Talk:Battle of Qingshanli

message: Who wrote this article? its very biased in Japan's view. Horrible...
Darkstyx 22:12, 2006 Jul 25 (UTC)
Ok, whoever wrote this article needs to clean it up. I am not saying that the Japanese did not commit the atrocities citied, on contrare, it fits the modus operandi of the era we are talking about. The main problems are that it is inconsistently written, largly from the 1st person (a major no-go for an encyclopedia) and what is there is unbelivably biased. Definitivky needs a looking over. ELV
Korean and Japanese fought at the 'Enjoy Japan' site that 'Naver' provided. Result was absolute defeat of Korean, although Korean history professor participated in. There is no clue that support the korean insistence. This debate have been ended. Even in Korean, who insist that Korean win at the 'Qingshanli' were blamed as a nationalist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjbhjbh (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?

message: *Daegu edu net home page (Daegu city educational department's home page)
*Doo-san Sae-ge Baek-gwa (encyclopedia)
*Cha-sauk-chan-eyee Yuk-sa-chang-go home page (a historian's website)
*Han-gye-rae News home page (news)
(Wikimachine 03:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify what you mean by this? (Wikimachine 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The site quoted at second hand from Chaoxian duli yundong zhi xieshi and Daehan Minguk.There is no new information.--Opp2 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is more info. It mentioned those citations to meet due manner of writing. (Wikimachine 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might not know this topic well. There is no new fact. It is not new at all. Only, having copied it is only new. Is it a reliable source, and is the old material of Japan junk? What is your concrete criteria? --Opp2 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an addendum:  I don't know why Bak Inseok's book is referred to in Chinese, whereas it was in Korean.  A little bit of background on Bak Inseok might be in order:  he is an old time Korean nationalist who compiled the stories of Korean resistance against Japanese, mostly in Manchuria, which became the book mentioned in the article--its title can be translated as Blood History of Korean Independence movement.  Many of the figures cited by Korean nationalist historians of the old days come out of his compilation--among others, the casualties during the March 1 movement and the activities of the nationalist fighters in Manchuria and Sino-Korean border regions.  While the figures claimed in the book were indeed collected with a great deal of difficulty, it is nevertheless a book with agenda and perhaps not an entirely trustworthy source.  For something like March 1 movement, where neither Korean nationalists nor Japanese military authorities had incentives to report truthfully on the death toll, the figures in Bak's book may have some relevance, but for something like this article, I'd rate official Japanese records (not articles) to be superior sources of information simply for the fact that military logistics requires that accurate records of personnel and equipment be kept.  --h27kim 01:41 18 March 2007 (PST)
You say that "Out of so many better and more recent sources, why on Earth are we relying on these old junks that other users in the US can't check upon?" Double criterion?--Opp2 21:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Could clarify this too? Thanks. (Wikimachine 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can other users in the US check this Korean language sight? Or, in Wikipedia, is the one that doesn't exist in the Internet a prohibition? --Opp2 00:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never prohibited anything, and, yes, Wikipedians can get web pages translated. Or... they can learn Korean language. Is there something wrong? (Wikimachine 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your one ground to deny the material of Japan is that US user cannot the check. May I think that this your ground is canceled? Then, what is your concrete grounds that you judged the material of Japan to be junks? I admit Shin Young-Ha's thesis is made a junk. Because he is intentionally misinterpreting material. Is there an intentional misinterpretation in Sasaki's thesis? Or, was new material that denied his thesis found? --Opp2 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a user in another country would not be able to access those reference materials that would be found in a prominent Japanese university's library. Furthermore, I added the emphasis on the fact that Japanese government did not welcome other theories about the occupation than the ones that their historians came up with - until the 1990s. The references are from the 1980s. So, they are very likely to be POV. (Wikimachine 05:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where of the policy of wikipedia is it being written? It is your original standard. Is Japanese Government rejecting?　Is the concrete evidence about that? --Opp2 05:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Are not you misunderstanding no acceptance of Japan of the historical view of Korea? Are not you only assuming junk based on KOREA POV? --Opp2 06:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a policy, it's my opinion. (Wikimachine 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you assume junk only by your opinion? Moreover, you verify neither the thesis nor the book. I verified the thesis of Shin'yongha. Cancel assumption as Junk. --Opp2 06:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll withdraw my offensive description of the references as junks. Sorry, Opp2. (Wikimachine 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand. I advise to you. The Korean did not touch this topic on the Japan-Korea translation BBS.--Opp2 06:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable References

message: This article is really, really sad, as in sadly lacking in quality.  It doesn't properly describe what happened (including events surrounding the affair), exactly who were involved (particularly the Korean side).  Rather it's full of controversies and speculations, making this pretty much useless as a reference article.  
Code4life (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs work

message: To an outsider (European), the events described in this article, especially concerning the Japanese losses claimed by the Korean side vs. Korean losses, appear highly improbable. Are there any sources to verify these claims apart from a website dedicated to the glorification of the Korean Commander? Naming the Japanese commander as "Yamada" and then linking to a site that gives Yamada as the 13th most abundant Japanese family name seems quite comical. Anyway, this article does not represent a serious source of information.
--chlange001 (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced