Talk:Bảo Đại

message: 1) It has been disputed as to whether or not Bao Dai was actually Khai Dinh's son. Oscar Chapuis' book "The Last Emperors of Vietnam" says as much. I do not believe it because the two looked so much alike, but it should be noted.
2) It should be mentioned that Empress Nam Phuong did not enjoy her marriage and her husband's constant infidelities; in the Chapuis book he relates how she almost shot Bao Dai at one point. Also, Bao Dai did not convert to Catholicism to marry her -that is absurd. He was a Confucian Vietnamese Emperor when he married her and to become a Catholic would have been absolutely impossible for someone still claiming to be the "Son of Heaven". He converted to Catholicism decades later while in exile in France.
3)This statement is POV and makes no sense, "The Japanese promised not to interfere with the court at Hue but in 1945 forced Bao Dai to declare Vietnam's independence from France as a member of Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere." The Japanese had a Vietnamese pretender, Prince Cuong De, waiting to take power in case Bao Dai refused."
-By saying they had someone waiting to take his place if he chose NOT to collaborate proves that he DID have a choice -and he chose to cooperate with the Japanese.
4) This statement "Bao Dai still held great influence among political figures in the Quang Tri and Thua Thien Provinces and also in the city of Hue, the ancient capital of Vietnam. The Communist government of North Vietnam sent representatives to France hoping that Bao Dai would become a member of a coalition government to re-unite Vietnam, which would also attract his supporters in the regions where he has influence." -should have some sources provided to back it up -I seriously doubt Bao Dai had any considerable support after jumping ship so many times from France to Japan to Ho Chi Minh and back to France to keep his own position.
5) This is incomplete information: "While in the United States, Emperor Bao Dai gauged opinion among the exiled Vietnamese-American community, hoping to find a route towards national reconciliation." -it is POV because it does not go on to state the results of this effort; that he found no support and was treated rather harshly by many Vietnamese-Americans again because of his past history of selling them out so many times to save his own lifestyle.
This article, and many other modifications that have been done to Nguyen emperors pages is extremely biased. You will not find one serious, scholarly book or article that speaks about Bao Dai or most of his predecessors in anywhere close to such glowing terms. Like all dynasties in decline (much like the Qing in China) they were extremely unpopular and seen as corrupt, luxury-minded and subservient to foreign rule. Bao Dai in particular was thought of in this way since he grew up and was educated by Vietnam's rulers and tormentors, was known for all of his many mistresses and gambling, and while his people were starving and being taxed to death he was going on big hunting trips and building massive palaces in the south -and all based on French architecture just to add insult to injury.
The pro-Nguyen revisionism agenda being pushed on Wikipedia needs to stop. NguyenHue 02:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: THIS ARTICLE HAS MANY NNPOV VIOLATIONS AND SIMPLE FACTUAL ERRORS

message: -Emperor Bao Dai visit to the United States: Link: []
-"Bao Dai still held great influence among political figures in the Quang Tri and Thua Thien Provinces and also in the city of Hue, the ancient capital of Vietnam. The Communist government of North Vietnam sent representatives to France hoping that Bao Dai would become a member of a coalition government to re-unite Vietnam, which would also attract his supporters in the regions where he has influence."
The Quang 1205 Document: []
Bnguyen 23:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Emperor Bao Dai info is neutral

message: Yes, yes, you have posted this link over and over again, but it is not from a neutral source and says nothing about the overall success of the visit. Personally, I doubt Bao Dai would have been so naive to have the grand goals in mind that you claim, but that's another matter.
Further, saying what someone else said is not proof of anything. Can you present anything to validate that second document? Can you show any documented evidence of the Emperor's supposed popularity in this one province?
NguyenHue 05:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  try again 

message: I'm interested in the fact that this article, which amounts to a hagiography, has no discussion of collaboration between Bao Dai and the Japanese, or with the French, and the deep resentment and problems this caused for many Vietnamese in the civil war, and in the resistance during the colonial/Japanese period.
THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS BIASED NON-NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW STATEMENTS WITH REGARD TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FREE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH VIETNAM.... so fix it.123.21.243.54 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Completely unbalanced article, no discussion of collaboration

message: We need context for these quotes. When did he issue them? Funnyhat 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section 

message: :Image:Bao Dai Time.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bao Dai Time.jpg

message: By now, it should be noted that "Prince" Buu Chanh, took upon himself the responsibility to reorganize the former Emperor's Order of the Dragon of Annam. An excellent article on this event is covered in Mr Guy Stair Sainty's book, "Burke's Peerage and Gentry - World Orders of Knighthood & Merit" on page 1879. According to Wikipedia, "Order of the Dragon of Annam" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon_of_Annam  "Prince Bảo Vang of Vietnam currently serves as the Grandmaster of the Order of the Dragon of Annam [1] under Crown Prince Bảo Long of Vietnam. The position is non-political in Vietnamese politics and the role of the royal family under the leadership of Crown Prince Bảo Long is for humanitarian, educational, and cultural endeavors of the people of Vietnam." 
Actually "Prince" Buu Chanh "stepped down" to allow the rightful leader and Crown Prince Bao Long access to the order. Initially I worked for Mr. Buu Chanh but was later rewarded an honorary title and knighthood in the Order by Prince Bảo Vang under the authority of the Crown Prince. 
Mr. Buu Chanh, a great patron for Vietnamese freedom lives in Chicago. He is no longer involved in anyway with the Order. It should be noted that the Order revived under questionable authority (Sainty) is now a true and recognized order of the Imperial House of Annam. It is not a state order of Vietnam which has several important and prestigious orders of merit. There are still some followers of Mr. Buu Chanh.
Dr Lindgren 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Information on the Emperor's Order of Annam 

message: :Image:Paris-Emperor Bao Dai.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Paris-Emperor Bao Dai.jpg

message: I have just cleaned up the lead  per MOS:INTRO. Reason: a half of the lead are informations which regard to Bảo Đại's titles and era name.--Amore Mio (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: In the introduction, we read that he was king from 1926 to 1945, yet ascended the throne in 1932.  How is this possible?  I presume one of these dates is an error. Mat Teja (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is ridiculous and unacceptable that this question has not been responded to for a full four years, with the discrepancy of the year of this emperor's enthronement being stated as both 1926 and 1932 in the current version of this article. This is the kind of thing that undermines this project's credibility Please fix! 173.89.236.187 (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Mix-up 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Minh Mang which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 01:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: So, User:202.82.141.40 recently added the following passages to this article and virtually the same passages to the Ho Chi Minh article: "It has been widely held that Vietminh or Ho Chi Minh founded the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam by themselves. However, the fact is, as Stanley Karnow in his classic book "Vietnam - A History" has put it, "Nothing has reinforced the Vietminh cause more than the mercurial Bao Dai's decision to abdicate. For his gesture conferred the "mandate of heaven' on Ho, giving him the legitimacy that, in Vietnamese eyes, had traditionally resided in the emperor."
"Thus, the last emperor Bảo Đại played a decisive role in the founding of the independent Democratic Republic of Vietnam; his benevolent willingness to transfer the power to Ho results in a peaceful change of government".
As they currently stand, these lines are totally unsourced (unless you count the namecheck of Karnow's book) and they seem to display a strong pro-Bảo Đại bias. I am thinking especially of words like "benevolent" and "the fact is", which are neither NPOV nor encyclopedic. How would people feel about removing these passages? I have raised the same issue on the Ho Chi Minh talk page and would like to here other people's opinions, as I'm reluctant to make any sizable changes without prior discussion. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some recent pro-Bảo Đại additions to the article of dubious neutrality. 

message: First of all let's point out some errors
'''
- Marriages:'''
   1) Phu Anh is not a correct name, the correct name is Lê Thị Phi Ánh.
   2) Phi Ánh gave birth to a daughter and a son, princess Phương Minh and prince Bảo Ân
   3) Bùi Mộng Điệp gave birth to 3 children, prince Bảo Hoàng, prince Bảo Sơn, and princess Phương Thảo
   4) Regarding Patrick-Edouard Bloch as the last son of Bảo Đại, can someone point me the source to this claim?
On to the remaining of the article:
Some of the sources used in this material are biased or based on other sources that are biased. We should consider a couple things:
- Independence and abdication:
* Bảo Đại was a victim of a war/political propaganda that was created by both the Vietnamese communists and Ngô Đình Diệm's fraudulent campaign to tarnish his political influence while enhancing their own legitimacy to power.
* Bảo Đại was an advocate of peace, he strongly believed in fighting for the independence his country using diplomacy. He did everything he could to keep Vietnam from falling into another bloodbath.
* After overthrowing the French, the Japanese offered Bảo Đại a chance to declare an independence Vietnam from the French. This offer was unconditional, according to Japanese ambassador Yokoyama. While having some doubts at first, but Bảo Đại accepted this offer. Bảo Đại saw this as an opportunity to annul the effects of the French protectorate treaty signed in 1884 (Treaty of Huế 1884), in which, the colonial French promised to protect the emperor from any opposing forces (article 15). While the French did violated the treaty, there were still a number of bodies in France saw this as an traitorous act, thus there was an anti-Bao Dai sentiment among the French press and literature during that time.Frédéric Mitterrand "Du côté de chez Fred": Interviews de Bao Dai
* Vietnam was declared independent by Bảo Đại on March 11, 1945. He appointed Trần Trọng Kim, a renowned Vietnamese historian, as government's new prime minister. Initially, the Japanese only return the control of Trung Bộ (central region of Vietnam) to the new government, but diplomatic attempts by Bảo Đại government at the Japanese had gained them the control of Bắc Bộ (northern region of Vietnam) and eventually Nam Bộ (southern region of Vietnam or Cochin-chine) in August 14, 1945, marking the complete unification of the country. It is also note worthy that Bảo Đại new government did not immediately establishing a ministry of defense, deliberately, due to the fear that the Japanese might use it to fight their war and due to the fact that they required more time to build up the capacity of their future arm forces. The new Vietnamese governmental affairs were completely under the Vietnamese control, the government officers no longer have to report to the French or the Japanese.
* According to Frédéric Mitterrand's interview with Bảo Đại, which was aired on French national TV (Antenne 2), the Japanese did request the new Vietnamese government to aid them in their war campaign. However, Bảo Đại refused, reasoning that now Vietnam is independent, no one can impose any demands on the independent Vietnam or her people.
* Following the Japanese surrender, according to Yalta and Potsdam Agreements, the remaining Japanese military forces in Vietnam were to act as a security force and were not to be disarmed until the arrival of the Allies. On August 19 1945, Việt Minh staged a revolt in Ha Nội and successfully took over Bắc Bộ. Around that time the Japanese force that garrisoned in Hue had already anticipated a possible Việt Minh's coup, and was ready to squash it. However, Bảo Đại ordered them to stand down, saying: "I do not wish a foreign army to spill the blood of my people'"
* Bảo Đại abdicated on August 25, 1945. He explained in his own autobiography Le Dragon D' Annam (Bao Dai, 1980): "They [the Vietnamese] want a revolution? I will give them a revolution, but without bloodshed...".
-Return to power and Indochina War
* Vietnam descended into armed conflict due to two things: Communism and the return of the French. At the time of the Việt Minh's August Revolution, the Vietnamese, including Bảo Đại himself, had very little knowledge of what communism was. In the beginning the Vietnamese communists disguised themselves as anti-French patriots to join with Việt Nam Cách Mạng Đồng Minh Hội, which was a faction originally consisted of non-communist patriots. They quickly gained control of the faction, either by persuading/threatening other patriotic members to join their communist party and through assassinations. They later changed the faction's name to Việt Nam Độc Lập Đồng Minh Hội or Việt Minh in short. 
* After his abdication, Bảo Đại agreed to serve as Hồ Chí Minh's "supreme advisor" due to the fact that he trusted that Hồ was a patriot, that he could bring back the stability to Vietnam with the supports of the people as well as the Allies countries such as China, the United States, and France. Little did he know that he was being played into the communist' propaganda machine. While working with Hồ, Bảo Đại quickly realized that Hồ Chí Minh only used his present to gain legitimacy for Hồ's newly formed "interim" government. He also met Vũ Trọng Khánh, Hồ's minister of Justice. Through Vũ, only then Bảo Đại realized that Hồ was a communist.  
* When the Chinese army arrived in Hà Nội on Sept 9 1945, assuming their role of disarming the Japanese remaining forces, they caused quite a ruckus for the Hồ's "interim" government. On the one hand, the Chinese used the Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đảng (Vietnamese Kuomintang) to pitch against Hồ's party, disrupting its operations in Bắc Bộ region. On the other hand, they extorted Hồ by challenging his legitimacy to lead the country. Fearing the situation might get ouy of control, Hồ convinced the French to assume the Chinese's role instead. However, Hồ also feared that inviting the French back into Bắc Bộ might cause resentments in the rank of his followers and might even lose the supports of the people, he bribed the occupying Chinese (with gold) in return they would force all of these "shills" opposing factions to join with Hồ's government. This way, Việt Minh wouldn't have to take all the blame themselves when they sign with the French.  
* Hồ Chí Minh reasoned that to ensure that the Chinese keep their end of the bargain, Bảo Đại, now the "supreme advisor", should to go to China to seek audience with Chiang Kai-Shek in Chongqing. Bảo Đại refused at first, but later requested to go along with the appointed delegation included: 4 Việt Minh representatives and 2 Việt Nam Quốc Dân Đàng representatives. He was "abandoned" in China "until further notice" by Hồ Chí Minh after meeting with Chiang Kai-Shek, without any money or luggage. Hồ left Bảo Đại a note urged him to stay in China because "it would be more beneficial" if he was not to come back to Hà Nội. After staying in Chongqing for more than a month, with the helps of a few friends he went to Shang-Hai, and then Hong Kong.
-Conclusion
Many of the sources used for this wiki page of Bảo Đại need to be scrutinized.  A large chunk of information used in this wiki page is used from the books of David G. Marr ("Vietnam: State, War, Revolution, 1945-1946" and "Vietnam 1945: The Quest for Power"), and his books are heavily biased and pro-communists.  I will not write a review for the books here, but you can read it here: http://repository.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2433/192787/1/sas_3_3_669.pdf.  A lot of the sources used in those books are also questionable, which leads me to think that some of the information is fabricated.  For example Marr cited a source called "Annam Himitsu Butai" by Kaneko Noboru taken from Shuukan Yomiuri (Yomiuri Weekly), which does not exist.  Another the source that he used is from Phạm Khắc Hòe, who was a communist sympathizer, if you know anything about communism, you know that anything that come from the influence of communism can't be trusted.  There are many more.
So, based on what I've found and presented above, I can't agree with what is written here on the current wiki page of Bảo Đại.  What is written is purely one-sided point of view that was based on false information and sources. And that needs to be corrected.
Lennytran (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is wiki page of Bảo Đại more of a one-sided argument than a page of knowledge 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bảo Đại. 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/20070705175416/http://image.pegs.com/images/VS/1744/1744_b1.jpg to http://image.pegs.com/images/VS/1744/1744_b1.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WP:FORUM The "Remarks" section look like someone's personal essay on Bao Dai, which I think do not belong here.
WP:SOAP "You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions."
Example: 
- "Before finishing this article, readers should consider a few things". Wikipedia reader should consider anything at writer's suggestion? No, they shouldn't.
- "One can’t help but wonder why."
- "Let us discuss about the relationship between the Japanese and Vietnam.". No, let's not. Not here.
- "Was it because he took a jab at the American pride by accepting the offer that Japanese, an enemy of the U.S., presented to him to secure the independence of his country? Suddenly Bảo Đại, or anybody for that matter, became "the collaborator", "the traitor", the antagonist because he shook hand with the enemy of the United States? Was this a standardized American view of him?".
With these point, I would like to remove the "Remarks" section. "Independence and abdication" and "Return to power and Indochina War" subsection will be integrated to the section of the same name. "Collaboration" section should be removed entirely. Nmphuong91 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too illustrative of a point and too much of soapbox to speak directly to "readers" in the article prose and then have what amounts to a followup counter-article. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and as mentioned, if the two accounts were not of the single purpose variety, they would know this is not how things are done here. Find a way to integrate the content better into the article as fluid prose. We cannot have two-articles-in-one or the article contradicting itself. El_C 21:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of remarks section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bảo Đại. 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/20080626143559/http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-08/07/Photos/AT080403.jpg to http://vietnamnews.vnanet.vn/2004-08/07/Photos/AT080403.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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) 04:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Why put Chinese characters in an English-language article on Vietnam? Because they are "Hán tự "? This is basically a Wikipedia word, someone trying to confuse editors into thinking that Vietnamese use Chinese characters. It is an old-fashioned, or "Sino-Vietnamese," word for "traditional Chinese characters." Modern usage is chữ Hán. Classical Chinese lost official status at the time of the May Fourth Movement of 1919. Bao Dai ascended to the throne in 1926. Even if Chinese was official at the relevant time, it would be like using Latin in articles on Medieval Europe. 99to99 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical Chinese didn't lose its official status "at the time of the May Fourth Movement of 1919", that is neither true for China (where it continued to be officially used in the Mainland until 1949 and in Taiwan until the 1970's) nor Vietnam (where it was used in official documents as late as 1945). Likewise, Latin is also relevant in articles about Medieval Europe for the fact that many European countries continued to use Latin officially well until the Early Modern Era. Plenty of Classical Chinese documents were still being produced that used Traditional Chinese characters in Annam and Tonkin. --Donald Trung (talk)  21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hán tự  

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Bao Dai is listed as "convert to catholicism" in the categories.
The categories are: Converts to Roman Catholicism from Buddhism, Vietnamese Roman Catholics
Yet the article speaks nothing about such conversion. Did he actually convert? And if not, why is "Roman Catholicism" in the infobox and in the categories? --- Running 16:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I found sources and added a short blurb about his baptism. There is also this, but that's as far from neutral as it can get, although I think it's mostly true - https://aleteia.org/2022/08/28/the-incredible-story-of-the-baptism-of-bao-dai-the-last-emperor-of-vietnam/ (requires registration) - but I decided against adding it as a source. - Running 19:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "convert to catholicism"?? 

message: 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) 00:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion