Jump to content

Talk:Marco Polo Bridge incident

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marco Polo Bridge 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) 17:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

[edit]

The 'Consequences' header has an entire bit about a muslim general which has nothing to do with consequences. I removed it, but RandomCanadian put it back in 'Consequences', without giving any arguments why it belongs in 'Consequences'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.74.157 (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which bridge?

[edit]

The "aerial photo of the Marco Polo Bridge" shows two bridges. Which one is it? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added the info to the picture caption. MP Bridge is on the right of the photo. The bridge on the left (actually north of MP Bridge) is a railway bridge of what was then called the Pinghan railway line. Retinalsummer (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2023

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per MOS:CAPS, consensus is that these do not meet the threshold for capitalisation. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 06:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Capitalization of these incidents is mixed in sources. Per MOS:CAPS, then, we default to lowercase. See recent discussion at WT:MOSCAPS#International incidents and affairs, and compare to others in Category:Combat incidents, where there may be a few more. Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Proper_names: "In English, proper names, which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized."
many of these events being requested to move have the word "incident" or a similar word as part of their full names. the event is not "Marco Polo Bridge"/"Mukden" (the locations are). Amethyst is not the name of the event but of the ship involved.
it's different from, for example, Watergate, which has become the name of the event by itself https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/watergate .
they become meaningless if the word "incident" is omitted, like you dont just say "korean" but "korean war", not just "Suez Canal" but "Suez Canal Crisis"...
the only exception i think is if the incident is named after a date, like 911, 516 (May 16 coup), 8964... RZuo (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RZuo, I am not sure that anyone is saying that "Marco Polo Bridge" is the noun—"incident" is the noun. The question is whether, while it is a proper name, the capitalization is present enough in sources. See MILTERMS for what is probably the most apropos guidance. — Remsense聊 15:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Marco Polo Bridge Incident" is the proper name for that event and hence a proper noun.
proper nouns are capitalised.
there're basically no exceptions to the english orthographic rule that proper nouns are capitalised. RZuo (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
using this example once more.
"Marco Polo Bridge Incident" can also be known as the "Battle of Marco Polo Bridge". do you not capitalise Battle? all the Battle of the Bulge, Battle of Vienna, Battle of Iwo Jima...
does it make sense if a word should be capitalised just because it's in front but not at the end of a phrase?
it's illogical and bad practice when some phrases follow one rule but other similar phrases follow a different rule. RZuo (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's logical when you understand that WP article titles are in sentence case (aka "start case" in that article). Dicklyon (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you always start sentences with the phrases? "soldiers fighting in the Battle of the Bulge" or "soldiers fighting in the battle of the Bulge"? what logic do you have? RZuo (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a logic issue in this case. The Battle of the Bulge is actually an excellent example of what MOS:CAPS suggests, which is looking to sources to see if a term is "consistently capitalized". See the n-gram stats. This is what a proper name looks like in sources (> 95% capped is very typical). Contrast it with the patterns we see for the incidents in question. Per the lead guideline at MOS:CAPS, as well as the MOS:MILHIST "...as evidenced by consistent capitalization in sources...", we should not treat these as proper names and cap them, since they are not consistently capped in sources; nothing like the Battle of the Bulge; thanks for bringing up that contrasting case. Dicklyon (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whether a phrase is a proper noun doesnt depend on "sources". it's grammatical.
"Mukden Incident", "Amethyst Incident", "Marco Polo Bridge Incident", "Battle of Marco Polo Bridge", "Battle of the Bulge", etc. are all proper nouns.
proper nouns in english are capitalised as stated in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Proper_names. RZuo (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if being a proper noun depends on "sources", then i have a question, why is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style not lowercased? plenty of sources do not capitalise "manual of style". if by the logic that titles are capitalised only if there are reliable references, then there is no overwhelming amount of references for capitalised "Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style" https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22manual+of+style%22 .
all other Template:Writing guides' titles are sentence case. why is manual of style special? RZuo (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well, for one, because it's a document that was named by its authors, not a historical event that was named afterwards. Remsense聊 11:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Marco Polo and Mukden per Amakuru (who supported, yes, I know). NGrams reports that the capitalized form is around 4x as popular as the uncapitalized form. I know that there is a school of thought which considers "mixed" use as practically anything short of 100%, but I think this clearly falls within the threshold for there being a clear majority form in the sources that should be respected. Mukden Incident is also around 4x as popular capitalized. I have no opinion on Amethyst Incident - I would personally be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie and leave it as is, but that is a case of a more genuine mixed usage where the capitalized form has only a slight edge (link). SnowFire (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your estimates are severely recentism biased, and ignore the long history before WP started to use the over-capitalized titles, which very likely influenced the trend since then. It's hard to interpret these data as supporting "consistently capitalized". Dicklyon (talk) 01:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for Marco Polo Bridge and Mukden. I concur with SnowFire. It's a substantial, clear majority. It takes time for history to become history, and it's clear where history has settled. The past several decades of ngrams is not what I would call "recentism". Also, it's pure speculation to presume that Wikipedia materially caused the practice of thousands of sources on history and politics to change. Even supposing it were so, it would not follow that such practice is to be discounted, as though it were a hoax or a wrong to be righted. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum – I support for Amethyst incident. Adumbrativus (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Oh PLEASE. WP doesn't cap a lot of words, like theory, hypothesis, riot, etc, unless there's overwhelming consensus in ROs. Downcase here. Tony (talk) 05:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS (and MOS:MILHIST). This is not consistently capitalized in the overwhelming majority of sources. This is a typical MOS:SIGCAPS issue of someone capitalizing stuff because they want to signify "importance". If sources don't treat this consistently as a proper name then WP is not in a position to declare it one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, MOS:SIGCAPS and MOS:MILHIST. Amethyst incident is clearly not a starter for capping per ngram evuidence though others would argue the ngram evidence regarding the other two. None of these terms are intrinsically proper nouns because they are descriptive of a incident that happened at a particular place. Capitalising such a name would fall to MOS:SIGCAPS, and we don't do that. However, we might cap such a term (per MOS:CAPS) if it is consistently done in sources. When otherwise descriptive terms are consistently capped in sources and near universally treated as if they were proper nouns, we see ngrams like this for the Battle of the Bulge. The wording of MOS:CAPS sets quite a high threshold for capitalisation on WP. When considering ngram evidence, it does not distinguish usage in prose from usage in titles, captions and citations where title case is usually used. Consequently, an allowance needs to be made for such uses when considering ngram evidence. Typically, in many other RM other discussions, this has been 10%. While the other titles might be approaching a level of capitalisation by which we might capitalise them here (per SnowFire), I would agree with Amakuru, that they do not reach the required threshold, particularly when allowing for the use of title case results in the ngram data. See also here and here, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2023 (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.

Japanese name?

[edit]

? Grassynoel (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, uh, good call! Added it. Remsense诉 02:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Grassynoel (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on Citation

[edit]

I apologize for my previous revision and any trouble it may have caused, as I didn’t fully understand the correct method for citing news sources.

I’ve found another article from an official newspaper of the victimized nation, published in July 1937:https://archive.org/details/shenbao-1937.07-180 This report on the Marco Polo Bridge Incident contradicts the existing account in several ways. This report on the Marco Polo Bridge Incident contradicts the existing account in several ways. Specifically, it states which Chinese unit was attacked first, names the commanders involved, and provides an exact timeline.

In contrast, the current reference lacks these specifics, offering only a general report from the aggressor nation’s wartime media.


Additionally, I’d like to ask about the use of “[citation needed]” tags in the main text, particularly for descriptions of war details and timelines. Is it acceptable to describe historical events without proper sourcing?


Finally, I believe that when there are discrepancies between reports from the aggressor and the victimized nations, we should aim for a more balanced perspective rather than relying solely on the aggressor’s media. 98.243.41.204 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: It seems to me as though the initial issue was your repeated unsourced POV pushing and edit warring (1) (2) (3). After engaging in that behaviour, you're going to get reverted pretty quickly from anyone looking at recent changes, for obvious reasons.
Take a look at WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. Surprisingly the way to handle this is not to just add the viewpoint you agree with. OXYLYPSE (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your nice words, and I apologize once again for not strictly adhering to the revision guidelines.
According to WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES, If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
In this context, I believe the best and most appropriate approach is to clearly state this conflict. This can be done by the editor (though I’m unsure if this refers to a specific group of editors) after thoroughly reviewing the conflicting references.
Additionally, regarding the timing details—since they are highly precise (as opposed to general descriptions that clearly lack proper sourcing)—could you provide guidance on how to determine exact timing at first place without access to the reasonable sources? 98.243.41.204 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. That is not how I read the article, it doesn't include the word opinion but instead says to report all significant viewpoints.
I would literally just write "It is disputed who fired first", and add your citation to the list of existing citations. OXYLYPSE (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marco_Polo_Bridge_incident&oldid=1258139528"