File talk:Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces in Battle of Shanghai 1937.jpg

 

@User:Benlisquare

Please stop your Chinese nationalist POV pushing edit and keep caption of the original source: "Operational Record of the Navy" (海軍作戦記録). They are soldiers of the Shanghai Special Landing Force. They were afraid of possible chemical attack by the Chinese Nationalist Army (There is no mention about whether the Chinese 29th Route Army used chemical weapon or not). Shanghai Special Landing Force is nothing but small garrison unit and they don't have chemical weapon. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that affirms this? You have changed various descriptions on the English Wikipedia that have existed there since 2006, and have not adequately proven any of your claims using verifiable, reliable sources. Also, cease your ad hominem allegations, and discuss properly without resorting to unsubstantiated personal attacks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Notice: Full discussion located at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Problems relating to File:Japanese Naval Landing Force, waiting for attack order with wearing a gas mask.jpg. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 07:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have to write the description per source in Commons. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Point to me the exact Commons policy which says that. Go on, I'm waiting. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 14:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The file description in the Commons should be a faithful translation of the Japanese caption written in the book regardless whether it is a Japanese POV or not. The actual caption to be used for Wikipedia is under discussion at Wikiproject China.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, point to me the exact policy page. You're not helping anyone or anything, you're just repeating old words like a broken record. Are you saying that if a PD-OLD image released by the en:Ku Klux Klan was uploaded onto Wikimedia Commons, then it is perfectly fine to have the image description as "JULY 1913: TWO FILTHY SUBHUMAN NIGGERS GETTING LYNCHED BY OUR BRAVE YOUNG MEN, WARRIORS OF THE PROUD WHITE RACE"? I can see how a compromise for both could be possible (keeping the original caption, then a clarification afterwards for factuality), however your statement that we should keep only the original caption, regardless of POV or factuality, is completely nonsensical. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 03:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you requesting me to provide a guideline stating "If a file description of a source language is backed by a reliable source, a file description of other language should be a faithful translation of the source language"? People calls this a common-sense and we don't describe each common-sense to the guideline. Instead, please provide a guideline stating "Even if a file description of a source language is backed by a reliable source, a file description of other language can be translated from the source language by adding, modifying, and removing arbitrary descriptions as you like" as you did to this file description, by removing "by the Chinese Army" from "poison gas attack by the Chinese Army" and by adding a fabrication "日军施放毒气后" (After the Japanese Army spreading gas) which can be found nowhere in the original text.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

From the looks of things, you wouldn't even agree to a compromise solution, am I correct? Also, don't accuse me of adding "fabrications", that line was added by User:Arilang1234 in September 2009, and I was well within my rights to restore it. The wording has been altered now, but may I remind you that there is no reason whatsoever for you to remove a Chinese file description for the reasons that you have given. It's slightly different from the Japanese description - so what? It's not a carbon-copy translation - so what? It adequately describes the image, and that's all that matters. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 13:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

In such cases its okay to use the original caption and state that this is the original caption with Template:Original caption, the source of the caption, and why it is inaccurate can be stated in the subsequent fields.--11:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove original caption

@User:STSC: The photo was taken by a Japanese photographer to be published by the Japanese Navy (probably for war propaganda). So we have to keep original caption. Probably you want to use this image to prove the usage of chemical weapon by Japanese Army during the Battle of Shanghai. But unfortunately this image is irrelevant of chemical attacks. As long as I understand, both China and Japan had chemical weapons and both sides used it in the Second Sino-Japanese War. I read a document that says the Shanghai Naval Landing Force had chemical weapons in 1945. However I couln't find any documents and any reliable sources that says this unit had it during the Battle of Shanghai. In the Battle of Shanghai, both side had information that their enemies (China and Japan) had chemical weapon. So Chinese side send the Student Coprs of the Chemical Shool to Shanghai, Japanese side also used gas masks. As you know, the Shanghai Naval Landing Force was the small garrison of Shanghai International Settlement and their primary duty was the defence of Shanghai International Settlement, where were densely inhabited area. The Chinise officials and Chinese amateur webcites created and are creating forged caption and pasted and are pasting them to published Japanese photographs, and their forgeries were reveled. They lost faces and people start thinking that even the usage of chemical weapon might be forgery. It's dangerous. We have to prove some event not by forged caption but with document and reliable sources. In conclusion, your cheating actions are harmful not only for readers of Wikipedia but also for history. Thank you. Takabeg (對話) 14:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would politely ask you stop any personal attack. The main point is: Can you prove which is the original caption on the photo? Can you provide the source from the Imperial Japanese Navy? STSC (對話) 16:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't attack against you. I only scolded your POV pushing vandalism. You committed crime not only here but also in the article on Comfort women. Unfortunately it dawned on me that your purpose is not creating encyclopedia, but spreading propaganda for your own nationalistic POV. As to your question, you can see 報道写真海軍作戦記録 = "News Photographs: Operational Reports of the Navy". Takabeg (對話) 04:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Your using the words "cheating actions", "committed crime", etc. are personal attacks. My argument is not about whether the Japanese used chemical weapons in that photo; my question is whether the "original caption" (taken from a book published in 1995) is the original caption on the photo as described by the Imperial Japanese Navy. If not then the "original caption" should be removed from the file's summery. STSC (對話) 12:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This photograph doesn't depict the gas attack

According to Ji Xueren (纪学仁/紀學仁, prof. of the PLA Chemical Warfare Command and Engineering Academy), the Japanese Imperial Army used chemical weapons (mainly tear gas) during the Battle of Shanghai (淞滬會戰). Dates, areas and targets that Ji Xueren claims are as follows:

1. 4 October PM 7:00 Shih-hsiang-kung Taoist Temple (施相公廟) near Lo- tien (羅店) against 67th Division
2. 5 October Morning same area
3. 6 October Evening same area
4. 9 October AM 11:00 Tung-chao-chia (東趙家), 3 km southeast of T'ang-ch'iao Station (塘橋站), against 1st Regiment of the 1st Division
5. 15 October Noon Ch'en-chia-hsing (陳家行) against 32nd Division
6. 28 October Ko-chia-t'ou (葛家頭)、Ch'ing-shui-hsien (清水顯) against 4th Division
7. 28 October Ma-chia-chai (馬家宅) against 159th Division

On the other hand, the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (Japanese garrison of the Shanghai International Settlement) had foutht in Cha-pei (閘北) until 26 October 1937, immediately after the fall of Ta-ch'ang Town (大場鎮). Denshichi Ohkawachi (大川内傳七), who was the commander of the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force, ordered to prepare an offensive. And then, in 27 October 1937, the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force launched a offensive against defeated Chinese troops. As you see, there is no claim on any gas attacks in Cha-pei (閘北).

So it's highly difficult for us to think that this image depict Japanese gas attack. STSC has right to believe fake story. But STSC doesn't have any rights to prevent other readers from knowing real history. Thank you. Takabeg (對話) 04:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• So based on many pages I read about this is that disagreement is over to determine if this is a chemical. attack or not. If so, determine the side that carried out the said chemical attack. So we have two sides in the argument with reliable sources. I would think we should express that in the file description. I know nothing of the topic so I will ask you people to do this. Lets work on an English text all of you can agree on and then translate that. You should be willing to compromise. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 19:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A discussion on this image

A discussion on this image is at COM:AN/U#User Takabeg. whym (對話) 09:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The updated link for this discussion is here. --Lvhis (對話) 01:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

File protected until matter is resolved

I am protecting this file until this issue is properly resolved. The dispute over this file's description page is discussed at COM:ANU. I would encourage to keep the content issues here. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I have unprotected the file in the absence of inactivity. Please discuss issues and do not engage in a revert war. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 18:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)