Talk:Triệu dynasty

Differences between Qin and Han

Tần Thủy Hoàng (秦始皇; Qin Shi Huang) conquered 6 separate countries (六國) and made it his states; one of them were Hán Quốc (漢 國;Han Guó; country of Han). Qin Shi Huang named the newly unified countries "Qin". The Qin controlled China before the rebellion broke out and the Han took over. Han and Qin are or would have been two separate races, culture, customs and tradition during that time. They were not the same Chinese ethnic group as it is referred to today. Knowing that the Han wanted to occupy his country, Zhao Tuo (Triệu Đà) would of detested the Han Chinese culture for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.8.24 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the historical Chinese documents refer to Qin as "Barbarians" (Yi; 夷) and not Chinese (Hua; 華). Please do not falsely edit that Trieu Da was "Chinese". Those who allege that he is Chinese do not know the ancient history of Asia.--KBenjamins45 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First, Han（汉）was not one of six states; second, Zhao Tuo was born in northern China; if he was not Chinese, he was Vietnamese? Stop talking nonsense, educate yourself first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.158.154 (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

汉/漢， 韩/韓 are completely different characters eventhough they have the same pronouncing, that's the most basic thing you should know when you learn history. Stop using the knowledge you learned from Wiki to write stuff on Wikipedia; if you do, at least find some original resources or read some texts from Chinese Wiki.

About merging this article with Nam Việt

It would be much easier to discuss if those who prpose to merge articles would give reasons. Read here: Talk:Nam Việt why I oppose --峻義 Jùnyì 論 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Open Letter to WikiPedians

Subject: Trieu Da: A Vietnamese Dynasty (View 2) or the First Chinese Domination (View 1)?

Sirs,

View 1 apparently resulted from the definition of Viet as composed of only Au Viet and Lac Viet (Ou Yueh & Luo Yueh).

Consider Nan Yueh. Nan Yueh must have seen a high degree of Volkerwanderung throughout history where (it is more likely the case than not that) some Yueh and Han peoples from the north migrated to and settled down in Ou Yueh & Luo Yueh, and vice versa, the latter mentioned happened to be geographically in the present days' Northvietnam. [An offspring of a Han and a Min Yueh woman was known to migrate south to Ou Luo Yueh a century before Vietnam broke away from China. People that are descended from him, so claim some sources, make up an appreciable proportion of Vietnamese in today's Vietnam.]

Furthermore, Trieu Da (or Chao T'o) wasn't even a Han. He was a Ch'in that became a Yueh who also took a Yueh wife. View 2 (Trieu was an independent period) should therefore be supported. More below.

Yours sincerely,

T.Vd./

PROTOTYPE STATES (Yu Yueh is mentioned in the following for the purposes of reference only):

2879BC - 258BC: Yueh tribe(s): Lac Viet (Luo Yueh), Nation's name: Van Lang, Ruler(s): Hung Dynasty

5th century BC - 4th century BC (333BC): Yueh tribe(s): Yu Yueh, Nation's name: Yueh state (of feudal China), Ruler(s): Yueh king Kou Chiang (Goujian)

257BC - 208BC: Yueh tribe(s): Au Viet & Lac Viet (Ou Yueh & Luo Yueh), Nation's name: Au Lac, Ruler(s): Thuc Dynasty

208BC - 111BC: Yueh tribe(s): Yueh of the southern coast including Ou Yueh & Luo Yueh, Nation's name: Nam Viet (Nan Yueh), Ruler(s): Trieu Dynasty

Notes:

a.) The Vietnamese version claims Vietnam's history to be as old as China's history, but written Chinese records trace the Yueh back to only the 11th century BC.

b.) Yu Yueh is considered part of ancient China's history because "History is written by the victors, not by the vanquished": Proverb.

c.) Au Lac (Ou Yueh & Luo Yueh) might not have been the first Yueh integration in history.

d.) The Yueh integration of Nan Yueh, meaning southern Yueh, did not extend over the rest of the Hundred Yueh. It was so named to distinguish from the early state of Yueh (Yu Yueh).

MORE HISTORY:

Some of the earliest Vietnamese heroes or rulers were Han-Chinese who became Yueh.

1.) Sixth century rebel Ly Nam De was a Han court official who became a Yueh. Rebelled against the Han-Chinese administration of An Nam ("The Pacified South"); the name Ly Nam De meaning Ly, the Southern Emperor (of Nan Yueh).

2.) Fourteenth century general Ho Qui Ly (serving the Tran dynasty) had Han ancestors who can be traced back to the 9th century at the present days' Chekiang (Zhejiang, China).

3.) Trieu Da (or Chao T'o) was perhaps the most significant of them all, a former Ch'in general who founded Nam Viet (Nan Yueh) in 207BC. But, strictly speaking, he wasn't a Han. He was a Ch'in that became a Yueh. [Westerners derived the name China from the Ch'in, even though the Han did not see the Ch'in as their close kin. The Han once saw the Ch'in as "semi-barbaric". In the course of history, the Ch'in became part of the Han identity.]

Does this section even deserve to be here? It sounds very condescending towards ethnic Vietnamese and may even suggest that the Vietnamese identity is little more than a multicultural and civic identity. 122.109.98.117 (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not condescending. Rather probably embracing pluralism, culturally & racially. The writer of the letter above is probably of Chinese descent or ancestry, as is the case for a great many number of authentic Vietnamese who may, or may not, be aware of their ancient roots. (Ancient Chinese ancestry: Would they want to admit that? Ask them.)

Perhaps, a bigger picture is that modern Vietnamese are a result of an (unintended or intended?) fusion of everything from ancient times, culturally & racially. If or how far, by intention or not, the Trieu (Zhao) dynasty provided stimulus for the fusion to take place, is open for debate. 203.214.67.44 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote to remove this section. NPOV: Is this section neutral? Wikipedia verifiability principle: This section does not cite any source of references. Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Au Lac

Are the Hán tự for Au Lac 瓯駱? Badagnani 04:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The page wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Th%E1%BB%A5c_Dynasty on An Dương Vương shows the characters for Âu Lạc as (甌雒/甌駱) in probably traditional Chinsese. Your version shown is probably simplified Chinese of the same. The answer to your question is probably Yes. Uwe 123.243.142.170 (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes of dates

Many slight changes of dates have been made recently by an anon editor, regarding the years of reigns, etc. in this article and many others in the History of Vietnam series. This can be very dangerous if we don't know why this is being done. Can each such edit be explained in the future? Otherwise, we're going to have a set of possibly wrong dates for our users to refer to. If the dates conflict in the sources, present the sources at "Discussion" and we will evaluate them and select the correct one. Badagnani 08:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern China

How much Chinese was in evidence in this dynasty, as it was a Han general who founded it, and it occupied vast tracts of southern China? Shouldn't there be Chinese characters here as well? The image seems to indicate that most of the territory is not in Vietnam. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The article appears not to be about the actual historical period but of the Vietnamese perception of said period. Badagnani (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Both Vietnamese and Chinese sources need to be taken into account along with international records as well as the latest archaelogical accounts.Sea888 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

What international records could have been conducted back then? The West had other problems. --2.245.161.112 (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions in the article?

I'm moving this, it is not encyclopeadic.Sea888 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving what? Badagnani (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Han tu

Are the Han tu 趙朝? Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Large removal of text

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Removals of text

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Historical account

Changing "Chinese" to "Han Chinese" (Not to be confuse with Korea) would be more appropriate. Triệu Đà (Zhao Tuo) wasn't even Han (Chinese). Chân Định, which is now Heibei province of China, was the land of the Triệu Kingdom (Zhao kingdom) during the Warring Period. The Qin under Tần Thủy Hoàng (Qin Shi Huang) conquered six kingdoms, which gave Triệu Đà and his followers an opportunity to merge with the Việt (Yue) and adopt a new identity.

Before the Han Dynasty, The Han Kingdom was located north of Chu Kingdom, south of Wei Kingdom and Zhao (Triệu) Kingdom, east of Qin Kingdom and west of Việt (Yue) Kingdom; somewhere near the Han River near Hubei province of modern China. Thus, the name "Han" is because of the civilization that lived near the Han River. Calling everything "Han" is one way that the Han Chinese use to sinicize neighboring cultures.

Badagnani, I praise your effort for helping with the Vietnamese History. Thank you. Please direct your skills to help the Tibetian retain their own history and culture. Thanks.

Furthermore, the term "Chinese" should be change to only "Han Chinese" so that it does not conflict with the 55 ethnic group living in China. Also, the word Chinese to describe Triệu Đà would not be accurate.

---

What? Your claim is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. First, Zhao Tuo was born in Zhending, where was the state of Zhao, but this Zhao is nothing related to the State of Zhao later founded by Zhao Tuo. Also, Zhaotuo was a Chinese, he founded his kingdom in China and expanded it to northern Vietnam; so stop changing his nationality. The most ridiculous thing is claiming one of the warring states which located thousands of miles from today's Vietnam was Vietnamese. Why don't you just say Vietnam once owned entire China eventhough there wasn't a civilization called "Vietnam" back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.158.154 (talk) 02:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is quite a mess. It need some work:

• Naming style: this article contains a lot of of Vietnamese, Chinese, Cantonese and pinyins which confused readers when they were reading. It should be fixed, or reduced the usage rate.
• Citations: this article contains only two refs but all of them are broken (no publisher, no page, no ISBN)
• Tone, grammar: The English that was used here is poor and contains some minor spelling errors. It need to be rephrased or entirely rewritten.

I haven't enough time and English skill for editing this article. If someone could, please fix it.--Amore Mio (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If naming in various languages is appropriate, it should not be reduced. However, specific examples may be presented here. Badagnani (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not various languages, this is different romanization systems of Chinese text. For example, Zhao Wu Di and Triệu Vũ Đế is rendered from 趙武帝. Moreover, If you could pronounce both Zhao Wu Di and Triệu Vũ Đế, you will found out that their sounds are nearly same.

This is also a habit of you, Badagnani. I don't mean to be rude but I found out that you add a lot of Hán Tự, pinyins, Vietnamese to many History of Vietnam-related articles which confused the readers. Is these clarification such as "Nam Việt (Nanyue)" needed to be presented here when there is clarification in other article? In addtion, why should Zhao Wu Di has a Cantonese version?

At last, I suggest that the usage of Hán Tự/Chinese/pinyins should follow a style like this article. --Amore Mio (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

POV Fork

This is turning into a POV fork that replicates the subject of Nanyue but described from a different POV. This article should be merged into better-written and better sourced Nanyue, with appropriate space devoted to describing the different perspectives on the subject. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the two should be merged into a single "Nam Viet" article. This is what Britannica has and it is more NPOV than using a name attached to either of the two nationalistic viewpoints involved. The two articles have been separate for a long time and there was a vote on this before with no consensus. Kauffner (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

No, one is a dynasty article, the other is a country article. We have similar articles for ruling houses and countries in other parts of the world. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Not where the dynasty and the state are completely contiguous and the dynasty page simply serves to preserve a nationalistic POV fork (rather belied by Nam Viet redirecting here instead of to Nanyue). Absolutely they should be merged. — LlywelynII 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Nanyue article is rather long, so it is entirely appropriate to have a separate article on the dynasty. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nam Viet redirects to Nanyue. Why should the Chinese name take precedence? Aside from the POV issue, "Nam Viet" is the more common English-language name for this entity. Kauffner (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You were answered at Talk:Nanyue when your proposal was rejected. Start a new one if you want to bring it up again. 70.24.247.40 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Zhào Mò's Vietnamese name

After a little Googling, I conclude that Zhào Mò's usual name in Vietnamese is Văn Vương. The title of his Vietnamese Wikipedia article is Triệu Văn Vương (King Triệu Văn), so I am taking this as the formal version of the name and "Văn Vương" as an abbreviated form. Hardly anyone uses "Triệu Muội". If you convert Zhào Mò/趙眜 to Vietnamese, you get Triệu Mắt, but I don't see this name appearing much either. Muội/眛 means "dull witted" whereas Mắt/眜 means "eyes," so Muội could be a joke of some kind. Kauffner (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Han of the Warring States

There seems to be a lot of misconception regarding the Han state. First of all, there were seven states during the Warrings States period of China, one of which was the Han (Han having the same character as Korea) state (another being the Qin state, which unified China, and formed the Qin Dynasty). It would be difficult to comment on race, but they likely all contributed to the genes of modern Han Chinese to some extent. In fact, all seven were vassal states of an earlier Chinese Dynasty, the Zhou Dynasty. Another was the Zhao State (or the Trieu state). This earlier Han state had little to do with the later Han Dynasty, or the modern Han Chinese (so named because of the Han Dynasty). They did not even share the same character. Zhao Tuo/Trieu Da was from the Zhao (Trieu) state originally, although it was later conquered by the Qin, which was in turn replaced by the Han Dynasty, after a period of rebellion. Trieu Da named the state he founded Nam Viet (and it was only referred to later as the Trieu Dynasty).

I realise a lot of these posts are fairly old, but I am posting this section anyway, in the hopes of someone coming across this in the future. Whipster (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Undiscussed move reverted

Have moved this back to Vietnamese spelling consistent with the other dynasty articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A second undiscussed move was the answer: 10:22, 2 September 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+32)‎ . . N Talk:Triệu dynasty ‎ (Kauffner moved page Talk:Triệu dynasty to Talk:Trieu dynasty over redirect: reverting recent undiscussed move, per BRD and Corfield's "History of Vietnam". This article was stable at the previous title for over a year. If the title is "contro...) (top)

This sort of thing shouldn't be done by edit summary, and then say "per BRD" without discussing before enforcing a second undiscussed move. No idea what "If the title is "contro..." means? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

When an article has been stable at a title for more than a year, it is misleading to claim that you are "reverting controversial and undiscussed move." Many editors have contributed to this article over the past year. Nguyen dynasty, the best-known Vietnamese dynasty, is given in the same style. Kauffner (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And in that year you were several times asked by editors to stop making undiscussed moves, so you know they are controversial. And given that you didn't discuss, you also know that they wer undiscussed. As for "Nguyen dynasty, the best-known Vietnamese dynasty, is given in the same style." I see you made a similar undiscussed move there too. This sort of move requires discussion. You're getting discussion now, and your attitude appears to be not listening. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you even know about this article if weren't researching my edit history? Who goes around reverting another person's edits from a year ago? This behavior is freakish and obsessive. You have shopped this issue to so many different admins and forums, apparently without success if you're reduced to this tactic. Kauffner (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

True you didn't use IP edits or G6 in this move, and it was at the beginning of the 1700 undiscussed moves before the Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 result, before being asked to stop by various admins and editors, but nevertheless the 20 July 2011‎ move "(moved Talk:Triệu Dynasty to Talk:Trieu dynasty: removing diacriticals per discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau)" was still not a good edit - there was no discussion to move Triệu Dynasty or any of the 1700 articles you moved. However of the 1700 moves, the geographical names ones which clearly were contrary a RM result, and where the RM result had been concealed by IP activity, those are the ones where there's a clear mandate to restore to RM result. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Moves are supposed to made in accordance with guidelines, not based on an RM for another article that took place a year ago and that had a "no consensus" result. RM discussions are not archived like the ones at ANI, so things are not set up to allow to editors to keep track of such discussions, much less use them as precedents. Kauffner (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Following RM results is in fact a guideline. You should have made that argument about RM discussions are not set up to allow to editors to keep track during the Sockpuppet investigation. As far as this move goes, you've now had your way with the title twice and locked it. End of story. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lady Trieu which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Propose to move the article to either the Zhuang or Chinese name for Zhao

Professor Liam Kelley pointed out that Nanyue has little to do with Vietnam. The inhabitants of Nanyue were Tai peoples ancestral to the Zhuang people while their King Zhao Tuo was Chinese. Vietnamese from the Red River Delta were mere vassals of Nanyue. Using a Vietnamese name for this article is out of hand.Rajmaan (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure if a blog source is reliable though. It is a self–published source so it may be a warning sign that the source is not reliable per WP:BLOGS. The article is more like an opinion piece which unfortunately is repeated throughout his blog site. He analyses it yet does not provide justification for it with reliable sources and fails to take other perspectives into account. I did noticed that the professor is an expert in this field and has published scholarly articles. I think journal articles may be a better and safer option to use than blogs. Ssbbplayer (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This article should either be removed or merged with the article 'Nanyue'

This article should either be removed or merged with the article 'Nanyue'. The two articles write about exactly the same entity. I can prove linguistically that Nanyue and Zhao dynasty have nothing to do with the Vietnamese. I may have to notify the administrators about the deletion of this article. Gustmeister (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Anachronistic reference to Emperor Wu and Zhao Tuo

This part of the Zhao Tuo section "When Zhao Tuo was reconciled with the Han Empire in 180 BC, he sent a message to the Emperor Wu of Han in which he described himself as, 'Your aged subject Tuo, a barbarian chief'" cannot be correct. Emperor Wu wasn't even born by 180 BCE. I think this reference might be to Emperor Wu's grandfather Emperor Wen. Anyone have the cited Wicks source to confirm and correct? DsouzaSohan (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)