Talk:Sino-Burmese War/Move

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Burmese War (1765–1769) → Sino-Burmese War — Google searches indicate that the term "Sino-Burmese War" (note the capital) does not refer to anything else. Of course there have been many other incidences of Sino-Burmese war than just this one, but we're talking about nomenclature and not what the term "Sino-Burmese war" means. If it matters, the First World War wasn't the first world war either, nor was the First Balkan War the first war in the Balkans. That aside, the dates could be disputed. Some sources prefer 1766–70. Srnec (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During that time china was occupied by Manchu!therefore we must to say it was manchu burmese war,but not cino burmese war!

Strong Oppose -No, google search indicates that the term "Sino Burmese War" is mostly referred to the modern war in 1965 and 1916. See here. Most sources even title Sino Burmese War as the war in 1965. [1] [2]

The stated arguments like First World War and Balkan War are modern names. It is very clear that the first world war doesn't refer to the war between Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals. Moreover, these names do not refer to countries. Can we say Franco British War is the war with Napoleon? For the date, the war is in december 1765, both Burmese and Chinese chronicles agree with it. (You can verify this from each and every citation in this article ). Soewinhan (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Sino-Burmese War" is a modern name, just like "First World War" and "First Balkan War". If the term is used more for wars in 1916 and 1956, why don't they even have articles here? But who cares what any website has to say: the reliable sources available through Google Books and Google Scholar support my contention. A search for "Sino-Burmese War" returns results for the 1760s war almost solely (i.e., the top ten results at each are only for this conflict). I don't think it matters much whether we include the dates or not, but including them in the title of the article might suggest that there was another war called "Sino-Burmese War", when there is no other conflict generally called such. It would be like title our article Russo-Japanese War (1904–05), which you'll notice is a red link. Srnec (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "why don't they even have articles here?" There are many wars between China and Burma we'll be creating in the future. Like, the war with Ming Dynasty, modern war with ROC, etc.

Of course, we have not yet created that, that's why no article here. Even this article is recently created, if you notice the date of creation. Please note that there are thousands of articles that should be created, but not yet.

If you search on books, there is no doubt that you'll only see only old war results. And you should notice the "date" mentioned beside the war in most of the results. Like

1)this Sino-Burmese War 1765–9 (Bad Posturee, 1st result)

2) THE SINO-BURMESE WAR, 1766-1770 War (Harvard University, 2nd result)

3) The Sino-Burmese War (author dealing with Qing Dynasty)

4) The Sino-Burmese War, 1766–1770 (4th) etc.

(And some books intentionally don't include the date since they are dealing with Qing Dynasty: there was only one war with Qing and Burma)

As I have commented earlier, Russo-Japanese War is a modern conflict.(And Russia and Japan rarely fights) That's why we can solely name this without the date beside it.

An example for this war would be Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49) (and a number of wars between Burma and Siam) where both countries fought several wars in history.

If you still can't agree with my comments, and you must change the title, I suggest you should wait for third opinion because both of us have made our opinions already. Soewinhan (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be moving this article at all: I opened a move request to allow an administrator to review the arguments and move it or not move it as he choses.

Now I have a problem with these supposed wars of 1916 and 1956: namely, I can't find anything about them. I don't believe there was any such war in 1916, which falls during the First World War, about which I know a decent amount. I know that some Indian nationalist conspirators wanted to enter British India and raise revolt from Siam into Burma, but at a British request the Siamese (later allies) arrested them. I'm not aware that China, too preoccupied with its own problems and later an ally of the British in the war, had any time or resources to waste invading British territory! As for 1956: are you referring to the Kuomintang Islamic insurgency in China (1950–1958), about which we already have an article? Other than that I can find nothing about Chinese military involvement in China.

Further, a closer look at my GoogleBooks results shows that none of the results for "Sino-Burmese War" are about anything other than this conflict, showing that reliable sources simply don't know of any other Sino-Burmese War, although they may know of many Sino-Burmese wars. This is a minor but important distinction. There have been many great wars in history, but only one Great War (in English).

A GoogleBooks search for "Russo-Japanese War" reveals that most references to it for the first time or in titles use the dates, even though there is no other event called the Russo-Japanese War, not even the Soviet invasion of 1945. The inclusion of dates to disambiguate the Sino-Burmese War does not show that they are necessary to disambiguate when the term is used as a proper noun. Finally, the dates do vary in reliable sources, even neither you nor I knows why. Srnec (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

You may be interested in taking a look at the claims of ROC just after its founding in 1911. Most part of modern Burma Chin State was included in ROC claims. Several warlords backed by ROC, invaded the area governed by Sawbwas(parts of Northern Burma enjoyed certain level of autonomy from British) in 1916.
The war in 1956 is for the same dispute. If you clicked on the link above, it is the first result. Another wikipedia article aslo mentions it. People's Liberation Army itself, invaded the disputed area in 1956. KMT troops also invaded Shan State throughout 1950s. But, it is not related to the Sino Burmese War.

As I have mentioned so many times, you should notice the date beside nearly all Google books results. "Sino-Burmese War (1765-1769)" or for some sources ""Sino-Burmese War (1766-1770)" (since the war was in December) which suggests there can be others Sino-Burmese wars. Sino-Burmese War is a far more general term to indicate only to this war. As Google results indicate, it refers to modern border disputes.

(Note about WP:RS, we are using statistics and not the sources itself. the books fail to point out which is more popular term.)

"the term is used as a proper noun" There is no sources (including books, scholars, general search) indicate that Sino-Burmese War could be used as a proper noun for this war only (Books mention the date beside it). As mentioned above, general statistics is more favor for the war in 1956.

You may be interested in reading WP:AT. It suggests "If the topic of the article is the primary topic or only topic for a desired title, then the article can take that title without modification" which the current war fails: Other wars include those in comments from Hybernator, Wengier and myself.

Soewinhan (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. Local warlord actions at the border don't qualify as a war between two sovereign states. If the ROC fully supported the 1916 "invasion" by the warlords, then it would have been a Sino-British war because Burma then was a British colony. As for 1956, you have a point. I'd never heard of it before but it seems the Chinese side records a border incident as war. By that logic, Burma and Thailand have had a lot more wars since 1948 then! Nonetheless, it does support your case that this article's name not be changed to a generic one. Hybernator (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Soewinhan highligh "only topic" and ignore "primary topic" when quoting from the guideline?

And what if "books mention the date beside it"? They do this with the Russo-Japanese War too, as I pointed out already.

I know that Sino-Burmese War is not as well-used a term of art as Rusoo-Japanese War or the like, but it is certain that this is the conflict that nearly always goes by that name in academic writings. All the other conflicts between Burmese and Chinese are just not usually called that in the sources that matter. I wouldn't particularly care except that (1) the issue of dates is confusing, so why chose a pair in the title when we could just explain the timeline of events in the opening paragraph? And (2) the disambiguation suggessts that there are other wars that a reader could expect to find using this term, but that just doesn't seem to be the case, so why suggest it? He won't find out about Kublai Khan's campaign by searching under this term. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: As google indicates, it is clearly not primary topic. I agree that the term is frequently used only for this war in academic study. But academic studies such as books and scholarly articles don't qualify to rename it as such. The general uses of the term is more preferable for the war in 1956. (The scale may not be as large as this war, but we can't deny that results are more favorable for modern war) It clearly fails Recognizability. Soewinhan (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google indicates nothing of the sort. It only shows that one list at a website that is not a reliable source has been copied all over the place. "The war of 1956" is not the primary topic, and that's why no academic writings in English speak of it. A GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar, the sources show what the real primary topic is. Srnec (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Yes, it's true that the term Sino-Burmese War basically refers to this conflict. I too have never heard of 1916 or 1956 wars. (In 1916, during WWI, Burma was under British rule. Newly founded Republican China was an ally of the British in WWI.) But raids or invasions from China have come before. Here's the list:

The Mongol invasions: (1277-1287, 1301). There's already an article about it.
Ming forces showed up at Ava in 1444 to hand over a runaway Shan sawbwa (chief). The Burmese handed over the dead body of the sawbwa.
Qing forces showed up at Ava in 1662 to hand over the runaway Yongli Emperor. The Burmese did.
The famous war of 1765-1767
Chinese nationalists (KMT) invaded Shan State -- 1950s; Burmese Army drove them back out to trans-Salween regions but a great loss.
PRC supported Burmese communist rebellion -- 1960s-1980s

Of these, only the Mongol invasions of 1277-1287 could qualify as another Sino-Burmese war (if we consider the Mongols (Yuan Dynasty) Chinese). A possibility since we're calling the Manchus Chinese in this article. I'm staying neutral only because I'm ok with either name. Both are acceptable to me. Hybernator (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's no ambiguity at Wikipedia at the moment. The explanation of the undiscussed move to the current title, "There can be more than one Sino-Burmese War" (my emphasis) doesn't pass muster. If articles on the 1956 or other wars are created, the disambiguator might then be appropriate. — AjaxSmack 06:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Strongly disagree with above comment. First of all, the move from current title to another by some user was the one that was undiscussed at that time. The move back to current title was discussed with support in the first section of this discussion page, and the war in the 1580s for example was already pointed out there as another Sino-Burmese war. There is actually already an article in zh wikipedia about this 16th century war fought between Ming Dynasty China and Taungoo Dynasty Burma (see 明缅战争). --Wengier (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't know that there was a conflict in the 1580s between Burma and China. But it does make sense. Bayinnaung first brought the Chinese Shan States (southwestern border areas of Yunnan like Xishuangbanna) under Burmese control in 1562. The war could have been an attempt by the Yunnan government to reestablish its rule there after Bayinnaung's death in 1581. (But even during Bayinnaung's reign, those states were paying dual tributes; they were never fully Burmese. So the Ming must have wanted a tighter control?) The Burmese side didn't even record the Ming takeover probably because they had their hands full with the Siamese rebellion that began in 1584. Bayinnaung's son Nanda threw everything he had to reclaim Siam (1584-1593) but repeatedly failed. (The incessant wars ultimately brought an end to his reign and kingdom). So, when the Ming reestablished their authority, they probably didn't even have to fight any Burmese troops. If there was a military conflict, it must have been just with the local Burmese garrison(s). It should have been a cakewalk.Hybernator (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wengier brings nothing new to the table, really. His "first of all" is irrelevant: the article has been moved I think four times to find the best title, so I've decided we'd better discuss this in a more formal way where we can all abide by the result. His "already" equally so: of course it was another Sino-Burmese war, and not the only other one. Who ever denied that? The point is not "What does the term 'Sino-Burmese war' mean? And to what does it refer?", rather the question is just simply "What war is named the 'Sino-Burmese War'?" Reliable sources answer this question, as I pointed out above. Srnec (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you (Srnec) are the one who is making comment that was pretty much irrelevant to the my comment above. The "first of all" part was obviously in a reply to the comment directly above my own by someone else, who was mistaken for exactly who started the move first and whose move was the one that was undiscussed at that time (on Jan 11). So it was clearly a clarification and very relevant to the move itself. The point in your comment above ("I think four times to find the best title") is the one that was really irrelevant; it's not about how many times you thought youself, but whether you had discussed it when you started the move action. Obviously you did not, and not even with an explaination. It was only after the article was moved back to the current title that you started a requested move (on Jan 12). Whether it will be accepted is another thing, which will be based on the result after the request, not before it. Please do not try to be confused here. --Wengier (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not required to discuss a move I believe to be uncontroversial before making it. I was bold, I was reverted, now we're discussing. Wikipedia is working as it should. And you have yet to make a substantial contribution to this discussion. You "strongly disagreed" with a comment by AjaxSmack, but you don't address it relevantly. You are correct about who moved what first, but it doesn't matter. You are correct that there was a war in the 1580s, but that does not affect the point Ajax was making nor the rationale of the proposal. I would like to know why you think the term "Sino-Burmese War" could refer to something else at Wikipedia when it refers to nothing else at GoogleBooks? Srnec (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according the cycle you are not required to discuss before some action, but the page also mentions there are a few points to remember for "bold", including Stay focused, Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous, and Expect strong resistance, but obviously you did not try to make any explanations at that time. The title of this page includes the "(1765-1769)" from the very beginning, thus it was not expected to be removed without any kind of explanations or discussions; it was moved back when there's support from another editor in the first section. When you started the move request on the next day, that was good (since this time you did try to explain why you wanted to move it), and I decided to take no strong position and see how it goes according the formal request process; it was only after AjaxSmack made a comment that contained severe mistakes that I started to clarify and restate what I already said in the first section of this talk page, which did not meet any opposition at the time. Note that even AjaxSmack said "if articles on the 1956 or other wars are created, the disambiguator might then be appropriate", by which he basically means Sino-Burmese war may indeed refer to something else, though at this moment there's no ambiguity at Wikipedia (note that this is not true within the scope of entire Wikipedia, though it is currently true for English Wikipedia). Obviously you have not yet persuaded anyone that Sino-Burmese War may not refer to anything else. Also note that the problem is not that whether I will think so, but whether a normal reader will think so when they see this title. Presently your discussion with another editor is still ongoing, and both sides are still presenting opinions and evidence as above. Unless you can indeed persuade that Sino-Burmese War will not refer to anything else as you suggested, I will either oppose or take no strong position for this particular move. --Wengier (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is whether "Sino-Burmese War" primarily refers to one thing over any other. It does, as GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar show. At the former all but one book is referring to this conflict when using that term, with or without dates. The one instance where it is not, also does not use the definite article ("the") with the term. At GoogleScholar the results are more difficult to interpret and indeed there is a widely-cited Chinese-language article whose English abstract (however it was generated) uses the term "Sino-Burmese war" in reference to the conflict of the 1580s, but the English is very poor and the article itself is not in English, so I think that can be discarded as evidence of English usage. I have already explained why a general Google search won't do: it does not present reliable sources and often inflates one or two amateur websites through copies and mirrors. Srnec (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you have an evidence to support your point, then discuss with other editors as above. I'm not interested in discussing these details (that was why I choose to take no strong position when you began to explain it with the request), what I'm interested is whether you can persuade editors in general about your point, and I'll see the result of the discussion above. This will be the main factor that will be used for me to decide whether such a move is appropriate or not. --Wengier (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You already voted "oppose"! Srnec (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I also said "Unless you can indeed ..., I will either oppose or take no strong position for this particular move." in a previous message. This decision was based on situation at the moment, as the request had already went for a few days (currently over a week), but obviously you have yet to persuade anyone regarding your main point that Sino-Burmese War may not refer to anything else (not even AjaxSmack, as pointed out above). Currently there is also no consensus regarding "primary topic". Nevertheless, I never said I had already fixed my mind. Look at the message more closely, especially regarding whether there is already a final decision. --Wengier (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment there should be a list of China-Burma wars somewhere... could someone create one at Sino-Burmese wars ? 65.93.14.29 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.