Talk:Battle of Bạch Đằng (938)

This article is biased

The article seems to have an overtly Vietnamese nationalistic tone. No reliable references have been provided to support some of the opinions in the article and it is clear from the contents of this article that it is designed to promote ethnic hatred. David873 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no ethnic hate here, so I removed your template (no need to discuss about reliable source with you). RBD (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This does not change the fact that the article has an overtly Vietnamese nationalistic tone though. Some sentences seem rather emotionally charged for an encyclopaedia such as "...the heavy Chinese warboats were all caught on the poles and lay helplessly trapped in the middle of the river" (italics mine) or "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again" (the latter quoted sentence was inserted in order to promote ethnic hatred perhaps?). David873 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

From what source you have "the fact that"? If there are some sentences or phrases not well built, you can freely correct them, why do you always try to put your argument for the whole article? Besides, I cannot see anything "ethnic hatred" comes from "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again"?! One more time, please hold your own argument for forums or blogs, save your time here in wikipedia to improve articles. Thank you. RBD (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Location

Where exactly is the Bạch Đằng River? Does it still exist today? Where exactly did the battle occur? Badagnani (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The river still exists today, located near Halong Bay. DHN (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, so, in Quang Ninh Province? Is there a vi:WP article on the river? We should add as much detail as we can to the article, and perhaps make an article on the river. Badagnani (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many sites along the river are marked today: [1][2]. The vi.wiki article is vi:Sông Bạch Đằng. DHN (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentences

Sentences just removed need to be evaluated for inclusion:

• "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again."

• "It was the first truly independent Vietnamese state."

These would seem to be important, first because dynastic China attacked Vietnam again and again, and the Southern Han perhaps multiple times; and the second, if true, seems important as well.

Badagnani (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they certainly need to be evaluated. However, I was concerned that much of the material that I have deleted were either superfluous or essentially an emotional tirade that would not be allowed in an encyclopaeida such as Britannica. For example, if the first independent Vietnamese state did in fact begin after the battle, then why not simply say "It was the first soveriegn Vietnamese state" (note the omission of the word "truly")? David873 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, sorry that I don't have English source, but here some source for those evaluation:

• "The Southern Han never attacked the Vietnamese again." - Ref: Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư - Ngoại Kỷ - Quyển V (External Note - Volume V) - 938.
• "It was the first truly independent Vietnamese state." - Ref: Tran Trong Kim, Việt Nam sử lược (Summary of Vietnam's History), Chương V - Bắc thuộc lần thứ 3 (Chapter V - Third Chinese domination) - 938.

I don't know where one can find correlative English sources with above references, if you have them, please add to article, thank you. RBD (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! Non-English sources may be used, if they're reliable. David873, I agree that your other edits, making the text NPOV, were good. Badagnani (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

English source here. Badagnani (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed citation/refence needed

Someone went berserk with the "fact/citation/reference needed" insertions. It makes the article almost impossible to read with any fluency at all. The notion at the beginning is more than enough. You don't need to mark every sentence! 85.200.102.184 (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

(cur | prev) 03:08, 26 July 2011‎ Kauffner (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,305 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Battle of Bạch Đằng River (938) to Battle of Bach Dang River: Move Vietnamese name to non-diacritical form per discussion at Talk:Ngo Bao Chau, Britannica, WP:UE, and official use by the Vietnam News Agency.) (undo)

There was no such discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Significance section

Hi, I was just reading this page when I got to the Significance section and was puzzled by this part:

In the first century CE, the population of Han's empire was over 57 million. At the time the population of Vietnam was just over 1 million. After the conquest of Vietnam, the Han Dynasty limited Vietnamese national sovereignty, exploiting the people, scavenging the treasures of Vietnam and sought to assimilate the Vietnamese people, annexing the lands into China. The Chinese assimilation plan is a feature of Han expansionism, was used from the Han's Dynasty to the Tang

I'm not sure whether the assimilation plans of 1st century CE Han Dynasty has anything to do with the Southern Han, a 10th Century Chinese Kingdom that has little to none continuity with the 1st century Han Dynasty and I am quite puzzled by this inclusion here.

70.79.164.194 (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gdsgdgsdg.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Half of the article removed without any edit summary

@Laska666:, out of curiosity, could you please explain this edit? Was it factually inaccurate? --Donald Trung (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)