843:
480:
exist for what in
English only has one word, for example if used in the right context ấn triện (印篆), ấn chương (印章), ấn tín (印信), Bảo (寶), Tỷ (璽), Ấn (印), Chương (章), Ấn chương (印章), Kim bảo tỷ (金寶璽), Quan phòng (關防), Đồ ký (圖記), Kiềm ký (鈐記), Tín ký (信記), Ấn Ký (印記), Trưởng ký (長記), and Ký (記) can all be translated into English with a single word "Seal". In Vietnamese all these words have different functions depending on the type of seal, but in English these are all simply "seals", hence the term "Dynasty" being somewhat confusing, this is because a Triều nominally rules over
884:
128:, "hoax" is a strong word here but it is POV pushing historiography, this article should be merged with the Nguyễn Dynasty article or renamed to something like "Independent Nguyễn dynasty", this user misinterprets reliable sources by anarchronistically inserting the term "Kingdom of Vietnam" and often they just omit any Nguyễn history following the French conquest. This article only covers the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period of Vietnamese history. I am convinced that the user pushes their POV in some contexts for example "
312:
Asia is very diverse, perhaps the only countries that can actually relate to each other in that category are
Indonesians, Malaysians, Philippinos and Singaporeons of non-Chinese descent aka Malays, Javanese who are the true inhabitants of maritime South East Asia. Khmers and Thais have more history related to each other culturally. The genetics of each; maritime South East Asia, Khmers, Thais, Vietnamse are actually all different and hence their history cannot be all categorized into "South East Asia".
199:, I can't, I used emoji's in my signature and was therefore banned from almost all namespaces on the Enwiki. I suggest merging it with the Nguyễn Dynasty article (you may copy my response), this name was used between 1804 and 1839 but is a bad (hoax) name for 1802-1803 and 1840-1945. A lot of the content is reliably sourced but uses POV naming schemes. I actually am happy with Laska666 finally adding a lot of early Nguyễn Dynasty articles, just not their bad historiography naming scheme.
864:
855:
818:" article about the imperial family of the Nguyễn Dynasty, original research coining neologisms for Knowledge articles on the other hand shouldn't be done to this extent. Why does the Nguyễn state have to be extinct following the French conquest when so many historians still see it ad functioning until 1945? You write about the Noi cac as if it ended in the 1880's while it existed until the 1930's, that is literally omitting half a century. --
871:
576:", while the Vietnamese-language infobox maintains the 1884 end date, it actually contains information for its 1885 size, but the issue here at hand is the narrative that the Nguyễn state ceased to exist and therefore its military became "colonial units" in 1885, but this is simply not true. The military of the Nguyễn Dynasty was deliberately reduced like had happened with the German military after they lost
493:
that historians use the term "Vietnam" and call it sometimes a "Kingdom" or an "Empire", but when writing these books people use modern names to make things easier for the readers, books about the Mongol invasions of Đại Việt also often call it "Vietnam" and sometimes a "Kingdom" or an "Empire". This article just seems to apply it specifically to the pre-French period of the Nguyễn. --
597:
versions goes until 1945, it organises the "Independent period" and "French domination period" into "Phase 1" and "Phase 2", the Nguyen
Military (SIC) article exclusively talks about "Phase 1" and then pretends that "Phase 2" doesn't exist. This is how you can write a narrative while using reliable sources and using mostly factual information, you just omit the parts you dislike. --
132:" just randomly stops at 1802 despite the Vietnamese-language Knowledge having separate articles for Vietnamese militaries per dynasty. I think that this user makes a lot of Great articles but they seem to deliberately omit information about the Nguyễn following them becoming two French protectorate countries and this article is the epitome of this "cut-off" date. Please also see
21:
484:("All under heaven"), but a Quốc only rules over its territory, in pre-20th century Vietnamese thinking a close approximation with modern thinking is that a Triều is a sovereign state, but only one sovereign state exists and it rules over the entire universe, but only when talking to Vietnamese subjects when China is involved it becomes "
430:
ever having across the "Kingdom of
Vietnam") but again some historians continue using it for the French protectorates of Annam and Tonkin while others stop using it at the French protectorate treaty. History is gray and this article attempts to make it Black and White not through argumentation but by omission of information. For example
153:". I understand that this user dislikes using the term "Dynasty" for Vietnamese States, but even Chinese "dynasties" weren't called "Ming Dynasty" but "Great Ming" so they fail at actually differentiating between the dynasty and state using the mainstream historiography so they use the term "Kingdom of Vietnam". --
372:
during
Vietnamese history called the monarch a "Vua" despite the monarch using either "King" (Vuong) or "Emperor" (Hoang-De), personally I prefer official titles but this user writes a bit as if the informal name was the official name and the official name was some sort of "Chinese-style" diplomatic name.
343:" they reduce all different militaries in Vietnamese history before 1802 as this supposed military unit, but this term and this supposed military literally doesn't exist anywhere outside of Knowledge. They are actively attempting to re-write history to fit their nationalist (anti-"Chinese") perspective. --
554:
before the Early Nguyễn period isn't that well covered here on the
English Knowledge. That aside, y'all can clearly see that Laska666' version omits all references to Chinese characters and "Chinese-looking symbols" and it didn't translate anything that contains Chinese characters. This user seems to
492:
deleting this article and simply merge it with the Nguyễn
Dynasty article or explicitly make it into a sovereign Nguyễn period article (because it contains a lot of factual and well-sourced information but uses a bad translation), but the current naming convention is literally just combining the fact
311:
I find it very cringe labellijg any country in South East Asia as one whole group together like how East Asia, Europe, Central Asia, etc... is grouped together into one each category as if they are all similar to each other. And you know who coined this term up? Some random old white guy. South East
74:
doesn't really read like this is supposed to be a concise article, rather it seems to be the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period of
Vietnamese history and then pretend that the state somehow stopped existing in 1884, this is bad historiography and seems to push a POV that doesn't conform with
474:
analogous and such confusion only exists in
English because in Vietnamese we use two different terms, namely "nhà" (茹) which refers to the imperial family and at times their domain and "Triều đại" (朝代) / "Triều" (朝) which is the dynastic state, Nhà Nguyễn and Triều Nguyễn are similar but different
479:
referred to itself quite often using the term "Trung Quốc" (中國，"The
Central State" or perhaps better "The Central Realm") and the Tang Dynasty called itself at times, though not commonly, "Chi Na" (支那, a romantic name for China from Sanskrit). The problem here is that in Vietnamese multiple words
429:
that cover the continued history of the Nguyễn until 1945. This is all to say that I am not opposed to the existence of this article but it should be appropriately named like "Sovereign Nguyễn dynasty period" or something similar, "Nguyễn Vietnam" is actually used by some historians (can't recall
412:
include it as well. The issue is that many modern historians have what I would like to call "the problem of dividing Vietnam into neat periods" where the French period starts either with the capture of Saigon or the Protectorate Treaty but the Nguyễn Empire actually continues to exist until 1945,
371:
period, most of the content is fine but it uses ahistorical names. In some cases it tries to push what I would like to call "the Vua angle", "Vua" is the Chinese word for "sovereign" that Vietnamese and Korean people at times use in lieu of the official title of a monarch and most "common people"
266:
The Vietnamese-language Knowledge doesn't make this distinction for example (despite having separate articles for the agriculture, military, and every provincial official title of the same period) because of the fact that this wasn't a distinct state and the line becomes blurry where the "Nguyễn
296:
Vietnamese history should be view more as "a hybrid of East Asian and South-East Asian history", it is "a Chinese cultural country" but its history is intertwined with that of other Indochinese countries (like Thailand, Champs, Lan Xang, Cambodia, Tran Ninh, Etc.), a common problem is with some
212:
More often than not (s)he uses the term "Nguyễn Vietnam" (written as "Nguyen Vietnam") which is a legitimate name like "Ming China" and "Qing China", but the issue is that this user pushes a number of POV's including the 1883/1884 end date and the idea that "Vietnamese dynasties aren't Chinese
596:
and lacked any modern equipment, the Lính tập on the other hand were fully modern soldiers with French training and French equipment. The omission here is that the English-language Knowledge's "Military of Nguyen Vietnam" article ends abruptly at 1884 while the Vietnamese-language Knowledge's
326:
That applies to the entire world, there is no "East African" either as the Masai are extremely different from the people of Zanzibar. The thing is that there are "models of historiography" and different historians apply them different, with South-East Asia some historians claiming that before
103:
413:
some historians recognise the overlapping authorities while others prefer the cut off date, this user prefers the French period as a completely separate historical period interpretation. There is no issue with separating a state into periods, for example
267:
Dynasty ends" and the French colonial administration begins and the Nguyễn government remained nominally in power until 1945. I am not opposed to an article about the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period. But it doesn't need to re-write history. --
555:
try to project modern Vietnam into the past, they avoid using Traditional Chinese characters wherever possible and this isn't an issue by itself as other users can later add them, it just strikes me as an oddity. Furthermore, compare these two:
297:
historians trying to neatly organise Vietnam as "exclusively South-East Asian" while other historians paint it as "exclusively Chinese" but both of these are extreme points of view and this article tries to paint it more like the former. --
101:
This article sounds like a hoax. During the Nguyen Dynasty, the country was briefly called "Việt Nam" for 35 years (1804-1839), then "Đại Nam" for the next 135 years. The name "Việt Nam" did not reemerge until 1945. Searching for
475:
concepts and fully overlap, hence are treated interchangeably in Vietnamese and is also why in English these terms all get translated as "dynasty". Furthermore, Chinese dynasties also had official names for their states, the Manchu
247:, well, the period you're referring to is the "Nhà Nguyễn thời độc lập" (茹阮𥱯獨立) period, the POV being pushed is the extinction of the Nguyễn state in 1884. The "Nguyễn dynasty" article isn't about the ruling family like how
842:
488:". Translating such concepts to "a modern-thinking mind" is difficult onto itself "dynasty" isn't incorrect in the context of the Nguyễn to refer to its government because it refers to "Triều Nguyễn". This is why I
574:
The Imperial army (Vietnamese: Quân thứ) were the military forces of the unified Vietnamese monarchy from 1802 to June 1885 when it was dismantled and converted into colonial units under French command.
550:
Let me start by saying that I am really grateful for Laska666 to have written this article, while I plan on expanding it in the distant future I am glad that someone finally made it as it took
400:" This is actually the main reason why people see this article as "a hoax", the French protectorate treaty never dissolved the Nguyễn state, in fact if one goes over to the articles and even
339:, but the author of this page is attempting to re-write history by making "Đại Việt" into a continuously existing state and then "Nguyễn Vietnam" as a separate state, if you look at "
408:
which existed until 1949, but became a British protectorate in 1814, before that it existed in the Portuguese colonial empire and the Chinese tributary system and many maps of the
255:
aren't exclusively about the ruling family. In Vietnamese historiography (like in Chinese historiography) the name of the ruling family is applied to the period, this works
584:
was allowed to have a small number of soldiers, the Nguyễn Dynasty maintained a number of soldiers, in Tonkin they were allowed to have 3000~6000 troops per province, the
175:
31:
425:. But the notion of a "Kingdom of Vietnam" pretends that there was this separate kingdom created in 1802 that ceased to exist in 1885 that means that one has to ignore
57:
What is the scope of this article, when did "The Kingdom of Vietnam" start and when did it end? How did it function? Is it the same thing as the Empire of Annam? --
442:
Năm Bảo Đại 3 (1934), cơ quan Nội các được bãi bỏ và thay thế bằng cơ quan Ngự tiền văn phòng cho đến cuối thời vua Bảo Đại, vị vua cuối cùng của triều đại Nguyễn.
592:
even noted in the 1940's that Nguyễn Dynasty soldiers were essentially unchanged "medieval soldiers" (to use a European analogy here) that were obsessed with
452:") this should give you a good idea how history can be re-written by using reliable sources but then omitting important information to push a narrative. --
438:
The Grand Secretariat or the Cabinet (Vietnamese: Nội các) of the Nguyen dynasty were the highest branch of the Kingdom of Vietnam's government (1802–85).
468:
Laska666' mentality that "The Chinese concept of a dynasty or state shall not to be adopted upon other civilisations without careful check."
331:
and then European colonisation and contact introduced modern nation states, while other Eurocentric historians completely ignore the period
799:
263:
article but not completely. There actually already was an article about this period but it covers the whole period from 1802 until 1945.
375:
This user seems aware of all the correct historiography but pushes an alternative interpretation, I cannot comment on their motives but
106:" did not return anything reliable using this term, just some alternate history forum. Seems like an attempt at revisionist history.
367:
While this article was likely created to be about the pre-French period of the Nguyễn Dynasty the lead actually goes further into the
335:. With Vietnam different historians have different opinions and generally speaking Vietnamese history is divided into dynasties like
967:
747:
422:
566:
404:
treaty never specified the extinction of the State this article refers to as the "Kingdom of Vietnam", a good comparison would be
382:
The flag isn't exactly ahistorical but the Vietnamese didn't have a concept of a national flag (國旗, Quốc kỳ) until the 1860's. --
317:
878:
588:(Lính tập) were the Colonial troops of France and they weren't a part of the Nguyễn Dynasty apparatus at all, historian
485:
815:
614:
874:
707:
670:
282:
Interesting; thank you for letting me know. I do need to read more into South-East Asian history when I find time.
328:
313:
27:
511:
935:
715:
795:
567:
https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Qu%C3%A2n_%C4%91%E1%BB%99i_nh%C3%A0_Nguy%E1%BB%85n&oldid=65283188
535:
523:
589:
585:
559:
918:
991:
883:
823:
626:
602:
498:
457:
387:
348:
302:
287:
272:
226:
158:
80:
62:
791:
340:
129:
283:
242:
617:
This article was initially redirected to the Nguyễn Dynasty article, as this name was used during the
924:
787:
20:
905:
692:
615:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kingdom_of_Vietnam&direction=next&oldid=1025101245
770:
666:
450:
until the end of the reign of Sovereign Bảo Đại (1945), the last Sovereign of the Nguyễn Dynasty.
446:
In the year Bảo Đại 3 (1934), the Cabinet (Nội các) was abolished and replaced by the office of
854:
987:
887:
819:
674:
622:
598:
494:
453:
447:
405:
383:
344:
298:
268:
260:
222:
214:
169:
154:
76:
58:
252:
512:
https://vi.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tr%E1%BA%A5n_T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh&oldid=65108030
368:
218:
978:
858:
758:
662:
863:
581:
536:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh_Province&oldid=1037004733
524:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=T%C3%A2y_Th%C3%A0nh_Province&oldid=1036774235
414:
336:
146:
467:
137:
133:
71:
560:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Military_of_Nguyen_Vietnam&oldid=1036962808
432:
870:
784:Âm mưu phân biệt vùng miền, muốn tách Việt Nam thời nguyễn thành một mốc lịch sử khác.
418:
809:
766:
409:
248:
183:
111:
96:
952:
732:
476:
956:
736:
577:
652:
398:
On 9 June 1885, Vietnam ceased to exist after 83 years as an independent state.
213:
dynasties" in its historiography, thus making Vietnamese dynasties more like "
150:
995:
827:
774:
630:
606:
502:
461:
391:
352:
332:
321:
306:
291:
276:
230:
187:
162:
115:
84:
66:
948:
728:
618:
194:
179:
123:
107:
593:
481:
145:
My impression is that the user wants to make Vietnamese history "more
638:
The so-called "Nguyen dynasty" infobox should have to look like.
814:, there is literally nothing stopping you from creating a new "
507:
Another example of "creating a narrative by omission" is this:
15:
780:
Cha này học dọi cách nói chuyện của người khác, so called qq.
516:
Vietnamese-language Knowledge's article about Trấn Tây Thành.
621:
period a merger would be better than outright deletion. --
466:
Some more comments, this article likely exists because of
974:
962:
944:
911:
901:
893:
849:
835:
754:
742:
724:
698:
688:
680:
658:
648:
643:
333:
the period of Javanese imperialism and colonisation
176:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Vietnam
440:", but the Vietnamese-language Knowledge states "
379:that it is to "de-sinicise" Vietnamese history.
528:Laska666' version of the Trấn Tây Thành article.
470:, but the Vietnamese concept of a dynasty is
8:
49:{{WikiProject Vietnam|class=|importance=}}
841:
75:mainstream Vietnamese historiography. --
832:
640:
329:a Mandala of loosely connected peoples
836:Imperial family of the Nguyễn dynasty
327:European contact South-East Asia was
7:
986:A better version of the infobox. - -
572:Now, specifically look at the text "
421:can both be "sub-histories" of the
14:
427:a mountain range of history books
882:
869:
862:
853:
30:on 5 August 2021. The result of
19:
26:This article was nominated for
1:
875:French protectorates of Annam
486:Emperor at home, king abroad
423:History of Spain (1810–1873)
174:Please add your opinion to
1011:
996:18:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
828:19:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
775:17:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
631:19:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
607:19:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
503:18:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
462:09:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
392:09:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
353:16:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
322:04:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
307:09:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
292:08:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
277:08:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
231:08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
221:" in European articles. --
188:07:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
163:07:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
116:07:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
85:17:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
67:17:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
840:
259:similar to the European
586:Tirailleurs indochinois
544:Trấn Tây Thành article.
968:Abdication of Bảo Đại
748:Abdication of Bảo Đại
341:Royal Vietnamese army
149:" and "less Chinese/"
130:Royal Vietnamese army
45:Former WikiProject(s)
816:House of Nguyễn Phúc
314:Norewritingofhistory
859:Nam Hà / Đàng Trong
704:Lord of Cochinchina
436:explicitly states "
932:Emperor of Đại Nam
929:Emperor of Vietnam
708:Emperor of Vietnam
667:Kingdom of Vietnam
984:
983:
888:Empire of Vietnam
790:comment added by
764:
763:
675:Empire of Vietnam
406:Kingdom of Cochin
261:Habsburg Monarchy
215:House of Habsburg
104:Đại Việt Nam quốc
42:
41:
1002:
886:
873:
866:
857:
845:
833:
813:
803:
712:Emperor of Annam
641:
575:
451:
443:
439:
399:
369:State of Vietnam
363:Content comments
246:
219:House of Windsor
198:
173:
127:
100:
23:
16:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1001:
1000:
999:
807:
785:
582:Weimar Republic
573:
490:strongly oppose
445:
441:
437:
415:Trienio Liberal
397:
365:
337:Chinese history
240:
192:
167:
147:Southeast Asian
121:
94:
92:
55:
47:
12:
11:
5:
1008:
1006:
982:
981:
976:
975:Cadet branches
972:
971:
964:
960:
959:
946:
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:Chief of State
933:
930:
927:
921:
913:
909:
908:
903:
899:
898:
895:
891:
890:
881:
868:
867:Nguyễn dynasty
861:
851:
847:
846:
838:
837:
831:
830:
792:171.243.43.102
782:
781:
762:
761:
756:
755:Cadet branches
752:
751:
744:
740:
739:
726:
722:
721:
720:
719:
716:Chief of State
713:
710:
705:
700:
696:
695:
690:
686:
685:
682:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
660:
656:
655:
650:
646:
645:
644:Nguyễn dynasty
590:Trần Trọng Kim
570:
569:
563:
562:
548:
547:
546:
545:
532:
531:
530:
529:
520:
519:
518:
517:
419:Ominous Decade
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
309:
238:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
142:
141:
91:
88:
54:
51:
46:
43:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1007:
998:
997:
993:
989:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
937:
934:
931:
928:
926:
922:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
907:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
885:
880:
876:
872:
865:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
839:
834:
829:
825:
821:
817:
811:
806:
805:
804:
801:
797:
793:
789:
779:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
734:
730:
727:
723:
717:
714:
711:
709:
706:
703:
702:
701:
697:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
676:
672:
668:
664:
661:
657:
654:
651:
647:
642:
639:
637:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
613:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
568:
565:
564:
561:
558:
557:
556:
553:
543:
539:
538:
537:
534:
533:
527:
526:
525:
522:
521:
515:
514:
513:
510:
509:
508:
505:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
483:
478:
473:
469:
464:
463:
459:
455:
449:
435:
434:
428:
424:
420:
416:
411:
410:Mughal Empire
407:
403:
394:
393:
389:
385:
380:
378:
373:
370:
362:
354:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
310:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
264:
262:
258:
254:
250:
244:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
196:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
177:
171:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
125:
120:
119:
118:
117:
113:
109:
105:
98:
89:
87:
86:
82:
78:
73:
69:
68:
64:
60:
52:
50:
44:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
988:Donald Trung
985:
953:Confucianism
897:14th century
820:Donald Trung
786:— Preceding
783:
765:
733:Confucianism
684:14th century
671:French Annam
649:Parent house
635:
634:
623:Donald Trung
611:
610:
599:Donald Trung
571:
551:
549:
541:
506:
495:Donald Trung
489:
477:Qing Dynasty
471:
465:
454:Donald Trung
431:
426:
401:
395:
384:Donald Trung
381:
376:
374:
366:
345:Donald Trung
299:Donald Trung
284:BilledMammal
269:Donald Trung
265:
256:
253:Trần dynasty
243:BilledMammal
239:
223:Donald Trung
170:Donald Trung
155:Donald Trung
138:this comment
134:this comment
93:
77:Donald Trung
70:
59:Donald Trung
56:
48:
35:
957:Catholicism
923:Emperor of
902:Final ruler
737:Catholicism
689:Final ruler
663:Cochinchina
578:World War I
963:Deposition
945:Traditions
938:of Vietnam
743:Deposition
725:Traditions
718:of Vietnam
249:Lê dynasty
151:East Asian
919:Quảng Nam
402:the worst
979:Tôn Thất
949:Buddhism
925:Đại Việt
917:Lord of
810:Laska666
800:contribs
788:unsigned
767:Laska666
759:Tôn Thất
729:Buddhism
636:Comment:
619:Gia Long
612:Comment:
580:and the
482:Thiên hạ
472:directly
448:Ngự tiền
417:and the
257:somewhat
97:Laska666
28:deletion
906:Bảo Đại
894:Founded
850:Country
693:Bảo Đại
681:Founded
659:Country
594:Kung-fu
542:current
433:Nội các
217:" and "
966:1945 (
912:Titles
879:Tonkin
746:1945 (
699:Titles
653:Nguyễn
377:assume
552:years
53:Scope
36:merge
992:talk
955:and
877:and
824:talk
796:talk
771:talk
735:and
627:talk
603:talk
540:The
499:talk
458:talk
444:" ("
388:talk
349:talk
318:talk
303:talk
288:talk
273:talk
251:and
227:talk
184:talk
159:talk
136:and
112:talk
90:Hoax
81:talk
72:This
63:talk
34:was
994:)
826:)
629:)
605:)
501:)
460:)
390:)
351:)
305:)
275:)
229:)
195:DHN
180:DHN
161:)
124:DHN
108:DHN
83:)
65:)
951:,
802:)
798:•
773:)
731:,
320:)
290:)
186:)
178:.
114:)
990:(
970:)
822:(
812::
808:@
794:(
769:(
750:)
625:(
601:(
497:(
456:(
396:"
386:(
347:(
316:(
301:(
286:(
271:(
245::
241:@
225:(
197::
193:@
182:(
172::
168:@
157:(
140:.
126::
122:@
110:(
102:"
99::
95:@
79:(
61:(
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
