Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*'''Japanese diplomat''' You also distorted as if Japanese diplomats were killed by the incident. However, your another "new" source says that they're "policemen" as well as my sources. You must acknowledge the definition of ]. The Japanese diplomat fled to Incheon and went to Japan.
*'''Japanese diplomat''' You also distorted as if Japanese diplomats were killed by the incident. However, your another "new" source says that they're "policemen" as well as my sources. You must acknowledge the definition of ]. The Japanese diplomat fled to Incheon and went to Japan.
*'''To sum up - You have inserted original research to the article again as mispresenting sources. All discussions on talk pages and sources serve to provide comprehensive contents to editors and readers, so when you added Japanese or Korean sources, why don't you directly "quote" and type pertinent passages to here and the main article with English translation? Only a few people with Japanese knowledge who bother themselves to install the extra plug-in to their computer, can reach the primary sources. Since I've always provided "quotes" for your confirmation, I strongly suggest you to do the same here. Thanks.--] 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
*You have inserted original research to the article again as mispresenting sources. All discussions on talk pages and sources serve to provide comprehensive contents to editors and readers, so when you added Japanese or Korean sources, why don't you directly "quote" and type pertinent passages to here and the main article with English translation? Only a few people with Japanese knowledge who bother themselves to install the extra plug-in to their computer, can reach the primary sources. Since I've always provided "quotes" for your confirmation, I strongly suggest you to do the same here. Thanks.--] 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:07, 24 December 2008
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Imo Incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 04:42, January 9, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Bukubku (talk·contribs), can tell me why you titled the article as Jingo Incident on this Korean history subject? Both scholarly, and commonly, the mutiny carried by Korean army occurred in Korea is much more referred to as Imo Incident or Imo Mutiny than the Japanese name. I wondered why you also missed the Korean project banner to the talk page (you only put China/Japan banners).--Caspian blue13:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I know the incident title as 壬午事変, so I wrote "Jingo Incident". This page was the first time for me to creat new page related history, so I refered to other page. The page was china-japan related page. That's all. Soon Caspian blue (talk·contribs) added korean project banner. That's enough, isn't it? Are you accusing me of such a tiny thing?--Bukubku (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Bukubku (talk·contribs), again, saying falsely things that I did not say constitutes WP:Personal attack. Where did you find my accusation from my above "question"? You have a tendency to distort other people's comment (including sources) and easily jump to pour such attacks as you did call me or any authors you do not like a "racist". Please do not do that.
FYI, the incident is more known as "壬午軍乱(亂)" than even 壬午事変 even in Japanese according to web searches. One of your source written in English does not even refer it to as "Jingo Incident". The title, categories, and banners are not tiny things because you mispresented that the article is only a matter of China-Japan as missing to put pertinent Korean categories to the article. You should've checked and research for possible titles on the subject before creating the article. People who want to know some subjects would have a difficult time to find them if they're named wrong or uncommon one. That is far from a "tiny thing"--Caspian blue17:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Bukubku, I could not find any mention about Massacre or Genocide from not only your sources but from mine. The killed people were not innocent civilians, but related figures to the incident. I recommend you to read the article of massacre because you mispresented the article regarding the mutiny with the unfit allegation.
On the other hand, could you quote for your claim that the China and Japan dispatched their troops for "saving Korean king"? I could not find such pertinent passage in your sources (of course not in my sources as well) which practice violates Wiki:No original research and Wiki:SYNTHESIS again. You've already done several time on such things, so must be very cautious of sourcing. I corrected your wording by sticking to the attached sources.--Caspian blue13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Genocide? I have never said such word in Misplaced Pages. Your words "The killed people were not innocent civilians, but related figures to the incident." is half right and half wrong. Half is Yes, they were killed by Koreans in the incident, you could say they were related the incident. Half is Not, there were students who studied Korean language. There is cabinet meeting document. Certainly, there was Japanese Army officer existed who died for Korean modernization. The words "saving Korean king" is right. The rebel army was collapsed by Qing troops. Sadly, Japanse troops didn't reach Soeul in time, so Japanese troops could not save people. Because Japanese troops was not stationed in Korea.--Bukubku (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Massacre - Again, you evade the main subject on your responsibility. Your answer only proves that you did intentionally insert the original research regarding "massacre". Your Keio University source does not say about "虐殺" (massacre) at all. Genocide is also loosely translated into 大虐殺 in Japanese and Korean as well. That is why I asked you to present the pertinent passage to me which you failed. Your source only does mention that "many Japanese were died and injured". (多数の日本人が死傷) The Chinese characters, 死傷 (died and injuired) are far from the massacred which you chose to describe their death. Per your wrong choice unsupported by your source, I assumed the Japanese source found a new fact in history that more than many "innocent" and "irrelevant" Japanese were died by the incident. Only 13 Japanese were died. Writing something beyond sources still constitutes WP:Original research or "uednverfied claims". Your source also says the the old Korean troop sought for the blame of the incident to the Japanese legation.
開明政策を支援していた日本公使館にも矛先が向けられ、多数の日本人が死傷
Since the blame (of the motivation for the incident) can be attributed to the Japanese legation which supported for the modernization policy, many Jpanaese were killed and injured.The note in the bracelets is my interpretation.
Japanese students - when you inserted the claim, you did not provide the new info on Japanese students who studied Korean language in Korea at that time of the incident The revolt was motivated by the old Korean army's opposition to "modernization" by "Japanese intervention". In the circumstance, I don't see that the Japanese students were "irrelevant" to the incident at all. Your new sources say that the reason of the death of the three student "戦死" (death by the war). According to a Korean encyclopedia, a Japanese student learning Korean was in charge for "translation" for the new troop under the Japanese military instructors. So please "quote" exact passage from your new source.
The purpose of the Chinese and Japanese troops According to the Keio source, Japan was eager to do on Korean modernization to gain the power over Korea for their own sake. You also lied to the article with your edit that the troops from Japan and China were to save the Korean king. You violated WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:POINT again.
Japanese diplomat You also distorted as if Japanese diplomats were killed by the incident. However, your another "new" source says that they're "policemen" as well as my sources. You must acknowledge the definition of Diplomat. The Japanese diplomat fled to Incheon and went to Japan.
You have inserted original research to the article again as mispresenting sources. All discussions on talk pages and sources serve to provide comprehensive contents to editors and readers, so when you added Japanese or Korean sources, why don't you directly "quote" and type pertinent passages to here and the main article with English translation? Only a few people with Japanese knowledge who bother themselves to install the extra plug-in to their computer, can reach the primary sources. Since I've always provided "quotes" for your confirmation, I strongly suggest you to do the same here. Thanks.--Caspian blue18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
