![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)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.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | 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. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 03:54, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)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.