Wikipedia

Talk:List of flags of Vietnam/Archive 1

< Talk:List of flags of Vietnam
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Daeva Trạc in topic Why I re-organised the misattributed flags section
Archive 1Archive 2
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of flags of Vietnam. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I saw a lot of flags are fake and the proved sources did not contain information about them. I will check again and remove the fake flags from this article. Alphama (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of flags of Vietnam. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Đại-Nam Chinese characters flag

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I actually found a reference to this flag at a contemporary Spanish source named "Banderas Nacionales de los disintos estados". Of course, Europeans that don't have any experience reading Chinese characters likely have misrepresented it, but as I saw some discussion regarding its legitimacy I will add this note here for future reference. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

SVG request

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Great Brightstar:, could you please make SVG versions of the flags I just added? --Donald Trung (talk) 08:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

OK, let me see if I can do for them anyway. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Misattributed flags and persistent vandalism by Musée Annam

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removing sourced misattributed flags is vandalism, the section exists to debunk information and is clearly constantly being removed by someone that clearly doesn't understand why it's there. For context, the above user is the one that originally added the hoax and as usual they are incapable of adding sources and when they do it is often fraudulent. My advice is to distrust anything this user does as they basically only add hoaxes to Wikipedia and don't seem to understand Vietnamese history or culture and even attribute Western concepts onto the early Nguyễn Dynasty and they were banned from the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia partially also because of their bad and uncultured Vietnamese language skills. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Về thông tin "cờ Thành-Thái 1890"

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • Cờ vàng ba sọc đỏ của dân tộc Việt Nam chúng tôi xuất hiện sớm nhất là năm 1948, do cụ Lê Văn Đệ dựa theo mẫu Nam Kỳ Cộng Hòa Quốc Kì chế ra. Thông tin "vua Thành Thái là tác giả cờ vàng ba sọc đỏ" là do hai học giả thuộc đảng Việt Tân ngụy tạo năm 1982 để củng cố uy tín trong phong trào chống Cộng, và đảng Việt Tân đã thừa nhận từ đầu thập niên 2000. Việc nhét thông tin này vào wiki-en do một kẻ ngu xuẩn vắt mũi chưa sạch sinh ở Hà Lan không biết gì về văn hiến Việt Nam, cho nên người Việt Nam chúng tôi yêu cầu phía wiki-en tôn trọng văn hiến và lịch sử Việt Nam, nếu không, chúng tôi sẽ tiến hành phá sập trang wiki. Thân ái ! (27.67.141.255 (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC))
  • From Google translate: The yellow flag with three red stripes of our Vietnamese people appeared as early as 1948, created by Mr. Le Van De based on the model of Cochinchina, the Republic of Quoc Ky. The information that "King Thanh Thai is the author of the yellow flag with three red stripes" was fabricated by two scholars of the Viet Tan Party in 1982 to strengthen its prestige in the anti-Communist movement, and the Viet Tan Party acknowledged it from the beginning of the decade. 2000. The stuffing of this information into the wiki-en was done by a stupid Dutch-born idiot who doesn't know anything about Vietnamese culture, so we Vietnamese people ask the wiki-en side to respect the culture. and Vietnamese history, otherwise we will proceed to take down the wiki page. Love !
Making no comment on the content itself simply translating. Notfrompedro (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For context, this LTA has been acting like this on-wiki for 14 years, they've had their time to mature. Content-wise their only "contributions" have been blanking and removing well-sourced content and replacing it with hoaxes and / or bad Vietnamese ("Việt Văn"). --Donald Trung (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Why it is important to call out fantasy flags

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vietnam is plagued more by fantasy flags than likely any other place in the world, this has to do with the ultra-nationalistic arrogance of many of those that study its history, it might be wise to document these fantasy flags and why they were created and how they spread, hence I created the "Misattributed flags" section to document these. --Donald Trung (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Fake Thành Thái flag re-insertion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Great Brightstar:, can you help me patrol and revert edits in staying the "Thành Thái Hoax" by another user here? As I prefer to not engage in edit warring and the user refuses to discuss things. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 05:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Page protection

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Great Brightstar:, perhaps you should go to the administrators' noticeboard and ask for this page to be protected, the hoax is back again and I can't revert it because of "WP:3RR". --Donald Trung (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It's the first time I call administrator for this, I will do it anyway. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Great Brightstar:, you've reached the three (3) reverts of the hoax IP now, maybe it would be wise to stop as continuing to remove the hoax will be a blockable offense on your part. @Erminwin: can you try to revert the hoax adding Hanoi IP until this page is protected? --Donald Trung (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Already solved. --Donald Trung (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Alleged Gia Long's Long Tinh Kỳ

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

As Donald Trung demonstrated here: this flag, claimed (by anti-Communist Nguyễn Đình Sài again?) to be Emperor Gia Long's Long Tinh Kỳ (this claim was so influential that even the Vietnamese Communist politicians (O... The irony!) allowed (possibly are still allowing) it to be flown in front of Gia Long's tomb) & later Nguyễn emperors' royal flag from 1802 to 1885, was attested... 45 years earlier, in 1757, during the Revival Lê dynasty. Is it time we put it in the "Misattributed Flags" section? Erminwin (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Erminwin:, I think that it would be wise but I'm not sure about the origins of the myth (or if it's a myth at all), but my love for this flag is like a Deist wanting to believe in a God without having any proof but liking the concept too much to actually let go of it. There really isn't that much proof of it, see also the discussions here and here.
Personally I wouldn't consider the Communists using an Anti-Communist source as ironic as both of them are hypernationalistic and both seek to re-write Vietnamese history to confirm their worldviews and this is just another case where both the Communists and Anti-Communists have overlapping Vietnamese nationalistic interests.
I simply cannot find any account of the flag being used as described and almost all sources I can find somehow link to our boy Nguyễn Đình Sài again. But I also haven't found a good piece debunking it either (which would be welcome), so adding it to misattributed flags would be wise but I wouldn't know how to describe the origins of the myth, especially since the first documentation is half a century older than its alleged usage / invention. Furthermore, we have a source from the 1750's then nothing until 2010's for a flag that was supposed to have been used from 1802 until 1883 or 1885, what the hell is going on here? I highly doubt that Nguyễn Đình Sài knew of the Republican Dutch source but it is possible or perhaps he found it in another source that's not online. More research is needed but until that time we should avoid using this flag anywhere other than the "Misattributed flags" section.
The style of the flag isn't out of place for historical Vietnamese flags, it is just unattributable with current online resources to the claimed era and especially its claimed usage. Even if it later turns out to be a merchant flag or a ceremonial banner it will still be a misattribution so I can't protest "retiring it" to the Misattributed flags section. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: My appreciation! Also, I've found this 1941 booklet "Hymnes et pavillons d'Indochine" (credits to blogger Nguyễn Văn Huy (whom we should never cite tho') who discovered it & linked to it here) which not only authenticated the existence of Bảo Đại's Long Tinh Kỳ ( ) but also that   apparently was used as a national flag before 1945 (in contrast, this stamp, while authentic, could not prove that Bảo Đại's Long Tinh Kỳ was used before 1945). Moreover, the booklet also included the imperial standard and Emperor's pennant. Erminwin (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Erminwin:, Literally all those files are on the Wikimedia Commons, I imported the old French book from Gallica myself but later found out that an Unserefahne sockpuppet imported those files as well and had to file them for undeletion (which occurred). There is more evidence for the 20th (twentieth) century Long Tinh Kỳ, a lot of evidence in fact. I imported a number of postcards and propaganda posters that feature it and there are also a number of reliable public domain sources that I couldn't import because of the fact that they weren't fully online yet, like this Nazi beauty that nobody managed to scan in its entirety yet. There is little doubt about the authenticity of the 20th (twentieth) century Long Tinh Kỳ, I think that my largest mistake here is that I didn't attribute the sources in this article because it was already listed.
This article was created by an "Unserefahne" (German for "Our Flag") sockpuppet account and most edits here other than mine and håndful of other users' are all by more "Unserefahne" sockpuppets, this user is prolific for adding fake flags and fake emblems, but they also added a lot of real ones, their strategy tends to be to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks and they have been illicitly socking since 2011 (they really deserve a "Long-term abuse" page on this wiki to showcase the type of lies they add here). Wanna hear something ironic? In a thread above you can see him cursing at me and insulting me, he often leaves me messages on the Wikimedia Commons telling me to go fuck my mother and that she should die and on this wiki he left penis pictures at a woman's talk page a decade younger than him calling her all sorts of sexual things, so why is he angry at me? In this revision you can see the supposed "Thành Thái flag" which "Unserefahne" placed here as at that time his socks were the only editors here, he removed this flag from this article and then I asked him for a source (something he almost never does) so he started cursing at me saying that it was a Việt Tân invention, not taking him at his word I researched it and found out he was right so I moved it to the "Misattributed flags" section so the readers can understand why it's no longer listed as historically accurate, rather than being happy that he literally got what he wanted using the (unsourced) claims he made (as I had to dig up the source myself) he kept blanking the entire "Misattributed flags" section. This should give you an impression of the type of person user "Unserefahne" is and why this article is so slow to improve. He is incapable of providing sources and even added some fraudulent sources that proved nothing.
This is why I had to do a lot of research for this article, also note that a historically accurate flags got deleted from the Wikimedia Commons because user "Unserafahne" never provides reliable sources and asking him that will only gets you cursed at. This is also the user that pushed for Gia Long version of the Dragon Star Flag. The other flags are mentioned in quite a number of reliable sources and when I will find the time I will add them, but the "Unserefahne" sockfarm has added a lot of bad sources basically delegitimising legitimate flags. --Donald Trung (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Also I am explaining the type of edits user "Unserefahne" does to me so you can already expect what will happen once you clash with him (which isn't unlikely as he adds misinformation to most pages about Vietnamese history), generally speaking I am against (blanket) deleting his content (though I am a general inclusionist) but I am always researching if what he added is correct or not, this is because, again, of his "throw it at the wall and see what sticks"-type of editing. Sometimes he actually does upload good sources to the Wikimedia Commons, but quite often these get deleted (even if they're in the public domain) because he doesn't actually source those files or adds bogus copyright claims and fraudulent OTRS tags because that's the kind of person we're dealing with here. If only a slightly more competent person would have added some same flags we wouldn't be having this debate now as they would have provided reliable sources... --Donald Trung (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: This "Unserefahne"/"Musee Annam"/etc. user is in almost all likelihood the same Hanoi-IP vandal that kept vandalistically reverting the Names of Vietnam article to this specific version which he apparently likes a lot (quite a narcissistic piece of work, isn't he?). Erminwin (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Musée Annam is bad, but I think that there are more dangerous people out there, for example those that deliberately add fantasies because they don't like history like user "Trương Guy" and similars like him. This user has created a number of fantasies and then used unverifiable sources only he has seen, thankfully user "KomradeRice" warned me against this... Wait a minute, that is what Musée Annam does. To be fair, Musée Annam is at least right some of the time. As user "Trương Guy" isn't blocked he may respond if he by any coincidence reads this message. If he feels offended then let him actually provide the sources he claims for his fantasies. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Erminwin:, good addition with access to the current information we have. Anyhow, now we must clean wherever that flag appears, ever since I became doubtful of it I stopped using it and used the real, actual Long Tinh Kỳ but this flag wouldn't be appropriate for before its introduction. I suggest perhaps using national seals for historical Vietnamese states, in some European wars and battle infoboxes countries without flags were often represented by their coats of arms, for example "Catholic League (German)". This is because these seals served as national symbols (or more specifically "supreme symbols of the state") before flags. See for example this infobox. Best to remove the flag from the Nguyễn Dynasty article itself. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Laska666' findings

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Quoting the "Nguyễn Dynasty" article import from the "Kingdom of Vietnam" POV-fork article: "The Nguyễn dynasty's national flag of the Imperial flag first appeared during the reign of Gia Long. It was a yellow flag with a single or three horizontal red stripes, sometimes in 1822, it was entirely blank yellow or white.[1] The emperor's personal flag was a golden dragon spitting fire, surrounded by clouds, a silver moon, and a black crescent on a yellow background.[1]".

  1. ^ a b Heath (2003), p. 197.
  • Heath, Ian (2003) [1998]. Armies of the Nineteenth Century: Burma and Indo-China. Foundry Books. ISBN 978-1-90154-306-3..

@Erminwin:, there is indication that Gia Long did have a flag but I don't have access to this source. The user who added it here "Laska666" is known for inserting misrepresentations of the sources so I am not sure about it being "a national flag" but I am curious to Heath and the sources he used. Laska666 rightfully removed the Gia Long fantasy Dragon Star Flags wherever they could. I just haven't seen a representation of this flag but I wouldn't want to re-construct it solely based on a description as this was done unsuccessfully with some symbols in the past. Now that I look at it this sounds an awfully lot like the "Thành Thái flag" myth, in fact this flag sounds both like the later Dragon Star Flag and South Vietnamese flag... --Donald Trung (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Donald Trung: "The Nguyễn dynasty's national flag or the Imperial flag first appeared during the reign of Gia Long." During Gia long's time the very concept of a "national flag" quốc kỳ did not exist, least an actual national flag. Possibly the persons who introduced the concept of national flag into Vietnam was Phan Thanh Giản et al. after their 1863 embassy to France. Yet was that concept implemented earlier than 1941 (according to the claim found in "Hymnes et pavillons d'Indochine" that this flag   was indeed the national flag [national flag)? I have not successfully found any sourced answer for that question. However, Heath wrote "The Nguyễn dynasty's national flag or the Imperial flag", thus indicating that the flags which Heath mentions and describes are only flags of the Nguyễn dynasty and only allowed to be flown by members of the imperial family.
"It was a yellow flag with a single or three horizontal red stripes, ... Now that I look at it this sounds an awfully lot like the "Thành Thái flag" myth, in fact this flag sounds both like the later Dragon Star Flag and South Vietnamese flag..." The latter reminds me Cờ Quẻ Càn "Qián Trigram Flag"  , which, however, was invented much later in 1947 according to this article by Phạm Văn Thanh, who did not repeat the "Thành Thái hoax".
"sometimes in 1822, it was entirely blank yellow or white." Reminds me of the flag in the upper right corner of this chart. However, Heath does not mention the jagged blue edges.
About "Laska666"'s penchant to "inserting misrepresentations of the sources", here's an example: they changed my translation "During the time when Jiaozhi formerly did not yet have commanderies and prefectures" of Chinese original 交趾昔未有郡縣之時 into "During the time when Jiaozhi formerly wasn't incorporated into China yet" & left the edit summary "It said incorporate", even tho' it clearly said "有郡縣" lit. "have commanderies and prefectures". Erminwin (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Erminwin:, My experience with user "Laska666" is that they try to paint a narrative of continuity onto Vietnamese history that very clearly differentiates between "Vietnam" and "China", the "Vietnamese people" and the "Chinese people". In Lê Minh Khải's entry about Taylor at "A New Vietnamese History - JUNE 1, 2013" he notes a number of criticisms I commonly recognise with user "Laska666" and also user "Musée Annam" and why this article is often "the victim" of Vietnamese nationalists, both pro-Communist and anti-Communist ones, namely the paragraph "Then summarizing in a sentence a point he made in his 1998 article “Surface Orientations in Vietnam: Beyond Histories of Nation and Region,” Taylor states that, “The Vietnamese past does not display an internal logic of development leading to the present.”" A lot of how user "Laska666" edits seems to be in this style by essentially "projecting the present into the past" and he spares no expense at how he wants Chinese historiography to be as distant as possible from Vietnamese historiography. What surprises me is that (1) A LOT of people are aware of his type of misinformation and (2) literally nobody is doing anything about it (usually including myself other than just asking him to define his fantasies and choices which he rarely does), well except for one Viwiki Bureaucrat that nominated one of his hoaxes for deletion, but most of the time nobody ever challenges him. More from the article "Instead, he says that, “Vietnamese history is a convenient name for what can be known about a certain aspect of the past. What makes it Vietnamese is that the events which it is comprised of took place in what we now call the country of Vietnam and that certain versions of it have been taught as a common memory to generations of people who speak the Vietnamese language, thereby inducing a sense of ownership.”" This also explains a lot of the edits of user "Laska666" as they are an ethnic Cham (at least according to some discussions on the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia) and the very Chinese nature of a lot of Vietnamese history seems to offend them, at times they will remove any information that includes Traditional Chinese characters and calls it "neutralisation", they apparently also made a POV-fork of an article about Chinese characters in Việt Nam, unfortunately I haven't been æble to find a record of what was in it but I wouldn't be surprised if it claimed that they were always rare and that "the Vietnamese" use very little Chinese loan words or something. "That “sense of ownership,” I have argued on this blog, can be an obstacle to engaging in scholarship. Once one sees history as “ta” (our) history, then it becomes difficult to remain completely rational about it or to maintain a sense of scholarly detachment." As an ethnic Cham they might feel excluded in a Vietnamese history that often ignores Champa, and this I actually fully agree with about them, I hope that in the future they would just write about Champa and avoid their misinterpretation of sources to make the Vietnamese "more South-East Asian". Their interests on Wikipedia seems to mostly be about languages and Vietnamese history and they often make it clear that they don't see Vietnamese history as "their" History and often states that he "is not Vietnamese" which tells me that as a Cham he might be "bitter against the Chinese nature of Vietnamese history" making him actually the polar opposite of other hoax-spreaders like the "Musée Annam" sockfarm that uses a lot of Chinese loan words and grammar and pushes "a more Chinese version" of Vietnamese history. I think that, despite all my conflicts with them, both users have a lot of value to offer to Wikipedia but that their POV-pushing harms Wikipedia's mission more than it helps.
My preferred "version of Vietnamese history" is a neutral one that analyses the facts we can uncover and should always be open to scrutiny as Lê Minh Khải's statements here say: "Taylor, however, very clearly distances himself emotionally from the topic of his research. He states that “I find interest in the Vietnamese past not because it is Vietnamese but because it is about how human society has been organized and governed during many centuries on the edge of an empire.”" As I don't think that there is any scholarly value in misrepresentation so I most sincerely hope that this page can also maintain such neutrality. I specifically created the "Misattributed flags" section because of all the Vietnamese nationalistic misinformation that is out there and Europeans misinterpretation of Vietnamese symbols that still commonly circulate on the internet.
Anyhow, do you have Heath's book? It might have looked similar to the later flags, note that Korea also used (and South Korea today still uses) a flag based on the Eight Trigrams from the Supreme Ultimate Symbol so I wouldn't be surprised if the Nguyễn Dynasty had a similar flag culture to that of Joseon, but as I don't have access to Heath's book I can't inspect what he says (as I take the edits from user "Laska666" with a Himalayan mountain range of salt) nor can I inspect which sources he provided. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Alleged "Standard of emperor Nguyễn Thánh Tổ"

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

That claim about how the flag was supposedly used is unsourced. The Ian Heath (2003:197)'s quote, already cited, implies, apparently, that the personal flag of not just Gia Long's, ut his successors, featured dragons, clouds, crescent, etc. on a yellow/gold background. Up until Bảo Đại's time, Bảo Đại's personal standard, Fanion du Roi in French or Cờ Nhà Vua in Vietnamese, clearly featured a dragon, clouds, and sun/star/fiery pearl. Meanwhile, the plain white or plain yellow/gold flags were stated to be imperial flags (possibly also allowable for other Nguyễn Phúc imperial clan's members). I do not have Heath's book so I don't know what source Heath uses to back up his claim "The emperor's personal flag was a golden dragon spitting fire, surrounded by clouds, a silver moon, and a black crescent on a yellow background"; yet I give Heath the benefit of the doubt and think it highly unlikely that Minh Mạng would be the exception to the rule (observed by Heath, that Nguyễn emperors' personal flags feature dragons & other paraphernalia). It's time the plain yellow/gold flag was correctly classified and attributed. Erminwin (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to make sure that it doesn't look like I'm "attacking the person and not criticising the content", the "Musée Annam" sockfarmer is known for inserting fantasies into Wikipedia's and the Wikimedia Commons. Unrelated, but I found a few contemporary photographs and illustrations of imperial standards at cổ phong Facebook pages. I didn't bookmark them so I will investigate them again. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: The link http://nguyenaigiao.vnweblogs.com/category/17120/29910 does not work at all (a pattern, I've observed, so characteristic (pun intended) of our sockfarmer). I finally found one archived copy of the article (published on 17 Jul, 2011) here (archived on August 25, 2011). Nguyễn Ái Giao (the owner of the now-dead blog) simply published the article on their blog, and was not the original author.
Proofs: This copy would be published by Nguyễn Thị Thanh Thủy at @ 18:31 22 Dec 2012, after Nguyễn Ái Giao did; yet this copy had been published at 20h:06p 31 Aug 2010 by Tạ Huy Nam, before Nguyễn Ái Giao did. I cannot tell if Tạ Huy Nam were indeed the author or simply just posted the article without crediting the author
The article contains this statement:

"Có nguồn cho biết, năm 1821, vua Minh Mạng còn lấy đại kỳ màu vàng, chung quanh viền kim tuyến (chỉ vàng).
Translation: Sources/a source state/s that, in 1821, Emperor Minh Mạng also used a great flag (lit. transl.)/imperial flag ("free" translation) which was yellow-colored, and hemmed with golden threads"

The author does not indicate which source(s) back(s) up this statement & many others. I'd say the article is wholly unreliable & this yellow flag hemmed with golden threads, alleged to be flown by Minh Mạng, should be either deleted or put into the Misattributed Flags section. Erminwin (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
@Erminwin:, I think that it's wise to put it in the misattributed flags section and tag it on the Wikimedia Commons as a fantasy (I'll do the latter later). I have seen this interpretation circulate online several times and some people always think that they have "a scoop" if Wikipedia doesn't have a flag, like for example the flags of the various dynasties and the flag of the Tây Sơn Dynasty that is actually used at festivals, but I am still researching the origins of the Tây Sơn flag myth and the undeletion request for the earlier fantasies on the Wikimedia Commons is still ongoing as I did find out where the imperial flag fantasies came from (and unfortunately a number of Vietnamese historical scholars repeated their myth). The amount of fantasy flags pushed by Vietnamese ultranationalists and their foreign sympathisers (many of whom undoubtedly inspired by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam's and the Việt Cộng's / Republic of South Vietnam's victory over the United States of America during the 1970's). So I would say that it's safer to put them in the "Misattributed flags" section unless they are direct Wikimedia user-generated fantasies like our friend Trương Guy's ;-) --Donald Trung (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung:. There are these lines Mà nay áo vải cờ đào / Giúp dân dựng nước xiết bao công trình "Yet now [this] cotton-clad red-flag[-flying] [ruler] / has done so many deeds to help the people build up the nation" from the poem Ai Tư Vãn "Elegy" (full text at wikisource), attributed to Princess Lê Ngọc Hân the Empress consort of Quang Trung. I have not yet found the original version in chữ Nôm. While the poem is not an official histographical document, I still think it contains a few kernels of historical truth preserved, albeit imperfectly, in folk memories; & consequently, the Tây Sơn flag myth contains at least one kernel of likely historical truth: that Quang Trung probably used a red flag. Even so that does not mean the commonly seen red flags circulated on the Internet & by other media & flown in festivals were faithful reconstructions of the flag he probably used. Erminwin (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Flag of the Tây Sơn Dynasty

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Erminwin:, going over this page again I noticed the Tây Sơn dynasty flags, the yellow dot one is used at a festival while the one without seems to hang in an actual museum. Would you say that it would be wise to place the festival one in "Misattributed flags" and the museum one as a legitimate military flag? --Donald Trung (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: It would be so. Though I still have some doubt if the flag in the museum were an accurate reconstruction. Erminwin (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Types of premodern flags

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Going over this page again I found the following statements by the Blogger Nguyễn Đức Chính:

"Blogger Nguyễn Đức Chính đã liệt kê ba loại cờ được sử dụng trong các sinh hoạt hoàng gia xưa:

Kỳ (旗) : Loại cờ thông dụng, có chức năng làm biểu trưng, tín hiệu hoặc vật trang trí.

Đạo (纛) : Loại cờ lệnh thuộc đặc quyền và đặc ân của vua chúa.

Xí (幟) : Loại cờ biểu trưng cho mỗi đạo quân hoặc cơ quan."

How accurate is this and where are the examples of such flags? --Donald Trung (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I'll let the definitions of Kỳ (旗) and Đạo (纛) and Xí (幟) from wiktionary speak for themselves:
  • 旗 (SV: Kỳ):
1. flag; banner (classifier: 面 (m) 支 (c))
2. (historical) banner (type of administrative and military division under the Qing dynasty)
3. banner (type of administrative division in Inner Mongolia, China)
4. surname
  • 纛 (SV: Đạo)
1. (historical) big army banner used in ancient China
2. (historical) feather banner used on the emperor's carriage in ancient China
1. flag; banner
旗幟 / 旗帜 ― qízhì (SV: kỳ xí; "non"-SV: cờ xí) ― flag; banner
2. (literary) mark; sign
3. A surname​.

I'd say Blogger Nguyễn Đức Chính was partially correct. Nguyễn Đức Chính's definition of xí 幟 as a flag representing an army or an organization is more restrictive than wikt's (which I trust more). Erminwin (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately that blog isn't a useful source to write about the context of Pre-modern Vietnamese flags as it doesn't seem to cite any sources and just goes on the "Just trust me, sis / bro" angle. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

German interpretation of the Đồng Khánh Emperor's flag

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Erminwin:, I listed it as a "German interpretation" because while researching the supposed Gia Long version of the Dragon Star Flag I found a German flag chart that actually looked exactly like it, I couldn't import it to the Wikimedia Commons because of the fact that it was a photograph of a flag chart and not scan (which would have made it a public domain image). I will try to look for it, but I don't suggest changing it until I find it... --Donald Trung (talk) 08:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The flags of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
 
The sources are already on the Wikimedia Commons...

@Erminwin:, I am still busy drafting an article about the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina (but honestly I am not sure if I can write it this year simply because I adopted too many projects...) during my research I found a number of photographs including the above one here which features the flag without the two (2) white stripes, almost all evidence points towards that one being the original, unfortunately not that many photographs of those flags are online but the ones I did manage to find I already uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons.

Most of my initial searches were to prove the one with the white stripes as both consensus on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons was that that flag was fake and had to be deleted on sight, which is why photographs of the one with white stripes are overrepresented as I had to prove that one because nobody called the other (original) version into question. --Donald Trung (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung:I found that same photo in this article by the anti-RVN writer Nguyễn Anh as well. Yet:
  • I was not sure if the two light-coloured stripes - between the three dark stripes (in almost all likelihood blue-coloured - not red, considering that the photo was taken in 1946) - were yellow or white;
  • NA's academic credentials are unknown;
  • Using Google Images, I've found another copy of that image at this website. Yet the site's owner Liam Gammon listed the source as "Tân Việt [Saigon], 1946", too little information for a proper citation. What kind of source is "Tân Việt" ? Published when? Image found on which page?
That's why I decided to "play safe" & delete this flag   on sight. Erminwin (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Erminwin:, To quote from the (first linked) article: "Ngày 01-06-1946, “nước” Nam Kỳ này vội thông qua quốc kỳ nền vàng ba sọc xanh, phỏng theo cờ Quẻ ly của Chính phủ bù nhìn theo Nhật trước đó. Cờ Quẻ ly có ba sọc đỏ mà sọc giữa đứt bị người Huế biếm ngôn là “vương rút ruột”, ám chỉ triều Nguyễn lúc đó chẳng còn giá trị gì. Cờ vàng ba sọc xanh tượng trưng cho ba sông lớn ở Nam Bộ (Đồng Nai, sông Tiền và sông Hậu). Tuy nhiên, người dân Nam bộ gọi biếm màu cờ là “cờ sốt rét”. Vì thế, ngày 31-10-1946, hai sọc vàng ở giữa thay màu trắng cho đỡ tối. Và lấy bài “Chinh phụ ngâm” làm quốc ca, bị đả kích vì lấy than khóc của người vợ nhớ chồng làm lời ca.". According to user "Antemister" multiple flag books at the time also report the one without the white stripes to have been the flag to be the flag most widely attributed to the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina regime (though I haven't personally seen any of his/her sources, so I can't confirm them). I am not sure if removing this flag is a safe bet. That photograph isn't the only mention of the flag without white stripes, when I will have more time in the future to research this topic I will come back to this. Also, I think that you can use this article to debunk a lot of South Vietnamese Nationalist bullshit claims. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I've been on a "quasi-"break. Now that you mentioned "Nationalist Bullshit claims", you may want to have a look at this image made by this sock of our Hanoian sockfarmer. Many Vietnamese ultranationalists, especially Sinophobic ones, will not be pleased with the sockfarmer's Sinocentric fabrications (about the history of Vietnamese language) based on his misinterpretation of linguist John Phan's research.
You know what's even stranger? "Politics make strange bedfellows" in action: An edit to include that image in the Vietic languages was made by an IP-user geolocated in Sacramento, CA, the same location as another IP-user who edited the Au Lac's article talk page that: "Tay Au /tày are not ethnic Kinh (Vietnamese) Tay Au were nomadic Tai/Krai and Turkic combined. They are not ethnic Lạc Việt". Quite a hybrid of Pan-Turkism and Thai?/Lao?Kra-Dai ultra-nationalism.Erminwin (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Odd, I didn't get your ping... Well, that ain't odd since I haven't received any notifications about pings at the English-language Wikipedia since late 2019 or so. Anyhow, these odd additions aren't odd at all, it is based on Vietnamese ultranationalism and because many people define this Vietnamese ultranationalism and what it means to be "Vietnamese" differently we get a spectrum where on one end the Chinese nature of Vietnamese culture and history is seen as its most important aspect while on the other hand a denial of this defining whatever "Vietnamese" is as resistance and subversion of "the Chinese". Of course, both sides will spread misinformation in order to promote their views. Unfortunately, the academic culture of Viet Nam isn't equipped to actually use the scientific method to study history and a number of Western historians of Vietnamese history have pointed this out. Unfortunately, many Western academics adopt Vietnamese ultranationalist stances and dogma when writing about Vietnamese history to give more fuel to this flame war.
As Wikipedia is about neutrality and verifiability it should be better equipped to handle these people, but unfortunately both sides have academic sources to back up their bullshit so fighting these POV-pushers is difficult. But when they add vandalism like this without any academic backing all it does is expose their biases and make it easier for us to go through their contributions to check for them.
Note that we see similar developments in Korean history but because South Korea's academic culture has evolved more myths are now being debunked and a more neutral version of Korean history is winning out, even if the South Korean government still insists on a distorted Korean ultranationalist version of history. So the lesson here is to wait for Vietnamese academic culture to catch up and then we will have all the ammo we need to directly debunk them. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

50+ South Vietnamese national flag proposals under President Ngô Đình Diệm

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Several months ago I read somewhere (but didn't save it) that during the presidency of Ngô Đình Diệm he wished to replace the Flag of South Vietnam with another flag because he associated it with Monarchism and that there were 52 (fifty-two) proposals, but that none were adopted. I have been unable to find a single one of these proposals online, does someone know where I could find these? --Donald Trung (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed flags of the First Republic of Vietnam

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia I found the sentence "Thời Ngô Đình Diệm dự định thay lá cờ này và đã tuyển 350 mẫu cờ của 350 người dự thi, nhưng không chọn được mẫu cờ thay thế nào cả." ("During Ngô Đình Diệm's ​​presidency, he planned to replace South Vietnam's national flag and received 350 flag proposals from 350 participants, but he could not choose any replacement flag design.") However, I haven't been able to find any of these proposals. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fictional flags of Đại Việt

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Here is a gallery of recently undeleted flags of Đại Việt, I tagged them all as fantasies:

  •  
    File:Flag of Tran dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Ly dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Ho dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Later Le dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Revival Le dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Mac dynasty.svg.
  •  
    File:Flag of Early Le dynasty.svg.

I added them in no particular order, I have seen a number of the above circulate online on various websites and webforums but I haven't been able to find the origins of them, I will only bề confident in adding them once I find the origins of these myths. I have also found a number of variants and several fictional Vietnamese (and even Chinese) dynastic flags have been circulating in Vietnamese museums as well, again, I don't know if the museums are the origin of this myth or if they just adopted it (like the supposed "Gia Long flag"). I will add them here and report on later findings. The undeletion request took three (3) freakin' months so I wasn't certain if they would get undeleted or not until today so I didn't take the time to research them as I felt demoralised by the Wikimedia Commons' uncollaborative system. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Note that also other styles of fantasy Đại Việt quốc flags exist, namely those with serrated borders, see these:

  •  
    File:Flag of House of Trần.webp.
  •  
    File:Trinh Lord's Flag.png.
  •  
    File:Tay Son Flag.png.

I have actually seen these circulate even more online. Several times these were claimed to be imperial banners. Now what I think is that these might have been Vietnamese family flags that modern viewers misattributed as "national flags", but I still have to research the subject before I feel comfortable adding them. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I think all of them could be battle flag for the wartime, they were used to signify the dynastic army. In China there was also appeared such war flags that is written dynasty name or a commander's surname. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Đại-Nam Traditional Chinese characters flag

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Contemporary sources attribute it as the flag of "Annam".

@Greenknight dv:, I saw that you removed the "Đại-Nam" imperial standard from a couple of articles about the Nguyễn Dynasty a few months ago, but this flag actually is attested by a number of historical sources, such as the cut out of a Spanish flag chart. In fact, it is quite clear that the variation in how it appear is likely because they were drawn by White people that didn't really understood Traditional Chinese characters, which explains why they all look similar yet slightly different from each other. So the flag "Đại-Nam" imperial standard is not a hoax. --Donald Trung (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Historical flags before French invasion

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It took me a while but I finally snatched a copy of Khâm định Đại Nam hội điển sự lệ (欽定大南會典事例). In case you don't know hội điển 會典 was like the constitution or national law back then. This massive book has basically every laws regarding everything in the country, including clothing, vehicles, flags, etc. (which fall under Rite 禮). This is an example of what it says about flag:

5th year of Gia Long era (1804), the procession (鹵簿) for the imperial convoy was designed: 1 Big Dipper flag; 8 bagua(?) flags; 2 signal flags for gong and drums; 2 "túc triều"(?) flag; 28 flags of twenty-eight mansions, 5 flags of Wuxing (Chinese philosophy); 4 flags of wind, cloud, lightning and rain; 2 "cảnh-tất"(clear the way for the convoy) flags; 1 sun flag; 1 moon flag; flags of the Azure Dragon, the White Tiger, the Vermilion Bird and the Black Tortoise, 4 leopard tail flags, etc.

There are a lot more but I can't quote them all. Though through this book we can see that emperors didn't use one "standard" but multiple flags (these flags contain popular symbols in East Asian culture or just have a text written on them). The types of flag, the amount of flags and their arrangement differ based on where the emperor was and what he was doing. Basically, it was very different from modern (Western) flag culture. --KomradeRice (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

KomradeRice, are there any depictions of these flags? I've seen some old depictions of imperial standards from China similar to that, but if we had depictions we could add them to this article. Or at least try to list these older types of flags. We know that the Chinese cultural sphere did have a flag culture before interactions with the West, but most modern vexicollogists seem to focus exclusively on the Western flag culture. -- Donald Trung (talk) 09:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Fictional flags

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I saw there’s a section for fictional flags in List of Chinese flags and was wondering if we could do the same here. Here’s an example: flag of Early Lý dynasty

 
Flag of Vạn Xuân kingdom (Vietnam)

Daeva Trạc (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Another examples:

File:Cờ Trưng Vương Đông Hồ.jpg
Trưng Queen flag in Dong Ho painting


 
Modern fictional Trưng Queen flag

Daeva Trạc (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Daeva Trạc, if you can add proper sources we could add a section. But those flags should be properly attributed to have originated outside of Wikimedia websites, as it shouldn't become a section where users can add their own fictional flags. For example the flags often attributed to a numerous Vietnamese dynasties are fictional and are often used in festivals and reported on by Vietnamese newspapers, these could be included for example. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There are flags that I just re-created based on painting like this. Is that good enough?   Daeva Trạc (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Daeva Trạc, That seems reliable enough to me, as those are actual historical paintings and would qualify. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I think I should wait for other’s opinions. Fictional flags (even the well-used ones, the ones mentioned in painting, the ones that Vietnamese clans use as represent for their ancestors’ dynasties) are still somewhat “fake”. Daeva Trạc (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, I didn't say that they weren't "fake", I simply said that if you want to use them as examples of how historical banners are being misrepresented to anachronistically be attributed as "national flags" then something like that would be fine as you have good contemporary sources. — Donald Trung (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Actually your statement just makes me realize that I can put them in the “ Misattributed flags” section instead of creating new ones, which will probably more “acceptable” Daeva Trạc (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of fantasy flags

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This removal is counterproductive, this list specifically exists to debunk these flags and multiple editors have spent days researching the origins of these fantasies. --Donald Trung (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

TUIBAJAVE, you kind of misunderstand the point of debunking, these flags have polluted the internet with people believing that they're real, Musée Annam / C isn't the only person who has uploaded them, I've seen dozens of unrelated users upload them too, Musée Annam / C didn't invent them. The story behind a number of these fake flags is that it was fabricated by Nguyễn Đình Sài, a former member of the anti-Communist organization Việt Tân, who wrote the article "Quốc Kỳ Việt Nam: Nguồn Gốc và Lẽ Chính Thống” (The National Flag of Viet Nam: Its Origin and Legitimacy) in September 2004. Ben Cahoon, an American researcher affiliated with University of Connecticut. However, Nguyễn Đình Sài admitted Cahoon "did not name any specific documents". Multiple fake flags have been spread by VNCH refugees in the West and they make it back to Viet-Nam through the internet.
In all these years of deleting these flags nobody has bothered to actually debunk them, that's why I wrote that research page and used it in discussions at the English-language Wikipedia. Musée Annam / C is a shit historian but he didn't invent these fake flags.
You should also realise, if you edit military history or just history and you know nothing about flags and see someone add a flag literally with the title "Fake flag of the X Dynasty" you'd remove it, Daeva Trạc always uploaded it with a title so people know that they're fake, when Musée Annam found out that one of his flags was fake he just removed it without discussion, later other users continued my research and we built the list of fake flags together.
If you overwrite the flag of the Empire of Vietnam without explaining why it was overwritten you'd end up with fake flags on the internet that can present them as "a contemporary alternative", but in reality a pro-VNCH activist deliberately created a number of fake flags to try and legitimise his claims.
That fake Empire of Vietnam flag was actually on Wikipedia for years until Musée Annam / C debunked it of all people, but people just reverted him for not providing a source (remember that Musée Annam / C never provides a source), so he was reverted, then people actually did the research and found the actual flags. I haven't actually seen Musée Annam / C upload fake flags since around 2021, throughout 2022 and 2023 he hasn't uploaded a single fake flag. You're correct that be evolved, he's still spreading false information but after thoroughly debunking his bullshit flags I haven't seen him attempt to add more. This proved to be way more effective than simply deleting them. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think I should be listen to you, if you say that, through, I have no anything to say TUIBAJAVE (talk) 12:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Why I re-organised the misattributed flags section

Latest comment: 10 months ago18 comments3 people in discussion

@Daeva Trạc:, hello, I would like to explain by reasoning behind this edit. For one, the title "Fictional flags" is somewhat misleading as some of these flags were actually in use but have simply been misattributed, another reason for the re-organisation is because your re-organisation cut an extra column which is used to explain the origin of the misattribution while your version seemed to have cut out a lot of information and made it less organised. I think that it might be wise to have separate groupings for the various types of misattributed flags, there are multiple supposed "flags of Cochinchina" in which their only commonality is the assertion that this "Cochinchina" had a separate flag from the rest of Vietnam (something which wasn't the case until 1946).

Likewise, I think that the pre-1802 dynastic flags should be their own category as they all follow similar trends, namely they are based on battle banners or family flags which are misattributed to being pre-modern national flags, the post-1802 are often complete works of fiction.

I'm also not sure if the fake flags of Cochinchina were based on Dynastic astrology banners, I can see their similarities, but there are also other complex flags which carry multiple symbols.

Also, I've literally never seen anyone claim that the pseudo-Dragon Star Flag was the flag of "Đàng Trong" under the Nguyễn lords, basically all sources that (mis)report on it claim that it was made during the reign of the Gia Long Emperor (which it wasn't). I like your additions, but I just didn't think that the new style of the list was any more helpful to the readers and the addition of a number of images didn't really help either. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, the real flag of the Empire of Vietnam is already in the article, there's no need to add it next to the misattribution, especially since the reality wasn't the origin of the fantasy. Rather, the fake flag is based on the later flag of South Vietnam which a number of academics tried to claim was in use before the late 1940's to legitimise their symbols.
Additionally, the blog you used claimed that the Nguyễn Lords had a different flag than the Nguyễn Dynasty, where the Traditional Chinese character "Nguyễn" was featured in the middle, so it wouldn't really make much sense to merge them. --Donald Trung (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
We are all here to help providing information to the readers, so everyone will do whatever they think are suitable. Therefore, I appreciate your edit, though I still not quit sure why we really need to separate the flags of Cochinchina from the rest? Daeva Trạc (talk) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Daeva Trạc, Regarding Cochinchina, well, the types of misattributions are different (excuse the late reply, I didn't get a notification). The flag of "Cochinchina" (deliberately quotation marks as the definition changed over the centuries) has been misattributed for quite a long time, likewise different types of flags were misattributed to "Cochinchina" over the centuries. The flags below it are all modern inventions dated to the 21st (twenty-first) century and mostly the work of a single man using these fake flags to somehow legitimise the symbols of the Republic of Vietnam, while the "dynastic flags" largely follow the same pattern and can be best described as "modern internet culture", possibly derived from the obsession to add a flag to every Infobox on Wikipedia. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And I not sure the reason behind the deletion of this image?  
Daeva Trạc (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
My bad (collateral damage), I restored it. It happened because I copied the list from an earlier version where it wasn't included, you reduced the list of columns to 3 (three) so I had to figure out a way to re-establish the 4 (four) column model for the post-1802 flags. --Donald Trung (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
  • An additional note is that the "Flag of Cochinchina" is a centuries old misattribution and can be found in flag charts from all over the world for centuries, this simply isn't the case for the other flags. The dynastic flags all seem to follow a similar pattern, also the "Nguyễn Lords flag" is a different one, I will try to re-add it if I can find it at the Wikimedia Commons. Honestly, Nguyễn Đình Sài's myths also deserve their own section as this man single-handedly is behind half of all fantasy Vietnamese flags on the internet (well, him and "Musée Annam"). --Donald Trung (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    • By the way, the Empire of Vietnam's real flag is already listed above, so it doesn't need another variant stating "This is the real flag" when the fake version would suffice. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
    That’s interesting. Thank you for providing the info. Daeva Trạc (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Daeva Trạc, By the way the blog post you cited also lists this flag for the Nguyễn Lords (different from the fake "Gia Long flag"). You didn't upload this one. If you're going to import images it's usually best to just thoroughly import everything and please only add them to "Fantasy flags" so people don't confuse them with real flags. — Donald Trung (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    Also, the blog lists another source over at "http://www.thanhnvt.com/2016/08/la-co-viet-nam-qua-cac-trieu-ai.html" which is interesting, it ends with "Thu thập và biên soạn: nguyenthanh-nvt
    Source: http://www.thanhnvt.com/2016/08/la-co-viet-nam-qua-cac-trieu-ai.html " so it might be better to cite this source rather than the blog, and when citing sources it's best to avoid personal blogs and use the sources they themselves cite, when adding the same reference multiple times please use "Ref name". -- — Donald Trung (talk) 10:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
    I have put the world “fictional” in the name, so a person will be very stubborn to still claim those are real flags. Sorry for very late response, I forgot to check the notification. Daeva Trạc (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Daeva Trạc, I understand, but the word "fictional" could just refer to flags which have no basis in reality, "misattributed" has a less ambiguous term as several of these flags do have a basis in reality and could have been based on real flags that were simply assigned to be national flags. -- — Donald Trung (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    True, there were flags in the eras (as that was and is still the way to recognize different nations, especially during wars), but until we have solid evidence that these flags we are talking about was originate from those time, we should still considered them as “fictional”, cultural, or ceremonial flags (my opinion at least). Daeva Trạc (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    Daeva Trạc, I don't disagree with your points at all. Rather when talking about the semantics either work. — Donald Trung (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
    I didn’t try to discredit anything. So let me simplify my wordy statement:
    •For the source: there are lots of websites and pages across internet have these misreported historical flags, I tried my best to put the most reliable, easy accessed one (that was what I could found, so if you have a better source, feel free to replace or add more).
    •For the term, until we somehow find paintings or any kind of evidences about the real flags, Vietnamese people and Wikipedia editors will continue to use these flags for representative-ceremonial purpose.
    That’s all Im trying to say, thank you for your time and I hope I can find more guidances from you, my friend:) Daeva Trạc (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I have some question related to the Quang Trung flag, which is usually reffered as Quang Trung Đế Kỳ (Quang Trung Imperial Standard). Even though it is placed in the misattributed section, seems like it was recognized as the actual Quang Trung flag by the Vietnamese Government since Vietnamese authorities are spotted using this flag in many occassion, and even flow it besides the Flag of Vietnam and the Vietnamese five-color flags, as seen here [1][2][3]. I think that we need a careful research to see if this flag design deserved a better place rather than placing it in the "misattributed" section.
Besides the "questionable" identity of that red-banner-with-yellow-dot flag, I would like to also talk about Lê Ngọc Hân's famous poem "Ai tư vãn" (哀思挽) about her husband Quang Trung which mentioned "Mà nay áo vải, cờ đào...", and this File:Rạch Gầm-Xoài Mút 1.JPG which represents a plain red ensign used by the Quang Trung's military in the Battle of Rạch Gầm-Xoài Mút, should we (at least) create a file of plain red flag to representing Quang Trung? (just for Quang Trung, not necessarily for the whole Tây Sơn Dynasty)  Hwi.padam   22:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but until they have been carefully researched, we Wikipedians can't change anything, can we. It's still a misattributed flag, widely used by many Vietnamese, until be proven otherwise. I get your point, but let's just keep it like this for now. — Daeva Trạc (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_flags_of_Vietnam/Archive_1&oldid=1215121854"