Talk:Taminato incident

NPOV

The article as it stands is not NPOV. It presents opinions as facts and uses questionable wording and weasel words. The sources cited are all Japanese: for an allegedly important historical incident, there is a remarkable absence of neutral or Chinese sources. As an aside, it cites primary sources, something which is generally considered inappropriate for Wikipedia.

To give just three examples of the above:

• "Assassination": it is a stretch to call the killing of a soldier by people of an occupied territory "murder", and "assassination" seems wholly inappropriate. I can only assume it is a literal translation from one of the Japanese language sources. If the article adhered to NPOV standards, quite possibly a different word would have been used.
• "In China at the time of the incident the anti-Japanese propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party was pervasive and the effects of this were continuing to spread.": The source for this rather sweeping statement is unclear, and heaping the blame for anti-Japanese sentiments on Communist propaganda seems to buy into the propaganda of the Japanese occupation during the war. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia, our related articles on this issue have much better and more nuanced sources that contradict it.
• pro-Japanese sentiment in China was reaching a low point: This statement is non-sensical. Chinese sentiments towards Japan during the war could only be described in terms of how consolidated the anti-Japanese sentiments were, the assumption that "pro-Japanese sentiment" exists at all buys into the propaganda of the Japanese occupation during the war, which is not surprising given that this statement is sourced to renowned militarist apologist and historical revisionist Shōichi Watanabe. A well known POV source like this, not balanced by a contrary viewpoint or a neutral, academic one, is not appropriate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

About the "assassination" point, yes, it doesn't seem like this soldier was politically important enough to say that he was "assassinated". There was legitimate anti-Japanese terrorism and assassinations (for example, an attempt on the Emperor) from radical Korean nationalists, but this technique was generally not seen in Chinese resistance. About the propaganda, I think it's a serious anachronism to say that there was some coordinated Communist propaganda effort against the Japanese during this time. After all, this was 1936, before China (being in a weak position) wanted to declare full-scale war, when it made serious accomodationist efforts. It was during the SSJW when Chinese propaganda efforts started, and this was mainly aimed towards Japan, in order to demoralize their soldiers by telling them that they're aggressors rather than liberators, etc. The unspoken assumption, of course (that you recognize) is that there was no need to whip up anti-Japanese sentiment among the Chinese when Japanese soldiers were breaking into peoples homes, looting, raping, etc.

"The Japanese were already broadcasting several [radio] shows daily in a variety of dialects on the continent in an effort to win over the Chinese.... Merchants appropriated many of these [Kuomintang New Life Movement broadcasts from the mid-1930s] to use in advertising, thereby gaining new clients, but it seems that the KMT eschewed employing radio for the express intent of resisting the Japanese. In sum, the KMT did more to promote burgeoning markets than it did to disseminate anti-Japanese rhetoric.... The initial CCP policy to protect Japanese POWs is well known, but this policy subtly shifted a year later, on October 22, 1938.... the new CCP policy now considered using Japanese POWs to speak in front of Chinese... allowing it to gain a following of Japanese POWs.... Throughout the war of resistance, from 1937-1945, and the subsequent civil war, from 1945-1949, the core of KMT cultural policy focused more on what it deemed unacceptable, rather than offering serious positive alternatives.... KMT propaganda plans against the Japanese started late in 1937 but were fairly disorganized and poorl maintained.... Nonetheless, in terms of arousing international opinion against Japan, KMT propaganda generated significant international ire." quoted from Kushner, Barak (2007). The Thought War: Japanese Imperial Propaganda. University of Hawaii Press. pp. 133, 140, 142, 147.

But yes, I also wonder about what "pro-Japanese sentiment" there was during the war. Japanese propaganda aimed at China appealed to anti-Western nationalism, and focused on using puppet collaborators like Wang Jingwei to carry out their aims. There was no "love Japan, we are blood brothers of the Altaic master-race" propaganda like towards the Koreans and Mongols. Clearly this article has serious POV problems, not least portraying Sino-German cooperation (continuous from the time of Bismarck) as some sort of Nazi collaboration! Absolutely incredible how somebody could twist the diplomatic balance in this way, when Japan was the #1 ally of Nazi Germany on the world stage. Shrigley (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This article looks like it has POV issues, but I honestly can't tell. The sources are all Japanese, but then the fact that this article only exists in English and Japanese Wikipedias seems to indicate that reliable Chinese sources have not given it much coverage. As a non-Chinese speaker, I don't know how to verify that. Discussion of the relationship between Nazi Germany and the Kuomintang regime of the time in a Background section does seem out-of-place. The word "assassination" is problematic, but we will need reliable English-language sources that give a different name for the event in order to change this article's title. A number of the above statements, though, seem to be equally flawed/grossly POV. To call the Chinese in Shanghai in 1936 an "occupied people under Japanese rule" is wrong -- this didn't happen until 1937. Japan also did not ally with Germany until a month after this event, and that alliance was conceived of by Germany as an "anti-communist" measure in the hopes that the Kuomintang would join in too. elvenscout742 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed: this article is basically a straight translation of the Japanese article, and that article's talk page has the article's author admitting that he/she based it principally on the writings of Shōichi Watanabe, an English scholar (not a historian) primarily known for having out-there far-right views on the Nanjing Massacre and other aspects of the Sino-Japanese War. Given that the incident only seems to exist (as an area of "historical research") in far-right Japanese propaganda pieces, this article may qualify for deletion. It is essentially a vehicle for propaganda, and therefore can never be made to meet NPOV. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP's notability policy states that "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." Right now I'm not seeing much evidence of this, especially considering that there's essentially no English sources for this event, and few Japanese sources. Is it possible to merge this content to another article? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The page is up for deletion here if you want to pitch in? :D A merge is problematic, since the only literature that does cover the event seems to claim it was a significant contributing factor to the breakout of the Sino-Japanese War. Therefore, that article seems the only natural merge location, but claiming it was a significant contributing cause there is definitely fringe/POV. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that this article wasn't ultimately put up for deletion, I have tagged it with POV. Do not remove the tag until the above discussion is addressed. Lathdrinor (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)