This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vietnam C‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. China C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Southeast Asia C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Socialism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Southeast Asia Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force Cold War C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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) 00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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;[1] "Trung Quoc" (obvious loan of zhongguo) was considered more diplomatically acceptable in the PRC period. Also, "Trung" refers to China,[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please add the information you suggested with a reliable source. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [edited][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have removed the unsourced portion. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have amended the Infobox as above.Mztourist (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "The 2 references provided apparently state that China claims Vietnamese losses were 57,000" - So, WHERE IS THIS NUMBER in these source? I only found "30,000" in this 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=falseThandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And remember, "losses" = kiled + wounded + captured (not only "killed")Thandieu123 (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, I have found a great source for the result of the war. This source is solely dedicated to the war. It had over 200 pages of content discussing the objectives, strategies and outcomes of the war. This source fully qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source and is far more credible than the source previous editors used which is an economic article and merely mentioning the war in a paragraph.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

This source clearly stated that both sides claimed victory.

On page 32

"In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed victory. No one had achieved its major objectives."

This source is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war, not some article regarding economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Six Seven One Seven Five One Six One Five Zero! I don't particularly care about who gets to thump their chest the loudest, but could you please stop edit warring, and could you stop making unexplained reverts like this that restore the silly circular references that you added, and that I explained why it was silly in my edit summary? Thanks. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

67.175.16.150 is sockpuppet of 206.167.71.30, who are disrupting and vandalizing Soviet, Vietnam, China related articles from quite sometime. The IP again removed reliable source [3] on spurious ground. It is a third party independent source which clearly states vietnam won the conflict. The source further cites "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" both RS. Spartacus! (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am not a sockpuppet. I am just using internet at two different locations. I do not have two different registered account.

The source I provided is more reliable than Spartacus'. His source has nothing to do with Sino-Vietnamese war and Sino-Soviet border conflict. It is an economy related article and thus not credible !

The source I provided are all dedicated war articles. The results were clearly stated and the war was thoroughly discussed !

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Hello Six Seven One Seven Five One Six One Five Zero! (Maybe you should register an account, so we can have a proper interaction with a person instead of with some randomly changing numbers.) You once again reinstated the circular reference to http://www.war-memorial.net. Could you please explain why you think this is a good idea and why our policies don't apply to you? —LX (talk, contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I used a circular reference. I am not very experience at editing Wikipedia. However, I am good at looking for reliable sources. I will remove that circular source. --67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't become unreliable because you say so? [4] it meets the standards listed at wp:rs. the source has dedicated a full table with heading "Wars and armed conflicts in asia, 1946-2000", and further cites RS "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" . Spartacus! (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at your source !! It has a very blurry picture merely stating the conflicts !! It is only 1 page !!

No where in your source described any details, objectives, strategy and outcome of any conflicts !!

The sources I provided:

1. https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0022974.A2.pdf

2. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

These sources are 100% reliable and satisfy every Wikipedia requirement as a reliable source. They were both over 200 pages long and described each war in absolute details, they are fully dedicated to each war not some economic article you privided!! They both stated the result of the war !!

In short you failed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You looked at the source and you found it blurry? then buy it and read it at your home! This is not the excuse, It is clearly written Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China. The sources has failry represented wars and armed conflicts in Asia since 1946-2000, they have cited further sources from where they've taken the stats. And now about the sources you presented. The first source doesn't say what you're trying to say to us "both sides were victor". Your second source (as you said page no.32) In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other,107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above"! This is your source? stop this bs nonsense. Spartacus! (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one need to stop !!

Your source is an economy article which does NOT qualify for a war article. Your source with a merely one page blurry picture does not even qualify for war article. If your reason is sound then anyone can write a book and place a picture in it and gain credibility.

My sources are both fully dedicated to war articles. The results were clearly stated.

Both sides claimed victory because neither side fully achieved their goals but manage to achieve certain goals.

For China: 1. China showed the world that USSR at that time could not protect its new ally Vietnam which ended a possible two front war scenario for China. ( This is one of the major goals for China, this was clearly written in the article and thoroughly discussed. Your source did not mention any strategic values, reason for war, the course of the war what so ever, just a blurry picture that no one can even read !)
2. China gained wild support in ASEAN countries for its attempt to stop Vietnamese aggression in South East Asia.
3. The war was a major blow to Vietnam's economy !
4. China gain territory from Vietnam.

For Vietnam: 1. China did not force Vietnam's withdraw from Cambodia.
2. China did not force Vietnam to change its policy towards Chinese residents in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when Springer publications become unreliable? You labelling reliable sources as unreliable, who are you to say that? How many times should I need to tell you that your OR matters nothing to us. If you're having trouble reading "Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China" then take out the print of the source from any other website or buy it! Also, As i said above, your sources doesn't say what are you saying to us. Your OR will be ignored. Spartacus! (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am kinda of tired of endlessly arguing.

What kind of agreement do you want to reach?

We can settle a consensus agreement and stop this editing chaos together.

Thank you.

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus! has zero concept of what reliable source means. A source is not reliable if it includes a table or if it cites from other reliable sources. A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in, such as a military historian writing about war. An economist's field is in economy. The main topic of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics is mainly about economy where the war is briefly mentioned and the main topic is not about war. It can be cited in an article about economy but not war in contentious cases. Just like a person with a degree in pottery and writing a book on pottery where he briefly mentions a war where soldiers destroyed pottery, is not a qualified source on that war even if that pottery book is published by Springer. A journal on medical injuries by a doctor describing injuries soldiers suffered during the war, is not a RS on the outcome of that war. Its only an RS on injuries and casualties but not who an RS on who won the war. Doesn't matter if it was published in a scientific medical journal, its not about military science. Its an RS on medicine, the work on economics Spartacus! cites is an RS on economics, neither of them are RS on war. An RS would be a military historian writing in a military journal. The author of the source Spartacus! uses has zero credentials in the field- modern warfare in Southeast Asia. If citing from reliable sources made a source RS, then any random person can start writing blogs by citing reliable sources and get considered a reliable source.Rajmaan (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rajmaan for backing me up.

As I have shown above, his source shows a merely picture and it is blurry !! To make matter even worse, his source was solely related to economic issue.

My source is dedicated to wars.

Could you please keep an eye on this page, I know that Spartacus will be back messing with it again.

As for you Spartacus, please stop now.

--67.175.16.150 (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rajmaan enlighten me how can a reliable source from Springer publications, citing other reliable sources for the stats, unreliable??? you said, "A source is reliable if the author has credentials in the field he is writing in.." why you think the source which the author of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation cited "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" for their stats, don't?

quick google book search about "Norman Friedman" [5] shows, they have credentials in the field of military, same about Macquarie Research.

I have more sources which states Vietnam's victory and Chinese military failure. [6] pg 285 and page 297 [7] [8] [9] [10]

IP, should we take this to Dispute resolution requests?Spartacus! (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just registered this account.

Spartacus you added more useless sources.

1.http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october242010/vietnam-china-tk.php

This source quotes from Wikipedia itself !! " According to Wikipedia: Within a single day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On 21 February, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on 27 February, but the city was not secured completely until 2 March. Lang Son fell two days later. On 5 March, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on 16 March."

Then in this source, China did tremendous damage to Vietnam: "According to the Website SinoVietnameseWar.com, the legacy of the war is enduring, particularly in Vietnam. In this nation already devastated by two recent wars, the Chinese in all essence, implemented a "scorched-earth policy" as they retreated back to China, causing extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. Villages were reduced to rubble, roads and railroads received damage at the hands of the Chinese."

It also stated that the main objective of China attacking Vietnam is to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud.
"Still, as Wikipedia relates, Bruce Elleman argued that "one of the primary diplomatic goals behind China's attack was to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud. Seen in this light, Beijing's policy was actually a diplomatic success, since Moscow did not actively intervene, thus showing the practical limitations of the Soviet-Vietnamese military pact... China achieved a strategic victory by minimizing the future possibility of a two-front war against the USSR and Vietnam."

2. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q13fAAAAMAAJ&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%221979+Sino-+Vietnamese+war+was+China%27s+most+important+foreign+policy+failure+since+1949%22
"1979 Sino- Vietnamese war was China's most important foreign policy failure since 1949".
Again, this source has ZERO credential in war, because it is titled foreign policy !!
3. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_CaeHdWv2YQC&pg=PA74&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEIQTAH#v=snippet&q=China's%201979%20war%20against%20Vietnam%20was%20a%20strategic%20failure%20In%20addition&f=false
Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making: Confucianism
This source has ZERO credential in war, it is titled: Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy.

4. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg

This source titled " Military History ". It is a summary book about all the wars from year ancient time to 2000. No where in that source described any details such as: strategic goals, tactics, course of the war, outcome, aftermath, ect. It has more credential than the other junk sources you provided but it is still no where near the source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

Most important of all !!!!!!

Your source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Used the exactly the same source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis . A book written by King C. Chen. In other words. Your source: Military History is utterly quoting from the source that I provided !! Therefore, my source has total supremacy over your source !!

Your source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Stated that:

"Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)."

Therefore, your source is utterly telling everyone that my source: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.

In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Hydro Jets (talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(I suggest you go take some time reading this page: Your source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

and see where your source is quoting and copying from !!

Do you remember what Rajmaan told you about reliable source? If not, I suggest you go read his contents.

It seems that you just do not get the idea of what a reliable source is. Even when Rajmaan "enlightened" you, or not.

At last, Spartacus. You need to stop your endless arguing. The main source you provided has no credential in this article. There is not going to be a dispute resolution request.

If you continue to vandalize this page. Your edits will be reverted for disruptive editing and you will be blocked. You have already been warned by admin.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus! is either trying to stall by pretending not to understand or has a hard time understanding the concept of reliable source. I just said, a source is NOT AN RS if it just cites from another RS. If a source (such as a random blog on the internet) cites from a reliable source such as a military journal but the blog draws its own conclusion such as claiming that X side won the war (which the original RS military journal does not say) that blog is NOT AN RS. You are not an RS just because you cite from an RS. The writers of The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics do not have credentials in military science and are not publishing their work in a military journal. Citing from an RS does not make your work an RS.Rajmaan (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment Rajmaan.

You are 100% correct. To matter even worse. Spartacus' latest source directly used my source as its foundation and his source mistakenly stated that China was "defeated". However, my source which is the one his source cited from, NEVER said that. In fact, it clearly cited that both sides claimed victory. This means that his source is a junk source despite being a book and it used my source as its foundations!!!

Spartacus used that source, this means that he agrees with what that source agree; which is that my source is the best source. Yet he continuously pretending that he does not get that concept.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacus' source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

This source is a book using other source especially my source as its foundation. It Stated that:

"Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)."

Therefore, Spartacus' source is utterly telling everyone that my source: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.

In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives."

In the light of all the evidences and fact provided by Spartacus himself.

My source should be used as the permanent source.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hydro Jets, you need to tone it down and stop with the "musts" and "shalls" and exclamation points. Both you and Spartacus! need to read WP:NOTBATTLE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you are only producing wp:or and misrepresenting my sources.

1. salem-news source relies on Wikipedia, globalsecurity.org, I agree, I didn't read sources mentioned below in that website but it's ok. move on to further sources.
2. [11] this source titled "Defending China" is wp:rs and publication of "Oxford University Press". It says "1979 Sino-Vietnamese war was China's most important foreign policy failure since 1949, and the main reason for this failure was the poor performance of the PLA"
3. I think you need to stop misleading others. [12] this source titled, "Chinese Strategic Culture and Foreign Policy Decision-Making": Confucianism, Leadership and War "Asian Security Studies" is wp:rs publication of Routledge. It examines politics, wars, foreign policy, strategic culture, international relations, etc stuff. Source states [13] China's 1979 war against Vietnam was a strategic failure.
4. page 285 &page 297 of this reliable source titled "Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989" publication of Routledge. you can read about the author here [14] also states the same, in short "Chinese military failure".
5. [15] this source, titled "Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn" publication of Rand Corporation states the same, in short "Chinese Chinese militiary failure".
6. [16] this source, which you are talking about mentions, "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietnamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), a military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War" and the reasons behind the Chinese defeat in that conflict, and CHEN (1987).
7. my first source itself is reliable and these sources are back up to it.while you have proved nothing, you are just producing wp:or and wp:pov.

I've replied to you yesterday about your source, page no.32 says, "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other",107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above" which is not a neutral or independent. Spartacus! (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin NeilN. At this point, I feel there is absolutely no need to ever talk to Spartacus again. He still has zero concept of what a reliable source means. He has himself trapped beautifully with his own sources and moves.

I will keep a close eye on this article and if he ever revert this article or the other article with his sources. I will notify you and other admins.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) --Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I am an uninvolved editor who has come across this ongoing dispute, and I'm hoping that I can assist in some way to find a resolution. First, I have renamed this talk page section; it is inflammatory and not civil, which should be avoided. I have left an anchor with the original section heading in case any links to this section were ever placed elsewhere.

Jon Hydro Jets (a.k.a User:67.175.16.150), I strongly urge you to remember to be Civil and to assume good faith. Refrain from attacking other editors with personal attacks; assume all editors are here because they want to help. I offer similar advice to Rajmaan. Without commenting on the referencing issue at hand, I want to point out to both of you that Spartacus! has at least not been accusing you of "stalling", or asserting that your sources are "useless", and expressed a willingness to try to negotiate a resolution by offering additional sources in support of his position, and offering to go to a dispute noticeboard.

I took a look at some of the sources being discussed here. From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!. Jon Hydro Jets, you are advocating for a source which supports the claim that both sides claimed victory.

Here is what I have to offer:

• I disagree with the idea that only sources by military historians can be considered reliable sources here. There are numerous problems with such a claim. First, the title of "military historian" is not some sort of regulated title, unlike, say a "medical doctor" or "engineer", who must be licensed in order to use such a title. Of course, there comes a certain level of experience from doing a lot of military history work for an entire career, but what qualifies someone to be a "military historian"? Number of publications? An assertion as such on their University profile? Furthermore, different historians, military or otherwise, approach their historical analyses from different perspectives, placing emphasis on different things. Thus, the point of view of an economist can be relevant, especially to historians who want to make an assertion of victory based on economic outcomes. I therefore disagree that Spartacus!'s sources have "zero" reliability simply because they are not written by so-called "military historians".
• Spartacus! has produced several sources which are books, published by fairly well-known and reputable publishers, which suggests that they likely went through some sort of editorial process. As these aren't sources that are simply random websites, or self-published books, but rather, are actual scholarly works published by reputable publishers, I don't think you can simply overrule the weight of evidence with a single other reliable source.
• Just because one source cites another, does not give the cited source "supremacy" over the citing source. Historians regularly refer to the works of others, often synthesizing different information together and come to their own conclusions, which may differ from that of any of the individual sources. This does not illegitimize their new conclusions because it may be meant to be a synthesis or re-examination of previous conclusions.

I do recognize that your source is a reliable source, with specific focus on this conflict, and was originally published in a peer-reviewed journal. But seeing as Spartacus has also produced a range of what I would argue are reliable sources which assert a different conclusion, I think the responsibility lies with you, Jon Hydro Jets, to find additional reliable sources that support your position. One reliable source, no matter how excellent in quality, cannot overrule several others if they are also of good quality.

I hope you are all able to resolve this conflict in a civil, patient manner from this point on. In this case, I suspect that it would be best to bring this issue to a dispute resolution noticeboard. The reliable source one in particular looks well-suited to your particular dispute. I say this simply because I suspect what will happen is that once Jon Hydro Jets locates more sources that support a "both sides claim victory", then an impasse may be reached in which it becomes extremely difficult to come to an agreement how to weigh the evidence on both sides. Brambleclawx 00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brambleclawx thank you and I hope your viewpoint can assist in to find a resolution. Jon Hydro Jets source's page 32 states very clearly at the bottom that 107 chinese claims have been repeatedly cited above which are not independent or third party views. I ask Jon just one thing, how he will justify suppressing views of reliable sources if he don't have preconceived bias. Spartacus! (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brambleclawx A military historian is someone such as Edward C. O'Dowd who actually wrote a book on the topic- Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War, Robert R Leonhard, an officer who graduated from the School of Advanced Military Studies, Clay Blair, a Navy veteran widely recognized as a military expert. Hoontrakul is none of them and has zero credentials in military science. Neither is his book about military or even about the Sino-Vietnamese war. Its a book on economics in Southeast Asia which mentions the Sino Vietnamese War. A source by an economist is not a reliable source on a war. A source by a medical doctor who treats injuries but knows nothing about military science is not a reliable source on the military. An RS on a war, is a book about that war by a military historian - Chinese Military Strategy in the Third Indochina War: The Last Maoist War The fact that Spartacus! is dragging up a book on economics by an economist smacks of desperation and failure to find an actual RS.Rajmaan (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!."

Brambleclawx. The pre-existing page stated that both sides claimed victory, please see the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731406747&oldid=729766616
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731406747&oldid=730621261

However, Spartacus used his totally unreliable source titled: "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics." to alter the article. His source merely has a single page of blurry picture to "support" his claim, and not to mention totally none credential as it is titled: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics. http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137412355

I reverted his edit by adding the most credible source there is: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

Spartacus ultimately agrees with this source, because he stated this source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

It is a poorly written book in military history. His source completely used my source as its foundation. The title of my source and its author King C. CHEN is clearly shown in first paragraph. In his source, it stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Which means that his source 100% agrees that my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen, is the best source. Spartacus' source is poorly written because it falsely stated that Vietnam "won", but in the real source, the source which Spartacus' book is founded which is my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen. Never stated that!!

In fact. It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." This is on page 32, under section Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas

Therefore, Spartacus has himself beaten and totally trapped by his own source and moves. Not only is his source lying, it is also quoting from a real reliable source. Both conditions make his source totally worthless ! In addition, he also listed many other bad sources such as internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia, however he only list the content "supporting" Vietnam but not the other materials that supports China ! ( Please see the discussion above. )

Here is a counter example: http://www.war-memorial.net/Sino-Vietnamese-War--3.167

This is a source stated that: "After a brief incursion into northern Vietnam, Chinese troops withdrew less than a month later, and both sides claimed victory." This source is a source that quotes from Wikipedia itself.

He also listed several books that are related to foreign policy and culture which are totally not reliable source as was shown by Rajmaan. ( Please see the discussion above ).

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for helping summarize all the material and ideas from above. It took a bit of time, but it really helped me get a feel for which sources to be looking at, and what to be looking for in them. I also want to thank Rajmaan and Jon Hydro Jets for using a much less aggressive tone: it helps a lot with keeping clear what the arguments are as they pertain to their issue at hand.

After taking a look at what you've all pointed out in reply to my comment, here are some additional thoughts:

• I still disagree with Rajmaan and Jon Hydro Jets that sources on the economy and foreign policy have no relevance to war. Wars directly impact the economy, and are an aspect of foreign policy/relations; an analysis of the economic outcomes, or effects on foreign relations, can be relevant when it comes to assessing the outcome of a war. Yes, a doctor making an argument about, say, the critical-ness of firearms manufacturing on a war would not hold much weight, but a doctor arguing a point based on a study of the health effects on the soldiers or civilians due to a war could be relevant.
• That said, after reviewing the sources, I would tend to say that a conclusion that "both sides claim victory" is more appropriate. This is not, however, because I think one source is trumping another due to being cited, or because I think anyone is acting in bad faith. I have an entirely different reasoning, which I hope both of you will consider. Perhaps the most important source to my conclusion is one brought up by Spartacus: Blinders, Blunders, and Wars. The key idea expressed here, is that in the past, scholars viewed the result to be a Chinese failure, but that more recently, scholars are interpreting it more favourably for the Chinese (i.e., not a complete failure after all). I believe the best way to move forward here, is to actually present this idea in the page itself, perhaps in the Aftermath section. It seems that nowadays, the prevalent view is that the results were not quite a failure for either side, but it would make for a much more balanced and informative article to actually discuss how that interpretation has changed over time. If anything, because you've all brought up so many sources, there is easily enough material now to present a section discussing how this view has changed, with good references to both the previous school of thought, and more recent changes in interpretation. I think this solution works well as a compromise: neither idea is completely shut out, and the article gets to be more balanced and detailed.
• As a quick note to Spartacus, the footnote you mention in Jon's source does not suggest that Chinese claims of victory are not RS; it's just a reflection of the fact that the author has already cited where Chinese claims of victory came from. Actually, the statement supports that both sides claimed victory (and does not make any comment on how others perceived who won).
• While I have agreed with your position, Jon and Rajmaan, this does not mean I think Spartacus is misguided or acting in bad faith; if anything, I think this discussion has the potential to help the article, because Spartacus has brought up a different perspective which can now allow for an opportunity to expand the article to treat the subject with more detail and balance. I hope you can see it in this light too, and perhaps collaborate in working to take these suggestions in order to take advantage of the fact that you now have a whole set of reference that can be used to discuss the way the interpretations have changed over time (and continue to be a subject of debate, as noted in that source).

Brambleclawx 15:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]