Jump to content

Talk:Nguyen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New info on history of name

DHN, you've added some excellent information about the history of this name. Great work. Badagnani 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been meaning to do it for a while now, but your editing gave me the impetus to do it. DHN 21:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

honestly, why is Van Nguyen there as a notable Nguyen? If we're going to put down drug smugglers on the page, we may as well put the whole damn country there

No way, that can't be. "Wong" must be the most common surname for Asians in North America for both historical and demogrpahic reasons. The Cantonese/southern Chinese are the most common Asian groups in the Americas, and "Wong" is their most common surname. Viet version of it is, of course, "Hoang". Le Anh-Huy 07:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nguyen ranks 229, Kim is next at 233, Wong is ranked 459, Tran is ranked 476 and Wang is ranked >1000. Wang (Vuong) is much more common in China.[1][2]. DHN 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Stats like this are good to have. Surprising that someone should get the math wrong, given the demographics involved.

Audio file of name

I would like an audio file posted of the correct pronunciation and the most popular Americanized version. Is it like the "gwen" (like Gwen Steffani) or "when" (like "When does the train leave?"). --24.249.108.133 21:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The audio of the correct pronunciation is already in the article. DHN 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic! It wasn't there when I initially posted my request. So it is "gwen"! --Navstar 04:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
"Gwen?" You must be listening to a different audio file. "Wayoon", two syllables, seems to be the simplest way to render it in English (or "Ngway-un" perhaps, but that'd be more confusing.)

Origin And Usage Section Needs Rework

I propose that the Origin and Usage Section get a bit of rework... The paragraph that begins "many events contributed to the name's prominence" seems to provide a lot of good information.. But is rather confusing to read... The first part of the paragraph talks about political/dynastic changes causing name changes... then came some mention of "awarding the surnames" which seems to imply a different subject... finally, there is mention of criminals changing names... My suggestion: change paragraph into 3 parts... 1 related to the change of dinasties... 2 related to the awarding of surnames (which seems to have little information) 3 related to the criminals part......

In the change of dynasties portion... I think the readability is currently poor.. probably needs some edit..

Also, are there other things that caused increases in usage of the name?

If no one objects, I will make the changes... But I would like some additional details that can be added...

Duy T. Nguyen 19:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stress

Hi, I can't read Tieng Viet, but the I had a question about the English approximation. Where is the stress in the name? I mean 'ngwin is different than ng'win or something like that Mallerd 15:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore the "ng" and read it as "win". DHN 15:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Mallerd 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Great article!

I just want to congratulate everyone who helped to build this article. It is an awesome help to anyone who wants some quick, accessible, helpful, free info about this surname. The usefulness of Wikipedia is proved by such articles. Great job! — ¾-10 17:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notable Nguyen section

I propose that the "Notable Nguyen" section be removed from this article or severely pruned. Practically half of the country are Nguyen, and those who happen to have articles written about them on Wikipedia aren't really worth mentioning in the bigger scheme of things. I only see several names that are truly notable: Nguyen Dynasty, Nguyen Lords (same family), Nguyen Sinh Cung, Nguyen Van Thieu, Nguyen Huu Tho, Nguyen Cao Ky, and Nguyen Du. DHN 07:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed some of the fancruft from the list. I think only people of international and historical significance should be added. DHN 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing this section altogether, it's receiving too much "vanity entries" and is pointless. DHN 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, List of notable Nguyen's deserves its own page. THe list of notable Pham's i short enough to keep it in itself.Amiaheroyet 05:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a separate article for notable Nguyens, as we have for Chen, Li, etc. It's a very helpful thing for research. Badagnani (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Such an article wouldn't be much more useful than a list of Vietnamese; such an article will undoubtedly be full of vanity entries. Due to the systemic bias inherent in Wikipedia (recentism, English-language sources, etc.), it will also be filled with people who aren't really important in the scheme of things while arguably more important people would be left out. DHN (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable Nguyens shouldn't have articles to begin with and the article can certainly be policed to eliminate vanity redlinks. As with List of Irish Americans, it can be categorized by profession. No problems. Badagnani (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to an article like that, but somehow I suspect it's going to end up with more of the 1.5 million or so Vietnamese Americans within the past 30 years than with the 86 million Vietnamese in the past 2000 years. DHN (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A Hunted surname

Russian neo-nazi's generally search the Moscow phonebooks for the nguyen surname, being as it is a prevalent indicator of asian ancestry. These people are then the targets of brutal rascist attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.124.253 (talk) 08:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for this? Badagnani (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Meaning

Does anybody have a source that says (or even speculates) as to the meaning of the name? Blast Ulna (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be the Sino-Vietnamese pronunciation of the Chinese surname Ruan (阮). It's not clear what the literal meaning of that Chinese surname is, however. Badagnani (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that the name is Chinese in origin. The Viets lived in what is now southern China for an extremely long time. More recently they moved southwards. Asians typically attribute everything to the Chinese, sometimes incorrectly. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It's undoubtedly associated with the 阮 character, because that's how it's been written for centuries. Are you claiming that the name predated its association with that written character? Badagnani (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but although, yes, the Chinese are blamed for quite a lot, almost every Asian country has roots with Chinese somehow. Either they borrowed in the history, their inherited surnames, they lived in their country, or they're even mixed... could be more than one of those. China is basically England to Europe (and I suppose Vietnam could be Germany, including the terrible wars and oppression and Jewish coming and everyone getting mixed up both racially and emotionally, not too sure what the rest would be, use your own imagination). The languages and history of almost every Asian country all sprang out of Chinese. Not just East Asia; Vietnam and even the Thai and Cambodian neighbors admit to having come out of China, and even Malay carries some names that seem distinctly Chinese, and Chinese rulers of their largest cities. ★Dasani★ 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't it be written as "厵" or "源"?

Is it pronounced differently written as those characters? Because it also means "Nguyen"... moocowsruletalk to moo 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Which source says that they mean "Nguyen"? DHN (talk) 09:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
On Wiktionary... I mean it said that in Vietnamese it's romanized as "Nguyen"... moocowsruletalk to moo 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
[3] and [4]. 源 is the simplified version of 厵. moocowsruletalk to moo 02:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The second one doesn't say anything about the character being present in Vietnamese, but I assumed since it's just the simplified version... moocowsruletalk to moo 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the Vietnamese writing system, Nguyễn is entirely different from nguyen (nonsensical) or nguyên. Please note that Vietnamese uses the Roman alphabet, so you can't really use Chinese characters if you're trying to express Vietnamese words. 02:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Vietnamese previously used the Chinese scripts... I believe it was called "Han Tu"... moocowsruletalk to moo 03:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Was that what the whole thing was called? I heard it was chu nom. They even made their own characters, see The Tale of Kieu. ★Dasani★ 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It's a writing system that use Chinese characters to write Vietnamese word (like Kanji, Hanja). But it required that the writer and reader must know a lot of Chinese character (to combine them), so only a few confucianist might use it well.--Amore Mio (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

When romanized, does it matter if the surname has the diacritic accent marks on it... especially in English? 76.111.67.200 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter in English, but it certainly does matter in Vietnamese since it's not merely a Romanization, but that's how it's actually written. DHN (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest of split

split it with Ruan and Nguyễn,though they got something in common,the ethymology,but like the chinese and korean surname wikt:李,Li (surname) and Lee (Korean name) were already separated.Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there's no article on Ruan (surname). DHN 17:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
So,I suggest we split it.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 19:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Currently, I don't see any information regarding the surname "Ruan" in this article, except its etymology. I'm not sure what you want to split? If there's nothing to split, I will remove the tag. DHN 20:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I am just inquiring whether it is suitable to make another Ruan (surname),because,on the top of article Ruan,Nguyễn is placed,I am not sure if all the parties are welcomed another Ruan page.--Ksyrie(Talkie talkie) 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I concur a split would be appropriate. Lets follow the model like all other pages.Sea888 (talk) 05:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm sure the pronunciation is different between the different regions of Vietnam. Any confirmation on this?

And if that's so, we should include audio files for each different way to maintain completeness and neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.243.47 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true that the pronunciation of any Vietnamese word varies by region and individual, but difference is hardly noticeable. In this case, the tone slightly differs in the Northern and Southern varieties since Southerners don't distinguish between the "hỏi" and "ngã" tones while Northerners do. DHN (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Guy reference

There is a reference in the show Family Guy where the dog Brian pronounces the name "Nee-GOO-Yan," is there room for references to the name in popular culture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.210.104.120 (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

I wouldn't object, although these references aren't really worth mentioning, since any show that has a Vietnamese character is bound to have someone named Nguyen. DHN 20:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Family Guy is a highly notable show, I suggest that all topics that make an appearance in it have a Family Guy note appended! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.247 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Chinese text about origin of Ruan...need translation

阮姓——姓氏起源（聚集地、家谱、历史名人） 姓氏起源

阮姓起源有三：


1、以国为氏，是皋陶氏之后。商代有阮国，是商的诸侯国，汽笛在今甘肃省泾川县境内。商末，西岐诸侯王姬昌灭阮国，原阮国王族相约以国名为姓，成为阮姓。后来，阮姓族人为避仇杀，分散到了各地。据《通志·氏族略》所载："阮氏，商之诸侯，国在岐渭之间。周文王侵阮徂共见于诗，子孙以国为氏。"
2、出自偃姓，亦属皋陶之后。据传，皋陶生于曲阜，偃姓，其后亦有人以阮为姓。
3、石姓有人改姓阮姓。据《南史》记载，东晋末期，有石姓人改姓阮姓。

堂号
竹林堂：三国时候，阮籍为竹林七贤之一，曾官至步兵校尉。


历史名人


阮瑀（约165-212）：东汉文学家，"建安七子"之一，字元瑜，陈留尉氏（今河南尉氏）人，为曹操司空军谋祭酒，管记事，能诗，善作书檄，有《阮元瑜集》 阮籍（210-263）：三国时魏国文学家、名士，字嗣宗，陈留尉氏（今河南尉氏）人，"竹林七贤"之一。他博览群书，尤好庄老，有《阮嗣宗集》。他有八十余首《咏怀诗》，颇为有名。
阮咸：魏晋间名士，字仲容，陈留尉氏（今河南尉氏）人，阮籍之侄，"竹林七贤"之一。他精通音律，善弹琵琶，曾为散骑侍郎。
阮孝绪（479-536）：字士宗，陈留尉氏（今河南尉氏）人。他撰写了《七录》，仿照《七略》分类法，将当时所见图书6288种，44520卷，分为经典、纪传、子兵、文集、术技、佛法、仙道七录，已佚。现尚寸《广宏明集》，有五十五部序目，可考察其分类情况。
阮元：字伯元，号云台，清朝江苏仪征人，乾隆五十四年（1789年）进士。嘉庆、道光年间，历任户、兵、工部侍郎，浙、闽、赣诸省巡抚，两广、云贵总督，体仁阁大学士。他倡修《清史》、《儒林》、《文苑传》，历官所至，以提倡学术为己任。他在浙设诂经精舍，在粤立学海堂，撰《十三经校勘记》、《经籍纂诂》、汇刻《皇清经解》180余种，道光二十九年（1849年）逝世终年85岁，谥达 --LLTimes (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Information about the Chinese origin of the Ruan surname would be good to add to this article. You could start by trying http://babelfish.yahoo.com/ or http://www.google.com/language_tools . Badagnani (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
It appears these statements above were from 《通志·氏族略》(Created in Song Dynasty, had a special volume regarding orgin of Chinese Surnames) Link to Chinese wiki Click Hereand 《南史》(Translate Southern History, writen by Li yanshuo his chinese wiki , and link to Southern History Volumes ->Link here. Still need a good translator, web translator sucks --LLTimes (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

So is it originally Chinese or not?

Just because something can be written in Chinese, that does not mean it originates from Chinese. Not too long ago, there was an effort by Chinese community groups in the US to "phonetically translate" Western names of political candidates into Chinese writing for campaign publication in Chinatowns. Would these names be claimed as Chinese origin in the future when someone quotes the campaign pulication as proof ? I think the linkage of Nguyen and Chinese origin is unfounded and should be removed from the page. Goiga (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

People with this surname are most often associated with Vietnam. While some believe the surname is of Chinese origin[citation needed], written in Chinese as 阮—pronounced Ruǎn (Ruan) in Standard Mandarin and Yun (Yuen) in Cantonese (see Chinese surnames), others believe its origin is in Vietnam.

[a few paragraphs later]

Like many surnames in Vietnam and other Chinese-influenced cultures (including Korea and Japan), the name Nguyễn is of Chinese origin, and is shared with those in Chinese culture with the same surname.

Don't these statements directly contradict one other? One says that it might be either Chinese or Vietnamese, and the other one asserts that it is Chinese. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the apparent contradiction. It was originally asserted to be Chinese, but an editor didn't think it was, and we couldn't find much info about the matter, so we just removed the Chinese reference. DHN 16:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Nguyễn is vietnamese surname, nobody can deny it. It is very difficult to know if it is originally chinese or not, because Vietnam in long old time used chinese writing as well. 84.19.57.254 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Ruan is just the Chinese equiv, like Giovanni is Italian and John is English.--220.238.65.180 08:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronounce

The appoximations mentioned within the article are not ones I have ever heard even those with the name, that I know pronounce it new-yan not with any w sound and not as one syllable--69.146.108.94 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, in areas where this name is rare, it's pronounced as two syllables. However, where it's very common (such as in California), it's pronounced as one syllable ("win"). DHN (talk) 00:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm from california and speaking from that experience --69.146.108.94 (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the name Nguyen, and proper sourcing.

I can find no reliable sources that connect Nguyễn to the musical instrument called a ruan. What I have found is a source that says that Nguyễn means "source" in the narrow sense of water springs and/or headwaters of streams and rivers. Google's translating tool backs me up. Anyway, I suspect that the ruan-nguyen connection is a coincidence. Consider the usual derivations of surnames; Mr. Hill, Mr. Wood, Mr. Field, Mr. Beach, Mr. Marsh, Mr. Ford, etc all are named after places. Mr. Lute, Mr. Drum, Mr. Flute, Mr. Lyre, Mr. Horn, Mr. Harp are much less common, with only Harp or Harper springing to mind as real surnames. Abductive (reasoning) 08:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nguyễn (derived from 阮: the surname, musical instrument) and nguyên (no tilde, derived from 元: origin, first) are two distinct words in Vietnamese that are pronounced and written differently and have different meanings. DHN (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If one accepts the Chinese characters as evidence of the root of a word in Viet, a language in a totally different language family. But there are no WP:reliable sources that say this. My source might be wrong, but there are no others provided. Abductive (reasoning) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Your source is not wrong, it's your interpretation that's wrong. The source clearly talks about the word "nguyên", while you mistake it for "Nguyễn", which is an entirely different word. Unlike in some other languages, the tone marks do matter in Vietnamese. BTW, there are plenty of sources for this, just none that you can read. DHN (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I see. Well, unfortunately, that only means I have to remove my claim and leave the article without an origin of the name until a good source turns up. I'll see if I can machine translate that source. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have to use a very big chinese character  ????

I dont know why people have to use a very big chinese character to describe this name. It is a minor related point and does not reflect much information about this surname. Moreover, it is mentioned and written in chinese character in the description.

I delete the image and edit to make sure it follows the format of other name, for instance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_(Korean_name) Lee is also a sure name derived from chinese but does not need the BIG CHINESE CHARACTER on its own wiki page.

Please explain to me why do we have to had the image of letter ruan. It makes no sense. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.222.253 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is used for illustration as this article has no suitable picture for this purpose. And please keep in mind that is it Han Tu/Chữ nôm, not the Chinese character and Vietnamese speaking people is still using them in special occasions[5]. Lastly, Wikipedia has no policy that requests an common format for all articles so I don't think your example make any sense.--115.73.26.211 (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The chinese character was written in description. What the purpose of this image??. How about replace it by this http://i.imgur.com/BniRl.png. My example makes more sense than your argument. What and when is the special occasion  ??. This is the common tombstone of Nguyen people [6]. Han tu is chinese character, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.222.253 (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I repeat again, it is FOR ILLUSTRATION and IT IS 100% RELEVANT. Special occasion is religious rituals, texts on classical-themed building, pagodas and so on. Yes, Han Tu is Chinese character but Vietnamese has adopted it and it become their own writing system, so what? Don't try to censor what you don't like. The picture that I showed you is a new stele honoring Nguyen dynasty Doctor Trương Nguyễn Điều and it clearly show that Vietnamese still use Han Tu when they need them.--115.73.36.179 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
it is relevant but a minor point and it was fully described in the description. The reason that chinese character of this word is used by Vietnamese in some cases does not strong enough to have a picture of it written in chinese as an illustration for this article. Nguyen dynasty is more than hundred year ago and the use of Chu Nom or Han Tu appears to deplete. Putting your emotion into an argument does not make your poit stronger. I do not try to sensor or cover anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImFonk (talk • contribs) 05:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm 115.73. This stele is a new one that created by the late doctor's descendants not from the Nguyen dynasty-era, I showed it so that you could understand the character is still used. And it is still relevant enough so that It has a place in this article. Your reason of removal is that the Han Tu is no longer used by Vietnamese speaking people is simply groundless. Unless you provide another reason for that this picture should be removed or the community want it to be removed, I won't let it be removed in any circumstances so please don't waste the time.--ImFog (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The character is still used in some rare cases doesn't mean there is need to use it as an illustration for the whole article. It is clearly described in the description. My point is not because the less popular of this word but the necessary of using the image. The additional image is useless and may cause biased. http://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A0_ph%C3%AA is the word derived from French but it doesn't need French character on it pages. I am willing to have this escalated to mod for a final decision, I dont have time to educate sheep over internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImFonk (talk • contribs) 07:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Bias caused by adding a picture is your personal opinion. For me, it is totally fine and a good addition. Cà phê is total different, I don't think French was as popular as Han Tu was. French language was never become national language used by an independent Vietnamese country and French language was not used as long as Han tu was used. And Nguyen is not an object while cà phê is, how on earth they are the same? Yes, you might have this matter escalated but I don't think there are "forum mods" in Wikipedia. Everything in Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS and you should try to achieve it if your edit got objection from other editor. Please go ahead as I am willing to talk, and please keep a good faith when work here, thank you in advance.--14:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImFog (talk • contribs)
your argument is week, everything base on your personal point of view. The adding of this image is irrelevant, useless and causes misunderstanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImFonk (talk • contribs) 18:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Let the community decide. All of above are only your personal point of views which make me think that you have a deep hatred of Han Tu and you are trying to remove them only because you don't like them. I emphasize again that I will check and revert your removal unless you provide my other reason than "it is irrelevant, useless and causes misunderstandin".--00:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

shared with those who share it

My surname, too, is shared with those who have the same surname. Does the quoted sentence have a subtle meaning that I've missed, or is it merely a tautologous restatement of a clearer passage higher on the page? —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote it meant that it's shared with the surname written with the same Chinese character (the Chinese surname is transliterated as "Ruan" in pinyin). DHN (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So the point is that Nguyễn is (or can be) written with the same Chinese character as the names that are written with the same character? —Tamfang (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the point is that even if they're written differently in the Latin alphabet, they're considered the same name. Feel free to change or remove it if it's confusing. DHN (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The last sentence of the first section seems to cover it:

—Tamfang (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IPA

The IPA transcriptions in this article need reworking. I keep trying to pronounce [ŋʷjə̌ˀn], and all that comes out is the "nw-yen" my perplexed elementary school teachers used to call me by. I'm not sure where to find a source that explicitly gives an IPA transcription for "Nguyễn" in particular, but one way to know that [ŋʷjə̌ˀn] is incorrect is to try elongating the name: you'll hear lots of /i/, no /j/, and just a little /ə/ at the end. It's more like /ŋwiʔən˧˥/ (northern dialect). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

With or without diacritics?

Copied from a user talk page:

I've been pondering about what to do at the Nguyễn Dynasty RM, but it brought another question to mind that I thought I'd ask you about. In the Nguyễn article, it says that "Nguyễn" is the 7th most popular surname in Australia, 54th in France, 57th in the U.S., etc. Of course, in each of those countries, it's rendered "Nguyen", which is why we have articles such as Dat Nguyen. So my question for you is, what impact should the popularity of this surname in countries without Vietnamese diacritics have on how we render it on WP? Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the version of a word that's actually used in that place? Compare how the French WP handles this. It uses both Nguyễn and Nguyen, depending on context. Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that "Nguyen" is the 7th most popular surname in Australia? Just curious what you think... Dohn joe (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do I think? I think you should back away from the horse and find something useful to do that will contribute to article space. Nguyễn Dynasty is not an Australian dynasty. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Never mind. I was genuinely interested in your thoughts, and hoped we could have a constructive conversation. Maybe I'll try again some other time. Dohn joe (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This issue might be worth discussing more broadly. To respond to User:Dohn joe's query, while the primary encyclopedic notability of the name derives from its meaning and usage in Vietnam or in Vietnamese, the sources for statistics Australia, France, the U.S., &c. do not support diacritic usage and the diacritics are generally eschewed locally. Therefore, it is indeed more accurate to omit the diacritics in the instances that refer to statistics or usage in these countries as the French page does. Adding diacritics in such cases borders on original research. What thinketh ye? —  AjaxSmack  04:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Totally agree, only I'd say the current title is a blatant violation of WP:OR. No Nguyen I know spells it with diacritics. No newspaper, book or magazine referencing "Nguyen" that I've ever seen has ever used diacritics. There might be a few out there, but it's definitely not nearly as commonly used in reliable sources as is the plain version. We need an RM here, badly, as this is the base name for a number of titles that include Nguyen in them.

    In ictu oculi's reply to Dohn Joe in the quoted text above is abysmal. That kind of dismissive response is not conducive to developing consensus, and belies a position probably supported entirely by a JDLI framework. --B2C 05:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

    • The current title is not OR. There are plenty of sources verifying the diacritics. However, statements within the article like "Nguyễn is the seventh most common family name in Australia" might be considered OR since the use of diacritics in Australia per se is unsourced. —  AjaxSmack  14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • If there are people who doubt that the Nguyen used outside of Vietnam is the same as the Nguyễn used inside Vietnam then by all means separate them like the French article does. It seems to me the fact that when non-Vietnamese sources use "Nguyen" for people whose surname is most definitely Nguyễn (because they live in Vietnam), that's pretty indicative that those sources consider those two names to be one and the same. DHN (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Ajax that it is inaccurate/bordering on OR to say that "Nguyễn" is the 7th most common name in Australia. How to deal with it? I would add a sentence after the first sentence along the lines of "Outside of Vietnam, the name is commonly rendered Nguyen." Then, within the article, we use whichever version is more appropriate for the statement being made. I would extend this approach to the People with surname Nguyễn article as well. It's more accurate, and reduces confusion. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    I see that DHN added and altered the text as suggested - thanks. I moved the reference to "Nguyen" to the lead as I suggested, because it's important to introduce it early. I also noted that French only sometimes adds the simplified accent. Most French sources use the diacritic-free version. Otherwise, I think this is an improvement. One other item I've been looking for - a good source to show the English pronunciation of "Nguyen". The article indicates that people use "win", "wen", etc., but there's not a strong ref for that. Any ideas where to find that info? Dohn joe (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. I know this is going to be controversial, but numbers-wise we're split down the middle (8-8). First, I implore B2C to please, once again, stop posting RM notices to WT:AT; doing so is not useful or necessary (people there are not "title experts"), and that kind of notification puts a closer like myself in a precarious situation, cognizant that someone may object because of the appearance of canvassing (especially given how the tide shifted in the second half of the RfC).

Anyway, there is most certainly consensus on one thing: Nguyễn is not "original research". Unfortunately, some of the supporting remarks seem to begin and end with refuting that point, something that seems easy enough to do. Many of them fail to address a major point brought up by supporters: the Use English guideline. The primary objections to the invocation of that guideline here appear to be that the name is more accurate and correct. But those entreaties, despite obvious true in Vietnamese, seem unsubstantiated in light of the WP:UE guideline, speaking past the guideline and the supporting arguments made around it. In fact, there seemed to be an acknowledgement that "Nguyen" is most common in English, but they those sources/people are just... well... wrong. I also see that there was a suggestion that the name is rendered without diacritics in a number of sources because of technical limitations, but that appeared simply anecdotal.

So, it seems the Use English argument, the driving force behind the supporters, remains undefeated. I feel that, given the split, the basis of argument tips the scale to Nguyen. -- tariqabjotu 03:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nguyễn → Nguyen – Usage in English reliable sources demonstrates that the plain (no diacritic) spelling is much more commonly used. From the New York Times[7] to The Times[8], from books[9] to scholarly papers[10], use of diacritics is practically non-existent. Per WP:COMMONNAME, recognizability and naturalness. The current title is a violation of WP:OR. --Relisted. -- tariqabjotu 05:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC) -- B2C 05:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose - It's ridiculous to claim that the correct Vietnamese spelling is "original research". A cursory look at Google Books shows that plenty of English-language sources use the proper spelling. This spelling also serves to distinguish it from "Nguyên", which is found "Tây Nguyên" and "Võ Nguyên Giáp". I'm not even going to rehash the argument that in the English Wikipedia you can find plenty of Eastern European names with their full diacritic marks even though you'd never see them written as such in The New York Times or the BBC (Slobodan Milošević anyone?). That had been already argued ad nauseum. DHN (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per User:DHN pretty much verbatim. The existence of Texan-born footballers like Dat Nguyen, or indeed other American surnames of the John Nguyen format is not a good starting point for the spelling of a historic Asian name. Particularly at the same time as hardback books are increasing the use of Vietnamese fonts. This is one of the few well written and sourced surname articles on en.wp. Please let's not mess it up. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the two users above. While the the diacritics are often eschewed outside of Vietnam, the primary encyclopedic notability of the name derives from its meaning and usage in Vietnam or in Vietnamese. Accordingly, the vast majority of the article deals with history and usage of the name in Vietnam by Vietnamese and the article title should reflect that. Style manual or technical limitations in other media need not circumscribe Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Light Support I am inclined to, reluctantly, agree with Born2cycle. The family name in the English speaking world does not largely employ diacritics. I would question whether the article really strictly "deals with history and usage of the name in Vietnam by Vietnamese". The article lead largely concerns the commonality of the name internationally; those sources (phone book analysis, census, etc) do not refer to the commonality of the diacritic version but rather the version without. Those sources in fact show that the diacritic version is uncommon in the English speaking world; a look through your local phone book will likely produce the same results. I would question whether the diacritic version is even the most common regardless of language, given how international the name has become. In terms of commonality, the majority of links on List of people with surname Nguyễn (Vietnamese born individuals or otherwise) point to non-diacritic version of the name. If a Vietnamese naming convention ever gains community acceptable I would happily revisit my position.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    The text about the commonality of the surname outside of Vietnam is triviastic to me and removing it doesn't change the main content of the article. By sheer number, the number of people with the surname Nguyễn inside Vietnam completely overwhelms all those who share the surname outside of it. DHN (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Struck the one point. However, It still does not address the issue that the stats showed the name in English is employed more extensively without the diacritic and that most biographies on Wikipedia do not employ them.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Labattblueboy, most Nguyễn biographies on Wikipedia do employ Nguyễn - they were created at title Nguyễn and have Nguyễn in the text. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The majority of the links on List of people with surname Nguyễn do not employ diacritics in the title. Here is a breakdown by section: None in the heads of state, none in actors, none in actors, one in artists (Nguyễn Lộc), none under chess players, none under journalists, none under military, none under models, none under musicians, none under physicians, none under poets, none under poker players, none under politicians, one under religious leader (Nguyễn Văn Thuận), none under revolutionaries, none under scientists, none under writers and none under others. So on a page that is supposedly a list of notable Nguyễns/Nguyens, two of approx 100 link to articles where the article title itself employ diacritics.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Conflicted. Oppose. I give up. I was set to oppose, along the lines of Ajax, when I read Labattblueboy's argument. It's true that the lead does largely discuss the extra-Vietnamese usage of the name. And it's a very interesting question about the internationalization of the name. Are there more Nguyens or Nguyễns in the world? That might have a bearing on what we call the article. When an individual lives in a non-diacritic country, we often change or omit the diacritics of that individual's name (see Dat Nguyen, Scotty Nguyen). What happens when the surname itself becomes more prevalent outside its country of origin? Fascinating question. If anyone comes up with a way to answer it, I'd be interested. But for now, no !vote. Never mind. Thanks DHN. I just went to the Vietnamese people page. There are 74 million Vietnamese people in Vietnam, and only 3 million Vietnamese people in the rest of the world. It's clear that Nguyễns predominate over Nguyens. So, oppose. Although, if someone could show somehow that a majority of English-language sources that discuss the name do so in the context of non-Vietnamese contexts, I would revisit. (If that makes sense.) There have been very strong arguments on both sides. Agnosticaphid in particular has convinced me not to oppose any more. Dohn joe (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    There are about 90 million people in Vietnam, of whom about 40% share this surname. There are fewer than 4 million Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam. DHN (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Accuracy is important. Local perspective to the subject is important. We should not follow common inaccuracies when we know better. WP:NOR is irrelevant to the question here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm no fan of the Viet diacritics set, would usually prefer the National Geographic style manual and would generally refrain from commenting or voting on such a move proposal. I have no clue as to whether the current namespace is "correct", so would rely on our Viet colleagues for that verification. However, as the subject is a common Vietnamese surname that has prominent members living outside Vietnam, thus having many searchable occurrences in Western references, it's a brave man who would call the non-glyph version a "WP:OR-violation". Au contrare, it's absolutely of encyclopaedic merit to go back to the roots of the etymology for the "original" spelling with glyphs. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this title remained as Nguyễn, maybe we have to restore the name with diacritics for Nguyen Phuc Nguyen. Without diacritics, people will think why his last and given names are the same, but they are actually too different names. One is Nguyễn and the other is Nguyên. ༆ (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The WP:CRITERIA section of our WP:Article titles policy sets out five basic criteria for choosing the best title for an article. Given both source usage and internal Wikipedia usage, it is clear that "Nguyen" (with no diacritic) best meets those five criteria. It certainly is the best choice for meeting the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness (which are arguably the most important of the five). Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
These are five nice "goals", but in this case they miss the point that the current name is accurate and the proposed title inaccurate. Why is "Not inaccurate" not part of the policy, Wikipedia:Article titles. I think that should be changed. Wikipedia should not use inaccurate (as in wrong) titles. This name has a Western history of gross mispronunciation, it is little wonder that few bothered with correct diacritics.
We could consider this a case of their being extremely few "reliable" English language sources with respect to correct use of diacritics in Vietnamese names.
I'm not sure that we want to refuse Anglicisation of all foreign load words, but this is not a loan word, but a person's name, and to not correct your misuse of someone else's name upon being corrected is exceedingly impolite. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing inaccurate about "Nguyen", insofar as that version is the last name of at least a million or two people outside of Vietnam. Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
But there is if you consider that these people have been writing their name inaccurately for a generation, that when they emigrated, many as young refugees, the receiving bureaucrats were not concerned about diacritics. Now that we know better, it is not accurate to talk about the Vietnamese name "Nguyen". See DHN's comment, 09:08, 3 August 2013 above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your username includes "Joe" - mine does too! Did you know that "Joseph" comes from the Hebrew name "יוֹסֵף" or "Yossef"? Which means that "Joseph" (let alone "Joe") is horribly inaccurate, and has been so for going on several centuries now. From now on, would you please refer to yourself as "Smokeyיוֹסֵף"? Now that we know better.... (Sorry for the sarcasm - it just seems condescending to imply that millions of people are spelling their own names inaccurately.) Dohn יוֹסֵף (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is a risk of condescension here, but I have known people with the surname Nguyen for decades, and there is a history of standard appalling mispronunciation, and now I notice these people are (unlike in their youth) beginning to introduce themselves with correct pronunciation, and to request correct pronunciation for their children, and even sometimes use the correct diacritics, correct as in what their relatives in Vietnam use. This is about past, recent past, unreliability of sources.
If there are individual biographies of people who prefer to use Nguyen over Nguyễn, that is fine, we should lean to respecting an individual's choice of name, but this is about the name generically, and if we want to be correct, it is Nguyễn. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Billions of people all over the world spell their names inaccurately compared to their relatives in the melting pot of US phone books. However WikiProject Anthroponymy (have they been notified?) doesn't have a brief to Americanize all surname articles. I don't see why this surname is being singled out by this RM. Per US demographics we should start with German and Polish surname articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
What is "inaccurate" is not an easy question, is my point. After all, Nguyễn itself is just an inaccurate transliteration of 阮, which should be pronounced "[ʐwàn]", right? And "Joseph" is a poor bastardization of יוֹסֵף. The point being that "Nguyen" can accurately be called an Australian/American last name pronounced "win".... Dohn joe (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And Blueboar, that is a circular reflection of your own view to simply state that an Americanized simplification of an Asian surname "certainly is the best choice for meeting the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness" - other editors will interpret the same guideline to say that an Americanized version is just about the worst possible choice for that WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Why are you saying Americanized rather than Anglicized? In my proposal I cited The Times (London) as a prominent source. Last I checked the prefix of this site was en. - and the way this surname is most commonly spelled in English reliable sources (not just American English ones) is Nguyen. That's our standard, not someone's opinion of accuracy. --B2C 05:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source in Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The time of the link was Talk:Nguyễn#Requested_move --B2C 06:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC). Why did you post there B2C? What makes this RM different from every other RM that isn't notified to the group of editors there? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it was appropriate, considering that this may serve as a demonstration that policy is inadequate for dealing with articles on foreign names, where the reliability of all English language sources cannot be assumed. SmokeyJoe (talk) --00:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It's unfortunate then that when a RM nominator has RM consensus going against him/her any notification of a small pool of editors elsewhere can be interpreted as WP:CANVASS, WT:AT talkers don't have any special status over articles on en.wp. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure how a post to WP:AT could be construed as influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate. If anything, I would suspect that SmokeyJoe is right, that this will helping move forward the idea that WP:VIETCON needs a reboot.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I submit there is no more neutral way to notify likely title experts about a case that is likely to interest them than the way I did it. Yet I'm still accused of canvassing? I hate to play the victim, but would anyone else be so accused for doing the exact same thing? --B2C 05:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I'm afraid yes I think anyone who posted a RM, was getting oppose results and then went to a corner of en.wp where he/she is very active would look bad. I do not know what is a "title expert." In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm very tempted to attempt to advertise this discussion to all active editors with "nguyen" in their usernames, if only I knew how. Some of them might have something highly informed to contribute. Although I am very willing to dismiss any newspaper as not reliable on the question of casual use of Vietnamese diacritics, I am surprised that English language Vietnamese newspapers, those listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Vietnamese), are very light on diacritics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
User:SmokeyJoe, I know it looks like that to people outside publishing, but having first hand been involved in business publishing in Asia I would be amazed to see Saigon Times, Thanh Nien News, Tuoi Tre News, VietnamNet Bridge, Viet Nam News, and VOV Online use full Vietnamese even today. Firstly these are wire-services and html. Secondly any publication with deadline takes a great time risk with diacritics (yes NY Times and Guardian do for French/German/Spanish/Portuguese but they must have ultra-efficient processes and spellcheck software). Thirdly the people who finish these English newswires in Asia often don't know a word of the local languages - I know many govt newswire employed foreign proofreaders across Asia, nice people but none of them knew much or the local languages, the same is true for TTXVN and Vietnamese. Fourthly these local Asian English websites and papers are often pretty ramshackle. All in all it's not surprising that Yale UP, Hawaii UP and Oxford UP use a higher MOS than these English news sites. The logistics of publishing are based on time and cost. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
That sounds quite plausible, thank you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Support. I'll have to reluctantly both take an unpopular position and agree with Born2Cycle. I agree with the facts stated by Labattblueboy. And the first sentence of WP:USEENGLISH says, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources." So it seems to me that it should be changed, regardless of which is "correct," because our policy is to use the most common name in English, not the "correct" name. I can see why some people wouldn't like that application of the policy here; perhaps the policies should be changed. But I don't think that the policies should be changed by ad-hoc subversion of the titling rules. AgnosticAphid talk 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Agnosticaphid, do you have any evidence for the idea that WP:COMMONNAME is applicable to the same name in different fonts? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The WP:USEENGLISH guideline says: "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." So, I think that if I'm correct that most of the English-language language sources are predominately discussing people whose last name has no diacritics, or are discussing the history of the name in Vietnam without using diacritics – which I freely admit I may not be – then the naming conventions here seem to call for the name without diacritics to be chosen. AgnosticAphid talk 00:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Agnosticaphid, correct, so that is not WP:COMMONNAME which includes a French name. The WP:DIACRITICS guideline you cite refers to "reliable sources" ... so what does WP:Reliable sources (WP:Identifying reliable sources) say about which sources are reliable for Vietnamese names? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I find this question and answer format a bit tiresome. If you have opinions, share them. I think that the sources cited by born2cycle are reliable (even if I don't reall agree with the "WP:OR" statement), and i think that labattblueboy's comments also indicate that the no-diacritic spelling is more common in English encyclopedia article topics. None of the oppose votes have dealt with this issue at all – they've all said "of course it should use Vietnamese letters because that's the original spelling and the most people are named it, too!", which really isn't a legitimate rationale under our policies. Overall, at the moment I'd say "survey says reliable sources In english omit the diacritic." AgnosticAphid talk 17:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Further comment: if the question is, "are reliable sources the sorts of general sources cited by born2cycle or more specific sources about the name in particular?", even though none of the support votes went into that, for this particular article I'd have to go with the former, since it's about the name in general and not in any specific context. YMMV. AgnosticAphid talk 17:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have spelled out my comment to Born2cycle above "Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source in Wikipedia" - the specific line is WP:RS "sources reliable for the statement being made", a source which doesn't use Polish fonts is not an accurate source for the spelling of Lech Wałęsa, and the majority of books mentioning "Lech Wałęsa" are low-MOS and have "Lech Walesa", but we don't title the en.wp article that way because sources without Polish fonts aren't a reliable source for spelling of a Polish name. Exactly the same logic then with Nguyễn. Born2cycle's argument is basically "most English books don't use Vietnamese fonts so en.wp shouldn't" - but that's nonsense, that argument would make every Polish, Czech, Latvian, etc name title on en.wp "wrong," and en.wp does use Vietnamese fonts. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. It's simply untrue that, for instance, Vietnamese-Americans who spell their names without diacritics are spelling it "wrong." Mr. Wałęsa, by contrast, is a person the spelling of whose name is an objectively verifiable fact. The "correct" spelling of the name "Nguyen" is not something that can be objectively determined, because some people don't spell it with diacritics. Why should we be consulting solely Vietnamese sources to determine the way to spell this name? This article is not only about Vietnamese use of this name; the lead and an entire section discuss use of this name outside of Vietnam. Those things being the case, I can't fathom why reliable sources should be limited to Vietnamese sources or why The New York Times, an indisputably reliable source, would not be considered a reliable source in this context. It seems to me that the important point is what I said initially, which is that most English language sources about this article's subject either are discussing people whose names don't use diacritics or are deliberately omitting diacritics. Per WP:UE that suggests that this article's title shouldn't be using a diacritic. Furthermore, generally speaking, I don't think we should be focusing on only specialized sources as being reliable. You can read an essay that someone wrote about that here. Though it's a bit of a different topic, I think the logic applies here: essentially, Wikipedia is a general knowledge encyclopedia, not one with a special focus, so we shouldn't base our style decisions solely on specialist sources. AgnosticAphid talk 02:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Agnosticaphid I would also have to disagree with me this that Vietnamese-Americans who spell their names without diacritics are spelling it "wrong." since that isn't what I said. What I said was "Billions of people all over the world spell their names inaccurately compared to their relatives in the melting pot of US phone books. However WikiProject Anthroponymy (have they been notified?) doesn't have a brief to Americanize [in context here] their surname articles" Compare Category:Polish-language surnames, taking out the redirects they are all at Polish spelling, because the original surname is more notable. We don't have an article Nguyen surname in America, because the Nguyen surname in America isn't notable enough for its own article. This article is about the surname itself, which is notable in Vietnam and per Vietnamese names written in Vietnamese in en.wp. We don't have a Wałęsa (surname) article. If we did it wouldn't be Walesa (surname) because, presumably, some Wałęsa's have emigrated. And in any case the example of the surname Wałęsa was commenting on the flawed methodology and misunderstanding of WP:RS of the RM proposer. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
On the spelling of a foreign name, in casual reference, and in reference to particular individuals and not to the name per se, The New York Times is easily disputably as reliable source. In fact, is there a reference to The New York Times discussing this subject directly, as a surname, and not mere in order to reference a person? It is not correct to refer to casual use of a term as "sourcing".
The spelling of the name traditionally, and or per the majority continuing use (in Vietnam) is not a "specialty". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Which reliable source discusses the name as such? Agathoclea (talk) 06:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
[11] Red Slash 02:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sock

Hataglow In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nguyen. 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) 10:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nguyen/Archive_1&oldid=1144427154"