Talk:January 28 incident

Garbled

The background section seems garbled. japanese military instigated anti japanese protests to justify the war? there are no citations for it so if there is no feedback i'll change it to an upsurge in ani japanese feeling. remove the whole bit about blaming it on the jap military
59.178.195.47 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Page 401

Failing to break through the Chinese defence from the eenter position, the Japanese suddenly changed their tactics ... detachment of the Cadets Corps and personally directed a counter-attack on the invading Japanese. ... more than 15,000 Japanese troops participated in the fighting during this extended and sanguinary battle and with all their modern artillery and air bo mbers, failed to dislodge one Division of Chinese troops after sustaining heavy casualties estimated at over 4,000.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RwYLiA8ehwcC&q=A+sanguinary+battle+took+place+and+heavy+casualties+japanese+detachment+raid&dq=A+sanguinary+battle+took+place+and+heavy+casualties+japanese+detachment+raid&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9kOxUKriKJCB0AG6tIBg&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ

Rajmaan (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese casualty figure

Currently there are two citations used for the Japanese casualty figure. Both are English-language sources.

One citation is Stephen Robinson's “Eight Hundred Heroes: China's Lost Battalion and the Fall of Shanghai”, which cites “Grescoe, Shanghai Grand, 923/8920”. This happens to be the other citation used.

Grescoe's work states "The cost, though, was enormous. The Japanese had boasted they could take Shanghai in four hours. The battle lasted for five weeks, and cost the lives of 3,000 of their best troops. The shelling, bombardment, and street fighting destroyed 85 per cent of the buildings in Chapei, and killed 10,000 Chinese civilians.” Taras Grescoe “Shanghai Grand”, page 134.

Unfortunately Grescoe's work does not include proper citations, merely notes, and thus there is no citation in the text to verify the origin of this figure.

In regards to this, I will be updating the figure to the claim made directly by the Japanese military in their official battle history. If one wishes to add Western and/or Chinese estimates, please be my guest, but I strongly recommend using works which include proper citations and to avoid double citing works for a single claim.

-Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Remsense could you take a look at the recent edits and give your thoughts on the neutrality of the presentation? The user who added it has made a string of edits relating to WWII and Japan that are worrying to me. I'll take a deeper look myself soon. seefooddiet (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention. I believe that my revised version is more accurate, neutral, and coherent than the previous one. I've provided more background information and specific details, used more neutral language, and increased credibility by citing first-hand academic literature of the time (rather than articles in the popular media more than 80 years after).

More details were provided, such as the request by the Japanese resident Association for the Japanese Navy to protect them, which explains the reasons for the Japanese Navy's involvement and helps to understand the escalation of the situation.

The timeline of my revised version is much clearer and more logically coherent, from the national anti-Japanese sentiment after the Mukden incident to the specific events in Shanghai, to the escalation of the conflict.

And Here's is some detailed analysis of the problems with the previous presentation:

"Japanese army officers, defying higher authorities, had provoked anti-Japanese demonstrations in the international settlement": This claim lacks concrete evidence and oversimplifies the complex overall situation. And It also seems to imply that the anti-Japanese demonstrations were caused by the specific behaviour of Japanese individuals and limited in the specified region in Shanghai, ignores the broader historical and political context.

"The Japanese government sent militant ultranationalist Japanese Buddhist priests":

This statement seems to lack solid basis. It may be inaccurate to attribute the behavior of religious groups directly to the government, and there is no causal relationship with the previous sentence, if not directly contradicts.

It seems to suggest that the Japanese government was deliberately trying to further stimulate the anti-Japanese sentiment that was already fanatic after the Manchurian Incident, rather than the opposite. This is logically unreasonable and contradicted the demands of the Japanese govt at the time.

And I avoid using words such as "militant ultranationalist", which carry strong value judgments and subjective overtones.

"The monks shouted anti-Chinese, pro-Japanese nationalist slogans in Shanghai, promoting Japanese rule over East Asia. In response, ...":

This description lack concrete evidence. It may oversimplify the reality and exaggerate the monks' behavior. So the phrase "according to some accounts" is used to introduce the controversial information, indicating that it may not be established fact.

"In response, the Japanese in Shanghai rioted and burned down a factory":

This description generalizes the behavior of the entire Japanese community and may not be accurate. Artificialrights (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1. First-hand sources from the time are even less reliable than recent sources, especially given the incentive at the time to push propaganda as people were fighting wars. On Wikipedia, recent sources are preferred over contemporary sources.
2. You seem to worry about Japanese people being generalized, but express no worry about generalizing Chinese people: 5 Japanese Buddhists belonging to the Nichiren sect were attacked by a Chinese mob as they passed a factory in Zhabei.. vs your modification: In response, some Japanese in Shanghai rioted and burned down the factory, killing two Chinese.. Your edits are consistently alarming. This isn't really ambiguous; you're clearly here to push POV.
3. I don't love the original wording; I think it's also biased pro-Chinese. But now I think we've swung in the other direction, bieng biased pro-Japanese. You've also introduced grammar and syntax errors.

Noting that you've also been engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing elsewhere. Extremely skeptical of what is being done here. seefooddiet (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1.First-hand information is better than information in modern mass media. As we all know, the narratives in modern mass media will be processed by the established subjective ideology of later generations. Moreover, certain statements from the original text do not have any credible source. And the content I added does not conflict with modern information. If you think I am spreading false information, please point it out, otherwise better to keep my edit rather than regurgitating opinions that are clearly not supported by evidence.

2. Sigh. “A Chinese mob", which clearly doesn't mean every Chinese here, despite fanatic anti-japanese demonstration at the time. "the Japanese" , which implys the whole Japanese community in Shanghai. The difference is clear.

3. I don't understand how can that being pro-Japanese? You can even throw two paragraphs of text to AI and ask them to judge the neutrality. Taking a step back, if you still have problem with my edition, surely you can change "some Japanese" to "a Japanese mob", don't you? Instead, you decided to completely revert to the original version and make very rude accusations against me based on your own subjective opinions. This is clearly a personal and not a factual approach. I think you edit style is very alarming. you're clearly here to push POV against me personally.

"Extremely skeptical of what is being done here"

Let's be honest: if I change 1+1=3 to 2, you will also undo my edit and claim 1+1=3, right? Artificialrights (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

1. This is not just my opinion. WP:AGE MATTERS You do not understand how Wikipedia works, you engage with others aggressively, and you keep making poor edits on controversial topics and asking people to fix your grammar, syntax, and POV mistakes for you. This is why I am being firm. If you started by making uncontroversial edits while learning how the website worked, I would be much more friendly to you. Instead you go right for the most controversial topics and demand to be accepted, and get angry at anyone who disagrees with you.
2. You don't understand why this is non-neutral. "Mob" is heated language that generalizes, and "some Japanese" is gentler language that attempts to avoid generalization. Really, both were "mobs" and "some". Can you see why this reads POV? It feels like you're selectively applying gentler language to pro-Japanese causes. Do not do the "sigh" thing. I have not once acted like that with you. Yet more WP:TENDENTIOUS discussion. I reverted you because the issues with your work are more numerous than worth dealing with. It is not worth the time to go through dealing with each individual detail, when the obligation is on you to get it right in the first place. Otherwise you can spray and pray 50 bad edits and 2 good ones, and demand that people fix all of your bad edits but the 2 good ones.
3. Explained above. The fact that you think AI is a reliable source or perspective here really screams that you don't understand how this website works. I am not obligated to fix your problematic edits for you. Do it right yourself the first time. If we're talking rude, look at the "sigh", the extremely condescending 1+1=3 example, and the demanding that others fix your mistakes for you.

I stand by everything I said. Stop engaging in this kind of behavior. I have no problem with making this article more neutral; it currently reads pro-Chinese. If you continue acting rudely, we'll go to WP:ANI. I'm pretty confident in how I approached this. seefooddiet (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You keep claiming that you have no obligation to fix my mistakes, I'm doing terrible editing on controversial topics (which aren't true in the first place), however you are unable to point out any definite problems with my editing, except harping on some highly subjective issues of so-called neutrality and tendency.

And based on these personal, completely subjective accusations of yours, you basically claim that my edits are basically trash, not worth taking seriously, and therefore should be rescinded without a second thought. Am I right?

The problem of your mentality is your basic assumptions are flawed, involving stereotypes and naked discrimination. That's why your following analogy is also completely wrong and inaccurate.

"you can spray and pray 50 bad edits and 2 good ones and demand that people fix all of your bad edits but the 2 good ones."

By the same logic, I could also accuse some wording of your edits of being unneutral or minor grammar issues (according my personal opinion), and then self-righteously roll back all your other edits. Right?

Besides, although this account is relatively new, it doesn't mean that I started editing Wikipedia on the first day. Artificialrights (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I already pointed out one problem in this comment. Other issues include changing wordings without adding sources to them ("aggression in Asia" -> "aggression in China", "officers -> "officer"), grammar, and removal of sourced information that reads unflattering to Japan ("rioted and burned down a factory, killing two Chinese").

And based on these personal, completely subjective accusations of yours, you basically claim that my edits are basically trash, not worth taking seriously, and therefore should be rescinded without a second thought. Am I right? No, and this has crossed over the line into rudeness and being overly aggressive. Disagreements over content are normal on Wikipedia and shouldn't get aggressive so quickly.

By the same logic, I could also accuse some wording of your edits of being unneutral or minor grammar issues (according my personal opinion), and then self-righteously roll back all your other edits. Right? If you saw me making large edits against Wikipedia policy and with numerous grammar errors (not just minor, and grammar is not really affected by opinion all that much), then yes you should revert me. "self-righteously" is rude and unnecessarily combative. seefooddiet (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Other issues include changing wordings without adding sources to them ("aggression in Asia" -> "aggression in China"

1.The original statement is a dubious view, with no source to support it. Given that Japan was at most at an informal war with China (Manchuria) at the time, it makes sense to replace Asia with China. Otherwise, just delete this unsourced statement.

removal of sourced information that reads unflattering to Japan ("rioted and burned down a factory, killing two Chinese")

2.If you actually read it, you will find that this sentence wasn't deleted at all, except that "a factory" was changed to "the factory", since this particular factory has been mentioned in the previous sentence. Artificialrights (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, both of those make sense. Second one is my mistake. I stand by the rest of my other comments; still grammar and spelling errors and you should fix that perceived POV issue I addressed earlier.

And finally, a reply that didn't involve berating me, sarcastic remarks, or aggressiveness. When you act like this, why is it surprising at all to you that people don't trust your edits? Wikipedia is in part based on reputation and trust. We don't all have the time or desire to go through and carefully revise your edits; that is a favor, not an obligation. seefooddiet (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, do you have other questions or suggestions about my revision? Artificialrights (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking—I want to make clear that I'm currently reading a lot about the wars in China during first half of the 20th century, so I'm acutely self-aware of everything I could understand better. In short, I agree that we shouldn't be citing sources from the 1930s here if at all possible. Remsense ‥ 论 01:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Except for the NPOV issue, many statements and opinions in the original text are dubious and unsourced at all. There are some sources elsewhere, but from articles in modern mass media rather than academic ones. Modern academic sources may have more comprehensive information that earlier scholars do not have, but 1930s-1940s sources are also valuable as they reflect first-hand observations, as well as the social atmosphere and public opinion at the time. They may contain details that modern people have missed and can balance possible modern biases. In any case, whether citing modern academic literature or sources at the time, i think it is better than retaining a lot of unsourced "factual statements". Artificialrights (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources statements are better than unsourced ones, but modern secondary sources are preferred. Editors shouldn't balance them with primary sources, interpretation of sources should be left to the historians. Historians writing about these events should be used, not first hand accounts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the citations I added are not first-hand accounts from 1932, but papers in academic journals from the late 1930s and 1940. It is a post hoc summary, review and analysis of the events by scholars. Artificialrights (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, my comments about primary don't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Which bit about the monks doesn't match the source in the lead says?

I'm sincerely curious about your edit, which has added many statement that doesn't appear even in the given source in the lead, while my edit only contains the statements about factual behavior. @Seefooddiet In addition, I'd also like to gently remind you that regarding the source cited multiple times in the lead, the overall tone and perspective of this online article (rather than an academic publication) seem extremely partial. Please pay attention to the neutrality and accuracy of that article. Artificialrights (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This is primarily due to the bit in the lead. The source used in the lead ([5]) says in explicit terms Deliberately seeking to provoke an incident, the Japanese sent five members of the Buddhist Nichiren sect into Shanghai. The Nichiren sect was ultranationalist, believing it was Japan’s divine mission to rule Asia. Framing this as "they were attacked" and only clarifying later that "some people say they may have been shouting anti-Chinese slogans" is much too gentle for what the source being used says. If you want to use that framing, find a different source that supports that framing.

The other bits in the body I'm more ok with; feel free to restore those. seefooddiet (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• • Regarding the accusation of overly gentle framing:** Don't you think this is just a your subjective opinion? You've already incorporated the presupposition and biases of that single-perspective article into your edits. This is hardly appropriate, isn't it? When you hold strong preconceived notions, simply stating facts becomes "non-neutral" or "too gentle". The source article conveys a strong implication that the monks should be killed, but this preconceived notion should not be introduced into Wikipedia.

• • Similarly, I could also arguue that your framing is too gentle in another direction because the source used in the lead says explicitly that "Chinese demonstrators crowded the streets, angrily shouting anti-Japanese slogans, and posters were tacked up that denounced Japanese imperialism or simply urged Chinese citizens to “Kill All Japanese.” therefore to claim that they were attacked only because they voiced nationalistic slogans is too simplistic and ignores the larger context of racial hate.

• • Inconsistency with the source: The phrasing in your restored version also contradicts the source: The source article doesn't mention the Japanese government, nor when did they arrive in Shanghai, only vaguely saying "Japanese". The source also doesn't describe the monks as "militant ultranationalists" or that they shouted "Japan's rule over East Asia" in Shanghai. It only generally introduces Nichiren Buddhism as a nationalist group (though the actual situation is far more complex). These are further emotional rendering based on a source that already holds a perspective.
  • Regarding the description in the source itself: The source article doesn't detail what constitutes the alleged "provocation"—was it the mere presence or arrival of Nichiren Buddhist monks in Shanghai, or unspecified remarks made during their religious ceremonies? I haven't found any information elsewhere indicate when or why these monks arrived in Shanghai, let alone the Wikipedia-original claim that they were specifically "sent" by the "Japanese government." The assertion that the monks were sent to Shanghai specifically to "provoke" lacks cross-verification and seems peculiar. Considering the large number of Japanese residents and people of various nationalities in the Shanghai International Settlement, it's unsurprising that Japanese monks and other religious figures had lived there long-term. However, under no circumstances do I believe this supports the narrative that they deserved to be killed. Please note that this is an unspecified opinion from a magazine article; please do not place unsubstantiated motive speculation and factual statements on equal importance in the framing, especially considering the article's clearly biased tone. Furthermore, note that the vague accusation of "Japanese intentionally provoking trouble" has been repeated to a statement already present in the preceding sentence.

Artificialrights (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• You keep using "that's your subjective opinion" as a general tactic when someone disagrees with you, but that argument reveals you still don't really understand how this website works. Literally every piece of writing and discussion on Wikipedia is based on subjective analyses. Unless you're working with math or pure logic, everything will be subjective. Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS; the more reliable sources and editors agree, the better. If you don't agree with my opinion, the solution is to get more opinions. I have no horse in this race; I care little about this incident. But that doesn't prevent me from understanding Wikipedia policy and what the given source is saying. On the other hand, you've openly admitted to having a leaning sympathetic to Japan. So if anything, we should be talking about your preconceived biases.
• I agree with you on most of these. Feel free to give it another reword, without excessively softening it like you did before. Stick to what sources are saying.
• I agree that the wording is not clear, that the existing wording could be improved, and that the source could be swapped for a better one. However, until you provide that better source, stick to what the current source says.

I said this in the ANI, but it's frustrating that you still don't know how Wikipedia works, as evident in your choice of arugments, but insist on editing some of the most controversial topics. seefooddiet (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's sort it out: we know that some Japanese monks were attacked on their way back from a religious ceremony in Shanghai, and according to the Chinese side, they were making "anti-Chinese" remarks. The above is a factual statement, which can be confirmed and cross checked in other materials.

As for the subjective motives of the monks, it is a difficult factor to determine, so describing it as a "deliberate provocation" is a subjective point of view.(Please distinguish the factual statements and subjective inferences. Based solely on the two facts of "making pro-Japan anti-China remarks" and "being attacked", the conclusion of "deliberate provocation" cannot be drawn). And the claim that "they were sent to Shanghai as provocateurs" cannot be verified in other materials, either. I found no other serious academic literature support the above 2 points. Therefore, this is not a consensus and highly suspicious. It is for this reason that I have removed this dubious statement from that particular popular magazine article that is only found in this non-academic literature and remain the rest of factual statement in a neutral way.

If you can find academic literature that says these five monks were sent to Shanghai specifically for the January 28th Incident, I agree to include the point that they were sent there. As for the "softening" issue you mentioned, it is arbitrary and selective, for example the article called the Japanese who burned the factory mob, and the tone is obviously inconsistent with the current neutral tone. If you are to strictly follow the tone of the magazine article, this entire entry is "too soft" on the Japanese side.

Is that OK for you?

Artificialrights (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is this: if you want to soften wording you need to do one of the following:

1. Find a new source that conveys that softer message
2. Clarify inline that there is disagreement about what happened. Don't only the most conservative possible narrative, present each of the narratives and ideally attribute the theories inline to specific scholars.

You claim that you can't find any other sources with these claims, but I spent like 5 minutes in Google Books and quickly found many. These are just the first few that I found that discussed the incident; I did not cherrypick.

I want to emphasize this up front: I am not interested in debating the merits of all of these sources. All I have to do is find more. My point of sharing these sources is this: I don't think you actually did due diligence in researching this topic because of how easy it was for me to find these sources. I think you are making assertions based on your own analysis of the situation and have a vested interest in softening the perception of Japan in this article.

[1] This is by Donald A. Jordan, a professor emeritus in East Asian History at Ohio University. See page 11. Thus, the notorious January 18 "attack" in Shanghai against the five Nichiren monks had been staged by Major Tanaka. He had paid Chinese to attack the Japanese monks as they exited the Settlement near the booming San Yu towel factory.

[2] This is by Alan Schom. A Japanese army officer then provoked a Chinese mob in Shanghai to attack a group of Japanese "Nichiren priests" (in reality, Japanese soldiers in disguise, yet again), some of whom were killed, providing Japan with the double excuse it sought.

[3] By Chinese professor Wenguang Shao (note that his ethnicity alone does not disqualify his opinion) The incident happened in the wake of a clash between some Japanese Buddhist monks and angry Chinese civilians in Shanghai, reportedly orchestrated by Japanese agents.

[4] By Tao Wenzhao The "January 28 Incident" was actually staged by Japan in order to divert international attention from its machination to set up Manchukuo puppet regime in the Northeast

What's clear is that, while the details of the identities of the parties vary, it seems to be at least a common opinion that the incident was staged by the Japanese army. Maybe it's best that we present all of these alternate narratives while attributing them inline to specific scholars, and also giving WP:DUE weight. This will be difficult to do appropriately. But remember: you insist on editing controversial articles. The burden is on you to try and get this right. seefooddiet (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, none of these theories (a Japanese agent inciting a Chinese mob to attack the monks) supports the claims in the original magazine article that The five monks who were attacked were sent to Shanghai specifically to incite the January 28 incident.

We could add a detailed introduction to the theory that these monks might had been victims of Kwantung Army agents in the main body, but the claim in the first lead is still baseless. Artificialrights (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Basically all of those quotes above support some version of that theory. I'm confused; how did you get that reading from them? seefooddiet (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

What I object to is the claim that the monks who were attacked were specially sent to Shanghai. The theories you cite are that Japanese agents incited, lured or bribed Chinese mobs to attack the Japanese monks. In the former, the monks were part of the plan. In the latter, the monks were unwitting victims. There is obviously a significant difference between the two. Artificialrights (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In the second one it says "in reality, Japanese soldiers in disguise, yet again". This suggests they were sent by Japan. seefooddiet (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

This claim is just his personal opinion, otherwise other scholars would not have widely called them Nichiren monks or Buddhists. Even in Chinese literature they are called monks, without quotation marks. (Some Nichiren monks might had close relationships with the military, such as providing voluntary labor, medical support, or serving as chaplains, I guess that's why he called them "Japanese soldiers in disguise". But what I want to emphasize is that I found no evidence that these monks (and their disciples) were deliberately "sent" to Shanghai as a part of greater plan, let alone "sent by Japanese government", though their deaths may have partly stemmed from the conspiracy of major Tanaka's private agents.) Artificialrights (talk) 08:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim has a note on it, but I can't access it. Regardless, I can't find many other sources that claim the monks were sent to Shanghai by Japan. If you reword it to remove that claim, I'll evaluate the new wording. seefooddiet (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)