Talk:Haiphong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments[edit]

The population figure in this article says "1,123". Anyone have a correct figure? Answer: according to the Vietnam Office of General Statistics, the 2006 population figure was 1,803,400 Also: On the list of Haiphong's sister cities in the article, Tianjin is in China, not Vietnam. Additionally, Seattle in the US is also a sister city of Haiphong's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.108.125 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


May I ask if there is a discrepancy? This article claims the 1881 Haiphong Typhoon killed 300,000 people in the Haiphong area. The article linking to it titled 1881 Haiphong Typhoon states that 23,000 people were killed, only 3000 of whom were in Haiphong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.216.195.173 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the information on the drug situation ? Haiphong is locally and internationally known as a drug centre Articles like this show how drugs in other countries like UK, Australia and US are being controlled from or directly linked to HaiPhong https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/3032968/how-vietnamese-drug-kingpins-run-britains-lucrative and there are so many other articles: https://e.vnexpress.net/news/crime/hai-phong-policewoman-arrested-in-drug-party-4731648.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8197775/ https://en.bocongan.gov.vn/articles/police-detect-illegal-drug-use-at-discotheque-in-hai-phong-t9535.html https://english.haiquanonline.com.vn/hai-phong-dismantling-a-transnational-drug-trafficking-line-seizing-more-than-30-kg-of-drugs-23968.html https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/153-test-positive-for-narcotics-use-in-hai-phong-bar-4538826.html https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00246-7/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740547221000465 https://vietnamnet.vn/en/female-international-drug-trafficker-arrested-in-hai-phong-578802.html https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02791072.2018.1508790 https://hal.science/hal-01760385/ https://www.9news.com.au/national/seven-in-court-over-vic-drug-bust/93c7d0e5-e7a6-4142-b111-dc8f7a226553 https://focustaiwan.tw/society/202311240022

I could go on for a long time. There should be a section on this, maybe illegal activities, or drug use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.66.157 (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Name[edit]

Is it really called Hai Phong in English? I think it's called "Haiphong," as it almost always appears in English-language sources as a single word (as does Hanoi). Badagnani (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Vienamese language words are written with each syllable separate whereas in English an entire word is written as one regardless of the number of syllables.Bmcchesney41 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Badagnani. The English name of this town and its spelling is Haiphong, like Hanoi, one word. Unlike many other Vietnamese places it has an recognized English name and spelling. It doesn't matter how it is written in Vietnamese, because that is another language, even with another script (it just happens to use roman characters as the base, but then it modifies them and adds tone marks). The Wikipedia article about Vietnam uses also the English spelling (i.e. one word) and not a semi Vietnamized Viet nam or Viet Nam. stefanhanoi 113.168.21.87 (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Move: → Haiphong[edit]

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 and no consensus, respectively. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– As you can see in the chart below, all the major reference works use the proposed forms. WP:PLACE recommends following the consensus of Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta. The Chicago Manual of Style (§8.43) recommends that geographic place names be spelled according to Merriam-Webster. The Voice of Vietnam uses the proposed forms as well, see here and here. Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The municipalities of Vietnam[edit]

Vietnam has five principle cities, referred to as municipalities. Here is how they are given in various reference works:

Encyclopedias Dictionaries
Wikipedia Britannica Columbia Encarta American Heritage Collins Oxford Random House Merriam-Webster
Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi Hanoi
Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Formally Saigon Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City Ho Chi Minh City
Hai Phong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong Haiphong
Da Nang Da Nang Da Nang Da Nang Da Nang or Da·nang Da Nang Da Nang Da Nang Da Nang
Cần Thơ Can Tho Can Tho Can Tho Can Tho Can-Tho Can Tho
Kauffner (talk) 14:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose Cần Thơ per recent RfC - we have already had a RM for 14 towns at Talk:Cần Thơ, followed by another at Talk:Cà Mau to restore towns which were moved by a combination of undiscussed moves/misuse of db-G6 templates/IP manipulation of RM archives etc. And yet articles are still being moved around like Talk:Thanh Hóa. This is counter 2 RM results and an RfC. Yes we all know the number of English publishers who use Vietnamese fonts is very small. It is expensive to proofread in Vietnamese, and even sources which do use the fonts, such as the Oxford University Press Encyclopedia of the Vietnamese War may lose the fonts when going to second edition with a cheaper publisher. But en.wp isn't a print source. We don't have those limitations. The en.wp editors who have built up these articles, prior to the undiscussed moves of the last 12 months, had put the time and effort in to treat this Portuguese-based alphabet with the same respect as we treat 100% of all other Latin-alphabet languages on en.wp from Chloë Grace Moretz to Lech Wałęsa. At the very least the 39 editors who took part in the recent RfC should be notified on this RM. Since it goes against what the majority just decided. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The RfC you are referring to was closed as "no consensus." However it was resolved, editors can still vote in this RM based on its merits. For VOV and other English-language publishers in Vietnam, it would be less trouble to leave to the diacritics in. They take them out to make the copy easier to read. Why publishers drop the diacritics shouldn't make any difference. We are a reference work, so we should look like other reference works. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Neutral on Haiphong - Kauffner, I am not going to get into verbal ping pong with you. The very least you could do is put in 2 separate RMs for Haiphong (which is a genuine English exonym) and Talk:Cần Thơ/Talk:Cà Mau/Talk:Thanh Hóa which has such a tortured history, editors should at least have easy view of the previous RM discussion. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haiphong per ngram. This is a city with an English name like Munich, as illustrated by the table above which shows Oxford dictionary entries for Hanoi, Saigon, Haiphong but not for small towns like Cần Thơ or Bad Gottleuba-Berggießhübel or Fáskrúðsfjörður. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support for Haiphong. This is certainly how it was normally known in English-language news coverage during the Vietnam war, which even now is how many people will have heard of it. PatGallacher (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for both, per English language usage in tertiary sources for Can Tho (the sources we're supposed to be using on Wikipedia) and normal English usage for Haiphong. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree this should have been two separate move requests -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rig
  • Oppose Cần Thơ and neutral Hai Phong per previous RM and still there are existing websites that use Cần Thơ: [1], [2]. ༆ (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a previous RM for Cần Thơ → Can Tho. It did not get Kauffner's desired result. Kauffner moved the article anyway, it got moved back by an uninvolved editor... and now there's another RM on a different article's talkpage? How long do we have to tolerate this tendentious editing? bobrayner (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it be nice if we could have an RM that focused on the merits of the proposal? IIO has obsessively combed through my edit history for the last several years, and this is apparently the worst thing he could come up with. Shabazz moved the article at IIO's request. Can Tho has been at an ASCII title for most of its life, from 2004 to 2009, when it was moved without any discussion or even an edit summary.[3] Kauffner (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. YigMgo ༆ has focussed on the merits of the proposal re Cần Thơ [4], [5]. Also as I said quality print sources like OUP do use full fonts. Use among academic imprints is increasing, for instance University of California Press is now using Vietnamese fonts, see Amazon LOOKINSIDE for Charles Keith Catholic Vietnam: A Church from Empire to Nation UCP 2012 Page 184 "In his speech at the site of one memorial in Cần Thơ, ..." Amazon LOOKINSIDE is more reliable than Google Books OCR for such cases, though in this case GB OCR software has also picked "Cần Thơ" full font up. Older OCRs often don't even when the full font is there.
2. The description "obsessively combed" borders on WP:NPA and is somewhat unfair given that many other editors have also had to "comb" your edit history to work out how these moves happened. Since a combination of deletion of RM tags, IP edits and history-self-deleting db-G6 "uncontroversial move" templates were used alongside logged in undiscussed moves to move all 14 of the Talk:Cần Thơ articles counter RM result, several of the 14 moved counter RM more than once after admin reverts, a certain amount of "combing" by other editors is required to see what should normally have been visible on Talk pages. If IP edits and db-G6 templates hadn't been used then the moves would not have gone relatively unnoticed (admins Prolog, Gimmetoo, Edgar181, MalikShabazz, Graeme Bartlett having left messages on your Talk page to stop moves). You cannot blame other editors for the effort required to follow your moves when you yourself have used IP Talk page archiving, RM note deletion and according to Graeme's check around 500x db-G6 templates to accomplish moves. Yes it was difficult to follow. And this RM is gamed too as per Bob's comment above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who uses a book entitled Catholic Vietnam as a geography reference? This book leaves out the tone marks, and the quote given above is not accurate in this respect. What do the "reputable" sources say? Why Lonely Planet and Frommer's both give "Can Tho"! Kauffner (talk) 06:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Haiphong and Can Tho. Ignoring personal drama between editors, it's clear what reliable tertiary sources and English-language usage prefers, in the case of these two place names. Even if Vietnamese diacritics were the norm in English - which is disputable - certain place names like Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, and - yes! Haiphong and Can Tho - are customarily written without diacritics. Shrigley (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shrigley, (1) Haiphong is not "customarily written without diacritics" it is 100% written without diacritics because it is as 100% English as Munich or Cologne. (2) The above information about Cần Thơ is incorrect, see [6]. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haiphong&oldid=1217868431"