Talk:Battle of the Tiger's Mouth

Macau Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.MacauWikipedia:WikiProject MacauTemplate:WikiProject MacauMacau articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / Chinese / Early Modern

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Chinese military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

Biased article[edit]

This article is based on a one sided account by the Portuguese which was recorded in Portuguese Sea Battles Volume VIII, which in itself is a copy of older Portuguese primary sources without academic scrutiny or analysis.

The Portuguese sources deviates significantly from Chinese accounts, and were deemed as unreliable by experts such as Dian Murray. This article needs serious revision, and possibly deletion.

Gaiushe (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is this covered in Murray's book? I do not see many source accessible online (in English) that address the Portuguese role in the South China piracy of 1790–1810. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it extremely funny to see an accusation of "bias" along with a total dismissal of Portuguese sources in the same sentence. Removed POV tag, since it obviously hasn't been used very scrupulously. Wareno (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid to dismiss sources if they "were deemed as unreliable by experts". Also, using primary sources, even recently republished ones, may go against WP:OR. Perhaps you could address the concern instead of dismissing it as "bias"? Srnec (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also valid to dismiss a premise that is flawed from the start, whether it's made by a random unsubstantiated user or even by a supposed "expert". "I think Portuguese sources are biased, therefore, we should dismiss them entirely in favour of purely Chinese ones!" Capt. Monteiro is also an expert on Portuguese naval matters, and no primary sources have been used, so don't feed obvious trolls, people. Wareno (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]