Talk:February 26 incident

"Troops threatening the photographer"

How do you know they are threatening him or her? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite

I'm suspending my cleanup to work on a complete reorganization and rewrite instead. As is, the article has a ton of details but doesn't do much to give context or explain why readers should care about them Cckerberos (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just added my rewrite of the article. It's not absolutely complete (I have more sources to contribute, and some things need to be emphasized more, etc.), but it's getting a little long, and it occurred to me that 2/26 being the anniversary of the incident, it would be good to have the new version of it up by then. I removed the exhaustive list of the individuals sentenced. I'm not sure if it should be made a separate list article or if just a list of the ringleaders would be enough. Cckerberos (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Name Order is Mass Confusion

There is a lot of confusion in this article about name order of Japanese names. Some people are named with family name first and some the opposite, without any apparent rhyme or reason. This should be fixed to make the article uniform. Otherwise it is quite confusing to the reader. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Jinzaburō Masaki and "Mazaki"

Are they the same person? Grassynoel (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. It's a little strange given how recently he lived, but neither Japanese nor English language sources agree on the proper reading of his last name. The National Archives of Japan says it's "Mazaki", for example (https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/term/00000684), but "Masaki" gets more google hits in Japanese (though that's likely a result of the Japanese wikipedia page using the "Masaki" reading). When I wrote the current version of this article 10 years ago, I standardized on "Mazaki" because that's the reading used in Ben-Ami Shillony's book, the most significant English-language source used. But it looks like since late 2019, examples of "Masaki" have started creeping into the article and there is no longer any consistency. Cckerberos (talk) 07:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Richard Sims History Today

The "political violence" section currently concludes with the following text:

Richard Sims argues that the designation "Japanese fascism" is appropriate for the episode because: it draws attention to the similarities of anti-communism, anti-liberalism, ambivalence toward capitalism, emphasis on national community, and aggressive and ambitious foreign policy, which Japan shared with Germany and Italy.

which is sourced to "Richard Sims, Richard. "Japanese Fascism," History Today (Jan 1982), Vol. 32 Issue 1, pp. 10–13."

Reviewing this source, it is clear that. 1) Sims is not speaking specifically about the February 26 incident. 2) Sims is summarising arguments; not necessarily making them himself.

The article concludes:

A case then exists for 'Japanese fascism'. However, as with most labels, there is a danger of its distorting historians' perspectives. ... Because it is easy to cite such divergences from the pattern suggested by European fascist experience, 'Japanese fascism' is likely to remain a disputed term.

The current article text does not seem to be representative of the source. Rotary Engine ^talk 19:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)