Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War

message: Greetings, all! I've noticed that the Democratic Kampuchea is listed in the belligerents section, under China. What is the rationale for including them? Cheers! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratic Kampuchea? 

message: 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:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#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) 00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Recently there's been edits and reversions going on and on, where people are replacing the Vietnamese name in the lede (see here, here, here, here, etc). Since I don't speak Vietnamese, I don't quite understand what's going on, so I hope other people are willing to explain a few things to me. What is with the constant renaming to "Chiến tranh biên giới Việt-Tàu"? The Vietnamese Wikipedia uses Chiến tranh biên giới Việt-Trung, 1979 (they use Trung instead of Tàu), and that Vietnamese Wikipedia article is, apparently, a featured article there. What is the difference between "Việt-Trung" and  "Việt-Tàu"? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary says of tàu: "Literally meaning 'boat,' this term may also used as an adjective, placed after a noun to signify something Chinese, such as India ink (mực tàu), jujube (táo tàu), or Chinatown (phố tàu) this usage is derived from the fact that many Chinese refugees came to Vietnam in boats during the Qing Dynasty. In this usage, it may sometimes be considered derogatory." According to other book sources, "Ba tau" is a derogatory term for the overseas Chinese in Vietnam; "Trung Quoc" (obvious loan of zhongguo) was considered more diplomatically acceptable in the PRC period. Also, "Trung" refers to China, but "tau" to Chinese things only. So there's some parallel to the Chugoku/Shina endonym/exonym situation, but tau's origins appear to be more sinister. Shrigley (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding names in the lede 

message: This article is very deficient, as are all accounts of this war that I see, as it makes no mention of the fact that for several days it seemed that the USSR would make a nuclear attack on China.  
It is for this reason that a 'private' meeting of the Security Council was held.  It was at that meeting that a face-saving disengagement was agreed upon (saving China's face.)
It is entirely because of the USSR's threats that China got out of Vietnam, in a hurry.
This article needs to be re-written.  The only useful source of information that I know of is newspapers of the time.
At that time I worked in a TV newsroom, in Sydney Australia.  Some of the journalists thought they were going to die!
The UN Secretary General said that it was the most dangerous moment in world history since the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Now, all of this has been forgotten.Luo Shanlian (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add the information you suggested with a reliable source. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of nuclear war danger 

message: I think there should be something known about international reactions. E.g. the Soviet bloc definitely supported Vietnam, but others? Is there any information available? --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  International reactions 

message: The long-winded explanation about the domino theory in the "Vietnam war" section is not necessary, because it is not relevant enough to help explain the Sino-Vietnamese war.
I'm not saying that everybody already knows about the domino theory so don't bother, rather, I question the value of adding such detail as the US strategic outlook two decades before the S-V war, it seems to serve as more of a tangent than to directly explain the events of 1979.
I believe the links to the First Indochina War, Vietnam War and Cambodia are all justified, and the information about Chinese/Soviet relations is helpful background, but for anyone who wants to know what the Americans were thinking in the mid 50's is something they can go to in the main Vietnam War article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.34.222 (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Irrelevant Digression 

message: :Both China and Vietnam claimed victory in the last of the Indochina Wars of the 20th century; as Vietnamese troops remained in Cambodia until 1989, and the Hanoi-backed Hun Sen regime remains in power in Cambodia until today, it can be said that China failed to achieve the goal of dissuading Vietnam from involvement in Cambodia.
The underlined is inaccurate, unsourced and unverifiable information which ought to be removed from the lead.  The present regime ("Kingdom of Cambodia") is a constitutional monarchy which was established after the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements.  The Hanoi-backed regime ("State of Cambodia") ceased to exist after the UNTAC organized elections and the constitutionally established government led by co-premiers Norodom Ranariddh and Hun Sen. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The present Hun Sen regime is a continuation of the People's Republic of Kampuchea originally installed by Hanoi in 1979. After the UNTAC elections in 1991 and a period of uneasy power-sharing Hun Sen launched the 1997 clashes in Cambodia to remove Norodom Ranariddh as co-premier. If you read the Hun Sen page you will see that since that time Hun Sen has remained in power through flawed elections and political violence. That said I agree that citation(s) need to be provided.Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1997 clashes were not recognized as a coup d'etat by the international community.  There was a change in regime after the UNTAC elections, where the "State of Cambodia" (successor to the "People's Republic of Kampuchea") was dissolved and a new constitution adopted by the Constituent Assembly and signed by former King Norodom Sihanouk.  Since you insist on including the phrase in question, the burden of proof is on you to provide appropriate citations that speak of facts, and not opinions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's completely self-evident to any slightly informed observer other than you apparently, but I really can't be bothered arguing with you as you have made up your mind alreadyMztourist (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the unsourced portion.  Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hanoi-backed regime" 

message: Please read this number's source: http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=1I4HOcmE4XQC&pg=PA2&dq=china+estimate+vietnam+loss+30,000+killed&hl=vi&sa=X&ei=QXkiU5iYIs7joASamoCwAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=china%20estimate%20vietnam%20loss%2030%2C000%20killed&f=false
It's "china would claimed VN loss 30,000 killed". 57,000 is a fake number, okThandieu123 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have noted on your talk page, the figure that you are changing is China's estimate/claim of Vietnamese losses, it doesn't mean that the figure is correct, rather it is the figure that China claims is correct. The 2 existing references apparently state that China claims Vietnamese losses were 57,000. The book you have cited above states that China only claims Vietnamese losses were 30,000 so there is clearly disagreement between sources and so the infobox should state 30-57,000 and cite the ref you have provided. You cannot just change the figure to 30,000 stating that "57,000 is a fake number". Mztourist (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the Infobox as above.Mztourist (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The Infobox clearly states 57,000 killed, not 57,000 killed and wounded. Correct loss figures will probably never be known as each side has its own propaganda reasons for claiming their respective figures. The Chinese want to claim that they inflicted a defeat on the Vietnamese army and vice-versa, while the Vietnamese want to claim that the Chinese slaughtered Vietnamese civilians. Any figures will be estimates at best and propaganda at worst.Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thandieu123 I have reverted your edit that claims there is an independent source, as the book you have cited from does not identify the source and so it cannot be verified. Based on the figures used it appears to be Tonnesson who is already cited. You cannot claim there is an Independent Source as you have done as there was no-one independently verifying each side's losses. As I have pointed out above the figures are likely to be manipulated for both sides and any figures suggested by anyone other than the belligerents will be estimates at best, based on information obtained from the belligerents who have their own interests in manipulating the figures.Mztourist (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: 57,000 killed?

message: This conflict was characterized by the lack of Soviet involvement. The Soviet Union provided material and intelligence support to the Vietnamese, but this does not make the country a belligerent. This was a war with two belligerents. The article explains it, and the infobox should reflect it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, I think infoboxes should be reserved for actual combatants. Listing the Soviet Union as a "supporter" gives an impression that contradicts what is reflected in the article, namely, that this was a one-on-one war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Vietnam supported by Soviet Union is correct. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To an extent, the United States also supported China. The question is whether it merits inclusion in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide WP:RS to show material US support for China then it can be added. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't question whether the material aid took place at all, I question whether it merits a mention in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article establishes that the Soviet Union provided material support to Vietnam, including flying Vietnamese forces from south to north, which justifies their inclusion in the infobox, while any US support for China is unclear. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

text: And we have an entire chapter titled "Soviet inaction". Again, this conflict was characterized by the absence of Soviet involvement, and keeping the Soviet Union in the infobox would imply the opposite. Why not reserve the infobox for the actual combatants and let the article explore Soviet involvement (and lack thereof)? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Including countries that supplied material support in conflict infoboxes is normal. Under the "Soviet inaction" section it states "the Soviet Union sent several naval vessels and initiated an arms airlift to Vietnam. However, the Soviet Union felt that there was simply no way that they could directly support Vietnam against China" regards Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

text: This is not really a policy, but rather a norm that is determined in a case-by-case basis (for instance, Rwandan Civil War had more non-combatants than combatants in the infobox, even though the war was characterized by the LACK of foreign intervention). Do you see where I'm coming from? It's not that the information is incorrect; my issue is that it gives the wrong impression to the readers. Cheers, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union 

message: While it is known that China's military fared rather poorly in the 1979 offensive, suffering at least 20000 casualties, Vietnam suffered similar losses if not greater as pointed out by the sources above. However, it isn't factually accurate to state a "Vietnamese military victory" as both countries suffered similar losses and the fact that China did eventually make significant inroads into Vietnam after 3 weeks. At best, it was a military stalemate regarding both sides as neither fully accomplished their duties. The outcome can be described as a political victory for China in the sense that Vietnam's ally, the Soviet Union, did not come to intervene on their behalf. The same can be said for a Vietnamese strategic victory as China failed in its ultimate goal of luring Vietnam out of Kampuchea, which was one of the major causes for this war. However, militarily neither side "won" tactically as there were similar casualties losses for both combatants and the fact that the war was less than a month long (far too short in this case for any decisive action).
NEED TOR CHANGE OF OUTCOMES Michael011351 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No changes can be made to this protected article unless they are supported by consensus. Please discuss any changes before using requesting the edit. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 16 February 2017 

message: Request: change RESULT from "Vietnamese Military Victory" to "Draw; both sides achieved partial objectives"
The first reference clearly stated that the "Chinese had gained perhaps 50-55% of their set limited objectives. General speaking, the PLA maintained its initiative in the war, following closely its plans for advance and retreat." (p. 26), and that "In spite the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over each other, no one had achieved its major objectives." (p. 28) I fail to see how this paper could provide reference from a "Vietnamese Military Victory;" even if it could, it does not accurate portray the outcome of the war. Innumerator (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my answer to the request above — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 17 February 2017 

message: The phrase "Chinese strategic victory" is not supported by Bruce A. Elleman's source. The RS says nothing about a strategic victory, only gives that China achieved the objective of excluding the Soviet participation in the Sino-Vietnamese conflict. Nothing more. Dino nam (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese strategic victory? 

message: The infobox under section "Casualities and losses" labels figures as "Western estimates" for both sides in the conflict.
# The referenced source The Bitter Legacy of the 1979 China-Vietnam War is authored by a Vietnamese schollar (Nguyen Minh Quang) from a Vietnamese school (School of Education, Can Tho University) as mentioned at the pottom of the article and not Western.
# The Diplomat is an as per this Wiki international online news magazine and features perspectives, that are not per se Western. This platform does not qualify the opinion as Western.
# For the claim about "Western estimates" the Vietnamese author refers to the caption of a Times photo gallery, stating "Though casualty figures remain unclear, estimates suggest ...". Time does not declare the estimates as their own and does not indicate anything about the origin of the estimates or limits it to one source, with only one region of origin.
# The Vietnamese article is exclusively listed as a source for the alleged "Western estimates" of casualities, but only quotes the figures itself from the  Times photo gallery caption.
What should be changed:
* The Vietnamese source is redundant (4) and the Times should be used as a source for the figures. The Vietnamese source does not directly support the material (in fact neither does the Time but thats the next point). The only aspect the Vietnamese article contributes is an unverified label "Western" that can not be found in its own sources (3).
* The origin(s) and reliability of the estimates the Time page refers to is(are) completely unknown (3). The caption of the photographers gallery could be just eyeballing on international estimates or even refer to an older state of the WP article of the Sino-Vietnamese war itself. It does not rule out anything. The  "Western estimate" label on WP in question is currently only based on unverifiable labeling injected by a Vietnamese source, which does not qualify it as Western endorsed figures either (1,2,3). The material is simply put misslabeled and should be taken off the page or marked as such.
The correction with hint at both the source being Vietnamese and lack of specification as Western by the "direct" source Time, has been reverted so far and a message with "reverted for inadequate reason" sent to me, without any adquate reason so why to keep an unverifiable Vietnamese claim up or why this even needs to be discussed. The added justification "[Times?] also does not specify it as vietnamese estimates" doesnt make any sense either. Not necessarily Vietnamese, is not a reason to keep something labeled "Western". The claim that they are Western is only alleged by a (given the context of the topic) not neutral and (given the lack of such information in the quoted Time page) questionable Vietnamese source. – PeterMl (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western estimates" under Casualties and losses 

message: The sources for the Vietnamese estimates of enemy casualties are all US-based; where does it say that they are Vietnamese estimates?MaxPprem2 (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese Estimates 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The information about Deng's telling Carter that Vietnam had to be "spanked" referred to a Chinese website, which provided no further references. The information does not correspond to anything known to experts, and so I removed it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radchenk (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a questionable Chinese reference. 

message: According to , the Vietnamese casualty figures of “30,000-35,000 killed and 32,000 wounded” are greater than Vietnam’s total strength during the war, but looking at the infobox, Vietnam’s total strength, adding regulars and militia together, is 220,000 to 250,000, and it doesn’t take a mathematician to figure out that ~60,000 to 70,000 is well below that total strength. All figures described are from Western sources, as we are discussing Western casualty estimates.
DemPon (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese casualties 

message: "A "martyr's cemetery" in China's southern Yunnan province. Though casualty figures remain unclear, estimates suggest at least 20,000 Chinese soldiers died, while Vietnamese dead number under ten thousand. State media on both sides have remained quiet on the 30th anniversary of the war. While tensions flared over border disputes in the subsequent years, the Communist neighbors, linked by centuries of history, have buried the hatchet and now enjoy significant economic ties."
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1879849_1846224,00.html
That's a neutral source no Chinese no Vietnamese........  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logftw1 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Estimate over than 20000 Chinese Killed less than 10000 Vietnamese killed 

message: There is an article Third Indochina War which cites the Sino-Vietnamese War as part of it (as does the infobox here). So are they one and the same, or not? Is the "Names" section in error to say "Third Indochina War" refers only to the 1979 border war, or are there indeed sources that restrict the term in this way? Hairy Dude (talk) 00:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "also known as the Third Indochina War" 

message: The sections Sino-Soviet split, Vietnam War and Cambodia are too redacted like a history book from one of the countries involved but there's not a single link to a source and looks too suspicious --Barrabas11 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of parts without sources 

message: Where is your NPOV proof? All I did was reference two sources from two Vietnamese writers and the legacy of the Yue aka the Viet people. I know your username is Yue but that won't stop me from including the Aftermath from the Vietnamese writer's point of view here. 118.211.76.187 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Synthesis of secondary sources is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not insert your own commentary into articles. Yue🌙 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you mean, you're just blanking my insertion of information without consulting and even threatening to block me. These are highly aggressive behaviours. What I just put down are facts. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear that the information is linked rather then me "providing commentary".  118.211.76.187 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the person blanking my Aftermath section 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed