Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Triangle Hill/Archive 1

Battle of Triangle Hill edit

Hi, I would appreciate some input on bring this article to A-Class. I would also like people to help me to fact check this article to see if I left out anything and if my work is free of bias. Jim101 (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowMonkey edit

I would like to know what the source published in 2000 with the characters is? It is linked to "Superarmy.com" and I couldn't read any of it, but it feels like a nationalist site of some sort....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I'm not sure. It is a nationalist site with tons of inflated claims about the Chinese victory, so I treated as a questionable source within the article. You can see my reasons on the talk page.

By my memory, this source was originally published by some publishing house owned by PLA during 1997. The author here definitly copy the entire article and claim it to be his own work, judging by the time stamp. I would provide the original source of that Chinese article if I could, but it has been 10 years and I lost that magazine.

But given this is the only Chinese source I have for now, I only use it to provide reference to Chinese troop deployments, command decisions, and combat actions. I back it up any Chinese claims with US/Korean accounts if I could. And anything the Chinese disagrees with the US/Korean side of the story, I leave it out of this article. Hope this is within the guideline. Jim101 (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more note. This battle is a nationalistic topic on Mainland China, so even if I get more Chinese source, all of it could be biased as this one. Jim101 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If' it's by the PLA it wouldn't be considered as reliable at all, especially for history, unless it is only being used to cite the official view of the CCP mouthpiece. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But according to WP:QS, it should be good enough for PLA to reference about themselves, right? I mean, it's not like the US intelligence is any more reliable on counting how many Chinese actually fought on the hill and what they were thinking. I'm threading in gray area here and I would like to know where to draw the line. Jim101 (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the source: the Chinese citation is 解放军文艺出版社, 1997年. which basicly means PLA literature & art publishing house, year 1997. Jim101 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it can only be used to depict the POV of the author and their organisation. Otherwise self-sources can aggrandise themselves. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll see if I can check with the Chinese Task Force to see where we stand. But all Chinese research I done keep bouncing back to this source. Jim101 (talk) 03:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this source is endorsed by Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a Chinese think tank that controlls the Chinese academia circle. So this would explain why every research I done keep bouncing back here. Jim101 (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nudve edit

I agree with Yellow Monkey. This source seems questionable, and it is used here very generously and presented in an unqualified manner. This is a problem.

Asides from that, there are a few other issues:

The prose contains some unencyclopedic dramatizations (e.g., "They were not disappointed", "The die had been cast") and unreserved observations ("But this is more likely the result of high levels of political indoctrination and efficient organization within the Chinese army", "Given the overwhelming odds, it had performed admirably").
I'm not sure if using coordinates inline is encouraged.
Some images are "sandwiched". They should be dispersed throughout the article. Also, perhaps the infobox should feature one of the actual combat photos.
Some of the section titles begin with "the", which they shouldn't, and "The Calm Before the Storm" is unencyclopedic. -- Nudve (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I deleted all the Chinese claims involving thrid parties. But I believe the Chinese reference is still needed for Chinese troop deployments and command decisions. Otherwise this article would be about Americans/Korean against Chinese hordes, which is a biased view.
I'll think about how to use the picture better.
But this is more likely the result of high levels of political indoctrination and efficient organization within the Chinese army is a valid observation, which I sited one book that extensivly discussed this issue on this battle as the reference. Several books I read regarding why Chinese would launch this suicide attacks came up with the same observation. Jim101 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]