Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sasaki Tōichi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Sasaki Tōichi

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): RGloucester (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review, following its successful GA review. RGloucester — ☎ 18:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle and Hawkeye7: I admit to not being familiar with the procedure here, but some time has passed since I've received any comments here. Is there anything I should do to solicit further participation, or I am intended to simply wait an indeterminate amount of time? I don't mind either way, of course, just curious. RGloucester — ☎ 13:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: I regret that the A-class review process has gotten unacceptably slow. Another reviewer is required. I'm alerting the coordinators, and perhaps one will step up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

A very impressive work. I'm especially impressed by the fact that it is far superior to its Japanese counterpart. Now that it is in English, it may get translated into other languages. I know how hard it is writing articles from foreign language sources. The article easily meets the A-class criteria, so I have little to say:

I'm a little confused by the page numbering in Tobe (2016)
Can we have the English book titles in title case?
The lead says that he was a prolific writer, but his writings are not further mentioned, just a little down the bottom. Anything about them and their reception? (Title translation would also be nice.)
I altered the ISBNs to give them a consistent formatting. There's no consensus on a particular format.
Am I correct in inferring that he was never tried for war crimes?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

With regard to Tobe, I only have access to a Kindle version that lacks page numbers. I searched around for guidance on this matter, and came to the conclusion that providing section headings with the loc= parameter was the best possible way to provide citations. Japanese books tend to have many more headings than English ones, so it works out all right, even if it is a bit clumsy.
Done.
I will work on title translations for the list of works. Sadly, the sources I have do not say much about his writings specifically, other than that reception to his pro-KMT stance in the 20s was frosty (which is in the article). The other thing that is mentioned is that his journals (very frank and detailed, by any standard) are often cited in accounts of the Nanjing massacre, but sadly, I don't have a 'definitive' source that says this, so I left it out of the article.
Thanks for that.
Tobe says that he was 'captured for war crimes', and of course, he was put in a facility for 'war criminals'. However, there is no obvious record of what legal proceedings occurred during his time in Chinese communist custody. Perhaps someone with Chinese knowledge might be able to find something out, but Tobe doesn't say anything about the specific charges levied or anything like that. The only thing I was able to dig up on this subject was a Chinese book translated into Japanese (seemingly a type of propaganda), which I am reluctant to use. It does not say anything about legal proceedings, but recounts his involvement in Nanjing, citing his journal as evidence. I think we can fairly state that his involvement in Nanjing did amount to war crimes, and that this is likely the reason the Chinese put him in the relevant facility, but, sadly, I do not have a source that says this specifically. RGloucester — ☎ 23:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Fushun War Criminals Management Centre say that there were trials in 1956; but Sasaki died in 1955. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I've just added an additional quote from Sasaki's journal to the Nanjing section. Generally, I am reluctant to use this, as it is a primary source, and have purposely avoided injecting my own translations, but this particular quote seems useful to explain Sasaki's feelings on the matter. Obviously, I will not place my OR into the article, but if I can be so bold as to state my analysis here, it seems as if the destruction of Nanjing was in some way a cathartic destruction of Sasaki's youthful dream of a modern China under KMT rule, a dream that had betrayed him. Do you think my placement of the additional block quote makes sense, and is appropriate? RGloucester — ☎ 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

The heavy reliance on his memoirs is cause for some concern. I think this is mostly handled well, but for the sentence Sasaki received praise for his orchestration of negotiations with revolutionaries in the area a secondary source would be necessary.
His planned use of soldiers to provoke anti-European movements throughout South East Asia seems worthy of mention [1].
Is there a secondary source for his "major works"?
He was a prolific writer, and left detailed accounts of his experiences in China. This can be inferred, but without secondary source affirmation I don't see why this belongs in the lede. Perhaps include something from this?

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

I am not sure that there is a heavy reliance on his memoirs. There is a heavy reliance on Tobe, I admit. I tried to only use his memoir in places where the information was unlikely to be contested, such as biographical details about his early life. I can remove or rephrase the sentence you mention, but I don't have obvious access to a secondary source.
A list appears in Tobe, so certainly I could use that as a source. However, I came to the conclusion that this was not necessary, as numerous FAs have lists of works without citations. If the 'major' is the problem, that can be removed, and perhaps a full list inserted.
I've just added this in now.
Well, the fact that he is wrote a lot is relevant, for if he did not, we'd know nothing about him. In Japan, is well known precisely because of his writings. But, I agree, as I said above, I don't have a specific source that says as much. I can change it to say something like 'he left a large body of writings' per the source you linked. RGloucester — ☎ 17:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address your concerns. Do let me know if the changes were satisfactory, at your convenience. RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I forgot to ping you, but how does it look @Indy beetle:? RGloucester — ☎ 15:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, support. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

Might be a couple days, but I'll look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 20:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When was he transferred to the 71st Regiment?
I'd recommend adding a bit to the lead about the Jinan incident and how it changed his views on the KMT and China
The transition into the Second Sino-Japanese war material is rather abrupt. I think some sort of brief context ought to be added to clarify what was going on and how Sasaki transitioned from leaving Manchuria to leading a unit in Nanjing
note when the Battle of Nanjing occurred in the text
Was he ever charged for war crimes for the Nanjing incidents, especially since he was held in a facility titled for war criminals?

That's my first batch of comments. Hog Farm _Talk 22:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I am on holiday, so it will be a bit before I am able to respond. Feel free to comment further, as well. I will respond to everything when I get home. On your last point, please see my response to Hawkeye, above. RGloucester — ☎ 12:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've attempted to address your concerns. On your first point, having failed to verify the exact date of the switch in regiments (and having doubts about using a vague primary source in this case), I shifted to indicating the 5th Division only (both regiments belonged to the 5th Division), which is verified by the secondary source Tobe. On your third point, I added additional material clarifying Sasaki's departure from Manchuria and his arrival in the Nanjing/Shanghai area. On your last point, as I said above, please see the comments I made in response to Hawkeye. It isn't clear that he was ever charged with any crime, but as Hawkeye mentioned above, trials at the facility were not held until after Sasaki had died. RGloucester — ☎ 15:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

'Kotobank: 20th Century Japanese Biographical Dictionary' needs publisher details

Done. I've changed the citation to only refer to Kotobank, as well. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What makes 'A Place Where Japanese War Criminals are Reborn: China's War Criminals Discipline Bureau in Fushon, Liaoning Province' a reliable source? I'm sceptical about a work with such title that was published in China.

This is most likely not a reliable source generally (it's mostly propaganda), but I believe it is reliable for the specific details of the transfer of Sasaki to the War Criminals Management Centre, which is the only thing it is used for. See what I wrote above on this subject. This was only added in in response to a comment above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Chinese anti-Japan propaganda works can be assumed to be factually reliable on any details. This literature is notorious for its unreliability. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I'm happy to remove it if you think as much. The only thing it uniquely provides is the specific date of Sasaki's transfer to the facility, which can be omitted otherwise. I do think, however, that records of those kinds are unlikely to be manipulated for propaganda reasons. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All other sources look reliable and appropriate
Replace the Google Books link to 'The Northern Expedition: China's National Revolution of 1926–1928' with the full text on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv9zck3k

Done. I didn't know it was available open access! Truly a great book, and available free to all. A marvel! RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Worldcat links for 'Park Chung Hee and Modern Korea: the Roots of Militarism 1866-1945', 'Nanjing 1937 : Battle for a Doomed City' and 'The 1937-1938 Nanjing Atrocities' given that they do not contain any content

Done, though I admit that I find these links useful when browsing Wikipedia myself... RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checks of both sources I have access to:
- Ref 34 (Jordan 1976) - I can't see where this material or the quote appears on that page, or anywhere in the chapter in the JSTOR version. Please confirm the page number.

I have added in the correct page number as per your version of the book. It also seems like I carelessly forgot to split up the sentence as appropriate. I have now added in the relevant reference for the second part of it, Wilbur 1983. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this (and something I've been pleasantly surprised by during recent Wikipedia editing in by city's current lockdown is that lots of academic-style books are now online). However, the source here says that Sasaki was "was saved from being robbed and beaten to death", while the article says that he was robbed of all his possessions. I'm happy to go with what a more recent specialist work says, but could you please double check this. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want me to check. He was indeed beaten and robbed, and then saved, which is what the article says. I don't see any contradiction between the two sources. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan 1976 says he wasn't robbed. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not how I read the relevant sentence in Jordan. He was robbed and nearly beaten to death, and only saved by the intervention of one of Chiang's officers. This is what both Tobe and Jordan say, and this is also consistent with Sasaki's memoir. Of course, at the point that he was saved the relevant effects were presumably returned to him, but there is no doubt that they were taken in the first place. RGloucester — ☎ 12:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For your reference, the relevant sentence (about the robbing) in Tobe is: '鉄拳が佐々木の顔や頭に降り注ぎ、ポケットは切り裂かれ所持品はすべて奪われた'. You can put it into Google Translate, or if you prefer, my abridged translation would be 'Tekken (something like brass knuckles) rained down on Sasaki's face and head, and all of his belongings were stolen from his pockets, which had been ripped to shreds'. The iron rod comes later. RGloucester — ☎ 12:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-checked Jordan, and the sentence reads "Colonel Sasaki, was saved from being robbed and beaten to death only by the intervention of a staff officer from Chiang’s headquarters", so it obviously contradicts the other source, which says he was robbed. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I do not see how this sentence contradicts Tobe. ‘He was saved from being robbed and beaten to death’ does not mean that the robbing and the beating did not happen. It simply means that the officer’s intervention at the last moment prevented the events from going over the precipice, which is true. The beating and the robbing were stopped while in progress, and Sasaki was saved. Perhaps we need a third opinion, but as far as I’m concerned linguistically this sentence in Jordan does not imply what you say it does, and review of other sources clearly confirms this. RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that Jordan cites the South China Morning Post for this sentence. While I cannot find that specific article in the databases I have access to, similar newspapers articles are easily accessible, such as this one from The China Press (a Shanghai-based English newspaper, of a similar type to the SCMP). It specifically says that he was 'robbed of his possessions', among other things, before Chiang's officer saved him. Of course, I do not suggest putting a primary source in the article, but it is just another example of the fact that the story is consistent across all sources, Jordan included. In fact, the first source I read on this matter was Jordan...it was through reading Jordan that I became curious about who this Sasaki was! And indeed, from the first time I read Jordan, it was clear to me that he was robbed, beaten, and then saved at the last minute. I don't know how this sentence can be read any other way. RGloucester — ☎ 16:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Ref 54 (Fujiwara 2007) - checks out
Why aren't page numbers provided for any of the many references to Tobe 2016? Could you please also clarify what the text in these references signifies? I note that the ISBN for this reference is for a print edition, so page numbers should be doable?

While I don't want to be rude, I would have appreciated it if you would have taken the time to read what I've written above before commenting here. With regard to Tobe, I have used a Kindle version that does not have page numbers. If there is a separate ISBN, I do not know where it is. It is not listed in the book itself. You can see where I purchased it here. I have used section headings in lieu of page numbers with the loc= parameter, which seems to be the standard approach in cases such as these. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve with snarky comments. I donated my time to provide a source review to help finish this review off. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do beg your pardon if I came off as 'snarky', I simply think that, in future, it would be more considerate to the nominator if you would read comments/responses made prior to your own commenting, to avoid duplication. Such would save both parties a good deal of time! RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: If you go to the Amazon page you linked, and click on the paperback version button, the isbn10 and isbn13 of the paperback is displayed. [2]. The use of the |at= parameter for the Kindle version is indeed the usual practice. See Template talk:Cite book/Archive 10#Citing an e-book Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the paperback ISBN is what I used. I was referring to the above comment that the 'ISBN for this reference is for a print edition'. As far as I can tell, there is no separate ISBN for the Kindle edition. RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: Please see my comment above regarding the checks. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: See above. RGloucester — ☎ 13:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how to proceed here, as Nick-D seems disinterested in responding to my clarifications. Perhaps someone more familiar with the process could be of assistance as to what course of action I should now take? RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ? A polite reminder on my talk page would work better than further rude comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how I was being ‘rude’. I issued a new ping, and there was no response. Why do you continue to be so hostile? RGloucester — ☎ 13:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: It is getting to the point where I will be forced to withdraw this nomination. I do not see how I can proceed. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the lack of page citations go, you can use the loc= parameter instead of p= in the sfn template and fill it in with the subheadings or chapter titles under which you found each bit of information. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indy beetle: That was already done before the review even started. The primary problem at the moment is a disagreement over the meaning of a sentence in one source, which Nick-D argues contradicts a source cited in the article. Unfortunately, attempts to resolve this situation have been met with silence, and appeals for a third opinion have fallen on deaf ears. Provided that this disagreement cannot be resolved, I do not see how this review can proceed. RGloucester — ☎ 16:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the wording about him being robbed? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present wording is fine as per what the sources laid out above demonstrate; his belongings were taken but he was saved from being basically lynched at the intervention of another officer. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my reading, as I've explained above. I would appreciate it if Nick-D would reconsider the matter. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D, Hawkeye7, and Hog Farm: Your opinions, please. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As this (in part) involves a translation matter with a language I don't speak, I don't feel comfortable providing input here. Hog Farm _Talk 23:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are not addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: For my benefit, could you restate which points need addressing? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction between sources on whether the subject of the article was robbed or not. I should note that I'm not opposed to the article being promoted here given that the issue isn't large. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and Indy beetle: To clarify further, this is not a matter of translation, so your opinion would be greatly appreciated, Hog Farm. The sentence in question is in English, from an English source (Jordan 1976): 'Colonel Sasaki, was saved from being robbed and beaten to death only by the intervention of a staff officer from Chiang’s headquarters'. Nick-D reads this sentence as meaning that Sasaki was not robbed, contradicting Tobe. I, on the other hand, read this as being exactly in line with Tobe: Sasaki was beaten and robbed, only to be saved at the last moment by one of Chiang Kai-shek's officers. Notably, Jordan cites a contemporary newspaper account from the SCMP as supporting this sentence. Whilst I could not get access to that specific article, I found a similar article in The China Press, which contains an account of the events in Jinan from the Reuters wire. You can find the link to that above. This account lines up with Tobe, and my reading of Jordan. I find it very hard to believe that the Jordan sentence, as written, implies anything other than that Sasaki was robbed and was beaten, only to be saved. The question is, how do you two read this sentence? Do you think there is a contradiction? RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reiterate that I think the text as it stands with interpretation above (the one expressed by Tobe) seems perfectly fine. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Replace "px" fixed sizes with '|upright='.
Suggest adding alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for your comments. I have fixed the first point, but I don't know what 'alt text' means. I'd appreciate if you could clarify. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RGloucester 'alt text' is an explaining text about the image or figure for people who have poor eyesight who cannot see the picture. The average reader will not see the text because you need software that has the key to open this door. I hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) MOS:ALT, shout again if this isn't clear. For an example of it in practice, see my current FAC Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652); look at the code for the second image and note "|alt=An oil painting of Charles I, depicted as a bearded, long-haired man in armour riding a white horse" etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted this per the information you provided. Please do check to make sure what I've done is adequate. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is intended for visually impaired users using screen readers. They will have access tot he image captions and the alt text should supplement this rather than duplicate it. I have tweaked your wording accordingly, but feel free to revert, edit or improve it or to query me.

Licencing looks fine to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.