 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Accuracy. edit
- Vietnam has a long history of armour making that spanned more than two millennia. However due to the lack of records and budget for archaeological studies, the evidence has been scarce.
How can we say this? This is an encyclopedia, not a crystal ball. There's no citations to most of this article, it's pretty much "We have awesome stuff. We just have nothing to show you." If there's no evidence of armor, there's no evidence of armor. That doesn't mean a long history of armor making spanning two millennia. On the contrary. The rest of the article is opinion, theory, and assumption. The evidence for all claims except mirror armor and what MIGHT be a laminar armor or possibly a rotting log. In instances such as this it is better to write about what we have evidence for. We can provide heaps of citations of primary sources backing up assumptions by many authors and historians, but they're also just making shit up to fill in the blanks from the huge lack of evidence just as the authors of this article were. We CAN say 'There is scarce evidence of the construction and use of armor in Vietnam. There is a lot of cultural and artistic representation of various foreign armors at least influencing artisans, including European armors. But there has been no evidence found of any such armor ever being worn or having even existed.' This article is so poorly sourced it's literally just playing make believe. 121.211.56.55 (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)