Talk:The Battle at Lake Changjin II

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that The Battle at Lake Changjin II uses frostbite makeup and fake snow made from white sand? Source: "续集中的七连战士们，脸上都带着特别的冻伤妆"[1] "横店的冬天与《长津湖》拍摄地张家口零下20多摄氏度的寒冷天气没法比，想要接《长津湖》中冰天雪地的气氛，只能借助现代电影工业特效来完成。剧组也将大量建筑工程用的白沙运到横店，铺满整个山。"[2]
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zombie porn

Created by Mx. Granger (talk). Self-nominated at 15:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new enough and long enough. Assuming good faith for the Chinese sources but a machine translation seems to confirm it. The hook is interesting and cited inline. QPQ has been done. Earwig is down at the moment so I cannot check for close paraphrasing at this time. There's also a minor issue with the article: the first letter of the "Box Office" section is improperly capitalized. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the review. I've fixed the capitalization issue. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. All issues have been resolved and no close paraphrasing was detected, so this is now good to go. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

To T:DYK/P3

Description as propaganda

There seems to be some disagreement here, but the two sources cited[3][4] do not actually describe the film as propaganda (except in the headlines, which are not reliable per WP:RSHEADLINE). One of them says that a different film was commissioned by the Communist Party propaganda office (an informal term for the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party), and the other one uses the word "propaganda" in its explanation of the "main melody" genre, but neither actually say that the film is propaganda (again, except in the headlines). We must stick to what the sources say per WP:V. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

reverting edits [5] while also discussing them is not good practice and certainly does not appear to be evidence of editing in good faith. Can you at least hold off on your reversion until after we have concluded our discussions? Once again I should remind you that since you reverted the edit by user 76.11.114.137 [6] and I reverted that, this means that you are now the one who has now been reverted and should as a result not restore your changes until you have got the consensus here to do so. (wp:brd) Estnot (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Rather than arguing about which of us has followed BRD, let's focus on content. The stable version of the paragraph is supported by the sources, but the current version is not. Per WP:RSHEADLINE, headlines are not reliable sources, because "they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

the edit summary which you wrote as part of your revert appeared to allude to wp:brd so I was simply responding in kind.[7] The heart of the dispute appears to be your disagreement with the sentence Sources have described the movie as a work of propaganda but I don’t see how it violates the reliability policy on news headlines because the sentence is an accurate summary of not just the article headlines, but also the supporting information in the body of the source- information which you have kept in your version of the paragraph. In addition I think it should be pointed out that it is not just one but two articles which are being cited here. By removing the sentence in question you appear to not only be violating wp:headlines but it also appears to raise styling issues as there was no lead-in which connected the differing content which you decided to retain Estnot (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the stable version of the paragraph doesn't fit very well in context – it seemed to work as a compromise last month, but we can remove the paragraph altogether if that will resolve this issue. The current version of the paragraph is unacceptable, because it's not supported by the sources – the bodies of the sources don't say that the film is propaganda, and the headlines are not usable per WP:RSHEADLINE. The fact that there are two sources instead of one does not help, because neither of the sources support the claim. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Removing the paragraph would certainly not resolve issue as it would be removing important and valid information and also does strike me of being an underhanded attempt at censorship (wp:notcensored). The sentence says the sources have described the movie as propaganda, not the movie is propaganda so the summary is more expansive than what you are making it out to be. But since you take issue with even this wording then I recommend as a further compromise the following wordings which further expands the scope of the summary of the sources Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

sources have highlighted the film’s propaganda function OR sources have drawn attention the film’s propagandistic element. OR sources have highlighted the film’s essence as a work of propaganda Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Further wordings can be proposed but regardless of whichever one is chosen a lead-in will be needed as your version of paragraph makes for awkward reading without it and also because there appears to be consensus for including information from the sources into the article that details the movie’s relationship to the Chinese propaganda apparatus Estnot (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions. "Sources have drawn attention [to] the film’s propagandistic element" is an improvement but still not a very good summary of the sources. How about "Sources have drawn attention to the film's patriotic content"? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your wording would not work and if it did would certainly work less well than the one I am proposing. The articles focus much more on the propaganda angle of the film’s content as opposed to the putative patriotic one which they mention only in passing, which can be seen in the headlines of both of the articles which explicitly refer to the movie as a propaganda film/movie and the supporting information in the body of the articles - the Business Insider article highlights the propaganda function of the movie genre to which this movie belongs while the CNN article highlights the original film’s formal connections to the propaganda office of the Chinese Communist Party (once again it should be noted that you kept this supporting information in your version of the paragraph. [8]) Replacing patriotism for propaganda would appear to completely distort both the letter and spirit of the articles given the drastic difference in meaning between the two words and also strikes me of peacocking (mos:peacock) which another editor has apparently also taken issue with for a similar edit of yours in which you had also described the movie as patriotic [9] Estnot (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the bodies of the sources do not describe the film as propaganda. (Saying that a different film was commissioned by a propaganda office is not the same as saying that this film is propaganda.) In contrast, the CNN source does describe it as patriotic. Please stop trying to cite the headlines, which are not reliable per WP:RSHEADLINE. But feel free to suggest another phrasing that accurately reflects the sources. What if we say something like "The film glorifies Chinese troops' defeat of US soldiers"?

I see that you've also removed a bunch of material from the article, with an edit summary saying that the sources are unreliable. These sources are reliable in this context (discussing the production and release of a film). Please get consensus here on the talk page before reinstating your edits, per WP:BRD. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot is badly written.

Sentences are often hard to read. Generally, the plot description is over detailed and too long. CrickedBack (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to propose changes. Mztourist (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in The Battle at Lake Changjin II

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Battle at Lake Changjin II's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto":

• From Korean War: Morris-Suzuki, Tessa (July 29, 2012). "Post-War Warriors: Japanese Combatants in the Korean War". The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus. 10 (31).
• From List of films released in IMAX: "IMAX (IMAX) Q2 2018 Earnings Conference Call Transcript – The Motley Fool". 25 July 2018.
• From The Battle at Lake Changjin: "The Chinese film beating Bond and Marvel at the box office". BBC News. 2021-10-16. Retrieved 2021-10-26.
• From Chinese Communist Party: Hunt, Michael (2013). The World Transformed:1945 to the Present. Oxford University Press. p. 114. ISBN 9780312245832.
• From United States Navy: "The Russian Navy Is Aiming To Be Much Larger Than The US Navy". Business Insider. 24 September 2014. Archived from the original on 26 November 2015. Retrieved 12 November 2015.
• From Dangerous Encounters of the First Kind: "Asiaweek". Asiaweek Limited. 19 May 1981 – via Google Books.
• From IMAX: "The staggering size and scale of IMAXr". Redsharknews.com.
• From Missing (2008 film): Yi, Ho (4 July 2008). "[FILM REVIEW] The demons and the deep blue sea". Taipei Times. Retrieved 30 October 2022.
• From Chinese New Year: "春节起源". www.sohu.com.
• From Vought F4U Corsair: "F2G Histories". airrace.com. Retrieved: 5 August 2010.
• From Sea of Japan: "Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition" (PDF). International Hydrographic Organization. 1953. p. 32. Retrieved 29 April 2020.
• From Bazooka: Jowett, Philip (2016). Modern African Wars (5): The Nigerian-Biafran War 1967–70. Oxford: Osprey Publishing Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-1472816092.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Viewers outside China

Are there any numbers of viewers outside China. Like in which country the film was popular? Was it also watched a lot in Global South? 2A02:8389:2185:8200:510C:D024:5B6A:804C (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)