Talk:Battle of Chingshanli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

This article is really, really sad, as in sadly lacking in quality. It doesn't properly describe what happened (including events surrounding the affair), exactly who were involved (particularly the Korean side). Rather it's full of controversies and speculations, making this pretty much useless as a reference article.

Code4life (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Err... why am I the only person in the revision history? I didn't write this article!

Whitepaw 23:17, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

Who wrote this article? its very biased in Japan's view. Horrible...

Darkstyx 22:12, 2006 Jul 25 (UTC)

Ok, whoever wrote this article needs to clean it up. I am not saying that the Japanese did not commit the atrocities citied, on contrare, it fits the modus operandi of the era we are talking about. The main problems are that it is inconsistently written, largly from the 1st person (a major no-go for an encyclopedia) and what is there is unbelivably biased. Definitivky needs a looking over. ELV

[edit] A shameless copy?

Much of this article is a copy from http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1634.html, a web site cited as a source.

I don't know what kind of copy restrictions that web page has, but in the bottom it says "© Copyright 2002-2003 AFAR"... so I think this article, or a large portion of it, must be erased.--User:Negrulio

[edit] Objections to the Status Quo

  • Battle of Chingshanli is a POV title, since the battle was carried on between Koreans and Japanese. Especially when Koreans were victorious, shouldn't it be in Korean & why should anybody want the title to be in Chinese? Isn't there a Japanese title for this battle also?
  • Since they suffered from shortage of human resources and financial difficulties, they frequently crossed the border into Korea and raided people and officials who were mostly ethnic Koreans seems a little off from facts that I know.
  • All the sources are Japanese & pre-1990. Japan did not do much to acknowledge what happened during their occupation of Korea until ~2000. Out of so many better and more recent sources, why on Earth are we relying on these old junks that other users in the US can't check upon?
  • However, it has already been proved by primary sources that their claim is groundless propaganda. is called weasel word usage. This is against Wikipedia:NPOV policy. We don't use primary sources in Wikipedia. See WP:OR.
  • South Koreans refer to this battle as the "great victory at Cheongsalli" and believe that it was a decisive victory of the self-claimed Independence Army should be changed. The two sentences are repetitive & it seems as if the editor who put this phrase wants to emphasize the word "great" and "victory", as if s/he were aiming to show this childish arrogance that s/he belives all Koreans have.
  • Chaoxian duli yundong zhi xieshi by Bak Inseok (1920) states "900-1,600 including Regimental Commander Kano," Daehan Minguk jeongdangsa compiled by the National Election Commission (1964) "over 1,000," Hanguk jeonjaengsa by the Military History Compilation Committee of the Ministry of National Defense (1967) "3,300 dead and wounded," and Hanguk Minjok Undongsa by Jo Jihun (1975) "3,300 inclugin Regimental Commander Kano." Apparently the number of Japanese casualties have been exaggerated. Apparently, this is the exact reason why we don't use primary sources. Maybe, Koreans don't claim all these exaggerations, but you construct these Korean claims all yourself. I've never heard of this & I don't care.
  • NPOV policy states that not only should you present Japanese point of view, but also you should give Korean point of view as well. Additionally, I don't see too much problem with the casualties thing. I think that the editor who wrote this put all these POV claims out of spite. I believe that s/he is a Japanese nationalist & can't stand anything that could be considered a great loss to the inferior Koreans.
  • I'm reverting or deleting these edits that I have identified unless anyone who opposes my opinion should raise their voice. (Wikimachine 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC))


I say we must change the "Controversies" part. It's POV. As for the title, I say just let it be, since the place WAS in China, and we can just get by with the Hanja. - General Tiger


The casualties was 800-1,100 killed or wounded not 11 or 3,300 I would like that to be changed as well the title im fine with but the rest has already been adressed by Wikimachine thanks for adressing this after my request from this article the editer is Nanshu -Easternknight

I forgot completely about this.... I'll go ahead & work on the fixes right now. (Wikimachine 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC))
I demand the source about Japanese casualties(800~3,000or800-1,100). And, I demand the implementation of the thing that you said."you construct these Japan claims all yourself" --Opp2 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What does "All the sources are Japanese & pre-1990. Japan did not do much to acknowledge what happened during their occupation of Korea until ~2000" concretely indicate? I do not hear that new historical materials was discovered. What are grounds to which you assume them to be junk?
  • Let's practice "NPOV policy states that not only should you present Japanese point of view and but also you should give Korean point of view as well" and "you construct these Korean claims all yourself" at another article.
  • "s/he is a Japanese nationalist" I will think that such a smear word is a deception and emptiness.
  • "Apparently, this is the exact reason why we don't use primary sources" Daehan Minguk jeongdangsa, Hanguk jeonjaengsa and Hanguk Minjok Undongsa are not primary sources. Chaoxian duli yundong zhi xieshi also is not primary source because the author goes down to Shanghai, and doesn't participate in the combat at all. And these are also quoted in Sasaki's thesis.
  • "I've never heard of this & I don't care" Your investigation might merely be insufficient.

I am advising to you. Never quote Shin Young-Ha's thesis. --Opp2 16:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  • "However, it has already been proved by primary sources that their claim is groundless propaganda" This should be changed and be left. What about "However, their claim and primary sources are the opposite extremes."? This comparison is being written in Sasaki's book.I also have confirmed primary source.
  • Since they suffered from shortage of human resources and financial difficulties, they frequently crossed the border into Korea and raided people and officials who were mostly ethnic Koreans seems a little off from facts that I know. Did you really read the source that was able to be trusted? I want to know the source of YOUR FACT. They attacked the mail clerk and the farmer etc. A lot of the complaints had come to the Chosun Soutokufu. A miserable recognizance of six related groups remains. The statistical material of there crime remains, too.
ex.
March 18, 1920　穏城郡月城　美山洞
Mother of the 面長 is murdered, and it is a burglar as for 30 yen.
  • The title should stay the same. Because it is a territory in China now. In addition, It is not necessary to fight in Korean or Japanese.

--Opp2 18:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable References

(Wikimachine 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC))

The criteria of "reliable" is quite uncertain. --Opp2 15:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


This sight[1] is mixed Chaoxian duli yundong zhi xieshi and Daehan Minguk jeongdangsa. It is third below source.--Opp2 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you mean by this? (Wikimachine 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
The site quoted at second hand from Chaoxian duli yundong zhi xieshi and Daehan Minguk.There is no new information.--Opp2 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is more info. It mentioned those citations to meet due manner of writing. (Wikimachine 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
You might not know this topic well. There is no new fact. It is not new at all. Only, having copied it is only new. Is it a reliable source, and is the old material of Japan junk? What is your concrete criteria? --Opp2 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just an addendum: I don't know why Bak Inseok's book is referred to in Chinese, whereas it was in Korean. A little bit of background on Bak Inseok might be in order: he is an old time Korean nationalist who compiled the stories of Korean resistance against Japanese, mostly in Manchuria, which became the book mentioned in the article--its title can be translated as Blood History of Korean Independence movement. Many of the figures cited by Korean nationalist historians of the old days come out of his compilation--among others, the casualties during the March 1 movement and the activities of the nationalist fighters in Manchuria and Sino-Korean border regions. While the figures claimed in the book were indeed collected with a great deal of difficulty, it is nevertheless a book with agenda and perhaps not an entirely trustworthy source. For something like March 1 movement, where neither Korean nationalists nor Japanese military authorities had incentives to report truthfully on the death toll, the figures in Bak's book may have some relevance, but for something like this article, I'd rate official Japanese records (not articles) to be superior sources of information simply for the fact that military logistics requires that accurate records of personnel and equipment be kept. --h27kim 01:41 18 March 2007 (PST)

You say that "Out of so many better and more recent sources, why on Earth are we relying on these old junks that other users in the US can't check upon?" Double criterion?--Opp2 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Could clarify this too? Thanks. (Wikimachine 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Can other users in the US check this Korean language sight? Or, in Wikipedia, is the one that doesn't exist in the Internet a prohibition? --Opp2 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I never prohibited anything, and, yes, Wikipedians can get web pages translated. Or... they can learn Korean language. Is there something wrong? (Wikimachine 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Your one ground to deny the material of Japan is that US user cannot the check. May I think that this your ground is canceled? Then, what is your concrete grounds that you judged the material of Japan to be junks? I admit Shin Young-Ha's thesis is made a junk. Because he is intentionally misinterpreting material. Is there an intentional misinterpretation in Sasaki's thesis? Or, was new material that denied his thesis found? --Opp2 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a user in another country would not be able to access those reference materials that would be found in a prominent Japanese university's library. Furthermore, I added the emphasis on the fact that Japanese government did not welcome other theories about the occupation than the ones that their historians came up with - until the 1990s. The references are from the 1980s. So, they are very likely to be POV. (Wikimachine 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Where of the policy of wikipedia is it being written? It is your original standard. Is Japanese Government rejecting?　Is the concrete evidence about that? --Opp2 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Are not you misunderstanding no acceptance of Japan of the historical view of Korea? Are not you only assuming junk based on KOREA POV? --Opp2 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not a policy, it's my opinion. (Wikimachine 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
Do you assume junk only by your opinion? Moreover, you verify neither the thesis nor the book. I verified the thesis of Shin'yongha. Cancel assumption as Junk. --Opp2 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll withdraw my offensive description of the references as junks. Sorry, Opp2. (Wikimachine 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC))
I understand. I advise to you. The Korean did not touch this topic on the Japan-Korea translation BBS.--Opp2 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)