Talk:List of wars involving the People's Republic of China/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Tiananmen

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 should be added? Capitals00 (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not a war. Read the article title very carefully: List of wars involving the People's Republic of China. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyways, it won't be added, but keep Sino-India war from 1967, and Sino-Soviet war of 1969. Because it's not the part of other war, nor it's some type of one sided attack, but actual wars. Capitals00 (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Mate, 10 people dying in a little skirmish isn't a war. 20 people die in little shootouts in Detroit city every day. In case you weren't aware, on 28 December 2012 I added a whole load of similar events, but these were promptly removed, under the justification that they are not wars. Simply put, wars and armed conflicts are not the same thing. Wars are armed conflicts, but armed conflicts are not wars (oranges are fruits, but fruits are not oranges). If you are looking for a list of armed conflicts involving China, see Template:PRC conflicts. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems more like that because you are pro chinese you are trying to make this page in favor of china, well, stop creating your own definitions for 'war'.Capitals00 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh great, stop crying wolf now. Instead of making a personal attack against me, how about making a logical argument that's compelling and persuasive? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow you feel even more insecure than the most typical edit warriors we have here. You just proved my point anyway. Wherever Chinese's military has been involved, in order to conquer other country's area, it has been regarded as war, i still don't get why you are not getting it, just because china lost them or suffered from high causalities? Capitals00 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware, I was reminding you that Wikipedia has policies regarding personal attacks. Argue the content, not the person. Ad hominem statements are pointless and do not help the progression of discussing the topic at hand at all. Content on Wikipedia is justified by reliable sources that are verifiable by others. Find me a reliable source (not a blog, not your Twitter account) that refers to these minor skirmishes as a "war". Failing to adhere to Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS is considered original research, which is strictly prohibited. Finally, regarding this edit of yours, calling the Chola incident anything but a "stalemate" is original research, given the references and literature presently available. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

How about Soviet Sino Conflict from 1969? Yes Chola Incident was a war, :-http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=11769 . "History Of Modern China" Page 288 also mentions, regarding the wars in which China was involved at the time. Capitals00 (talk) 12:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Find me the exact paragraph and sentence in the link you have provided calling the 1967 events a "war". And no, "armed attack" and other phrases are not valid synonyms. The Sino-Indian War of 1962 was a war; the Chola incident was not. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The linked article is labelled an opinion piece, which I don't think qualifies as a reliable source. In any event, it does not call the Chola incident a war as far as I can see. Could you provide author and publication year for "History of Modern China" so that we know what book you're talking about and the page number you're referring to?--Wikimedes (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: Hello, I closed the DRN as unsuitable as discussion here is still underway. DRN is not a first resort. I came here to offer a third opinion, I am in agreement with Benlisquare, these are not 'Wars' that Capitals00 is suggesting be added, they are skirmishes and border clashes at best. There is a perfectly suitable section in the article already at Conflicts involving the People's Republic of China not considered as wars for this information to go. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Well then, let's make a new table on this page, which would be about 'conflicts', there we can add these 2 wars, as well as others like vietnam war, etc. Even if the page's actual title needed to be changed, to something like "List of military conflicts involving China", it would be good idea, like we had this one before List of military conflicts involving Serbia Capitals00 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong article IMO, List of Chinese battles would be the proper place to list all the armed conflicts involving the PRC, including the ones not widely considered to be wars. (Whether a battle is considered a war or not can be somewhat subjective, so follow what the majority of reliable sources say.) Turning the "Conflicts involving the People's Republic of China not considered as wars" part of the See also section into its own table is not unreasonable, but keep in mind that we already have an article that covers this, and mentioning them in the see also section seems sufficient. Killing unarmed protesters, whether at Tiananmen or Kent State, is usually considered to be a massacre rather than a war.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Wikimedes. Tiananmen was not a war. Otherwise Kent State massacre was a war in and of itself. Or the David Koresh compound assault, Ruby Ridge, Oklahoma City, etc. As for Chola, that's borderline. There are a lot of border skirmishes in history... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes Tiananmen wasn't a war, but others that i mentioned, needs to be mentioned. There hasn't been many border skirmishes, but only countable ones.Capitals00 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sino-Soviet Conflict is already in the See also section of this article and in the List of Chinese Battles article. I see no problem in adding the Chola incident to these two places as well. Are there other conflicts that need to be included? (By "countable" do you mean "few enough to mention in the lists"?)--Wikimedes (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that type of list, i mean the type of table, that we have here for 'wars'. Capitals00 (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comparison with other countries' lists of wars on Wikipedia Looking at Wikipedia's lists of wars involving The United States, Great Britain, Russia, and Poland the lists seem to include just about every minor skirmish. List of wars involving Great Britain, for example, includes the Cod Wars between Britain and Iceland, in which no shots were fired and there were no casualties. List of wars involving the United States includes Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998), which lasted a single day. List of wars involving Russia does include the Sino-Soviet border conflict. List of wars involving Poland even includes the Poznan 1956 protests. While I still don't like the idea of adding every skirmish to the list, it's hard for me to object when that seems to be the norm everywhere else I've checked on Wikipedia. So do we conform and add the Chola incident, the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Cultural Revolution (sometimes described as a civil war) or at least some of the major incidents involving military hardware, some of the larger rebellions during the Great Leap Forward, etc. or should we be different and try to limit this article to things that are actually called wars (or maybe invasions or armed rebellions as well) by reliable sources?--Wikimedes (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What is a war? While the Cultural Revolution may apply, the listing presented by Wikimedes would seem to make every police action viable as a war. So union busting by Detroit police at the Ford factories would be wars... Family vendettas would be civil wars (the Hatfields and the McCoys) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Pirate War 1995- and others

Should we include the involvement of the Chinese Navy in combating Pirates off Eastern Africa? I think that is a Naval war. Also has China been involved in any kind of United Nations peace keeping activities? If so those could possibly be included as well. As for the Chinese-Soviet war, I would like to go on record as supporting the inclusion of that series of conflicts. They are an important event in the history of the two nations and to leave them out is to abandon those who fought and died on both sides of the conflict. At least lets include the minor wars just to show respect for those who felt it was their duty in defending China or Russia. Magnum Serpentine (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

List of WikiProjects (Which might seem 'extreme')

This was actually part of my 'drive-by' classing of all the articles starting with 'list of' as 'lists' and adding other projects. I specifically only added the projects for the other countries that are currently listed as 'belligerents' on the list (except for all the 'allied' nations in the Korean War). I think it's a 'reasonable' argument that every one of these wars was more notable for the other nation than for China (lol). Feel free to mess with this if it actively 'bothers' someone, but I think it's a good idea (hopefully drawing people from those projects into the 'conversation'). Since the list is collapsed it shouldn't be an issue, though, I would hope. Revent (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of wars involving the People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of wars involving the People's Republic of China

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of wars involving the People's Republic of China's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CIA":

From Thailand: Thailand, The World Factbook.
From Viet Cong: "Failure of the Viet Cong to establish liberation committees". Declassified CIA Documents on the Vietnam War. Created July 8, 1968. Declassified Feb. 22, 1991. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
From France: "CIA World Factbook". CIA. Retrieved 16 April 2013.
From Iran: CIA World Factbook. "Iran". Retrieved 7 August 2012.
From Communist insurgency in Thailand: "Communist Insurgency In Thailand" (PDF). CIA Report. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
From Belgium: "The World Factbook". cia.gov.
From Ethiopia: "Ethiopia". The World Factbook. CIA. Retrieved 18 January 2013.
From Myanmar: "Burma". The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 18 November 2012.
From New Zealand: "CIA – The World Factbook". Cia.gov. Retrieved 4 May 2013.
From Soviet Union: Central Intelligence Agency (1992). "Soviet Union – Economy". The World Factbook. Retrieved 23 October 2010.
From China: "CIA – The World Factbook". Cia.gov. Retrieved 23 November 2013.
From South Korea: This article incorporates public domain material from The World Factbook. CIA.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Third Taiwan Strait Crisis was not a war

Hello guys, I am really confused by the inclusion of this event. Unlike the first two crises where real battles were fought, the third one didn't involve any direct military confrontation, but rather military exercises and maneuvers. It doesn't constitute a good fit for a list of WARs. 131.170.239.12 (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the result description 'China ceases bombardment' is very misleading, as it seems to suggest there was an exchange of fire between the two sides; in reality, the so-called bombardment happened as part of war games only and didn't target anything on the other side. While there were more complex issues behind the scene, these didn't materialize. 131.170.239.12 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Debellatio"

User:XavierGreen has repeatedly made edits referring to the PLA victory over Tibet as a debellation ([1]), however this is a factual inaccuracy and a wording that is violation of WP:NPOV.

From Debellatio: "The term Debellatio designates the end of a war caused by complete destruction of a hostile state." The PLA attacked Tibet during the Battle of Chamdo, and as a result of the swift and overwhelming defeat by the Tibetan Army by the PLA forces (they were using outdated weaponry and were heavily outnumbered), the Dalai Lama and his cabinet intended to minimise as much damage and death as possible, and so signed the Seventeen Point Agreement with the Communist Party of China, which agreed that the Dalai Lama and his government remained in power in Tibet, and in return they accept full sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over Tibet. After Tibet was fully incorporated into Tibet, the Communist Party began a series of controversial land reforms and other policies which became unpopular with the Tibetan locals, and in 1959 an uprising occurred. The Dalai Lama supported this uprising, however it was unsuccessful and he was forced to flee to India. The local Tibetan government was abolished, and the central government in Beijing assumed full direct control over Tibet. This does not meet the definition of debellation, which is more used to refer to events such as the fall of Nazi Germany (Soviet capture of Berlin), fall of France during World War II, or the fall of Saddam's Iraq in 2003. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's just keep things simple and use the term "victory". It's more standard anyways.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with FutureTrillionaire. WP:JARGON -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a real problem that this article not only treats the intercourse between China and the government in "Tibet" as that between two separate, sovereign states. The conflict at Qamdo is better seen as part of a process by which the government in China rationalized away the institutional remnants of empire, such as by abolishing the local system of petty princeships (e.g., Kumul Khanate) by which the Qing controlled its frontiers for cheap. The Guomindang government was definitely better at this game, since it abolished the apartheid system by which a wealthy Mongol minority exploited majority Han serfs in Suiyuan-Chahar-Rehe-Xing'an-Liaobei (misnamed "Inner Mongolia"), a feudality which the Communists ironically reinstated for political advantage during the civil war. Although this wresting away of reactionary privilege was bloody; we certainly wouldn't call it "debellatio" ;)

As for the problem of Tibet and "debellatio": we definitely need a better source than the current Wikipedia article for the term's definition and implications. Anyway, Tibet is as far from a Carthage "salt the earth" type situation as you can imagine. They don't call it "peaceful liberation" for nothing: when PLA troops entered Lhasa, they did so not as a hostile army, but as part of a central government which the erstwhile-rebels-turned-communists recognized as legitimate and sovereign. Qamdo and western Kam served as military outposts for an aggressive and expansionist Tibetan army, which had only gained the territory in 1932; they were not integral parts of "Tibet", as contemporary negotiations (such as that in Simla, 1914) indicate. Oh, did I already mention that this was not contemporaneously considered a conquest (which explains the lack of concordant international outrage)? Yes, it has to be mentioned 100,000 times, because of the pervasiveness of revisionist independentist propaganda. Shrigley (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a ton of lobbyism around chinese politics. Another example is the wording "Tibet reincorporated into China" which is biased close to being ironic as we are talking about annexion and occupation of an recognized independ nation. And sure, yadayada it was for the good of the people yadayada now they are not tortured by mandalorian slaveholders but by chinese slaveholders^Wliberators with great love and care. The usual Copypasta, got it, still this isn't "reincorporated" but at best "occupied" or "annexed". Given the current state of chinese goverment trolls I don't expect my concerns to be taken serious but still had to say this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crass Spektakel (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

me

jkjjjff 152.37.110.115 (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

history

Why did Japan win against Russia 152.37.110.115 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus not to move, as the page scope is limited to wars that took place since 1949 (rather than throughout the entirety of China's history). (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

List of wars involving the People's Republic of China → List of wars involving China – Our article on China treats People's Republic of China (PRC) as the "China". This article should also say "China" instead of "People's Republic of China (PRC)". Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: List of wars involving the People's Republic of China is specific to the wars involving the PRC, i.e., since the Chinese Civil War. In contrast, the article on China is not limited to the People's Republic of China. See China#History. This PRC-specific list has a narrower scope than List of Chinese wars and battles and distinct from List of wars involving the Republic of China. Because of that, the current title is needed for precision/disambiguation. SilverLocust 💬 18:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be clearer to explicitly organize by date – in other words, move this article to a title like List of wars involving China (post-1949), and the other articles could be moved to titles like List of wars involving China (pre-1911) and List of wars involving China (1911–1949). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@SilverLocust But we don't have a List of wars involving Republic of China. Instead we have List of wars involving Taiwan. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a List of wars involving the Republic of China, as you one can see from the link I gave to it in my previous comment and this one. List of wars involving Taiwan is a little different, since the ROC was not always in Taiwan. SilverLocust 💬 01:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

That one correctly ends with the year 1949. While List of wars involving Taiwan has content regarding the events that happened until 1996. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Yes this needs to be named after "China". Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per SilverLocust. "China" predates the PRC, so List of wars involving China (currently a redirect) should keep its current target, which is a broad list of all battles etc. involving China, not the PRC, which was established in... (checks article) ...1949. Edward-Woodrow • talk 14:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Strong oppose greatly limits the scope of the generic article name to post 1949. That removes 5000 years of history. Certainly is historical revisionism to say China was invented in 1949 and everything before isn't China. -- 67.70.25.175 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.