Talk:Yinhe incident

Article was not that subjective, but lacked references. I extended and reorganized the article, and removed NPOV tag. Next time, instead of simply inserting an NPOV tag, would you please specifically point out which words are subjective? Liulab 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article's language is heavily subjective, which violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Nathanm mn 13:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article uses primarily CCP sources

There's been years of purging and removal of US viewpoint portions of this article. It's also getting linked to from various places on the internet on Reddit as part of Chinese troll networks. Ergzay (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. You falsely accused a Stanford researcher of being a "CCP source" and that edits you disagree with are "CCP employee IP addresses".--118.211.75.216 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JArthur1984 You seem well educated on this subject. I've been trying to go through the article and clean it up as there is extensive unsourced content and very NPOV wording for example:

"American officials ... accused ... deliberately .. without showing any evidence ... again without proof." Also claiming duplicitous statements without citation.
I couldn't find any of this in the sources: " It was later changed to claim that during this period, the Yinhe may have unloaded or dumped its cargo into the sea on the way, again without proof. However, the US military monitored the whereabouts of the Yinhe throughout the whole process, but this assertion that there is no evidence to support it is not credible. Finally, it was stated that the U.S. operation was “based on trust in different sources of intelligence, even though (these intelligence sources) were all wrong."
This portion is technically incorrect. "After China denied the allegation, the United States unilaterally cut off the Yinhe's GPS, causing it lose direction and anchor on the high seas -- ultimately for twenty-four days until it agreed to inspection." GPS cannot be shut off regionally. There would have to be ships nearby actively jamming the signal.
This statement needs a better source "Ultimately, the United States refused to pay compensation.". If the US refused to pay then there would be a US government statement refusing to pay.

Ergzay (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your points #1 and #2 are largely valid in my view.

Point #3 could say that the "US unilaterally prevented the Yinhe from accessing GPS" instead of "cut off." The current language is closer to the source but I don't think it makes a difference. While the Yinhe was adrift it was surrounded by US ships so it seems entirely plausible that the technical mechanism was "jamming." I don't see that as inconsistent with what the article or source says.

I do not think your Point #4 makes sense. China asked for the US to pay compensation. It refused. The source says this. It is not controversial - the US has never paid the compensation China demanded. JArthur1984 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For #1 and #2 would you be fine with just removing all that then?

For point #3 I think the wording needs to be changed but I'm not sure how fine you are with diverging from the source and I don't have access to the source myself. As it is, it's factually incorrect. Also the wording "causing it lose direction" is a bit confusing to me. Firstly it's incorrect English and secondly GPS is positional, not directional. Can you post the full quotation here?

For point #4 I still think the wording should be changed. A refusal is an action with an associated statement, especially combined with "ultimately", not a lack of action. Also it's missing context on what the US reasoning is on why it hasn't paid. Ergzay (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes on #1 and #2, no issue from me.

I'll edit per your comments on #3 and #4. If you have a citation on the US reasoning for not paying compensation of course it could be added. I do not have one.

Quotation: "China denied the allegation, but the United States unilaterally cut off the civilian GPS signals on the ship, causing it to lose direction and anchor on the high seas for twenty-four days until it agreed to inspection. No chemicals were found. But the United States declined Chinese demands for a formal apology and compensation in damages." JArthur1984 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the full quote that's not a lot to go on. I'm not sure this is a good source to be using for this statement. Ergzay (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done an edit of the "decline" statement that you had in the article. Ergzay (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]