This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
I will be changing the dating system on this article away from the biased, Christian based AD/BC to the common era system next week. This will bring the article into alignment with secular usage such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_India. If you object, please state why you are ok with the biased system here. Eupnevma (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't a consensus to change the dating style. Please read MOS:ERA for when to use BC/AD & BCE/CE and check out MOS:VAR for changing dating styles. Quote from MOS:VAR: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". Key in on "substantial reason". Masterhatch (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prehistoric Period run-on sentence + vague language.
"While the true original inhabitants of Vietnam were the Hoabinhians, they had of course been replaced and absorbed by the East Eurasian-looking populace and the expansion of preliminary Austroasiatic and Austronesian languages, although linguistic is not totally interrelated with genetic." So, obviously, this is a run on, and I would just fix it, probably poorly, if part of the run-on didn't require a rework. The use of "of course" in the sentence is incredibly vague language. It also feels antithetical to the intent of providing contextualized knowledge. The related article on "Hoabinhians" provides no context that would imply that this was common knowledge, and to be honest I had never heard the term "Hoabinhians" before this article. Spicygarbage (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]