Talk:Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991)

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

Propaganda[edit]

An obvious propaganda article written by a small viet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.94.80 (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Article[edit]

This article needs a rewrite, as it lacks facts and logic. Please refer to the Japanese article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.134.220 (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article only mentiones the 1984 Skirmish. I will suggest that we use either the Vietnamese, or the Norwegian article.--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains very biased info tilting to the Viet side. The info lacks actual factuary and logic. I demand rewrite, or else Google will sue Wikipedia! Boo Wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.168.79 (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source on the conflict with numbers of vietnamese taken prisoner and killed[edit]

http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BtmrZYAag58C&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in Infobox[edit]

Flags next to the commanders have been removed per MoS, see: [1] and [2]. The use of flags is merely decorative, conveying no useful information because all the Vietnamese Commanders were Vietnamese and all the Chinese Commanders Chinese.Mztourist (talk) 06:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see they do the same here [3] I also checked it and they are different flags for commanders and leaders, it use national flags for leaders and military flags for military commander, so it's quite useful. Carnivourous123 (talk) 06:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its wrong on that page and many others on Wikipedia. The use of military flags versus national flags is spurious as the military represents the country. You have to follow MoS. Stop edit-warring this or I will have you blocked.Mztourist (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the MoS you gave me, it said that flags can be use to differentiate in infobox. So I still think it's ok to differentiate between military guys and political guys. Carnivourous123 (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No its not and you've breached 3RR. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What not????Carnivourous123 (talk) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow WP:BRD not just keep edit-warring the page. I am following MOS which represents the consensus on whether or not flags should be contained in the Infobox. As you disagree with me on this you must follow the WP:DR processes, not edit war which will just lead to you being blocked again. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you not follow the MoS because it says flags should be there in case of useful info, and in this case it provides differentiation between military and political leaders. You have not made any points on that yet. Carnivourous123 (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have discussed this in full with you, but as you continue to insist that the flags convey useful information then you need to follow BRD and elevate it as necessary. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]

The consensus was against placing the flagicons (China Vietnam ) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox per MOS:ICONS.

Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should I place the flagicons (China Vietnam ) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox? Carnivourous123 (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should because the icons helps differentiating political leaders and military commanders. Carnivourous123 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Flag icons for individual leaders are needed only if multiple countries are involved, and no third-country leaders are involved in this conflict. -Zanhe (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Zanhe nailed it. See MOS:ICONS for details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - Summoned by bot. Should not include flags per MOS:ICONS as noted above. Meatsgains(talk) 01:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualty sources[edit]

1.42.202.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) reiterates that the casualty figures in the infobox should be removed because the sources are 'one sided'. I take this as to mean each casualty estimate is only supported by sources from one side of the conflict. This is somewhat true; the Chinese casualty figure is only supported by sources from their side so far, and an independent source is yet to be added supporting the figure. The same goes for the Vietnamese casualty range as well.

This is not a reason to delete the content altogether; rather, I think it could be resolved by stating explicitly where each casualty figure came from, until an independent source can be brought in to further support these figures.DemPon (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Two problems, first, as you admitted, the info is one-sided, thus doesn't satisfy the NPOV. Second, those casualties are not inclusive, they resulted from the fighting in Vi Xuyen only, not representative enough for this article, which is about the conflict on the whole border. Stating the casualties of both sides altogether is much more acceptable. 1.43.153.248 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Simply stating "thousands killed" is way to vague and barely tells anything about casualties. The current version so far already specifies that the casualty numbers are from Vi Xuyen only, so that shouldn't be a problem. As for the lack of NPOV for each side's casualty estimates, a note can simply be added in front of the casualty figures stating that they are from one side's sources only. Example:

Chinese sources: 2,000 killed, 4,000 wounded (1984-1989, Vi Xuyen only)

This kind of practice has been done for plenty of other articles regarding military conflicts, I don't see any reason to be vague on casualties when more specific figures are available. DemPon (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article was about the Battle of Vi Xuyen only, I would partly agree. But the fact it isn't; it's about a conflict in the whole border region, from 1979 to 1991, making the info not inclusive.

Whatever you put along with the info, the indication of casualty figures from only one side would give undue weight to the article. If it's only from one party, why it must appear in the box? 1.43.153.248 (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Because it's better to have one source for a figure than none at all.DemPon (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DemPon, it is better to have each side's claims in the Infobox rather than nothing at all or vague language like "thousands killed". I doubt that truly reliable figures will ever be available for this conflict as both sides have their own domestic reasons for wanting to state their own losses as minimal and the other side's as huge. Mztourist (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't protest that we should use the sources; it's just how we use it. Inavailability of reliable sources is not a justification for using sources in an unreliable way i.e. giving undue weight to minority claims. That goes against the policy of NPOV and RS. Unless we have more inclusive and objective data, a general indication for both sides is most suitable. We did have precedents of this [4][5]. 1.43.153.248 (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there's no reason to make an exception to the rule in this case, because the figures is for only part of the conflict, not the conflict itself. For instance, nobody use the casualty figures in Dien Bien Phu as the figures for the whole Indochina War. 1.43.153.248 (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the page already specifies that these are not the total casualties from the battle. The difference between this and Dien Bien Phu is that Vi Xuyen comprises a large portion of the fighting and casualties during the conflicts. If you look at Cambodian-Vietnamese War, you can see that there are specific casualty figures for different time periods of fighting (1975-1979 and 1979-1989), because even though they didn't comprise the total number of casualties in the conflict, they were a significant period. Likewise, the battle of Vi Xuyen was a significant period during the conflict because fighting there was much more intense than much of the rest of the conflict. As for the pages you linked, those are different as they have specific and clear estimates/figures of the sum of total casualties, which is enough information someone reading the page would need to deduce information such as the scale of the conflict. DemPon (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The specification doesn't make much sense here; it doesn't eliminate the misleading element. If you claimed it "significant period", then anything could be a "significant period": the Eastern Front or Pacific Theater in WW2, the Tet Offensive in the Vietnam War, the Siege of Sarajevo in the Bosnian War, etc. but nobody employ such casualty figures. In fact, the article Cambodian-Vietnamese War gives indication to all periods, instead of a specific period and location like you do. When looking at the box now, the reader is still misled on that the 1984–9 period in Vi Xuyen is so remarkable that other periods don't deserve any mention (which is not the case) instead of simply a lack of inclusive info. Can you tell what is the overall number of casualties, and the proportions of that in Vi Xuyen? 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or 90%? You can't, nobody can, due to the lack of info, and that's why I say it's against NPOV. You give undue weight to minority controversial claims, and you even worsen the problem by using the figure of a major battle in place of that of the whole conflict. 1.43.153.248 (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DemPon. 1.43.153.248 that is the current consensus and the figures will be retained in the Infobox unless that consensus changes. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not consensus. You haven't give any reasons for your change yet. If you want you can resort to dispute resolution. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand the meaning of consensus then. You go to dispute resolution if you wish as you haven't convinced me or DemPon why your approach should be adopted. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who issue the editing, not me, then you shall seek dispute resolution. Find the consensus by yourself after reading WP:CON carefully. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you are the one making the changes and two Users oppose your changes, you seek dispute resolution because you don't have consensus. Mztourist (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any change; the last version is the result of the last consensus. According to WP:CON, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". The last version had existed since May without further complaint or reasoning from user:DemPon. It was consensus then. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, "in discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit", except for articles about living people. This means the previous version has to be restored abiding by WP:CON, until otherwise you've completed dispute resolution. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, we are the consensus. You take it to DR if you disagree. Mztourist (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Stop edit warring and follow the DR process. 129.78.56.202 (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As already detailed above you do not have consensus and are edit warring at this point. Mztourist (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't detailed anything that is in harmony with WP:CON. Stop making disruptive editing. 1.43.12.127 (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to your notice on the Admin noticeboard and opened an SPI. Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct course of action is the removal of the supposed casuality figures; they are not verified by a reliable source. I have removed them.Lurking shadow (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the "correct course of action", where do you get that idea from? If you think the source is not reliable then you take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, you don't just decide it yourself and delete it. Mztourist (talk) 03:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's not right about RS, but his solution is reasonable. If the info is too disputable, then ommission will be the best solution. 129.78.56.207 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that 1.43.12.127 being blocked would mean that you would disappear too, oh well, I guess I just wait for the SPI to play out. Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you say yourself that the sources aren't reliable right here, Mztourist?Lurking shadow (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote: "it is better to have each side's claims in the Infobox rather than nothing at all or vague language like "thousands killed". I doubt that truly reliable figures will ever be available for this conflict as both sides have their own domestic reasons for wanting to state their own losses as minimal and the other side's as huge." Mztourist (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you wrote that you doubt that truly reliable figures will ever be avaliable. That, in consequence, means that the figures that were, at that point, in that article, are not reliable, Mztourist!Lurking shadow (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are completely misinterpreting what I said. The Chinese and Vietnamese will never agree on the figures and so the Infobox should reflect each side's claims. Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are the figures backed up by a source? Yes or no? If yes, is the source known to be accurate and reliable in these circumstances? Yes or no? If any of these questions is answered with "no" then our content policy WP:V mandates removal. I can't access one of the sources, and the other one can be used as a reliable and accurate source that the military of Vietnam claims figures. That, however, definitely NOT belongs into the infobox misnamed as "casualities".Lurking shadow (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the first question and qualified yes (likely WP:BIAS) to the second, so unless you or the IP Socks want to go to RS noticeboard they should stay in.Mztourist (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow the meta-argument, but infoboxes are rarely suitable for "complicated" numbers like this situation, and I would remove them in favor of an accurate treatment of the incomplete values and source issues within the body of the article (which should be there regardless, since the infobox is supposed to be only a summary). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 07:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AlanM1, thanks for your input. I don't think the figures in the Infobox are any more complicated than any other conflict where there are completing casualty claims. Generally you'd see something like Vietnamese claim: X and Chinese claim: [Y] for each column. Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is supported by reliable sources for that claim, so yes we can do that in absence of real data. You probably notice that I didn't label the other one "chinese claim"; this is because it might not qualify as one. Is any of you able to access that page in that book and see what it really claims? The vietnamese source attributed that claim to a general of the vietnamese army; does that source(Zhang) say "according to figures avaliable in China" or equivalent?Lurking shadow (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think user:Lurking shadow has made the point here but it needs to be reaffirmed. The problem here is not the reliability of the source, but that of WP:NPOV. You should not put into the infobox things that are not only one-sided claim, but also unrepresentative. The figures are not even of the conflict; it is of just a battle of it. That would give undue weight to the info. I prefer that you should keep it omitted. 49.195.159.44 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, you can present one-sided claims provided you make clear they are exactly that, one side's claims. Mztourist (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what you say not what WP:DUE says. That's even clearer when the content gives prominence to unrepresentative info. 129.78.56.198 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what WP:DUE says. Mztourist (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quote please? 129.78.56.149 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can read, try to understand what it means and also look how its applied on other conflicts with contentious figures.Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
No I can't. Nobody can. Because it simply isn't there. 129.78.56.193 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying that the figures in the Infobox are a "minority view"? Mztourist (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. 129.78.56.202 (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The only minority view here is yours which is against consensus. There is nothing UNDUE about presenting the Chinese claim as to their own casualty figures or the Vietnamese claim as to their own casualty figures. Neither side's claim as to their own casualties can be regarded as a minority view. Mztourist (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are only given by the Chinese and Vietnamese authorities. Virtually no RS take them into account except Xiaoming Zhang (with emphasis that the info is attributed to the Chinese). They are minority views. Furthermore, even the minority views themselves don't assert those numbers as casualties of the conflict as a whole.
WP:DUE has nothing to do with "consensus" here: "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
p/s: In fact, many editors here like user:AlanM1 and user:Lurking shadow also disagree with you, so even your own sloppy definition of "consensus" doesn't fit anymore. 129.78.56.155 (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that the best way to proceed here is either:
  • Remove the challenged material(already done), for now.
  • Open a WP:RFC.

Or:

  • Remove the challenged material(already done).
  • Accept the removal.

The IP's arguments aren't bad, and based on policy,Mztourist.Lurking shadow (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking shadow Explain exactly how they are "based on policy". They are each side's claims of their own casualties, there is nothing UNDUE here. Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's all in WP:UNDUE and I've also cited it. It's tiresome when everybody just explains it to you but you keep refuting it without any proper reasoning or any understanding of the policy itself. Generate an RFC if you still aren't satisfied. 129.78.56.149 (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand WP:DUE. In an event you are an IP sock that I have reported here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/49.195.159.44 Mztourist (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese victory?![edit]

user:Solider789 changes the result to "Chinese victory" with neither explanation on talk page nor proper citation. All sources he cited does not indicate such result of the conflict. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since 24h have passed and no explanation has been made, I'll delete all disruptive editing made by user:Solider789. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China had an advantage on the battlefield and Vietnam was forced to make peace after the collapse of the Soviet Union (Vietnam's ally), that is all, if you fix it I'll back off unless there is a strong source, I have moved 10 sources down so that makes sense, this was a long series of small wars and China won. Solider789 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solider789: Well can you quote or indicate which part of the sources clearly saying that it's "Chinese victory"? Otherwise this should be considered as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and should not be allowed.
p/s: By the way I will delete the casualties figures, as they are definitely inappropriate. You can see the last section of this talk page for more details. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you can delete the casualties figures until they're appropriate. Solider789 (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solider789: What about the result section? I should remind you that if you fail to quote the sources to prove it, then it shall be deleted in accordance with WP:OR. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source, stop vandalism, I reported you for administrators. Solider789 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solider789: The source doesn't say it was "Chinese victory"; ironically, it could be translated as an indication of Chinese defeat ("Có thể nói rằng phía TQ đã thua trận"). I give you the last chance to quote anything that support your idea, or I'll delete it. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I wrote "Chinese stratedy victory", ok??? Solider789 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solider789: Still no such words in the source. Your claim is a WP:SYNTH. Remember what WP:RS says: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." 14.231.163.204 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
p/s: Something in Template:Infobox military conflict/doc might also be useful for you "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." 14.231.163.204 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the article that China destroyed Vietnam's northern border and hindered Vietnam, was that not a strategic victory ??? Solider789 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now Solider789 (thảo luận) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the relevant user has been blocked, I have restored the last undisrupted version. 14.231.163.204 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected[edit]

I've protected the article page for one week - I strongly suggest everyone find a measure of compromise. It may be the WP:WRONGVERSION, you can resolve that here and ask for an edit request. — Ched (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_conflicts_(1979–1991)&oldid=1208418421"