Talk:Vietnam under Chinese rule

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bắc thuộc → Chinese domination of Vietnam – "Chinese domination" is a much more common term for this period in English-language sources than the Vietnamese name (Google books), and "of Vietnam" is necessary disambiguation; the complete phase is also used. Kanguole 09:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - as article creator, I didn't use the name at the time because was looking to see what else was available, but haven't found anything better that the proposed term. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can someone clarify/verify that the use of "Chinese domination" isn't a WP:NPOV issue. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of. The only name discussion at Talk:First Chinese domination of Vietnam, Talk:Second Chinese domination of Vietnam and Talk:Third Chinese domination of Vietnam (for which this is a collective term) is a suggestion to add the disambiguator "of Vietnam", which was done.  Some sources use "Chinese colonial period" or "Chinese occupation", which might be more accurate, but have some baggage.  Kanguole 13:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Time of Chinese Settlements
The footnote 6 as a reference to the sentence "Ten centuries of Chinese colonization left a substantial demographic footprint, with settlement by large numbers of ethnic Chinese" doesn't make much sense. The footnote is about the year 214 BC (i.e. Thuc Dynasty), while the Chinese colonization started only in 111 BC. Stefanhanoi (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * An Dương Vương originated from Shu and Zhao Tuo initiated the first colonization. Its not just talking about the Han dynasty.Rajmaan (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The titling of this page is inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia
I am not a translator but whoever initially created these pages with this title using the word "domination" created a titling that is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. Even in the article text its described as an "occupation", so why not use that word which is used in every other Wikipedia article. Look at a list of military occupations :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations and they are all called "occupation" or "invasion". not "domination." You don't see the page for Vietnam's invasion of Laos North_Vietnamese_invasion_of_Laos called "Vietnamese Domination of Laos". See the page "Occupation of Czechoslovakia" from WW2, it's not called "Nazi Domination of Czechoslovakia". Nor is the American occupation of Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Japan post WW2 called "American Domination of Japan". There is no page called "Mongol Domination of Russia" or "Japanese Domination of Pearl Harbor". Clearly these wikipedia articles on historical Vietnam-China relations need to be retitled using a more consistent, neutral language consistent with the rest of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldogalex1 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I've went ahead and moved page but I'll leave the individual 4 occupations alone for now. The translation is imperfect and the word "occupation" is more consistent with the rest of the site. First of there is no reason to try to translate "bắc thuộc", this is the english language version of wikipedia. bắc thuộc does not mean "domination" and it's totally irrelevant. If the article wanted to get into that, it should be fine to discuss the historical language approach by historians of the topic. But it makes little sense to have language and terminology that isn't consistent with the rest of the military history of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldogalex1 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Title of page
I’ve moved the page from "Occupation of Vietnam by China" to "Vietnam under Chinese rule". My reasons are as follows:


 * 1) The term "occupation" is simply not an accurate term to refer to a period of rule that lasted 1000 years
 * 2) The term "rule" is perhaps more neutral politically
 * 3) This new title is in line with other pages such as Taiwan under Japanese rule, Finland under Swedish rule, Estonia under Swedish rule, Phoenicia under Hellenistic rule, etc.
 * 4) Meanwhile, the term "occupation" is usually used in articles that primarily deal with temporary occupations, especially those during wartime, such as German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Occupation of the Ruhr, Occupation of Constantinople, Japanese occupation of the Philippines, etc.
 * 5) Also, the use of the term "occupation" in the scopes of politics and military was first defined by the Hague Conventions of 1907; events prior to 1907 are thus undefined legally

Feel free to discuss this topic here. Cheers. Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

After understanding the history more and reading the direct Vietnamese texts, it is mostly anti-Northern invasion/rule that the Vietnamese were against, not necessarily "Chinese" rule. This included going up against the Mongols who were ruling China during at that time. Many Vietnamese people do actually identity with "Han" ancestry. Maybe change title again to Vietnam under Northern rule? Not sure I am open to better ideas since I'm not too keen on the present title. Introductionneeded (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Whether the article is neutral or not
I think the history of this article is neutral.Citing a number of historical sources, it is a relatively neutral account of the history. However, due to translation problems, some words may not be translated accurately enough. GAOPEIYUN (talk) 08:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)