Talk:Việt Nam sử lược

Hán text in image and lead
reverted removal of Hán text. Given that the jpg shows Hán text used on the cover page it is helpful to readers to not delete the article creator's Hán text in lead. Undiscussed move to one of the three possible English renderings of the title also reverted and source added from Oxford Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War 938-French Colonial history section. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The book isn't in Chinese, or translated from Chinese. The Chinese on the cover of the first edition is just a gloss. The book is still in print. The current edition doesn't use Chinese at all, as you can see here. Did you happen to noticed the date at the bottom of the image? I checked the National Library of Vietnam. They list many editions for this book, but nothing for 1921. Almost anything can be translated in more than one way, and so what? Surely the fact that book was once vehemently condemned by the Communists should be mentioned in the article. Apparently, the party has made its peace with the book. It's in all the bookstores in Saigon nowadays. I've even seen it placed alongside the romance novels, like it's a bestseller. Kauffner (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

2nd undiscussed move
Kauffner (1) Your 1st undiscussed move was reverted, that means your 2nd repeat of the move is controversial (2) Above it was noted that there are three possible English renderings of the title (3) In this edit you have deleted Oxford Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War which gives "Việt Nam sử lược" Your edit summary doesn't mention this (rm Chinese, correct date of publication, per talk) (4) The other source Patricia M. Pelley Postcolonial Vietnam: New Histories of the National Past 2002 p310 also cites "Việt Nam sử lược. 2 vols. Saigon" Please restore the article title and put in a WP:RM if you want to rename the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per suggestion I restored the former title as it's clearly not uncontroversial. Kauffner, if you want it moved you need to open an RM.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)