Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Does the word "in bizarre way" is correspond to POV? in section Jinan Incident, full svale of invasion to China, and potentially Rape of Nanjing

I don't think so. But user Zamflious repeatedly sats so and rewrites my edit. I really thans to his comtribution to correct my mistakes of spelling or grammer. But his edit always spoiled in the main part of my edit. That is bizarre war of mass civilian murder deteriorated Japanese public opinion. In addition, if one say "to use the word vizarre way" is POV, how about of the section "Rape of Nanjing"? The whole section itself seems to be POV. But no one wouldn't claim it.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

One example of Zamiflavius's false claim based on his ignorance and rigid stereotipical view. Zamflavius insists my edit is POV in his latest edit preview because the source which used the word "支那事変" must not be credible historian. He seems to regards any source who use the word "支那事変” to be incredible. But this time, the sourse is JSDF, Japan Self Defence Forces. The word "支那事変” had been used widely in Japan before World War Ⅱ. So, for anyone who wants to search or write about this war, it is difficult to avoid the word "支那事変". The one who always avoid this word is just extreme leftist in Japan. So it is clear that Zamflious doesn't know such kind of situation and labeled my edit "POV".

--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The reasons for which "支那事変" would call into serious question the credibility of a source fall into two categories, firstly, because the term is not actually in common usage by Japanese historians (compare here; google scholar results for academic usage in Japanese of "支那事変" vs. "日中戦争" seem to indicate that "日中戦争" is a considerably more used term than "支那事変"). If we narrow by date, we find that 1/4 of usage of "支那事変" is in pre-1970 sources, and 1/2 in pre-1990 sources; by contrast, following 1970 and 1990, the vast majority of usage is of "日中戦争." This would indicate that, especially for modern scholarly works, "日中戦争" is the actual common term in usage among scholars. In pre-1970 works, almost half of usage of "支那事変" predates 1960, where it dominates usage of "日中戦争" (which is unheard of pre-1960), this is consistent with the fact that before 1960, "支那事変" was the common term in Japan. This is consistent with the claim that whereas before 1970, "支那事変" was a commonly used term (which I have not denied at any point), following 1970, "支那事変" would call into question a historian's credibility. There may have been some pre-1970 sources therefore which I removed by mistake, if so, those should be restored.
All this said, the other major issue here seems to be the following passages regarding the Jinan Incident and the Tungchow Mutiny:
The Kuomintang (KMT) National Revolutionary Army (NRA) swept through China until it was checked in Shandong, where conflict erupted as it approached the city of Jinan. Confrontations occurred which culminated in the Jinan incident of 1928, during the Japanese military executed several Chinese officials and fired artillery shells into Jinan. Between 2,000 and 11,000 civilians were believed to have been killed. According to the inquest, Japanese victims of civilian were killed in brutal way. For example, in many of women's bodies, sticks were inserted to their private parts. Many bodies were scoped out all of their internal organs.
On the night of July 7, 1937, Chinese and Japanese troops exchanged fire in the vicinity of the Lugou (or Marco Polo) bridge, a crucial access-route to Beijing. What began as confused, sporadic skirmishing soon escalated into a full-scale battle in which Beijing and its port city of Tianjin fell to Japanese forces (July–August 1937). On July 29, some 5,000 troops of the 1st and 2nd Corps of the East Hopei Army mutinied, turning against the Japanese garrison. In addition to Japanese military personnel, some 260 civilians living in Tongzhou in accordance with the Boxer Protocol of 1901 were killed in the uprising (predominantly Japanese including the police force and also some ethnic Koreans). The bodies of women had stings in their private parts by bayonet. Most of men's bodies had traces of dragging alive at their neck. This incident, which was known as the Tungchow Incident, especially its brutality strongly shook public opinion within Japan.
Both of these passages are not in accord with WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:BALANCE, which mandates that Wikipedia present information in corresponding weight towards the value given to them in scholarly literature, and also that all content be presented in an impartial tone, in both style and material presented. In both the above passages, the description of "bizarre actions" and the graphic nature thereof are almost unheard of in the majority of scholarly sources discussing the two incidents (the claims regarding the Jinan Incident, for example, are completely unmentioned by Jay Taylor in his book "The Generalissimo," and while I was unable to access a copy of Akira Ikiye's book "After Imperialism," I am skeptical that he judged these claims to be of much merit given that summaries of his description of events do not corroborate those claims at all. Furthermore, the overwhelming focus on dubiously corroborated atrocities creates text with the goal of less presenting facts and more attempting to push a particular viewpoint at the expense of factual descriptions of the subject.
A similar problem exists with the "Tungchow Mutiny text, as the atrocities almost universally go un-mentioned in reliable sources. As with the Jinan Incident, the graphic descriptions of atrocities seem to have at best a dubious grounding in fact in reliable sources and exist more for the purpose of pushing a revisionist viewpoint. Especially, while searching google scholar for discussions of alleged atrocities turns up very few scholarly sources (Philipp Jowett, in his book "China and Manchuria," does not seem to mention them at all), it does yield an overwhelming amount of extremely unreliable sources (blogs and youtube videos mostly) which seem to share the trait of having little basis in actual fact and openly attempting to push a revisionist (and inaccurate) viewpoint on Second Sino-Japanese War historiography. As with the Jinan Incident text, there seems to be essentially no basis for including any of this material.Zmflavius (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
On a final note, the "Rape of Nanjing" section probably should be edited to be in line with other pages on the wiki, since to my knowledge, nobody, scholars or otherwise, except the late Iris Chang actually used the term "Rape of Nanjing" (Nanking Massacre is by far the most common term in scholarship and is the term used on the relevant wiki page). Probably some other edits are in order as well, the last quote in that section refers to an alleged incident which IIRC was extensively discussed on the Nanking Massacre page, and is somewhat dubious. Moreover, the sourcing for that page is a youtube video, which is not considered a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia.Zmflavius (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Your argument that 1970 is the criteria to judge is quite vague one. Just from your estimation based on your vague hand-made statistics is not enough. From Japanese version of wikipedia, the definition of both words depend on its period. The period of "日中戦争" is from 1937 to 1945, while that of "支那事変" is from 1937 to December 8 1941. Both Republic of China and Japan had fought without declaration of war for long period of time. So War is not precise word to refer this series of battle. So " 支那事変" can be used by ordinal historian in Japan. It just depends on an auther's interest whethe he/she wants to describe before the declaration or to include after declaration.
In addition, the source of Jinan Incident, of which the auther you implied as extremest historian, named the title "戦史叢書, 支那事変陸軍作戦, 1975, 1". This "戦史叢書" is also old fashined word. So combined with the word "支那事変", the auther want to discribe pre declaration history in an old fashioned style. It doesn't mean the auther was extremist.
By way of caution, this source is supervised by Japan Self Defen Ministry. The word "防衛庁" means JSDF.
On the second argmemt, do you want to insist atrocitis had never existed in both Jinan and Tungchow Incident? Its quite ridiculous. You must have seen the photo of Yomiuri Simbun's article, right? And after seeng it, you even removed it. But it reveals that media reported bizarre massacre had occurred just after it happpened. And many Japanese citizens had read it.
The record of inquiry which shows bizarre massacre had occured remains and many testimonies on both atrocities are recorded. Even if you can not find those in the world written in English, it doesn't mean that Both atrocity hasn't existed. You have to search Japanese or Chinese literature to find them. But China has been intentionally hided those atrocities, you may have difficulties to find it.
Last argument. I wonder why you edit and erase the atrocities only of which victims were Japanese. And why you wouldn't touch Chinese one. You ALREADY edited Japanese one, so why not to edit Chinese one quickly? If not, your editing style itself might be seen as POV .
--はぐれがらす (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The time ranges which I selected actually do have a specific reason behind them; they are intended to reflect the significant changes in Japanese WWII historiography which occurred in the 60s to 70s period, which led to considerable shifts in Japanese historiographic perception of the war, including re-definition of the war, including pre-1941 periods as a war, and not merely an incident, and also with a considerably more critical approach to traditional Japanese narratives of the war. The shifts in terminology usage which I demonstrated, especially the marginalization of "支那事変" relative to "日中戦争," reflects this change.
To be clear, also, I do not recall removing any of the pictures on any page, save possibly by mistake, and looking at the page right now, the picture still is there as well. A major problem with the proposed text, likewise, as I mentioned, is not just with the sourcing of the atrocities (which in any case are still documented on the relevant pages, I might add), but rather with the text, which conflicts with wiki guidelines on impartial tone and undue weight. You may have noticed, for example, that the Tungchow Mutiny page already makes mention of massacres, but that they do so without inserting a partisan tone through terms such as 'bizarre,' or the insertion of graphic and gratuitous descriptions which have the sole effect of tilting the tone of the article into the direction of political polemic. This does not mean that the atrocities should go un-mentioned, but rather, that they would benefit from editing such that the weight of text is equivalent to its relative importance, and to maintain an impartial and encyclopedic tone. I have revised the above disputed texts in a way below which I believe would reflect this, pending confirmation of reliable sourcing in those sources you list (JSDF et. al).
The Kuomintang (KMT) National Revolutionary Army (NRA) swept through China until it was checked in Shandong, where conflict erupted as it approached the city of Jinan. Confrontations occurred which culminated in the Jinan incident of 1928, during the Japanese military executed several Chinese officials and fired artillery shells into Jinan. Between 2,000 and 11,000 civilians were believed to have been killed. According to an inquest following the incident, Japanese civilians were brutally tortured and killed by NRA soldiers during the incident.
On the night of July 7, 1937, Chinese and Japanese troops exchanged fire in the vicinity of the Lugou (or Marco Polo) bridge, a crucial access-route to Beijing. What began as confused, sporadic skirmishing soon escalated into a full-scale battle in which Beijing and its port city of Tianjin fell to Japanese forces (July–August 1937). On July 29, some 5,000 troops of the 1st and 2nd Corps of the East Hopei Army mutinied, turning against the Japanese garrison. In addition to Japanese military personnel, some 260 civilians living in Tongzhou in accordance with the Boxer Protocol of 1901 were killed in the uprising (predominantly Japanese, including the police force, and also some ethnic Koreans). The Chinese then set fire to and destroyed much of the city. Only around 60 Japanese civilians survived, who provided both journalists and later historians with firsthand witness accounts. As a result of the remarkable brutality and violence of the mutiny, the Tungchow Incident, as it came to be called, strongly shook public opinion within Japan.
On a final note, I focus my editing primarily on Chinese history articles because it's an area where I have relatively greater knowledge and experience, and thus greater ease of editing. As with all editing on Wikipedia, I also make great efforts to ensure that the only constraint on it is compliance with wiki guidelines on reliable sourcing and NPOV. Thus, so far as I am concerned, it is not the nationality of atrocities which should dictate whether one or the other stays, but rather whether it can be backed up with reliable sources. To approach editing through a viewpoint of whether an article or sourcing is "Pro-China" or "Anti-China" or "Pro-Japan" or "Anti-Japan" is to go about editing in precisely the wrong way.Zmflavius (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Your revision is almost good. Thank you for contribution. But for more precise expression, I want to add two words in last sentens vof your revision.
As a result of the remarkable brutality and violence of the mutiny against Japanese civilians, the Tungchow Incident, as it came to be called, strongly shook public opinion within Japan.
As for final note, so called Nanjing Massacre is the subject of Chinese history, isn't it? I think you can contribute largely on the section.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The Jinan Incident etc.

You must provide sources for the information you put in Wikipedia; these sources must be accessible to other editors, so that the content of the sources can be verified. The sources that you provide must be reliable sources (see WP:RELIABLE for what that means). In the section on the Jinan Incident はぐれがらす added a picture of what was apparently an autopsy that had a link to JACAR, (the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, established under the auspices of the National Archives of Japan). The link you added was apparently mangled; it did not produce any text or even the picture itself. This is unacceptable and your edit was correctly removed, because you failed to provide a source. Even if the picture had actually shown up on the link, this doesn't mean it would automatically be acceptable. What is much more important is a reliable secondary source that verifies the information you have added in your edit. The Jinan section was originally sourced to Jay Taylor's book on Chiang Kai-shek, and it accurately summarized the content of Taylor's book.

In addition to the picture, your edit added a claim that Chinese troops committed "atrocities" against "hundreds" of Japanese civilians. This is in stark contrast to the content of Taylor's book, which was the source of the paragraph before your edit. On the pages cited in the article, Taylor states that at the beginning of the conflict on May 2 Japanese troops "fired artillery shells into parts of the city, killing hundreds of civilians." According to Taylor, on May 5th, Japanese troops arrested the head of the Nationalists' foreign affairs office, "claiming shots had been fired at them from his office. When the man refused to kneel or identify the alleged shooter, the Japanese cut out his tongue, gouged out his eyes, and then fatally shot him and more than ten of his staff members." Taylor also states that "According to various estimates, the Japanese killed 2,000 to 11,000 Chinse civilians and soldiers, while, by their own account, losing only 38 men." Taylor concludes, "The world was outraged by the arrogance and savagery of the Japanese actions. Prime Minister Tanaka worried that things had gone too far, and agreed to negotiations. Almost a year later, on March 28, 1929, an accord was reached in which both sides accepted responsibility for the incident, and the Japanese army was given two months to withdraw from all of Shandong province, which it did."

All of these claims are properly properly sourced in the article, so I was able to look them up. Taylor's book is carefully annotated, so I was also able to find his sources, which include both Chinese, Japanese, and Western accounts. Your claim is completely undocumented at this point. If you have a reliable secondary source which contradicts Taylor, you are welcome to summarize the source, indicating which pages your information came from so that other editors can verify you have presented it accurately. This article has many problems and could use help. But you cannot just add edits that vaguely talk about "hundreds" of "atrocities" against civilians without anything to back it up. You will get reverted. Again. Rgr09 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the link of picture of Jinan Incident was dead. I'll improve it.
But please do not make new section while another section already exists of which contents almost overlapped. Please. --はぐれがらす (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I mistook. The link doesn't dead. The picture you pointed out has its source in details. Please read it. The original is from "『山東省動乱記念写真帖』, 昭和三年, 青島新報』(1928)”.
Plus, JACAR's site can be see by PC, but not by mobile. So just try it. Your unacceptance is unacceptable.
On Tayler's book, do you know that Kuomintang and CCP has done anti Japan propaganda to their domestics and to Western countries by utilizing Western journalists and such kind of people? I would'nt say Tayler was utilized by Ciang. But I have to say excessive dependence on single Western person has risk of POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by はぐれがらす (talk • contribs) 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I can get to the JACAR link you posted: 日本軍の兵士の死亡状況・死因及び兵士の情報. This originally attempted to load the document in djvu format, which my browser cannot read. It took me a while to figure out how to switch to jpg format. The link does not present the picture shown on this page; it is an 11 page report on the cause of death of a number of Japanese soldiers at Jinan. They are clearly identified as soldiers, cause of death is identified as wounds from firearms, and they are stated to have died in battle. This does nothing to support your claims, and is also exactly the sort of first hand material that Wikipedia does not accept. Please provide another source for the picture. Where does the phrase 『山東省動乱記念写真帖』, 昭和三年, 青島新報』(1928) come from? Does it mean the picture is from a book, a newspaper, or what? If it does, what library or collection has a copy of the book, newspaper, or whatever it is? Rgr09 (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
As for JACAR's sourse, you seem to be right. But the picture's sourse isn't JACAR's one. It is the phrase "『山東省動乱記念写真帖』, 昭和三年, 青島新報 (1928)". To look the phrase, you have to click the picture, then you can see details of the picture. The phrase "『山東省動乱記念写真帖, 昭和三年, 青島新報』(1928) " comes from there as sourse of the picture. The phrase means the picture was published on the book "山東省動乱記念写真帖” by a newspaper company.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

recent edition

Based on recent editions, it seems this war is all Chinese false. From what I read, the bad relations between Japan and China is caused by Jinan Incident in which Chinese seems killed lots of Japanese civilians. The reason Japanese invaded North China in 1937 is Tungchow Incident- Chinese attacked Japanese garrison and killed Japanese civilian. Japan invaded east of China like Shanghai because Chiang Kai-shek attacked Japanese army. Japanese government had no choice but invaded China. Japanese invaded China is all for keep peace. It is all Chinese false. Then in section Battle of Shanghai, lots of contents are about how Chinese bombed civilian (I don't know whether they are Chinese civilians or Japanese civilians). Actually I did not see much about the course of the war or how they fight each other in this section. I think it is too many detail about bombing. If that, why don't we add how Japanese bombed Wuhan, Changde or other cities in section "Course of war". By the way, the sentences like "The Imperial General Headquarters (GHQ) in Tokyo initially showed reluctance to escalate the conflict...Chiang Kai-shek quickly mobilized the central" are totally non-sources. I did see any sources citation for this edition. Another strange thing is I see there is no photograph about rape of Nanking and unit 731 in this article but some photograph like Jinan Incident or civilian victims bombing by Chinese in recent edition. It makes me feel pov. Do we need to add photo about 731 or rape of Nanking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.200.8 (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Your arguments are entirely wrong, full of mistake and hostilities. Previous edits had putted all the faults on Japan. Those were inaccurate and had risk that someone like you who read this article thought all the bad guy was Japan. Recent edits are not the on way that leaving from the truth but on the way approaching truth. The way to more balanced description. Please never confuse the situation.
Tunchow incident occured after the beginning of Sino-Japanese war, not the cause of it. You are obviously wrong at this point. No one has claimed in such way.
The reason of the expansion of war in eastern China was also mentioned in the previous edition. Ciang KaiSgek decided it on the plea of "Japanese aggression" in northern China. If you doubt it, please read previous edits. By the way, if Islamic State lay siege to 30,000 US inhabitants in Iraq, how will you do? You won't "invade" Iraq? The Battle of Shanghai was the answer of Japan.
If you have any picture of "rape of Nanjing" or "731 unit", please edit yourself and show us them. You said as if "Rape of Nanjing" and "731 unit" are treated so lightly. But the real problem is in opposite side. They in fact are treated too heavily at present time. The existences of these things themselves are even doubted. All the pictures that were once said to be of Nanjing were fake. Even worse, the picture said to be of "Human Experiment of 731 unit" was in fact picure of inquest of Japanese victim of Jinan Incident. How on earth are you satisfied by bullying Japanese??
--はぐれがらす (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Please refrain from making accusations of "national bullying"; such comments generally suggest that you consider Wikipedia a battleground rather than a collaborative project. Discussion should be based on arguing facts, and minimising subjective interpretations as much as possible. To address your concerns, I'll try to explain a few issues, but if there are any parts that aren't clear enough, feel free to ask for clarification.

Wikipedia has various core policies and guidelines, and the issue of WP:UNDUE is one of them. You will need to understand that the overwhelming majority of English-language sources on this topic portray wartime Japan in the somewhat negative light which you often see on Wikipedia. Historians from North America and Europe generally focus on topics such as Japanese war crimes, and a significant volume is written about it, hence there is a lot of focus towards that area. At the same time, there are very few books written that argue contrary to the idea that events such as Unit 731 and Nanking occurred. Hence, there is a overwhelming consensus amongst western historiographers that such events existed.

Now, I am aware that there are various Japanese commentators and book authors which dispute the existence of things such as Unit 731 or the Nanking Massacre, and consider them as hoaxes, fabrications or propaganda. However, per the Wikipedia policies of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, the POV which is most recognised by academia is given precedence over fringe minority views. This is not an issue of Wikipedia bias, or a case of Wikipedia contributors actively seeking to undermine the reputation of Japan (as you seem to be claiming); this is the mainstream view amongst writers, and Wikipedia policy dictates that articles should follow the mainstream view. Per Wikipedia's verifiability policy, all content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by third-party reliable sources and should not contain unpublished synthesis; it is precisely these third-party reliable sources which affirm that these events occurred, and to argue otherwise would be to stray from Wikipedia's core policies. There are commentators out there who publish books which state that the earth is flat, however Wikipedia explains to readers that the world is round, since mainstream sources take precedence over fringe ones—the same concept applies to the issue of war crimes during World War II.

Even though you may consider one particular viewpoint to be the truth, and another viewpoint to be false, keep in mind that Wikipedia is built upon verifiability, not truth; it doesn't matter how true or wrong a viewpoint is in your eyes, if mainstream sources do not cover the topic in the manner in which you desire, it is a fringe viewpoint. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your argument that I see wikipedia as national bullying and battleground is wrong. On the contrary, I seek wikipedia to be an objective encyclopedia. But reality of Wikipedia is not. I just react the comment of user whose IP number 209.122.200.8's comment that apparently seems "national bullying". Thats all. All your comment is nothing more than broad interpretation. Please accuse the comment of the user 209.122.200.8 not to bully spesific nation and to be more objective. If not, your attitude is not fair. Your comment style itself to be seen as the "national bullying".
--はぐれがらす (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
If you suspect that anyone is "bullying your country", feel free to go to the WP:Village pump and bring your concerns over there to discuss. Otherwise, you are merely crying wolf. Such accusations are largely unhelpful and non-constructive; you should form your arguments objectively rather than making emotional interpretations. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Here, I've started a new discussion thread: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Can Wikipedia's coverage of the Nanking Massacre be considered "unfairly bullying the Japanese people"? Please direct all future concerns and points over there. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I see your second arguments. You want to say that the existence of Nanking Massacre and 731 unit already gain broad consensus, so wikipedia is written along with the concensus. But that is not what I'm trying to break. You misunderstand it. What I'm trying to do is just showing there are a variety of views. I have no intention to explode the mainstream view. But just introduce the variety of views. I believe this is the more scientific way than just showing only mainstream view.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem, however: Wikipedia has policies regarding fringe points of view, and the site-wide community consensus is that we generally recommend editors not to shift undue weight towards fringe viewpoints, especially if they are being brought forward by partisan sources. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Wiki does not inhibit introduction of "fringe" view, but inhibit to put undue emphasis on it. So, for example, such expression can be done ubder wiki rule, I think.
"Majority of historian estimate that between December 13, 1937 and late January 1938 Japanese forces tortured and murdered up to 300,000 Chinese (mostly civilians and surrendered soldiers) and raped tens of thousands of wom en during the Nanking Massacre (also known as the "Rape of Nanking"), after the fall of Nanking. As of 2015[citation needed]. While minority historians estimate there were legal execution of several thousands of guerrilla who pretended to be civilians"
--はぐれがらす (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Boxer Renellion and Japn invaded China?

Rajimaan repeatedly post that Japa invaded China and done atrocities at the Boxer Rebellion and are implying Chinese had enough reason to massacre in Tunchow Incident. But its fundamentaly ibaccurate. Qin dynasty required Western Powers to help to surepress revellion and, next declared war against West. Japan just participated in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by はぐれがらす (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to be honest, you aren't really competent enough to contribute to the English Wikipedia; this is barely comprehensible and rife with spelling and grammar errors. One top of that it is an attempt to introduce a revisionist, fringe point-of-view which violates the project's neutrality policy. None of your article additions can stand. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your arguments is totally unacceptable.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Let's not edit war over this. The disputed text is:

In addition to Japanese military personnel, some 260 civilians living in Tongzhou in accordance with the Boxer Protocol of 1901, which was signed after Western Powered and Japan stationed China during the Boxer Rebellion were murdered brutal ways in the uprising (predominantly Japanese including the police force and also some ethnic Koreans).

As opposed to this:

In addition to Japanese military personnel, some 260 civilians living in Tongzhou in accordance with the Boxer Protocol of 1901, which was signed after Japan invaded China during the Boxer Rebellion and engaged in atrocities and massacres against civilians, in the uprising (predominantly Japanese including the police force and also some ethnic Koreans).

GAB (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The opposite one was disputed text at first. Look at this text. Did Japanese alone "invade" China? Did Japan atrocitied during Boxer rebellion? This text is extremely in China side view. Not objective historical describtion.
Upper text based on historical facts.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
はぐれがらす, I'm not going to fight you on this. I am happy to discuss this here. As it stands, I'd like to fix the grammar, and I'm sure we can both agree on that. GAB (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I concede that I should not have reverted you. Tarc already reverted the original change, and that's where we should start. GAB (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see what you want to do. If you just fix grammar, tge why did you revert it without clear reason? If you understand what I wanted to say, maybe wevcan get along with.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing seen day in and day out in this project; fringe nationalist editors come here to "Right the Great Wrongs(tm)" rather than come here to genuienely contribute to an encyclopedia project. On top of that, every post and every article edit by this user is an atrocious butchering of the English language. Let's see a block on "competence is required" grounds and the problem goes away. Tarc (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, what you said is nothing more than my spelling, grammar and labeling as nationalist. If I am nationalist, then you are Chinese Communist agent because you refuse to admit Western Powers also fought at Boxer Rebellion. You just want to disgrace Japan according to China' s policy.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, please do not revert without rational reason. What you're doing now is the very "edit war". Please talk before edit.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have said before, you have been reverted because;
  1. Your point-of-view reflects fringe Japanese nationalism and is contrary to the accepted, mainstream, historical point-of-view found in reliable sources
  2. Your grasp of English spelling, grammar and sentence structure is well below the acceptable level necessary to contribute meaningfully to this project.
Also, I am a 100% red-blooded American who doesn't give two shits for a Chinese or Japanese opinion on the matter. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Even if I have a fringe of Japanese nationalist, why the expression "Western Powers and Japan stationed" had to be reverted? Your logic is entirely nonsense. I doubt how much do you know about the Boxer Rebellion.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
To user はぐれがらす, a SPA, I suggest you ply your trade elsewhere or you may get blocked soon on here. STSC (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
You seems to be right. There are few guys who are free from stereotypical thinking here.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Tarc repeatedly refused this expression on the Boxer Rebellion;

"Boxer Protocol of 1901, which was signed after Western Powered and Japan stationed China during the Boxer Rebellion"

And she rigidly revert to this expression;

"Boxer Protocol of 1901, which was signed after Japan invaded China during the Boxer Rebellion and engaged in atrocities and massacres against civilians,"

This expression is not only apparently against even the "mainstream" view of historians, but also historical facts. In addition, she said the reason why she reverted is "the fringe of Japanese nationalist". This doesn't make any sense. I think she knows almost nothing about the Boxer Rebellion and she should not edit this section until she gain more adequate knowledge. --はぐれがらす (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I will wait a week. Tarc wouln't talk on Boxer Rebellion rigidly. Miracle dream wouldn'y even talk but just sheme to block me. These facts has serious meanings. If they won't participate talk until after a week, I see a consensus has been made the expression on Boxer Rebellion.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no consensus. GAB (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Then just talk your opinion. Tell the parts of which you oppose to.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Judging by the drama on this page, I'd honestly rather not get involved. GAB (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What did you mean? You have nothing to say at least on Boxer Rebellion, right?
--はぐれがらす (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that I'd rather not get involved in such an unpleasant drama. GAB (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
If you are unpleasant, its OK not to participate discussion. But please don't do scabby activity such a revert ou block without talk.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

the variety of damage of Nanking Incident

The estimation of damage during nanking Incident varuies from 300,000 which well above the population of Nanking at that time to seceral hunmdreds legal execution of guerrilla. Whiy this section take one extreme view, 300,000 victims. This position of this section is extremely close to one extreme view. Its far from wikipedia's object.

--はぐれがらす (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep repeatedly bringing up the pre-war population figures for the city of Nanking, however I have told you before that such figures are irrelevant. If you read the citations and the texts within the "further reading" section at the Nanking Massacre article, you would have realised that in 1937, many of the people residing within the city of Nanking were refugees from Jiangsu province fleeing conflict following the Battle of Shanghai, and that these refugees number in the thousands. I am aware that one of the points commonly brought up by book authors associated with Ganbare Nippon and the Great Japan Patriotic Party is that the pre-war population of Nanking was fewer than 300,000 and so they allege that the death figures are fabricated, falsified or over-exaggerated, and hence dispute the factuality of the Nanking Massacre, however this viewpoint conveniently ignores many crucial points which would otherwise make the theory completely fall apart. Had the Battle of Shanghai not take place, there would not have been thousands of people fleeing to Nanking in the first place, and causing the number of dwellers within the city to significantly rise.

Prior to the Imperial Japanese Army securing the city, there was an estimated 535,000 to 635,000 people living within the greater Nanking metropolitan area, which includes the central city in addition to the surrounding suburbs and neighbourhoods (such as Xiaguan District). This figure doesn't even include the entirety of the Nanjing Special Municipality which consists of the six counties surrounding Nanking City, which adds up to a total population of 1 million people in 1937. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Other sourse says opposite view. Refugee escaped FROM Nanking, not INTO Nanking, because people knew there would be battle in Nanking. It was quite rational movement. A sourse says 250,000 Nanking people escaped to Hankou, 50,000 went to HongKong and 250,000 went to Shanghai! Because after the battle of Shanghai, public order of Shanghai was good.
Second, even if there were 500,000~600,000 population in Greater area of Nanking, and no matter how powerful Imperial Japanese Army was, it must have had extreme difficulties to "massacre" people who were so scattered.
Third, it is not only pre war population of Nanking city to contradict the number of victims 300,000, but POST WAR population also contradict the vicim number. At around December 13 1937, just before fall of Nanking city, the population of Nanking city was estimated 100,000~200,000. At January 14 1938, after Japanese occupation of Nanking, the population of Nanking city was 250,000. At September 23 1938, the popolation was 400,000~500,000. Population of Nanking had increased during several months after Japanese occupation. If there were large number of massacre, such population increase can be possible? No. Its impossible.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
This is the problem that you don't seem to understand; we're not here to argue and re-argue the points of contention about this event. Let me be clear; no one cares about your opinion about population figures and why this or that are (in your opinion) incorrect. This is an encyclopedia that follows the mainstream point-of-view, not the minority one. Tarc (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, what you have to know is the one who begin the argument on the population of Nanking isn't me but benlisquare. And What you seem not to understand is that this is free online wikipedia, not a rigid paper encyclopedia. Anyone can join and new edit comes one after another. If you do not want follow the trend, just do not join edit, do not revert with unreasonable reason without talk.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Um, no, you began all of this with the "this article is bulling my country" nonsense, and the continued insistence on introducing fringe opinions into the article. That is why your attempted edits were reverted, and will always be reverted in the future. Tarc (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, you have to think and talk specifically. The talk on population has nothing to do with the remark "bullying country". You have to distinguage the argument about the number of masacre and the argument Boxer Rebellion. Your argument is too vague that you concluded all what i say is fringe of "Japanese Nationalist". Be more specific and unbiased.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have said exactly what I meant; if that is not understood, then we're back to competence concerns. Every edit you have attempted to make to this article violated the core Wikipedia policy of the neutral point-of-view. Until you demonstrate a comprehension of that policy, there is nothing further to discuss here; you will just be reverted and probably eventually blocke for good. Tarc (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of competence, you obviously have few knowledge on Boxer Rebellion. And my past edit at least on Boxer Rebellion wasn't violation of neutral point-of-view. Rather your revert was the violation of neutral point-of-view. So if you revert in Boxer Rebellion section, it will be violation of the wiki rule, competence.
As for the number of Nanking Massacre, I already stated my opinion on wiki rule. So please read it carefully or benlisquare will reply it, I think.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There was human movement in both directions, both into and out of Nanking. The majority of those who could leave Nanking prior to the Japanese advance into the city were generally wealthier people who were able to arrange to be relocated to another city, in addition to those who were physically capable of fleeing the city on foot or on horseback. A large proportion of the people who stayed within Nanking following Japanese control of the city were indeed those who had originally fled to Nanking earlier, and either had nowhere else left to go, or were no longer physically capable of fleeing any further. Keep in mind that at the time of the Battle of Shanghai, many refugees considered Nanking to be "safe" since it was the seat of government and hence assumed that it would be well protected by the KMT army, and did not anticipate that it too would become occupied by the IJA. As a result, many of those who died within Nanking were not originally inhabitants from the city in the first place, and it was often the case that they took refuge in churches and schools run by European missionaries.

In regards to your claim that it would be "difficult" to engage in large-scale killings of scattered populations, without an adequate citation, I'm afraid that such a statement would amount to nothing more than mere speculation and original research. Finally, in regards to the population increases following 1938, the Wang Jingwei regime which was essentially the Japanese puppet state which operated within Japanese occupied territories established Nanking as its capital, and civilian manpower throughout the Japanese-occupied territories became diverted and concentrated towards the city. It's nothing unusual to have migration when there are prospects of food and employment, there's similar cases with Occupied France and Poland as well. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on the point that most of refugee who escape from Nanking were wealthier people. But in other points, I disagree.
The pre war transition of Nankning city population is such this; November 23 1937, 500,000. November 27 1937, 3~400,000. December 6 1937, 200,000. So this transition apparently shows that most of flow of refugee directed APART from Nanking, not INTO Nanking. Because people knew that KMT Army were very rude, took scoarched earth tactics, already killed many civilians. They never believed KMT would protect their lives.
The most of survivors of the fall of Nanking were the people who gathered in so called "Safety Area" where IJA promised not to attack, not in European church or school. They were the 200,000 people who remained after the fall of Nanking.
The quick increase of population after fall of Nanking shows, even if the governer was poppet of IJA, there were few time of massacre for IJA. If large amount of massacre had done, it was impossible for such rapid increase of population.
Last, please answer to my proposal what I already done at the section "recent edit".
--はぐれがらす (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

so called "Safety Area" where IJA promised not to attack

- and how many incursions did the IJA make into the safety area, based on eyewitness reports by American and European journalists, missionaries and nurses? The safety area was only that by name, and nothing more. It was something which allowed for domestic Japanese newspapers to write about, to spin the propaganda that the Japanese war was a benevolent and just one.

The quick increase of population after fall of Nanking shows, even if the governer was poppet of IJA, there were few time of massacre for IJA

- this is a complete non sequitur argument, the logic in your argument follows the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If large amount of massacre had done, it was impossible for such rapid increase of population.

- This makes no sense, are you aware of exactly how many people lived in China during the 1930s? Back then, China made up one fifth of the world's population. It is hardly an extraordinary feat for a rapid increase in population through migration, if any form of stimulus draws people from the countryside towards urban areas. After Nanking was destroyed, the puppet government led by the Japanese attempted to rebuild the city from 1938 to the 1940s, and this requires human labour. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
All of European eyewitness was not true eyewitness. They just heard at second hand. What they saw directly were just sweeping of guerrilla hiding out in the Safty Area.
Your argument on quick increase of population lack important factor, the human emotion. Who dare come to the place where 300,000 people were massacred just a few weeks ago? Its literaly impossible to gather 250,000 labor within a few weeks to the very place that everyone know large massacre just had been done. People had gathered Nanking city because they understood Japanese occupation was so well ordered.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Again we arrive at the same problem; your personal analysis is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles reflect What historians and other reliable sources say about this. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, its not my personal analysis. Its not irreverent. And again, you never answer on your knowledge about Boxer Rebellion. You should admit your rashness and accept my expression on Boxer Rebellion.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Then prove it. Bring reliable sources to this discussion that you think support your opinion. As for the Boxer Rebellion edit, do need a reminder as to what the addition was? ...Western Powered and Japan stationed China during the Boxer Rebellion were murdered brutal ways.... It's not English, terribly biased, and contrary to what actual sources say about the subject. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Even though you doesn't prove your own opinion on Boxer Rebellion as "mainstream view", you require me to prove something? You prove it first that your own view is not original but based on firm source. At presant, your view is nothing more than "fringe" of Chinese Nationalist.
My source is this; Kasahara Tsukuji, Nanking Incident, p220, US ambassador report, p50, John Rabe, p56, Bungeishunjuu, 1938, p193, etc.
So please show your sourse on Boxer rebellion. You are highly doubted on this issue that you reverted without any adequate knowkedge on Boxer Rebellion.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no need to provide a thing; the text of the article has been in place for awhile now, the burden is upon you, the one who desires to change it. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No you need have to prove it because you obsessed one particular expression, you required others to show sourses and what sentenses you rigidly keeping is just newly -added one by Rajimaan. So you have to explain why you keep so rigidly the expression of newly added one. You HAVE to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by はぐれがらす (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I saw the ping on the Military history talk page. はぐれがらす, it's relevant to mention that Japanese far-right nationalists have a fantasy version of what happened, but if you want to have it described as anything other than a fringe view, you need to support it with non-fringe sources. If the Japanese nationalist version is right on some fact, they surely would be able to convince neutral, disinterested sources, right? SnowFire (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Then how did you know that I used only fringe sources? Maybe your stereotypical thinking gave you some vague impression and you got one conclusion, just like "witch trial".
--はぐれがらす (talk) 22:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
We're at the revert, block, ignore stage with this user as far as I'm concerned. There's nothing to be gained by continued discourse with a fervent supporter of fringe, revisionist history. Tarc (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The user Tarc has almost nothing about Boxer Rebellion and she couldn't even understand what is fringe or not about Boxer Rebellion. So she has taken above mentioned tactics, ignore etc, to hide her own mistake and ignorances. Really scabby editor.
--はぐれがらす (talk) 06:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As around a half-dozen editors have opposed yo so far...including Binksternet, who I see is being harassed by you on his talk page...it may be safe to say that it is you who lack the expertise to partake in this topic area. By the way, any particular reason that you assume I am female? Tarc (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Tarc, Almost all of what you have been done in this page was just repeatedly saying my attitude is bad and I, my existence itself, am fringe. This is not where talk anout me but the volume of victimes of Nanking aincident. Please stop repeatedly wrighting irrelevant matters,
--はぐれがらす (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:STOPDIGGING. GAB (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Search Results

When you look up "second sino japanese war" in google, the combatant is Taiwan instead of ROC. Any way to fix this? 64.30.37.124 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Nazi Germany as China's ally against Japan

WP:SNOW consensus against listing Nazi germany as China's ally.Winged Blades Godric 06:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should Nazi Germany be listed as China's ally against Japan? Kiwifist (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • No: Name one reliable historian (or any historian for that matter) who considers Nazi Germany an ally of China against Imperial Japan. And not forget to mention that the dates are out of the range for when is war is mostly considered to have officially started. It was originally added to both sides by an IP in summer 2014 and removed by User:DCTT (who has never edited ever since) from Japan a few hours later with the reasoning "Nazi Germany never provided support to Japan in SSJW". This gives the impression that the Germans were Japan's enemies. No credible historian (or any historian) would say this. I've tagged it until a (reliable) source can be found saying that the Nazis were China's allies. It's undue weight if anything. Kiwifist (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No:Agreed with Kiwifist here as Nazi Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor in support of Imperial Japan. Nazi Germany also sent rocket plane and jet aircraft technology to Imperial Japan during the war too. Garyoak99 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Casualties

The estimate of 1.3 million Nationalist military deaths and 3.2 million overall casualties is, in light of the nature of that war, ludicrously small. One of the most detailed studies of the loss of life, Rummel's, lists various figures grouped under "high," "low," and "middle" estimates (https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/CHINA.TAB5.A.GIF). He not only lists the official KMT numbers, but also figures of 3,750,000 Nationalist dead and missing from 1937 to 1943, and 8,000,000(!) dead and desertions from 1937 to 1945. Another study, cited as "Ho 1959, page 251" gives a "middle" figure of 10,000,000 Nationalist casualties from July 1937 to August 1945. Since the Japanese and their puppet forces themselves suffered around 3 million or more casualties, it goes without saying that Chinese military losses must have been far higher.

The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)JumboCraft (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Chinese military losses confused with civilian losses, as a major portion of Chinese military was actually civilian militias. More information and research is needed on that issue, I've put that in as a footnote in the casualties section. Also during the war, many either civilians ran away or assumed false identities, entire Chinese villages fled west or escaped to the hills preceding the Japanese advance, 20 million civilian casualties is an absurdly high number, more research is need on that issue as well.

JumboCraft (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Absurdly high number from absurdly murderous troops. Japan wasn't exterminating the Chinese like what Hitler was doing in Russia, but the population of China was three times that of Russia and focused mostly in the areas Japan eventually occupied. In these respects, the number seems to be a fair estimate. Numerous scholars have tried to get an accurate count, ranging from as low as 7 million to nearly 30 million. It isn't an easy task. Scholarly consensus is that civilian and military casualties totaled at least 20 million. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. 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) 07:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

"Despite continuing to occupy much of China's territory...."

That statement is not correct, at least in terms of square miles. Japan occupied a small fraction of China's total area. It would be better to clarify or qualify this statement, as something like, "Despite occupying important areas of China's territory", or, "Despite occupying important ports and adjoining interior areas...". Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. 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) 06:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Second Sino-Japanese War. 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) 02:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2017

Grammar error, there is a missing period at the end of the section "Relationship between the Nationalists and Communists". Mickyshao2 (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Done  shivam (t) 09:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

IP edits on casualties

An IP editor, 24.244.200.2, has claimed that the casualty figures in this article are not correct. I don't think that this editor's contributions are well-founded; simply subtracting two million from an incorrect figure won't make it correct, for example. However, as they haven't chosen to use the talk page, I'm doing it for them. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If I don't see a counterargument pretty soon, I plan to restore the original figures. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Formal request has been received to merge the article Motives of the Second Sino-Japanese War into Second Sino-Japanese War; dated: May 2018. Proposer's Rationale: No reason to have an article stating motives for a conflict separate from the article on the conflict. Pinging proposer @ThaddeusStevens: Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge. Motives of the Second Sino-Japanese War is an unsourced personal essay. I've turned it into a redirect. -Zanhe (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

In the paragraph: Japanese atrocities committed against Hui Muslims

the following statements need sources: During the Second Sino-Japanese War the Japanese followed what has been referred to as a "killing policy" and destroyed many mosques. According to Wan Lei, "Statistics showed that the Japanese destroyed 220 mosques and killed countless Hui people by April 1941." After the Nanking Massacre mosques in Nanking were found to be filled with dead bodies. They also followed a policy of economic oppression which involved the destruction of mosques and Hui communities and made many Hui jobless and homeless. Another policy was one of deliberate humiliation. This included soldiers smearing mosques with pork fat, forcing Hui to butcher pigs to feed the soldiers, and forcing girls to supposedly train as geishas and singers but in fact made them serve as sex slaves.

I could not verify any of this with the sources provided, and would like to request for sources 217.162.108.63 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have added {{citation needed}} tags to the section mentioned. Fish+Karate 13:20, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The unsourced content has been removed. Could not find anything to confirm. Kiwifist (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

Remove Sun Dianying from the infobox, he was not a "country leader" or even a very high ranking commander (such as chief of staff, etc), just in command of on the the multiple army distrcits in the collaborationist army.

Furthermore, and this is really a separate suggestion from the one above, maybe it would be nice have a drop-down list of Collaborator leaders of the various chinese puppet states, to list them better without giving them too much space in the "normal" infobox. I suggest (note the "show" to the right):

Puppet Leaders

Which are the main leaders of the East Hebei Government, Provisional Gov., Reformed Gov. followed by the 2 presidents of Reorganized Gov. + Zhou Fohai, which had most of the "real power" (aside from Japan...) during Chen Gongbo's (2nd Presidents) rule.

Anyway, even if this list is not implemented, Sun Dianying should not be included in the infobox!! Havsjö (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: "...and French Indochina north of 16° north to the Republic of China after losing territory to China"

That last part of the sentence in the "Results" section of the infobox is very unclear. Why did France, another of the victors of WWII, loose territory to the Republic of China, it's ally? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:9BC0:251C:A1BA:1941:6D73:E76C (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Why remove the British empire from the infobox?

@Miracle dream:, I noticed you removed it, then added it back, then removed it again. What's your thinking? Cheers! Ganesha811 (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Found source to back up unsupported claim

In the "Foreign aid and support to China" section under "Allies" an editor wrote "From December 1937, events such as the Japanese attack on USS Panay and the Nanjing Massacre swung public opinion in the West sharply against Japan and increased their fear of Japanese expansion, which prompted the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide loan assistance for war supply contracts to China." There is no citation that supports this claim currently. I found a solid source that supports this claim at this page but I don't know how to add it. Someone please make use of this source to help make this article better!

Jlawdubs (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add Axis belligerents

Hello folks, I am proposing to add the following belligerents,

Thailand, due to Thai troops invading Yunnan province of China,see Battle of Northern Burma and Western Yunnan
Italy,due to the presence of Italian forces in Tiensin, China and the Chinese declaration of war on Italy on Dec.9th 1941, making it a de jure combatant.
State of Burma and Azad Hind, due to their participation in the Burma Campaign.
Korea under Japanese rule and Taiwan under Japanese rule as Japanese colonies, due to Korean soldiers deployed in China [1] and Taiwanese Imperial Japan Serviceman in China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.239.18 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Negative. The RS focus on China and Japan and properly so. The Koreans had zero voice in the matter. Rjensen (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
1)the infobox says the location covers Burma; 2) On many pages, colonies with zero voice are covered as belligerents, e.g. East African Campaign (World War II) and Guadalcanal campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.170.239.18 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Warfare History Network".

Shouldn't Germany be added to the Chinese side (as support from 1937-39), since they did provide advisors to train Chinese soldiers.

is the use of "oriental" correct here?

the bit which goes:

In China, the war is known as the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression (simplified Chinese: 中国抗日战争; traditional Chinese: 中國抗日戰爭; pinyin: Zhōngguó Kàngrì Zhànzhēng), or as the oriental theatre of the World Anti-Fascist War,

doesn't seem right, but I'm not from China and don't have the context to say whether it would more appropriately be known as the "eastern theater" or the "East Asian theater" or some other thing. From what little I know it seems that "oriental" probably isn't the right word. Wakeupgod (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The article consistently uses American English and therefore the inclusion of "oriental" is vulgar per the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words to watch because the word has an offensive connotation in the U.S. The Eurocentric "occidental-oriental" binary is also not specific enough to pertain to this article since the "orient" includes territories from western Africa to Oceania. If we want to be consistent with the source, we may want to replace "oriental" with "Eastern" to reflect the equivalent "West-East" binary, but I still think this is not accurate enough. In my view, "Asian" or "East Asian" would be the most precise and encyclopedic terms. 2601:405:4401:26F0:F042:6DD8:343:74FE (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Campaignbox for the Second-Sino Japanese War

I was directed here to voice my concerns regarding this infobox by other users. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Campaignbox_Second_Sino-Japanese_War&action=history

I do not believe the prewar fighting should be included in this infobox. The timeline should be for 1937-1945. Adding stuff before would be like adding pre-2003 events to the Iraq War infobox. As I see in the main article, there is a "Prelude" section, a background of sorts, to the main stage of fighting of 1937-1945, which is similar to the Iraq War page. While this info is informative in both cases for the main article, the Iraq War campaignbox does not contain pre-2003 events, yet the campaignbox for this war contains pre-1937 events. I believe those events should not be included in this campaignbox; perhaps another template can be made for them. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:1AC:A44B:D9DB:9099 (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Lead too long

Note lead should generally be four paragraphs Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Jontel (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We have 5 paragraphs, so it's not way beyond the "rule-of-thumb" suggestion. It could probably be trimmed a bit, but doesn't seem to be worth a call to action for focused effort at this point. --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
"a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs". What we have here is 5 large, rambling, not well-composed paragraphs, in serious need of contraction. This is an online encyclopedia and not an adventure story. 182.239.147.20 (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Too Long

This article is over 200 kilobytes long. As per WP:LENGTH, anything over 100 kilobytes "Almost certainly should be divided". Even allowing for references, pix etc, the article is too long and in need of splitting to achieve a reduction in size. 182.239.147.20 (talk) 10:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

No reply to this subject in 3 days so I have templated the article as "Too Long". 182.239.147.20 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What did the Japanese plan to do if they won the war?

There's no info in the article about this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies and other units of chinese forces" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies and other units of chinese forces has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Testimoines about combat actions of 8° and 4° Route Communist Armies and other units of chinese forces until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Combat actions of the 8th and 4th Route Communist Armies until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Testimonies about Effectiveness of Chinese Army until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"Kang Zhan" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kang Zhan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § Kang Zhan until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War/Archive_6&oldid=1188248493"