Talk:Second Sino-Japanese War

Derim Hunt and JArthur1984 edits

Derim Hunt deleted sourced edits because he said in his edit summary "I think, that is wrong..." and "I've never read of many things that are described in the Xinjiang section here..."

How in the world are those valid reasons to deleted edits which have sources? Then I can blank the whole article because "I think that is wrong" and "I have never read this before".

{{{1}}}

{{{1}}}

JArthur1984's edits are full with POV issues.

{{{1}}}

{{{1}}}

He replaced it with stuff he edited himself into the Operation Ichigo article and then copied into the Second Sino-Japanese article that is full of mistakes. He edited this easily proven false claim by a source who is not a military historian:

" By October 1944, Sichuan was the only large province still in Nationalist control.[13]: 19 "

{{{1}}}

? The entire Qinghai, Gansu and Ningxia provinces were still in Nationalist control. Shaanxi was entirely under Nationalist and Communist control. Guizhou was mostly under nationalist control and most of Yunnan too was never occupied by Japan. In fact, Japanese were expelled from the only part of western Yunnan they occupied in the battle of Tengchong while Ichigo was going on and Yunnan fully returned to Nationalist control.

Qinghai, Gansu, Ningxia, Shaanxi were never occupied by Japan at any time in the war, not even one county of them came under Japanese control.

The majority of Fujian, Yunnan didn't come under Japanese occupation. Only some ports in Fujian and a sliver of western Yunnan were and the Japanese were expelled from all of those parts by force.

{{{1}}}

The Nationalist government took complete control of Gansu (Hexi) in 1942 (from warlord control) followed by Xinjiang. Gansu was never taken by Japan:

"As discussed above, Chiang Kai-shek had balked at Kong Xiangqi’s 1938 suggestion of removing Ma Buqing from power, but four years later the central government was in a much stronger position in the northwest. In July 1942, Chiang ordered Ma to move his forces to the remote Tsaidam 柴達木 Basin and moved central government forces into the Hexi region. At the same time, Xinjiang governor Sheng Shicai turned away from his Soviet patrons and toward the Nationalist state, welcoming central government advisors and expertise into Xinjiang for the first time. Central government troops followed in spring 1944 (Lin, 2009: 203–205). Xinjiang and Gansu, linked by motor road in 1937–1938, were now politically connected for the first time since 1912—even if, as Justin Jacobs (2011: 385–88) shows, the Nationalist state struggled to follow up its rise to power in Xinjiang. The Northwest Highway was crucial to this Nationalist takeover. Between 1942 and 1944, the trucks of the NWHTA supported the key aspects of this expansion: takeover of civil administration, movement of troops to Xinjiang and western Gansu, resettlement of refugees, exploitation of the Yumen oil field, and the numerous surveying and prospecting expeditions to the region (He, 1944: 4–5).As discussed above, Chiang Kai-shek had balked at Kong Xiangqi’s 1938 suggestion of removing Ma Buqing from power, but four years later the central government was in a much stronger position in the northwest. In July 1942, Chiang ordered Ma to move his forces to the remote Tsaidam 柴達木 Basin and moved central government forces into the Hexi region. At the same time, Xinjiang governor Sheng Shicai turned away from his Soviet patrons and toward the Nationalist state, welcoming central government advisors and expertise into Xinjiang for the first time. Central government troops followed in spring 1944 (Lin, 2009: 203–205). Xinjiang and Gansu, linked by motor road in 1937–1938, were now politically connected for the first time since 1912—even if, as Justin Jacobs (2011: 385–88) shows, the Nationalist state struggled to follow up its rise to power in Xinjiang. The Northwest Highway was crucial to this Nationalist takeover. Between 1942 and 1944, the trucks of the NWHTA supported the key aspects of this expansion: takeover of civil administration, movement of troops to Xinjiang and western Gansu, resettlement of refugees, exploitation of the Yumen oil field, and the numerous surveying and prospecting expeditions to the region (He, 1944: 4–5)."

Most of Fujian was also under Nationalist control and west Hunan, south Jiangxi, west Guangxi remained under Nationalist control.

And in the case you try use sneaky logic to claim you only meant "large provinces" controlled by Nationalists and claim that the entirely Chinese controlled Gansu, Shaanxi, Ningxia aren't "large" (which they are), Sichuan by default is the largest province in China after Xinjiang (also under Nationalist control in 1944). Xinjiang is the largest and Sichuan is the second largest by its current area. If Japan never invaded China and nationalists controlled all other provinces occupied by Japan like Hebei, Jiangsu and so on, Sichuan is still the only "largest province" of China under their control (excluding Xinjiang). And as said Xinjiang was the largest province under Nationalist control in 1944.

What kind of logic is he operating on? You only have a single source for your claim that Sichuan was the only province under Nationalist control which is outweighed by multiple sources pointing out other provinces never fell to Japan. Even if your source was by a reliable historian (not by a military historian), he made a major mistake and is outweighed by multiple other sources and can be removed from the article.

And if you use the argument that all the other provinces were controlled by warlords, that's false. Gansu was under complete Nationalist central government control while Sichuan was shared by Nationalists and warlords.

Then there's this he add

"The 170,000 Nationalist troops defending northern Guangxi were largely unwilling to fight and units disintegrated.[13]: 21  Leaders of the Guangxi Clique like General Bai Chongxi deciding that that neither Guilin nor Liuzhou could be successfully defended and Chinese forces abandoned those cities.[13]: 21"

{{{1}}}

Operation Ichigo itself has a link in its intro to a sourced article about the battle over Guilin and Liuzhou, Battle of Guilin–Liuzhou but he didn't provide a link to that battle at all. He's misleading making it seem as though no battle was fought in those cities and they were just abandoned when there was a battle. There are sources showing that a battle was fought there.

He also deleted a statement that Japanese outnumbered Chinese at Hengyang by tens of thousands and suffered more deaths, both according to Japanese statistics and Chinese statistics, but he deleted it and just wrote that both sides suffered heavy casualties.

{{{1}}}

He also added a non-reliable source for casualty estimates, the authors are not military historians, "The Fear of Chinese Power: an International History". Maybe this source is good for history of Chinese diplomatic relations, military history is not the author's area of expertise. There are already casualty estimates in the infobox by Cox. Can this "historian" even break down how many soldiers were killed vs captured or deserted? Where did how did this "historian" estimate those figures?

{{{1}}}

He also added other assertions which are vague, like Japan controlling Henan.

{{{1}}}

Japan only controlled parts of Hunan, Henan and Guangxi after Ichigo, none of those provinces were entirely occupied unlike provinces such as Hebei, for the entire war. Japan even fought a battle trying to occupy the rest of Hunan in 1945 but they were defeated. Clarify what you mean. Controlling most of Henan? Controlling eastern Henan?

None of the sources like Parks M. Coble which he used were by military history specialists and one of his "academic" sources makes an untenable assertion that the Nationalists lost control of all China except Sichuan. They may be academics on Chinese diplomatic relations or historians focusing on business or journalism history but military historians should override all other sources on these topics. Coble's focus is on diplomatic, business and war journalism history. War journalism history is not war history, it's the study of journalistic reporting during wars.88thD (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You’re doing the same thing you complain of the other editor doing — taking issue with material because coming from a position of SYNTH, you say it’s wrong. But worse, you’re disagreeing with RS while ascribing silly motives to me in an uncivil way with things like “sneakily…”

Just get out your Reliable Sources and start adding sourced material. You’ve cited something which you say has a more precise description of provinces controlled. Feel free to take out the sentence you disagree with sourced to Coble and add that.

But this soapbox and your synth is not helpful. Bring forward the RS to support specific edits you have in mind, instead. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to give any credence to Parks M. Coble's views on this topic. Coble is not an RS on military history. Per Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_"equal_validity"_can_create_a_false_balance anything that's not reliable can be removed.

{{{1}}}

All of the things you cited to Coble need to be deleted from here. Don't edit war, I already challenged the reliability of your edits and you need to revert to the neutral version (the version before you edited) until you prove Coble is reliable.

Being a reliable source in one field doesn't make them a reliable source in another field. Coble's focus is own business history, diplomatic relations history and war journalism history, not war history. Just because he's published by a university press doesn't mean you can automatically use him as an RS on all articles.

Cite Coble on an article about journalistic coverage of the Second Sino Japanese war, on articles about reporters who reported on the war, not on articles about battles themselves. Prove that Coble has the necessary academic background to make statements on military history.

A completely qualified historian on pottery made in China during World War II published by a university press can mention World War II battles in passing in his book, that doesn't mean we use his book as an RS on articles about WW II just because its published by a reputable publisher and he has a degree. We use his book as an RS on articles about pottery.

{{{1}}}

The battle at Zhijiang was the Battle of West Hunan and it was the last major campaign of World War II to involved over 100,000 troops and resulted in Japanese defeat with tens of thousands of casualties. There's sources on the Battle of West Hunan page and there's more sources by military historians on the scale of the battle.

Coble doesn't mention anything else in the battle and in the rest of the book he portrays it as though Japan suffered no military defeats in China after Ichigo and Zhijiang was a minor skirmish, and falsely portrays Japan as withdrawing from Guangxi and Fuzhou all on their own with no military pressure due to losses from China.

Coble writes books on journalism history and diplomatic matters and he is not a military expert.88thD (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The original figure of 750,000 in ichigo came from this thesis by Samuel J Cox. majoring in military art and science at a naval academy in the US, "750,000 men had been either destroyed, rendered combat ineffective, or simply melted away, 2"

That is not the same as Coble's claim of "killing, capturing, or otherwise eliminating 700,000 Nationalist Chinese soldiers".

Many Chinese units in Henan broke down and the soldiers escaped without being killed or captured or their guns were taken by peasants as they fled which is why Cox clarified "rendered combat ineffective, or simply melted away", Cox did not imply that Japanese killed and captured 750,000 soldiers but included soldiers who fled from the battlefield and escaped and the Nationalist government was unable to recall them. That is why the Ichigo infobox includes " put out of action" under the 750,000 estimate and doesn't say they were all killed or captured.

Coble, who is not majoring in military science or military history unlike Cox, changed this figure into Japan killing and capturing all 750,000 soldiers. Coble is not a reliable source for this.

Coble makes an untenable claim that the Nationalist government only controlled Sichuan after Ichigo. Again Coble has proven himself to be unreliable and his area of expertise is not military history.88thD (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

You are making sweepingly broad statements based on things that are not inconsistent. You say Coble is not reliable because, you write, "Coble[...] changed this figure into Japan killing and capturing all 750,000." But that is not at all what Coble says. The proposition here is "killing, capturing, or otherwise eliminating 750,000." "Otherwise eliminating" necessarily means something different than the preceding "killing" or "capturing" -- otherwise it would not be separately listed.

Feel free to substitute the Cox thesis on this point if you suggest if you think "rendered combat ineffective, or simply melted away" is clearer than "otherwise eliminating". It's a good idea -- you were evidently confused by "otherwise eliminating" so it's reasonable to think other readers might be also.

Overall, you will be better off focusing on specific propositions and raising specific alternative sources instead of arguing these unnecessarily broad points from a position of SYNTH. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Coble is not a reliable source for these articles because he is not a military historian, his mistakes just discredit him even further. He makes inherently false statements like claiming the Nationalist Government only controlled Sichuan after Ichigo. Just because something is published by a university press doesn't mean its a reliable source on all articles, only on the fields the author specialises in. False statements like the one on Sichuan need to be deleted entirely on the Ichigo article as well, not just counteracted with other sources, which should also be edited into the article. I will edit provinces that were not occupied by Japan into the articles, but that's not for balancing his false statement on Sichuan. 88thD (talk) 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes

Jaimnk, please explain your edits. With your most recent edit, you have gone over the WP:3RR, and in the absence of any communication or explanation, you seem to be entirely ignoring the guidance at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, and that with your changes, you make the article's lede self-contradictory. Loafiewa (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't see this massage.

I am willing to explain my edit. In fact, the information of duration of the war on page "The Second Sino-Japanese War" is not accurate and clear. The previous information said that the war began in 1937, and the "minor" opinions say it was started in 1931. This expression is unclear and controversial. The truth is, from 1931 to 1937, there's local conflicts or a local war(局部抗战 in Chinese) since Japanese's invasion of Manchuria. And from 1937 to 1945, it's a total war or full-scale war.(全面抗战 in Chinese) So the entire war was from 1931 to 1945. I've gave the source.

Actually, i don't think i've engaged in an edit war, because i have no disagreement in opinions with you or any other editors. I just made some technological and normative mistakes so i tried to fix them according to your view. Sorry for my unacquaintance of rules of Wiki because i am new here. i think i've solved all problems if you don't have other things to say. Thank you for your guidance. Jaimnk (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

For the question about infobox, the reason i insist to add 3 different periods in "date" column is that 1931.9.18 and 1937.7.7 are both regarded as the beginning of the war sometimes. if we only write one of them, it'll be controversial. so i think showing both is necessary. if you think that's not concise, put one of them in the notes is also acceptable for me. but the word "minor" in note [a] of the infobox need to be modified because it's controversial: no resources support it's a minor opinion. use "local war" and "full-scale war" to distinguish between two periods is more accurate. Jaimnk (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

oh sorry i read it wrong. the note [a] says "minor clashes". but it's still controversial to only show 1937.7.7 as the beginning of the war, as i just aaid. use "the beginning of full-scale war" is more neutral. Jaimnk (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not really the case: 1937 is used by most sources as the beginning of the war. The infobox is for key information at a glance, summarizing the body: if there is controversy or nuance, it should almost always be left to the body of the article. Remsense诉 15:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

as the discussion is not replied yet, i redid the part that not opposed by you. i didn't modify the infobox because i want to discuss to reach a consensus. Jaimnk (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Article needs more on broad geopolitics.

This page needs more information on broad geopolitics instead of just military campaigns. For example Japanese capture of Amoy and Foochow is not mentioned because there was no military battle there. It's not only about the military campaigns. Alexysun (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Flags

Is there a good reason all the KMT commanders need two flags? Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Imbecile's lament

@Iallwayscomeback123, as the noted imbecile: the surrounding context is described well in prose, where it belongs. Like many other conflicts with timelines that are nuanced in this way, there is no need to problematize the date chosen by historians for our readers, or assume it is confusing as to require an explanatory footnote. It is merely needless clutter. Remsense ‥ 论 08:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh well thanks for the explanation, apologizes for the imbecile remark, it just seemed like dumb choice in my opinion but your augment makes sense. Iallwayscomeback123 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Remsense ‥ 论 09:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)