Talk:Battle of Cao Bằng (1979)

Vietnam Tactical victories

I laugh when I read that every battle in this conflict is a Vietnamese tactical victory. The fact is China achieved every single one of their objectives and Vietnam suffered many more casualties in each battle. How is this a Vietnam tactical victory? The quantity of Chinese casualties were inflated by the west for years out of embarrassment that the Chinese performed better in Vietnam than what the U.S. and its allies did. Recent Chinese records indicate that they had far fewer casualties than Vietnam. They could have taken the capital(Hanoi) easily.Don Brunett (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Held off their invasion? lol. China almost made it to Hanoi. They "chose" not to take the capital. There was nothing in their path.Don Brunett (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

It was also a Vietnamese tactical victory as well by two means:

• They successfully held off the invasion by an outnumbering Chinese force, thus spoiled the Chinese original plan (Zhang, p. 95).
• They did so just by using primarily militia and border guard forces, thus letting the regulars to avoid contact with Chinese forces (Zhang, p. 94). Dino nam (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The Chinese "chose" not to advance to the capitol. The offensive will always suffer heavier casualties. That is a fact of war especially considering this type of warfare. Mechanized forces travelling on narrow roads. Tactical victory? The Chinese achieved their goals. They were kind enough not to take the capitol. They could have easily.Fury 1991 (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991

• Well, that's the main point of contention between the two of you, isn't it? Anyway that's an interesting interpretation, and it may well be true: but I'm afraid that without decent sources to back that up, the assertion is original research. So what book did you learn that from (page number, please)? El_C 21:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with user:El_C on this point. Dino nam (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I have the same issue here. It just feels overstretched to claim it's a victory to hold a City for a number of days and then lose it.

It's ofc harder for the ground troop attackers when they're facing defensive landmines and wire barriers and gun nests. That's like virtually evey battle in ww2. And the defenders already set up position to slow them down. What victories did vietnam actually win? Their cities were captured and looted. That seems like they got punished enough. The Chinese took on hidden landmines scatterered in their path and passed the defensive barriers and took the city in under a week. How can they not suffer casualties in masses? But they succeeded in their objectives and usually in a matter of days too.

You don't expect an entire country conquered in a week. Even america failed to do precisely that with many years. And the Chinese also looted the captured area which inflicted heavy economic damages and also killed lots of viets. So I don't see how they actually lost if they succeeded in their objectives and in days too.

Note the Chinese also had their hands full with Soviet union who appeared to amass troops outside their borders so there's no way for China to just prioritise all their effort and priority in attacking vietnam to the very end as Soviet Union was clearly the larger threat.

Hence I feel that mention of the timing of china withdrawal with the Soviet sino split is noteworthy in the article as it's a relevant background info on why China needed troops home. It explains that vietnam was not China's highest threat. They had wanted to punish vietnam for invading their ally cambodia. But China was not prepared to go all out as long as there were the Soviet sino split era, it needed to prep for Soviet attack which was undoubtedly a much stronger military power than vietnam.49.195.129.92 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

To 49.195.129.92., I suspect you of being a a paid Chinese troll, aka wumao. Note: "wumao" is also an article on Wikipedia who are paid trolls to promote and stir pro-Chinese propaganda.

The Vietnamese were outnumbered 13x to 1. 200000 PLA (People's Liberation Army) regular army troops against less than 15000 Vietnamese militia which consisted of women and children and few regular army units.

What objectives did they succeed? They retreated in tne end When the Chinese heard of the Vietnamese NVA (North Vietnamese Army, the regular units) heading towards Hanoi and stationing there, they fled. The Vietnam cabinet did not lose any of their goals that were supposedly failed from the claim of the Chinese side. In the end the PLA fled.

The PLA Chinese army were mulled down so hard, that the Vietnamese used up all their ammunition and equipment and had to resort to makeshift bombs using C4 blocks. The Chinese tactic was the human wave tactic. Do you know what that is? It is literally charging straight to your enemy. Vietnamese definitely shot down and killed so many Chinese bodies, an example would be "like an FPS shooting game on easy mode". Whatever the outcome, the PLA Chinese suffered huge losses of casualties, judging from their tactics.

Also, the majority of the Vietnamese army which had most of the regular units were stationed in Cambodia, fighting against the Chinese-backed genocidal Khmer Rogue regime. Funny how Chinese still could outnumber the Vietnamese even with their troops stationed at the USSR Soviet border and still outnumbered the Vietnamese at the north of Vietnam but could not charge through and srize rhe cities like they so easily said, and in the end the Chinese retreated with tails behind their back. Seems like china was punished instead if what they thought their result was. How emarrassing to have lost regular army units against women and children.

I also want to mention that the Chinese genocided and massacred innocent Vietnamese villagers when they invaded without a declaration of war. Not only that but they stole their livestock and razed the villages to the ground.

Chinese army, everyone. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Size of divisions

What was the size of the Chinese division?—what was the size of the Vietnamese one? El_C 06:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: That's the exact terms used by the RS. Unfortunately we don't have such detailed description. But according to Edward O'Dowd's estimation, I think they are approximately equal: a Vietnamese division had around 10,000 troops, and a Chinese army (3 infantry divisions + 1 artilery regiment + AA regiment) had about 43,000. Dino nam (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should outline number of troops alongside divisions, is what I'm getting at. El_C 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't understand why you put the number of 300,000? Even the maximum estimation of O'Dowd gives that only 200,000 Chinese troops was deployed to this front. If a division had been about 10,000 for each side, then 7 divisions could have only been 70,000 troops. And anw, I'm afraid that giving such a number, without being clearly stated in the RS, would constitute an OR. Dino nam (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You are not being consistent—decide how many troops once and for all. El_C 08:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not being inconsistent in anything, I've clearly opined that a division of each side had probably about 10,000 troops. But that's just my personal OR based on O'Dowd's estimation. No RS have ever clearly indicated how many troops a PLA division had at this time. Dino nam (talk) 08:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

You said 43,000 (x7). Let's move on: 200,000 or 70,000 what do you want to put down? Or something in the middle? Or 70,000—200,000? El_C 09:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I don't think putting the exact number of troops is appropriate. No source gives exactly the number of troops in a division, especially that of the PLA. I must also repeat that 43,000 is a number of troops in a Chinese field army, not a division. Dino nam (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you know the number of divisions, but you don't want to tell the readers how many troops in each division? I'm afraid I can't agree to that. El_C 20:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: But I can't agree to your idea as well (in fact I do think that indicating the number of troops is a good idea), because it was not directly supported by any RS. Dino nam (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Besides, as we can derive that the number of troops of each side's division was equal, the indication of the number of troops is pragmatically unnecessary. Dino nam (talk) 09:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's necessary. How's the reader to know how many troops is in a Vietnamese/Chinese division?—you're leaving em in the dark. El_C 11:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: But why do they have to know such thing when the main point is the battle, and they can also derive it by themselves? And moreover, how can I put it there when no RS give such thing? Dino nam (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

We estimate for em. We can't expect the reader to know the size of Chinese/Vietnamese divisions, and we have to fill in the gap somehow, even if crudely. El_C 21:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Sorry but I can't agree. Self-made estimation would be equivalent to OR, unless there were input data per sources for simple mathematic calculation (WP:CALC). What about another RfC on this? Dino nam (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free. No, it would not be original research. You opened the door to it when you numbered the divisions. Now, the average reader does not know if a Chinese/Vietnamese division is 10,000 or 20,000 troops—so we are going to tell them it's the former. El_C 22:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Result

@El C: I don't think the addition of the phrase "Chinese capture of Lang Son" is necessary:

• The result is more complicated than that. Even a pro-Chinese tone like Xiaoming Zhang gives that the belated capture of the town had spoiled the original plan.
• In accordance with Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, in such a complicated case, we should thoroughly simplified the result description; a link to the section that describes the result in detail is advised: "this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."

p/s: Sorry if you found my bold editing offensive. Dino nam (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

No, you got to be able to say something less complicated than See aftermath. The town was taken, that's a result. Now, if you want to qualify that with town captured, but x, you can do that. El_C 19:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: That would be contradictory to the regulation ("In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail"). Also, the phrase "Chinese capture of Cao Bang" does not exclusively reflect the result. Dino nam (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "regulation," but that guide is not policy. And the section in question fails to give a quick summary of what happened as a result of the battle, that's the problem. The capture of the town is the main result; if you want to add a brief sentence to that, you are welcome to try. El_C 07:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Result

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is strong consensus to include the desired phrase.Winged Blades ^Godric 12:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Please comment on whether or not we should have the phrase "Chinese capture of Cao Bang" besides the phrase "See 'Aftermath'" at the result section. Dino nam (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• No

- Chinese capture of Cao Bang has already been mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, while the result is more complicated than that. Even a pro-Chinese tone like Xiaoming Zhang gives that the belated capture of the town had spoiled the original plan. Such a phrase is not exclusive enough to describe the result, which also include the Chinese failure of destroying Vietnamese regular forces.

- In accordance with Template:Infobox military conflict/doc, in such a complicated case, we should thoroughly simplified the result description; a link to the section that describes the result in detail is advised: "this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." So following this principle, as well as the spirit of the consensus on talk:Operation Léa, the phrase should be omitted. Dino nam (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Because that was the main result. You are free to qualify it with a followup sentence. El_C 08:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Does any RS say which was the main result? If not, then your idea could be an OR. Dino nam (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's not play with semantics. It was an important outcome. It's not called the Battle of Cao Bang for nothing. El_C 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Yes I don't deny it's an important outcome, but to say it's more important than the other outcome(s) is something misleading and not supported by the RS. Dino nam (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, the battle is named after it, surely that is enough for it to be mentioned in the infobox. El_C 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Again I still can't see its importance over the other outcomes. I think it would be better to use RS. Dino nam (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the three of us obviously disagree. El_C 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Chinese captured the town. No debate.Fury 1991 (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Fury 1991.

@Fury 1991: I don't deny that, I just say that it's not the only, exclusive result. Dino nam (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So add to it in a brief sentence. But not letting the reader know that this was an outcome is going too far. El_C 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fury 1991: The "Aftermath" section has described it as an outcome. The result section links to the "Aftermath". So what is "not letting the reader know" here? Dino nam (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. Chinese capture of Cao Bang is the result per the sources. Keep the link to aftermath section to refer readers to an explanation. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: So does the other outcomes are results per sources too. If I put them all there, it would not be in harmony with Template:Infobox military conflict/doc (In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".). Furthermore, you're contradicting to your own opinion on talk:Operation Léa, where you request to simply link the result to the "Aftermath" section. Dino nam (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dino nam I was responding to the RFC question as worded. For this battle, per the infobox documentation I think the best result is "Chinese Victory" not "see Aftermath" nor adding "Chinese capture of Cao Bang". The article's subject is the battle of the city, which was captured by the Chinese, so the result per sources is Chinese victory. I think another article could be written for the battle for the province. CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: Same thing with your idea on talk:Operation Léa, you should find RS wording that overtly stating your idea, otherwise linking it to the "Aftermath" section is more appropriate. In fact, the Chinese failed to meet the time schedule of capturing the town (Zhang, p. 95), and they had to use two armies to renew their attack against the town, which they claimed to have already been taken (O'Dowd, p. 46), so the so-called "capture" of the town makes little sense. Dino nam (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

But they captured the town in the end, due to having overwhelming forces. That's the point of it being a Result. El_C 23:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: A result, I must repeat, not the result. Dino nam (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What other result did you have in mind, in a sentence? Give me solutions. El_C 07:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I've already stated the other results in my comment on this RfC as well as other sections of the talk page. There are only two options in this RfC, so if I say "no" to one, the solution is certainly the another. Dino nam (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Don't say I didn't try to look for a compromise. El_C 07:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. I suggest the addition of one word to balance this natural tendency of infobox content to oversimplify: "but".

"Result: Chinese capture Cao Bằng (but see Aftermath)" It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@It'sAllinthePhrasing: that still doesn't reflect all the results equally. Dino nam (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dino nam: I don't want to rehash what has already been discussed, but I think this approach might be the best of the worst options. My personal opinion is that students of the history of war (or even the casual Wikipedia reader) instinctively look first to the *proximate cause* of what in fact ended the battle, and then naturally assess the implications (whether they end up being more important or less important than the battle itself) of that proximate cause on the landscape going forward. I don't think it's a fair argument to say that there is any other proximate cause but the capture of the city itself. Without the capture of Cao Bằng, we wouldn't even be talking about the broader implications of the capture. Point is, in order to understand what you cite above as very important takeaways of the battle that are ultimately less favorable to the Chinese, we first need to know if the PLA or the VPA was first to obtain their respective goal for entering battle. That goal would have been determined (implicitly or explicitly) at the outset of battle. Thus when it comes to an article about the battle itself, when there is a discrete, immediate consequence (i.e. proximate cause) that satisfies the PLA's reasons for entering battle, we have our result.

As an aside, you definitely have a point as to the way historians look to transcribe the annals of history in neat, consise packets in the form of battles, wars, and defined conflicts, being woefully inadequate, when the truth is much more complicated. But this in an article about a battle, so that ship has sailed unfortunately. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@It'sAllinthePhrasing: I think we need some RS to prove your claim that it's not "a fair argument to say that there is any other proximate cause but the capture of the city itself". In fact, the objectives of China, not only in this battle, but also of the whole war, has been a source of contention among many RS, so I don't think there's any proof to support the point that the capture of the city is the sole or paramount objective of the PLA in this battle, or any other battle in the war. In fact, it has been emphasized by many RS (e.g. by Xiaoming Zhang or King Chen) that destroying Vietnamese regular forces was one of the major objectives of the PLA in this battle as well as this war, and it's also those RS claiming that the Chinese failed with this. Such thing, logically, had almost nothing to do with the capture of the city. And as no RS support your point (the capture of Cao Bang is above all), if not they do support the opposite, I think it's inappropriate and misleading to write the result section like you've suggested.

p/s: I think the only so-called best option other than "See Aftermath" would be making bullets to list all results indicated in the "Aftermath" section (similar to the article Battle of Khe Sanh). In this case, "See Aftermath" would not even be necessary, as everything in the section has already been mentioned in the result section. However, I feel this less preferable than "See Aftermath", as it's too bulky and contradictory to the Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. Dino nam (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the only so-called best option other than "See Aftermath" would be making bullets to list all results indicated in the "Aftermath" section (similar to the article Battle of Khe Sanh). In this case, "See Aftermath" would not even be necessary, as everything in the section has already been mentioned in the result section. However, I feel this less preferable than "See Aftermath", as it's too bulky and contradictory to the Template:Infobox military conflict/doc. Dino nam (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, Dino nam, I missed that last comment. What bulltetpoints did you have in mind? El_C 05:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C:

• Chinese belated capture of Cao Bang
• Chinese failure in destroying Vietnamese regular forces Dino nam (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC: Number of troops in a division

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this as it was requested at WP:AN/RFC. There is a consensus to include the exact number of troops where known. Otherwise, where exact number of troops is not known - it will be wise to mention the number of divisions and the strength of the type of division so as not to confuse the reader. Yashovardhan (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Please comment on whether we should indicated the exact number of troops or just the number of divisions in the strength section of the infobox. Dino nam (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. The reader may not know whether a Chinese/Vietnamese division is 10,000 or 20,000 troops. This must be made clear. El_C 01:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• No. The RS doesn't give any particular number of troops of each division of both sides. Xiaoming Zhang gives that there were 7 Chinese divisions in the battle (3 from the 41st Army, 3 from the 42nd Army, and the 129th Division) without indicating the number of troops in a division. So "At least 7 divisions" would be the most appropriate; any self-made estimation would be OR. On the Vietnamese side, the number of troops in a division has been estimated by Edward C. O'Dowd in several occasions, but not in the info about this battle. Dino nam (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

But we know the relative size of Chinese/Vietnamese divisions (about 10,000, no?), so we have to say something. We can't leave the reader to speculate. El_C 02:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

But that's just our personal estimation and it can be considered OR. Dino nam (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

We're allowed some leeway. We know standard Vietnamese/Chinese divisions number about 10K, but the reader might not. Why not clarify that? El_C 03:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I would have no comment on the "leeway", because this is beyond the WP regulation. But as far as I know we hardly have any means to justify it. I must also remind you that what I think about a Chinese division is only sort of a guess, just like you do. Dino nam (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

According to you we have estimates, so we estimate. Consensus —not one person— decides how we interpret the original research policy. El_C 09:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

*Add the exact if known, or general or estimated number or troops in a Chinese and in a Vietnamese division. Per comments above estimates are available or can be derived.

My opinion, readers may not have the prerequisite knowledge to know the division troop strength in each Army at the time of the battle. Giving a division count is not informative for troop strength. Adding the troop strength is beneficial to readers. For example I found this chart of USA Army size, for the "late 20th" century, and states the composition of foreign units may vary from the USA chart. The chart gives USA Army division strength at 15+K for late 20th century. CuriousMind01 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@CuriousMind01: Yes, I would totally agree if the RS gave info about that. But in fact it does not. Dino nam (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Two of the hallmarks of good writing are clarity and conciseness. In terms of clarity of the concept of a division, what percentage of the public knows how many soldiers are in a U.S Army division. I would argue not many since history was my favorite subject and I have no idea how many soldiers are in a U.S. Army division. Now if you increase the difficulty and ask how many soldiers are in a Chinese Army division, the potential people goes down to even less people. Since a writer serves his reader and not vice versa, I would thus argue that the number of divisions should be given order to satisfy the military veterans and military history buffs and a parenthetic explanation to assist the average readers. Dean Esmay (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Once again, Dino nam, three of us disagree with your position. El_C 07:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Certainly user:CuriousMind01's comment can hardly be called a disagreement; it's quite neutral between us. He says that the info should be added if known, while the fact is it isn't. Another problem I must also assert is that the majority is not the sole factor to determine final consensus according to WP:RfC. Dino nam (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

They are not neutral. Because, they continue to say "or estimated number or troops in a Chinese and in a Vietnamese division." I'm just pointing out that in both RfCs you are by yourself against three other editors. That bears some weight, I challenge. El_C 07:42, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Add More information is always better, if the information is mostly good or factual. scope_creep (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Troops, not Divisions - consistently the norm at other battles is to give the individual combatants, if a number is given -- see Battle of Hamburger Hill, or classics Battle of Waterloo, Siege of Cuddalore, Battle of Hastings, and similar treatment at Battle of Britain, Battle of the Nile. The field instructions for the Template:Infobox military conflict says "strength1/strength2 – optional – the numerical strength of the units involved.". There are cases where a number is not given, such as Battle of Saigon (1968). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Markbassett: The data is given, but not the number of troops, only the number of divisions. There are also cases where the number of units are given instead of troops, e.g. Battle of Fire Support Base Ripcord. Dino nam (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not original research to estimate, is the bottom line. El_C 13:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: It wouldn't be, if the RS give us any input data for such estimation (e.g a sentence which indicates how many troops does an average unit has).

p/s: I think you guys' argument is contradicting itself: if the readers couldn't understand by themselves how many troops a division have, then any estimation without clues from RS would certainly not be WP:BLUE, thus there would hardly be any way to call such estimation something other than OR. Dino nam (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Around 10,000 troops for both, according to Globalsecurity [1] and the various articles in List of divisions of the People's Liberation Army, too. El_C 18:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: This is interesting. First I must say that the Global Security article is one about the ARVN, not the PLA. Second, please cite more particular the sources in List of divisions of the People's Liberation Army; if you do point out one, then I don't have any reason to protest against your idea anymore. Dino nam (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

197th Division: with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men. El_C 11:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

198th Division (1st Formation): with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men. El_C 11:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

129th Division (2nd Formation): "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

180th Division (1st Formation): "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

94th Division: "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

117th Armed Police Mobile Division: "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

116th Mechanized Infantry Division: "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

113th Mechanized Infantry Division: "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

112th Mechanized Infantry Division: "with a standard strength of approximately 10,000 men." El_C 11:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: I need the exact wordings from the sources, please; I can't access the tagged links within these articles. First, Wikipedia articles are not RS themselves, according to WP:CIRC. Second, according to my observation this were data by the time of the Korean War; the number of troops could have varied through time. Dino nam (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see table on page 319 of The People's Liberation Army as Organization: Reference Volume v1.0. El_C 03:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Okay this is agreeable. Let's put it as ~84,000–200,000. Dino nam (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 04:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Please adding the source you've cited into the citation there. Dino nam (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 05:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

• Add # of men not divisions, but that can be given later on. The number of troops in a div on paper vs what is actually at the battle always varies. L3X1 (distant write) 13:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC) struck due to misunderstanding on my part and per below. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 14:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

• We have the number of divisions (7)—troop numbers is our estimate. So I'm confused why we deprive the reader from the concrete information we do have. Dino nam, please consider starting to use edit summaries. El_C 15:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: "(At least 7 divisions)" would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. First, you put it next to the number of 200,000, which makes less sense for it. Second, the number of divisions is now unnecessary when the info in the article as well as the footnote has already indicated that 84,000 is equivalent to 7 divisions.

p/s: If you want to argue about this, I think we should start a new section. Dino nam (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would it be irrelevant?—that's the basis for our estimate(!). El_C 10:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: It's irrelevant to the number of 200,000. I will make a new editing and let's see if it's better. Dino nam (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

That's why it's an estimate. But Zhang mentions at least 7 divisions, and having it buried in such a lengthy footnote doesn't work for me. So it doesn't align with the 200,000 ceiling—so what? That's why it's an estimate. El_C 10:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@El C: 200,000 comes from another RS, which clearly doesn't talk about 7 divisions. Dino nam (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I know that—so what? Our estimate, which mentions a range, is based on both assessments. El_C 12:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

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

RfC: Mention Chinese divisions

Mention Chinese divisions (the basis for our troop estimate)—more information to the reader is a good thing. El_C 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Postpone RfC. May have launched it prematurely. Discussion may be able to resolve this, after all. El_C 13:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes. If we know this concretely ("at least 7 divisions") what's the point in omitting it from the infobox? In brackets/Not in footnote. And having it mentioned in such a lengthy footnote, minimises and almost hides the info. El_C 10:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment. "(At least 7 divisions)" next to the strength section would be both unnecessary and irrelevant. First, putting it next to the number of 200,000, makes it look awkward. Second, the number of divisions is now unnecessary when the info in the article as well as the footnote has already indicated that 84,000 is equivalent to 7 divisions. Dino nam (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, I just dislike the inconsistency: we're mentioning one Vietnamese regular division, but in the footnote mention it amounts to ~10,000 troops—we mention Chinese troops but in the footnote mention it amounts to a minimum of 7 divisions. Now that seems a bit awkward. It still works, but it's clunky. El_C 13:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think it's okay, we've described whatever we tag in the tag. Any change now will ruin the format, I'm afraid. Dino nam (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to come across as petty—I can live with the inconsistency. El_C 06:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes My apologies for being a week late. I think more info is always better, esp. if a mix of what we know and an approximate. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Casualties in Infobox Comment

The infobox states "Unknown but heavy". If the casualties are unknown how can it be then known the casualties are "heavy"? What defines "heavy" in this battle: 5%?, 20%? 75%? The term heavy is subjective. CuriousMind01 (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree on this, it's too vague regarding casualty levels. I changed it to just "unknown". — Preceding unsigned comment added by IEsuredI (talk • contribs) 08:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible vndalism from paid 50 cent Chinese wumaos/trolls..

As you all know, every Wikipedia article that has any mention of Chinese is constantly edited to produce a more pro-Chinese tone. I am sure anyone that.is reading this has encountered this sort of behavior at least once. This article has been consistently invaded by these forces, known infamously as the "wumao" who are paid Chinese internet trolls to stir a narrative that is pro-Chinese. Any mention of pro-Chinese tone should be searched thoroughly and with suspicion. IPs from China, one day old accounts/just recently old accounts, Australian, New Zealand amd Canadian IPs (hotspot of Chinese mainlanders outside of China, ironic because Wikipedia is banned in China) are red flags of Chinese wumao doing their quota of shilling. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Just checked the IP of 58.153.161.115. It is from Hong Kong. Is it a coincidence that now that Hong Kong has a pro-Beijing puppet and PLA troops are staioned there along with mass PRC Chinese mainland immigrants anf supporters to Hong Kong that this user 58.153.161.115 is editing pro-Chinese stance? On top of being created specifically for this article? Maybe he has a blocked account already. Norewritingofhistory (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Chinese capture of Cao Bang

I see a RFC back in 2017[2], has majority voted to include the real end result of (Chinese capture of Cao Bang). El_C and others agreed that the city fell to the Chinese and should be noted as the results. However it seems someone had ignored the RFC and later removed the phrase in results, and do not want readers to know that the city was captured by China in less than a month. Since there's a clear strong consensus to include the desired phrase, I have restored it back. 49.180.9.62 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)