trang have both a huge Khmer population and a 1000-year old Khmer heritage, which make it legitimate to mention the Khmer name. In opposition, it is pointless to mention the Khmer name of Ho Chi Minh City for example despite the fact that the city was part of Cambodia for centuries simply because there aren't a significant Khmer population there. The same thing goes for all of southern Vietnam, which was centuries ago part of Cambodia, putting a Khmer name for the region would just be sheer irredentism. Putting the Khmer name is only relevant in Soc Trang and Tra Vinh and I can't see why the topic should be sensitive as both articles already mention the significant Khmer population and multiple images used show Khmer pagodas. Pierrevang3 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * All of that is irrelevant. Where did you get the idea that 30% of the population means that you can change the name of the entire province from. What's the threshold? It sounds like you just threw an arbitrary number and followed through with it which isn't a policy WP:NAME states. And why do you keep on linking the population census when it has nothing to do with WP:NAME? As you know, California used to be a psrt of Mexico and 30% of Mexicans live in California so why doesn't wikipedia use its Mexican name? WP:NAME has to follow the name and only that name of whichever city, town and state of that country of origin that has adminstrative and rule over. Not because of feelings or "1000 years" ago. Having a "significant population" aka an arbitrary random number you threw in of "30%" doesn't mean anything and WP:NAME does not enforce that rule. And that Khmer name is a recent invention created by the KKF, another politically motivated source that is heavily biased. You can't jist randomly create a name out of nowhere and then justify that it's the official name of an area. You need historical sources of said name. If it was "1000 years of khmer heritage" then surely khmer can name said city 1000 years ago. Or is it based on Trà Vịnh from Chà Vinh, a Vietnamese town within Vinh Long province's (one of the 6 southern provinces of the Nguyen dynasty) Lac Hoa district recorded.in 1825.
 * Those names that you listed below proves nothing. The government chose those names for their cities. Note: the government. Obviously localised in mandarin and then romanised into English and for any other non-latin based area. So those names aren't even the correct spelling of whichever other ethnic group uses it. The governments of those countries you listed has never allowed any other name or made up localised name than its own established name to list their cities, districts, towns and provinces. WP:NAME enforces this rule 100%. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - First the name of the province wasn't changed, the Vietnamese name was still present and the Khmer name was put under like it is the case for the cities I have listed.
 * - I linked the census maybe because you keep on questioning the part of the Khmer population in the province when I wasn't the one who wrote it and a quick read on article could have provided you the source of the so-called "arbitrary" number.
 * - I don't know why you keep pestering with the fact that WP:NAME indicates that the name of the city should follow the administrative rule. Did someone move the article in order to change the name? No, the article still had the same name, the Vietnamese name, the only difference was that the Khmer name was also mentioned, not as the only name of the province, but as a secondary native name as it is often the case with other cities.
 * - Concerning your doubt on how old the name is, it literally doesn't matter as there was no mention of the Khmer name being 1000 year old? Whether old or not, this is just the local name used by the Khmer indigenous community. Again nobody said it was the official name of the region?
 * - The list I provided do prove something: the fact that WP:NAME does not condemn the mention of an alternative local name in a local language. I don't even understand your last point, if you had visited the articles you would have see that not only the "official" name is mentioned but also alternative local names in their local script and orthography. Nobody ever have claimed that those name are "official" ones and should always be used as such. Pierrevang3 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you even understand English? You just repeated the same thing you said before which means I now have to repeat what I said before. All of what you said DOESN'T MATTER nor does it follow WP:NAME. Census doesn't factor in naming an area. WP means you have to follow Wikipedia's policy, not based on your feelings or sentiment. There's no such thing as a "secondary native name". Are you implying anyone can say anything, thus it's the "secondary native name"? I can name New York into Yew Nork and that's the "secondary native name" of New York. Or imagine 30% of New York's inhabitants being Chinese so following your random rule, New York can be called by its Chinese name on mediums and outlets like Wikipedia. The khmer name is non-existent in any type of medium and format, nor does it exist historically and is an arbitrary name like Yew Nork. It's not even established. You're implying there is a 1000 year khmer heritage in this area yet you can't even name this area of what it was called in khmer. If that's not a fallacy, then I don't know what is. It completely disproves your theory of "1000 years of khmer heritage". The fact that you put in a random name besides the official name does not follow WP:NAME. And the khmer are an ethnic minority, not indigenous to that region. Khmer stock originally are from southern China. By you putting it besides the Vietnamese name in a Vietnamese article gives misunderstandings to the reader. Why isn't California written in its Mexican name again despite its population being 30%? Like I said, your threshold of "30% means I can put local fake name language" does not follow WP:NAMING conventions. You just dictated that yourself. So what if it was 29%? 15% 5%? You just made up a random rule yourself that does not follow WP policy on names. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then how come many articles do put an alternative local name if the WP:NAME is against it?
 * I'm not implying what you are saying as the Chinese are not indigenous to New York, can't you see the difference?
 * A quick search on google with the Khmer name "ព្រះត្រពាំង" provide 57,000 results, not so existent don't you think so? Maybe because that's the local name and I can't understand why you're trying to deny that. About your point on the 1000-year Khmer heritage of the region, maybe do search about the region and read about Nam tiến as you seem to be implying that Vietnamese people always were in the region. At the end of the day I do see your point with your remark about Khmer not being indigenous, you are just against acknowledging the presence of Khmer people in the region because you fear that it will illegitimate the Vietnamese presence (which it doesn't? No need to be that insecure!)
 * Now there isn't such thing as Mexican language so please cut it with you hammering that example, California is called, guess what, California in Spanish, the language the Mexicans speak! Pierrevang3 (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't. California for example doesn't have its Mexican name. Mexican and Spanish are similar, but they're not the same. The Mexicans call it "Las Californias" or other various names which have documented proof that they were called that name, whereas the khmer don't. And 57,000 results is actually rather weak, considering by your theory that khmers are indigenous and had been there for over 1 thousand years. And most of the results are from khmer wordpress blogs and youtube videos with less than 100 views on average. I doubt even the khmer from cambodia know what these fake words mean. And why did you bring nam tien up? I never made any arguments for Vietnamese and at this point you are making nationalistic POV ramblings. Maybe you should take a look at where Trà Vinh is at and you'll see why. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point you're really just against having good faith. Whether the name is historical or not doesn't matter as there never was such claim in the article.
 * "And 57,000 results is actually rather weak, considering by your theory that khmers are indigenous and had been there for over 1 thousand years." Do you hear yourself? 57,000 is plenty enough to see that the name is used in Khmer which is the language of the Khmer Krom people living in the province.
 * "Fake words" by what accounts do you make this presumption?
 * I talked about Nam Tien because you questionned the 1000-year heritage of the region? How is it nationalistic when I refer you to an article on wikipedia because of you questioning a statement? Pierrevang3 (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the articles Nam tiến, Mekong Delta, History of Vietnam. Pierrevang3 (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, NONE of those matter. You're argueing on a Vietnamese area wirh majority Vietnamese people on a Vietnamese article. And you want to put an arbitrary name with arbitrary numbers using an arbitrary rule you made up. That does not follow WP:NAME, time and time again I have to explain. At this point, we'll be going around in circles. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's useless to refer to WP:NAME when you are referring to it wrongly. See the article galore with alternative local names.
 * Nobody questionned the "Vietnamness" of the province, I also do seem to have to repeat myself.
 * You deeming again the number as arbitrary when sources are provided and deeming the name as arbitrary when its use is proven by a quick search on internet, is against WP:CON. Good faith is mandatory in building wikipedia. Pierrevang3 (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what part exactly of WP:NAME (as you referred to it) opposes the mention of a local name? If that is the case then all articles on Chinese cities alongside the Korean border would be obsolete as they all mention the Korean name due to the Korean heritage of the region. Pierrevang3 (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Already answered in first reply. Stop repeating questions that have already been answered. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well maybe quote a sentence indicating the use you're making of WP:NAME? Aggressiveness won't advocate for your point. I suggest you to read again your answer about the Chinese cities, as you seem to be questioning my English skills, maybe do review the grammatical syntax of your point as one can hardly comprehend what you wanted to convey. Pierrevang3 (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a non exhaustive list of articles with alternate local names :
 * St Ives, Cornwall in England - Cornish heritage.
 * Biarritz in France - Basque and Occitan heritage.
 * Gungnae, Wunü Shan, Yanji in China - Korean heritage.
 * Hohhot in China - Mongolian heritage.
 * Stung Treng City in Cambodia - Laotian heritage.
 * Nantes in France - Breton heritage.
 * Juneau, Alaska in the United States - Tlingit heritage.
 * Marrakesh in Maroc - Berber heritage.
 * Brno in Czechia - German heritage.
 * Tra Vinh and Soc Trang have both a Khmer heritage as the area was previously controlled by the Khmers before the arrival of Vietnamese, therefore the Khmer names are endonyms. Pierrevang3 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment: concerning the use of foreign language templates onto lead sentence
As discussed here and from. This concerns several other articles. Please refer to the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#User:_Pierrevang3_naming_of_an_area_dispute_on_various_articles._Talk_page_going_nowhere. ANI] page for more context.

User Pierrevang3 keeps on insisting that the Khmer name (whether this is true or not is unknown) should be added after the Vietnamese name on Vietnamese articles. Trà Vinh province 1 2, Trà Vinh 3 4, Sóc Trăng province 5 6, Sóc Trăng 7 8. From the ANI thread, this seems to be against MOS:LEADLANG of Do not include foreign equivalents in the text of the lead sentence for alternative names or for particularly lengthy names. Requesting for comment.1.43.160.10 (talk) 08:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * RFCs are supposed to be about a neutral question. That question is far from neutral. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: per WP:PLACE, The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses ... Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted. (emphasis added). I am not an expert in this area, I am commenting because I did not see a reference to the Naming conventions (geographic names) page, but based on my read of that convention and the discussion here, if the place was historically inhabited by the Khmer, and they are currently a sizable minority, that seems sufficient per convention.
 * Carleas (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the input. If there aren't objections anymore, I will put the Khmer name back on the related articles in the following days according to WP:PLACE. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. More opinions are needed, the RFC isn't closed yet. WP:PLACE seems to contradict with MOS:LEADLANG. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if this was the case (which still is in debate), Trà Vinh and Sóc Trâng populations are entirely Kinh. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems people aren't reading what was discussed from the ANI page. Please refer to rhe ANI page, which I have already listed at the top for further context here. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The correctness of the Khmer name was established well over a week ago. The name is neither an alternative name nor particularly lengthy, so MOS:LEADLANG does not apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Inclusion in the lead sentence implies it's an alfernative name. MOS:LEADLANG still applies. Do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also there are barely any results for the actual khmer name. It's strange isn't it? And when googling its translated form the very first results excluding Wikipedia's google cache indexing shows a monastery or a reservoir located in Cambodia. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * These results come up for me on the first page.     . It seems like it isn't widely used to refer to Vietnam's Trà Vinh but is a location within Cambodia. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't just roll back edits that were based on consensus, take it to the talk session before. "Trà Vinh and Sóc Trâng populations are entirely Kinh", repeating this statement won't make it true, as already mentioned, the part of the Khmer population is sourced by references. Points were made, precedents and wikipedia policies were put forward.
 * An etymology with Vietnamese sources was even added:
 * The name Trà Vinh comes from the Khmer name of the area ព្រះត្រពាំង Preah Trapeang, which means Sacred pond or Buddha's pond. The Vietnamese transliteration gave Trà Vang and later Trà Vinh.
 * The name Sóc Trăng comes from the Khmer name of the area ស្រុកឃ្លាំង Srok Khleang, which means Land of depositories or Place to store silver. The Vietnamese transliteration gave Sốc Kha Lang and later Sóc Trăng. Pierrevang3 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those aren't reliable sources. One of the sources you listed has spelling errors. The earliest mention of Trà Vinh in latin form comes from Truong Vinh Ky's 1875 book. It tells about the administration, law and household of these areas. Tra Vịnh was not even a province but a district (huyện) within an even greater district (phú) belonging to Vinh Long prefecture (tỉnh). It was a part of the old Annamite regime - the Nguyen dynasty and controlled by Vietnamese mandarins. Later under French rule, Vietnamese natives were still selected to oversee these smaller districts and areas. The author does not ever make mention of any Khmer significance to these areas, nor does he attribute the origin of these Vietnamese huyện, phú or tỉnh from Khmer. So where did the Khmer name actually come from then? Vietnamese have already documented recording of their administration. There needs to be a valid source to pair up wirh Truong Van Ky's 1875 book. . I've never seen a primary source for the Khmer name. All I've seen are shoddy tourist websites and opinionated blogs. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * One literally include the governmental website of the Sóc Trăng Department of Culture, Sport and Tourism... Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So you don't have anything on par or equivalence with Pétrus Ký's works. Not even a primary source to get started with. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Tra Vinh was called Tra Vang back in the old days according to the language of the Khmer people. It’d officially got the name in 1876 when the French ruled the south of Vietnam." The stated date seems to match your date.
 * Wikipedia is not supposed to include primary sources as Wikipedia contributors are not supposed to process informations but rather should include already processed informations hence why journalistic sources are so important to Wikipedia.
 * At this point our discussion is going nowhere, and as this RFC was closed following a week of inactivity, I suggest you to open a new one but please without personal attacks and subjective comments; do leave room for third parties to make their own mind based on the talk session and the archived ANI page. Pierrevang3 (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Carelessly adding sources to the point there's actual spelling and grammar mistakes in the content on top of using unreliable sources with no actual academic books. You have neither a primary nor secondary source that contends with Pétrus Ký's 1875 book. And the book was written in French for them to know more about the administration process and as a guide. Trà Vinh had already existed before the French as a district of a province of the Nguyen dynasty. Petrus Ky was just copying recorded Nguyen dynasty administrations into his 1875 book.
 * The RFC was not closed, and it should be closed by a third party. Not everyone is always active on Wikipedia. I could not go on due to circumstances. And like I said before, more opinions are needed since it concerns multiple articles hence more time. And stop with the personal attacks. You are clearly accusing me of something I'm not even doing. You also reverted after a day, not a week. diff 1.43.160.10 (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Did Pétrus Ky state that the name did not come from the Khmer name? I don't think so. Wikipedia contributors are supposed to include already processed informations...
 * I'll leave some of your statements to your appreciation:
 * ''Carelessly adding sources to the point there's actual spelling and grammar mistakes in the content
 * ''There's always a few particular users adding Khmer names to Vietnamese articles. User Pierrevang3 is the latest one.
 * ''Where did you get the idea that 30% of the population means that you can change the name of the entire province from.
 * ''It sounds like you just threw an arbitrary number
 * ''Do you even understand English? You just repeated the same thing you said before which means I now have to repeat what I said before. All of what you said DOESN'T MATTER nor does it follow WP:NAME.
 * ''The fact that you put in a random name besides the official name
 * ''You can't jist randomly create a name out of nowhere and then justify that it's the official name of an area.
 * ''Like I said, your threshold of "30% means I can put local fake name language"
 * ''You just made up a random rule yourself
 * ''And you want to put an arbitrary name with arbitrary numbers using an arbitrary rule you made up.
 * User Pierrevang3 decides to add in a random name that is unfounded and using an arbitrary number of the population to enforce said name onto articles.
 * Responding to a failure to discuss states Wait: Check daily to see if there has been a response at either the article talk page or at their user talk page. If there has not been a reply in a week, it is probably safe to move to the next step.
 * As I said our discussion is going nowhere so admins and experienced members (on top of the 3 already ruling in favor of mentioning the Khmer name) must be listened to. Pierrevang3 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The point is that Petrus Ky did not mention those names relating to Khmer, if there was such a significant Khmer presence there, then surely he would have made an analogy towards that. Your claim is baseless and unsubstantiated. Anyone can make a website and write this and that. Excluding editors from the ANI thread, there's only been one comment so far excluding yourself. Bringing in editors from the ANI thread is a clear bias, which is why I didn't include the other one supporting me. That's why more opinions and time is needed as it also affects multiple articles. I had to repeat this a million times already. You clearly don't know what an insult is if you think those are personal attacks, which an editor from the previous ANI thread has told you to stop already after accusing me. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am putting back the edits as experienced contributors have all given their insight in favor of the legitimacy of putting the Khmer name, you can still discuss the matter in the talk session though with admins and experiences contributors. Pierrevang3 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC is still in session. You can't change the status quo until RFC has closed. Nothing has concluded. Further opinions are needed as this affects multiple articles. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * RFC was closed and the ANI page was archived. The status quos is the article mentioning the Khmer name, please stop reverting edits. Admins and experience contributors have expressed their insight, you are the only one contesting it, which you are free to do in the talk session but not by reverting edits. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Stop breaking Wikipedia rules. The ANI has no effect on the RFC here. 1.43.160.10 (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not say the contrary. Pierrevang3 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternate to what? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly attempted a close. Consensus seems strongly in favor of the inclusion of the Khmer names. A summary follows: The argument against inclusion seems to be that MOS:LEADLANG discourages foreign equivalent names, or lengthy names. The Khmer names are neither particularly lengthy, nor given the undisputed local population, are they necessarily foreign. The argument has also been put forward that there are insufficient WP:RS to establish the Khmer names, citing that Petrus Ky did not note any such names. Other sources have been put forward, which have not been rejected by other commentors on this RFC, so it is reasonable to conclude that there is consensus that these sources are reliable in this context.

Arguments in favor of inclusion are that WP:PLACE allows for relevant foreign language names, specifically calling out those used by a group of people which used to inhabit the geographical place. As the Khmer population in that area is not disputed, there appears to be consensus that this applies.

Rather than leave this open for 30 days, this RFC has been closed per WP:SNOW, as there appears to be a WP:1AM situation. The two weeks this RFC has been open is sufficient for any other editors to weigh in, despite the non-neutral question posed. Any uninvolved editor is free to revert this closure if they feel it is premature or inaccurate. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)