Talk:Third Battle of the Hook

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The artillery shell counts can't be verified as there aren't any references listed. Math for the listed U.N. numbers don't add up to the stated total. RobNeal1 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)28Nov2007RobNeal1[reply]

The shell count and much more are indeed verified by the source of much of this article, - the blow-by-blow contemporaneous account in the official War Diary published by the National Archives, London. Even the names of the wounded (some still alive) are listed, along with the nature of their wounds. The final DWR casualty listed was a regimental cook who broke an arm after falling into a trench in the darkness. It is the nature of an encyclopaedia article that it has to be presented in a summary format. Consequently, too many references can be a disadvantage, disrupting the article's readability, although these are inevitably subjective judgements on the editors part. There are sufficient references usually given to enable readers wishing to explore the topic in greater depth to do that. 5.70.185.69 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Five years too late! If you know where the source comes from, please cite it. Using the <ref>Text</ref> template doesn't distract from the readability and that is exactly the kind of fact that people sometimes feel they have to overelaborate or guess. Providing the source helps a great deal! -- Brigade Piron (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Brigade[edit]

It seems they were involved here but there is no reference and no mention. This what Turkish military history refers to as Vegas or Wegas battle, maybe it was a part of it. Anyone has any information? There is no mention of anything else but the British here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.103.149 (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of archival references[edit]

I removed the citations to material held by the British National Archives, which has now been restored by Richard Harvey. I thought it would be right to explain my objections here. Mr Harvey suggests that they "available for reading by anyone free of charge" so can stand but I argue they clearly breach WP:SOURCE, WP:RS and WP:OR

1) Even if "published" (there's a curious footnote to this effect on WP:SOURCE), they certainly don't constitute an impartial source akin to a published, academic book produced with studying of other primary material. They have no editorial oversight and, as the product of one side of a conflict, will inevitably have a skewed perspective in favour of one party. This is a significant issue more generally in Wiki coverage, especially the Korean War, and I know users like Jim101 have made significant efforts to combat it elsewhere.

2) As such, using this primary material (particularly on its own and when secondary works are so plentiful) constitutes WP:OR - rather than reporting the views expressed in WP:RS. It may pass on biases in the primary material (casualty figures is a case in point) which prejudice the quality of the article.

I'd be interested to hear the perspective of other users on this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the argument of lopsidedness of using only British source, I see no justification of using original British National Archives document instead of Official British history on the Korean War by Farrar-Hockley, Anthony (1990), Official History: The British Part in the Korean War, vol. Volume I, II, London, England: HMSO, ISBN 0116309539 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help). Jim101 (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I reverted the removal of those sources is quite simple. They are there as a provable source of simple facts stated in the article. No Original Research is involved, no interpretation of events has been made, the sources support simple statements of actions on the day. from the units official record made at the time of the action.. I understand the need to have secondary sources to support personal interpretations of wider events, but feel the Wikipedia Policy on using primary source in this case allows them to be used.:-
    Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[1] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. Richard Harvey (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of the Hook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

I've moved this to "Third Battle of the Hook", as there was more than one (and per the lead sentence here). The title Battle of the Hook should be a set index of all three (maybe even four) actions by that name. I trust everyone is OK with that Xyl 54 (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Third_Battle_of_the_Hook&oldid=1199491898"