Talk:Tây Sơn dynasty

2008

It is true that the Tay Son rebellion (and especially the characters of Quang Trung) might have been greatly exaggerated and idolised by popular beliefs. However, to be completely fair, it should be pointed out that the literatures quoted to point at the contrary (i.e. Quang Trung was vicious and uneducated peasant) are also not free of bias: "Hoang Le Nhat Thong Chi" was basically written from the perspective of the Le loyalists. It is no surprising then to them, the Tay Son rebellion is nothing but that: a peasant rebellion and Quang Trung, its leader, being nothing but a particularly vicious peasant with some leadership skills. "To Quoc An Nan" mentions Quang Trung as a cruel and violent character but it does so in the context of a Vietnamese criticising his own country's history as being written to idolise violent militarists. In a way, it was more of a humanist's commentary on history rather than a matter-of-factly discussion of history. One can hardly counter anecdotal evidences with personal points of view, after all neither is the point of Wikipedia. But then again, historical writings from that time period were commonly wrought with propaganda. The best approach is probably to introduce both sides of the arguments along with all propaganda exposed and analysed.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.47.195 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The chapter state with poor knowledge and historical facts Just line Furius stated: large amount of propaganda, 1) Untrue fact: Under this dynasty there almost none of the Vietnamese fallow or knew of Christian to be prosecuted! The Nguyen kings allowed Christianity in Vietnam after the Portuguese and French missionaries arrived! 2) Many facts stated about Quang Trung Dynasty are untrue and extorted. Please be aware that this can be liable in a court of the Law! so State only but the truth and facts. ...

This article contains a large amount of propaganda such as "Peasants were slaves" and so on. I am sure that they were, but it doesn't seem provable, and I am sure they were just as enslaved under Tay Son rule. The whole page seems a little pro-Tay Son. I lack any real knowledge in this area, though, so if someone who has knowledge of this period could wikify this, please do. Furius

Many documents about the Tayson dynasty were changed or destroyed under the pressure of Nguyen Dynasty,even the tomb of Nguyen Hue (king of Tayson) was destroyed and now,vietnamese don't know where it is.Second,Every history writer at that time belongs to 1 side,so their comments are not so fair.Besides that,we have to consider about the thinking way of officers at that time,who followed the sentence "quân xử thần tử thần bất tử bất trung" means "when king decides you to die,you have to die,if not,you are a traitor".An officer had to follow his king no matter what did the king do.So it is not strange when a officer consider his king's enemy as a tyrant.That's my opinion.Vietblood

Etymology

Does it mean "western mountains" (西山朝)? Badagnani (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the "First Tet Offensive" of 1798?

This important part of history needs to be mentioned.Sea888 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Source of references

www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/17_18_century/3027111.html?page=1&c=y: This article "The First Tet Offensive of 1789", By Spencer C. Tucker, i put forward to a few Vietnamese friends. As a byproduct of our little chat, the Vietnamese friends mentioned that this little guy Nguyen Hue was actually poisoned by his own imperial court advisers because he wouldn't listen to them. The advisers opposed to his plan of reclaiming ancient Vietnamese territories lost to the Chinese. The Vietnamese friends couldn't provide me with any references for further readings however. Could somebody come up and help? Thankx in advance. (Can't read Vietnamese or Chinese documents)

By the way, would you consider marrying your enemy's daughter just to reclaim something from him? They would. The mainpage reads like that. Ancient East-Asian history is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.58.21.26 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Name

Britannica`s corresponding article is entitled "Tay Son brothers." Vietnam: A Global Studies Handbook and Corfield's The History of Vietnam say "Tay Son dynasty". Kauffner (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner, as with your other moves, if you want to move this article then the thing to do is put in a RM. Use of db-G6 to get an admin to do it for you without telling the admin that there has been a contary RM discussion immediately previous is not the way to go about things. And then to enforce your undiscussed db-G6 move by edit warring with the edit summary "WP:BRD" is inappropriate. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If admin moves something at my request, its my move. But if one moves an article at your request, it is an admin move. This is such legalistic nonsense. It shouldn't matter who moved the article. It was stable at this location for ten months. Kauffner (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner,

(1) No, when on 21 February 2012‎ you placed a db-G6 template on the Talk:Tây Sơn Dynasty page with "db-G6 Remove Vietnamese diacritics as these are rare in published English, see Britannica that is your move. That is exactly the same as if you did the undiscussed move with your own hands. Db-G6 depends on good faith of Users not to use it as a proxy for controversial moves. This is true isn't it?

(2) As for why nobody noticed it for 10 months, that's not strictly the case is it. You had received at least 3 separate editor messages on your Talk page following Talk:Cần Thơ RM 07 August 2011 requesting you to stop making undiscussed moves. You received others after. This is also true isn't it?

(3) And why would JamesBWatson or any of the other db-G6 admins notice the 07 August RM, because you began removing Talk page notifications on 27 August 2011‎. This is also true isn't it? Though IP activity to conceal RM history didn't begin until 24 February 2012‎ 118.69.173.222. This is also true isn't it? You have admitted these IPs were you.

In sum anyone who succeeds in making 500x db-G6 moves counter and after an RM result cannot blame the admins who actioned those db-G6 templates in good faith.

Anyway, have you ceased using db-G6 now? Or do you intend to keep using that route? In ictu oculi (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

G6 is an established procedure for making this type of request. What guideline or help page recommends requesting a move on an admin's talk page? Kauffner (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

18:19, 27 August 2011‎

14:07, 6 October 2011‎

If you truly believed that db-G6 was an "established procedure" for making moves which have been been refused at RM, then why do you need to remove notice of failed RM from Talk page before requesting a db-G6?

Please explain this.

Likewise if you truly believed that db-G6 was an "established procedure" for making moves which have been been refused at RM, then why would you need to log out to use an IP puppet to archive the failed RM?

Alternatively,

You say your db-G6 aren't controversial, but the lengths you went to to hide the evidence of contrary RMs indicates that you know that your db-G6 moves are controversial.

However if you can find a db-G6 admin among all those who have actioned your moves who agrees with you that your db-G6 follow established procedure per Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves then produce them. You have had over a dozen different db-G6 admins action your moves. You should be able to find one among that dozen you can approach who is completely satisfied that your use of db-G6 template was according to "established procedure".

In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait wait wait, so that Kaufner said to remove diacritics because Britannica and some books use that form. Perfect, then I say we will keep the diacritics because of WP:RETAIN and lots of books also maintain the diacritics, check out: here, here, and here. The move in the past that removed diacritics was a undisscussed one. So I just reverted that. ༆ (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yig Mgo, I agree, but best leave it now, this needs to be looked at by the admin who actioned the db-G6. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay he has seen it. Article can now stay put. I have added to Watchlist in case any more moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Tributary status?

I had an edit I made to the status section of the infobox undone earlier today. From what I know, Vietnam was part of the Imperial Chinese tributary system under the Qing during this period. The source I have included below states that Vietnam participated in a tributary relationship with China, noting specific arrangements being made in 1792 (during the Tay Son dynasty).

"We have seen that the Annamese tribute is presented every four years. It is, however, held to be due biennially; though, on account of the great distance from Hue to Peking, two quotas are permitted to be sent simultaneously. A decree sanctioning this arrangement was issued in 1792, apparently at the request of the reigning king"

Because of this, I understand that there is some confusion regarding whether or not tributary status should be affixed to the status field of this article. Can anyone provide a credible source citing Vietnam's lack of tributary status under this dynasty? If not, I don't see any reason not to include the infobox status label that I implemented earlier. BUjjsp (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A tributary status is just some form of foreign relations/mission and not completely become dependent. We only add if it was a military occupation, a protectorate, or a complete foreign domination. ༆ (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it was not a dependent state, as was the case of the other tributary system members, such as Japan, Korea, the Ryukyu Kingdom, etc. This is why I linked the Imperial Chinese tributary system page as opposed to Tributary state page. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that this tributary relationship should be included in the infobox, as evidenced in the pages of the Ryukyu Kingdom, Joseon, Nguyen Dynasty, etc. BUjjsp (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Capital

Why are two capitals listed in the infobox, but neither is in Nghệ An Province? See the following text:

Taking the advice of Nguyễn Thiếp, Quang Trung decided to relocate the imperial capital in Nghệ An Province. He ordered Trần Quang Diệu to build a new citadel at the foot of Kỳ Lân Hill (modern Quyết Hill in Vinh). The new citadel was named Phượng Hoàng Trung Đô (鳳凰中都).

173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag sources?

@KomradeRice: I agree with your removal because there doesn’t seem to be much evidence for that flag. It looks like the previous image for the flag was based on the sources in List of flags of Vietnam#Imperial standards:

• Tái hiện lễ đăng quang của vua Quang Trung tại Festival Huế Archived 2008-06-10 at the Wayback Machine
• Picking up old royal standards in Vietnam Archived 2014-10-06 at the Wayback Machine

The flag definitely appears on those pages, but the sources don’t look very reliable. Perhaps there are better ones out there? — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://web.archive.org/web/20080610161135/http://60s.com.vn/index/1467632/07062008.aspx

@KomradeRice and MarkH21:, the flag is sourced to the above link, at least according to Unserefahne (A.K.A. Musée Annam), they have added both hoax and correct obscure historical flags, so the question remains how reliable the above link is. Didn't see that it was already quoted, anyhow the issue is that it's not a good contemporary primary source of the flag or a good secondary account of it, as far as we know it could be a modern invention to use for the festival. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I found a possible origin of this fictional flag, namely here:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20211009212544/https://thanhnien.vn/khanh-thanh-tuong-hoang-de-quang-trung-tai-dh-quoc-gia-tp-hcm-post540089.html

Like before, it seems to be used as a festival flag. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Problems

Tây Sơn historiography, and Vietnamese historiography as a whole suffered from a "condition" where people just repeat what other people said without checking if it's true or not. That's how the fake Tây Sơn flag is used in festival nowaday. I'll start us down. Just so you know i'll use Vietnamese sources because English sources don't really dicuss these problem deeply. And I won't talk about section that tagged needs additional citations because it's already tagged so.

The Tây Sơn flag

It is unclear where the red flag with yellow circle comes from. It seems to comes from a sentence in Ai Tư Vãn by Lê Ngọc Hân (though there are theories that it was written by Phan Huy Ích) that say "Mà nay áo vải cờ đào" (Now with cotton clothes and red flag), but it's not enough to say that it's the royal flag (it's even unclear if Vietnamese monarchs used a single flag or multiple flags for different purposes).

The earliest source I could find about this flag seems to be South Vietnam's Tập san Sử Địa (Journal of History and Geography), 1968, issue 9-10, page 187 "Một vài phương thuật để nghiêm cứu về Tây Sơn" (Some method to study the Tây Sơn) by Hồ Hữu Tường: ″Và cũng nhờ buôn bán với đồng bào thượng du, mà sau này cần chinh phục những người này theo đạo Bà La Môn, Lữ mới "xuất gia" tự xưng là Ma Ni giáo chủ, để đem cây cờ nền đỏ tròng mặt trời vàng để thuyết phục họ″ (And also thanks to the trade with the mountain people, later on to gain the support of these people who followed Brahmin, that Lữ converted to Manichaeism, claimed to be the master of the religion, and used the red flag with yellow sun to convince them). However Hồ Hữu Tường did not explain where he got all these informations.

Some minor errors

18 June 1802: It's actually the 17th day of the 6th month in Vietnamese calendar. This is a common mistake where people copy the original date in Vietnamese calendar without converting them to Gregorian calendar. I changed it to 1802 only because I don't know how to convert it.

Calling Nguyễn Quang Toản Cảnh Thịnh isn't really comprehensive because he changed his era name to Bảo Hưng in his last year.

Conquest of Trịnh lords

This entire section needs to be rewritten (I didn't because I don't know any English language sources).

Trịnh Tông's suicide was not the end of Trịnh lords. After Tây Sơn's withdrawal, Trịnh Lệ and Trịnh Bồng returned to reclaim the throne, Trịnh Bồng defeated Trịnh Lệ but then Nguyễn Hữu Chỉnh defeated Trịnh Bồng, forced him to run away (some sources said he became a Buddhist monk). That's when the reign of Trịnh lords finally ended. And then Vũ Văn Nhậm defeat Nguyễn Hữu Chỉnh and then Nguyễn Huệ killed Vũ Văn Nhậm.

Modern Vietnamese historians usually stop at Trịnh Tông and skip straight to Qing invasion, which, I assume is to give credit of overthrowing Trịnh lords to Nguyễn Huệ.

KomradeRice (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

References

@KomradeRice:, you can use Vietnamese-language sources to enhance articles, sources don't have to exclusively be in English. While this is preferred, if English-language sources spread misinformation then please correct it. --Donald Trung (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)