Talk:First Sino-Japanese War/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kservice78. Peer reviewers: Yaxsun, Velewilm.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Picture Needs More Context: beheading of Chinese captives
There's a picture illustrating Japanese troops beheading Chinese captives in the section Invasion of Manchuria, but this picture doesn't really fit in the article as is. It doesn't show a scene of combat, whereas the text around it doesn't seem to discuss anything besides combat. I think either the context of the scene and its relevance to the article needs to be clarified, or the picture needs to go.
Is this showing some atrocity similar to those of WW2 Japanese forces, or is it showing martial law enforcement? AFAICT the picture itself claims that the Chinese being executed are criminals of some sort in addition to being captive soldiers. The title of the picture is "(A Picture of) The Beheading of Violent Qing Troops", and I think the text in the picture says "...Qing troops' brutality, the likes of assaulting the Red-Cross hospitals and slaughtering the wounded, unable to move..." (lines 5-9) although I'm not sure I read it right because I'm not proficient in archaic Japanese. I can't read the rest of the letters in the picture either, the handwriting is too cursive.
Can someone add references detailing what the picture says, why this beheading took place, and what influences (if any) it had on the course of the war? Are there any verifiable sources indicating the nature of this beheading (WW2-esque atrocity, law enforcement, mixture of these, or something else)? If it's an atrocity, is there any analysis of how or whether the mentality underlying this beheading factored in the development of Japanese troops' savagery that were seen in WW2? --jun 81.224.73.100 (talk)
Taiwan colony mention
The transformation of Taiwan/Formosa into a Japanese colony resulted from this war and should be mentioned here, shouldn't it? Are any other editors, who might know more of the topic, active and willing to add it? If not I'll try to cobble something together. Thanks, -Willmcw 06:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote the Dutch version of this article, in which I briefly mention the subject. If I can find the spare time I'll certainly try to translate it and add it to this text.TijlVanpraet 01:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.50.162 (talk)
Rewriting the wiki
I'm trying to rearrange this wiki by the chronicle order of the three stages of the war - the war in Korea to suppress the rebellion, the war between Japanese troops and Chinese troops on Korea soil, and the war between Japanese troops and Chinese troops on Chinese soil. I'm expecting to beef this wiki up by twice its current content.
--Miorea 18:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Reasoning?
We seem to have a bit of a revert war going on here. Can someone who supports the inclusion of the word "easily" explain the basis for it, either here or in the article itself? Thanks. -- Visviva 12:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Genocide?
"Nov. 21, 1894 : Japanese troops took Lüshunkou (Port Aurther), genocided 18,000 people in Lüshunkou city." I do not think this would qualify as genocide. If it does, it don't like the word genocide as a verb (is it correct?). The crime is horrible as it is, no need for the genocide label. Piet 14:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
First Sino-Japanese War?
日清战争 or Japanese-Tsing War would be a more accurate term since there was no country called "China" or 中华 at that time.
I'm really not sure how much I like the idea of this article title being "First Sino-Japanese War." Firstly, I do not believe I have ever seen any text refer to this as the "First ...", only "the Sino-Japanese War". The event you presumably label as the Second Sino-Japanese War is, in my view, an element or a theater of World War II, and not a war unto itself. In any case, it just feels wrong to me. I'd be curious what others' opinions on this are. LordAmeth 03:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unless it's stated in one of the references, it can't be called "First Sino-Japanese War". There's a Wiki policy against original research here, if i remember correctly. Guapovia 10:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not quite true; we're certainly allowed to use common sense in article titles (which generally includes non-controversial numbering). The real question is whether this was, in fact, the first Sino-Japanese War; if it's at all questionable, we should be using the dates to disambiguate instead of the number. —Kirill Lokshin 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fairly accurate to say it's the first, in that there were none before it. However, the question remains whether or not there was a second. LordAmeth 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Seven-Year War between China and Korea vs Japan could also be considered a Sino-Japanese War, so the 1895 war is definitely not the first Sino-Japanese war. (Note lower case.) If you consider the Genghis Khan's Yuan Dynasty as Chinese, then the Mongol invasions of Japan are also Sino-Japanese wars. As for the "Second" - when someone talks about the "Sino-Japanese War", he is usually referring to the second! As for your question whether it exists or not... the war is
- Longer than WW2
- Known most commonly in English as "Second Sino-Japanese War"
- So I think there shouldn't be an issue whether there was such a war. (There was.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Google count for "Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)" - 2,260
- Google count for "First Sino-Japanese War" -- 22,400
- Ten times as may. That should answer your doubts, I hope? (And it's really sickening how few google hits it has.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- when someone talks about the "Sino-Japanese War", he is usually referring to the second! - simply not true. I have always always been taught about the Sino-Japanese War as part of the late Meiji modernization and Westernization, and as an important element of the rise of Japan into becoming a modern and major power, particularly as followed by the Russo-Japanese War. As I stated before, the Japanese involvement in China was part of WWII, even though it was longer and began earlier, it is still one element or theater of the larger conflict.
- As for your earlier examples, such as the Seven-Year War and the Mongol invasions, I have never ever heard anyone refer to those as Sino-Japanese Wars. That is, of course they were wars fought by China and Japan, but they have other names and are not referred to as the Sino-Japanese War.
- I apologize to continue being so contrary, but I must also say that I really don't believe your Google test shows what we want it to. What is important to determine (prove) here is that the war is more often called "The Sino-Japanese War" than "The First Sino-Japanese War." Throwing the dates in there skews the results dramatically. If you look at the Google results for the search terms "Sino-Japanese War -"First -Sino-Japanese -War" -"World -War -II"", it yields approx 218,000 results. And if you skim the summaries of the first ten results, every single one is about the 1894-1895 war. Keep skimming through the next ten, or the next ten after that, or the next ten after that, and you'll find that the majority of hits concern the 1894-5 war, and that those that don't mention the Second Sino-Japanese War as such, and not as "The Sino-Japanese War".
- If you really feel so strongly about maintaining the 20th century conflict as the Second, please at least acknowledge that almost no one uses the term "First Sino-Japanese War." Can you perhaps agree to concede at least that? Rename this article to "Sino-Japanese War," maybe with a disambig item at the top leading to the later conflict, and leaving the "Second ..." as is? LordAmeth 01:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Seven-Year War between China and Korea vs Japan could also be considered a Sino-Japanese War, so the 1895 war is definitely not the first Sino-Japanese war. (Note lower case.) If you consider the Genghis Khan's Yuan Dynasty as Chinese, then the Mongol invasions of Japan are also Sino-Japanese wars. As for the "Second" - when someone talks about the "Sino-Japanese War", he is usually referring to the second! As for your question whether it exists or not... the war is
- I think it's fairly accurate to say it's the first, in that there were none before it. However, the question remains whether or not there was a second. LordAmeth 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- That's not quite true; we're certainly allowed to use common sense in article titles (which generally includes non-controversial numbering). The real question is whether this was, in fact, the first Sino-Japanese War; if it's at all questionable, we should be using the dates to disambiguate instead of the number. —Kirill Lokshin 14:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- Some less Google-oriented results:
- Harvard uses "Sino-Japanese War 1931-1945".
- Phillips and Axelrod's Encyclopedia of Wars calls both the "Sino-Japanese War" and uses dates to disambiguate.
- I think the best idea would be to move this article to either Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) or Sino-Japanese War of 1894, and leave the other article as it is. —Kirill Lokshin 02:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Some less Google-oriented results:
- How about this? And I find the state ment an element or a theater of World War II, and not a war unto itself mind-boggling. So you're saying the Winter War and the Continuation War weren't also wars by themselves?
- That doesn't really prove much, except about how Yahoo! sets up its categories ;-)
- Another possibility, of course: searching for ""sino-japanese war" 1894" gives 49,300 hits, so I suspect the result above is being skewed by the presence of parentheses within the search string. Any site using, say "Sino-Japanese War, 1894-1895" won't match.
- This is pretty similar to a problem I had with the Italian Wars, incidentally; my decision there was to avoid any potentially confusing numbering in favor of using years (and thus things like Italian War of 1521). —Kirill Lokshin 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you've been taught, but I'm sure it doesn't mean everyone on the planet is taught the same way. As for the Second war, I'm sorry to say that it is only your opinion. I don't see how you can conclusively prove there was no "Second Sino-Japanese War". I specifically used the words "Sino-Japanese war" in my reference to the Seven-Year War and the Mongol invasions, to denote that it's not their proper names. You said, "there were none [Sino-Japanese Wars] before it", there certainly were but only 2 are called the "Sino-Japanese War"s, the rest having their own proper names (Seven-Year War etc). Also, following your google keywords, this page was returned. As you can see, the first link is about the 84/85 war. The second is about the 31-45 war. The indented link is a subpage of the second site. The third is about the 31-45 war, specifically Japanese war crimes. The fourth and fifth are about the 84/85 war, as are the sixth and seventh, but take a look - they both got their sources from the Columbia Encyclopedia, and list the name of the conflict as "Sino Japanese War, First". Eighth link is to the 84/85 war, and ninth link is to the 31-45 war. From the first page, 3 are from the second war (and that's in a search that explicitly prohibited any mention of WW2, 4 if the subpage is included), 2 are from the "First" war, and 4 from "Sino-Japanese War, 1894-1895" or variations of such. So I don't see how you can say that a) There was no Second Sino-Japanese War; b) Nobody uses "First Sino-Japanese War". -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think LordAmeth was arguing that there was no "Second Sino-Japanese War"; rather, he was making the point that the term is not universally used (which is true enough—"Sino-Japanese War, 1931-1945" is used quite often).
- Not really. He says it's not a war, just a theater or an element. BlueShirts 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- The two aren't mutually exclusive (see footnote 1 on War of the League of Cambrai for an example of just how messily things can be broken up). —Kirill Lokshin 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. He says it's not a war, just a theater or an element. BlueShirts 03:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- In any case, I don't really think this is the best place to debate that ;-) The only question here is whether "First Sino-Japanese War" is a better title than "Sino-Japanese War, 1894-1895" (or some variation thereof). —Kirill Lokshin 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think LordAmeth was arguing that there was no "Second Sino-Japanese War"; rather, he was making the point that the term is not universally used (which is true enough—"Sino-Japanese War, 1931-1945" is used quite often).
Yes, yes, let's get back on topic. From the google test, 6 of 9 pages are about the 84/85 war, and 2 of them refers to it as "Sino-Japanese War, First". This is from Columbia Encyclopedia. I hopped over to Encarta and it said:
- Sino-Japanese Wars
- Introduction
- First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)
- Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
- Undeclared War
- World War II
From Encyclopaedia Britannica, Treaty of Shimonoseki, "... Agreement that concluded the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–95)..." So there, I don't think one can say that "almost no one uses the term "First Sino-Japanese War."" Also a side mention, both of these articles have had their first&second removed and dates added to the titles before. They were changed back. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Same thing in Britannica for Taiwan (note, though, that Britannica uses "first Sino-Japanese War" rather than "First Sino-Japanese War"). Given that this discussion has apparently taken place before, it may be best to leave the article here and create redirects liberally. —Kirill Lokshin 03:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Look, I really don't care enough to argue with you over most of these points. It's just not worth the effort, on my part or on yours. We each have our opinions, we were each taught differently. So, please, set aside the issue of whether or not the 1931-45 conflcit was a separate war or not; I think we must agree to disagree. The real issue at hand that needs be decided is that I believe this article should be called "Sino-Japanese War" or "Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)" as a secondary option, with "First Sino-Japanese War" coming in a distant third. That's my personal opinion, based on how I was taught the names of the wars and their priority and relevance in history. Perhaps we should let someone neutral, like Kirill, decide, or put it to a vote among either the Military History Project, or the Chinese or Japanese notice board communities. What do you say? LordAmeth 18:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've already provided several sources from big encyclopedias that point to "First Sino-Japanese War" or "first Sino-Japanese War" or "Sino-Japanese War, First". I also mentioned the fact that these pages were once called "Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)" and "Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)", but have long since been changed back. If you feel that a vote is necessary (which I don't), go ahead and start one and inform the MilHist project. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Reply to lord meth: Voting doesn't do much because you don't know who are the people voting. First of all, your viewing things differently does not mean that all viewpoints should be presented. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean wikipedia (main portal for knowledge for lots of folks) should present what you say. Views are different, but some are more right (or wrong) than others. You will have to get that straight. What I was taught AND universally accepted is that:
1. There are two Sino-Japanese Wars in modern history. One between Imperial China (Ching, sp?) and Japan, and another between Republican China and Japan. Let's not get into the technicalities of whether the wars were declared or not, but each of them is a WAR onto itself, and there is really no point to "spin" the story and making them an element or a theatre like what you suggested. Heck, the Second Sino-Japanese War started in full swing in 1937, before World War II! By your analogy, we shouldn't call the conflict between Finland and the Soviet Union "Continuation War" or "Winter War" since they occured within World War II? How absurd!
2. Who taught you this history? Being ignorant of some facts doesn't disprove existence historical events but does disprove your lack of ignorance. Your suggestion look as if we should call WWI and WWII the Great Wars (1914-1918) and the Great Wars (1939-1945). Wouldn't you agree that this is also a bit absurd? 171.65.66.207 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, we're in the No Spin Zone:) I agree voting on such matter seems a bit inappropriate. BlueShirts 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Calm down, please. I'm sure he means well. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- He's splitting hairs, and not in a good way. BlueShirts 03:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
My university course in modern Japanese history ("Geschiedenis van het Moderne Japan", written by Willy Vande Walle and Hans Coppens and used at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium) uses the terms First Sino-Japanese War and Second Sino-Japanese War. I have noticed however, while doing research for a paper on the subject, that most (but not all) English works on the subject simply refer to it as the Sino-Japanese War. TijlVanpraet 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Note while the generally accepted Western dominated view is that WW2 started in 1939, I'm sure that there are some scholars, especially Chinese ones who feel it started earlier then that or at the very least, the Second Sino-Japanese war was a part of it regardless of when it started.
- More importantly, I have yet to see ample evidence that First Sino-Japanese War is the universally accepted term among scholars. Google searches are particularly bad as they tend to favour American POVs and also rarely get many scholarly sources. We need some more information on how the wars are referred to especially among scholarly sources and and not just in America but also in the UK, India, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with large English speaking populations and when referred to in English in other countries in the world especially Japan, China and Taiwan. Without this info, we can't really make a decision. However the evidence does seem to suggest that Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) is a well accepted term in the scholarly field. As such, it would probably be best to adopt a compromise of the two terms "First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)". Note your analogy of WW1 and 2 is extremely flawed and suggests to me you've gotten too emotinally involved. Everyone refers to them as WW1 and WW2. It would be stupid to call them anything else. However the evidence suggests that not everyone refers to this war as "First Sino-Japanese War" therefore it is completely different and comparing the two is rather silly. Nil Einne 16:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Full-scale wars between Japan and China are:
- 1. in Tang Dynasty(The Battle of Baekgang)
- 2. in Ming Dynasty(Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598))
- 3. in Qing Dynasty(The First Sino-Japanese war)
- 4. WWII China theater(The Second Sino-Japanese war)
Yuan Dynasty's "Invasions of Japan" didn't count as "full-scale" wars,
because Yuan Dynasty lost most their troops because of Typhoons and did little harms to Japan.--61.30.72.148 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
As this topic doesn't seem to want to end, I'll pitch in for pitching in's sake. As human beings, we learn to live with imperfections, in language and in other things. The name of this article covers the contents, as would the suggested alternatives. The name is not wrong, just as the alternatives cannot be said to be wrong in a definite sense. So let's make all alternatives refer to this article and never mind the name. Lafeber (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
What do we have to fix?
What do we have to fix in this article. Like I think it doesn't need cleanup.--User:englishfun
Crossbow?
Just a thought; I've read in several books (whose titles o-so-conveniently escape me) that the last true military use of the crossbow occurred during the sino-japanese war. I was wondering if someone more well-read than I might be able to clarify whether this was truth or myth.
- Most likely fiction. The repeating crossbow was used during the SECOND Sino-Japanese War by Manchukuo troops so you're likely looking for that. The first war was fought between relatively professional forces (Beiyang Army vs IJA) so it was pretty up-to-date in a manner of speaking. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
MilHist Assessment
A "B" seems fair. This is a fairly long and well-detailed article. It even has a chronicle of the war's events day by day. But it still lacks a certain degree of organization, and none of the sections or paragraphs seem to be particularly long. This is another topic on which entire books have been written. We can do more. As for the importance level, I placed it High, though I am tempted to move it to Top. As a Japanese historian, I'd say it plays a Top-importance role within the fields of Chinese and Japanese military history, but I would definitely respect the opinion that it is not that important to world history. LordAmeth 15:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Contractory to the comment of LordAmeth, The First Sino-Japanese War was the cornerstone of future Imperial Japan advances, rewarded the expanionist ego in Imperial Japan handily and provided essential finance for Japan in preparation for the Russo-Japanese War. It is the first critical step leading to Japan's colonization of Korea, and the eventual attempt to dominate the Pacific and Attack to the Pearl Harbour.
- If the outcome of the war reversed and Japan had to pay Qing 340,000,000 taels of silver, the world today will be a very different place. Thus, the war reshaped Asia and the Pacific political landscape in a way not many other wars had. 61.30.702.418 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- And if Princip didn't kill Franz Ferdinand, World War I wouldn't have taken place. Let's just look at the impacts of the events instead of the whole chain because the whole chain will always lead to the entire world's history. I concur with LordAmeth. Lafeber (talk)
- The First World War would have occurred with or without the Archduke's assassination, though perhaps at a different time and with different players. If it hadn't been the assassination it would have been some other otherwise inconsequential occurrence that would have been the spark. This is a brash digression from the topic at hand, however, and your point is still valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.50.50 (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
"A short, victorious war for Japan"
Isn't this section title far too POV? Perhaps a more accurate title would be events during the War, or something to this effect. Otherwise, it is no longer encyclopaedic. Jsw663 23:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've renamed the section to "events during the war", as well as edited the section to make it more NPOV rather than pro-Japan (e.g. emotionally charged words about how amazing / easy the Japanese victory/ies were and yet any massacre is 'alleged' - gives the wrong impression). Jsw663 23:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think this phrase is externally correct. (OsacA-Kanzai (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
The article seems a little biased
I am sorry to say that, in my opinion, the article (though very well written and informative), is slightly biased in favor of Japan. In particular, the undocumented statements that one of the Japanese intentions could just be to get Korea independent seem quite startling. What is more, the opinions expressed in the end of article which imply the sole Russian responsibility for the Russian-Japanese war (they are, again, merely private opinions, completely undocumented) suggest some pro-Japanese bias of the author. The author seems to underestimate a very strong imperialistic attitude which drove the Japanese politics already in the end of XIX century. The author should also remember (and, I think, he/she could explicitly mention this in the article) that the war was not the first Japanese attempt to conquer Korea. 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmaty10 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've attempted to rewrite at least the introduction section for more NPOV, but it was re-edited (to the pro-Japan version) by 124.180.133.240. It's been reverted now, but I'd like someone else to take a look and see what might need changing in the intro!AntarcticPenguin (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the comment User:AntarcticPenguin above,you should note inititially this war was motivated to get/protect influence and profit over Korean dynasty. counquest was not direct goal for Imperial Japan but profits of intenational trade.
For instance, you may study the process why it took 15 years from the diplomatic independence of Chosun until annexation by/to Japan. If the "conquest" had been the goal, why did not Japanese gov't directly do so ?
(You may broaden your Knouledge by referring to articles of Iljon-party, Lee Wan-yun, Empress Min, etc.)
However, Your opinion is more or less true for numerical portion. The war was not the 1st time for fighting borderline between Japan and Korea.
Let's count it again:
-until 6th century: ambiguous border was in southern Korea. (Both Chinese & Japanese achademism proves it but CURRENT ROK Korean gov't intentionally has been brainwashing the ppl not to focusing on the fact.)
-7th century: the 1st clear line was set outside the peninsula when Tang-Shinla allied army defeated allies of Baekje-Wa(kingdom of current Kyuushuu,Japan)
-13th century:the 1st line was violated by Kogryo(Korea)-Mongol(or 'Yuan',Sino-dynasty) allies, but Kamakura(Japan admin) defeated their ambition to let Japan become subject to Mongol/Yuan/Korea.
-end of 16th century: Taikoon Hideyoshi literally tried to conquer Korea. YOU ARE MENTIONING ON HERE ,RIGHT? Yes, you are right here. However, It seems the term 'couquer' is applicable only here.
-end of 19th centory: so-called '1st' sino-Japan war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.198.169.42 (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I believe the objective of conquest is less important to consider than the fact that Japan conquered the Korean Peninsula and caused damage to its neighbors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.126.220.9 (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The war objective for Japan was Korean independence and not Korean subjugation -- The end result of the war was Russian domination, Japanese domination did not come until after the Russo-Japanese war. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I believe the bias in the article is pro-Korean, not Japanese. The writing is attempting to vilify Japan rather then present history. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Footage?
How could there had been a moving footage of a naval battle in 1894? As far as I know, cinema only became practical in 1895. Interesting to know details about that file. Cheers, --CopperKettle 03:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- You made me wonder. So I found this article about Film which does credit the authenticity.Lafeber (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible that scenes like this are filmed before the birth of cinema in 1895. Jan Lindqvist, filmmaker. If wikipedia are controlling articles, they must be aware of this historic fact. Probably the film is from the Russian-japanese war c. 1904. Take away the video from here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.9.4 (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The video couldn't have been taken during the First Sino-Japanese War. The earliest footage of a war was from the Greco-Turkish War (1897) by Frederic Villiers, all of which has been lost. [1][2] The article's video comes from the Russo-Japanese War. Compare the explosion that begins in this Russo-Japanese War documentary with the article's which starts at 0:02. The smoke dispersal is identical.--Countakeshi (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
the whole thing should be done all over.
the whole thing should be done all over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John linner (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Title translations: better than Readability ?
Re Readability: it's a 'good thing'; and much better here for not having to climb-over stuff to comprehend the first line of the article. Re the Title-translations block: it's parenthetical and obtrusive to reading the first line---(where's the flow?); and it (ie, the block)can be slipped a little with no loss---say, to behind the first sentence period. Pls advise.--Jbeans (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sinking of the Kow-shing
When somebody firsts read that section, finds out that Captain Galsworthy had 64 crewmwn, whereas later it is stated that "The Japanese rescued three of the 43 crew". Is something wrong here, or what??--GeoTrou (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Convention of Tientsin
I have a source that claims that Japan was notified by China of its initial dispatch of troops and sent troops anyway, while the (sourced) part of the article says Japan was not notified.... which is correct? I believe Japan was notified, but I think we need more clarity on the question. Ottawakismet (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Muslim general zuo baogui (tso pao kwei) and his death at ping yang
North-China Herald article disparaged manchu soldiers during the sino japanese war while praising muslim soldiers under Zuo Baogui who fought against japan
Page 122
Her grandfather, Mu Zhifang, was the leader of the Hui (Moslem) people in Tianjin and once Vice Chairman of the Tianjin Political Consultative Conference. Her grandmother was the daughter of Zuo Baogui, a national hero. Mu Qiang said, "I ...
Title 记忆天津: 2004 : 天津建城600年 Volume 8 of 中囯摄影文化系列画册: 历史留痕 Authors 冯骥才, 张仲, 晓岩 Photographs by 王晓岩 Publisher 浙江摄影出版社, 2004 Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison Digitized Apr 8, 2011 Length 175 pages Subjects Tianjin (China)
German language books on muslims in china and general zuo baogui (tso pao-kuei)
English language books
Page 209
The distinguished general Tso, a Muhammadan, worked hand in hand with the missions ; and afterwards he remained a true friend of the Christian Church and the Bible Society until his death in the battle of Ping Yang, in 1894. On account of this friendship many Moslem Chinese have often stood by us and our colporteurs in time of need, when their help was most opportune. As a result of prolonged ...
Title The Bible in the World, Volumes 8-9 Contributor British and Foreign Bible Society Publisher British and Foreign Bible Society., 1912 Original from the New York Public Library Digitized Feb 8, 2011
Page 18
The first of these in order of time was the battle of Ping- Yang, a town situated near the north-west coast of Korea. Here the Chinese troops under General Tso attempted to prevent the advance of the Japanese towards the Yalu. By a series of ...
Title The Japan-Russia War Publisher Forgotten Books ISBN 1440090890, 9781440090899
Page 511
... officers been capable of the valor displayed by the general Tso-pao- kuoi, the Japanese would have been repulsed. ... On the very day of the fight at Pingyang, a number of Chinese war vessels, under the command of Admiral Ting, were ...
Title China Publisher Forgotten Books ISBN 144007447X, 9781440074479 http://books.google.com/books?id=_SE6d8poOb0C&dq=General%20tso%20ping%20yang&source=gbs_similarbooks
Mention of zuo's religion
http://books.google.com/books?id=OLtZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA472&dq=General+tso+ping+yang+mohammedan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vHa8UNaGAebV0QGh9oDIAg&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=General%20tso%20ping%20yang%20mohammedan&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=oUExAQAAMAAJ&q=General+tso+ping+yang+mohammedan&dq=General+tso+ping+yang+mohammedan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vHa8UNaGAebV0QGh9oDIAg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw
Incorrect news report confusing zuo baogui with zuo zongtang (who defeated yaqub beg)
Incorrect and error filled British report on zuo and muslims in general in the chinese army. The report concocts a false version of how the second dungan rebellion began, claiming they rebelled after receiving arms from the qing to fight japan, and states falsely that muslims are forbidden to reach above the rank of captain without apostasizing, while in real life muslims like Ma Anliang served as generals. Given that westerners themselves confused general dong fuxiang for a muslim two years later, it makes one wonder why these reports aren't consistent.
Modern sources
http://thechina.biz/china-economy/tomb-of-anti-japanese-general-found-in-jiangsubr/
http://www.dezhou.gov.cn/n690685/n690815/n712835/c926769/content.html
http://www.hewiki.com/view/21647.htm
http://www.travelshandong.com/cities/linyi/#attractions-tab
http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Asia/China/Liaoning_Sheng/Xinmin-995408/TravelGuide-Xinmin.html
http://english.shenmojiaoyu.com/miracle.php?rand_2139=1&page=2
http://www.koreanhistoryproject.org/Ket/C28/E2803.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=JebZ_bHjrbEC&pg=PA105#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=JebZ_bHjrbEC&pg=PA106#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=s4Lp8tgr3esC&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=PqEfltCevKsC&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.worldcat.org/title/hui-zu-kang-wo-ming-jiang-zuo-baogui/oclc/48247365
Zuo's bodyguard Lee Yong De 李永得 was a martial artist
http://wushuaustin.com/lineage
http://www.kungfu-wushu.com/history.htm
http://www.louis-chor.ca/dre.htm
http://www.louis-chor.ca/zuo.htm
Forums are not reliable source but a place to find them
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?/topic/9224-battle-of-pyongyang/
http://mtomato.net/bbs/home.php?mod=space&uid=800&do=blog&id=3272
chinese language sources on zuo baogui
Rajmaan (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
other events during the war
Page 3232
Field-Marshal Yamagata prepared to reduce Ping Yang, and at dawn on September 15, I894, the Japanese opened a ... General Tso Fonk Wai, commander of the Chinese Mantchoorian army, was mortally wounded and captured.
Title Recent foreign history Volume 8 of Library of Universal History: Containing a Record of the Human Race from the Earliest Historical Period to the Present Time, Embracing a General Survey of the Progress of Mankind in National and Social Life, Civil Government, Religion, Literature, Science and Art, Israel Smith Clare Compiled by Israel Smith Clare Publisher R. S. Peale, J. A. Hill, 1897 Original from the University of Wisconsin - Madison Digitized Sep 6, 2011 Subjects World history Miscellaneous
06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Chinese and english language records of the war
Title 中日戰輯, Volumes 1-4 中日戰輯, 王炳耀 Author 王炳耀 Publisher 靑簡閣, 1896 Original from Harvard University Digitized Aug 15, 2008 Subjects Chinese-Japanese War, 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War, 1894-1895
Title Note on the wounded in naval battles between Japan and China during 1894-5: with some considerations on sanitary conditions during the war : read before the 12th International Medical Congress held at Moscow in 1897 Western books on Asia: Japan Author S. Suzuki Publisher Printed by the Kokubunsha, 1897 Original from Harvard University Digitized Oct 3, 2005 Length 44 pages Subjects Chinese-Japanese War, 1894-1895
http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/左宝贵
Publi domain images of Zuo Baogui are availible here.
http://baike.baidu.com/view/21647.htm
http://baike.baidu.com/albums/21647/21647/0/0.html#0$
http://a1.att.hudong.com/13/16/01300000199819122415163476734_s.jpg
http://a1.att.hudong.com/85/13/01300000199819122415133965256_s.jpg
http://a2.att.hudong.com/80/21/01300000199819122415214512360_s.jpg
http://a2.att.hudong.com/66/25/01300000199819122415259701817_s.jpg
http://www.jiawuzhanzheng.org/wiki/1894-zuobaogui/
http://www.jiawuzhanzheng.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ac0acf137ae352475aaf53fd.jpg
http://www.qingjieqiu.net/zuobaogui.htm
http://www.qingjieqiu.net/pictures/zuobaogui.jpg
http://site.douban.com/houlang/widget/photos/7255213/photo/1523548827/
http://img5.douban.com/view/photo/raw/public/p1523548827.jpg
http://www.landong.com/ks_sc_ls_10_18.htm
http://ekuxt.landong.com/sctx004xt/855518829.GIF
http://www.linyitupian.com/zuobaogui.htm
http://www.linyitupian.com/pictures/zuobaogui.JPG
http://tuku.news.china.com/history/html/2007-08-30/3020569_456338837.htm
http://image.tuku.china.com/tuku.news.china.com/history//pic/2007-08-30/3020569_456338837.jpg
http://meili.lywww.com/2008/1107/50.html
http://meili.lywww.com/attachment/081107/42869ce627.jpg
http://www.aboluowang.com/2011/0802/214295.html
http://m1.aboluowang.com/life/data/uploadfile/201108/20110802025925389.jpg
http://m1.aboluowang.com/life/data/uploadfile/201108/2011080202592590.jpg
http://m1.aboluowang.com/life/data/uploadfile/201108/20110802025924625.jpg
http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/wq/2006-09/22/content_2514146.htm
http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/wq/2006-09/22/xinsimple_330701181218406215665.jpg
http://www.zwbk.org/MyLemmaShow.aspx?zh=zh-tw&lid=128793
http://img.zwbk.org/baike/spic/2011/03/11/201103110403119_1701.jpg
http://img.zwbk.org/baike/spic/2011/03/11/20110311040821353_7318.jpg
http://img.zwbk.org/baike/spic/2011/03/11/20110311040622415_322.jpg
http://www.ykxpt.com/newsinfo.asp?id=138
http://www.ykxpt.com/webcss/UploadFile/2010115113017944.jpg
http://jpkc.gduf.edu.cn/chist/lstp/pages/左宝贵_jpg.htm
http://jpkc.gduf.edu.cn/chist/lstp/images/左宝贵_jpg.jpg
http://www.eku.cc/xzy/sctx/115946.htm
http://vipftp.eku.cc/vrw/sc/sctx/855584932394.jpg
http://xq.feixian.gov.cn/index.php?c=MTI=&type1=96&sendId=864
http://s8.sinaimg.cn/middle/49bdbdeahc978684f9137%26690
http://61.175.198.133/mingrentx/295.jpg
http://61.175.198.133/mingrentx2/2012103142325.jpg
http://pinglun.iqilu.com/zonglun/dishi/dezhou.shtml
http://img5.iqilu.com/c/u/2012/0517/1337244790426.jpg
http://site.douban.com/houlang/widget/photos/7255213/photo/1523548827/
http://img5.douban.com/view/photo/photo/public/p1523548827.jpg
http://wenshi.dzwww.com/zhongbangtoutiao/201304/t20130428_8307837.html
http://wenshi.dzwww.com/zhongbangtoutiao/201304/W020130428370768770072.jpg
http://linyi.dzwww.com/tour/lyjq/pingyi/jq/2011/1128/48780.html
http://linyi.dzwww.com/dzwupld/allimg/111128/282_111128111645_1.jpg
http://bbs1.people.com.cn/post/60/1/2/133253855.html
http://bbs1.people.com.cn/postImages/21/3D/E0/1D/1379242205213.jpg
http://www.wxbf.net/person/lhz/image2/lhz10b2.htm
http://www.wxbf.net/person/lhz/image2/038.jpg
http://www.bobaow.com/u/10/article/46816.html
http://oss.bobaow.com/bobaow/upload/user/10/image/2013/09/18/20130918161550_23867.jpg
http://www.ai0539.com/bendi/info-46988.html
http://images.ccoo.cn/bar/2011919/20119199454727s.gif
http://bbs.hupu.com/6389419.html
http://i3.hoopchina.com.cn/blogfile/201309/15/13792344546354.jpg
http://bbs.voc.com.cn/topic-4641027-1-1.html
http://image.hnol.net/c/2012-10/12/15/201210121538052821-222325.jpg
http://www.qilumingren.com/info/news/content/2774.htm
http://www.qilumingren.com/images/12/01/15/7x6r46p2j1/67v2_image001.jpg
http://www.dzhzp.hk/clan.php?fid=ma7Ua2SUdKvc86kg
http://www.dzhzp.hk/avatar/avatar_big/d41720d26ac76a0847087736c16461a2_big.jpg
http://bbs.voc.com.cn/archiver/tid-1919564.html
http://image.hnol.net/c/2009-05/18/15/2009051815591526-1282730.jpg
http://bbs.iqilu.com/thread-2770598-1-1.html
http://img3.iqilu.com/data/attachment/forum/pw/Mon_1203/388_293360_42c6862f020a9d5.jpg
http://img3.iqilu.com/data/attachment/forum/pw/Mon_1203/388_293360_7658bd3004a248b.jpg
http://www.cnmhr.com/cnmhr/xysh/xyhd/sdbhcf/2010/05/13/1615065795.html
http://www.cnmhr.com/UploadFiles/xysh/2010/5/201005131615131812.jpg
http://chinese-bloggers.com/vanilla/discussion/1999/日本刻板画甲午荣耀/p1
http://club.history.sina.com.cn/thread-3977775-1-1.html
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_4211959_1.html
http://yanagi.blog.163.com/blog/static/419525920112131043993/
http://www.17u.com/blog/article/1256845.html
http://upload.17u.com/uploadfile/2012/06/12/6/201261219583042001.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/services/feeds/geo/?format=kml&id=75834250%40N02&lang=en-us&page=1
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5197/7051404659_b11b3959e7.jpg
http://wenshi.dzwww.com/zhongbangtoutiao/201304/t20130428_8307837.html
http://wenshi.dzwww.com/zhongbangtoutiao/201304/W020130428370716664972.jpg
http://www.360doc.com/content/13/0830/22/97838_311055888.shtml
http://www.tongfugroup.com/sitecn/mryz/
http://www.tongfugroup.com/uploadfiles/20111201124540645.jpg
http://blog.xuite.net/liben/history/46592850-淮軍的野戰重砲：French+120mm+Cannon+Model+1878
This Buddhist woman's maternal great grandfather was Zuo Baogui
http://www.drbachinese.org/vbs/publish/406/vbs406p042.htm
22:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
British aid to China
Medical aid
http://books.google.com/books?id=BswyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false
Military advising
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oy4_AQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA162#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=gLgz65blI7cC&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=pEfWaxPhdnIC&pg=PA269#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 19
http://books.google.com/books?id=_T5nAAAAMAAJ&q=must+crushed#search_anchor
Page 19
http://books.google.com/books?id=ob8sAQAAIAAJ&q=must+crushed#search_anchor
Page 162
Rajmaan (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Bias under 'Early stages of the war' heading.
Under the 'Early stages of the war' heading there is this statement: "6 June 1894: The Chinese government informs the Japanese government under the obligation of the Convention of Tientsin of its military operation. About 2,465 Chinese soldiers were transported to Korea within days."
The allegation that China did inform Japan that it was sending troops is by no means proven, and is the source, and justification, for the entire war. Unless someone can provide a source proving that China did inform Japan of her intentions, I am going to rewrite this to be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.28.87.20 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Unknown Japanese war movie (pre-1945??)
This is a Japanese movie dealing with this war, and it isn't any of the ones mentioned in the article.
I don't know Japanese, so could someone who does please add its info? Don't even know the title or year - just found it at random!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0pDIPsD_ZY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.211.131 (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- It's not unknown. If you want, you can use Google Translate to get information from Japanese wiki: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A9%E7%9A%87%E3%83%BB%E7%9A%87%E5%90%8E%E3%81%A8%E6%97%A5%E6%B8%85%E6%88%A6%E4%BA%89 Timmyshin (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Moves?
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- First Sino-Japanese War → Manchu–Japanese War
- Second Sino-Japanese War → Sino-Japanese War
- Sino-Japanese War → Sino-Japanese War (disambiguation)
– The Qing Dynasty is considered a foreign regime that occupied China.
- Article editor (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- START: Moved from Speedy Rename
- Object to speedy this is not whether the Chinese themselves considered their rulers to be Chinese or not, it is how English-langauge sources treat the name. This should be discussed at a full discussion. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- END: Moved from Speedy Rename
- Oppose Reason? Who calls it Manchu-Japanese War? But I would prefer to move it to Qing-Japan War or Japan-Qing War. Timmyshin (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this entire ORfest per WP:UCN (use common names). — AjaxSmack 02:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per my objection at WP:RMTR, this is not how the Chinese view themselves, it is how English-language sources treat the subject. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as per WP:COMMONNAME. The current names are the common names for these events in English language sources. The suggested Manchu–Japanese War appears to be a neologism. Googling for that phrase drew a complete blank. Nobody uses such a name for any event. Rincewind42 (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The first war is invariably called the Sino-Japanese War in reliable English-language sources. Nobody calls it the Manchu-Japanese War. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.