1434:
Monitor, and " MARTIAL LAW IN SHANGHAI" in the Daily Boston Globe, plus at least a half dozen articles in the
English-language China Monthly Review and articles in the Far Eastern Review). A number of previous commentators mentioned that the incident is poorly attested in English secondary sources, but that is only true of the historical literature, not in the media of the time which treated the incident very seriously. (Note, however, that many sources either didn't name the sailor killed or else erroneously called him Asamitsu Taminato) Regarding the historical literature though, it is true that most of the accounts mentioning this event have been written in Japanese. This is actually all the more reason why this article or a merged version of it should remain. Although well attested in Japanese secondary sources, people who can't read Japanese should also have the benefit of being able to learn about this event. Unfortunately, I'm not in Japan right now and I myself won't have access to the secondary source literature required to expand this article for at least several months. The university where I am at the moment doesn't carry the China Monthly Review either so I'm limited in what I can do at this precise moment. What I propose is that we either keep this article as it is for now, or else we simply re-juggle the information already within this article in order to create the new article.
593:
alone in the above. Further, having read all of your arguments, my response was to point out that you seem to have misunderstood what "reliable sources" means in the context of a
Knowledge (XXG) discussion. Coincidentally, you seem to have misunderstood or not actually read a multitude of other writings which I have endeavoured to direct you towards. If it is not too great a burden on your schedule, could I make so bold as to request that you make a further attempt to read these various documents, and if you do have any trouble understanding them, then please ask on the appropriate Knowledge (XXG) forum where I am sure that a kind volunteer will explain matters. Very regretfully, my attempt to help you by pointing at and quoting from these documents has failed to assist. It pains me greatly that I cannot suggest anything else for you to do, because I am certain that your refusal to read these documents is the cause of your multitudinous calamities, and I do not see how I can be of any service to you unless you yourself choose to enlighten yourself more exhaustively through a more exacting and rigorous perusal.
1550:
things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" which would not include an event like this involving an assassination, a massive troop deployment, and the military occupation of a city. Even so, there's still a lot more that can be added to the article but I'll need to get to the
University of Washington sometime later this year and consult their library in order to fill in the gaps. As stated earlier though, I'm open to merging this information at a later date into a broader article, but to write it decently will require more data than what I have at the moment. Most of the assassinations that took place during this period have their own articles on Japanese Knowledge (XXG) and I had been considering translating all of them sometime in the future, but to avoid future disputes over notability it might be better to merge them all into a single article for English Knowledge (XXG). At any rate, for the time being I think it is clear that this assassination is notable enough to remain on Knowledge (XXG) in some form.
1605:
I think the organization is okay as it is. As it stands, the background of the article refers to the string of attacks that led up to the fateful assassination, the assassination itself, and the ensuing occupation of
Shanghai and war scare. One could compare it to the article entitled Berlin Blockade, which mentions the division of post-war Germany, and then the blockade which subsequently sparked the Berlin Airlift. Furthemore, I doubt it was ever true that Shoichi Watanabe was the principal source of the article's information, and I suspect the author's article only said that to add legitimacy to his collection of primary source documents. At any rate, other secondary sources like Kojima Noboru's well-regarded multi-volume history of the Sino-Japanese conflict describe the assassination itself. I did get a hold this book recently and it appears that the article's description of its content is generally accurate, though next week I'll make some minor changes to the assassination section based off it.
1127:. Based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research, it seems like the only way this topic could be made into an article would be in an article about killings of Japanese military personnel before 1937, but it seems that that article would only be notable because of the way such killings are cited by writers of certain political persuasions as causes of the outbreak of the war - and such an article can only be made into an encyclopaedic one if there are neutral sources that give a fair assessment of such arguments. If such arguments are simply ignored by the mainstream, then it would be difficult to see how they are sufficiently notable for any article. In any case, that is already straying far from the current article, and it is difficult to see based on Phoenix7777 and Elvenscout742's research how the current article can be researched - hence my "delete" vote. --
1018:
286:
1449:
1535:
entirely and it would not change much. The two secondary sources which actually are consulted regarding the assassination were written by Noboru Kojima and
Frederic Wakeman, who are not extreme rightists. The only real problem with the article is its over-reliance on documents instead of secondary sources, but that can be changed in time. Unfortunately I only have a few books and newspaper records on hand right now, but I'll do what I can today with what is available to me to tidy up the article and replace the primary sources. This assassination was clearly notable because, as the article mentions, it caused an international crisis and war scare.
52:, with a possible aim at merging. This is a very long discussion that has been through two relists, and while it still remains a difficult one to close, it cannot linger on in the AFD process forever. The discussion contains a number of valid and invalid arguments. If we look at the valid arguments, the argument for deletion is that the article is largely based on a FRINGE source, and that the incident is otherwise non-notable as a news event. The argument for keeping is that the incident was covered internationally in the press, that other sources do exist.
925:. Deleting articles just because there is no English-language information about them will result in systematic bias. The proposer says that the Japanese-language materials don't meet reliable source criteria, but he/she has not made clear to me at least, why he/she thinks so, it just seems to be a hand-waving argument. The reliable source criteria don't discriminate on the grounds of politics of the author. The factual accuracy of the sources doesn't seem to be in debate.
126:
the "background" section still have validity and that parts of the article's content may be inappropriate because of that. A serious proposal was made during this discussion to merge this article together with other similar incidents into a more comprehensive article about the events in China during the 1930s prior to the war. Discussion of the merge option can be done on the talkpage, and does not require the continuation of this AFD discussion.
1392:
that qualify as secondary sources, including by mainstream historians like Usui Kasumi and Kojima Noboru. However, the incident is always put in the context of the spree murders that took place during this period, which were orchestrated by
Chinese "patriots" who were taking matters into their own hands due to their government's inaction towards Japanese encroachments. Among them were "the king of assassins"
1286:'s thinking on this matter. The killing of Japanese personnel in the run up to the Sino-Japanese war may be notable material within an article on the causes of the war, and views on the personnel may be notable material within an article on the modern perspective of the relations between the countries, but I don't see the evidence that this single incident is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article.
1057:- Thanks for the English sources Phoenix7777. It looks like the incident described in the article was not the only murder of a Japanese in Shanghai prior to the war. A lot of these sources list several similar incidents. Something we could do is make a new article that lists these incidents, and the Taminato incident can be included as one of them. --
313:- the incident appears to be notable, judging from the references supplied in the nomination for deletion. The article seems a bit creepy in its tone, but certainly not more than the many other POV articles which are so furiously defended by POV-pushers on Knowledge (XXG). POV isn't a ground for deletion. This seems to be a case of
1549:
Okay, this is about as good as I can do with what I had on hand. The sources are newspaper articles, but it seems to me that this does not fall within the "Knowledge (XXG) is not a news outlet" clause. This clause was intended to prevent the creation of articles relating to "routine news reporting on
104:
section of the verifiability policy encourages
English sourcing when that is available as they are presumed to be more accessible and thus more useful for the average reader. However, if that isn't possible, foreign language sources may be used, and the mere fact that they are in other languages does
1604:
We could call it the "Taminato
Incident", which was one of a few names the Japanese government used to describe it, a characterisically vague name similar to Manchurian Incident or February 26 Incident. I will change the article to mention the troop deployment in the introduction of the article, but
1074:
I like this solution, although given that the
English sources are all still propaganda I wonder about the notability of the other incidents as well. Can we get input from a Chinese Wikipedian with a knowledge of this area? Even if we make a list, we still face the problem that the only sources still
416:
used in several of them makes them difficult to read, as well, but most of them do not give significant coverage to the incident. No one is actually arguing that there was no shooting or that someone named
Tomomitsu Taminato was killed, but the article being based entirely on far-right propaganda is
125:
With meritorious arguments on both side of the debate, and neither side having overwhelming support (The "delete" side has a reasonably clear majority, but not something that I would call a consensus), "no consensus" becomes the default outcome. Note that the concerns of FRINGE sources being used in
813:
Please read the arguments I provided above. This has nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. If I had a personal bias, it would be in favour of this article, since Japan is my second home and has been very nice to me for the last several years; I have never been to China. This article only exists
592:
I do not understand what you gain by repeatedly stating that I am making personal attacks on you, on this and various other pages. It is entirely obvious to anyone with the stamina to read these discussions that I have not made a personal attack on you, anywhere, on any page on Knowledge (XXG), let
1534:
This article is NOT based principally on the writings of Shoichi Watanabe. Watanabe is only cited twice, and both of those citations are within the "Background" section and thus not directly related to the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato. If necessary, we could remove Watanabe from the article
1480:
Yes I agree with the proposed move. Japanese sources just refer to it as an "incident" and rarely use the word "暗殺"(assassination). Of course that is typical in the well-attested Japanese tradition of excessive vagueness. As noted in the article, this killing, just like all similar killings of the
869:
and propaganda are not the problems here. Murders happen all the time and many are covered by news and other sources. Obviously, Knowledge (XXG) can't cover every murder case that has been mentioned by sources. Right now I'm not entirely convinced that this incident is notable, compared with other
839:
This is the converse to I like it directly above. While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. This may be coupled with (or replaced by) the unexplained claim that they feel that the information is "unencyclopedic" (see
689:
If this were important, it shouldn't be hard to find English language secondary sources which testify to that, given that Japan's path to WW II has been the subject of a lot of American scrutiny. The fact that the sources are all primary Japanese documents tends to support the implication given in
577:
You completely ignored my arguments and made a personal attack against me. Accusing me of making a bad argument when I made no such argument (I never said anything about whether I like this article or not). Please stop and try to focus on whether or not there are enough reliable sources to justify
96:
Joshu Sasori referenced IDONTLIKEIT extensively; BabbaQ relied on it exclusively and didn't even provide a rationale for why the article should be kept. Neither of those arguments carry any weight, but as I said in the second paragraph, I will nonetheless assume that they endorse the valid reasons
1433:
This incident was very widely reported in media at the time, not just in Japanese but in English as well (for instance, " SHANGHAI AREA OCCUPIED BY JAPANESE NAVAL FORCE AFTER KILLING OF A SAILOR" in the New York Times, "Japanese Declare Martial Law Over Big Shanghai Area" in the Christian Science
1391:
for now. In the long run, the best solution probably is an article on the serial murders of Japanese officials, civilians, and military personnel that took place in China mostly in 1935 and 1936. I've seen the assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato mentioned specifically in a number of history books
1585:
sources. If the reason this event has been covered in sources (which ones written after 1937, though?) is that it was a direct cause of a large buildup of Japanese troops in the area, shouldn't the troop surge be the subject of the article, with the fact that a few Japanese sailors were murdered
649:
It's very difficult to know how to reply to you, since you seem to think that it is OK to ignore what I say, and what the documents say, and just go on spouting words like "reliable sources" and "exceptional claims" as if you are waving a magic wand around, or perhaps simply throwing out as much
121:
applies is less persuasive. 2000 troops were deployed into the streets as a response to the incident (a fact referenced to numerous American newspapers), and I find it hard to call such an event a routine news story. As such the references that Phoenix7777 and Curtis Naito bring up in their keep
1511:
news sources, mostly from publications that are no longer in print, and on extreme right-wing propaganda that is only available in Japanese. I understand that a lack of reliable sources in English is almost a given for most topics of Japanese and/or Chinese interest, and have voted in favour of
1329:
Please stop repeating the same tired arguments that I have already refuted. I and numerous other users have demonstrated that this article should be deleted because no reliable sources exist. Right-wing or left-wing, we need reliable sources written by reputable historians that give significant
493:
Please re-read your above comment. You ignored my argument for deletion and speculated on my motives by insinuating that I want to see the article deleted just because I don't like what it says. This article's problem is a lack of reliable sources that give it significant, impartial coverage in
626:
also specifies that a single event that was covered (no matter how widely) in news media at the time but that had no broader historical significance is inappropriate for an independent article. (Although I actually really like FutureTrillionaire's suggestion of creating a list of some kind and
460:
sources to be justified as an independent article. No serious historian claims this incident as a significant contributing factor to the breakout of war between Japan and China, but the article was clearly created with that intent; it is also based principally on the far-right ramblings of Mr.
548:
Okay... Let's calm down here guys. This is not Call of Duty. We need to focus on whether or not this topic id notable enough. Although the article does seemed to be biased, that's not a good enough reason for deletion. However, the lack of English sources covering this is indeed bothering me.
117:'s sources has been the cause of legitimate concern due to that author's apparent nationalism and far-right leanings, and that the article as a result may overstate the importance of the incident. However, the argument that the remaining coverage in newspapers is lacking in detail, and that
55:
First a meta-note on how AFD closers set about to weigh the arguments and determine consensus. Many AFD closers discard votes that have been given without any valid reason entirely, and base the decision on what is remaining. My approach is similar, however I assume that those who gave
1507:. The historical significance of this event has clearly been blown completely out of proportion by modern Japanese rightists (I can't tell exactly, but I'd be willing to bet this all occurred in the last 20 years). This Knowledge (XXG) article therefore can only possibly be based on
388:
of Japan. Arguments were being made over how the article could be improved with reference to reliable, less-biased sources, but it seems none are likely to show up, and even if they do they do not lend notability to the topic. Merging may be a feasible option, but if we put it into
1176:, but to show my approval for FutureTrillionaire's attempt to find a middle ground. My stance that this article is entirely propagandistic/not-backable-up by reliable sources has not changed, and I still think this article should be deleted. If reliable sources can be found for
502:
is clearly a personal attack. It's not like I am trying to get Knowledge (XXG) policy changed in order to ban all articles on the Sino-Japanese War that are written from a Japanese point of view -- this is in fact the only time in recent memory I have touched such an article.
840:
Just unencyclopedic, above). Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion. (See also Pointing at policy.) In fact, by the Law of Chance, everything will have likes and dislikes.
525:
It's a common shorthand on these discussions and I use it regularly in "Articles for Deletion" discussions. I invite you to read the document rather than deciding on its contents based solely on its name. I would also like to extend the same invitation to
451:
claims about 307 results, because only 25 results are actually accessible. Of these, several are contemporary news sources. And again, no one is actually arguing over whether the event took place; the argument is over whether it has been covered in enough
92:
essay. Sometimes, this reference is overused, as I think is the case here. But while I think criticizing the nomination for being "IDONTLIKEIT" misfires, it is a criticism of the statement, and I don't think it qualifies as a personal attack either.
888:
The lack of English sources is because the topic is only discussed by far-right, anti-Chinese "scholars" in Japan. The current English article is a straight translation of the Japanese one, which was written primarily based on a single source
870:
murder cases. The fact that there's no English sources mentioning this incident makes me question its notability. Is it possible to merge this somewhere? Maybe create a new article for a list of Japanese sailors murdered in China/abroad? --
358:
I have collapsed my response to JoshuSasori and his further responses to me. This discussion is not about me, or whether I like the article or not (or whether JoshuSasori likes the article or not). Can we please focus on the issues here?
1144:. There's only one original secondary source that we can use for this incident, and that's a extremist revisionist. Other scholars of the period seem to ignore this incident, so there aren't enough resources to build a neutral article.
240:
1576:
Please see the talk page comment by the article's author to which I linked above. He/she clearly stated that the article is based principally on Watanabe's writings. It is possible that he/she found other sources after the fact and
578:
this page's existence as an independent article. The problem is that all of the sources currently cited, and apparently all the sources in existence that give significant coverage to the topic, are blatant propaganda/fringe.
279:
1015:
981:
978:
976:
974:
971:
969:
109:
sourcing carry no weight. (In this case, no one relied on this argument exclusively though.) However, a FRINGE source in a foreign language will be evaluated the same way as a FRINGE source in the English language.
1396:
who was behind this particular event among others. However, as Kojima Noboru notes, the Chinese government did take the assassination seriously and their army was put on a war footing in case the incident were to
1231:
as a standalone article. The topic is relatively close to absent from reliable secondary sources to make it into a proper-established and notable subject for a neutral article (in contrast to pushing some view).
947:
83:
quality. Since reliability of the sources is a highly pertinent issue to the verifiability of the article, and its suitability for inclusion, I cannot see anything in the nomination statement that comes close to
449:
335:
1188:, but keeping this page for the content is pointless, since almost none of it could be salvaged and it is all on Japanese Knowledge (XXG) anyway (and I don't want to get into a deletion debate over there).
379:
Re:JoshuSasori -- POV is not in itself reason to delete the article, but my point was that the incident appears to be only discussed in news sources of the time and unreliable right-wing propaganda pieces.
446:
338:
289:
1415:
That's the idea I had in mind. If I had some good English sources, I would make the article my self. I'm guessing the article would be in list format. The title would probably be something like
1202:
Some English sources do mention this incident along with other similar ones. But they don't go into detail, so it would be difficult to make that new list article I suggested. At this point,
627:
mentioning this event there.) All ten of the "English sources" mentioned below are contemporary news reports. Most of them, though in English, appear to still just be Japanese propaganda --
234:
614:
sources outside of Japanese far-right propaganda is troubling. (Would I be right in guessing that you don't read Japanese and therefore can't successfully analyze Japanese sources?) Both
986:
Basically, no one here is arguing that the event didn't happen, and I have already admitted that it received coverage in Japanese (and probably Chinese) news sources at the time. But
166:
161:
522:
170:
276:
193:
153:
814:
to support a POV/fringe theory, and no reliable sources can be found that cover the topic. (Far-right propaganda that push this as an excuse to blame China for the war are
200:
768:
79:
on the nominator. To this, I think the nomination statement provided a relevant rationale with persuasive arguments based on many of the sources in the article being of
272:
748:
728:
708:
1581:
them to say the same things as Watanabe does. Or maybe they already do, in which case they probably are a bit too far over the extreme fringe edge to count as
1451:. However, these news articles provide very little details, making me more convinced that an article about the series of incidents is more appropriate.
285:, a far-right, anti-Chinese pseudo-historian whose major is English. Google Books search brings up no results for the "Japanese name" of this incident
527:
1017:, although I can't see much of it, also appears to be nothing more than a collection of reprints of reports of contemporary goings-on in Shanghai. (
157:
255:
1096:
222:
1103:(By the way, your previous suggestion included the word "murdered" -- this seems problematic and I think would be better changed to "killed".)
968:"Several" is a bit too strong a word for these: all but one of those is a contemporary news source from 1936-7. The two "Japanese Propaganda"s
610:
focus on the issue at hand and stop tying to bring in outside disputes. The extreme lack of any kind of significant coverage of this event in
105:
not make them inferior to English sources when it comes to fulfilling verifiability requirements. Arguments for deletion based on the lack of
271:
Article is apparently a propaganda piece. There was a discussion going on about it being "POV". But it is a straight translation of the
149:
141:
1614:
1599:
1559:
1544:
1529:
1490:
1475:
1443:
1428:
1406:
1379:
1343:
1320:
1295:
1270:
1241:
1215:
1197:
1153:
1136:
1115:
1066:
1034:
999:
959:
934:
916:
902:
879:
851:
827:
804:
780:
760:
740:
720:
699:
659:
644:
602:
587:
572:
558:
543:
512:
488:
474:
428:
368:
349:
326:
304:
135:
836:. Perhaps you did not notice that this is a wikilink to a document which explains in detail. Here is the information from that page:
216:
17:
412:
Re:Phoenix7777 -- I noticed those earlier, but several of them seem to be the far-right propaganda pieces I was talking about. The
531:
212:
1516:
more than anything else. No significant changes have been made to either the English or Japanese versions of this page since
1454:
On a separate note, none of the news reports use the term "assassination". They seem to just use generic term "killing". Per
893:), entirely by one user, who seems to largely limit himself to posting anti-Chinese and anti-Korean POV to various articles.
448:
are contemporary news sources, and don't lend legitimacy to the subject as a topic of historical research. I am not sure why
262:
1374:
1311:. The people suggesting this should be deleted are basing their arguments merely on the right-wing nature of the sources.
390:
1471:
1424:
1211:
1062:
875:
554:
1631:
40:
690:
the conclusion that this event didn't have significant consequences of itself, though a later similar incident did.
1091:
228:
1132:
1304:
866:
833:
792:
518:
499:
381:
314:
85:
72:
71:
Early on in the discussion, there is a long and needless discussion about the motives of the nomination, with
534:, two more documents you don't seem to have read, but merely guessed at their contents from the names alone.
1595:
1525:
1467:
1420:
1339:
1308:
1291:
1207:
1193:
1111:
1058:
1030:
995:
912:
898:
871:
823:
640:
583:
550:
508:
479:
There is nothing whatsoever in the above statement by me which is a personal attack, on you or anyone else.
470:
424:
364:
300:
1455:
1495:
It is still irrelevant whether American news sources reported on this event when it first happened, since
461:
Watanabe. POV-pushers may defend this and similar articles, but why is that a reason for us to keep them?
1627:
1610:
1555:
1540:
1486:
1481:
period, was a targeted assassination. This one being a hit ordered by professional assassin Wang Yaqiao.
1439:
1402:
1371:
1316:
1237:
955:
930:
847:
655:
598:
568:
539:
484:
345:
322:
36:
1266:
465:
is pretty clear that Knowledge (XXG) cannot be used for the promotion of a particular point of view.
1496:
1079:
Any attempt to write a historical-critical analysis of these events would be a blatant violation of
1022:
987:
623:
462:
292:
118:
1283:
1128:
890:
282:
248:
130:
114:
1355:
1251:
406:
402:
113:
After looking at the article and the comments in the latter course of this debate, I see that the
101:
80:
1591:
1521:
1335:
1287:
1189:
1149:
1107:
1026:
1021:) This means that all ten (really eight, since three are duplicates) sources linked to above are
991:
908:
894:
819:
636:
579:
504:
466:
420:
360:
296:
1578:
1499:. It is also worth noting that all comments made here before CurtisNaito's above mention of the
776:
756:
736:
716:
409:
because any reference to it would imply that it was one of the contributing causes of the war.
295:) the majority of coverage of this incident appears to be in Japanese far-right publications.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1626:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1084:
990:, and if we are going to include a full historical retrospective we need reliable sources...
398:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1606:
1551:
1536:
1482:
1435:
1398:
1367:
1312:
1233:
951:
926:
907:
Although your suggestion of a list of Japanese sailors murdered abroad seems interesting...
843:
800:
695:
651:
594:
564:
535:
480:
341:
318:
1331:
1080:
89:
76:
1262:
100:
In the discussion there was also the issue of English v. Japanese or Chinese sources. The
1330:
coverage to this event. None can be found. Your Thompson argument is a clear-cut case of
1077:
Those dastardly Chinese killing our boys in blue, we really should teach them a lesson...
615:
832:
It would be a great time-saver for all of us, if you would go and read what is meant by
521:
is a pointer to an argument which is better not to use in "Articles for Deletion". See
127:
619:
563:
Sorry did I say something wrong? I am trying to be as reasonable as I can about this.
1145:
1517:
1512:
keeping articles that relied on non-English sources in the past, but this is about
772:
752:
732:
712:
187:
796:
691:
413:
1503:(etc.) were referring to "English-language" "news" sources printed in Japan or
1393:
1358:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1254:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
88:. I will also point out that IDONTLIKEIT is a very commonly used link to the
75:
being cited often, this countered by accusations of such a reference being a
1504:
922:
1448:
Indeed, there are several American newspapers that picked up on this story:
980:
also seem to be the same source. ("English" is also a bit of a stretch for
1100:, and just list off all their names? Because that seems reasonable enough.
384:
is a personal attack, because if I have a personal bias either way it is
288:. A Google Books search for the name of the sailor brought up more hits,
1520:
wrote it "based principally on the writings of Mr. Shōichi Watanabe".
923:
Knowledge (XXG) articles can be sourced to foreign language materials
97:
for keeping. (Another admin may well have ignored them completely.)
973:
from 2004 are just reprints of 1930s news/propaganda sources; three
921:
I don't think "lack of English sources" is a ground for deletion.
1094:". Are you suggesting we make this page into a redirect to, say,
1620:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
946:
There are several English sources covering this incident. See
622:
specify that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
334:
There are reliable sources that refer to the incident. "田港朝光"
1097:
List of Japanese military personnel killed in pre-War China
1083:, but including the stories as is would be a violation of
523:
Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
281:
that the article was based primarily on the writings of
1165:
1019:
The snippet I can read is written in the present tense.
183:
179:
175:
247:
650:
jargon as possible in the hope of confusing people.
1417:
Killings of Japanese nationals in China (1935–1936)
1365:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1261:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
261:
1282:- I find myself in agreement with editors such as
1090:Although, this might be my misinterpretation of "
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1634:). No further edits should be made to this page.
863:Leaning towards delete, if merge is not possible
795:is not a reason for deletion. end of story.--
769:list of Military-related deletion discussions
275:, which was principally written by one editor
8:
767:Note: This debate has been included in the
747:Note: This debate has been included in the
727:Note: This debate has been included in the
707:Note: This debate has been included in the
528:Knowledge (XXG):Identifying reliable sources
291:, but apart from contemporary news sources (
950:. The word "Taminato incident" is used.――
766:
749:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
746:
729:list of Japan-related deletion discussions
726:
709:list of China-related deletion discussions
706:
90:arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
64:reasons for their vote will endorse the
1458:I think we should move this article to
498:English. In this context, linking to
68:reasons that support their position.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1497:Knowledge (XXG) is not a news outlet
1307:here. Nobody is suggesting deleting
122:votes have plenty of merit in them.
532:Knowledge (XXG):No personal attacks
150:Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato
142:Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato
24:
1206:is probably the easiest option.--
1106:Anyway, all-in-all good idea! :D
441:Am I missing something? It seems
1180:shootings at a later date, then
1168:was not to change my vote from
983:-- it's almost unintelligible.)
635:are the most obvious examples.
1:
1460:Killing of Tomomitsu Taminato
1296:16:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
1271:15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
1242:17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
1216:01:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
1198:00:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
1154:06:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
1137:00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
1116:14:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1067:14:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1035:14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1000:10:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
960:04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
935:04:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
917:15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
903:15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
880:14:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
852:03:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
828:15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
805:13:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
781:20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
761:20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
741:20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
721:20:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
700:16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
660:15:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
645:14:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
603:13:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
588:11:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
573:04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
559:03:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
544:03:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
513:07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
489:11:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
475:06:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
429:06:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
391:Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
369:00:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
350:04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
327:03:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
305:07:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
1615:18:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1600:15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
1560:07:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
1545:05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
1530:02:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
417:and will remain problematic.
136:17:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
1491:02:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1476:01:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1464:Death of Tomomitsu Taminato
1444:01:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1429:00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1407:00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
1380:03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
1344:11:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
1321:04:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
988:Knowledge (XXG) is not news
1651:
445:the "reliable sources" at
1023:contemporary news sources
1623:Please do not modify it.
948:"taminato" shanghai 1936
32:Please do not modify it.
1309:Florence Owens Thompson
1303:- a clear-cut case of
1164:I should clarify that
842:
278:. This editor admitted
837:
629:Manchuria Daily News
1284:User:PalaceGuard008
1014:(Forgot this one.)
818:reliable sources.)
1468:FutureTrillionaire
1421:FutureTrillionaire
1208:FutureTrillionaire
1059:FutureTrillionaire
872:FutureTrillionaire
551:FutureTrillionaire
494:Japanese, Chinese
48:The result was
1382:
1273:
783:
763:
743:
723:
133:
1642:
1625:
1518:ja:User:Chichiii
1378:
1377:
1364:
1360:
1260:
1256:
1184:Taminato can be
1166:my above comment
687:inclining delete
283:Shōichi Watanabe
273:Japanese article
266:
265:
251:
203:
191:
173:
131:
115:Shōichi Watanabe
34:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1632:deletion review
1621:
1590:as background?
1370:
1366:
1353:
1249:
517:No, linking to
208:
199:
164:
148:
145:
77:personal attack
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1648:
1646:
1637:
1636:
1617:
1579:WP:SYNTHesized
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1547:
1501:New York Times
1452:
1410:
1409:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1362:
1361:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1324:
1323:
1305:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1298:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1258:
1257:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1157:
1156:
1139:
1129:PalaceGuard008
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1104:
1101:
1088:
1075:basically say
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
984:
963:
962:
940:
939:
938:
937:
919:
905:
883:
882:
867:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
834:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
808:
807:
793:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
785:
784:
764:
744:
724:
703:
702:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
561:
519:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
500:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
434:
433:
432:
431:
418:
410:
393:we would face
382:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
374:
373:
372:
371:
353:
352:
329:
315:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
269:
268:
205:
144:
139:
86:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
73:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1647:
1635:
1633:
1629:
1624:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1592:elvenscout742
1589:
1584:
1580:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:elvenscout742
1519:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:WP:commonname
1453:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1395:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1359:
1357:
1352:
1351:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:elvenscout742
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:GraemeLeggett
1285:
1281:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1259:
1255:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:elvenscout742
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:elvenscout742
1105:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:elvenscout742
1024:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
997:
993:
992:elvenscout742
989:
985:
982:
979:
977:
975:
972:
970:
967:
966:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
942:
941:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
918:
914:
910:
909:elvenscout742
906:
904:
900:
896:
895:elvenscout742
892:
887:
886:
885:
884:
881:
877:
873:
868:
864:
861:
860:
853:
849:
845:
841:
835:
831:
830:
829:
825:
821:
820:elvenscout742
817:
812:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
725:
722:
718:
714:
710:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
688:
685:
684:
661:
657:
653:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
637:elvenscout742
634:
633:Tokyo Gazette
630:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
580:elvenscout742
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
510:
506:
505:elvenscout742
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
467:elvenscout742
464:
459:
455:
450:
447:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
430:
426:
422:
421:elvenscout742
419:
415:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
375:
370:
366:
362:
361:elvenscout742
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
333:
330:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
298:
297:elvenscout742
294:
290:
287:
284:
280:
277:
274:
264:
260:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
214:
211:
210:Find sources:
206:
202:
198:
195:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
146:
143:
140:
138:
137:
134:
129:
123:
120:
116:
111:
108:
103:
98:
94:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
69:
67:
63:
59:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1622:
1619:
1587:
1582:
1513:
1508:
1500:
1463:
1459:
1416:
1388:
1354:
1300:
1279:
1250:
1228:
1203:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1141:
1124:
1095:
1076:
1054:
1053:
943:
891:Mr. Watanabe
862:
838:
815:
788:
686:
632:
628:
611:
607:
495:
457:
453:
442:
397:issues with
394:
385:
331:
310:
270:
258:
252:
244:
237:
231:
225:
219:
209:
196:
124:
112:
106:
99:
95:
70:
65:
61:
57:
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1607:CurtisNaito
1552:CurtisNaito
1537:CurtisNaito
1514:reliability
1483:CurtisNaito
1436:CurtisNaito
1399:CurtisNaito
1394:Wang Yaqiao
1368:Sue Rangell
1313:JoshuSasori
1234:Cold Season
952:Phoenix7777
927:JoshuSasori
844:JoshuSasori
652:JoshuSasori
595:JoshuSasori
565:JoshuSasori
536:JoshuSasori
481:JoshuSasori
342:Phoenix7777
319:JoshuSasori
235:free images
1263:Black Kite
624:WP:NOTNEWS
463:WP:SOAPBOX
337:, "上海田港事件"
293:WP:NOTNEWS
119:WP:NOTNEWS
1628:talk page
1588:mentioned
1505:Manchukuo
1397:escalate.
1186:mentioned
773:• Gene93k
753:• Gene93k
733:• Gene93k
713:• Gene93k
458:impartial
407:WP:FRINGE
403:WP:WEIGHT
386:in favour
128:Sjakkalle
102:WP:NONENG
81:WP:FRINGE
37:talk page
1630:or in a
1583:reliable
1509:very old
1356:Relisted
1252:Relisted
1146:Shrigley
454:reliable
414:kyūjitai
194:View log
132:(Check!)
39:or in a
1301:Comment
1085:WP:NPOV
944:Comment
399:WP:NPOV
395:massive
241:WP refs
229:scholar
167:protect
162:history
107:English
1586:being
1332:WP:OSE
1280:Delete
1229:Delete
1204:delete
1170:delete
1142:Delete
1125:Delete
1081:WP:NOR
797:BabbaQ
692:Mangoe
608:Please
213:Google
171:delete
1182:maybe
1178:other
1174:merge
616:WP:RS
256:JSTOR
217:books
201:Stats
188:views
180:watch
176:links
16:<
1611:talk
1596:talk
1556:talk
1541:talk
1526:talk
1487:talk
1472:talk
1440:talk
1425:talk
1419:. --
1403:talk
1389:Keep
1340:talk
1317:talk
1292:talk
1267:talk
1238:talk
1212:talk
1194:talk
1150:talk
1133:Talk
1112:talk
1092:list
1063:talk
1055:Idea
1031:talk
996:talk
956:talk
931:talk
913:talk
899:talk
876:talk
848:talk
824:talk
801:talk
789:Keep
777:talk
757:talk
737:talk
717:talk
696:talk
656:talk
641:talk
631:and
620:WP:V
618:and
599:talk
584:talk
569:talk
555:talk
540:talk
530:and
509:talk
485:talk
471:talk
425:talk
405:and
365:talk
346:talk
332:Keep
323:talk
311:Keep
301:talk
249:FENS
223:news
184:logs
158:talk
154:edit
66:good
1466:.--
1462:or
1172:to
816:not
612:any
443:all
340:――
263:TWL
192:– (
60:or
58:bad
1613:)
1598:)
1558:)
1543:)
1528:)
1489:)
1474:)
1442:)
1427:)
1405:)
1372:✍
1342:)
1334:.
1319:)
1294:)
1269:)
1240:)
1232:--
1214:)
1196:)
1152:)
1135:)
1114:)
1065:)
1033:)
1025:.
998:)
958:)
933:)
915:)
901:)
878:)
865:-
850:)
826:)
803:)
791:-
779:)
771:.
759:)
751:.
739:)
731:.
719:)
711:.
698:)
658:)
643:)
601:)
586:)
571:)
557:)
549:--
542:)
511:)
496:or
487:)
473:)
456:,
427:)
401:,
367:)
348:)
325:)
317:.
303:)
243:)
186:|
182:|
178:|
174:|
169:|
165:|
160:|
156:|
62:no
1609:(
1594:(
1554:(
1539:(
1524:(
1485:(
1470:(
1438:(
1423:(
1401:(
1375:✉
1338:(
1315:(
1290:(
1265:(
1236:(
1210:(
1192:(
1148:(
1131:(
1110:(
1087:.
1061:(
1029:(
994:(
954:(
929:(
911:(
897:(
889:(
874:(
846:(
822:(
799:(
775:(
755:(
735:(
715:(
694:(
654:(
639:(
597:(
582:(
567:(
553:(
538:(
507:(
483:(
469:(
423:(
363:(
344:(
321:(
299:(
267:)
259:·
253:·
245:·
238:·
232:·
226:·
220:·
215:(
207:(
204:)
197:·
190:)
152:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.