Talk:Kiến Phúc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Kien Phuc)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Vietnam (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Some main history knowledges in this article (WIKIPEDIA - ENGLISH) are not exact. Read and check them in other language: Vietnamese (WIKIPEDIA TIENG VIET / [Kiến Phúc]), please: 12:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some main history knowledges in this article (WIKIPEDIA - ENGLISH) are not exact. It's more suitable said that The reason of the emperor's death is in disputing. Avia 01:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Kien Phuc (1868 – 1884)'s death, this is an article in English (of Wikipedia – English), which was not filled with the considered-and-decided-materials for citing in the historical research at all, but in it, there were only the misrepresented, distorted circumstances. 00:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Read some works in Vietnamese below, and check some WRONG main history knowledges in English page (article Kien Phuc) of "Wikipedia -- English", please:

1. Trần Xuân An (Tran Xuan An, author); about Kiến Phúc, Nguyễn Văn Tường, Tôn Thất Thuyết, Gia Hưng (Hồng Hưu) & Học Phi: ).

2. About Kiến Phúc, Nguyễn Văn Tường, Gia Hưng...:

3. About Kiến Phúc & Tôn Thất Thuyết...:

4. Nguyễn Quốc Trị (author); about Kiến Phúc...:

5. Many authors, "Hoàng tộc lược biên" & "Nguyễn Phước tộc giản yếu"; about Kiến Phúc (Kiến Phước):

6. Quốc sử quán triều Nguyễn, “Quốc triều chính biên toát yếu”, Quốc sử quán triều Nguyễn's Vietnamese document, Publishing House Thuận Hóa, 1998, p. 548 – 555; about Kiến Phúc (Kiến Phước).

“Quốc triều chính biên toát yếu” (e-book, tr. 213 – 215):

7. Quốc sử quán triều Nguyễn, “Đại Nam thực lục chính biên”, volume 36th, Publishing House Khoa học xã hội, 1976; about Kiến Phúc (Kiến Phước).

From: 09:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Avia! Have you read those books (above)?

I think you could not say: "The reason of the emperor's death is in disputing"!




Professor, Vietnam Nation University, Hanoi

Prof. Dinh Xuan Lam / Source of picture: Web News.vnu

Ho Chi Minh City Literature Publisher recently published the book “The Regent Nguyen Van Tuong (1824-1886)” by Tran Xuan An in 2004. This is a huge and carefully written book with four volumes and total pages of 983. It has a hard cover, good quality paper and printing though too few illustrations.

The book has many good points in design and content. First and foremost, it is necessary to look at the first good point that I think is decisive to its content and design, that is, the passion of the author. Right in the preface, author Tran Xuan An reveals that he is Nguyen Van Tuong’s great grandson (the fifth generation in his farther’s side); and that the book was written in honor of his great grandfather, Nguyen Van Tuong. This casts doubts on the objectiveness of the book for readers even before they start reading it. However, by reading every chapter of the book, readers will realize that the author has ensured the necessary science in its details and research methods.

The first objective the author set for himself is to return the deserved image to Nguyen Van Tuong, a historical personage, who has been intentionally blackened by the French colonists and their followers because he was their strongest opposer. It is true that in the final sentence by the Appeal Court in October 1885 (at the end of August in Lunar year of At Dau) under the ruling of the French colonist and Dong Khanh Government (according to Dai Nam thuc luc chinh bien, volume 37, and translated version by Institute of History, Social Sciences Pubisher, p. 35), Nguyen Van Tuong topped the list of four fighting supporters, even before Ton That Thuyet. At this point, we can see the cunning of French political and military leaders who intended to use Nguyen Van Tuong for their plot, but still had an eye on him during his imprisonment in Thuong Bac station on the bank of Huong River in Hue. They sent him in exile to the island when they failed to use him for their purpose. The fact that he was sent in exile to the island with other fighting supporters, including Ton That Dinh (Ton That Thuyet’s father) and Pham Than Duat (arrested on the way to the North to lead Can vuong [pro-royal] movement) was adequate evidence to confirm that he was a constant fighting supporter. His return to Hue was also in the plan of the insurgents. And it is possible that the return of Nguyen Van Tuong and three royal women to Hue (Tu Du queen mother, Trang Queen, and Hoc Queen) was primarily to negotiate with French rulers to pave way for Emperor Ham Nghi to return to Hue. This ensured the nominal existence of a state (though occupied by foreign invaders) and its royal court to prepare for its future re-establishment. However, the plan failed because the French rulers quickly established a puppet government, led by Emperor Dong Khanh. As a result, Emperor Ham Nghi and Ton That Thuyet had to prepare the army to fight against French colonialism. That explained the reason why a constant French opposer like Nguyen Van Tuong came back to Hue at that time?

The author’s desire is not only to get insight into a historical tragedy, to return a good reputation to and identify the importance of Nguyen Van Tuong who has been mistakenly considered as a traitor for a long time. His passion was revealed to readers that “each of us has to look into ourselves, and regards this as desire of the history with many sufferings”. It is meant that he emphasized the historian’s responsibility to truthfully reflect the history so as to avoid any prolonged injustice. Finally, though he writes about the past, the author is well aware of the present by looking at the overall issues of national solidarity and human solidarity.

With his passion, Tran Xuan An is much likely to achieve his set objectives. He has opportunities to study different sources of references, both from Vietnam and from France. He paid special attention to original documents, including history books by historians during Nguyen dynasty. He also provided relative comparison and analysis. Particularly, he has added latest documents retrieved from France and Tahiti by Madam Nguyen Thi Ngoc Oanh, and her daughter Tran Nguyen Tu Van, the fifth and sixth ** generation of Nguyen Van Tuong. Many of these documents were retrieved from the archives of French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Customs and on Tahiti Islands where Nguyen Van Tuong pass away. The author always updated information and judgment about Nguyen Van Tuong in order to make honest and scientific judgments by following (and participating in) different history workshops by Ho Chi Minh University of Education (20th June 1996), by Center for Social Sciences and Humanities under Hue University and Thua Thien – Hue History Association (2nd July 2002), and the workshop on 1st November 2003 by Assosiation of Vietnamese Historians “to disseminate studies and historical evidence on Nguyen Van Tuong during Can Vuong movement”. Though more evidence should be added, the existing evidence basically could confirm that Nguyen Van Tuong was a constant fighting supporter along with Ton That Thuyet and Emperor Ham Nghi, the most important leaders of the Vietnamese in our resistance movement against French occupation in the late 19th century. It is time to return Nguyen Van Tuong his deserved leadership in Can Vuong movement, which was once denied, to ease the soul of the decedent, to erase the clinging shame for his descendants and to solve a suspected case for others.

The last point I would like to share with the author is the book type. Right on 1st cover, 3rd cover [page 3] and in the preface on page 12, the author states that the book is “a story – record – research book on history” and intends to ensure the readers that “even though the book is a storybook, it has employed some evidence of the history”. Indeed, readers can notice his emphasis on the diversity and precision of historical events, which are finely mixed with some fiction, making the characters and the story more vivid so that readers are fascinated in the flow of story. I strongly agree with him in this aspect. However, I kept thinking about the reason why the author used a lengthly term “a story – record – research book on history” instead of shorter ones like “Chronicle history” or “Novel history”. In fact, there has been a Vietnamese writer, Nguyen Trieu Luat, who writes history novels sucessfully. Some of his fascinating novels such as “The man box”, “Che Queen”, “Arrogant soldiers’ insurgency”, “Trinh Khai Lord”, and “Up the way to examinations”, are written on the exact historical events during Le – Trinh time in the form of a fictitious novel. However, I think his intention to exploit historical materials is greater, not only to use historical events in the story but also to provide careful endnotes in each volume, which resembles a real history book. He must have wanted to provide more weight to his arguments. Any events which have not been mentioned or mentioned with scanty information in the main text are inserted in the endnotes, which highlights the main character. Anyway, the part “Reference to historical materials” of the book is irrelevant in such a historical fiction.

Above are my comments about the book “The Regent Nguyen Van Tuong (1824-1886)”, a carefully written and highly recommended book. I hope this paper will share my opinions with the author and other readers.

January 2005

Prof. Dinh Xuan Lam

  • This text is the full article published in Vietnamese on Nghien cuu Lich su in 2005, No 5 (348): p. 71-73. (this endnote is by origin footnote of Journal of Historical Studies).
    • fourth and fifth generation of Nguyen Van Tuong (TXA.’s endnote).

Source: Journal of Historical Studies (VIETNAMESE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES - INSTITUTE OF HISTORY), volume 1 number 1 (2006), p. 17-18.

(Journal of Historical Studies's Translators: Lam Quang Dong, Vu Thi Thanh Nha, Pham Thi Thuy, Lam Thi Hoa Binh, Dang Minh Quyen, Nguyen Hoang Mai, Dam Thanh Thuy, Dam Thanh Hang, Ly Thanh Yen; Revised by Lam Quang Dong, MA.).


I determined my work, “The Regent Nguyen Van Tuong (1824-1886)”, belonged the historical study type (research on history), but, by me, it was written with the words (language) of biography (story – record).

I thought that: Prof. Xuan-Lam Dinh (Dinh Xuan Lam) forgave other writers because he let pass the endnotes of their historical story books. But I considered, in every historical book type, even historical novel, the endnotes were always necessary. With this requirement, all writers had to work carefully in a scientific way.

Respectful greetings and thanks to Prof. Xuan-Lam Dinh (Dinh Xuan Lam).

An Tran-Xuan (Tran Xuan An) ( )

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 01:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)