Talk:Mongol invasions of Vietnam

message: Background of the First Mongol Invasion uses 'coffee table' type Encyclopedia of the Mongols that has been pointed out elsewhere in related articles as being unreliable in many parts.  100,000 comes from primary, contemporary sources, and no one in the field believes that.  A more scholarly source is needed here. The logistics of such a force - so far from supply lines in a tropical climate - would have been beyond the powers of the Mongol empire, unlike advancing across steppe in Eurasia. Additionally, Hulagu's army in the invasion of the Middle East is generally considered to be the largest single army the Mongols ever mustered, and that was around 50,000.  I'll look around and see what I have, but interested parties should also tweak this section.  Thanks.  50.111.19.21 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hsiao in 'The Military Establishment of the Yuan Dynasty' (1978) points out the entire force of Mongke of 105,000 - of which only 97,000 can be attested; and establishes the invasion force of Burma at about 12,000. This gives a more realistic picture. However, trying to track down James Anderson's work, 'Man and Mongols: the Dali and Đại Việt Kingdoms in the Face of the Northern Invasions'- which should have the details for a reference.50.111.19.21 (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Source found - article adjusted.50.111.19.21 (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exaggeration 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please use the discussion subsection below for responses and threaded discussion, and leave this subsection for one comment or !vote per editor.
* Option 1,: This is a complex series of four conflicts over three decades involving three (or four if the Song dynasty is included), each with different goals and conclusions (e.g. early Mongol military & diplomatic successes in attacking the Song & establishing tributaries, later Đại Việt military & political successes in preventing further demands and direct internal oversight). This is discussed in the article, particularly in the Aftermath section, and the participants from WikiProject Military history pointed out in the previous discussion that in such complex situations, the project generally finds it preferable to cover the complex set of military, diplomatic, and political outcomes in the article body.Otherwise Option 3: these are supported by modern scholarly sources that discuss the conflict as a whole, which paint a significantly more mixed picture than Option 2 which is not the scholarly consensus outside of traditional Vietnamese historiography. For example:
*:More specifically on the goals of the first Mongol invasion of Đại Việt:On the second and third Mongol invasions of Đại Việt:
:But again, there is no need for a declaration of "victory" or "loss" in the infobox, particularly when the multiple invasions involve various outcomes and goals. — MarkH21talk 02:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (infobox "result" RfC)

message: Regarding your move  of this article from "Mongol invasions of Vietnam" to "Mongol invasions of Đại Việt", the new name ignores that part of this article is also about the invasion of Champa which is in modern-day Vietnam but was separate from Đại Việt at the time. In effect, the new title would be narrowing the scope of the article and necessitate a split for the Champa part into a new article.
If you still believe that this is the ideal course of action, then you can still formally propose it here on the talk page. — MarkH21talk 09:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two issues here.  The first is the scope of the article (as written) and that the move title ("Mongol invasions of Đại Việt") does not reflect the present scope.  The second issue is one of policy per Wikipedia:Article titles and that .  A case for a move would need to be made with respect to both issues. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move by YLoGM necessitating an article split