Talk:People's Volunteer Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Good pictures of the PVA here 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 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 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 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. 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)

Thats right plus this is a page about the PVA organization not the main Korean War page. Furthermore just so everyone knows John Smith's did not find this page by accident he has been pursuing articles I contributed to as retaliation for confronting him about the Unknown story book. He immediatley reverted my edits on several pages and posted a nasty confrontational message on the talk page of another article. John Smith's is not genuinely intrested in contributing to this article but is simply pursing a childesh school bully vendetaa against me for speaking up against his unknown story page. --Gary123 18:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just so its clear whos out to help improve this article, this is where the article was befor I arrived,

this is my contribution

this is john smith's --Gary123 18:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Gary, are you completely psychotic or are you just smoking a lot of pot at the moment? John Smith's 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone had any doubts John Smith's had to proove to us where he stands.Dont let his hyperbole fool you look at the subject matter of his previous edits:

and then look at the subject matter of the Frank Hogan article I created and anyone here tell me that Im just paranoid.--Gary123 03:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I'm just paranoid about John Smith's, look at the Frank Hogan article, its a topic that John Smith's knows nothing about a Ny DA, who has had several important biographies written about him. But because I was the creator of the article John Smith's tagged it with nonnotable. Look I didnt want to believe that John Smith's was pursuign a vendetta against me I wanted to beleiev that it was just a coincidence and that he was just very active in China related articles, but the NYDA has nothing to do with his "expertise" it was clearly done simply to "punish" me, it is IMPOSSIBLE that it was a coincidence. Frank Hogan just happened to be his FIRST NYC related article he edited. --Gary123 04:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading your posts is the best free source of entertainment I've found in a while. Please keep sharing. John Smith's 16:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

How about you "entertain" me and let me in on your sudden knowledge of NYC history at the Frank Hogan article just a few minutes after we met at the unkown Mao page! --Gary123 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DOCUMENTATION OF John Smith's Activities[edit]

17:30, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story (→Unknown History VIRUS INFECTING wikipedia one article at a time)

Me and John Smith's have a dispute over the validity of including MAo the uk story as a source in so many articles. 17:37, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Liberation Army (rv; don't need forums - professional websites are better)

John Smith's removes a link i put up

  1. 17:45, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Red Star Over China (→Unknown VIRUS)

Posts a nasty comment on the talk page of ana article where I complained about the unknown story orignally.

17:52, 10 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Frank Hogan (google search does not indicate this was an important person)

suggests speedy deletion of an article in a category he knows nothing about despie other users with any knowledge of NYC knowing Hogan's great importance.

19:18, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Removes links in an article I created.

19:19, 11 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Korean War (→External links)

Removes links in an article I created.

  1. 18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

18:41, 13 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Korean War (→External links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments.

09:35, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links)

Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

23:06, 14 October 2006 (hist) (diff) People's Volunteer Army (→Links) Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

10:42, 15 October 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:People's Volunteer Army Fights revert war ignoring my talk page comments. Refuses to post on talk page!

This is a clear pattern and clear retaliation for our dispute on the unkown story! --Gary123 15:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic comment: wow, people are using the Unknown Story as references?? That's ridiculous! It's a work of fiction for godssake. --Sumple (Talk) 23:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I know and it spread all over wikipedia, and because I challenged it I've been the target of user:Johnsmith's vendetta. Take a look at --Gary123 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bevin "book review"[edit]

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)


Looks like I'm paying attention a bit after the fact. Overall, the article doesn't look to bad, but there are what appear to be, POV issues in several spots. It would also be nice if some of the 'conflicts' could be resloved between this this article and other Wiki articles, so that they both say the same, even if it means re-writing both articles to say "In the view of the Chinese..." and "In the View of the U.S...." or "however, the South Korean ...". In the articles I've been working on, I've been trying to keep the POV out of it, by changing "enemy" to say "Chinese" or "North Korean", and replacing "friendly" with "United Nations Command", etc. For however else is working on this, I would appreciate it you could see if you might be able to add additional information to the various articles under Category:Military units and formations of the People's Volunteer Army. I've created a lot of Stub-class articles there where I've been copying in information (and the references) I've found so far while going through various Korean War and other military related articles. Like in the Intelligence circles, I figured if we could start adding classifiable information on the various units that participated, POV issues aside, eventually there might be enough information to make a decent article.

I would have to say that I'm definately anti-communist, that doesn't mean they were all cowards and not worthy of mention. On the contrary, everything I've found seems to show while they did suffer some high casualties in various battles, they were were a resourceful and fairly commited opponent, worthy of respect. wbfergus 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

just doing some fact checking and was surprised to see how the chinese nationalists are doing their work here on wikipedia too. it would be a good idea to remove the chinese propaganda—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

It should come as no surprise to anyone how many chinese nationalists are going around blatantly inserting PRC government sanctioned versions of fictional history and 'balanced' version of chinese historian 'analysis' that actually seeks to whitewash anything that makes the chinese 'lose face'. Many people have been quietly noticing these trends with china-related articles, where titles and contents are not-so-subtly influenced into something more euphemistic or outright revisionist. For instance, 'Invasion of Tibet' has been changed into something along the lines of 'Incorporation of Tibet into PRC'. Chinese propaganda and revisionist claims don't always outright seek to reverse the contents, but they also seek to again not so subtly feign ignorance or claim 'lack of sources' whenever it suits their whims - as if attempting to insist that materials backed by evidence which clearly displays negative chinese conduct are 'biased' and is in need of revision. Recent edited sections of clothing and equipment are but one of such numerous examples where insistance of positive portrayal of chinese take precedent over presentation of opposing viewed backed up by far more numerous evidence, not to mention blatant lack of even basic citation.

There does exist a tendency of such groups that fools the 'balanced' editors into thinking they are somehow representing a 'fair' view when accepting such biased notion as a valid entry. I encourage wikipedia editors to exercise greater caution and understand that simple and obvious revisions on entries are not the only way for an individual to attempt and influence opinions of those who read the articles.

As it stands now, the whole articles almost sound like an apologist revision history sanctioned by the chinese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed edit to "Tactics" section[edit]

I propose removing the quoted section from for the following reasons: 1. It's an awfully long quoted section. 2. The relevant parts of it are already quoted or otherwise referenced from reputable sources. 3. The site itself seems POV and otherwise unable to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 4. The entire quotation is questionable (at best) by the inclusion of outright falsehoods like "During the truce talks, PVA invented the bunker war...". 5. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, it seems that quotes should at least adhere to "normal" English spelling and grammatical rules.

Anybody have objections backed up by valid arguments for keeping it? To have a valid argument, please show how the CenturyChina site does meet the standards of both Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. wbfergus 15:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Object. Quote clearly shows in-depth information regarding PVA tactics. Best to keep. Benlisquare (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove There are tons of better sources than this that conveys the same idea...I don't see why we need this source. Jim101 (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

- CenturyChina site is known for its blatant PRC nationalist rhetoric that fools no one. It even ventures into racial and ethnic territory in its tone and voice, not to mention attempted gross marginalization of PVA failures as in the case of 160th PVA division where they not so subtly seek to portray the failings of soldiers to various 'shortcomings in organization and methods'. Many of its so called sources are from government funded nationalist rhetoric of Chinese historians which in no way meets the standards of clarity or accurate and unbiased historical research. Wikipedia should not confuse persistent and petulant omitting of facts as a valid entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

commanders and persons[edit]

in one of the chapters the name pei shan is names, this is false, the name appears only in ha jin's books, therefore, i declare that whoever's responsible is arrogant and ignorant of history and manupliates the truth with fiction Btzkillerv (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PengDehuai.jpg[edit]

The image Image:PengDehuai.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The name was accepted by the US government to avoid escalation of the conflict?[edit]

All the researches I have done from official US government/army sources during 1950's/60's uses the name "Chinese Communist Forces"...Where is the evidence that US government accepted the name People's Volunteer Army?

Jim101 (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Simplified Chinese?[edit]

Prior to the late 1960s, even the PRC used Traditional Chinese. Traditional was used on military uniforms, on signs, in newspapers... use of simplified came much later. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fact about officiers shoot soldier is taken out of context.[edit]

The PVA also instituted a much harsher form of discipline, where officers were empowered to shoot down immediately any man who violated orders.

There are instances where Chinese officiers shoot soldiers in the Korean War, but almost all instances of this claim is based on a Chinese order for officiers to shoot soldiers if they violated camouflage rules against UN air raids. Furthermore a detailed study of the PVA by Kevin Mahoney in the book Formidable enemies : the North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War states that excution in PVA is rare and discipline is rather lax amongst the ranks. Now, I'm not saying Roy Appleman is a bad source (he is one of the best in Korean War histories), but given his rather underwhleming research on the Chinese military, I believe his claim has been taken out of context here.

Jim101 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I move the segment to a new section and expand on it. Jim101 (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Army flag 軍旗?[edit]

Can someone find out what sort of flag the PVA was fighting under? Arilang talk 06:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Technically none, since all PLA symbols and unit insignia were removed once a units crossed the river, as per policy. Jim101 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Need to remove/Comment out the part regarding POW's[edit]

The "facts" stated here are actually taken from a fictional novel by Chinese author Ha Jin called War Trash. I haven't found any third-party sources which confirms them. Therefore I suggest that we temporarily removed them or comment them out until we find better 3rd party references. Children of the dragon (talk) 08:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Note that CCF has an entry for Communist Chinese Forces that redirects to this article. If CCF is a blanket term, for which People's Volunteer Arm is one part, it seems as if the automatic redirect should not exist. Group29 (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll change the redirect. The reason for the change was because of US government documents such as United States Army (1960), Handbook on the Chinese Communist Army (PDF), Washington, D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army  explicitly link CCF with PLA, not PVA. Jim101 (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PVA battle song[edit]



  • 雄赳赳,气昂昂,跨过鸭绿江,
  • 保和平,为祖国,就是保家乡,
  • 中国好儿女,齐心团结紧,
  • 抗美援朝打败美帝野心狼


  • Resist America, Assist Korea

Defeat the American Imperialist wild wolf.

Shouldn't the translation of this song be included in the article? Arilang talk 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't do it, then I'll have to do it in the future. Jim101 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The last line should be "Resist America aid Korea and defeat the American imperialist wild wolf." Aid Joseon is not common English translation for the propaganda campaign.Jim101 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't we use pin yin version of "朝鮮", like "Chau Xian", to be more authentic? Arilang talk 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME wins in this case I believe. It is normally translated by western scholars as "Resist America Aid Korea, Protect Home and Country". Jim101 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
野心 is not "wild wolf", what about "greedy wolf"? Arilang talk 06:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
野心 means something mean and aggressive...greedy is just too soft. Jim101 (talk) 06:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have checked with Admin Moonriddengirl, her advice is that the Chinese translation could be a copyvio problem. So this translation is not to be added onto the main page. I admit that the whole thing is not 100% clear.

Arilang talk 20:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

File:PVA battle song.ogg
PVA battle song
  • Quick comment. Introduction should include number of solders in the army and infobox like in this article, for example.Biophys (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of separate legal status[edit]

Was the People's Volunteer Army separately constituted "in order to prevent an official war with the United States"? Or was it separately constituted in order to prevent an "official war" with the UN? (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Against US, since according to Chinese POV, without US support, UN is just a paper tiger. Jim101 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


To use the phrase "People's Volunteer Army" without denying they were all volunteers (except for the "forcibly inducted" sentence buried deep in the article) means Wikipedia is repeating a falsehood. Or are we assuming that lie is so obvious (like "People's" for a dictatorship) that nobody would take it seriously? Art LaPella (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotally, People's Liberation Army does not belong to the "people" and it does not "liberate", but Wikipedia use it as the name of Chinese Armed Forces. Interesting eh?
Seriously, although I had ample time to think this problem over and over, you have to understand that falsehood/truth/neutrality does not apply to Wikipedia policy on article titles, it is about helping people to quickly identify the subject in question using common and precise phrases. Hence the reason why People's Volunteer Army was used in the first place.
However since I had the time to think it over, I might as well to outline the reasoning in detail just to check where the current consensus stands.
First of all, I have a list of possible names the we could use to rename the article, they are "Chinese Forces in Korea", "Chinese Communist Force", "People's Liberation Army", "People's Volunteer Army" and "Chinese People's Volunteer"
Then I apply the first check of using common English phrases. "Chinese Forces in Korea" is out because it is not the title of Chinese forces in Korea. Western sources usually use the phrase "Chinese Communist Force" or "People's Liberation Army" while official Chinese sources use the term "Chinese People's Volunteer" and academia with access to Chinese sources tend use the term "People's Volunteer Army".
Finally I apply the check of precision. One thing to keep in mind that Chinese forces in Korea is not the same organization as People's Liberation Army (PLA) as they have separate chains of command. "Chinese Communist Force" fails the precision test since it does not distinguish between PLA and Chinese forces in Korea. "People's Liberation Army" also fails the test because Chinese forces in Korea is not under its control. "Chinese People's Volunteer" fails the test because it does not contain the meaning that this is an armed forces. Hence this left me with the choice "People's Volunteer Army".
If anyone think they can use the same logic and come up with different names I would be interested in hearing your thought process. Jim101 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What I had in mind wasn't changing the title; it was more like "The People's Volunteer Army (which wasn't literally all volunteer) ..." Art LaPella (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It does contain the sentence "...all units in the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army belonged to the People's Liberation Army (the official name of the Chinese armed forces)...". The "(which wasn't literally all volunteer)..." bit feels like overdoing it, especially that the reader should be intelligent enough to deduce that since PVA is coming from Chinese armed forces, the phrase "Volunteer" has no meaning. Jim101 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the relevance of Wikipedia:Let the reader decide, whose example is to list Hitler's concentration camps etc., rather than "Adolf Hitler was a genocidal maniac". To say they weren't all volunteers couldn't be more factual, short of listing stories of forcible induction.
Perhaps the article is intended for someone more knowledgeable about China that I am. I presume the Chinese army has missions that some would volunteer for, just as American soldiers volunteer for special forces, and thus I can imagine someone thinking that only volunteers went to Korea from the Chinese army. However, the article states as a fact that some were forcibly inducted, if someone reads that far. "all units in the Chinese People's Volunteer Army were actually conscripts from the People's Liberation Army" (if that is accurate)? Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point, I have not thought about your "PLA soldiers volunteer for PVA" impression.

If you had that impression, then I have to admit that the above explanation was aim at people who is already familiar in the controversy, which the main contention is more about whether PVA is really PLA rather than what recruiting methods were employed by PVA. PVA technically does not recruit since it directly uses units created in PLA, hence I wasn't paying attention that that area.

Now that we are framing the discussion to the recruiting methods of the PLA, then "Conscripts" are not exactly accurate either since some of them are actually volunteers, and PLA transfers entire units full of both volunteers and conscripts to PVA under orders from Chinese leadership. How about this: "all units in the Chinese People's Volunteer Army were actually transferred from the People's Liberation Army under the orders of Chinese Communist Party.", and for the forced recruitment, I will add "This was particularly true of the Chinese POWs, some of whom were anti-Communists whom the Communists had forcibly inducted during the Chinese Civil War into the PLA unit that was later transferred into the Korea." Jim101 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I merged that with the existing text, and changed some "the"s. Art LaPella (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)