Jump to content

Talk:Sook Ching

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Should "undersirables" actually be "undesirables"? The fact that the word is in quotes suggests that the spelling was deliberate, not a typo...--KBrown 21:11, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't find any other reference to the "Chopsticks" civilian war memorial being built over a mass grave. Jan 29. 2005

Please refer to Blackburn's article, listed on "Further Reading" for more information on "Chopsticks."
~Bourquie - 10 Jul 2004, 16:15 MDT

The "Death toll" section of this page seems a bit biased and is poorly worded.

need references

[edit]

Occasionally I see sentences that look pretty biased and questionable, but there are no references to use for checking. For example, this sentence "Most of those identified were innocent people and were just killed brutally without reason." How do we know that is true? There are references listed at the bottom of the page, but no indications as to which references provide specific pieces of information. Readin (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per the discussion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sook Ching massacre → Sook Ching – The term "massacre" is redundant and the current title is not as common in sources as the simpler proposed title. Srnec (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Poorly-informed weak oppose - If only because some of the non-English Wikipedia articles are calling it that and Google autocompletes "Sook Ching massacre" in my locality. I'll reconsider my vote when I hear other's expert views as to the common name. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak favor - If, as you claim, the title is redundant and Sook Ching by itself is the usual term used in the literature, then go with it. I don't think the massacre is well enough known for the redundant title to be needed for reasons of familiarity, Google notwithstanding. --Yaush (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current title is helpful. It isn't well known enough (even if it should be) to stand on its own. Now if I searched "Singapore massacre" then this comes up 1st. The name "sook ching" isn't memorable to most people - it isn't pinyin so multiple spellings are possible. I'd just leave it be. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild oppose. Agree with In ictu oculi: the 'massacre' in there provides a very handy hint about the article's content. Jpatokal (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 06 February 2014

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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 per request. Favonian (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sook Ching massacre → Sook Ching – The "massacre" is redundant, like "Holocaust Massacre". For evidence of usage, see below. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:


I get no results for "Sook Ching massacre" at Google Ngrams ([1], [2], [3]), but I do get results for plain "Sook Ching" ([4], [5]). A Google search for "sook+ching"+-wikipedia+1942&tbm=bks yields only six results in the top thirty that place "massacre" after Sook Ching. A few other modifiers are used ("operations", "extermination campaign", "bloodbath"), but mostly they just use "Sook Ching". Srnec (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support The Chinese meaning and the conventional usage support the rename, though the current title has the merit emphasizes that it was a massacre. --Yaush (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards opposing the move, but didn't want to rush to judgments. The problem to me is, "Sook ching" (Chinese: 肅清/"suqing"/"su-ch'ing"/"suk-ching"; Japanese: 粛清/"shukusei") literally means "purge". While "purge massacre" indeed is confusing; "sook ching" by itself can also refer to a number of different events (purges) in history, depending on your location in the Chinese-speaking world. In Singapore, "sook ching" clearly refers to this tragedy; however, in Mainland China "sook ching" probably brings to mind the Cultural Revolution; in Taiwan the 228 Incident. Which is why, in Chinese, the word "massacre" was added after "sook ching" to clarify. (I'm checking the Vietnamese and Korean versions and the titles were also constructed this way; the Japanese version has the title "Singaporean Chinese massacre incident".) Timmyshin (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Holocaust" and "Shoah" are no different. In English today, these terms refer to particular events, just like "Reformation" and "Renaissance". Srnec (talk) 12:40, 6 February 2014 (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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sook Ching. 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 to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sook Ching. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sook Ching. 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) 22:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sook Ching. 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) 15:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sook Ching. 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) 19:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest to delete A Japanese Humanist section

[edit]

I suggest to delete "A Japanese Humanist" section.

  • The reputation of Mamoru Shinozaki as A Japanese Humanist is mainly stand on his autobiography (Shinozaki,1982) which was repeatedly criticized by historians and Singapore residents as WP:QUESTIONED. The remark that "he voluntary saved many Chinese people" is also inconsistent with Shinozaki's testimony on Sook Ching trial that "I saved many Chinese people following the direction of Japanese commander Kawamura" which recorded in 1947.
  • His testimony on Sook Ching trial was important in other sense ( his testimony saved some Japanese war criminals). But the reason why it was improtant is not clearly explained in sentences.--UikiHedeo (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no objection.--UikiHedeo (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be removed because it was the fact that he saved a lot Chinese people. I wite more clearly and precisely.Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The prescribed period had gone. I think you just reverted my edition neglecting my protest and without further resources. Your edition should be reverted by any third person. --UikiHedeo (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

many badly sourced statements

[edit]

This article uses other anyone-can-edit "wiki" sources several times (like infopedias). Also, several PDF's are not properly attested. Sloppy work. 50.111.36.47 (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is in need of lots of cleanup, which I am working on. Links to better sources are appreciated. However, I'm not so sure that the Infopedia source is bad. Its written by the Singapore National Library Board, and appears pretty thoroughly researched. Just because something has "pedia" in the name does not make it inherently good or bad. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity category removal

[edit]

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Sook Ching amongst other specific crimes against humanity committed by the Japanese were under the Class C criteria of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Senior officials were present at the Tokyo Trials, whereas junior officers and other war criminals who met the criteria of class B and C were tried in a series of other trials held elsewhere. The Singapore trials began in 1946 and tried Japanese War Criminals for their war crimes in British holdings during the war, with Sook Ching among them.
I think the issue does come in that as pointed out, Crimes against humanity *is* a specific legal concept, and given the lack of study into the smaller trials that occurred in the East it is more commonplace to just refer to such instances as 'war crimes'. I hope this source suffices since it states the matter very plainly that those on trial for Sook Ching were on trial for crimes against humanity:
Arujunan Narayanan. Japanese Atrocities and British Minor War Crimes Trials After World War II in the East. Penerbit UKM, 2006.
Any source which lists that those on trial for Sook Ching were Class C war criminals is already sufficient to show they were tried for crimes against humanity.
As such I will be restoring the category tag. Relm (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment on my user talk page. I'm reverting on this page because it's not cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sook_Ching&oldid=1239420282"