Talk:First Sino-Japanese War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] 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 Chiense 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Genocided is an inproper verb. It should not be used. Genocide is a noun, not a verb.

[edit] First Sino-Japanese War?

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 Lok s hin 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)

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 Lok s hin 02:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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 Lok s hin 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 Lok s hin 03:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did say that "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." I'd take that as a "It's not a war" statement. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 03:48, 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 Lok s hin 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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 Lok s hin 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/r/Talk%7EFirst_Sino-Japanese_War_5be7.html"