![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
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)
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)
What not???? Carnivourous123 ( talk) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was against placing the flagicons (
![]()
![]()
![]()
) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox per MOS:ICONS.
Should I place the flagicons (
) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox?
Carnivourous123 (
talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it should because the icons helps differentiating political leaders and military commanders. Carnivourous123 ( talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Because it's better to have one source for a figure than none at all.
DemPon (
talk) 11:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Or:
The IP's arguments aren't bad, and based on policy, Mztourist. Lurking shadow ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ok, you can delete the casualties figures until they're appropriate. Solider789 ( talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I added a source, stop vandalism, I reported you for administrators. Solider789 ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
So I wrote "Chinese stratedy victory", ok??? Solider789 ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
Stop now Solider789 ( thảo luáºn) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
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)
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)
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)
What not???? Carnivourous123 ( talk) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The consensus was against placing the flagicons (
![]()
![]()
![]()
) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox per MOS:ICONS.
Should I place the flagicons (
) before the names of commanders and leaders in infobox?
Carnivourous123 (
talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it should because the icons helps differentiating political leaders and military commanders. Carnivourous123 ( talk) 01:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Because it's better to have one source for a figure than none at all.
DemPon (
talk) 11:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Or:
The IP's arguments aren't bad, and based on policy, Mztourist. Lurking shadow ( talk) 16:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
Ok, you can delete the casualties figures until they're appropriate. Solider789 ( talk) 17:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I added a source, stop vandalism, I reported you for administrators. Solider789 ( talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
So I wrote "Chinese stratedy victory", ok??? Solider789 ( talk) 17:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
Stop now Solider789 ( thảo luáºn) 18:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)