Talk:People's Volunteer Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Good pictures of the PVA here http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E5%BF%97%E6%84%BF%E5%86%9B if anyone wants to load them and knows Chinese. --Gary123 17:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"To understand PLA strategies, one must study the grand campaigns in which PLA wiped out 8 million KMT troops in 2 years, with small casualty of its own."

doesn't that seem at least slightly non-neutral?

Its in quotations so that the reader ubnderstands that this is from the Chinese POV, the article also explains the common western perception that the chinese threw hordes at the Un forces but that has largely been disproved. --Gary123 00:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ANy particular reason why 24.225.221.84 removed the passage on POWs during the war. It certainly fits intot he scope of the article and was pretty even handed I think. IT explained the Chinese brainwashing techniques while at the same time stating that usually the abuse was psychologcal and not violent. And it was in my opinion very balance on the matter of PVA prisoners behind US lines. --Gary123 16:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is about a communist chinese army and Johnsmith removes every link thats not from an official US army site. I put the links to the us army sites to be balanced but that means nothing to someone frightened by the yellow peril who thinks that th nanking massacre is a myth put out by a chinese world conspiracy. user:John Smith's even removed an American veterans webpage that had extracts of Peng (the chinese c in c) memoirs. How can you remove the memoirs of the c in c of the PVA from the PVA and not be biased? This is practuically vanaalism. What is this revenge for what I said about Chang? --Gary123 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

user:johnsmith has ignored my comments in the talk page, has demonstrated a sytematic antichinese bias, and has pursued all articles I edited as retaliation for a complaint I made on the Unknown story page see above for reasons the links are relevent. --Gary123 06:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)ı

Without posting on the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Smith%27s has continued to vandalize this page. --Gary123 17:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Korean War FAQ is the only website on the web that documents the history and orgnaization of the PVA. Yes it has a Chinese bias but even proUSA veteran websites have used it since it presents the Chinese side of the Korean WAr. This article ios about the Chinese army in the Korean War its only fair that there should be one link showing the chinese side. I remind you in this article about China's war effor the faq is the only Chinese link yet the antichinese Brit user:John Smith has removed it 4 times now. --Gary123 17:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_Smith%27s this is NOT the first time John Smith has launched mutliple reverts without saying anything on the talk page! --Gary123 17:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hi Gary. Didn't notice you there. Well anyway, I had a look at the site and I realised it was a ridiculously POV website. So I believe it isn't a valid reference. Plenty of better stuff out there. John Smith's 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think a Chinese perspective needs to be represented in the links section. This site seems a lot more factually objective (does not equal NPOV) than most Chinese accounts of the war.

That being said, there are better quality Chinese links/sources on the Korean War and the PVA; see, for example:

Mao Anying in Korea, The Korean War in pictures, Origin of the name of the PVA. (All links in Chinese, but there could be an "English" button somewhere.) --Sumple

draws largely on western sources for information. This is an article about a Chinese army its only fair that ONE website show the PRC side. I've already put a disclaimer saying Red Chinese Pov. Just to let you know in the past a very Porusa veteran website included a tiemline based on the Chinese FAQ just to show the Chinese side of the war. P>S this link is good enough for the WESTERN BBC's OFFICIAL history of the war. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_hickey_02.shtml if it satisfies the BBC's standards it should satisfy wikipedias. Face it its pretty much the only site on the web focused on Chinese intervention it be criminal to keep it out of any half decent page. The main Korean War article is entirely amerocentric its only fair that the article on the PVa show Chinese perspectives in a balcanced view. Are the BBc's historian commie stooges?

P.S. Keep in mind that the article has to be nonPOV not the links for example articles on the American militia, KKK, and neonazi movements all have links to supporting websites. --Gary123 01:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

But there aren't any neo-Nazi or denialist websites on the main Holocaust page. Obviously a page about an organisation would need a website to that organisation. John Smith's 10:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. And you can't possibly compare the PVA to nazis. --Sumple (Talk) 12:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bevin "book review"

Okay, it's so-late-it's-early here (slight touch of insomnia), so I may not be too with it right now. However, assuming that it is necessary to add a bit about Bevin's POV, might it not make sense to do so in the section where Bevin is quoted? And, if it is necessary to discuss Bevin's POV, could it possible be handled in a more graceful manner than just dropping in a random quote from a book review? Lastly, why do we need to discuss Bevin's POV? crazyeddie 08:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)