Contents

Talk:16 Word Guideline

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Vietnam 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.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. China This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Accuracy

[edit]

Despite what the article asserts, the 16 Word Guideline doesn't appear to be in any way a treaty, or is this type of secrecy ascribed to it. It is, literally, a loose guideline: "friendly neighbourliness, comprehensive cooperation, long-term stability and future-oriented thinking".[1][2] And "[t]he '16 Word Guideline' has been recited at every subsequent summit meeting".[3] Largoplazo (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article was written by User:ZaDoraemonzu7 who seems to have been blocked for, among others, writing nonsense about Vietnam's bilateral relations. I guess the article should just be deleted and written anew. MuDavid 栘𩿠 (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version(s) of this Wikipedia article was not up to academic or journalistic standards. It was incoherent and supported by dubious sources. I believe this article would have been scrubbed had it not been for the subject's notoriety. Therefore it remained largely unchanged for 6 years, with minor adjustments here and there. However for this article to be anywhere useful, it needed to be written anew, just like @MuDavid said.

In this new version, I provided some background information on the subject, the actual contents which the original version failed to mention, as well as public opinions on the matter without delving into conspiracies or propaganda. This new version is still primitive and only provides the most basic information regarding the topic. However, I believe that this would serve as a better foundation for future contributions than what preceded it.

Matters to be expanded upon: timeline of events that lead to the adoption of the 16 Word Guideline, context behind the meaning of said principle, official speeches and documents wherein the 16 Word Guideline were directly or indirectly mentioned, more expert analysis and opinions on the topic, etc.

Any helpful contribution or correction is appreciated. Nhien Nhan (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]