Jump to content

Talk:Imo Incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The title

[edit]

Bukubku (talk · contribs), can tell me why you titled the article as Jingo Incident on this Korean history subject? Both scholarly, and commonly, the mutiny carried by Korean army occurred in Korea is much more referred to as Imo Incident or Imo Mutiny than the Japanese name. I wondered why you also missed the Korean project banner to the talk page (you only put China/Japan banners).--Caspian blue 13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the incident title as 壬午事変, so I wrote "Jingo Incident". This page was the first time for me to creat new page related history, so I refered to other page. The page was china-japan related page. That's all. Soon Caspian blue (talk · contribs) added korean project banner. That's enough, isn't it? Are you accusing me of such a tiny thing?--Bukubku (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bukubku (talk · contribs), again, saying falsely things that I did not say constitutes WP:Personal attack. Where did you find my accusation from my above "question"? You have a tendency to distort other people's comment (including sources) and easily jump to pour such attacks as you did call me or any authors you do not like a "racist". Please do not do that.
FYI, the incident is more known as "壬午軍乱(亂)" than even 壬午事変 even in Japanese according to web searches. One of your source written in English does not even refer it to as "Jingo Incident". The title, categories, and banners are not tiny things because you mispresented that the article is only a matter of China-Japan as missing to put pertinent Korean categories to the article. You should've checked and research for possible titles on the subject before creating the article. People who want to know some subjects would have a difficult time to find them if they're named wrong or uncommon one. That is far from a "tiny thing"--Caspian blue 17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, both 壬午事変 or 壬午軍乱 are called. So what? One of my source written in English is also not written "Imo Incident". FYI, the incident was called 朝鮮事変 ("Chosen Jihen", Korea Incident) at that time. However soon other incident occured in Korea. Later, the name changed. I sometimes confuse other incidents, many incidents occured incoherence. I will study hard about Qing and Korea.--Bukubku (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only in Japan, it may have been called "朝鮮事変". Besides, your English source does not even mention about "Jingo Incident", so would you quote relevant passage from the book? The preview function of Google book does not provide anything of the page. Since you have demanded for direct quotes from sources I've used, you're obliged to do the same.--Caspian blue 17:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don't cite the title from the book. So where is my mistake? I wrote the title from Japanese(casualty) Wiki. FYI, Chinese (Suzerain) Wiki use the title name 壬午兵变. Talk politely, I don't need accussation from such a tiny thing.--Bukubku (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so excited about my request for quoting your English source? Since I can't access the book source via Google book preview, you're responsible for providing quotes that you've used for confirmation. Is it so hard for you? Why? You accessed the book source, so quoting it is very easy. Besides, That is not tiny things at all. Since you're disputing over "Empress or Queen", title is always very important. Your mistakes are already proven at the below thread. I have simply asked you for the reason why you placed the article with the name. I've talked very politely, so please do not say things that I did not say or falsely accuse. That constitute "personal attacks". Also you use the English source for this edit[1] in which does not say either Imo Incident nor Jingo Incident, how did find relevant contents from the book? Just give me your quote from the English source.--Caspian blue 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre and No Original research

[edit]

Bukubku, I could not find any mention about Massacre or Genocide from not only your sources but from mine. The killed people were not innocent civilians, but related figures to the incident. I recommend you to read the article of massacre because you mispresented the article regarding the mutiny with the unfit allegation.

On the other hand, could you quote for your claim that the China and Japan dispatched their troops for "saving Korean king"? I could not find such pertinent passage in your sources (of course not in my sources as well) which practice violates Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS again. You've already done several time on such things, so must be very cautious of sourcing. I corrected your wording by sticking to the attached sources.--Caspian blue 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide? I have never said such word in Wikipedia. Your words "The killed people were not innocent civilians, but related figures to the incident." is half right and half wrong. Half is Yes, they were killed by Koreans in the incident, you could say they were related the incident. Half is Not, there were students who studied Korean language. There is cabinet meeting document.[2] Certainly, there was Japanese Army officer existed who died for Korean modernization. The words "saving Korean king" is right. The rebel army was collapsed by Qing troops. Sadly, Japanse troops didn't reach Soeul in time, so Japanese troops could not save people. Because Japanese troops was not stationed in Korea.--Bukubku (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massacre - Again, you evade the main subject on your responsibility. Your answer only proves that you did intentionally insert the original research regarding "massacre". Your Keio University source does not say about "虐殺" (massacre) at all. Genocide is also loosely translated into 大虐殺 in Japanese and Korean as well. That is why I asked you to present the pertinent passage to me which you failed. Your source only does mention that "many Japanese were died and injured". (多数の日本人が死傷) The Chinese characters, 死傷 (died and injuired) are far from the massacred which you chose to describe their death. Per your wrong choice unsupported by your source, I assumed the Japanese source found a new fact in history that more than many "innocent" and "irrelevant" Japanese were died by the incident. Only 13 Japanese were died. Writing something beyond sources still constitutes WP:Original research or "uednverfied claims". Your source also says the the old Korean troop sought for the blame of the incident to the Japanese legation.
開明政策を支援していた日本公使館にも矛先が向けられ、多数の日本人が死傷
Since the blame (of the motivation for the incident) can be attributed to the Japanese legation which supported for the modernization policy, many Jpanaese were killed and injured.The note in the bracelets is my interpretation.
  • Japanese students - when you inserted the claim, you did not provide the new info on Japanese students who studied Korean language in Korea at that time of the incident The revolt was motivated by the old Korean army's opposition to "modernization" by "Japanese intervention". In the circumstance, I don't see that the Japanese students were "irrelevant" to the incident at all. Your new sources say that the reason of the death of the three student "戦死" (death by the war). According to a Korean encyclopedia, a Japanese student learning Korean was in charge for "translation" for the new troop under the Japanese military instructors.[3] So please "quote" exact passage from your new source.
  • The purpose of the Chinese and Japanese troops According to the Keio source, Japan was eager to do on Korean modernization to gain the power over Korea for their own sake. You also lied to the article with your edit that the troops from Japan and China were to save the Korean king. You violated WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:POINT again.
  • Japanese diplomat You also distorted as if Japanese diplomats were killed by the incident. However, your another "new" source says that they're "policemen" as well as my sources. You must acknowledge the definition of Diplomat. The Japanese diplomat fled to Incheon and went to Japan.
  • You have inserted original research to the article again as mispresenting sources. All discussions on talk pages and sources serve to provide comprehensive contents to editors and readers, so when you added Japanese or Korean sources, why don't you directly "quote" and type pertinent passages to here and the main article with English translation? Only a few people with Japanese knowledge who bother themselves to install the extra plug-in to their computer, can reach the primary sources. Since I've always provided "quotes" for your confirmation, I strongly suggest you to do the same here. Thanks.--Caspian blue 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian, you seem accomplished with English and Korean. And some Japanese and Chinese. Great!　I thought killing many people was massacre. According to you, in this case massacre is not suitable. I understand. thanks.
  • [4]p.6 left 陸軍外務両者上申故陸軍工兵中尉(Army lieutenant)堀本禮造外二名並朝鮮国二於テ戦死ノ巡査(policemen)及公使館雇ノ者(legation staffs; I wrote legation staff as diplomats. Is it wrong?)等(etc)靖国神社ヘ合祀ノ事　右謹テ奏　明治十五年十一月一日・・・
  • [5]p.1 朝鮮国ニ於テ戦死ノ語学生靖国神社ヘ合祀ノ儀上申　朝鮮國京城ニ滞在セシ私費語学生(privately financed language student)故近藤道堅並故黒澤盛信儀ハ本年七月我公使館暴徒ノ襲撃ヲ受ケタル際黒澤ハ館員ト協力防禦セント下部監練兵場ヨリ公館ヲ差シテ駆付ケタル途中暴徒要撃ニ遇ヒ奮闘其場ニ斃レ近藤ハ在館防禦ニ公使ヲ護衛シテ重？ヲ切抜ケタルヲ再度仁川ニ於テ襲撃ヲ受ケルニ及ンテ奮闘賊鉾ニ斃レタル段？ク一身ヲ棄テ危難ニ當リ國家ノ為メニ損命ヲ致シタル者ニ付出格ノ御詮議ヲ以テ故堀本中尉以下同様靖國神社ヘ合祀相成候致度此段及上申候也
戦死(death in battle) is glorious. They fought to the death, despite most are not military personnel. Caspian blue (talk · contribs), do you reject their courage? Do you wish they should have been killed without resistance?
--Bukubku (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're admitting that the students are relevant to the incident and massacre is your original research as well as your insertion of "to save the Korean king". What you think is totally irrelevant unless you publish academic journal or thesis and get some reputation from the field. Besides, the definition of diplomat not include just "staffs of the legation". It is so regretful to see that your continued original research prevents from improving the article in a correct way. --Caspian blue 17:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think legation staffs and diplomats is same or very closely. However Caspian don't think so, so now we are talking for seeking consensus. According to Caspian, your opinion collapesed in Woo Jang-choon. Where is the word "against the Japanese"? Your source write "Russianizm".[6][7] Why do you accuse of victims resistance. Do you think that victims have no resistance right?--Bukubku (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said enough, the definitions of the words; massacre, diplomats are totally different and what you think is irrelevant as long as you're not academic; that's why we should stick to sources. Besides, Bukubku (talk · contribs), you're currently talking with me, why are you treating me like a third person? That is not an etiquette in conversation. I also did not accuse the victims, so do not distort my comment here. Earlier, you said that they're mere students unrelated to the motivation of the incident but changed that with your new sources. That's why you're proving your original research. Besides, I'm so curious as to what is "Russianism"? You blanked out one reliable sources regarding the assassination of her (Sisa Magazine). You also evade the main subject again.--Caspian blue 01:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imo Incident. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imo Incident. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imo_Incident&oldid=1207703002"