Talk:Nguyễn dynasty/Archive 2

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Royal anthem of Nguyễn dynasty.ogg

State extinction versus status change
I really don’t want to raise this issue again, but the current infobox is misleading, so I changed it again. Here is my reasoning, yes in 1883 the Protectorate Treaty was signed, but this treaty in no way dissolved the Nguyễn Dynasty state or government (both of which existed until 1945). In fact, other protectorate countries are treated on how the country concerned is mentioned in the article, this article actually does cover the period until 1945 as the French protectorates over Annam and Tonkin didn't dissolve the Nguyễn state, but other examples like the French protectorate over Cambodia or Laos mention these protectorates as historical periods (like Third Republic of Korea is for South Korea), but if one would compare the Nguyễn Dynasty with the Sultanate of Sulu a Spanish and later American protectorate the infobox doesn't abruptly end when the protectorate was established and this newspaper article clearly states that the relationship between France and “Annam” is the same as between the United States of America and Sulu (as it was used as a frame of reference since your average American reader would know between the protectorate relationship with Sulu but the French one with Annam). Vietnamese historiography never ends the Nguyễn Dynasty in 1883 or 1884 either, as the 1945 abdication in favour of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam is always used as its end date.

In addition to an earlier tread above where I compared the Nguyễn with other examples, I think that the change of the Infobox might have been partially motivated by how infoboxes themselves have changed, earlier "Status" was shown below the date and above the map, so you would have "Date - State of the Holy Roman Empire (Date) - State of the Austrian Empire (Date) - Map - Capital city" but now it has changed to have status below the map, so there is more pressure to add as unambiguous information above the map (or so I think). But a 1883 end date is misleading as it became a Japanese puppet-state in 1945 ending French rule, in fact Bảo Đại literally revoked the Protectorate Treaty with France to establish the Empire of Vietnam meaning that it wasn't an establishment of a new state rather it was a change in status. For this reason I also listed North Vietnam and French Indochina back as successor states.

One more note, even the Nguyễn Dynasty military wasn't dissolved, the imperial guard is mentioned in sources describing it fighting (or refusing to fight) the Việt Minh in 1945, yes de facto it had become a French colony (especially Tonkin) which is also why the lines between “a continuation” or “a succession” are blurry, but legally speaking the state continued to exist.

Obviously, the Protectorate Treaty substantially changed the political landscape, but contemporary sources still list "Annam" as a country and the protectorates over Annam and Tonkin also clearly states that the Nguyễn Dynasty laws still apply to the indigenous population, just that foreigners residing in Annam and Tonkin have extraterritorial protection. This is also why French Cochinchina shouldn't ever be considered as a part of the Nguyễn Empire as it was a direct French colony where Nguyễn imperial laws didn't have any direct influence and at the "Empire of Vietnam" Wikipedia article the map also clearly excludes French Cochinchina as it wasn't ever re-annexed by the Nguyễn Dynasty. Of course, while Nguyễn Dynasty laws and politics still applied to the indigenous populations of Annam and Tonkin, the French protectorates had enormous influence, which is why I wouldn't call the 1883 end date "historical revisionism" as history is up to the interpreter and I wouldn't be surprised if some sources list 1883 as the end date, though in my personal opinion (something which I do not carry with any weight in my argumentation here) the 1883 end date gives the illusion that the last Chinese(-style) Dynasty ended in 1912 with the Qing Dynasty but that is a whole different debate altogether. So I listed my reasoning why I changed the infobox, as 1883 simply wasn't the extinction of the Nguyễn Dynasty state, the phrase "" is wholly misleading, especially since both the content of this article and other articles on the English-language Wikipedia directly contradict it.

Then there is the issue of what sources immediately after 1945 wrote, for example the paper “WHY THE NORTH VIETNAMESE WILL KEEP FIGHTING” distributed by the government of the United States of America during the Vietnam War (or “American War” for the Communists) states that the North Vietnamese believe that they have the “Mandate of Heaven” because they legitimately succeeded “Vietnam’s last imperial dynasty” (for context in the “Mandate of Heaven” the Emperor is “the Son of Heaven” and the rightful ruler of the Vietnamese people, well, actually seen as the rightful ruler of the entire Universe, but that’s another story) specifying indeed that North Vietnam was a direct successor to the Nguyễn Dynasty state. Now looking at more contemporary sources to us, this article by the Vietnamese government-owned National History Museum states: “” again placing the end date at 1945 (though I would dispute the Feudalism claim as many Communist countries seem to do when describing monarchies, as Imperial China, Imperial Vietnam, and Royal Korea weren’t feudal in the sense that pre-French Revolution Europe or pre-Boshin War Japan were). In fact, other than this infobox I have a hard time finding a source which places the end date of the Nguyễn Dynasty before 1945. For this reason I’ve decided to change it back and re-listing both French Indo-China and North Vietnam as successor states in 1945. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * TL;DR version

The Patenôtre Treaty did not formulate the extinction of the Nguyễn Dynasty, only the establishment of a French protectorate over Annam and Tonkin (which were both de jure nominally part of the Nguyễn Dynasty state under French protection), the fact that in 1945 the Nguyễn Dynasty government renounced the Patenôtre Treaty implies continuity rather than succession, both contemporary, Vietnam War era / American War era, and modern sources describe the Nguyễn Dynasty being extent until 1945.

Furthermore, this article itself covers the administration and apparatus of the Nguyễn Empire until 1945, so even from a semantic standpoint the 1883 is misleading. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , note that also foreign universities (such as Cambridge University) use the 1802-1945 dates, while this doesn't indicate mainstream usage (the above already did), the changing of the title of this article from "Nguyễn Dynasty" (something which I prefer myself) to "Nguyễn dynasty" was also done because most newer academic publications use this terminologies. The title of the linked work is "" which actually also showcases the uppercase "D" in "Dynasty", but that is a whole different discussion. I think that before the infobox would ever be changed back to 1883 or 1884 (as the accepted Protectorate Treaty is from the latter) that good argumentation for the abolition of the state should be made. As Wikipedia should be based on neutrally presenting the most reliable sources and if conflict between those sources volunteer consensus. Of course, be bold but until scholarly consensus changes Wikipedia shouldn't count a protectorate ststus as the supposed extinction of the state. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Star Flag debate
, first of all, thank you for finding that source for the Dragon Star Flag, I've actually been looking for one for weeks now. Anyhow, the problem a lot of Wikipedians have with these debates is that often historical sources are found online, a flag or other symbol is derived from it, and the original source is often not imported. In the case of the Dragon Star Flag on another Wikipedia article an editor many years ago used the illustration "Marine drapeau pavillon Chine - Japon - Cochinchine - Corée litho 1858" as a source, unfortunately the original image has been now been "lost from the internet", Internet Archive Wayback Machine captures go back over half a decade but no image of the source has been preserved in these archives. Wikipedia is a rare website where older versions of a page are (usually) preserved, but this the exception on the internet as most websites don't believe in "the utility of history" as content creators delete their content once their utility has been met (being sharing or selling). This is why I frequently check eBay and other websites as often many high quality scans of historical things go up for sale only to disappear later, if these are scans of 2D objects in the public domain then these can be imported to Wikimedia Commons.

Years ago there was a huge debate on Wikipedia about the "flag of French Indo-China" which is now definitely attributed as the protectorate flag of Annam (the Nguyễn Dynasty), this is something many contemporary sources confirm and many scans of these sources are on the internet yet weren't imported to Wikimedia Commons until recently. The other Dragon Star Flag used by the Nguyễn Dynasty until 1945 was actually mentioned in the book "Hymnes et pavillons d'Indochine" which has been in the public domain for many years but wasn't imported to Wikimedia Commons until I did so recently. As another example the (correct) coat of arms of the State of Vietnam was found on a scan of a South Vietnamese sold on eBay that was lost there years ago but was (thankfully) preserved on another website which archived it and could be imported to Wikimedia Commons. If the "Marine drapeau pavillon Chine - Japon - Cochinchine - Corée litho 1858" image was a scan then it could have easily been imported to Wikimedia Commons and this multi-year long debate could have been settled. This is why I would advise you (and anyone reading this) to import scans of sources if they are no longer protected by copyright to be imported to Wikimedia Commons to lay such debates to rest. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Bocong.jpg (discussion)
 * Boho12.jpg (discussion)
 * Bolai.jpg (discussion)
 * Bole2.jpg (discussion)
 * Tranh-trieu-dinh-nha-Nguyen-07.jpg (discussion)
 * Viencomat.jpg (discussion)


 * , I "nominated these for deletion", these are all in the public domain and the author died over a hundred (100) years ago, but another Wikimedia Commonist tagged them for speedy deletion. I have no idea why this bot doesn't report on missing license tags as these are basically guaranteed deletions and usually aren't even reviewed by a human. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nguyen cavalier soldier.jpg (discussion)
 * Nho-si.jpg (discussion)
 * Phan-Thanh-Giản.jpg (discussion)
 * Quan-thoi-nguyen-mau gowc.jpg (discussion)
 * Thay do.jpg (discussion)
 * Thay giao.jpg (discussion)

Dragon Star Flag (1802–1885)


Let me first open this discussion with giving a simple timeline:


 * Official timeline


 * 1802 - The Nguyễn Dynasty is established and the "Dragon Star flag" (龍星旗, Long tinh kỳ) is allegedly the imperial standard of the Gia Long Emperor.


 * 1858 - France and Spain occupies the Nguyễn Dynasty territory of Nam Kỳ (南圻).


 * 1862 - Đại-Nam formally cedes Nam Kỳ to France officially establishing the French colony of Cochinchina (處屬地南圻, Xứ thuộc địa Nam Kỳ).


 * 1863 - (Supposedly) Đại-Nam formally adopts the "Dragon Star flag" as its official national flag (國旗, Quốc kỳ). This happens after the concept of "national flags" was introduced to the Nguyễn by the Europeans.


 * 1883 - The Nguyễn Dynasty becomes two (2) French protectorates, the Nguyễn Dynasty, on paper, are two separate countries from France whose foreign affairs and trade agreements are arranged by France and whose citizens when abroad are represented by the French. However, de facto the Nguyễn Dynasty is ruled as two French colonies.


 * 1884 - France ratifies the Patenôtre Treaty formally ending the independence of Đại-Nam.


 * 1885 - The "Dragon Star flag" is supposedly replaced by a new flag.


 * My findings


 * 1757 - The Dragon Star flag is first seen in the "Alegemeene verhandeling van de heerschappy der zee- en een compleet lichaam van de zee-rechten- vervattende al het weetenswaardigste dat over dit stuk te vinden is, in oude en nieuwer schryvers" where it is attributed as the flag of "Tunquin in China" (Dutch for "Tonkin in China"), this is a reference to the Revival Lê Dynasty. This places the flag's existence at least 45 (forty-five) years before the establishment of the Nguyễn Empire.


 * 2013 - Jedan02 (a sockpuppet of "C" / "Unserafahne" / "Namkhanh02" / "Đăng Đàn Cung", whom I shall herafter refer to as "Musée Annam") created the English-language Wikipedia article "List of flags of Vietnam". The flag of French Cochinchina was sourced by Musée Annam at "Cochin-China, Woven Silk Tobacco Premium Flag, 1910" which had become an unreachable link by 2021. This early version of "List of flags of Vietnam" included an unsourced version of the Dragon Star flag, later this SVG file was deleted by a malicious  sock at "Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Early Nguyen Dynasty Flag.svg" (2017). Musée Annam has repeatedly re-uploaded his deleted works during the many years these incidents all have taken place.


 * 2014 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/624065894 - In 2014 Musée Annam using the sockpuppet "Nguyen.Dynasty" added the source "Marine drapeau pavillon Chine - Japon - Cochinchine - Corée litho 1858" to the "List of flags of Vietnam" English-language Wikipedia article. As of the Gregorian year 2021 there are no traces of this source online, prompting me to start this investigation.

From the above timelines we can tell that this flag predates the Nguyễn Empire by around half a century (at least!) and that this flag was barely documented during the existence of the Nguyễn Empire. "The smoking gun evidence" was that lithograph from eBay, but that image is now irretrievable. I am personally inclined to assume good faith in Musée Annam's referencing of that source, but that's essentially the only contemporary evidence we have, all other references to this flag made during the Nguyễn Dynasty period came from the Protectorates of Annam & Tonkin where it was associated with the Royalist movements and I've read that some scholars think that the large red dot was added to associate it with the modernising monarchist movement of Japan (but we now have 18th century evidence that already depict this flag, so it casts doubt onto those claims as well). I searched eBay for this image, but the only current selling does sell this lithograph but doesn't show the Korean and Cochinchinese (Nguyễn) flags, I imported this to Wikimedia Commons but don't think that it has much use to us for this discussion here because of that. I am not suggesting to replace the current flag, I just want to look for better sources, would it be wise to replace it with a much later Dragon Star Flag that has a lot of historical and contemporary evidence or just keep the current status quo? --Donald Trung (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)




 * Never mind, I managed to dig up the archive, I thought that it would be different from the one I found, nope, the supposed Nguyễn Dynasty ensign is actually the flag of China, Cochin-China and Korea are left blank (note that for whatever reason the image doesn't display on Google's Android), this confirms this flag as much as any of the sources I've listed in the image above, note that ALL of them call it a Chinese flag, even the one that calls it a flag from Northern Vietnam states that Northern Vietnam is a part of China. Musée Annam used a bad source. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * About Pekin and Bac-kinh, I don't think the Europeans made a mistake. Because contemporary European source suggested Kẻ Chợ (Thăng Long) was renamed to Bắc Kinh (or Bắc Thành in Vietnamese source nowaday). See Exposé statistique du Tunkin, de la Cochinchine, du Camboge, du Tsiampa, du Laos, du Lac-Tho --KomradeRice (talk) 10:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , regarding fantasy flags there is a long tradition of misattribution, for example on this page at the section "" this is about the fact that Chinese and "Cochinchinese" (or "Cochin Chinese") are often mistaken on these old flag charts, the quote goes further to explain: "" This is also my assumption above, as often several Europeans mistake Vietnam for China and mistake China for Vietnam, while indeed the city's name could be factually correct, the attribution remains difficult. Further, the quote lists the origins of such mistakes at "" at multiple instances flags of China are used to represent Vietnam and / or "Cochinchina", the one where "Bắc-Kinh" is the capital city of "An-Nam" the flag used is also attributed as a Chinese flag, indicating that either Annam used Chinese flags or that it was a Chinese vassal state / client statement (satellite state). "" This strengthens my idea that Chinese flags were attributed as "Vietnamese" by the Europeans at the time, while this quote concerns a different flag the principle remains the same, and it wasn't universal, for example "" this also explains my find of "Tonkin in China" which is as far as I could find the only chart that actually depicts the alleged Gia Long version of the Dragon Star Flag, which even predates the Gia Long Emperor, as a misinterpretation. "" The same applies to this design, it could be that later reproductions simply missed the large red dot in the middle, or it could be that it was a Chinese and/or Vietnamese merchant flag. "" At the same time flags that resemble the alleged Dragon Star Flag begin to appear, these flags feature a a large black dragon instead of a large red dot. I am somewhat convinced that it might have been a merchant flag. Also I second Marko de Haeck's "" as Tomislav Todorovic explained quite well how such confusions arise. European charts clearly mark such flags as Chinese and at the time Vietnam had a similar flag culture. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, thanks for noting that correction. But I am still convinced that it might have been a Chinese flag, and the only source we have that actually depicts the Dragon Star Flag names it as the flag of the Revival Lê Dynasty, which doesn't mean that the Nguyễn Dynasty just continued using it, especially since all sources to the Dragon Star Flag claim that it was first used under Gia Long, half a century after it was possibly first documented. And the first time Europeans widely report on it was during the 1880's, also after it was supposedly adopted twenty (20) odd years prior. I really like this flag, but I want to have historical sources that confirm its attribution. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Bao An
Bao Dai had children with many women. Only those he had with Empress Nam Phoung were counted as legitimate. He certainly never married Bao An's mother. Bao An was not listed on the clan's genealogy table. See Nguyễn Phúc tộc thế phả, p. 327. The only RS mentions of Bao An are a couple of stories in Nguoi Viet. None of these support the idea that he is heir to the throne. If we are not suggesting that he is heir, why not make boxes for Bao Dai's other illegitimate children? Nguoi Viet talked to Bao An because he had memories of the old days and lived near their office in Westminster. That's not a good reason put him on a chart alongside people who were actually kings. 99to99 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Also odd that your edits were called "vandalism". I really like the chart but as the article concerns the period in Vietnamese history and not the imperial family itself the chart shouldn't go beyond 1945 (well, 1955 when Bảo Đại was actually deposed as he ruled as "Emperor" in some domains, but that's not something that is acknowledged in the mainstream historiography because it clashes with the 1945 establishment of the DRVN). --Donald Trung (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that this issue is mostly resolved now, perhaps it would be wise to have a separate article about the imperial family and what happened to them after 1945 and keep the scope of this article until 1945 and some direct aftermath (like the Bảo Đại Emperor becoming the Chief of State). --Donald Trung (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest an article titled House of Nguyen Phuc. China has Qing dynasty for the period of history and House of Aisin-Gioro for the ruling family. 99to99 (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I second that, the Nguyễn Phúc and Lê houses still have pretenders and the Lê family even maintains their ancestral graves so it would be wise to have separate articles for modern developments and monarchist movements surrounding them. --Donald Trung (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

For context: On August 26th, 2021 the above article was created. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger process
Per this AfD, this article is the merger target for Kingdom of Vietnam. I'm starting a step-by-step quasi-formal consultation, where prior consensus needs to be formed on each item of the agenda to proceed to the next one. I propose that discussion on each item should last a fixed number of days, such as 3 days. I propose this agenda: Pinging Share your thoughts on the process below this paragraph please (time frame, items on the agenda... just add them to the list yourself). If a number of editors object to this technique, or if this discussion stalls, or starts appearing unconstructive, obviously it doesn't mean that the merger can't be performed (or continued) by someone else, in whichever way they find the most appropriate. I will actually go ahead and start the first question: — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) What referencing style to use, (1) the general inline style found here, or (2) the more advanced Help:Shortened footnotes style found in Kingdom of Vietnam?
 * 2) What are the duplicate parts, i.e. identical or very similar parts of both articles? (They will be ignored)
 * 3) Which non-duplicate parts, that appear to be good content, can be copied here without a major rework? (They will simply be copied)
 * 4) Which non-duplicate parts that appear to be bad content can be omitted from the merger? (They will be ignored)
 * 5) Will this article be substantially improved if the remainder, that needs a major rework, is indeed reworked and included here, or is it just not worth it? Yes/No
 * 6) If Yes: When the adjustments are made, Kingdom of Vietnam will become a redirect.
 * 7) if No: Kingdom of Vietnam immediately becomes a redirect.

1. What referencing style to use
(1) the basic style found here, or (2) the more advanced Help:Shortened footnotes style found in Kingdom of Vietnam? — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , wouldn't it be wise to boot the book titles under "Sources" and the footnotes under "References" so there is space for single references and keep the books? --Donald Trung (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess. Would you do it? — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Won't be on Wikipedia for the rest of the night here. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note from a passing reference gnome – many of the short footnote references in the History section are missing their corresponding source information. Currently most of the sources between reference 32 (Tạ Chí Đại Trường 1973) and 57 (Tarling 1999) are missing.  My guess is that they can be found in other articles from which the material has been imported, but now, while you are restructuring the article for the merger, might be a good moment to straighten that out. When editing articles that use shortened footnotes I would strongly recommend this script, which highlights missing or duplicate sources in lurid purple. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Concurrent discussion
Two questions that can be discussed concurrently:
 * 1) What do do with Category:Kingdom of Vietnam?
 * 2) What do do with the daughter articles of Kingdom of Vietnam (those that were specifically made to accompany it)? This refers to articles such as Government of Nguyễn Vietnam. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging/deleting. 1802 to 1884/85 is absolutely no doubt a distinct period in Vietnamese history and it was a actual historical state called "Vietnam" or "Annam", "Nguyen Vietnam", no complication. For aftermath of it (from 1884 to 1945), see French Annam and French Indochina. The user Donald Trung really ignores that the Nguyen dynasty was merely dynasty and not a state. They also completely ignores that latter Nguyen period's state French Annam was complete under French administration that we've already covered, so there's no "Nguyen dynasty state" that existed from 1802 to 1945. See dynasty for definition. Laska666 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment, they are doubling down on their revisionism, going as far as calling people correcting their revisionism as "vandalism". The Nguyễn state didn't cease existing in 1883/1884/1885/1886 (different end dates for the independent period) and its military wasn't abolished either, this is something both their version of the årticle supports and contemporary evidence. They use arbitrary end dates for institutions of the Nguyễn Dynasty based on the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article. The issue with the article was never that the pre-1884 period was a separate period of Vietnamese history, it was their revisionism that constituted adding hoaxes. Someone correcting hoaxes isn't engaging in "vandalism". --Donald Trung (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, they are doubling down on their revisionism, going as far as calling people correcting their revisionism as "vandalism". The Nguyễn state didn't cease existing in 1883/1884/1885/1886 (different end dates for the independent period) and its military wasn't abolished either, this is something both their version of the årticle supports and contemporary evidence. They use arbitrary end dates for institutions of the Nguyễn Dynasty based on the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article. The issue with the article was never that the pre-1884 period was a separate period of Vietnamese history, it was their revisionism that constituted adding hoaxes. Someone correcting hoaxes isn't engaging in "vandalism". --Donald Trung (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , I had already moved the articles to ones supported by most mainstream historical books, but they were moved back, for example see this and this. Note that the Nguyễn Dynasty was allowed to keep a small military force following the protectorate treaty in the form of provincial armies and the Imperial Guard which they had until 1945, notice that the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia has an article called "Army of the Nguyễn Dynasty" which has two separate sections for "independent period" and "French domination", I was just trying to emulate it. Also notice that "Laska666' version" also includes a photograph from 1919, this would be impossible if "the army ceased existing in 1885". If you are going to revise history at least do it thoroughly. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have French Annam, French Indochina and Empire of Vietnam, all covering the Nguyen dynasty from 1884 to 1945. The pre-1884 Vietnamese military was dismantled and replaced by French Indochinese army (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), which led by the France Republic, not the Nguyen family. Laska666 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The "Nguyen dynasty" was a merely dynasty (ruling clan) and not a state. Most common conventionally name from 1802 to 1884 applied by historians is "Vietnam". Laska666 (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can have separate articles for different period of the same state, sure. But that is not the same as claiming that the country stopped existing, a protectorate over a country usually doesn't end a country, see Kingdom of Mysore, Hyderabad State, Khanate of Khiva, Etc. The state remained the Empire of Đại-Nam under French protection and the government continued to exist, the French just installed their representatives and subverted the Nguyễn's powers. Empire of Vietnam is also a period of the Nguyễn Dynasty with its own article that supersedes French Annam and Tonkin, the article also clearly states that the state was proclaimed by revoking the 1884 treaty of Huế, hence being a continuation of the same state that existed before that time. The issue with the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article is that it misrepresents what many of its sources states and re-invents the period, I am not opposed to an article existing for the 1802-1884 period existing, I am opposed to the historical revisionism. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also "feudalism" never existed in Vietnam either, but all mainstream sources use the Marxist definition so it's included, Wikipedia shouldn't invent new terminologies because "we" don't like the current ones. Most historians refer to "dynasties" in Chinese and Vietnamese history as periods. We also have many books that talk about "Qing China" and the "Chinese Empire" or "Empire of China" but Qing Dynasty remains an article. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * For context, the French didn't consolidate their power over the protectorates of Annam and Tonkin until mid-1898, there is no precise moment one can actually point to that the Nguyễn state apparatus was completely abolished, in fact Kelley specifically notes that most historians do a disservice by ignoring the Nguyễn Dynasty mandarins after 1884. The question here isn't about the ruling family but the state apparatus, well the Nguyễn Dynasty's state apparatus remained fully functional in French Annam and French Tonkin well into 1945, they just were now under dual-administration with the French, this is also something that Kelley discusses in Great detail. --Donald Trung (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * @Donald Trung: The case of China is not well applied on Vietnam and Champa. China, likes to refer most of its historical states as a dynasty, cus they also mostly ruled by each separated family. The ruling clan of the Chinese Ching empire was the Aisin Joro family. Laska666 (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The empire of Dai Nam under French (protection) rule was actually French Annam, ruled by the same family. A family can nominally rule multiple states and polities. Before 1884, it was independent monarchy was called whatever Vietnam or Dai Nam, but now most historians (general consensus) likely to refer it as Vietnam rather than "Dainam", so the Kingdom of Vietnam or Nguyen Vietnam, received that name. Some refer it as Dainam, but they are few. Laska666 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * People also call the Later Lê Dynasty "Vietnam", it is conventional for historians to use modern names to refer to countries that still exist, yet Đại Việt isn't called "Kingdom of Vietnam" either. Note that at no time does the Encyclopedia Britannica use the term "Dai Viet" or "Daiviet" in this article. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sneaky... --Donald Trung (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know this at the time but apparently "WP:SNEAKY" is a policy, so I enquire that user to stop breaking that policy. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nguy%E1%BB%85n_dynasty&oldid=1037960345
 * Comment, For historical reference, the above link shows the article before the merger process began. --Donald Trung (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is quite interesting that user "Laska666" uses a lot of Taylor in the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article as this post by Lê Minh Khải actually notes a few things about Taylor's work that almost linearly contradict the presentation of the content in "their version of Vietnamese history". Namely "" while the way that user "Laska666" very specifically tries to avoid making any comparisons to Chinese history and the Chinese way of organising history, their criticism of why the Chinese classification of "dynasty" fails is because it is defined by the rule of one family but that is literally how the Vietnamese definition of "dynasty" is employed. Lê Minh Khải (Kelley) notes that Taylor's perspectives over time have changed and that "" While this is praise and I must note that I personally haven't read the book so I can't be the judge of it but I would note that another user noted that she did have a number of works that user "Laska666" and she noted that they in many cases seem to "read into" the sources in ways that aren't there (see the original Request for Deletion for the "Kingdom of Vietnam"). It is important to note that simply being in South-East Asia doesn't make a country "more South-East Asian" like how the Philippines is often grouped together with Latin America due to cultural similarities more than with many other Malay countries, or better said it is grouped together with both while the country is culturally connected to both, user "Laska666" at all times tries to minimise any connections to China and when native Vietnamese institutions resemble China they are always presented as something "exotic" that is somehow less intrinsic to the Vietnamese.


 * Việt Nam is physically in South-East Asia and like other countries had a tributary relationship with what is today called China. "" The thing is that unlike these other countries Đại Việt quốc actually did adopt Chinese culture and its institutions so it is comparable to China in many ways. The different organisations of the state under different families is true for most countries in history so I find it odd that this user seems to try to avoid this with Đại Việt quốc whenever possible which to me seems almost exclusively done because it's how Chinese history is organised.


 * Lê Minh Khải also interestingly notes that Taylor at any point notes how similar culturally Vietnam was with its neighbours, namely at: "" As user "Laska666" themself had noted this at the Tran Tay article about Nguyễn Dynasty rule in Cambodia and then left out any references to anything that can remotely be seen as "Chinese" by modern readers from what as far as I can tell seems to be an unattributed translation of the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia article. Using good sources to promote ideas not in them is probably a sneaky type of vandalism as Lê Minh Khải's description of the book is comparable with other reviews, namely: "" which to me seems to indicate that using good sources outside of their message might insult the work itself. Also check out all the articles about Vietnamese dynasties and their weird POV push that's quite "WP:SNEAKY". Alterering the Lý Dynasty into being about the imperial family because it "make sense", remove a number of reliable books and sources they disagree with to redefine this period using the edit summary "Phrasing", "Fix definition." of the Later Lê Dynasty as just a few examples. This user also attempted to do this to this article but failed simply because it has more watchers than the other articles about Vietnamese history.


 * Also note that user "Laska666" called the "House of Nguyễn Phúc" a fantasy probably because they wanted to make this article into what that one has become, exclusively about the fanily and not the historical period. I think that it's important to probably review the changes to the other Vietnamese dynasty articles because it seems like the Nguyễn Dynasty and Lê Dynasty articles have become "the odd ones out" where the lead doesn't talk about how the article is only about the family. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: According to Unesco.org there is an entry for "Imperial Archives of Nguyen Dynasty (1802-1945) Documentary heritage submitted by Vietnam and recommended for inclusion in the Memory of the World Register in 2017.", this uses both "imperial" and the "1802-1945", I think that we should be really careful with articles that link to the "Kingdom of Vietnam" as they might have been "contaminated" with the same way of presenting Vietnamese history to match the author's own historiography. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Categories
These can simply be renamed, user "Laska666" did a lot of good by creating these categories, I just hoe that they weren't made as a PoV-push for the term "Kingdom of Vietnam", but as current general historiography uses "Nguyễn dynasty" they can simply be renamed. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that they should simply be renamed. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Photography, Demography, and Religion
The sections "Photography", "Demography", and "Religion" can all be moved under "Society" with very little or no changes at all. These sections are all well-written, well-sourced, and don't contain the "Kingdom of Vietnam" neologism. The only section that really has overlap with this article is "Historical summary". "Royal family" can also be merged into "Imperial family" with minimal adjustments. I will merge these sections myself. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039145582...1039197869 ✅, also note that user "Laska666" had already copied the imperial family trees before the AfD closed as they envisioned this article to be purely about the imperial family (see "Draft:Lê dynasty") and I created the infobox based on their concept. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * What's left to be done? — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , as of this version the sections "Etymology" (could be merged with "Names" here), ALL of "Historical summary", and at "Government" the sections (§) "Flags" and "Emperor" (kind of odd as user "Laska666" often replaced the title "Emperor" with "King" for Vietnamese monarchs whenever they could), sections from the lead can also be integrated into "History".


 * I am not sure about the "Flags" section as it contradicts quite a bit of other literature I've read on the topic but it's well-sourced so I would rather have it be scrutinised by others.


 * Oddly enough I don't get any pings on Wikipedia, I can't remember having actually been "pinged" by my notifications at the English-language Wikipedia this entire year. Something fishy is going on. I didn't have the time to do more as I am quite busy with a lot of other projects both on-wiki and off-wiki, but I will try to help whenever I can so please continue to "ping" me if you need more help. As I believe that the content from it is very important and beyond the lead very little re-uses the --Donald Trung (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039212764...1039336384 ✅. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039337771...1039339930 ✅. Now only "Historical summary" is left. --Donald Trung (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Historical summary
, can you do the section "Kingdom of Vietnam"? --Donald Trung (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * , having taken a deep look at the content, the information in this article in its current state has surprisingly very little about this period, but I still not know what from this current version to "cut". As an inclusionist I always have a lot of trouble "cutting" and "trimming" things and I have trouble deciding what to remove during the import. So I think that, for me at least, it would be best to let others handle the "Historical summary" section(s), the only thing really from the "Kingdom of Vietnam" article that needs changing are the few places where there's POV-pushing which is mostly confined to the titles and the end, but these sections need re-wording rather than removal. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

, I've copied the section and left the original paragraphs in as "Overview", you can redirect the old (hoax / POV-fork) article if you feel like the merger is complete. As far as I can tell all content from there is now here. However, it still needs to be re-written here and I had changed the POV-pushing during the copying, but as I neither have the time nor at present the resources (books, journal articles, Etc.) to change it into a better history I am leaving it here, also because the merger took too long as people agreed on it, but nobody actually seems to want to implement it, so I copied it with the hopes that other editors will improve upon it. --Donald Trung (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

"Vietnamese civil war"
I saw these edits and noticed more references to the "Vietnamese civil war" an article created by user "Laska666" who is known for creating their own historiography. What I can find this term doesn't seem to be used much for the Tây Sơn wars beyond Laska666' recent launch of the "civil war" article. I'm not saying that it wasn't a civil war, I just don't see this term being used that often outside of Wikipedia. Can others confirm the authenticity of the term "Vietnamese Civil War of 1789–1802".

As I have noticed a lot of POV-forks by this user in order to avoid re-writing existing articles they seem to dislike, such as the "French invasion of Vietnam" "French conquest of Vietnam" article. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to remove the likely false flag
, after months of research I really haven't been able to find any evidence of the Nguyễn Dynasty having used the claimed "Dragon Star Flag" with the big red dot, the only "first Dragon Star Flag" is the yellow-red-yellow flag as the only contemporary mentions of the flag currently in the infobox is during the Cần Vương movement as a flag of rebellion, it doesn't seem to have been an actual state symbol. I know that you found the photograph at the Tomb of Gia Long but this could be "internet fantasies leaking into real life". Could you defend the inclusion of this flag? --Donald Trung (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot really say I can defend it, but what about the yellow+blue-edged flag but without the red circle? That seemed to be very prevalent in the research you posted above? (And not just "copy-of-copy-of-copy", since it was different details and shapes etc) --Havsjö (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)




 * During my research I went through Vietnamese sources, French sources, I went through Gallica for hours a day, I really couldn't find any evidence attributing the supposed "Gia Long flag" to the Nguyễn Dynasty... Then I found this image on Wikimedia Commons. This flag was recorded in 1757 as the flag of "Tonkin, China" by the (Northern) Dutch, this is literally half a century before this flag is supposed to exist and over a century before it actually did exist. This means that a flag with a red dot was recorded but that it wasn't "a Nguyễn Dynasty flag" presumably making it a different kind of flag. The reason why I trust sources from the Dutch Republic more is because they actually had an alliance with the Revial Lê Dynasty during their war with the Nguyễn and had long contact with the "Tonkinese" and judging from Dutch-made cannons for the Trịnh they knew about local symbolism. This illustration just showcases that the flag did exist, it just doesn't how it existed. The design strikes me as a "temple flag" or "battle banner" or "war flag" or "merchant flag". But as Wikipedia isn't the place for original research (Musée Annam should take notes from that page) I didn't put it anywhere as it doesn't prove the Nguyễn Dynasty claims and beyond this I can't find much information about the banners of the Revival Lê Dynasty and its flag culture (which wasn't comparable to that of Europe and Japan). As much as Marxists write about "Vietnamese feudalism" and "Chinese feudalism", actual feudal societies like Europe and Japan developed (near identical) flag cultures in order to differentiate between local lords and differing levels of authority and symbols of alliances, Vietnam didn't do this until the 20th century. The comparison here being with feudal Japan as Japan actually answers the question "What if Medieval Europe was Chinese?" (as feudal Japan had independently developed a similar society but replaced the "Roman Empire" with "China" for its cultural origins and "Christianity" with "Buddhism" for its religious traditions, but are otherwise seemingly identical) and the Japanese actually did adopt standardised flags for territories, like the European flags these didn't have serrated borders while Chinese and Vietnamese flags did.


 * Furthermore, the fact that this flag pops up all over the place and is just as commonly described as "a Chinese flag" and seems to have been used by the Revival Lê Dynasty makes it somewhat inappropriate as "a Nguyễn Dynasty flag".




 * I genuinely have no idea what this flag is and how it was used and have not been able to find any reliable source that proves its existence and usage before contact with the French. Personally I really like the fake Dragon Star Flag but would still want it removed as misinformation, I tried, I really tried to find any information about it but this flag seems to have been created by the Cần Vương movement and was directly inspired by the pro-Imperial faction of the Boshin War. There are literally no records of this flag before the Cần Vương movement and Musée Annam deliberately inserted a false sources that showcase a similar flag as A CHINESEE FLAG and leaves "Cochinchina" blank and calls it "proof".


 * So if such a flag existed it wasn't standardised and was also (if not primarily) used by the Manchu Qing Dynasty. The precedent here is that if it is included here it should also be included at the Manchu Qing Dynasty article as more evidence supports it there. I really like the flag, I really hate to see it go, but I really can't defend its inclusion outside of the context of the Cần Vương movement. I have no idea how the only depiction of it places it at the Revival Lê Dynasty but that isn't something I can explain with the resources I have currently available to me either. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the yellow flag without red circle might be real. In 1863, a envoy from Vietnam led by Phan Thanh Giản traveled to France to negotiate the Cochinchinese provinces taken by France. Vice-ambassador Phạm Phú Thứ wrote a record of this trip called 西行日記 (Diary of the Journey to the West). In it, he told an incident of when they were in Suez, the French official Rieuner needed Annamese flag to be hung according to the European custom, but the envoy told Rieuner they only brought a quốc kỳ(?). Rieuner said the flag looks like Egypt Eyalet flag, and told them to write something on it. So they used red threads to write four characters 大南欽使 on it. However there are some problems with this anecdote:


 * What did Phạm Phú Thứ mean by "quốc kỳ"? Words change their meaning through times. Unfortunately the original text (written in Classical Chinese) is not easily accessible. And even the translation is not sold anywhere.


 * Why did Rieuner said the envoy flag looks like Egypt flag? The flag of Egypt in 1863 is red, so it means the envoy's flag was red too. But how can they write red characters on a red flag? --KomradeRice (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Việt Nam
As of September 3rd (third), 2021 the section about the name "Việt Nam" reads:

"In 1802, the Jiaqing Emperor of the Qing dynasty rejected Gia Long's proposal to name his nation Nam Việt after the ancient state, and instead bestowed the name Việt Nam (越南) by imperial decree during Gia Long's reign. It was known as Đại Việt Nam (大越南) by nations other than Qing China. The abbreviation Đại Việt (大越, which means "Great Viet") was forbidden, since it was the name used by several previous dynasties as well.

The earliest attested usage of the Việt designation used by the Vietnamese to refer to themselves dated back to the 10th century were found on brick inscriptions. Nam Việt (Viets, Yueh,... of the South) was also used by the Vietnamese to refer to themselves as early as on an Buddhist inscription dated 973 AD. During the Ly period (11th-12th century), two inscriptions in vernacular Vietnamese script also engraved the Cự Việt kingdom, lit. Great Viet kingdom. By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, educated Vietnamese called themselves and their people as nguoi viet and nguoi nam, which combined to become nguoi viet nam (Vietnamese people). However, this designation was for the Vietnamese themselves and not for the whole country."

Attribution: "Nguyễn dynasty" & "Kingdom of Vietnam" (please check their histories for more proper attribution).

After some research I can't seem to actually confirm most of the story and I strongly suspect that" Vietnamese modernists" or "Vietnamese contemporarists" (not sure how to call these types of Vietnamese ultranationalists that try to project "Việt Nam anno 2021" onto every aspect of the Vietnamese past) tried to justify the modern name of "Việt Nam" by working it back into its history. Concerning "" I have been able to verify "Người Việt" and "Người Nam" but not a common usage of "Người Việt Nam" then (or even a usage of the term) and it isn't even that common today as usually "Người Việt" is still preferred (though "Người Việt Nam" is the correct formal name). The thing is that why would "Việt Nam" be a common name? If the people are "Việt" and they are from the South (Nam) then "Nam Việt" (Southern Việt) would have always been preferred over "Việt Nam" (South of the Việt) which would indicate that the people aren't Việt.

Professor Kelley notes that the Đại Nam thực lục, as well as Chinese sources like the Qing shilu (Veritable Records of the Qing) claim that Sun Yuting (孫玉庭), then-governor of Guangxi didn't want to have the territory be named "Nam Việt" because he associated it with the original Kingdom of Nam Việt and saw it as a bad omen (thinking that it meant that the Nguyễn would want to annex Guangxi and Guangdong), this is noted in the current story but attributes it to the Jiaqing Emperor. The Qing shilu, Jiaqing reign, 111/11b further states that Sun Yuting noted that the name "Việt Nam" meant that the country is "South of the Việt", hence not Việt to confirm that the country should have no claims to the historical Bách Việt (百越) territories. Of course there are multiple interpretations of the name "Việt Nam" but the person that pushed for the name (who wasn't even Vietnamese) did so specifically so the Vietnamese would explicitly not be Việts. The current reading presents the name "Việt Nam" as a natural evolution of the people considering themselves Việt (something which most of Southern China in one way or another with how various provinces call themselves, see for example "Việt opera"), but in reality the opposite seems to be true. I am planning on re-writing it with appropriate sources, but wonder how much of the original I should leave in there as it might misrepresent the origins of the name "Việt Nam" (remember that the Gia Long Emperor did not want this name but "Nam Việt"). --Donald Trung (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, it is important to note that the Gia Long Emperor did not want to call his country after the old Kingdom of Nam Việt, he wanted to create a portmanteau of Annam (安南, the Revival Lê Dynasty's territory or "Outer Việt Nam", despite being the original homeland) and Việt Thường (越裳, the territory of the Nguyễn Lords or "Inner Việt Nam" despite being newly conquered territories, which would be like Californians calling New York "the frontier", but that's a different diussion, but does play to show how the Vietnamese seem to suck at geography). The reason why Việt Thường (越裳) was chosen was because at the time Việt scholars believed that the original Nguyễn territory was the homeland of this clan that was mentioned in early Chinese texts. So it might not be wise to put references to older interpretations of the term "Việt" which are likely unrelated to Gia Long's etymology of the name. According to the Qing shilu the name "Việt Nam" was proclaimed by the Jiaqing Emperor on 18 July 1803 and not in 1804, perhaps the Vietnamese adopted the new name later, but the Qing source puts it at this date. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical of this theory. The Nam Viet kingdom, or Trieu dynasty, was traditionally thought of as a Vietnamese kingdom. Are you saying that Gia Long was unaware of this when he came up with the name "Nam Viet"? He took two essentially random Chinese characters and stuck them together based on some odd misunderstandings? By Gia Long's time, there was already a series of Vietnamese states with "Viet" in the name. All these names are ultimately derived from Nam Viet.


 * Modern historians no longer think of Nam Viet as Vietnamese. It's capital was in Guangzhou. It ruled An Duong's Au Lac kingdom as a conquered state. So perhaps we can think of it as proto-Cantonese. Modern Vietnamese learn a very silly story about Nam Viet conquering Au Lac with the help of a talking turtle. (It is OK to kill your daughter if a turtle tells you do it.)


 * Here is A History the of the Vietnamese (2013) by K.W. Taylor: In 1802, Vietnamese envoys to the Qing court were instructed to propose Nam Viet as the name of their new country. The message sent with the envoys cited the ancient kingdom of Nam Viet founded by Zhao To in Guangdong and Guangxi at the beginning of the Han dynasty as an auspicious precedent because it had pacified and civilized all the southern territories. Furthermore, the message gave the name a new contemporary meaning as representing the unification of all the Vietnamese lands: “Now, the South (Nam) has been swept of rebels and the whole realm of Viet has been restored to normalcy.” 99to99 (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm still doing additional research, if I find one source that contradicts another my interest is always peaked so I do more additional research. Kelley mentions a number of sources namely the Đại Nam thực lục, the Qing shilu (Jiaqing reign), and the Bang giao lục. I have been going through the Đại Nam thực lục myself but unfortunately the Wikisource version is severely lacking so I have been using the Nôm Foundation one which might use a different pages classification than Kelley. Anyhow, Taylor is one of the most trusted names in the Anglophone scholarship of Vietnamese history so I see little reason to doubt him, but I am examining the counterevidence and wonder how I should present it (again, after first going through the sources mentioned).


 * What brought me here was a user on another talk page linking this page which lists instances of "Viet Nam" before the Nguyễn Dynasty period compiled by an amateur researcher named Trương Thái Du (formerly a Marine Engineer). Below it there is a comment section with this interesting comment: "" by the person in the comment section named "Tích Dã". This proposes a more ancient origin of the name "Việt". I haven't seen any photographs of that temple but this (partially) explains the evolving meaning of "Đại Việt", "Việt Nam", and of course "Nam Việt". But of course a comment section comment can't be cited as a source so I am still investigating it. What is further interesting is that "" which means that in 917 the "Kingdom of Đại Việt" was founded, in 918 it became "The Empire of Đại Hán", and in 939 Tĩnh Hải quân became independent which eventually became Đại Cồ Việt Quốc (大瞿越國) and later Đại Việt Quốc (大越國) taking the name of its old ruler.


 * I don't think that viewing the old Nam Việt as "proto-Cantonese" would be wise as people at the time didn't think in the way of modern people and none of the countries that exist today existed then, both Southern Chinese and Vietnamese identify themselves as "Việt" and it would give the Vietnamese "more legitimacy" if they would associate themselves with a "Việt" even older than Nam Việt, but then again I am still researching this topic. It just seems like a downgrade to go from Great Việt to Southern Việt while its territory expanded.


 * By the way, killing your daughter because a turtle says so would make sense if it were wearing a funny hat as they symbolise authority, otherwise I wouldn't ever listen to turtle. But that's just me. --Donald Trung (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Of course, the old "Nam Việt" was greater in size than "Đại Việt" ever was, the name could also have been used to try to connect to an even older origins (something the Vietnamese both then and today seem to be obsessed about), but the latter hypothesis wouldn't work if "Đại Việt" was already named after "Nam Việt". --Donald Trung (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I just want to say something. Many researchers mention Đại Nam thực lục when they talk about the origin of Việt Nam and Nam Việt. But it seems no one has read it. Because the book clearly says Gia Long choosed Nam Việt because it's the name of Cochinchina.


 * Các đời trước mở mang cõi viêm bang, mỗi ngày một rộng, bao gồm cả các nước Việt Thường, Chân Lạp, dựng quốc hiệu là Nam Việt, truyền nối hơn 200 năm. Nay đã quét sạch miền Nam, vỗ yên được toàn cõi Việt, nên khôi phục hiệu cũ để chính danh tốt. (Vietnamese translation)


 * And Vietnam is combination of Nam Việt and An Nam (An Nam refers to Tonkin)


 * Khi trước mới có Việt Thường đã xưng Nam Việt, nay lại được toàn cõi An Nam, theo tên mà xét thực thì nên tóm cả đất đai mở mang trước sau, đặt cho tên tốt, định lấy chữ Việt mào ở trên để tỏ rằng nước ta nhân đất cũ mà nối được tiếng thơm đời trước, lấy chữ Nam đặt ở dưới để tỏ rằng nước ta mở cõi Nam giao mà chịu mệnh mới, tên xưng chính đại, chữ nghĩa tốt lành, mà đối với tên gọi cũ của Lưỡng Việt ở nội địa lại phân biệt hẳn.


 * The usage of Nam Việt before Gia Long was attested by the Dictionarium Anamitico-Latinum, page 631 and page 323 by Pierre Pigneau de Behaine written around 1773-1774. Though according to this dictionary Nam Việt was used to call both Tonkin and Cochinchina, rather than just Cochinchina like Đại Nam thực lục said. Interestingly, this dictionary doesn't have an entry for Đại Việt or Việt Nam, though Jean-Louis Taberd added those words in later edition printed under Minh Mạng. --KomradeRice (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything here to support the idea that the nam in Nam Viet comes from Annam, if that's what you are arguing. When the country as a whole was called Dai Viet, the term "Nam Viet" logically referred to the southern part of Dai Viet. But this meaning is unrelated to Gia Long's proposal: "Our country uses the old land to connect with the fragrant language of the previous generation." In other words, the motive for proposing the name "Nam Viet" was to signal a return to old names and old ways. That argument would not make much sense if the proposed name was a variation on contemporary names like Annam or Viet Thuong.
 * Taylor cites Philippe Langlet's L’Ancienne Historiographie d’État au Vietnam (1985–1990). This is a multivolume collection of documents from this period translated into French. So he could have access to Gia Long's instructions to the envoys. That would be a better source than traditional histories or dictionaries. 99to99 (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Nam Việt is simply the old name of Cochinchina and not a combination of An Nam and Việt Thường, or re-adoption of Nanyue like many suggested.


 * Also I think Taylor used the translation of the Đại Nam thực lục as source, based on what you quote. However he probably made a mistake of not considering the meaning of "ruled for 200 years". Indeed, this phrase means that the "auspicious precedent" was the Nguyễn lords, who ruled Cochinchina for 200 years, not Zhao's Nanyue like what Taylor thought (Nanyue only existed for 100 years)

KomradeRice (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)