Talk:Nguyễn dynasty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

History Section

The History section was clearly very daringly written, however it require severe editing for grammar and syntax. R3D October (talk) 13:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Nguyễn

Would anyone with more knowledge of Vietnamese than me (i.e. next to none) like to give a phonetic representation of the name? Either in SAMPA or IPA would be good. This would be particularly useful seeing as Nguyễn is such a common Vietnamese surname. Oska 06:22, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know any SAMPA or IPA. But according to my Vietnamese friends, it reads like Gwen.

I don't agree Living North Sout & Central 23 years Australian WASC some sound as you say Nwin others say Win as the N sound near disapears. Never heard a Noowinn perhaps a Nooin, but Gwin never. PS: I understand it's like the Chinese Ng, buit I have no evidence of that--Robbygay (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Had a Vietnamese friend who pronounced his own last name "Noowinn", although the "oo" was a bit whispered. "Nwin" I suppose. Then again, he had a Southern accent and loved NASCAR, and didn't know any actual Vietnamese...

SAMPA hasn't been developed for Vietnamese. I just looked at the IPA chart and got confused. It's not Noowin. That's the way an English speaker would pronounce it the first time they see it. It's "Ngwen". You have to clump the N and the G together as one sound. Say the entire thing as if you were asking a question. As in... "Ngwen?" Hope that helps. Khoa

I suppose you could say that, adds credence to what I was told comes from Chinese Ng. Temember Viet Nam means South China all the land south of the Yangtse River, a Hunting/fishing nomadic tribe always streading their borders.--Robbygay (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My Vietnamese music instructor has this name. It has two syllables: NGOO and YEN. Since English doesn't have an initial "NG" sound but we do have a final "NG," found in words like "RING." Practice the initial "NG" consonant by saying the word "RING" and adding "-OO," making "RINGOO." Then remove the "RING-" and say "NGOO-YEN." This is the Vietnamese pronunciation, and, as you can see, it isn't hard at all. "Winn," "Noowinn," and "Nwin" are all incorrect as they miss the initial "NG" consonant.

Badagnani 11:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage of -YEN, as Nguyen does not use the -YE sound at all. Correctly pronounced, Nguyen is similar to Ng-weh-in, with a nasal raising of the voice at the end as if asking a question. The North and South Vietnamese pronounce it slightly diffrently, but this is a rather close approximation.

donmai

Donmai has the closest proper pronunciation. I am native to Vietnam, my mother's maiden name is Nguyen and I was recently in Vietnam and speak it somewhat well. The Ng is similar to the W sound and the voice lowers at the 'eh' section and rises at the 'in' section. Wh-èh-ín notice the slopes over the e and i which show the tone that you should use.

Wow. This seems to be a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Almost none of the answers agree, even remotely. Is this a dialect issue? It's hard to believe that a name so common produces such chaos, at least without a reason. The 2 people I've known with this name pronounced it "Noi-yen" and "Wen". I have no idea if either of those is proper or not. Venqax (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Factual dispute

Jimmyvanthach, and an anonymous user with IP address range 216.183.37.*, have been engaging in an edit war, as follows:

• 216.183.37.* asserts that the "coat of arms" image is inauthentic and that the sentence "Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh (born 1942) was appointed in 2004 by the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty Overseas Council, created by Bao Dai in 1993, to the position of "Regent of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty" has no factual basis, and has removed both of these three times.
• Jimmyvanthach has reverted those deletions three times, asserting (in edit summaries) that the edits were "non-neutral" and providing a website reference for these claims [1].

Any further back-and-forth along these lines is pointless, though it hasn't been frequent enough to violate the three-revert rule. I'm marking this as a factually disputed article and adding it to WP:RFC. Someone needs to do some fact-checking here.

My own opinion: Jimmyvanthach, the website you linked to is not a neutral source! (For those who don't know: Jimmyvanthach, and Tran Van Ba who operates that website, claim to work for Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh.) If you can't find any actual news article or non-Internet information source that backs up the "coat of arms" or the "Regent" title, then those items really should be deleted. Otherwise Wikipedia is just uncritically echoing the claims of a small group of individuals. ←Hob 22:29, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)Well you might to look up the Wikipedia page referred to for Bao Long which says the Prince birth name was Thai Tu Bao Long and there is a photo there of him wearing the sash of the entitlement.--Robbygay (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)--Robbygay (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone on this site should studies more Vietnamese : Gia Long DOES NOT means House Dragon. Long = Dragon; but Gia IS NOT House. Gia in Gia Long, mean skin. Thus, Gia Long = Skin of Dragon.

• Actually House Dragon is probably closer. But Gia Long actually means "Sai Noi", as in "Saigon" + "Hanoi". The original name of Hanoi was Thang Long, and the original name of Saigon was Gia Dinh. Nguyen Anh took this name because Vietnam had just been reunified (by a popular peasant uprising which Nguyen Anh crushed), after previously being divided into a south ruled by Nguyen Anh's ancestors, and a north ruled by the Trinh lords. Carl Kenner 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow. There seems to be almost no agreement on this question and the various answers are, mostly, not even similar. Is this an issue of differing dialects? I can't imagine this is so difficult to address with a name so common. Of the 2 people I've known with the name, one pronounced it "Noi-en", almost as it would be phonetically in English, and the other pronounced it "Wen". No idea if either of those are typical. Venqax (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no evidence

As the poster states himself, the "almanach" site lists Buu Chanh as the source of their information (they are just repeating what he told them, in other words, taking his word for it). The "monarchy.net" site clearly states that they do not endorse or vouch for any of the groups listed in their index and the "PRweb" site is simply a place where anyone can have any information posted they wish; they likewise include a disclaimer saying that they do not check facts or vouch for any of the information posted on their website. The letter from Sihanouk comes from the same group's own website, so that is hardly an un-biased source, and in any event, having someone repeat false information does not make it true.

As I have already mentioned: regarding the "coat of arms", this is obviously something which Buu Chanh fabricated as the Nguyen Dynasty, like all other East Asian dynasties, had no such thing. Coat of arms are a purely European thing, they were designed in the Middle Ages so that knights could be identified in combat. The only coats of arms for Vietnam came after the monarchy was abolished when western-style government were established in the north and south.

(Above comments are by user at IP address 216.183.37.*.) It's not mandatory that you register an account name to edit on Wikipedia, but it does make discussions like this a lot easier to follow if you can sign them... ←Hob

third party

third party refrence of title and position: The Academy of European Medieval artial Arts or AEMMA

http://www.aemma.org/images/honoraryFellows/buuchanh.htm Since Prince Buu Chanh is the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty they asked him to be a Honorary member Jimmyvanthach 00:30, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Makes no sense

How can a group of European knight-wannabe's possibly be a credible source for the legitimacy of a Vietnamese pretender? Probably they just believed the grandiose claims and put him on there to lend "prestige" to thier own website, which itself must be severly lacking in credibility if the best patron they can find for Medieval martial arts is a Vietnamese throne pretender.

Crown Prince Bao Long

Bao Long is the Crown Prince ceremonial Position that is powerless, Emperor Bao Dai signed over the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to Prince Buu Phuc. Jimmyvanthach 18:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

European Knights

That organization has done various research in areas of royalty regardless of the country. Jimmyvanthach 18:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nguyen Dynasty Family supports Prince Buu Chanh as Regent

1. "Prince-Regent" Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh,

Link 1: http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2004/07/07/139622/SecondFormalLetterofKingSihanouk.JPG

2. If you goto The International Monarchist League on Monarchy.net a Third Party organization please scroll down to VIETNAM and you will see that Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is listed as well as Prince Buu Phuc who assigned Prince Buu Chanh as the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty.

Link 2: http://www.monarchy.net/directory.htm#

3. I have researched this issue of the biography with *Dr. My-Van Tran an Asian Vietnamese Professor and confirmed the information please read her Scholar papers

4. Tran Van Ba the former Colonel in Chief of Emeperor Bao Dai and also the late Emperor's mother Dowager Empress Doan Huy Hoang Thi Hau Tu Cung.

His email is Tran_Van_Ba@hotmail.com

Here is his site as Chancellor of Order of Dragon of Annam.

Tran Van Ba

I have wrote him email and he is confirmed the information since he was Emperor Bao Dai Colonel-in-Chief and was present at Imperial Audience Emperor Bao Dai held and establish Vietnamese Imperial Family Council and assign him advisor.

5. Crown Prince Bao Long is the Crown Prince ceremonial Position that is powerless, Emperor Bao Dai signed over the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to Prince Buu Phuc.

6. third party refrence of title and position: The Academy of European Medieval artial Arts or AEMMA

Since Prince Buu Chanh is the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty they asked him to be a Honorary member

The Vietnamese Imperial Family, from my research supports Prince Buu Chanh. I have found no information that disproves the information that that I gathered from Prince Buu Chanh from any other Vietnamese Prince.

7. The Crown Prince Bao Long has not spoken out against Prince Buu Chanh role as the Regent, since he does not want to be in a political position and he has no authority, since it was taken away from him by Emperor Bao Dai Crown Prince Bao Long Official Statement

yes there is a dispute but, it is unfounded, because the Crown Prince or any other Vietnamese Royal Family has not spoken out against Prince Buu Chanh, Emperor Bao Dai conferred powers to Prince Buu Phuc Chairman of the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council.Jimmyvanthach 03:19, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

re: point 3 above, My Van Tran is a very biased source. I have met her and read her works, and I can assure you that neutrality and historical accuracy are not her guiding principles. She is a hardcore political activist for the anticommunist forces, and she dreams of a Vietnam where the Nguyen Dynasty rule rather than the communists. Carl Kenner 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Emperor Bao Dai INTENT

Emperor Bao Dai the last reigning monarch of Vietnam abidicated the throne of Vientam and lived in exile in France. He continued to be the Head of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty, which is the Royal House of Vietnam. At the time of his reign his oldest son, Crown Prince Bao Long was his apparent heir, but Emperor Bao Dai had transferred the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to the Prince Buu Phuc, the elder Prince within the Nguyen Dynasty.

In 2004, Prince Buu Phuc assigned the Prince Buu Chanh as the Regent of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty. Emperor Bao Dai has a signed document that he wrote assigning the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to Prince Buu Phuc and has been look over by scholars. I am currently looking over some research books, that document this, that would put the question to rest that Emperor Bao Dai did not wish his son to be the heir.Jimmyvanthach 22:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Repeating won't make it true

Where to begin?...

Link 1: http://www.prweb.com/prfiles/2004/07/07/139622/SecondFormalLetterofKingSihanouk.JPG

Fact the website "prweb" allows anyone to post anything. You could write that Michael Jackson was a prince and they would put it on-line. It has a clearly displayed disclaimer stating that they do not vouch for anything on their site.

(Next pathetic effort) 2. If you goto The International Monarchist League on Monarchy.net a Third Party organization please scroll down to VIETNAM and you will see that Prince Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh is listed as well as Prince Buu Phuc who assigned Prince Buu Chanh as the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty. Link 2: http://www.monarchy.net/directory.htm#

Fact This directory does not (for about the thousandth time) vouch for anyone or any group listed there, nor does the organization endorse any particular movement (according to it's own website). Can you read? When will you get it through your thick skull that being listed in a monarchist directory proves nothing

(next effort) 3. I have researched this issue of the biography with *Dr. My-Van Tran (http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/staff/Homepage.asp?Name=My-Van.Tran) an Asian Vietnamese Professor and confirmed the information please read her Scholar papers Fact the web link you give has nothing about this issue on it at all, nor would it prove anything if you did without legitimate sources provided, and in any event, this same person is listed as a member of Buu Chanh's worshipers on his website, so I would hardly consider her to be an impartial third party.

(next effort) 4. Tran Van Ba the former Colonel in Chief of Emeperor Bao Dai and also the late Emperor's mother Dowager Empress Doan Huy Hoang Thi Hau Tu Cung. His email is Tran_Van_Ba@hotmail.com Here is his site as Chancellor of Order of Dragon of Annam. Fact There is likewise no evidence to prove who this Tran Van Ba is, at one point you were pretending to be him yourself. If he was the commander in chief of the imperial guards before 1945, how on earth could he still be doing anything? He must be in his 90's by now. Again, you present only grandiose claims, no hard evidence whatsoever. I'm not about to simply "take his word for it" whoever he is.

(next effort) 5. Crown Prince Bao Long is the Crown Prince ceremonial Position that is powerless, Emperor Bao Dai signed over the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to Prince Buu Phuc. Fact Bao Long has not actually been crown prince of anything since 1945. However, perhaps you will explain how it is possible that he still has even a ceremonial position if his father disinherited him in favor of some distant cousin he'd never met before, as you keep claiming?

Counter-Reply: Prince Buu Chanh and Emperor Bao Dai PhotosJimmyvanthach 01:56, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(next pathetic effort) 6. third party refrence of title and position: The Academy of European Medieval artial Arts or AEMMA Since Prince Buu Chanh (http://www.aemma.org/images/honoraryFellows/buuchanh.htm) is the Regent of the Nguyen Dynasty they asked him to be a Honorary member Fact This website simply repeats info from your website. How exactly is the internet "academy" an expert at Asian royal succession?

(most pitiful of all) The Vietnamese Imperial Family, from my research supports Prince Buu Chanh. I have found no information that disproves the information that that I gathered from Prince Buu Chanh from any other Vietnamese Prince. Fact The "Vietnamese Imperial Family" includes close to 15,000 members. Have you talked to them all? A few days ago you were asking me for the email address of the Vinh San family, so obviously you have not talked to them. What about Ham Nghi's family, what about Bao Dai's children, why not show some letters from them endorsing this 'grand high regent'.

(moving on) 7. The Crown Prince Bao Long has not spoken out against Prince Buu Chanh role as the Regent, since he does not want to be in a political position and he has no authority, since it was taken away from him by Emperor Bao Dai Crown Prince Bao Long Official Statement (http://members.cox.net/trandinh/bio/bl.htm) Fact There is no "Official Statement" on that website, just a short bio of Bao Long. But what happened?! A minute ago you said the Imperial Family supported Buu Chanh, now you say that the heir to the throne simply "has not spoken out against" him - which is it, or perhaps you are getting your lies mixed up?

(finally) yes there is a dispute but, it is unfounded, because the Crown Prince or any other Vietnamese Royal Family has not spoken out against Prince Buu Chanh, Emperor Bao Dai conferred powers to Prince Buu Phuc Chairman of the Vietnamese Imperial Family Council. Fact You do not seem to have spoken to any of the rest of the family at all. One minute they all support him, the next minute you say that have not spoken out at all. They probably do not see any point, as anyone with half a brain would see what a charade this is. I have corresponded with others in the Nguyen dynasty and they have accepted reality and are quite content as they are.

(playing with words) Emperor Bao Dai the last reigning monarch of Vietnam abidicated the throne of Vientam and lived in exile in France. He continued to be the Head of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty, which is the Royal House of Vietnam. At the time of his reign his oldest son, Crown Prince Bao Long was his apparent heir, but Emperor Bao Dai had transferred the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to the Prince Buu Phuc, the elder Prince within the Nguyen Dynasty. Fact You have presented no proof of this, nor do I see how any man can legally give another man power over his whole family. Bao Dai could not give away what he himself no longer possessed. After 1945 he was just a regular guy, you seem to have a hard time accepting this reality. That is one abdication is!

(promises...) In 2004, Prince Buu Phuc assigned the Prince Buu Chanh as the Regent of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty. Emperor Bao Dai has a signed document that he wrote assigning the duties of the Nguyen Dynasty to Prince Buu Phuc and has been look over by scholars. I am currently looking over some research books, that document this, that would put the question to rest that Emperor Bao Dai did not wish his son to be the heir.Jimmyvanthach 22:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC) Fact The time to do research is before making ridiculous claims. There is no evidence for any of this. There is no more monarchy and no more princes, so Buu Phuc could not make Buu Chanh anything as he is nothing himself. When will you realize that being common is not an insult? If this quack really wanted to help his people he could do that without putting on all these airs and trying to pass himself off as being better than everyone else.

NguyenHue

Prince Buu Chanh

Prince Buu Chanh and Emperor Bao Dai knew each other very closely and Prince Buu Chanh's wife Princess Phan Lien as you can tell by the photographs below. Prince Buu Chanh and Emperor Bao Dai Photos

You are correct that Emperor Bao Dai abidicated the throne, but he was still head of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty of Vietnam.

He ceased being the Monarch of Vietnam, he then assigned the duties of the Imperial Nguyen Dyansty to Prince Buu Phuc and it was in 1982 signed Edict by Emperor Bao Dai.

In the Edict Emperor Bao Dai had established in 1982 that Prince Buu Phuc is the Chairman(principal) of the Vietnamese Imperial Family and that all family members must cooperate with him. (as suggested you stated 15,000 family members? that would include them also)

The Royal Edict has been viewed and it has assigned Prince Buu Phuc in Charge of the Imperial Nguyen Dynasty. The document has been viewed by various members of the Vietnamese Royal Family, and I am sure if other members have not seen it they can contact Prince Buu Phuc via his contact information on the International Monarchist League Directory and it can be viewed by them as such because it is a dynastic edict of the Nguyen Dynasty. Jimmyvanthach 02:11, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nothing but claims

All you have done is shown that this Buu Chanh met with Bao Dai once and had pictures taken, assuming that this is even Buu Chanh.

You still have shown no evidence for anything, that Buu Chanh could possibly be a "prince" which is absolutely impossible, or anything that you claim concerning Bao Dai.

After the monarchy ended in 1945 he became a common citizen, and all his family and relatives became common citizens, all of them are totally free people and none of them, not even Bao Dai, just becaue he "used to be" a puppet Emperor for the French, has any right to give anyone power over others. All Nguyen-Phuc descendants are not his slaves just because he used to be Emperor. You have not proven he did this, just keep making excuses and trying to 'pass the buck' to others, nor would such an "edict" be valid if it exists.

How can someone who is not emperor anymore issue an "imperial edict"?

Totally absurd, baseless and shamefully misleading. NguyenHue

---

1. You are correct the Monarchy ceased to exist, When Emperor Bai Dai abidicated. Then everything else becomes instantly irrelevant. (snip)

3. Emperor Bao Dai was a common citizen correct, but he still had respect and reverance that was given to him my Vietnamese Supporters for the traditions and ceremonies that the Emperor continued to participate in France with the Vietnamese community and also in the United States. That is pure speculation and POV

4. Link: Emperor Bao Dai and Princess Monique Vinh Thuy visit Cao Dai Temple Proves nothing more than that he was there, you will notice they call him "Cuu Hoang" meaning FORMER Emperor.

(snip POV)

9. Emperor Bao Dai in 1982 wrote an EDICT, that stated Prince Buu Phuc is the Chairman of the NguyenPhoc and to be in charge that that all familes members must organize and unite under the Vietnamese Family Council. The document has been reviewed and by thirdparty and scholars and upheld to be authentic.

He could not write any kind of edict forcing anyone to do anything, he was just a regular guy at this point and had no right to exercise or give away power over all the rest of his relatives to anyone. Again, you fail to produce this claimed evidence, but again, whatever it is he has invented it would be meaningless anyway

(snip info on Jimmy's alter-ego)

11. As it stands Crown Prince Bao Long has inherited the position of the Nguyen Dynasty and Prince Buu Chanh is working within the powers of Emperor Bao Dai's authority given to the Vietnamese Family Council by Prince Buu Phuc. This is obviously impossible as there was nothing for Bao Long to inherit in 1997.

(snip political POV rant) Crown Prince Bao Long would return to Vietnam and be crowned Emperor. This would also be impossible as Bao Long is a Catholic and would be excommunicated if he attempted to perform any of the rituals necessary of a Confucian Emperor --Jimmyvanthach 19:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) NguyenHue 02:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)NguyenHue

Reorganized; edits needed

I just consolidated the history part of the article and separated it from the list, and did some other minor copyediting. There were two redundant mentions of Bao Long, which I combined. But look at the first two paragraphs of the History section - someone needs to fix that. "The second to fifth emperors were not pro-French and what it stood for" is not only ungrammatical, but lacks any historical context to help the reader understand what it's talking about, especially since the next paragraph seems to say that the French didn't step in till two years after the fifth emperor. I'm speaking as someone who is entirely ignorant of the history, so I'm not going to mess with this... ←Hob 17:55, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-written from scratch -- I gained no information, saved for the "era names", after reading it! Mekong Bluesman 06:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Emperors

1. From which source, or sources, did we get the birth names of these emperors? Except for Nguyễn Phúc Ánh, which is Gia Long's real name, all are wrong! Mekong Bluesman

2. Like the above person, I am real puzzled about the names of the Nguyen Emperors. From which source, or sources, did he get all the real first names of all the Emperors? From the Vietnam Su Luoc i have here, all the Nguyen emperors have names such as Ng Phuc Mien Ton (emperor Thieu Tri), Ng Phuc Hong Nham (emperor Tu Duc), Ng Phuc Vinh Thuy (emperor Bao Dai), Ng Phuc Vinh San (Emp Duy Tan) and or Ng Phuc Buu Dao (Emperor Khai Dinh), Ng Phuc Buu Lan (Emp Thanh Thai) or Ng Phuc Ung Lich (emp Ham Nghi)etc...etc.... Am an avid reader of Historia and History of all countries.... User: Patrick Hung Nguyen

Heir to the throne

Let's not mention the fact that there is, officially, no throne to be inherited, the following blurb:

The next heir to the Vietnamese throne currently resides in Santa Rosa, California USA. His exact location is not known. It has been determine recently that his given name is Nguyen Quy Don-- originally born in Boulder, Colorado. His parents fled Vietnam hastily after the fall of Saigon in 1975 after pledging their support to the democratic south. Nguyen Van Hue, Quy Don's father, was in the South Vietnamese Navy. Because of the Vietnamese rights of succession, the throne does not go to Van Hue, but to Quy Don.

needs to have some factual back-ups (websites, newspaper articles, books..., and more than one).

Otherwise, it should be removed since it falls under the category of original research. -- Mekong Bluesman 5 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

And you thought edit wars were bad?

"he was dethroned and imprisoned three days later, after being accused of deleting one paragraph from Tự Đức's will."

Gee, this at least doesn't happen to people who delete a paragraph (however controversial) from Wikipedia! :) --Canuckguy 01:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

He was not only dethroned and imprisoned. He was actually executed a few days afterward. Now, only if I'm granted such ... er ... an executive power as such! -- Mekong Bluesman 17:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Real Prince

In Vietnamese tradition (modeled after the imperial system in China) the title of "Prince" is not hereditary! in that sense, the so called "Prince" Nguyen Phuc Buu Phuc and Nguyen Phuc Buu Chanh, they are not Princes!!! leaving aside the rediculous title of "Prince Regent." They are called Hoang Than in Vietnamese or royal members in translation.

As far as legitimacy concern, Crown Prince Bao Long is the sole legitimate heir and ruler and future Monarch and the real Prince of Viet-Nam.

May the Crown Prince reign in Peace.

Tôn Thất / Tôn Nữ

Mention of the honorific Tôn Thất (and female equivalent Tôn Nữ) for members of the royal family should be mentioned. Badagnani 06:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You could write the article House of Nguyen Phuc and add it there. This was the unique naming custom of Nguyen Royal Family.--Amore Mio (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Imperialism

The part "Vietnam under Western Imperialism" originally was not in the article "Nguyen Dynasty]]. I'm the one who put it in. Now I see it doesn't need anymore. Someone please help me to remove it, thank! 66.53.218.105

Removal of Han Tu

The removal of han tu from this article (in sections discussing Vietnam's ancient history, where it is relevant), without discussion or consensus, as in this edit and this edit, is bad. Please restore them immediately. Badagnani 04:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Quang Ngai wall

It might be interesting to write about a supposedly 127 km long wall that this dynasty built together with the neighbouring tribes, that's apparently being excavated at this time. See CNN for more information. I'm in no way competent to make such changes to the article, so I'm leaving it to anyone who thinks it'd be a good idea inserting it. Xertoz (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

From Article

This was in the article:

I might be wrong, but Minh Mang was not the direct descendant of Gia Long. Nguyen Canh was the son of Gia Long, and was throned as a "teen-age" king, and later was overthrown by Nguyen Hue (or Quang Trung).

Please check with "Viet Nam Su Luoc" written by Tran Trong Kim.

Rsloch (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Prince Canh was Gia Long's eldest, but by no means only, son. Gia Long had 15 sons and 18 daughers. Prince Dam later became Minh Mang. You seem to be confused about the order of events during the Tay Son and Nguyen Dynasties. DHN (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Nguyen Editct on ascending the throne

http://books.google.com/books?id=en8mLQhpAxkC&pg=PA217#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Last Emperors of Vietnam: From Tu Duc to Bao Dai By Oscar Chapuis

http://books.google.com/books?id=9RorGHF0fGIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Khải Định

Tbe events column currently says "one of the worst figurehead kings in Vietnamese history". I find this language a bit too dramatic to be encyclopedic and it shouldn't be stated like that in Wikipdia's voice. If a historian or more have said something like that, it can be included in the Khải Định article with the name of the historian/s who have claimed this. In this dynasty list article, where Wikipedia's voice is used,we should be a bit more careful, but might say for instance that he was considered under French influence and unpopular among many in Vietnam (if this if was the sources say). Using a more careful language, makes the article look more serious. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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. There's narrow support for reverting these bold moves. --BDD (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Nguyen dynasty → Nguyễn Dynasty
• Hong Bang dynasty → Hồng Bàng Dynasty

– Revert undiscussed moves. Full Vietnamese name used in scholarly sources. Consistency with the rest of Category:Vietnamese dynasties. Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• The move for Nguyen dynasty was made on 20 July 2011, a full two years ago, at this point I think it's fair to say that it's current title is stable. I can't support on the basis of reverting a past move but I will review and comment as to it's general validity.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It was redirect-locked by an IP in Sept 2011 (innocently in this case), that's why it couldn't be reverted nearer the time. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverting after two years just seems like a stretch to me.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral There is certainly usage of both names with diacritics. The problem I had with my google book search was that they all came back with citations that were text recognition not actual images, and it's well documented that text recognition does not often recognize diacritics. So although they results show no diacritics there is no guarantee that that is in fact the case. Thus I could not conclusively determine common name one way or the other. I do note that two of the three sources in Nguyen dynasty employ diacritics.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural revert and then open a new discussion. For which I prefer Nguyen dynasty since the name "Nguyen" is frequently found in English speaking localities, and clearly is the most common spelling of that name. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nguyen. That name is overwhelmingly used without the diacritics in all the sources I've read (which, granted, are usually not Vietnamese history scholars, but refer to the dynasty incidentally as part of French Indochina). I have no opinion on Hong Bang dynasty, though would suggest that it be moved to a lowercase "d" if it is moved at all. "Consistency" is a very weak argument, there's no expectation that dynasties across multiple eras should be treated the same - look at how European monarch names are usually localized pre-1950 or so, and usually left as is afterward. In non-Vietnamese-specialist literature - it's usually just Nguyen, especially back when typesetting non-Latin characters was hard. SnowFire (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

It is true that sources re modern era are more generalist than the mists of pre-history. These dynasties lie at the two opposite ends of history. All the same User:SnowFire part of above sounds like a support argument since we are now in 2013 - and WP Vietnam's articles have had unicode titles since 2006-2007. Yes scholars like David G. Marr had to write in the full Vietnamese by hand before unicode became easily availble (these messy hand-added diacritics are a feature on many specialist Google Book scans from the 1960s to early 1990s). It is is only in the last few years that academic publishers have fully had the technical means to print books by Marr, Turner, Lockhart, Taylor and so on using unicode (of course that doesn't solve the primary publisher's problem which is related to proofreading costs rather than fonts). In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, again, specialist literature usage isn't everything (although they are the best sources). Lots of other places on Wikipedia that use the common general-reference title, not the specialist title. As for cost, as per 76.65.128.222, even if cost was the reason why the diacritics aren't used, it doesn't change the fact that the diacritics weren't used, and that became the habit. SnowFire (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

But that's just it, actually there aren't, there aren't any other articles on en.wp which use ASCII (well there is one tennis player but that's another story). And it didn't become a habit, just as David G. Marr had to write in the full Vietnamese by hand, so also en.wp's editors wrote in full Vietnamese just as we do for Hungarian or Finnish. Hence the majority at the RfC. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I assume the current edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has the capability to put in Vietnamese diacritics, but it does not. The title is supposed give the common name, and in the form that is most likely to be familiar to the reader. See also Vietnam: An Illustrated History by Shelton Woods, which is post-Unicode and intended for use as an undergraduate text. Warrior of Zen (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)indefinite block, sockpuppet

As above the issue for publishers is cost not technical capability. Wikipedia does not have the cost issue since it is cloud-sourced by volunteers who have put in the Vietnamese spellings already. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever the reasoning, it fails the common form. Do you have evidence that the cost is the driving factor in this? Even then, it shows an English-language version of the name. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi 76.65.128.222, of course, academic MOS will always fail "common form." Evidence, sure. Anyone who has worked in publishing can confirm to you that any addition to MOS adds cost and time. Spellchecker software now takes much of the pain/time/cost from the process, but you still need human proofreaders even for basic NYTimes MOS (French, Spanish, German, Portuguese). This is why even academic publishers (speaking first hand here) will ASCII-ize publications aimed at business users - time is money. But here at en.wp we're not working to deadlines and we don't have to find and employ a Croatian, Turkish, Lithuanian speaker ... they come free. The ASCII version isn't really "English" any more than "Noel Coward" without the diacritics is English, this is simply a MOS issue. A classic example is the hardback Oxford Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War (with Vietnamese) and the paperback US reprint (without), nothing more. Please remember that this is a restore and has majority RfC support. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Consistency with most other Vietnamese dynasty articles which use upper-case "dynasty" and diacritics. Hong Bang is not common known so diacritics are needed. As for Nguyen Dynasty, the article about the name Nguyễn using diacritics, so here too. ༆ (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support both moves strongly on procedural grounds. On the merits, support Hong Bang dynasty → Hồng Bàng Dynasty and have no opinion on Nguyen dynasty → Nguyễn Dynasty. Support "Dynasty" with a capital d for reasons of consistency. Caps are also used for Chinese dynasties (but not Persian, for example). —  AjaxSmack  03:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No evidence either title is commonly referred to with diacritics in reliable English sources. --B2C 05:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see titles used in the article references. Nguyễn is often present in recent hardback books where Google Books does not show it. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"Often" does not mean "most commonly". --B2C 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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.

The usage of diacritics

Anglophone wikipedia often uses diacritics on Vietnamese pages while in real life diacritics are rare if ever used in Vietnam, in fact when I was in Hanoi a few months ago I had yet to see any usage of them, most people write their names as "Nguyen" as opposed to either "Nguyễn" or "Nguyên", no Asian culture uses diacritics, this is why the Taipei name is so problematic as it's never spelled as Taip'ei, in fact the only time diacritics are ever used is when it's done by White tourists writing to others, and native Asians consider them more of a "nuisance" than a "formality", I could be wrong though, if so please explain. Though I am a bit surprised that Vietnamophone wikipedia does use them as there exists no ambiguity without them. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nguyễn dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://chamunesco.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110:the-raja-praong-ritual-a-memory-of-the-sea-in-cham-malay-relations&catid=45:van-hoa&Itemid=120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Focusing only on atrocities committed by Nguyen

User Rajmaan seems to be overly focusing on atrocities committed by the Nguyen. Other users did the same thing on a Chinese culture page, which I removed as well. I think you might want to make a separate page like "atrocities of the Nguyen" if you're intent on focusing them instead of putting them on the main page. --Easy772 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I wasn't aware that clothing was an atrocity. Tsardom of Russia has a section explaining how Peter the Great forced Russians to change their clothing to western clothing.

Secondly, if the Nguyễn dynasty looks bad it doesn't make China look good because the Nguyễn dynasty was the most pro-Chinese dynasty in Vietnamese history, the strongest ally of China in Vietnamese history and the dynasty in Vietnamese history which copied China the most. Their ancestors, the Nguyễn Lords gave Chinese refuge invited Chinese settlers to settled in their territory (former territory which they conquered from Champa and Cambodia), maintained friendly relations with China.

China's enemies were the Tây Sơn dynasty and both the Qing dynasty and Chinese in Vietnam fought against Tây Sơn since the Chinese sided with the Nguyễn Lords. The anti-China Tây Sơn dynasty massacred the Nguyễn Lords but one member of the family escaped and his name was Nguyễn Phúc Ánh. The Chinese King Taksin in Thailand supported Nguyễn Phúc Ánh and later Nguyễn Phúc Ánh, with Chinese support, eventually defeated the Tây Sơn and established the Nguyễn dynasty.

The Nguyễn dynasty then proceeded to start copying China to the last detail. They built the Imperial City, Huế on the model of the Forbidden City of China, they copied and implemented Chinese clothing, they called themselves successors to the Han dynasty and referred to Vietnamese as Han and called Vietnam as the Middle Kingdom. The Nguyễn dynasty invited the Chinese Black Flags and Qing dynasty to fight against the French in the Sino-French War when the French invaded Vietnam.

The Nguyễn Lords and dynasty were backed by China, by Chinese in Vietnam, and by Chinese in Thailand and copied Chinese clothing and customs.

Modern Vietnamese nationalist revisionists portray the Tây Sơn as Vietnamese heroes and not the Nguyễn Lords.Rajmaan (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nguyễn dynasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626122653/http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/78-the-uprisings-of-katip-sumat-and-ja-thak-wa-1833-1835 to http://www.chamtoday.com/index.php/history-l-ch-s/78-the-uprisings-of-katip-sumat-and-ja-thak-wa-1833-1835
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/89821/bria?sequence=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue4/article_353.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829031036/http://www.wanhuajing.com/d540264 to http://www.wanhuajing.com/d540264
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160916053023/http://dajia.qq.com/blog/264933028072213.html to http://dajia.qq.com/blog/264933028072213.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161006103748/http://khoavanhoc.edu.vn/attachments/381_Liam%20Kelley_%20Confucianism%20in%20Vietnam,%202006.pdf to http://khoavanhoc.edu.vn/attachments/381_Liam%20Kelley_%20Confucianism%20in%20Vietnam,%202006.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Hi! I am going to alter some of the infobox parameters, which are obsolete, e,g. the Ethnicity parameter here.All the best Wikirictor 23:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Dynasty

Hi! As the actual (imperial) dynasty only covers the period from 1802 to 1945, the vast majority of the article does - strictly speaking- not belong here.

It is possible to rename it to - let's say - History of the Nguyễn family....which should include the subject of Nguyễn being the most common family name in Vietnam and why, etc; and an overview of the rather complex matter of the various family branches; the fact that certain noble families or branches thereof (e.g. the Trinh) adopted the name....and so on.

Any thoughts? All the best Wikirictor 04:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Flag of Tây Sơn Dynasty.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

This article is about the Nguyễn dynasty, which lasted until 1945, and which the article covers. However, the country shown (Kingdom of Đại Việt -> Empire of Đại Nam) listed in the country-infobox template, lasted only until 1883. As the article itself explains, Empire of Đại Nam was split up into the separate French protectorates Annam and Tonkin, with Cochinchina already being a French pure colony. These are the successor-entities listed in the infobox whether in the end-at-1883 or end-at-1945 version, but doesnt make sense for 1945. The Dai Nam country in the infobox is inaccurate to last until 1945, as this entity did not exist after 1883 (note: not the nguyen dynasty!). The article is about the dynasty, but the country-infobox shows the country before it was split up by the French, even if the dynasty lives on and has further info in the article. --Havsjö (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Nguyen dynasty, which the last emperor until 1945. I have change the national name to 1883 to fit it. Please do not revert anything after that. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I dont see how this refutes what I said? The dynasty did last until 1945, which the article talks about. But as it also talks about, the Nguyen dynasty were after 1883 the monarchs of Annam, Tonkin, and briefly in 1945, the Empire of Vietnam. But these entities which the Nguyen dynasty ruled are not the "Empire of Dai Nam" listed in the infobox here, since that ceased to exist in 1883. --Havsjö (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

After 1883 the country held the name French Indochina under French, which is already has a separate article. So I have change Dainam from "1839 to 1945" to "1839 to 1883".2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The national title didn't do anything with the dynasty, which still was in power until 1945. You said "the last emperor: Hiệp Hòa" is complete vandalism.2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you notify the title "Empire of Dainam" was lasted from 1839 to 1883? 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Btw this article Nguyen Dynasty which lasted until 1945. Further you may be banned from editing for your vandalism and blanking behavior. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:E03B:9F6D:1F64:5239 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

That is a nice solution :) But I my edits were not vandalism, as explained above. --Havsjö (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Scope and infobox title

@Havsjö: I think there are some issues here regarding the article scope and naming. The article seems to be foremost about the dynasty and secondarily about the state that it governed, based on the formatting of the article and based on how other dynastic articles are written. Featured articles like Song dynasty and Tang dynasty, for instance, focus on the imperial dynasty and use the name of the dynasty as the infobox title (of course there's a slight difference there as the state name is also officially "Song" and "Tang", but the Qing dynasty for instance used "zhongguo" as an official name).

The current situation is even more confused, as the infobox title doesn't even have an entry for the time period 1883-1945, despite that being listed as the era for the entire dynasty (complicated of course, by the situation of being in French Indochina). The infobox title should cover the timespan of the article scope (and shouldn't occupy such a massive 6-line size). The template used here is only called Template:Infobox country for the sake of not creating a technically-identical template Template:Infobox dynasty (which also conflicts with the redirect Template:Infobox dynasty largely used for prominent European families).

For consistency with other articles on imperial dynasties, this infobox should just use the name for the dynasty itself: Nguyễn (阮). Not only is it consistent with other articles, but it simultaneously resolves the missing 1883-1945 timespan issue and shortens the infobox title to the length that it was intended to be. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Previously I proposed limiting the infobox to end at 1883, as this is when the "Nguyen dynasty state" ended. Meaning that the article would be about the dynasty generally, but include a country-infobox about the country they ruled from 1802-1883. Another user wanted the infobox to cover the duration of the dynasty and a compromise was reached where it showed the country, but also some events in the "timeline" of the infobox past 1883. Perhaps that should be adjusted again to only cover the country to avoid confusion... But nevertheless, in all country-infoboxes the official/formal name is included at the top of the infobox even if the article uses the common name. I dont think there would be/is much confusion if the article says "Nguyen Dynasty" and the infobox shows the name(s) of the country it ruled. My proposal is that the infobox includes an overview the country ending at 1883, even if the the article is about the dynasty in general. It doesnt even need to be placed at the top of the article, it can be moved down to the section around 1802 such as on Free State of Icaria, Kingdom of Kampuchea or Republic of Indonesia, which have relevant country-infoboxes at the appropriate point. The Chinese dynasties correspond pretty 1:1 with their countries, unlike Nguyen. Opinions?
(btw, wasnt the formal name of Qing dynasty "Great Qing" (Dai Qing)?) --Havsjö (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree in that the infobox should just state the timeline 1802-1883, without having to remove the post-1883 content (probably consolidated as an "Aftermath" or "Protectorate era" section), as this is what all of the other imperial dynasty articles do. Even in that case, the infobox doesn't need to be relegated to a lower section. There are plenty of examples of articles on dynasties that give the timeline of the dynasty-state, while covering any lingering rump states / claimants in an "Aftermath" type of section (e.g. the 1644-1683 Ming loyalist bastions in Ming dynasty#Rebellion, invasion, collapse).

The infobox is unnecessarily cluttered by a partial representation of the various names used by the Nguyễn dynasty for their state (e.g. it doesn't cover the pre-1839 name Đại Việt Nam (大越南) used with non-Chinese foreign states). The etymology section already covers it fairly well, with differing names for the state from China and non-China foreign entities at various times; the infobox title isn't the place to cover these various names of a state. On top of that, the infobox title reflecting the official country names when it's used for a dynasty isn't always useful. It wouldn't be useful, for instance, to list almost every pre-Nguyễn Vietnamese dynasty as "Đại Việt".

The Qing used "Qing", "Da Qing", and "Zhongguo" as official names (see for instance Names of the Qing dynasty#The name China for the Qing). The "Da" (大) here only means "Great", and is part of the polite form used throughout Chinese history (e.g. prominently during the Han dynasty and Tang dynasty, see Dynasties in Chinese history#Official dynastic name) to emphasize the greatness / respect for the empire (and also replicated in vassal/tributary states e.g. "Đại" in "Đại Việt"). — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: What do you think of the changes introduced now? I clears up the names (including Dai Viet Nam) and limits the "bloat" (especially since it was already in "Vietnamese"), Chinese translations is preserved in etymology section. Also tightens focus on the state in the infobox, while maintaining general dynasty info. --Havsjö (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I still think that the cleanest and most consistent formatting is just with Nguyễn (阮), as it's done for most imperial dynasty articles. There's no need to cover the various official names when there is already a section dedicated to that. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

So? — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:Well I dont agree and I think the entire article being called "Nguyen dynasty" is clear enough as to what everything is about, while also showing a quick overview the name of the country in the overview-section of the country... (even if a more detailed etymology section gives further explanation) If the infobox is about the entire family, and not the country, should the "life span" show it until 1945? It wasn't even a protectorate after 1883, but split into multiple ones, listed in separate articles. What is the infobox actually showing? The family or the country? The Chinese country-overview infoboxes show the Qing/Ming etc states... Calling it "nguyen dynasty" and showing it until 1945 as a single "entity" is a more confusing imo: The infobox displays a single "country", but would actually only start of as showing a single country, then at some point start to cover two separate protectorates (each with their own other articles). And if its limited to "end" at 1883, and only showing the singular country (but still mention post 1883 events of the family), why not have the name(s) of the singular country its showing? The state name would clearly show info about the nguyen dynasty state (name(s), life-span, language, population, currency) but still include info about the family's "rule" after this. Calling it "nguyen dynasty" in the infobox (in addtion to the article...) would either confuse as the dynasty (unlike the country) didnt end in 1883, or if called nguyen dynasty and ended at 1945, its covering the family and not the country, starting from covering a country and going to several protectorates, but despite covering a family its listing country info like currency and population, but only until 1883? Just weird --Havsjö (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it would be confusing to write "Nguyễn dynasty" and using the timeframe through 1945, and your other general points. However, I'm only proposing to use "Nguyễn" and show the timeframe through 1883, with the article on the imperial state ruled by the Nguyễn dynasty as determined by RS consensus. This is what's done for other articles on dynastic empires, like Ming dynasty as mentioned before.

Even though historians and academics agree that the dynastic empire ended in 1644, the family itself continued to exist with claimants to the throne and empire through 1683 in the south of China and Taiwan (see Ming dynasty#Rebellion, invasion, collapse and Kingdom of Tungning which was "officially" a regional office for the Ming Empire after 1661). The consensus has been for the Ming dynasty infobox to use "Ming" for the imperial dynastic state which existed from 1368–1644.

Similarly, historians and academics agree that the imperial state governed by the Nguyễn dynasty ceased to exist in 1883, but continued to exist afterwards in a remnant puppet role for the French protectorates until 1945. There's nothing contradictory against your points with using "Nguyễn" in the infobox for the imperial dynastic state that existed from 1802 to 1883. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess it can be done... But why? Does it have to be like the Chinese? The only result then is showing a specific country, but removing the actual name of that country... Even your example of Ming uses the official name of the country "Great Ming" inf the infobox? --Havsjö (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

There are three different points here:

1. It's not specifically for Chinese imperial dynasties, but general consistency for imperial dynastic states whose English common name is the name of the dynasty (e.g. Joseon dynasty).
2. Another consideration is is consistency within articles for the same line of dynasties; in the case of Vietnamese dynasties, using the "country name" across all of the dynasties in the last millennium wouldn't be useful, because they all used "Đại Việt".
3. Even with the reduced three-line infobox title, it's still very cluttered. Using "Nguyễn (阮)" gives a much more concise and clean top of the infobox.

For Ming dynasty, it's a less strong case since "Great Ming" is so close to "Ming". However, I do think that Ming dynasty should probably say "Ming" at the top of the infobox; I've been mulling over it in the last day or two. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see your points, but I still cant see it as an improvement for my last mentioned reason of it doing nothing but removing the actual name... I think some other people need to join this discussion if a consensus is to be achieved. IMO, just like all other countries (common-name article title + show formal name in infobox), when you have official name(s), why not show this official names in the country overview showing all other aspects of the country? --Havsjö (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind asking a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject History?) or asking for 3O/RfC. This isn't a major issue in my evaluation, so a RfC might be overkill.

You could ask the equally-valid complementary question: why not show the common name in the country overview showing all other aspects of the country? In particular, the value of displaying official names in the lead is greatly diminished when there are multiple changes during a period (and even less so when they're not very different from each other). The infobox is supposed to be a tidy concise depiction of key information; having multiple large bold names across multiple lines doesn't do that.— MarkH₂₁^talk 23:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may put my two cents in, I believe that the infobox should state the official name of the state. Here’s why:

1. The Template:Infobox country clearly states that “conventional_long_name” should be the formal or official full name of the country.
2. Since the official name of the Nguyen state changed over time, all the more this should be stated to avoid any possible confusion.
3. For earlier Vietnamese dynasties, as many of them used the same name “Dai Viet”, I believe the infoboxes of these respective dynasties should still state “Dai Viet”. I don’t see any confusion that might arise considering the title of these articles are already the name of the respective dynasties. Furthermore, it is valuable to let the readers know that these several dynasties all used the same official name for their respective realms.
4. While I agree that the infobox should be tidy, we should not sacrifice valuable information such as the official name of the realm.

Moreover, I believe that the Han tu (Chinese characters) of the official name should be stated in the infobox considering the official script used historically in Vietnam was Han tu. Preserving these characters in the infobox of an article about Vietnamese history is thus relevant and appropriate.

To make the infobox neater, I suggest rendering the years in a smaller size.

Cheers.

Morrisonjohn022 (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Morrisonjohn022: Thanks for your input! I might yield on the official names, in principle, but I still think that the infobox would be unwieldy, as the current state or after adding the Han tu (which I agree should be included if the official names are included), even if the size change of the years is reduced. Three lines on top of the main infobox is a fairly unwieldy, while six line is a mess no matter how big the font is. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also for what it’s worth, even though the documentation says to use the official name, that’s not ubiquitous consensus. For instance, Byzantine Empire (a featured article!) would then need Roman Empire at the top of its infobox since that was its official name (translated), but that is an outcome which does not have consensus (and probably shouldn’t) because the common name is so entrenched. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Royal anthem of Nguyễn dynasty.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Flags

Not entirely sure and just going off of List of flags of Vietnam: there appears to have been several personal royal standards of which only one became a national flag.

I’ve tried to reflect this in the infobox of the article here, but since the flag article is pretty bare in references, any RS citations and clarifications are more than welcome here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: In this "book" of national symbols and anthems of Indochina from 1941 they call the yellow-red-yellow flag "national flag", as they also do for the normal Cambodian flag, for example. [2] --Havsjö (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks, page 14? Hopefully we can also find something that gives dates to the use of that flag as the national flag. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be 1920. There seems to be some confusion with calling these flags "royal flag" or "national flag". Im not sure what happened in 1863 to make the yellow flag with a red disk go from "royal flag" to "national flag". But the general "dynasty flags" (such as the yellow-red-yellow) are treated everywhere Ive seen as "national flags" of Annam (i.e. "Vietnam", as opposed to Cambodia/Laos, within Indochina). That 1941 book even lists another flag as the "Imperial Standard". --Havsjö (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1883 or 1945

I think that the infobox should probably be changed back, while in 1883 (or 1884 per the Protectorate Treaty) the Nguyễn dynasty ceased to be a sovereign state, its government and functions all remained. In fact even the term Đại Nam quốc (大南國) was used until 1945. Its government didn't change under French rule either as the Nguyễn's Three Departments and Six Ministries, Imperial examination, and other parts of its administration didn't change. While the status of a Chinese tributary state is different the Nguyễn dynasty was a Chinese tributary state until the French took over the system. I don't think that we should treat the French protectorate status in the infobox as that big of a change to the Nguyễn dynasty state apparatus of the Nguyễn dynasty when the article itself covers the entire period until 1945. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Đại Việt quốc 大越國 (1802–1804) (Đại) Việt Nam quốc (大)越南國 (1804–1839) Đại Nam quốc 大南國 (1839–1945) Đế quốc Việt Nam 帝國越南 (1945)
1802–1882 (as a sovereign state) 1883–1945 (as a French protectorate)
Status	Monarchy, protectorate

Here is perhaps a better proposal, though I just read the proposal that limited the scope of the infobox. I think that the Ming dynasty infobox comparison is somewhat a bad comparison as it at times follows traditional Chinese historiography (which for example doesn't even recognise the existence of the brief Shun dynasty and bad historiography unfortunately still prevails in many publications about Chinese history, but that's a different discussion altogether), the Nguyễn Dynasty state is somewhat different from Chinese dynasty examples as it legally continued to exist "unchanged" under French "protection". The Lê dynasty likewise existed in name-only like the Nguyễn under the actual rule of others (being the Nguyễn lords and Trịnh lords). Of course, the Empire of Vietnam was actually a reorganised government that could technically be seen as a separate state (like the Principality of Montenegro is different from the Kingdom of Montenegro), so I am not opposed at ending it as Đại Nam quốc as all of its traditional institutions remained in place until 1945, while the Japanese created a completely different type of state. A better comparison might be the Habsburg Netherlands which changed states and territory but remained nominally under the same dynasty. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking of it, Prussia, or more specifically the Free State of Prussia, is a better comparison here, Prussia was a sovereign state until the unification of North Germany (in 1867), but it still legally existed until 1947, despite basically its entire state apparatus being informally abolished by cabinet Hitler in Nazi Germany. De jure it existed as the French protectorates of Annam and Tonkin, but de facto it was a rubber stamp office of the French Republic. But even that is an exaggeration as it still exercised some power in the French protectorate of Annam. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Administrative divisions

I was planning on drafting a list of administrative divisions (at least for under Minh Mạng), I wasn't sure how to tackle it, for example just a short list of all the provinces, or add Bắc Kỳ (北圻), Hữu Kỳ (右圻), Trực Kỳ (直圻), Tả Kỳ (左圻), and Nam Kỳ (南圻) on top. Furthermore, I am not sure if the Trấn Tây Thành (鎮西城), the Vietnamese protectorate over Cambodia, should be counted in the list as the same as the other divisions or as a military administration and be listed separately.

Furthermore, there were some principalities in Laos which are sometimes counted as divisions and sometimes not, I prefer to get some consensus before making the list, so I will get a scope of inclusion and exclusion. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)