Talk:Sino-Vietnamese War

Result
Excuse me,both countries claim victory,that is truth,Wikipedia Vietnamese and Chinese agree this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.24.164.230 (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * "Although unable to deter Vietnam from ousting Pol Pot from Cambodia, China demonstrated that its Cold War communist adversary, the Soviet Union, was unable to protect its Vietnamese ally" ЭThis is not true, and for the most part it was invented by Bruce Elleman himself, about the fact that supposedly the USSR could not help Vietnam in this war, the USSR already supported Vietnam and helped it in this war and indirectly participated in it, this article does not mention the Soviet General Gennady Ivanovich Obaturov, who played one of the most important roles in repelling Chinese aggression in Vietnam (information about him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennady_Obaturov), the Soviet fleet also provided quite serious assistance to Vietnam, the ships of the Pacific Fleet of the USSR since the summer of 1978, they have been in the area of ​​the South China and East China seas, where they conducted exercises. By the beginning of 1979, a large squadron was concentrated in the South China Sea, which by February 20 included 13 large warships. The Soviet fleet also used the former Vietnamese US naval base Cam Ranh in the area.
 * By the end of February-beginning of March 1979, the squadron received reinforcements and already consisted of 30 surface ships, including the Admiral Senyavin KRU (Project 68-bis), Admiral Fokin RKR (Project 58), Vladivostok RKR ( project 1134), BOD "Vasily Chapaev" (project 1134A), "Able" and "Strict" (project 61), "Excited" (project 56), TFR "Striking" (project 1135) and others. In addition, an unspecified number of Soviet diesel submarines took part in the operation. They arrived from the following Far Eastern bases: Ulissa, Konyushki, Avangard, Rakushka, Sovgavan, Magadan and Bicheva.
 * Part of the submarines, remaining on the surface, created a visible protective cordon in front of the entrance to the Gulf of Tonkin, thus blocking it for the ships of other states. According to eyewitnesses-participants, the carrier strike force of the US Pacific Fleet on duty nearby, led by the aircraft carrier Constellation (CV-64), did not try to overcome this barrier and enter the bay. And on March 6, the Constellation with an escort left the zone of the South China Sea altogether. During the conflict, transport ships of the USSR, as well as countries allied under the Warsaw Pact, the GDR, Bulgaria and others, constantly arrived and unloaded in the port of Haiphong. 37.54.230.242 (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you replying to a 2.5 year old comment? Mztourist (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact:Both governments claimed victory,first version of this page also wrote this,let's fix!!! Please,thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.47.159 (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Democratic Kampuchea?
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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding names in the lede
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  &#124; —Talk contribs email 12:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary says of tàu: "Literally meaning 'boat,' this term may also used as an adjective, placed after a noun to signify something Chinese, such as India ink (mực tàu), jujube (táo tàu), or Chinatown (phố tàu) this usage is derived from the fact that many Chinese refugees came to Vietnam in boats during the Qing Dynasty. In this usage, it may sometimes be considered derogatory." According to other book sources, "Ba tau" is a derogatory term for the overseas Chinese in Vietnam; "Trung Quoc" (obvious loan of zhongguo) was considered more diplomatically acceptable in the PRC period. Also, "Trung" refers to China, but "tau" to Chinese things only. So there's some parallel to the Chugoku/Shina endonym/exonym situation, but tau's origins appear to be more sinister. Shrigley (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No mention of nuclear war danger
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)


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

International reactions
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)

Long Irrelevant Digression
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)

"Hanoi-backed regime"

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

57,000 killed?
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)


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

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)

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

Both side claimed victory. I have found a great article source to back it up.
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)


 * 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)

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


 * 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 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

Sources don't become unreliable because you say so? 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)

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)

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

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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)


 * @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" 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. pg 285 and page 297
 * IP, should we take this to Dispute resolution requests?Spartacus! (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

(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)


 * 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)

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)

Source dicussion regarding outcome of Sino-Vietnamese War
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)
 * Jon Hydro Jets, you need to tone it down and stop with the "musts" and "shalls" and exclamation points. Both you and need to read WP:NOTBATTLE. --Neil N  talk to me 15:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

you are only producing wp:or and misrepresenting my sources. 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)
 * 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) 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. 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  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 also states the same, in short "Chinese military failure".
 * 5) 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) 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.

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)


 * 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.  Bramble claw  x  00:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@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)


 * 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 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)

"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)


 * 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).


 *  Bramble claw  x  15:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Brambleclawx for your comment.

As I said before the main problems with Spartacus' sources are: 1. It is not related to war. 2. More importantly, it has a single page of blurry picture which you can not even see. He used it to support his claim. Spartacus' source: "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics.  has just one page of table content, which is a blurry picture as its foundation to support his claim. This is totally unacceptable.

"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 favorably 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."'

''I accept your decision. '' --Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Brambleclawx, another important thing to remember are the strategic reasons/goals for China's attack against Vietnam in 1979. These reasons were clearly listed and discussed in the sources. They also support the idea that the war seen in now days is a big favor for China, despite the fact that China's military performance in the war was not good due to the culture revolution (1966 to 1976) which severely damaged PLA's training and modernization; however, the war itself in the long run in my opinion is a huge success because of its strategic values.

1. China showed the world that the Soviet did not dare to attack China from the North and ended a pincer attack danger. This also showed the United States that China is daring and bold enough thus worthy American support later on, which allow China to rapidly develop during the 1980's, 1990's until now on. 2. In the long run, Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia in 1991 following the fall of the USSR. This showed that Vietnam was only bold and daring when supported by USSR, and now Vietnam's dream of dominating the Indo-China peninsula was over because there is no longer any great power to support Vietnam. 3. China gained support in South East Asia. Thailand, Laos, Malaysia were all friendly countries and allies with China. 4. Vietnam with a population of just 90 millions, has to maintain a very large army with nearly half million troops in fear of another Chinese invasion. This strain its economy and more importantly, because of the fact that Vietnam has to spend the vast majority of its military budget maintaining a large army, Vietnam can no longer maintain nor afford a large and modern navy nor air force. This allowed China's recent aggressive moves in South China Sea by building very large islands to serve as military bases and eventually dominating the South China Sea.

Peace out.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Brambleclawx, Indeed: "Blinders, Blunders, and Wars: What America and China Can Learn." a good source. Also, remember, this source once again came from Spartacus, however, apparently he did not bother to read the source, instead you know !!! He once again has himself trapped and beat.

The full article is here:

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR700/RR768/RAND_RR768.pdf

The war was described in good details and it indeed favor China in the long term and overall, from page 124 to 127.

"Geopolitically, the war and its aftermath gradually undermined Vietnam’s ambitions and ability to dominate Indochina. China’s attack on Vietnam enhanced Beijing’s prestige in Southeast Asia since Vietnam’s attack on Cambodia threatened Thailand and had led to the formation of a strong Association of Southeast Asian Nations coalition opposed to Vietnam.49 The war clearly signaled Chinese opposition to Vietnam becoming a regional hegemon and its willingness to fight to prevent that from happening. On the one hand, the war lent credibility to later Chinese warnings of unacceptable aggressive Vietnamese behavior. This included, for example, a June 1980 Chinese warning to Vietnam not to conduct military operations deeper into Thailand and a Chinese attack on Vietnam in 1984 to force it back from seizing a critical pass from Cambodia into Thailand.50 China’s Punitive War Against Vietnam, 1979 125 On the other hand, the war exacerbated Vietnam’s economic difficulties as Hanoi overextended itself and prepared for a two-front war: Vietnam held on to Cambodia and also defended itself against China along its northern border. Even after China announced its withdrawal on March 5, 1979, Vietnam feared further Chinese attacks from the north and called for national mobilization and construction of a defensive position around its capital. At a time when Vietnam’s economy was “in a worse state than at any time since 1975,” the war and subsequent defensive measures imposed enormous economic and social costs on Vietnam, preventing the country from devoting significant resources to modernizing its economy.51 The war demonstrated to Vietnam the limits of the 1978 Soviet-Vietnamese treaty and helped China minimize the threat of a two-front war.52 While the Soviet Union engaged in a series of deterrence signals—which included alerting its troops in the Far East, intensifying surveillance, conducting live fire exercises, sea- and air-lifting supplies to Vietnam, and increasing its naval presence in the South China Sea—it did not open a second front.53 The war helped, but it was not necessary for improved U.S.-China relations, and China did not receive as much technological assistance as Deng would have liked. According to Henry Kissinger, the war “ushered in the closest collaboration between China and the United States for the period of the Cold War” and there was “an extraordinary degree of joint action.”54 The Jimmy Carter administration saw a need to upgrade China’s technological and military capacity and was willing to provide China with more equipment than was avai–lable to the Soviet Union. Washington agreed to sell China military equipment, which included surveillance equipment and vehicles, but not arms. The United States also decided to not interfere with allied decisions to sell arms to China.55 In the long run, however, Deng waged a successful diplomatic campaign after the war to isolate Vietnam economically and politically, making Vietnam dependent on the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union became tied down in Afghanistan after 1979, and weakened and changed course under Mikhail Gorbachev, Hanoi could no longer sustain its previous aggressiveness. In 1989, Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia. In 1991, Vietnam made peace with China on Chinese terms."

It seems that Spartacus did not even bother to read his own source, instead he used these source to support his claims with prejudice, while completely ignoring other materials that undermine his claims. He had showed similar behavior in his other edits.

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What said I agree with them. It will be better if we will present facts in the Aftermath section. I agree with that. And for users, who are suppressing views of reliable sources, I would to say, your personal commentary and WP:OR has no value to us. you can't suppress WP:RS views on spurious ground, that it is written by a economist? And I also want to mention others editors those who say they can't read the given source because the picture is blurry. For your kind information sources don't need to be always available online. You can take out the print it from other webs or you can buy the book also. Thank you. Spartacus! (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What is spurious is refusing to recognize the fact that RS have to be written by qualified experts in the field you are using their source to back up. An economist has zero qualifications in military history and his book in general is not even about the war. A medical doctor's work is citing in medicine, a economist's work is cited in economics, a military historian who graduated from a military school or who has degrees in military science is cited in military related matters. We don't cite historians with PhDs in art history for military matters.Rajmaan (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * I think Spartacus! have slight advantages over Jon Hydro Jets bz gave more wp:rs than Jon Hydro Jets.
 * obviously it was Vietnamese victory bcz we all know, 1. "China withdrew it's forces from Vietnam". 2. Vietnamese occupation continued in Cambodia till 1989.
 * so, above results proof Vietnamese victory easily. I repeat, I'm agree with Spartacus! that Vietnam won the war. 119.30.47.56 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The dispute was over. Spartacus himself, me, Rajmaan, and Brambleclawx all agree that " Both sides Claimed Victory " is the the finial consensus result.


 * The argument now is between Rajmaan and Spartacus, weather Spartacus' sources are reliable or not. Rajmaan has showed Spartacus what reliable sources means but Spartacus has a really hard time understanding it. Most of Spartacus' sources are totally unreliable, only a few of them has credential, yet all of his reliable sources that have credential directly or indirectly supported our current agreement !

--Jon Hydro Jets (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"An economist has zero qualifications in military history" your personal commentary matters nothing to me, see what Brambleclawx said to you. furthermore, source stats are obviously acceptable, their work also rely on Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999). you can't suppress rs views. take it to reliable sources noticeboard if you have problem with the source and because two editors disagree with you. Spartacus! (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Spartacus! is deliberately misleading and sidetracking again. If Macquarie Research (Aug 2010) and Norman Friedman (1999) are RS then why aren't they being cited DIRECTLY? A source is NOT AN RS if it contains citations to sources that are RS. An internet blog which cites Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman is not RS because the blog owner has zero qualifications in any field, let alone military history. A book on economics which cites Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman is not RS if it draws its own conclusions from the data'. Its obvious that Macquarie Research and Friedman are either (1) not accessible to you, or (2) they are accessible and don't say Vietnamese victory which is why you refuse to cite them directly and use Hoontrakul's book on economics. Your personal commentary claiming economists are reliable sources on military matters is irrelevant.


 * It says right at Identifying_reliable_sources

The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: * The piece of work itself (the article, book) * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.


 * The piece of work and creator of the work are both relevant. The piece of work is a book on economics in Southeast Asia. The creators of the work are economists. Neither of them are related to military affairs. According to this policy on identifying reliable sources, this book and authots are not reliable sources.Rajmaan (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop misleading other editors and distorting things. Macquarie Research (Aug 2010) and Norman Friedman (1999) can't cited directly because these items are not accessible. Here we are not talking about internet blog but a reliable source published by Springer, 2014, ISBN:9781137412362, edited by many well qualified authors (P. Hoontrakul, C. Balding, R. Marwah). page number 37 (Wars and armed conflicts in Asia since....) appear in the "selected pages" list  so it is definitely reliable. It may be the author worked with Sydney based Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman and then came to a conclusion or can be anything else. authors often cites work of others. see what told you. you can't suppress rs and I won't let you do that anyway. Spartacus! (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What part of credentials in the relevant field do you not understand. A random blog on the internet citing Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman and drawing its own conclusions is not a reliable source because that blog has zero credentials in military affairs. An economist citing Macquarie Research and Norman Friedman in a book about economics with one sentence-paragraph-page about a war's outcome is not a reliable source because that economist has zero credentials in military affairs. Draw directly from Macquarie and Friedman and show what they say and stop trying to shove sources onto article because you agree with what they say. Edward C. O'Dowd is used because he has credentials in military affairs and his entire book is about the war. The creator of the work and the work itself are relevant in establishing if it is RS or not. We don't cite pottery experts on military matters no matter how many PhDs they have in playing with clay. A medical journal describing injuries written by a doctor with an MD published by a medical school is not an RS on military affairs. Nobody cares how many PhDs the author has in non related fields. The relevant field is war.Rajmaan (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Note to editors involved: it looks to me like this dispute isn't going anywhere, so I have posted this to the Reliable Source Noticeboard for other editors to offer their opinions.  Bramble claw  x  14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Soviet Union
This conflict was characterized by the lack of Soviet involvement. The Soviet Union provided material and intelligence support to the Vietnamese, but this does not make the country a belligerent. This was a war with two belligerents. The article explains it, and the infobox should reflect it. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Soviets still be credited with at least a supporting role? In 1959 Tibetan uprising (just using this as an example), the United States, United Kingdom, and several other countries are listed as support, though the uprising was really only between two belligerents. DDDD 07:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Generally, I think infoboxes should be reserved for actual combatants. Listing the Soviet Union as a "supporter" gives an impression that contradicts what is reflected in the article, namely, that this was a one-on-one war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Vietnam supported by Soviet Union is correct. Mztourist (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To an extent, the United States also supported China. The question is whether it merits inclusion in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can provide WP:RS to show material US support for China then it can be added. Mztourist (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't question whether the material aid took place at all, I question whether it merits a mention in the infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the article establishes that the Soviet Union provided material support to Vietnam, including flying Vietnamese forces from south to north, which justifies their inclusion in the infobox, while any US support for China is unclear. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And we have an entire chapter titled "Soviet inaction". Again, this conflict was characterized by the absence of Soviet involvement, and keeping the Soviet Union in the infobox would imply the opposite. Why not reserve the infobox for the actual combatants and let the article explore Soviet involvement (and lack thereof)? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Including countries that supplied material support in conflict infoboxes is normal. Under the "Soviet inaction" section it states "the Soviet Union sent several naval vessels and initiated an arms airlift to Vietnam. However, the Soviet Union felt that there was simply no way that they could directly support Vietnam against China" regards Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not really a policy, but rather a norm that is determined in a case-by-case basis (for instance, Rwandan Civil War had more non-combatants than combatants in the infobox, even though the war was characterized by the LACK of foreign intervention). Do you see where I'm coming from? It's not that the information is incorrect; my issue is that it gives the wrong impression to the readers. Cheers, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 February 2017
While it is known that China's military fared rather poorly in the 1979 offensive, suffering at least 20000 casualties, Vietnam suffered similar losses if not greater as pointed out by the sources above. However, it isn't factually accurate to state a "Vietnamese military victory" as both countries suffered similar losses and the fact that China did eventually make significant inroads into Vietnam after 3 weeks. At best, it was a military stalemate regarding both sides as neither fully accomplished their duties. The outcome can be described as a political victory for China in the sense that Vietnam's ally, the Soviet Union, did not come to intervene on their behalf. The same can be said for a Vietnamese strategic victory as China failed in its ultimate goal of luring Vietnam out of Kampuchea, which was one of the major causes for this war. However, militarily neither side "won" tactically as there were similar casualties losses for both combatants and the fact that the war was less than a month long (far too short in this case for any decisive action).

NEED TOR CHANGE OF OUTCOMES Michael011351 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No changes can be made to this protected article unless they are supported by consensus. Please discuss any changes before using requesting the edit. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 17 February 2017
Request: change RESULT from "Vietnamese Military Victory" to "Draw; both sides achieved partial objectives"

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

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

"Western estimates" under Casualties and losses
The infobox under section "Casualities and losses" labels figures as "Western estimates" for both sides in the conflict.
 * 1) The referenced source The Bitter Legacy of the 1979 China-Vietnam War is authored by a Vietnamese schollar (Nguyen Minh Quang) from a Vietnamese school (School of Education, Can Tho University) as mentioned at the pottom of the article and not Western.
 * 2) The Diplomat is an as per this Wiki international online news magazine and features perspectives, that are not per se Western. This platform does not qualify the opinion as Western.
 * 3) For the claim about "Western estimates" the Vietnamese author refers to the caption of a Times photo gallery, stating "Though casualty figures remain unclear, estimates suggest ...". Time does not declare the estimates as their own and does not indicate anything about the origin of the estimates or limits it to one source, with only one region of origin.
 * 4) The Vietnamese article is exclusively listed as a source for the alleged "Western estimates" of casualities, but only quotes the figures itself from the  Times photo gallery caption.

What should be changed:
 * The Vietnamese source is redundant (4) and the Times should be used as a source for the figures. The Vietnamese source does not directly support the material (in fact neither does the Time but thats the next point). The only aspect the Vietnamese article contributes is an unverified label "Western" that can not be found in its own sources (3).
 * The origin(s) and reliability of the estimates the Time page refers to is(are) completely unknown (3). The caption of the photographers gallery could be just eyeballing on international estimates or even refer to an older state of the WP article of the Sino-Vietnamese war itself. It does not rule out anything. The "Western estimate" label on WP in question is currently only based on unverifiable labeling injected by a Vietnamese source, which does not qualify it as Western endorsed figures either (1,2,3). The material is simply put misslabeled and should be taken off the page or marked as such.

The correction with hint at both the source being Vietnamese and lack of specification as Western by the "direct" source Time, has been reverted so far and a message with "reverted for inadequate reason" sent to me, without any adquate reason so why to keep an unverifiable Vietnamese claim up or why this even needs to be discussed. The added justification "[Times?] also does not specify it as vietnamese estimates" doesnt make any sense either. Not necessarily Vietnamese, is not a reason to keep something labeled "Western". The claim that they are Western is only alleged by a (given the context of the topic) not neutral and (given the lack of such information in the quoted Time page) questionable Vietnamese source. – PeterMl (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

West Estimate over than 20000 Chinese Killed less than 10000 Vietnamese killed
"A "martyr's cemetery" in China's southern Yunnan province. Though casualty figures remain unclear, estimates suggest at least 20,000 Chinese soldiers died, while Vietnamese dead number under ten thousand. State media on both sides have remained quiet on the 30th anniversary of the war. While tensions flared over border disputes in the subsequent years, the Communist neighbors, linked by centuries of history, have buried the hatchet and now enjoy significant economic ties."

http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1879849_1846224,00.html

That's a neutral source no Chinese no Vietnamese........ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logftw1 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

To the person blanking my Aftermath section
Where is your NPOV proof? All I did was reference two sources from two Vietnamese writers and the legacy of the Yue aka the Viet people. I know your username is Yue but that won't stop me from including the Aftermath from the Vietnamese writer's point of view here. 118.211.76.187 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Synthesis of secondary sources is not allowed on Wikipedia. Do not insert your own commentary into articles. Yue 🌙 20:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, you're just blanking my insertion of information without consulting and even threatening to block me. These are highly aggressive behaviours. What I just put down are facts. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's clear that the information is linked rather then me "providing commentary". 118.211.76.187 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)