Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 11 August 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Vietnam This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / Chinese / Southeast Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Southeast Asian military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2014.

Old talk

Question: How the heck can the Vietnamese claim victory even tho their ships were sunk, the territories under their control was taken over, and the Chinese didn't' lose a single ship and had less casualties? The logic fails me AKFrost 20:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The original article by me stated that it was a clear Chinese victory. There was a later edit which said both sides claim victory. I'm ok if it is only 'claimed'. But who actually won is pretty clear.Koxinga CDF 10:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

hi

I am not able to read Vietnamese. Therefore, I am unable to provide a more balanced POV from the Vietnamese perspective as I am unable to research this area. If you can help, please go ahead.

Thanks

Koxinga CDF 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What types of ships were the Viet HQs? Patrol boats? Destroyers? Sandy of the CSARs

Non-combat ships filled with military engineers. Also, they were ordered not to open fire and did so. This article contains lots of unsourced craps. Tmct (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

it seems unlikely any intelligent naval commander would openly confront other combat vessels with three "non-combat ships filled with military engineers". really if your version is to be believed, are three non-combat ships manned by engineers the best response the PAVN can muster at a perceived encroachment at its soveignty? PAVN's inexperience at open water combat is well established and shown by previous defeats in naval skirmishs and as its duties mainly involve coastal and river patrols in the vietnam's delta region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.15.113 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tmct is correct. The HQ-604/605 are essentially armed freighters used to deliver supplies to the islands. Even now, PAVN operates a fleet of these armed freighters for the same purpose.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

According to this, both of Vietnamese ship in this event is old, stained armed transportation ships which was built before 1975 while the Chinese has new light cruisers. I could not believe that the Vietnamese was the force attacked first.--AM 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten

Article rewritten with new data from the other page.

Koxinga CDF (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

PAVN ship names

I have removed names and references to the US PGM class gunboats and LST. I presume whoever added them made the reference to Navsource http://www.navsource.org/archives/12/11idx.htm.

That is incorrect. The PGM boats were given to South Vietnam and were no longer in service with the PAVN. The same pennant number were appropriated for other ships, hence the confusion.

In the event of doubts, this is a video of the actual battle by the Chinese forces. The PAVN forces are using the armed freighters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjLjmmPs3I

Koxinga CDF (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Vietnamese soldiers were ordered to not fight back so that the Chinese navy had no reason to start a full-scale attack and take over the entire chain of islands. You know, the Vietnamese navy was much weaker than the Chinense (and it still be).

This video has been removed due to terms of use violation. Your video link has died.--AM 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Victory

China successfully captured Johnson South Reef, but failed to capture Collins Reef and Lansdowne Reef. Should this be considered a tactical Chinese victory and a minor strategic Vietnamese victory? And who were the political victors? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The battle took around Johnson South Reef, which was attacked by the Vietnamese. How could it be considered a strategic Vietnamese victory because they held on to what the Chinese never attacked in the first place....Teeninvestor (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Can I have source(s) for your claim that Vietnamese attacked first. Reliable third-party/independent sources are needed. I could read Chinese, Vietnamese, and English. So feel free to provide sources in any of these languages.--AM 14:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Provided a source. There are plenty of accounts of these battles in Chinese as well as English. According to the source, the Chinese captured about 6 islands, another detail which has been incorporated. The incident started when a PLAN soldier uprooted a vietnamese flag, causing PAVN forces to fire on him. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested third-party/independent sources. You provide a Chinese sources and said that it is third-party/independent sources? As far as I know, Vietnamese sailors were ordered to stand and keep the flag, not to fight back because Chinese navy was superior, and they had firmly obey this order. I have so many source which was written in Vietnamese , but I would not use because I don't want to start a "according to..." war because two side have their own bais. If you provide me with good source, I would not ask any more.--AM 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, since you said "There are plenty of accounts of these battles in Chinese as well as English", then can you provide us more reliable and independent sources in English instead of your single source in Chinese at this time? You surely know that each side has its own reason, Chinese sources will claim the right for China while Vietnamese sources will naturally hold their sense for Vietnam, thus we have an editing war of no end! Therefore I think we'd better use third-party (and somewhat "neutral") sources here, for example, about the "who attacked first?", this article states that "Disagreements exist over which side initiated hostilities, but a gun battle began between PRC and Vietnamese forces after the Chinese landed on Da Gac Ma.", a much more neutral account. If you can't find out more reliable and independent sources, I'll have to replace your sole biased-source by the above one. Please, be neutral here! Grenouille vert (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, your source on hawaii.edu covers the battle in like 2 sentences, not nearly enough for an article. Also, my source is on almost every Chinese website; there are versions of th

ese sources on baidu, sina, everywhere. And besides, there is no reason to discredit a source from a large well known website simply because of it's national origin. If you want to add a vietnamese interpetation, perhaps you can split the article into 2 sections: Chinese claims/Vietnamese claims.70.55.31.39 (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, 70.55.31 is me. Forgot to log in. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

One more time (and the last time) I request more references from independent, neutral sources, don't say "I have"/"there are plenty" again and again, and finally can't have anything valuable for us, it's really impolite, you know. And I remind you that I did not try to discredit anything, I just want to use third-party sources instead of those nationalist ones from Chinese side or Vietnamese side, you work here long enough to understand the WP:NEUTRAL, right? Grenouille vert (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, my source is a news story while your source is an english source trying to prove Vietnamese sovereignty over the Paracel islands. Which is more biased, I wonder? Misplaced Pages policy allows the use of sources from various points of view. Teeninvestor (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So that's your final answer? Then don't be surprised with information that I'm going to add. Regards. Grenouille vert (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind addition of info from a reliable source as long as the previous info isn't displaced.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link on youtube with footage of the battle. Here we see what seems to be a rusty boat and soldiers lined up on the ocean. Then they were fired at. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy2ZrFphSmc This looks more like a protest and massacre than a battle. I too believe that it's highly unlikely that a gravely underarmed force would start a battle against battleships using machine guns. Again, we may like to disregard what our eyes see and prefer to, instead, trust our newspaper sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.185.183 (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It has also been mistakenly referred to as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef.

The sentence above needs some explanation. Who calls it that? Why? Why is it mistaken to refer to it as the Battle of Fiery Cross Reef?--Bruce Hall (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias introduction added, with Chinese names used instead of English names

The revision added at 03:40, 6 May 2012‎ by Yuan52335233 was full of bias. Firstly, use Chinese's versions of island names instead of English ones. Secondly, it is apparently written from a pro-China POV, without any reference. I have intended only to change the Chinese names to their English equivalences, but after reading through the changes, I realize that is not enough. What should I do? Tryst Nguyen (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As no one objects, I will edit the part.Tryst Nguyen (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Extremely Bias Background sections

It is extremely biased, obviously the background is written by Vietnamese's perspective, and it has no source whatsoever to back up any of the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.86.249 (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

The background section contains Chinese names of the reefs and has absolutely no sources backing anything up. Moreover, it paints Vietnamese forces as aggressors which are very doubtful since they had only landing/transport ships and PRC navy had frigates. As I have no time to find a Western source, I will not remove or edit anything on this section but I tagged it as no source and POV.

A proper rewriting of this section is needed for removing the tabs. And if there is only PRC source, please mention it authors clearly when you are writing.--AM 16:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed your tag because it's the wrong one; oh what the hell, I'll do it for you. STSC (talk) 03:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit made me think that you just removed the tag entirely so I reverted it. IF it was wrong, you should replace it with a right one, not remove it. According to {{POV}} template usage notes, I am right on this addition since {{POV-section}} is only a sub-template of {{POV}} which uses specifically to point out where-the-unneutrality-is.--AM 04:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh? You didn't even say thank you. STSC (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But your outright removal (esp. the explanation) made me take a bit of offense to it; so I could not appropriate your later fix. Maybe later, but not now.--AM 14:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

War?

This article repeatedly claims this skirmish was a 'war'. Anyone else finding this a bit exaggerating?

I do agree with you, we cant call a skirmish between 3 transport ships and 3 war ships a war.

Vietnam's account

I am the one who added the Vietnam account. If anyone have any question regarding to the source, translation or needing a full quote to verifying. Please let me know at vi:Thảo luận Thành viên:Conongchamchi, I will reply as soon as possible.--Conongchamchi (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

Hey User:Supersaiyen312, regarding your edit . I guess you've never heard of source integrity.

• Mackerras (p. 30) states " three Vietnamese sailors dead and 74 missing, according to Vietnamese accounts."
• Could you provide me with the citation that explicitly state that the "over 70 killed" is a Chinese figure? Because, oh... 74 missing and never found; jeez, no one other than the Chinese would conclude that they are most-likely dead (sarcasm). Notwithstanding that this figure is the conclusion of a western author as cited.

Secondly... To your comment "The author states from Chinese source, you even admitted in your earlier edit". No, I didn't admit that; don't place words in my mouth. Thirdly... Deny all you want. WP:PERSONAL do apply to your edit summary , and I quote: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." This is clearly your intention with that previous edit summary, since you are not commenting on the content. --Cold Season (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, it might be best to leave "figure" thing out of it. Plus "figure" is not the same as "account" or "claimed" anyway. Otherwise, we would use "account/claim" instead. "Because, oh... 74 missing and never found; jeez, no one other than the Chinese would conclude that they are most-likely dead..." Yes, that's why I combined it with "presumed dead". The author is citing from a Chinese source, even you said "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper..." And yes, if they're "missing and never found" then most likely they are dead. Obviously. Like I said, it's best to just combine it. It fits together anyway.

Secondly, citing a policy is not a personal attack only I also said I confirmed by my analysis. Lastly, you said "presumed dead and killed are not the same". Then "presumed killed" and "killed" are the same then? Like I said, it's best to combine both figures. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• The 3 dead and 74 missing is a figure, and that is from a Vietnamese account, so what you just said really made no sense. Over 70 dead is a conclusion of those figures in secondary sources, so they are not they same and combining them is improper.
• I said "since when is a figure from chinese newspaper..." in reference to you putting the Chinese news article citation about which ships had sunk under "Vietnamese figures". This is your error, not mine. It has nothing to do with this issue.
• You still haven't provided me with the citation that the over 70 killed is a Chinese figure. I will remove it per WP:INTEGRITY if you don't.
• Did I say it was a personal attack? No, I said WP:PERSONAL applies to your comment and remains valid. You are commenting on the editor and not content. Your analysis is meaningless; also all my edits on that article is cited/verifiable (do feel free to contest it, the content and not me) and I may remove anything uncited. And you're still ongoing... --Cold Season (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well obviously, if the actual "ships had sunk" then there's no denying that the ships had sunk then, as it's most likely true. "Because, oh... 74 missing and never found" means they're most likely dead. Obviously. "Over 70 dead" is also vague as over 70 doesn't say the exact number.

Also WP:PERSONAL links to "personal attack" so yes, that's what you said. I still feel your WP:COI, but I don't think matters at this point anyway.

Finally, this whole thing started because "those edits make no sense since those are not official figures given and since when is a figure from chinese newspaper an vietnamese figure..." Yes, I agree. So just remove the "figure" part and problem solved. All I did was combine the figures. It still says the same thing, "presumed dead" and "dead" are the same thing. So it's not like it's contradicting each other anyway. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• Doesn't matter what it links, I quoted and stated exactly what I meant. Just because you like to put words in my mouth, does not change that. Yes, it didn't matter and never did.
• Simple matter is that the 3 deaths and 74 missing is a Vietnamese figures (as only they can know that figure) and the over 70 deaths is the conclusion that everyone makes from it. I state things "as is" from the sources, that is, to reflect the sources faithfully. This is what I do and will continue to do consistently. You may disagree with this habit, but it still remains valid to aforementioned Misplaced Pages guidelines. --Cold Season (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. So hopefully, the current version now reflects all the figures neutrally. Like I said, it figures still says the same thing. So I just combined the figures whether Vietnamese, Chinese, secondary because it still basically says the same thing technically. The figures do not contradict each other in this case.

The Chinese casualties, however, are more complicated I guess, so they are unknown for now. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• Start-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Start-Class Vietnam articles
• Unknown-importance Vietnam articles
• All WikiProject Vietnam pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• Start-Class Southeast Asian military history articles
• Southeast Asian military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2014)