Talk:Tây Sơn dynasty

message: 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)
thread_title: 2008

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

message: This important part of history needs to be mentioned.Sea888 (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention of the "First Tet Offensive" of 1798?

message: 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)
thread_title: Source of references

message: 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"Gundry, 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Tributary status? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Capital

message: 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 
* Picking up old royal standards in Vietnam 
The flag definitely appears on those pages, but the sources don’t look very reliable. Perhaps there are better ones out there? — MarkH21talk 09:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flag sources? 

message: 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 Vãnhttps://www.thivien.net/Ng%E1%BB%8Dc-H%C3%A2n-c%C3%B4ng-ch%C3%BAa/Ai-t%C6%B0-v%C3%A3n/poem-IvrJaAuQMRdSETQs6RvqVg 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 187https://nhatbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Nhatbook-Tap-san-Su-dia-Dac-khao-Quang-Trung.pdf "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 Đại Nam thực lục 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 sourcesHoàng Lê nhất thống chí 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. Khâm định Việt sử thông giám cương mục
: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)
replies: text: , 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)
thread_title:  Problems