Talk:Ngô dynasty

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Vietnam High‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

It is requested that an image or photograph of Ngô dynasty be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Vietnam may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

前

Please do not remove 前 for a third time. If wishing to move it, please move it, with great care, as we should always exercise in every edit we make to every article at our encyclopedia. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you why I should not remove a unsourced information? There is no official Hán Tự for Tiền Ngô Vương because Ngô Quyền proclaimed himself Ngô Vương not Tiền Ngô VƯơng, so I can't imaged an "前吳王", "錢吳王" or "歬吳王" and put it into the article. I'm currently reading Viet Nam Su luoc of Tran Trong Kim, a respectable historian that mastered in Hán Tự, quoc ngu, French...., and he didn't add one.

OK, I provided you source but you didn't pay any attention, so I request you provide me RELIABLE source for all Hán Tự that you has just restored (two of them are wrong, same spelling sound but different character), if not I will remove them all (according to WP:SOURCE). You are abusing Hán Tự by add too much Hán Tự to every Vietnamese-related article (for example, 白藤江 represented Bạch Đằng Giang not Bạch Đằng River!), they made me, a person thay knew Hán Tự, very confused when reading.

If you find me any wrong, please report me to WP:ANI, thank for your reading.--Amore Mio (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can all add to one another's knowledge (no one knows everything). Thorough discussion of every element prior to removal is very good to do. Badagnani (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my words above is too hot, I couldn't keep my head cool when I read your edit summary.

I have observed Wikipedia community for a long time before I decided to join, so I knew there were some editors usually removed Han Tu without a comment. But please notice that Han tu that I only removed some wrong Han Tu, not all. You know, there a lot of Han Tu have same spelling sound with a quoc ngu word such as 方, 芳 (both of them are Phương); so I can't made a word and add it into article.

Secondly, this article have too much Hán Tự, some of them are repeated (楊延藝 appeared two time, is it needed?) or make reader confused (白藤江 represent the Vietnamese words: Bạch白 Đằng藤 Giang江 not English term 1^st Battle of Bạch Đằng river' or Bạch Đằng river)

Thirdly, I suggested to move Hán Tự into context per WP:HEAD, no link in section headings.

Thank you for this consideration.--Amore Mio (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can all work together and it is good to have your expertise. I believe you would be the first editor who could read Han tu (I assume you are from Vietnam). It's not necessary to have the same Han tu twice in a single article. For proper names, the Han tu illustrate the meaning of the person's name; the same for toponyms. Badagnani (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My skill is only basic. I argue about Hán Tự in some Vietnamese ralated article because it appeared too much. For example, the article Ngô Quyền already has got Hán tự (吳權), but in this article it appears again in same role! Is it that needed??? 楊延藝 appeared twice and 白藤江 illustrate the whole 1st Battle of Bạch Đằng River.--Amore Mio (talk) 07:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ngo dynasty

"Ngo dynasty" would correspond to the format for other Vietnamese dynasties. See Nguyen dynasty. For the capitalization issue, see here. Kauffner (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kauffner, I have just received yet another complaint about you continuing to move articles counter RfC on my Talk page. Category:Vietnamese dynasties shows the category are still in line with the way en.wp treats every other Latin-alphabet nation. History of Nguyen dynasty shows that the only reason it is at odds with the rest of the category and RfC is because you made an undiscussed move. Question: Did you edit the redirect afterwards thereby preventing your move to Nguyen dynasty from being reverted? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These here use diacritics or capitalizing "Dynasty": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. ༆ (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ottoman dynasty" was moved to Ottoman Dynasty whereas there are many sources using "dynasty" in lower case: [7]. What now? ༆ (talk) 09:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ban-do-viet-nam thoi nha Ngô.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liar

The last time when Vietnamese jiedushi sent tributes and gifts to Chinese state was 923 to Later Liang dynasty. 50 years later, in 973 king Đinh Bộ Lĩnh sent a tribute to Song dynasty. How from "938 to 968", Vietnam was a "Song protectorate" when Song dynasty founded in 960, and Vietnam was a independent kingdom since 938? User MarkH21 faked history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.66.94.7 (talk) 06:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources write; I did not make this up myself. The academic reference says:

There is also the question of how far the Song dynasty (China) was willing to recognise the independence of the Ngo dynasty (Vietnam) amidst the turmoil in China. [...] The Ngo dynasty (939-965) was unable to control the local chiefs known as Hung Vuong or Su Quan because the ruling power was still in their hands. Since Ngo Quyen failed to gain acknowledgement of his legitimacy as a ruler from China, he could not get the unanimous support of the local authorities. Furthermore, the Ngo dynasty was still recorded as Ngoai Ky (not officially confirmed as a dynasty in Vietnamese history) because he was still known as a 'military governor', and not a king (vuong). These local chiefs possessed their own territories and constantly tried to dominate one another. Ngo Quyen died at the age of 46 before he had time to consolidate his position; Vietnam was little more than a protectorate of the Chinese empire.
— Dar, Ku Boon (2019). "The Tributary Relations between China's Song Dynasty and Vietnam's Dinh, Le and Ly Dynasties: Effects on Their Political Sustainability". Sejarah: Journal of the History Department, University of Malaya. 28 (1): 1–13.

The Song dynasty was founded before the Ngô ended; there's no contradiction here. Since it says "little more than a protectorate" (so not formally a protectorate), you were right in that the infobox paramter should have been removed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]