This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Johnson South Reef skirmish article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2014, March 14, 2018, March 14, 2021, and March 14, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question: How the heck can the Vietnamese claim victory even tho their ships were sunk, the territories under their control was taken over, and the Chinese didn't' lose a single ship and had less casualties? The logic fails me AKFrost 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
hi
I am not able to read Vietnamese. Therefore, I am unable to provide a more balanced POV from the Vietnamese perspective as I am unable to research this area. If you can help, please go ahead.
Thanks
Koxinga CDF 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What types of ships were the Viet HQs? Patrol boats? Destroyers? Sandy of the CSARs
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Article rewritten with new data from the other page.
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed names and references to the US PGM class gunboats and LST. I presume whoever added them made the reference to Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/11idx.htm.
That is incorrect. The PGM boats were given to South Vietnam and were no longer in service with the PAVN. The same pennant number were appropriated for other ships, hence the confusion.
In the event of doubts, this is a video of the actual battle by the Chinese forces. The PAVN forces are using the armed freighters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjLjmmPs3I
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
China successfully captured Johnson South Reef, but failed to capture Collins Reef and Lansdowne Reef. Should this be considered a tactical Chinese victory and a minor strategic Vietnamese victory? And who were the political victors? --
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk)
23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
ese sources on baidu, sina, everywhere. And besides, there is no reason to discredit a source from a large well known website simply because of it's national origin. If you want to add a vietnamese interpetation, perhaps you can split the article into 2 sections: Chinese claims/Vietnamese claims. 70.55.31.39 ( talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, 70.55.31 is me. Forgot to log in. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link on youtube with footage of the battle. Here we see what seems to be a rusty boat and soldiers lined up on the ocean. Then they were fired at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc This looks more like a protest and massacre than a battle. I too believe that it's highly unlikely that a gravely underarmed force would start a battle against battleships using machine guns. Again, we may like to disregard what our eyes see and prefer to, instead, trust our newspaper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.185.183 ( talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as is described in the article, China only attacked Johnson South Reef, hence the name of the skirmish, otherwise this would have been called something around the lines of "Battle of Spratly Islands". Which source describes China ever attacking Collin and Lansdowne Reef? Additionally, both sides were armed combatants and both fired shots by all accounts, and is generally referred to as a battle. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 01:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
According to the independent accounts from the two American professors (Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao) as well as the South Korean professor (Koo Min Gyo), what took place at the reef was at least a military conflict between China and Vietnam. I'm not sure that I should have described it as a battle though. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the military action that took place, there's no reason not to call it a Chinese victory. China achieved its goal of taking the Johnson South Reef and there's not a single source that says anything about any Chinese attack on Collin or Lansdowne. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao (American professors) and Koo Min Gyo (Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea) as described earlier in the discussion. Both describe a naval confrontation between China and Vietnam, with the Chinese navy successfully capturing the reef by force, which seems to translate to a victory. These sources are only described briefly on this article. It's kind of hard to obtain quotes or further detail of the engagement from these sources since they don't have links. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, just adding this source from the Vietnamese side in to the discussion, which does have a link: Mai Thanh Hai - Vu Ngoc Khanh (14 March 2016). "Vietnamese soldiers remember 1988 Spratlys battle against Chinese"
67.188.179.66 ( talk) 05:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
True about that. In the end, it should just be left that way (w/o disputable "chinese victory" statement) 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 07:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The sentence above needs some explanation. Who calls it that? Why? Why is it mistaken to refer to it as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef?-- Bruce Hall ( talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The revision added at 03:40, 6 May 2012 by Yuan52335233 was full of bias. Firstly, use Chinese's versions of island names instead of English ones. Secondly, it is apparently written from a pro-China POV, without any reference. I have intended only to change the Chinese names to their English equivalences, but after reading through the changes, I realize that is not enough. What should I do? Tryst Nguyen ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely biased, obviously the background is written by Vietnamese's perspective, and it has no source whatsoever to back up any of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.86.249 ( talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The background section contains Chinese names of the reefs and has absolutely no sources backing anything up. Moreover, it paints Vietnamese forces as aggressors which are very doubtful since they had only landing/transport ships and PRC navy had frigates. As I have no time to find a Western source, I will not remove or edit anything on this section but I tagged it as no source and POV.
A proper rewriting of this section is needed for removing the tabs. And if there is only PRC source, please mention it authors clearly when you are writing.-- AM ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But your outright removal (esp. the explanation) made me take a bit of offense to it; so I could not appropriate your later fix. Maybe later, but not now.-- AM ( talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This article repeatedly claims this skirmish was a 'war'. Anyone else finding this a bit exaggerating?
I do agree with you, we cant call a skirmish between 3 transport ships and 3 war ships a war.
I am the one who added the Vietnam account. If anyone have any question regarding to the source, translation or needing a full quote to verifying. Please let me know at vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Conongchamchi, I will reply as soon as possible.-- Conongchamchi ( talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey User:Supersaiyen312, regarding your edit [2]. I guess you've never heard of source integrity.
Secondly... To your comment "The author states from Chinese source, you even admitted in your earlier edit". No, I didn't admit that; don't place words in my mouth. Thirdly... Deny all you want. WP:PERSONAL do apply to your edit summary [3], and I quote: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." This is clearly your intention with that previous edit summary, since you are not commenting on the content. -- Cold Season ( talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnson South Reef Skirmish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a large formatting error on the infobox of the page being massive and obstructing a great deal of the page, I am unsure how to fix it though, or for that matter if it is an error on my end. HistoricalSimon ( talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Info on both sides aren't accurate. Just one main point is which can explicitly explain the outcome of this incident. The defense ministry of Vietnam has ordered their soldiers not to shoot back or faced harsh discipline. Therefore there were only one injury on the count from the Chinese is 100% correct. 204.124.13.151 ( talk) 01:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Johnson South Reef skirmish article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2014, March 14, 2018, March 14, 2021, and March 14, 2024. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Question: How the heck can the Vietnamese claim victory even tho their ships were sunk, the territories under their control was taken over, and the Chinese didn't' lose a single ship and had less casualties? The logic fails me AKFrost 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
hi
I am not able to read Vietnamese. Therefore, I am unable to provide a more balanced POV from the Vietnamese perspective as I am unable to research this area. If you can help, please go ahead.
Thanks
Koxinga CDF 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What types of ships were the Viet HQs? Patrol boats? Destroyers? Sandy of the CSARs
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Article rewritten with new data from the other page.
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have removed names and references to the US PGM class gunboats and LST. I presume whoever added them made the reference to Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/11idx.htm.
That is incorrect. The PGM boats were given to South Vietnam and were no longer in service with the PAVN. The same pennant number were appropriated for other ships, hence the confusion.
In the event of doubts, this is a video of the actual battle by the Chinese forces. The PAVN forces are using the armed freighters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjLjmmPs3I
Koxinga CDF ( talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
China successfully captured Johnson South Reef, but failed to capture Collins Reef and Lansdowne Reef. Should this be considered a tactical Chinese victory and a minor strategic Vietnamese victory? And who were the political victors? --
Mikrobølgeovn (
talk)
23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
ese sources on baidu, sina, everywhere. And besides, there is no reason to discredit a source from a large well known website simply because of it's national origin. If you want to add a vietnamese interpetation, perhaps you can split the article into 2 sections: Chinese claims/Vietnamese claims. 70.55.31.39 ( talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, 70.55.31 is me. Forgot to log in. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link on youtube with footage of the battle. Here we see what seems to be a rusty boat and soldiers lined up on the ocean. Then they were fired at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc This looks more like a protest and massacre than a battle. I too believe that it's highly unlikely that a gravely underarmed force would start a battle against battleships using machine guns. Again, we may like to disregard what our eyes see and prefer to, instead, trust our newspaper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.185.183 ( talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as is described in the article, China only attacked Johnson South Reef, hence the name of the skirmish, otherwise this would have been called something around the lines of "Battle of Spratly Islands". Which source describes China ever attacking Collin and Lansdowne Reef? Additionally, both sides were armed combatants and both fired shots by all accounts, and is generally referred to as a battle. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 01:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
According to the independent accounts from the two American professors (Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao) as well as the South Korean professor (Koo Min Gyo), what took place at the reef was at least a military conflict between China and Vietnam. I'm not sure that I should have described it as a battle though. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Given the military action that took place, there's no reason not to call it a Chinese victory. China achieved its goal of taking the Johnson South Reef and there's not a single source that says anything about any Chinese attack on Collin or Lansdowne. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Cheng Tun-jen and Tien Hung-mao (American professors) and Koo Min Gyo (Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Administration at Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea) as described earlier in the discussion. Both describe a naval confrontation between China and Vietnam, with the Chinese navy successfully capturing the reef by force, which seems to translate to a victory. These sources are only described briefly on this article. It's kind of hard to obtain quotes or further detail of the engagement from these sources since they don't have links. 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 05:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, just adding this source from the Vietnamese side in to the discussion, which does have a link: Mai Thanh Hai - Vu Ngoc Khanh (14 March 2016). "Vietnamese soldiers remember 1988 Spratlys battle against Chinese"
67.188.179.66 ( talk) 05:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
True about that. In the end, it should just be left that way (w/o disputable "chinese victory" statement) 67.188.179.66 ( talk) 07:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The sentence above needs some explanation. Who calls it that? Why? Why is it mistaken to refer to it as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef?-- Bruce Hall ( talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
The revision added at 03:40, 6 May 2012 by Yuan52335233 was full of bias. Firstly, use Chinese's versions of island names instead of English ones. Secondly, it is apparently written from a pro-China POV, without any reference. I have intended only to change the Chinese names to their English equivalences, but after reading through the changes, I realize that is not enough. What should I do? Tryst Nguyen ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
It is extremely biased, obviously the background is written by Vietnamese's perspective, and it has no source whatsoever to back up any of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.86.249 ( talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The background section contains Chinese names of the reefs and has absolutely no sources backing anything up. Moreover, it paints Vietnamese forces as aggressors which are very doubtful since they had only landing/transport ships and PRC navy had frigates. As I have no time to find a Western source, I will not remove or edit anything on this section but I tagged it as no source and POV.
A proper rewriting of this section is needed for removing the tabs. And if there is only PRC source, please mention it authors clearly when you are writing.-- AM ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But your outright removal (esp. the explanation) made me take a bit of offense to it; so I could not appropriate your later fix. Maybe later, but not now.-- AM ( talk) 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This article repeatedly claims this skirmish was a 'war'. Anyone else finding this a bit exaggerating?
I do agree with you, we cant call a skirmish between 3 transport ships and 3 war ships a war.
I am the one who added the Vietnam account. If anyone have any question regarding to the source, translation or needing a full quote to verifying. Please let me know at vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Conongchamchi, I will reply as soon as possible.-- Conongchamchi ( talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey User:Supersaiyen312, regarding your edit [2]. I guess you've never heard of source integrity.
Secondly... To your comment "The author states from Chinese source, you even admitted in your earlier edit". No, I didn't admit that; don't place words in my mouth. Thirdly... Deny all you want. WP:PERSONAL do apply to your edit summary [3], and I quote: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." This is clearly your intention with that previous edit summary, since you are not commenting on the content. -- Cold Season ( talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Johnson South Reef Skirmish. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a large formatting error on the infobox of the page being massive and obstructing a great deal of the page, I am unsure how to fix it though, or for that matter if it is an error on my end. HistoricalSimon ( talk) 15:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Info on both sides aren't accurate. Just one main point is which can explicitly explain the outcome of this incident. The defense ministry of Vietnam has ordered their soldiers not to shoot back or faced harsh discipline. Therefore there were only one injury on the count from the Chinese is 100% correct. 204.124.13.151 ( talk) 01:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)