Talk:Vietnamese migrant brides in China

Requested move 9 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Sophisticatedevening (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational marriages in the Sino-Vietnamese border areas of China → Vietnamese migrant brides in China – The current title is extremely long and cumbersome. While the phenomenon is best documented near the border, reliable sources indicate that it occurs elsewhere in China as well. This would be consistent with Vietnamese migrant brides in Taiwan and Asian migrant brides in Japan. — Anonymous 02:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much much much much much much better title concise, clear, and correctly delineates the scope of the article (I'm almost certain that there's been at least one Chinese woman married to a man in Vietnam, which should in theory be covered by an article with this title, but which is clearly not what it's talking about) Red Slash 02:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

GA review

PASSED
Issues with prose, verifiability and neutrality have been addressed, bringing the article up to GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vietnamese migrant brides in China/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 23:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is quite the heavy subject, I'm interested to learn more about it in the process of this review. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Maochun & Wen 2014, Barabantseva 2015 and Liang 2023 are cited multiple times throughout the article, but no specific page numbers are provided, which makes verification more tricky. I'd strongly suggest adding page numbers, either within the citation or using the reference page template.
     Done; missed on the first go-through.

History

  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified on page 115.
  • Spotcheck: [2] Verified first sentence on page 356; verified second sentence on page 353.
  • "In a similar survey" How was it similar? Just because it was also studying married women in the border region?
    Changed to simply "another".
  • "Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region" Is it necessary to use the full official name? Would "Guangxi region" suffice?
    I ended up just putting "Guangxi in China", as I think that's probably a better way of briefly mentioning subnational entities in running prose.
  • "it was found that out of 49 married women, four of the five who had come to the villages in the 1970s" As we're specifically discussing the 1970s here, I don't think it's necessary to mention that 49 women were included in the study; only the four out of five are specifically relevant to what we're discussing here.
     Done
  • "(only one had come from China)" Is this referring to a Chinese woman that crossed the border into Vietnam? Or were these villages in China and only one married woman from this period was from China? If it's the former, it could do with clarification; if it's the latter, then this could be changed to say "only one was from China".
    The exact quote is "four were from the villages on the Vietnamese side of the border, and only one from China". I did my best to clarify and actually ended up flipping the wording around; it seems like a more natural flow of information to specify that only one was from China first and then explain that the rest were from Vietnam.
  • "Following the end of the conflict" It's been a couple sentence since mentioning the conflict, so worth specifying as "border conflict". Also worth clarifying when the conflict ended.
     Done for both, although the source itself is murky about precisely when the border conflict ended. As it consisted of irregular skirmishes, it's difficult to pinpoint a specific end date, but the normalization of relations between China and Vietnam is probably a reasonable conclusion (that seems to be how our article on the conflict handles it). I've mentioned this in the article (although it is not discussed in the source, this event can probably be considered easily verifiable).
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified on page 115.
  • Worth linking to Void marriage for "illicit unions" and Heihaizi for "illegal birth".
     Done
  • Spotcheck: [2] Verified on pages 357-358.
  • "While transnational marriages [...]" This is quite a long and meandering sentence, not helped by the asides in the brackets. I'd suggest breaking this up a bit to aid readability.
     Done
  • " (barring a sharp decline in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic)" I feel like this could be expanded upon a bit. What has happened since then? Did transnational marriages rebound after the end of Zero-COVID?
    The source was written in 2022, so it can't really describe the full aftermath (all it says is that "the black swan event of COVID cut the number of 'imported' Vietnamese wives to nearly zero beginning in 2020", nothing more). I ended up removing it in the process of trimming down the sentence, as it doesn't really fit as its own sentence. It is somewhat redundant with the clearer information about the impact of COVID provided later in the article.
  • Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
  • Access date should be provided for Wang 2022.
     Done

Trafficking

  • "Not all Vietnamese migrant brides in China arrive by choice." Hrm, "not all" strikes me as a bit euphemistic. It'd be useful to be a bit more specific about the proportional of migrant brides that are trafficked up front.
    Ref 1 is the only source that contains a percentage, but given that it is based on the results of a specific study, I don't think it can be extrapolated and used in a more general "lede style" sentence like this, which is merely meant to bridge the discussion of consensual marriage to that of trafficking.
    Still, it'd be worth being more specific, if not about the proportion then at least what you are talking about. Something like "Many Vietnamese migrant brides were victims of human trafficking" or something else along those lines. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done (although I used the wording "are" instead of "were" victims, as their victimhood status presumably persists even if they aren't currently being trafficked).
  • "Girls are considered a "prized commodity"" Girls meaning young children? Teenagers? Young women?
    The article is mainly focused on the experience of a specific individual, who was 16 at the time. It mentions another incident involving a 12-year-old girl (I could perhaps say something like "girls as young as 12", but that might come across as overly sensational). The clearest statement given is “The most at-risk are ethnic minority girls, who traditionally get married around 13-17, and who are just starting to think about boys for the first time.”
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified on page 551.
  • "Vietnamese boys" Again, just want to clarify whether "boys" here means young children, teenagers or young men?
    Unfortunately, there is even less information about the ages of the "boys".
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • Worth crediting Yunxiao as the author of this source and J.Y. Gan as the translator in the citation.
     Done
  • I'm not so sure about citing a primary source for this extensive a paragraph. Focusing on the perspective of one person this much (when most of the article is based on broad-based research, surveys and other secondary sources) could be giving it undue weight, and the text sometimes goes beyond the "descriptive statements of facts" we normally use primary sources for. I'd recommend trimming this paragraph down a bit.
    Trimmed down to focus on what this person would have reasonably known. Also removed overly sensational language ("beaten and abused").
  • "According to surveys" This entire paragraph and its subsequent block quote does not include an inline citation. Citations should always be provided for block quotes, and for paragraphs, no later than the end of the paragraph. If the source being cited is in the following paragraph, it's not clear.
    That was the intention. However, given your following comment, this is now redundant.
    Per the Manual of Style on quotes, quotes should always be accompanied with an inline citation. Even when they're within the same paragraph, you should provide a citation immediately following the quote. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that may only apply to block quotes, as MOS:QUOTE says "direct quotations must be accompanied by an inline citation from a reliable source that supports the material", but it does not specify that it must immediately follow the quotation (the subsection on block quotations has more specific instructions regarding citations).
  • This quote only 27 words (138 characters), so per the Manual of Style on Block quotes, it is not long enough to necessitate a block quote format. It might as well be an inline quotation.
     Done
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified on pages 557 and 558.
  • "China's attempts" Might be worth specifying that this is the Chinese government's attempts, not those of the country as a whole.
     Done
  • "illegal female Vietnamese immigrants" Word order here is a bit odd; I'd suggest "female Vietnamese illegal immigrants" instead.
     Done and see below
    The change still preserves the odd word order. Suggest "female Vietnamese unauthorized immigrants" instead. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now  Done; somehow overlooked that.
  • Following on from previous comment, we should be using the terms "undocumented immigrant", "irregular immigrant", or "unauthorized immigrant" rather than "illegal immigrant". According to the PICUM, the use of the term "illegal" implies criminality and is usually discriminatory, where we've shown here that many of these women are victims of human trafficking. In contrast, the later use of "cross the border illegally" is fine, as it's referring to an action with intent, not to people. The word choice here is a potential neutrality issue.
    I found only two instances where the wording could imply that potential trafficking victims had deliberately violated laws. The first, in the sentence above, I changed to "unauthorized", which seems most neutral. The second is discussed below.
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified on pages 121 and 122.
  • "most immigrants were illegal" Again, this should be changed to say either "undocumented", "irregular" or "unauthorized".
    "Undocumented" would have come across as redundant, as the sentence is about documentation, and "irregular" seems overly euphemistic / potentially unclear. I also didn't want to reuse "unauthorized" again, so I tweaked the wording to "had not arrived legally" (which doesn't necessarily imply their own fault in doing so). I hope this is okay.
    This is good, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: [3] Verified.

Views

  • Publication date should be provided for Denyer & Gowen citation.
     Done
  • "Other desirable traits of Vietnamese women," The way this is worded implies in wikivoice that these are objectively desirable traits in all Vietnamese women, and not traits that certain Chinese men are specifically seeking out. This needs a re-write.
    In fairness, it does say "according to Grillot". However, I still tweaked the wording.
  • "Today, [...]" This is a relative time reference and should be changed to something more specific.
    I initially was going to say "as of 2018", but I decided it's better without a date (this doesn't seem especially likely to become outdated as compared to anything else in the article).
  • Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [9] Verified.
  • "The researchers who conducted the study found it interesting" This could do with clearer attribution, rather than gesturing at unnamed "researchers".
    I'm not sure to what extent this helps the reader given that they still have no idea who these people are, but I specified "Liang Maochun and Chen Wen of Jinan University".
  • "husbands reported having their Vietnamese wives disappear" This wording is ambiguous and could imply that the husbands are responsible for the disappearance.
    This is quite close to the wording the source gives, and I think the following sentences in both the source and this article don't especially seem to support that implication.
    It's the use of "having" that's ambiguous. I'd recommend something along the lines of "10% of Chinese husbands reported that their Vietnamese wives disappeared after several months of marriage or longer and that they never heard from them again." --
    Wording has been tweaked.

Grnrchst (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified on pages 116 and 117.

Lead

  • At 119 words, the lead doesn't fall below the 100 word suggested minimum, but I think it could still be expanded to include a bit more detail. There's a few parts of the article not yet summarised in the lead.
    Expanded some.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    A few cases where the prose is unclear or not concise enough. Otherwise it's all very well-written.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    A few cases where it could be following the Manual of Style a bit closer.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    There's information missing from some of the citations.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    One case where a source isn't cited inline. Page references should also be provided for the journal articles.
    C. It contains no original research:
    All information appears to be from the source material.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No clear-cut cases of plagiarism or copyright violations.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Everything I would expect to be covered by the article has been. although it could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the post-COVID situation in the history section.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Very focused on the topic, without any deviations.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    A couple cases where the language verges into non-neutrality.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No major changes since GA nomination, last reversions were procedural and took places before the article was moved to mainspace.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Only used image is properly licensed.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The article could do with one or two more images, although I'm not sure what to suggest for this.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Overall, this is a very well-written and informative article. It does have some issues with prose, verifiability and neutrality that need to be fixed before it meets GA criteria, and it could probably do with some more images, but I think it can get over the line with a little bit of work. Feel free to ping me once the comments have been addressed and/or if you have any questions. Great work on this article so far! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:33, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 77 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • I have an issue with ALT0. Surely your sources say that such a practice exists, but the only statistical data shows it is a small minority of all marriages which themselves are of unknown prevalence. Seems unsupported to claim that "often" Vietnamese people are engaged in bride kidnapping. Likewise, the "many" in ALT1 refers to the Vietnamese women who live in China, not all Vietnamese women. Also, it seems like the Chinese government is trying "to end the cross-border marriage system", of which the vast majority is voluntary, not just "bride trafficking". (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Villagers in rural China have expressed a lack of concern towards the practice, citing social, physical, and economic difficulties faced by the men who purchase the kidnapped women." this sentence in the lead does not do a good job summarizing local attitudes in the body of the article.
  • " Illegal crossings and undocumented transnational marriages in the Sino-Vietnamese border areas have occurred since ancient times, as the border can be crossed with relative ease" did the concept of illegal immigration even exist in ancient times?
    • Who knows, but that's what the cited source says.
  • "In the early 2020s, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the border fortifications created by China in response, the flow of trafficked women across the Sino-Vietnamese border largely ceased." Presumably this applies to voluntary as well as involuntary migration?
    • From what I can see, the cited source did not venture an opinion.

The hook seems OK (t · c) buidhe 13:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, deeper queries on the article content should be placed at the talk page for the article creator(s) to see. Does the nomination meet the DYK criteria, and if not, what needs to be fixed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Places where the article shows bias or the lead doesn't follow body automatically raise issues with Wp:NPOV and Wp:Verifiability. Why nominate at DYK if you are not willing to fix up any issue where the article falls short of the DYK criteria. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Buidhe, can you explain what needs to be present or cut from the lead sentence? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Surely you are capable of finding the parts of the article and summarizing them in lead. The overall attitude towards unauthorized marriages appears to be significantly more positive than the lead would suggest. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • Buidhe, I think the lead fairly summarises the article. That the villagers are unconcerned by the practice is clearly evident from the third pargraph of "Trafficking"—they do not have strong positive or negative feelings. See also the second paragraph of "Views"—"the 17 women who reported having been kidnapped did not avoid providing such a sensitive response...they had no need to conceal these facts, as such marriages were already widely known in the villages and not regarded as serious crimes to be reported". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the following about villagers' attitude towards the marriages:

The only mention in the lead of villagers' opinions is about trafficked wives, which according to the article is only 6.2% of the total. I don't think that's appropriate, and there are other specific issues found (see collapsed above). The lack of concern, according to the article, isn't just about kidnapped women but all illegal marriages, which are tolerated and rarely reported to the authorities. (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi An anonymous username, not my real name, buidhe has raised some concerns regarding WP:NPOV and WP:V above, do you think you can sort them out? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe, as respectfully as possible, I must ask if you actually read source 1. It was also not necessary to conceal the facts of trafficking as these were known in the villages. Bridal kidnappings were not considered serious crimes that should be reported. And I don't think it's UNDUE to provide an explanation as to why trafficking persists despite its obvious illegality (villagers not being concerned by it). Sources are (unsurprisingly, if I may say) more interested in discussing views on trafficking than views on consensual marriage. For the most part, these marriages are discussed as either explicitly a result of trafficking or with ambiguity as to whether they were a result of trafficking or consensual (and in the latter cases I have done my best to not make the wording wrongly suggest they were specifically either). Also, most of the "Views" section is focused on views on trafficking, which you seem to feel has already been given too much weight as is. The only thing I will grant you is that the phrase "villagers rarely report instances of trafficking" isn't placed in the most appropriate location and could probably be removed altogether given that this same fact is shared in more detail later on. Lastly, I'd like to point out that I'm semi-active at this point and don't really care whether or not this article makes DYK. It was already passed as a good article, so unless you'd like to contest that, the outcome of this discussion means little to me. — Anonymous 13:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name, AirshipJungleman29, and Buidhe: What else needs doing here?--Launchballer 11:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fixing the wp:ver and clop issues would be a good start (t · c) buidhe 12:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnamese_migrant_brides_in_China