Talk:Sino-French War

Primary sources

This article's body depends overwhelmingly on French primary sources authored by living persons during the war. Maurice Loir was working in the French navy at the time of the war. Lecomte was also a captain in the French forces. Marolles was a vice-admiral. Auguste Bonifacy was a lieutenant-colonel. Huard, Armengaud, Garnot, Harmant, and Thomazi were all French people living at the time of the war. One source, La Dernière Campagne du Commandant Rivière by Marolles, was originally published before the war had even ended. The only Chinese source cited is Lung Chang and secondary sources are mostly relegated to the beginning and ending of the article. Qiushufang (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

"Both sides claim victory"

I think it's time to end this utter non-sense. There's the same thing on the Sino-Vietnamese War article. The only times I ever see this line is on articles about wars China lost

Why does wikipedia indulge in blatant Chinese jingoistic revisionism? France achieved its war goals, French victory period. Just because the Chinese performed less terribly than usual in a few ambushes doesn't mean that can claim victory in the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.174.178 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

In every chinese related article about war, they will always "claim victory". Complete delusion and are attempts made by ultranationalistic chinese (50 cent, wumao) trying to change and distort history because they still feel humiliated and insecure, so they have to reinvent and fake history to feel less shameful about their defeats. This is despite on record that the chinese have always outnumbered their opponents and still lost terribly countless times. And here on wikipedia, quora, and various wIki forums; their descendants have continued their legacy of shameful lying and unfaithful editing. Let's not forget that some chinese got to wikipedia admin level and were banned for CCP propaganda. 49.190.240.37 (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Result

While the French appeared to be the overall winner of the war, there is no need for "French victory" and "French naval victory" to both appear as result(s) in the infobox. Instead, "French victory (especially in the naval campaign)" should state it all. --Wengier (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Favourable Peace for France result

I've read the edit of why 'French Victory' has been removed and have been asked to go to talk page. While Tonkin and Annam were not Chinese pre-war both sides were contesting for the regions during the conflict and ultimately France achieved the main aim of the war. It was not merely 'diplomatic pressure' that led to China entering what was an unfavourable peace for them but its total defeat in the naval campaign that ultimately threatened its trade links. This is even included in the aftermath section and sourced. Even if it was case that the argument of achieving war aims just through diplomatic means does not constitute victory was true it is a poor one. If you achieve your war aims in a war through any means you have won. Even in the most extreme case of if a nation won every battle in a war but failed to achieve any of their aims at its conclusion and the other side did, that would constitute a defeat. I will leave this for a few days to gain a response before changing the box again to enable discussion.

Any statement must be based on reliable secondary sources. The outcome of war does not depend solely on the results of land or sea battles, so regardless of how you see it, the outcome of France cannot be considered as the outcome of the war; this requires secondary source references.In the aftermath section, four or five historians present entirely different conclusions. Therefore, I suggest directing readers to the aftermath section, allowing them to make their own judgments based on the varying conclusions of different historians. We see some sources claimed French victories but most of them are the first hand French source during the war. However, we also see many sources claimed a Chinese vicotry such as Jane E. Elliott, Chung-yam Po and Katherine Hui-yi Tseng. While someone considered it as a land Chinese victory and naval French vicoty.

The conclusion that the northern pressure from Japan and Russia was a key factor in China's acceptance of negotiations in terms of diplomatic pressure, as mentioned earlier, is provided by historians and not a random discussion on Wikipedia. According to Loyd Eastman，fear of conflict with Japan was the deciding factor in the Qing court's decision to sue for peace. This is the conclusion by historian.As said, northern threats posed by Russia and Japan forced China to enter negotiations not because of the war. If there is no war, China would be still in negotiations in the same way with history. Tonkin and Annam were not Chinese territories before the war, and China had no intention of participating in the conflict before France approached its borders. Vietnam was not significant to China. Faced with pressure from Japan and Russia in the north, China was satisfied with any agreement that did not involve the loss of its own territory.

I'm not suggesting to write any conclusion in the information box, nor do I intend to state victory for either France or China. I'm just suggesting changing it to "see aftermath." This is a very neutral statement that doesn't favor either side. The result is intricate and multifaceted, not easily encapsulated in brief statements. In the aftermath section, several historians offer divergent conclusions, highlighting the complexity of the situation. As such, I propose directing readers to this section, enabling them to form their own assessments based on the varied perspectives presented by different historians. Do not impose judgments to influence readers' thinking, but rather faithfully present the conclusions of various historians, allowing readers to interpret them on their own.

You two need to sign and indent when making comments. Qiushufang (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Good afternoon, I appreciate your response so we can have an open discussion.

While I appreciate your argument about the different sources on 'Victory on land' and 'Naval Victory' is less debated my suggestion is a middle ground, again not stating 'Victory' for either side as to define the military debate aspect but to put 'Favourable Peace for France' or 'Unfavourable Peace for China' this is sourced by Chung-Yam PO at the end of the aftermath section as unfavourable peace for China (due to seeking peace due to the naval defeats) so naturally the opposite can be concluded.

The sources you have discussed are about the land campaign and not the overall result of the war and a war can be won in many ways. The unfavourable peace for china source is the only one in the aftermath that provides an overall result for the war.

The overall result of the war which is sourced is a peace that benefited France more than China, the reader can then explore the different political and military debates in the article and does not then lessen the debate elsewhere with a definitive victory statement. FR1917 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to explicitly mention the peace negotiations in the above section. The Aftermath section already provides a detailed analysis, and the unfavorable peace for China, as mentioned by Chung-Yam PO, is clearly discussed in this section. Directing readers to the Aftermath is not about omitting or deleting any content; on the contrary, it offers a more comprehensive and detailed discussion that avoids any potential misunderstandings. War and peace negotiations are two separate processes, with various factors influencing the latter. The idea of seeking peace due to naval defeats is contested; historians like Jane E. Elliott and Chung-Yam PO argue that the Qing dynasty sought peace to address the military pressure from Japan in the north so that Qing need to end the southern war quickly. At the time, the Qing dynasty still retained two-thirds of its naval forces, including the nearly completed (probably building 2/3 process for this fleet) Beiyang Fleet, while the main forces of the Nanyang Fleet kept with some battleship loss and the Guangdong Fleet remained intact. Then the Fujian Fleet was totally destroyed, The Qing Dynasty still had fleets available for naval warfare, and whether the outcome of naval battles could decisively determine the outcome of the war when there was an advantage in land battles is a matter of contention. Moreover, even after France blockaded Taiwan at sea, they were unable to occupy it. As Jane E. Elliott and Chung-Yam PO have pointed out, the Qing dynasty was simultaneously facing two major power Japan and Russia in the north, This implies immense defensive pressure in the northern regions, both on land and at sea. This was the core reason for the Qing dynasty's decision to seek peace. China needed to quickly mobilize and preserve its navy and army to defend against Japan in the north. At the time, the Qing Dynasty was satisfied with the outcome of the war. This was because the Qing Dynasty did not lose any territory, which was its sole objective at the time. The Qing aimed to end the war while defending the northern territories against Japan and Russia's intentions to occupy its northern territories. Furthermore, the outbreak of the First Sino-Japanese War less than a decade after the end of the Sino-French War validates the inevitability of the Qing dynasty's choice. During the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing dynasty still maintained a formidable fleet. Referring to the Russo-Japanese War, after Russia's naval defeat against Japan, it lost its naval capability in the First World War ten years later.

However, I don't think those are the main points I want to make. I believe the core issue lies in the fact that the aftermath section is already very detailed and clear. Reading this section directly would eliminate any misunderstandings. In a war with so much controversy, summarizing the outcome in a single sentence could bias towards the conclusion of a particular historian. However, in this war, the conclusions of several historians are already inconsistent. 2400:56A0:3C1:3E05:93B4:E0F6:A65B:2A35 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

" Francis Garnier, Henri Rivière, and many senior French officers died in the war."

Garnier died a decade before the war even started and Riviere too died before it even began. Also neither were "senior officers", they both were low rank naval officers who gained fame post-mortem for the way they died. Not sure how serious this Jane E. Elliott (who has many important bits of the article based solely on her takes) is as a source, but this is quite suspicious. 2A01:CB1C:8287:3F00:FDD5:76DD:D235:BB94 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)