Talk:Sino-French War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Where is this "Spanish and Filipino volunteers" business coming from?--143.213.132.69 07:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Winner and Loser

This page[1] is certainly more accurate about the winners and losers of this war:

"While neither side could be considered to have a military victory in the Sino-French War, China was considered the actual loser. China had entered the war to prevent France from destroying the relationship of a protectorate that existed between China and Annam. The Chinese were also eager to avoid having France as a neighbor. China obviously failed in both of these goals. The relationship between China and Annam was severed as the treaties establishing Annam as a French colonial possession were recognized by China. France became China's newest neighbor."

What is the difference between a "de facto victory" and a "victory"? You might say that the first is assumed to be a victory while the second is declared to be a victory (or something else), but that is irrelevant and smacks of semantics. Even this article you gave basically says the French won, though I'm not sure about the part of military victory. After Foochow, French victory in the war was certain. The Chinese had success on the ground, but it was not decisive at all. The fact that they could not fully defeat the French on land, and Foochow of course, brought them to the table.UberCryxic 23:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Another user is trying to change the result again. I think it has been established that the French came out ahead in this struggle. They practically accomplished all of their objectives, especially politically. China essentially agreed to leave the area under French influence. It would not make sense to call the outcome anything but a French victory.UberCryxic 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The last user trying to change the result pointed out that a cease-fire favorable to the French does not mean that the French won the war. Ok, that alone does not prove that the French won the war, but the French won in spite of the cease-fire. They had full control of the seas as a result of Foochow and were holding on the ground despite being outnumbered overwhelmingly. Unless your definition of victory includes a French march to Bejing, which would have been logistically insane, then even militarily this is a French victory. However, that the cease-fire was favorable to the French reinforces the notion that this was, in fact, a victory for France.

Something else: normally we don't put diplomatic outcomes in the Result box. Writing "negotiated cease-fire" in this article is equivalent to writing "Versailles Treaty" in the World War I article. But as you can see for yourself, the first thing it says is "Allied victory," and then it proceeds to explain some things. In principle, I would be fine if for this article it read "French victory; negotiated cease-fire."UberCryxic 15:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the current disputes and discussion, I have for now changed the wording to: "negotiated cease-fire; French victory considered by some people" for NPOV reasons. If everyone agrees French was indeed victorious in the war after the discussion, the phrase "considered by .." will be dropped.--64.231.79.66 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying if "everyone agrees" is almost certainly geared towards wanting or ensuring the failure of your proposition. Obviously not everyone will agree that this was a French victory. According to another user (or you maybe, I don't remember), the Chinese Wikipedia had a conflict precisely about this issue. In the French Wikipedia, it says this was a French victory. There is a conflict here, no need to deny it. But the majority view, at least in the West (and certainly in France), is that it was a French victory. In China I wouldn't be surprised if they thought something else.UberCryxic 04:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing

Rex, the phrasing you want makes the sentence read awkwardly. What's wrong with the way I rephrased it?UberCryxic 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Work in Progress

I have recently completely overhauled the article on the Sino-French War. I will shortly be publishing a full-length book on this subject, which has drawn on a substantial number of original sources in both French and Chinese, and I have worked on the (perhaps mistaken) assumption that I am one of the few people in the world who either knows (or cares) enough about the Sino-French War to be able to write authoritatively on it. If there are other enthusiasts out there, please get in touch. I would be delighted to hear from you.

Apologies to previous contributors whose work was overwritten. My only excuse is that I had a complete text ready to paste in, and it would have been an extremely time-consuming task to try to integrate it with existing material, much of which was inaccurate. Since contributing my text several days ago I have noticed that it has attracted a number of amendments, which I welcome wholeheartedly. I have occasionally made minor stylistic changes to these amendments (I am a professional historian and academic editor by trade), but I have kept their substance. Recent amendments that have improved my own text include background comments on Lieutenant-Colonel Paul-Gustave Herbinger and Jules Ferry.

I am hoping in the next few months to contribute substantial articles on the senior French military and naval commanders in the Sino-French War, and also pieces on the Beiyang and Nanyang fleets. Eventually, I intend to contribute articles on each of the battles highlighted in bold type in my main article. This labour of love, however, might take some time. I will, of course, link all these articles to the main article.

In the meantime, I wonder if anybody could help me with a piece of information. Despite researching the Sino-French War for six years and establishing the French and Chinese orders of battle in exhaustive detail, I have been completely unable to find out the Christian name and date of death of General Bouët, who briefly commanded the Tonkin expeditionary corps in the summer and autumn of 1883. Does anybody know? If it helps, he was born in 1833.


Djwilms (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)