Talk:Trần Cao rebellion

history

The content of article about the relation between Trinh, Le Uy Muc, and Le Thuong Duc has a problem. One can find out why if he reads "The Full History of Dai Viet". I provided the han tu of Tran Cao, and people who are interested in some more primary material instead of articles of some journal can have easier access to this part of history.

I think a more friendly attitude can encourage other users to make more contribution. Qrfqr (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Han Tu is not relevant at all because this is the article about the rebellion led by Tran Cao not the article about Trần Cảo himself. YellowMonkey did it right and he didn't disrespect you in any way.

If you want to add Han Tu, why don't you write the article Trần Cảo instead of adding it there?

Moreover, if you add Han Tu here, please provide a WP:RS of a Vietnamese scholar which use this Hán Tự because the Chinese transcription is not always right (such as in zh:南芳皇后, the transcription of this woman's name is quite inaccuracy). Moreover, in Wikipedia, nobody has the power to prevent you from editing but please edit wisely and mindfully.--AM ^(talk) 12:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wrote the article Trần Cảo and added your Hán Tự into it (this is not my Han Tu, so I take no responsibility for it).--AM ^(talk) 13:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't understand why you think that it must be a "Vietnamese" scholar. Actually, "The Full History of Dai Viet" was not written by Chinese people, but by Vietnamese themselves. Can you give any proof that a Vietnamese scholar's study about the history of Vietnam is necessarily more valuable than a non-Vietnamese scholar's? Following the reasoning, the most valuable studies of Maya history would be conducted by the Maya people themselves. Mind you, the first person who deciphered the Maya script was a Russian. I know some people will think, well, look at this Chinese chauvinist or something like that. I am not. But I start wondering why people are so "sensitive" to han tu here and why only Vietnamese scholar's studies count. (Hmm!)

Second, I have given my reason. The content of this article is problematic. People who want to know another "version" of this history can refer to "The Full History of Dai Viet". The han tu of Cao is not commonly used (even not in normal Chinese character set and hence difficult to be typed). I give the han tu here not only because people can know how Tran Cao is written in hantu. People who are interested in knowing what happened in this part of history can go to read "The Full History of Dai Viet". If you can't read, well, that's not my problem, but it can hardly be said "irrelevant", just because SOMEONE DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE THE INFORMATION I GAVE. Afterall, there are a lot of people who can use it. Now I have given my reasoning, what's yours? Qrfqr (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As for accuracy, I made that pic according to the style used in "The Full History of Dai Viet". The lower part of that character is not written in this style anymore in standard Chinese character. But I still put it in the way it is written in "The Full History of Dai Viet". Why? Well, first, it is a Vietnamese name, not a Chinese name, and second, for accuracy!! Qrfqr (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not the name of the rebellion.

Secondly, Chinese often transcribe through the sound if they couldn't find original source. Most of their transcriptions are accuracy, but some of them are not. SO, transcription mad by Chinese is not totally reliable. The Maya's case is totally not similar because China and Vietnam a strong cultural connection, unlike Europeans and Mayan.

Thirdly, I CAN READ CHINESE TEXT and It's still irrelevant because the name of this rebellion is not TRAN CAO, so the Chinese text of Tran Cao is irrelevant there.

Fourthly, the quality of this article has nothing to do with the number of Han Tu.

--AM ^(talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your second observation is correct. But, DONT FORGET "THE FULL HISTORY OF DAI VIET" IS WRITTEN BY VIETNAMESE, NOT BY CHINESE WHO DID NOT KNOW HOW TO WRITE THE WORD AND PUT A CHARACTER WITH THE SAME PRONUNCIATION AS SUBSTITUTION! The two situations are totally different. You still did not answer why "the studies done by a Vietnamese scholar are more valuable than a non-Vietnamese scholar's about the history of Vietnam".

I am very glad to see your third point, because we can conduct a more meaningful communication if you read that book. Then please read the book, and you may begin to wonder, HOW CAN A DEAD MAN STILL BE AN EMPEROR AND BE KILLED AGAIN?? WAS HE A ZOMBIE OR WHAT??? PLEASE read the book first, then come here to discuss what is relevant and what is not. That is a very STRANGE and OBVIOUS problem in this article. Hope you know which person I'm referring to!

Then your fourth point: if an article confused a living emperor with a dead one, DO YOU THINK THE QUALITY IS GOOD? I provided han tu so that people can know what's wrong with it by referring a more primary historical material, DOES IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY? Qrfqr (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

"I am very glad to see your third poiny. Then please read the book, and you will wonder, HOW CAN A DEAD MAN STILL BE AN EMPEROR AND BE KILLED AGAIN?? WAS HE A ZOMBIE OR WHAT??? PLEASE read the book first, then come here to discuss what is relevant and what is not. That is a very STRANGE and OBVIOUS problem in this article. Hope you know which person I'm referring to!" --> The aticle of Tran Cao is written and it should be good enough if reader want to know about this "Tran Cao". There is a lot of people with similar name, put a Hán Tự is not the best way to explain to reader. Read Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Naming conventions for more guide.

"Then your fourth point: if an article confused a living emperor with a dead one, DO YOU THINK THE QUALITY IS GOOD? I provided han tu so that people can know what's wrong with it by referring a more primary historical material, DOES IT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUALITY?" --> use {{confused}}.

Moreover, I have read and learned a lot of book about history of Vietnam because this is my major. I know the person you are referring to and because of that, I suggest writting article and don't abuse Hán Tự (see this article Ngô Dynasty, an example of Han Tu abuse). There are only two Tran Cao in the history of Vietnam, Tran Cao of later Tran Dynasty and this Tran Cao, we could use a disambiguation to prevent people from confusion.

And lastly, could you give me the Vietnamese name of this "THE FULL HISTORY OF DAI VIET" because I couldn't guess which book you are referring to. Thanks.--AM ^(talk) 15:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was referring to Le Uy Muc. The book is "Dai Viet su ky toan thu". Please refer to "ban ky thuc luc quyen chi thap ngu"(本紀實錄卷之十五). Qrfqr (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have just read this one.

Another question: Has the name of Tran Cao and the name of Le Uy Muc anything in common?--AM ^(talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a question too. How many lives did Le Uy Muc have? Qrfqr (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

One. He was killed by the following emperor Le Tuong Duc. Has you heard anything weird about him?--AM ^(talk) 16:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I have read three versions of the death of Le Uy Muc, but it is not important in our discussion at this point. Now please go back and read this article:

"With the insurgents only separated from the capital by the river, Trinh Duy San murdered the emperor Le Uy Muc and fled with his puppet successor Le Tuong Duc, leaving the capital undefended."

Find anything wrong? Qrfqr (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This might be a typo in source. According to Tran Trong Kim, the king who was murdered by Trinh Duy San was Le Tuong Duc and the puppet king was Le Chieu Tong.--AM ^(talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. How many typos there are in history related articles! Then of course the information helping people refer to more primary material and understand more is irrelevant, since all it tries to do is to correct a typo! How meaningless! Having understood this, I found that I was just wasting time, and I have nothing to say. Qrfqr (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, no. Your works are not meaningless, you work is meant a lot to this correction. These are many typos in Vietnamese history-related academic sources because the English-speaking historians aren't interested much in history of Vietnam and the Vietnamese names without tone marks is so similar (Lê Chiêu Tông - Lê Chiêu Thống - Le Chieu Thong ...).--AM ^(talk) 17:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)