Jump to content

Talk:February 28 incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:228 Incident)

Requested move 5 June 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) George Ho (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

228 Incident → 1947 Taiwan massacre – Common or not, the title must be more descriptive, even without a month and/or day. Many readers might not know what the current title means, even when the title has been commonly used. How about 28 February 1947 massacre or 28 February 1947 Incident? George Ho (talk) 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is referred to as the 228 Incident, as perusal of the Bibliography & External links will confirm. There's no need for a descriptive title. SnowFire (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is the common name of this event. If would be readers come to this article unaware what the title means, thats okay. if however after reading the article readers are still unaware why the article is named this way we have failed. Rather than rename it would be better to edit the article to clarify. However, if it is decided that a rename is in order, a move back to February 28 Incident (from whence this article was moved in 2004) would be better.--KTo288 (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 September 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

228 Incident → February 28 Incident – Better translation and also more prevalent in literature per Google Ngram usage. Also to be consistent with the titles of May 15 Incident (Japan), January 28 Incident (China), 13 May incident (Malaysia) etc. Timmyshin (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aftermath of page move

[edit]

Wait, what? Are we sure this is right? A quick Google search would seem to indicate that 228 Incident is by far more common (and it's not like there is no precedent in English, e.g. the September 11 attacks are generally referred to as "9/11" and pronounced numerically). BBC New York Times Taipei Times China Post Brookings Institution DPP administration government I suspect it's just not discussed much in English literature, but the ngram seems weird to me. In particular, it may be a good idea to just use a more descriptive name and avoid treating "February 28 Incident" as a proper name. wctaiwan (talk) 07:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wctaiwan, even when "228" is often used by sources, we would not know what "228" means per WP:PRECISION. George Ho (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name unambiguously refers to the subject of the article, and the reader finds out what it means by reading the article. I'm not arguing that we should call it 228 Incident, just that it seems to be the common name in sources. It appears there do exist academic sources that refer to it as the February 28 Incident, so I'm not strongly against it if people prefer it for aesthetics or clarity. wctaiwan (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Before you propose a revert, Wctaiwan, you might want to read WP:naming conventions (events) and WP:TITLECHANGES. As for WP:Common names, a title must be based on usage by reliable sources. I don't think there is such thing as "Taiwanese English". Per WP:TITLEVAR, we can use one of existing national varieties of English. If there were Taiwanese English, we would have "228 Incident" exactly. Since it doesn't, we can use whichever we want to choose. But we can't argue over which variety we must use per WP:ENGVAR. Per WP:CRITERIA, I don't think "228 Incident" is consistent with other similar titles. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on February 28 Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 28 Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on February 28 Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on February 28 Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 28 Incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Broken reference

[edit]

Reference 17: 反抗蔣家暴虐統治，臺灣人民武裝起義 蔣政府駐臺機關普遍遭受襲撃 起義人民已奪取了中南部政権（東北日報） [Revolt against the violent rule of the Chiang Kai-shek, the armed uprising of the Taiwanese people. The government of the Chiang Kai-shek government was generally attacked. The uprising people have seized the central and southern political affairs (Dongbei Daily)], 東北日報 (in Chinese), 東北日報社, March 13, 1947, is now broken. The link is http://www.997788.com/s_175_7330794/ and I can't seem to find an archive for it. Also, the link points to some kind of Chinese eBay, which... I don't think could ever have been an authoritative reference.

The corresponding text in the article is: Outside of Taipei, it was less peaceful. Mainland Chinese received revenge attacks of violence. Public places like banks and post offices were looted. Some had to flee for Military Police protection. A few smaller groups formed, including the "27 Brigade". They looted 3 machine guns, 300 rifles, and hand grenades from military arsenals in Taichung and Pingtung.[17] The armed Taiwanese shot or injured around 200 Nationalist Army soldiers which quickly precipitated the house arrest or execution of those who participated in the rebellion.

I'm removing the entire paragraph. The reasons are: (1) it's unsourced, as of now. (2) That mainlanders were sometimes beaten is mentioned a few paragraphs later. That organizers were executed is also mentioned later. (3) It's vague. Who are "some"?

The only thing I'd salvage is a mention of the 27 Brigade. This could easily be worked into other paragraphs.

DrIdiot (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauling this page

[edit]

I'd like to do a major overhaul of this page. I'm posting here in advance to solicit comments.

(1) I think the introduction is too long. The last paragraph should be its own section, called "commemoration." I want to make this a subsection under "Legacy" and create a new section that lists its depictions in art film etc.

(2) I want to make the language more neutral. This is too important an event to be discredited by non-neutral language.

(3) There's a bunch of pretty extraneous stuff right now. I'm going to remove it and leave it here. Feel free to put back, but I'll give my reason for removing it.

(4) I'll try to fix the sourcing. There should be enough English language sources on 228 now.

REMOVED:

Other historical events named using the same convention include Tianamen Square massacre/protests (六四天安門事件 "six-four incident", 1989 China), May 15 incident (五・一五事件 "five-one-five incident", 1932 Japan), March 1st movement (三一運動 "three-one movement", 1919 Korea) or even 9/11 of 2001 in the USA, which uses m/d/y.

REASON: I don't think the naming of the incident is something that needs to be overly explained, and we don't need to connect 228 to other events that just have the same naming scheme. In fact I removed the entire naming section since most of it is extraneous, and I think it's pretty obvious where the name comes from (see the first sentence of the article).

DrIdiot (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the following reference: [1]

This is not an academic journal, it is a blog. I think this blog is used to justify the claim that a person was shot and killed on the 2/27, but most credible sources seem to indicate that it was just a person who was shot. Of course many people were killed later, but the claim is still false as far as I can tell. Comments welcome, 

DrIdiot (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found an authoritative source confirming that the officer on 2/27 shot into the crowd, hit one person (Chen Wen-hsi) who died the following day. Will add the reference.

DrIdiot (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the references: [2][3]

The second is dead, and the first is in Chinese. I think they're just unnecessary -- we don't need a reference to show that these memorials exist, they're easily searchable. Further, the next 4 references give examples of two such memorials/museums. DrIdiot (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Teon, Aris (February 27, 2017). "The 228 Incident – The Uprising that Changed Taiwan's History". The Greater China Journal. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
  2. ^ 二二八紀念碑 Archived June 6, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ 新新聞521期:比較全台灣各地二二八紀念碑的碑文與形式[dead link]

Death toll

[edit]

Where does the 5,000 death toll estimate originate from? According to the sources listed, between 18,000-28,000 died Iverinc (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the links given states a 5,000 figure Iverinc (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Event 5,000 is inaccurate. The _incident_ resulted in a handfull of deaths. The resulting actions resulted in tens of thousands of deaths. It is like saying Pearl Harbor had 290,000 deaths. 2402:7500:588:E9FF:C11B:5AF1:67E4:9650 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of accurate endonyms

[edit]

In the era posted, would it be accurate to say that self-identity was based more on clan affiliation and language group (e.g. Cantonese [multiple regions], Hakka, Teochew) rather than "main Taiwanese islander"? If so, the article creates an artificial framing where it paints a dichotomy between "non-Taiwanese" and "Taiwanese". — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndiSLiu (talk • contribs) 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More citations needed

[edit]

The article has not been featured on the main page since 2010 due to the 'More citations needed' tags which were inserted back then. Resolving the issue makes the article eligible for the main page again. --Mhhossein talk 05:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and Ambiguous English

[edit]

There are a couple of incorrect formulations...

  • Directed by provincial governor Chen Yi and president Chiang Kai-shek, thousands of civilians were killed beginning on February 28, 1947.

"Directed" should refer to the subject of the sentence. Here it means that "thousands of civilians" were "directed", which is not the meaning. So it should be something like "directed by ..., the shooting caused 1000s of civilians to...". Or "Thousands were killed... following orders given by ...".

  • When she demanded their return, one of the men struck her in the head with the butt of his gun,[8] prompting the surrounding Taiwanese crowd to challenge the Tobacco Monopoly agents. As they fled, one agent shot his gun into the crowd, hitting a bystander who died the next day.

Who is "they" in the second sentence, who is fleeing? It could be the agents or the crowd, at this point it's unclear.

  • hey presented the most fear, as they looked no different from Japanese soldiers from the mainland

I don't understand what it means to "present fear". Is it to be afraid, or to represent a threat? If the latter, threat to whom?

Jrob kiwi (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:February_28_incident&oldid=1243409064"