Talk:Annan (Tang protectorate)

Jiaozhi

Shouldn't Jiaozhi redirect to Tonkin, not Annam? Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I see, northern Vietnam was first called Jiaozhi, then Annam (then Tonkin). It's confusing. Badagnani (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, though also the name of Vietnam, Jiaozhi is Jiaozhi and it needs a independent article. Sholokhov (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Dates of existence

The following dates (in italics, with relevant text in bold) are inconsistent:

In 679, Tang Dynasty established Protectorate General to Pacify the South (Chinese: 安南都护府) as their military government in Jiaozhi. The Sino-Vietnamese name of this government is An Nam đô hộ phủ which can be called for short An Nam (Pacified South) or Annam as in Western documents.
It was to remain Annam for the next 600 years, seemingly living up to its name. A peaceful territory, part of a succession of Chinese kingdoms: Wu, Eastern Jin Dynasty, Song, Southern Qi, Liang, Chen, Sui Dynasty, and the Tang Dynasty.
Finally in 939, Ngo Quyen revolted against the Southern Han and turned Annam into the Dai Viet. This was the effective end of Annam as a Chinese province. Several attempts were made by various Chinese governments to retake Vietnam, one succeeded (Ming Rule of Vietnam) but only for 20 years (1407 - 1427).

If the region was "Annam" from 679-939, then it was Annam for 260 years, not 600 years. Something here needs fixing, but I'm not sure what exactly. --131.122.105.217 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain the choices you made here?

Hello @Laska666:, I saw this edit on my watchlist and noticed a few peculiarities. Specifically removing the sentence "During the era of the Annan Protectorate, the people now known as the Vietnamese had no particular name. They were referred to in Chinese writing as the Wild Man (Wild Barbarians), the Li or the Annamese.{{sfn|Schafer|1967|p=53}}{{sfn|Taylor|1983|p=149}}", why so? The fact that the indigenous people weren't known by any particular name seems like a notable thing, especially since it was sourced.

Also, why remove specific languages to replace them with language families? --Donald Trung (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure but Laska seems to be intent on removing mentions of Vietnamese now although it's not consistent. Often they'll change the word from Vietnamese to indigenous and local. Qiushufang (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

With that I actually have no issue, the term "Vietnamese" is a modern term dating to 1804 and the Tang probably didn't differentiate between the various indigenous peoples that lived there. But the most important part of the article that specifically states that the locals had no name was removed in the above, that kind of baffles me. Literally the best argument for their name changes and they remove it. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)