Jump to content

Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

This is the 2005 archive. For more recent comments, please see the Talk page.

January

Way unbalanced article.

I've fixed a lot of the grammatical and spelling mistakes, and tried to balance the POV somewhat. All in all, I find that the content isn't especially bad in terms of POV. That is to say, the facts sound accurate, although I'm no expert on the subject. However, the organization, and the focus implies a heavy tilt towards one point of view. -- unsigned (Mozzerati)

THERE IS ONLY ONE POINT OF VEIW - THERE WAS A MASSACRE YOU IDIOT!! --- unsigned

  • The Causes section is far too short; Again, I'm no expert on the subject, but I've definitely heard of far more explanations, and more complex explanations than what's presented here. There's no mention of the intense Japanese military training process that created troops with a majorly unhealthy need to vent. There's no explanation/description of who the officers were that were present, what their orders were, which officers were complicit and which were not. Except for what I added, there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan.
  • There is practically zero explanation of what actually happened here. Aside from the pictures, and the generalized description of "looting, rape, and killing" there is no explanation of precisely what methods were used to kill the Chinese civilians. Did this happen in the heat of battle? To what extent was it organized? Was it more like uncontrolled troops rampaging through the streets, or was it more like a firing squad killing, like the Nazis committed at various times & places? Were people killed by hand, by gun, or by spear & sword? etc.
    • This is an article still in the writing. It is not perfect, or it would have been a featured article. If you think you can contribute in a NPOV way, go ahead and make changes.
    • "there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan."...Again you are biased. There are many telegraphs by Westerners accounting for the deaths to Japan, which are summarily dismissed by the Japanese government. Read for example John Rabe's diaries. Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • I think it terrible that the government should dismiss information like this. Don't get me wrong, by no means do I condone what occurred. But refusing to acknowledge that atrocities were occurring, refusing to take action to stop it, while terrible in its own way, is not the same as ordering that it be done in the first place. I compare this, somewhat, in my mind to the recent Abu Grahib prisoner tortures; I would hope that no one but the most illogical liberals would accuse Pres Bush or anyone high up in our government of ordering that this be done. It was, like the events at Nanjing, the actions of a number of low-ranking soldiers who were going against orders.
        • Although I can't edit this much since I lack experties in Chinese history, it seems to me that the term "low-ranking" has to be deeply misleading. In a military organisation, the actions of subordinates are specifically the responsibility of their commander, and this is a principle which has carried through most of the important war crimes trials. Given that Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, a entered Nanking whilst the massacre was ongoing[1], and was a general in the Japanese army, he became responsable for ongoing actions from the moment he became aware of them. The current text is dangerously misleading. The fact that the Hirota Koki (the Japanese foreign minister at the time of the Rape of Nanjing) (again [2]) was convicted and exected for this makes the article in contradiction of a court and without any qualification extremely strong POV. Mozzerati 22:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
  • To focus so much on the body count, and on the historiography indicates a POV on the part of the writer, and an intended focus. There is nothing wrong with including this information; it is interesting and relevant. But more needs to be added in other sections, especially in the Causes and Events of the Massacre itself. Perhaps a section could be added on how the Massacre has been used by China (academics, government, general populace) since then, to demonize Japan, to minimize the threat posed by an increasingly powerful China, and to minimize the various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions undertaken by China over the centuries, not only against other nations, but against their own people - see Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen Square Massacre.
    • I disagree. This article is not the result of one writer, but rather a collaborative effort. In fact the section on body count has been added mostly by Japanese contributors generally because it is a big area of contention used by Japanese right-wing academics to minimize their war-crimes. I also disagree with the point that the Massacre has been used to demonize Japan. It is tantamount to saying that the Holocaust has been used to demonize Germany. To date, unlike Germany, Japan has not publicly addressed the issue nor given renumerations to Massacre or war victims. This is a fact which has been time and again "revise" in their local textbooks. To mention that China uses it to minimize their "various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions" is myopic and POV - please give specific examples when China has done so. These are different issues and has never been muddled together by the government. Are we going to enmesh, for example, US's shameful treatment of native Americans and blacks with their WWII contributions? Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, that was unfair of me to say, and I apologize. Looking back at it again, I don't know why I wrote that. What the Communists did, and continue to do, to their own people has no bearing on whether or not Japanese atrocities happened. LordAmeth 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • As others have said, as horrible as this Massacre was, it was not genocide, not even attempted genocide. Genocide involves the intentional extermination of all people belonging to a given ethnic, racial, or religious group. The Japanese may have been racists, believing the Chinese to be inferior in various ways, but they never claimed, officially or otherwise, that it was their goal to eliminate all Chinese people from the face of the earth. Even if they had killed every last inhabitant of Nanjing, which they did not, they still would not have eliminated the Chinese, or the Buddhists, or the Communists, or any other such group from the world. Cruel though their actions were, calling it genocide lessens the evil of true attempts at genocide.
    • Genocide does not mean intentionally exterminating all members of the group. For a definition, see [3]. Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

--- I would contribute in a greater way, if I had the resources or the knowledge. I am more a student of Japanese history than I am of 20th century China. I apologize for not realizing that it is currently a work in progress - it's sort of automatic to come across something and assume that it's already been worked on and this is what's been done. I'm afraid, as official as it sounds, I still don't care for that definition of genocide - in essence, under that definition, any murder, any killing that has elements of a hate crime is genocide, because it could be interpreted as "destroying in whole or in part" a nationality, ethnicity, etc. When you look at events like the Holocaust or the Spanish Inquisition, in which attempts were made to systematically eliminate entire relgious or ethnic groups from a given country or from the world, and you compare this to a disorganized, ad hoc rampage by a small part of the Imperial Japanese Army in a small part of China, regardless of how large the body count is, I think it diminishes very much the evil that is true genocide. LordAmeth 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Removed photographs

Image:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg
Image:Nanjing massacre heads.jpg
Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg

All three of these photos, as well as "Mass grave of babies" and "Many bones of the dead" are unverifiable propaganda pictures. In the photo of "Many bones of the dead", it is written in Chinese, "Japanese pirates murdered (these victims), RoC Army" and nothing more. This could be a photo of anyone including Japanese victims killed by Chinese and its location is unknown which means that it only remotely has relationship with this article. The same with the rest, nothing verifiable, all shows Asian victims but not where it was taken and most importantly, who took these photographs.

ANSAR - THE BELOW REASON IS A FALLCY!! If one had a look at the action of a samurai sword, it comes straight up and then down, not straigth down, but at angle, the the right elbow is brought in to the stomach on the downward stroke - that is why the soldeir stands act an angle , and behind the boy. there is NO reason why such photo be removed - It is a boy a child you sadistic Jap - there is no common law international or other that allows the killing of a child for any reason. He must be about 10 years old!!

"A Chinese man being beheaded" is the worst picture of this collection. If you strike down at this angle, the sword will smack into top of the head and this isn't the worst part. Much like the famous photo from Vietnam War in which a South Vietnamese officer executed a North Vietnamese soldier for launching an attack disguised as a civilian, in some cases, it is perfectly legal to execute someone who broke internationally recognized and signed rules of warfare even if it look like a murder and looks quite bad publicily. To use this photo is a POV that make it look like someone wearing a military fatigue (there is no military patch or something that tell them he is a Japanese soldier) is engaged in a murder and combined with the article, make it look like a Japanese soldier is engaged in the act.

The only picture that should be here is something taken in Nanjing during or after "massacre", taken by someone who exists, taken from a newspaper or something that had not been copied and reprinted, and if possible shows an actual Japanese soldier and not someone who look like an Asian. Revth 08:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the removals of these photographs, I'd like to ask how many of other WWII photos do we know the photographers' names for certain? If we do it for certain in Nanjing Massacre we might as well do the same for other photos as well. Mandel 09:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of these photographs. Any photo can be used as "propaganda", so unless there is reason to think the photos were altered or staged, they shouldn't be discounted as "propaganda photos". They are historically important, as much of the debate about the Nanjing massacre is centered around them. They are certainly widely believed to be photographs of the Nanjing massacre. To remove them sets a very bad precedent, in my opinion. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. – Quadell (talk) (help) 15:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the photographs. It's a little bit like showing floating bodies of tsunami victims, or severed heads of Iraqi beheading victims. Even though things happen, we shouldn't show shocking pictures of all of it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not inflame. State things in text instead. -- Curps 16:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Revth is ovbiously a Japanese hisotorical revisionist. Since I can read Japanese, I know very well that the allegation of "propaganda pictures" is frequent theme in the Japanese far-right literature. He is not worth discussing with. Everton 18:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks. Revth may have any political veiwpoint he likes, but no one who is willing to discuss their changes is "not worth discussing with". (I do think he's wrong, but let's keep the tone respectful if we can.) – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)
'Without evidence/source, photographs should not be used'. If the use of photographs without evidence is permitted, we can use the famous photo "a bird coated with black oil" as "How cruel Iraq!" It is not a possibility, but happened in the Gulf War. Mandel/Quadell/Everton, May I add the photo again to the Gulf War page with your theory "photo can be used unitl it is proved as a lie" ? Generally, it is hard to find all the photographs' sources in the net. So it is needed to show reliable source to use photos, especially for encyclopedia/wikipedia. It's not about Left-wing or Right-wing. It's a basic rule for Wikipedia. Don't you think so? Mandell, I think, if you know such photos without sources, the photos should be removed from Wikipedia, or replaced by photos with reliable sources. Does Wikipedia need many photos without evidence? Wikiopedia is not a photoalbum. Poo-T 22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I found the revert -Everton (no historical revisionist disruption). Everton. You know the place to talk and discuss, and you know the question to you. Again. This is about a basic rule about Wikipedia. If you think, "branding as 'historical revisionist' is the ultimate weapon", it sounds stupid. 'Talk here first, revise after that'. Or your doing would be recognized just an Advocacy. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Poo-T 18:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've waited to discuss, but still no objection. Before you revert, please discuss about the problem (What kind of photos should be/not be used for Wikipedia) here. I kept the photo 'Many bones of the dead' to keep discussing about the problem. Could anyone show the source of the photo? Poo-T 18:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I still disagree with the removal of the photographs, for reasons stated above. The images are historically important, even if you believe they are fakes. There is no reason to believe they are fakes. They shouldn't be censored. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 14:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have seldom involved myself in article disputes on Wikipedia, but it seems to me, like Everton's viewpoint, that Revth is basically a far-right Japanese historical revisionist that for one reason or another wants to believe that the terrible photographs from the Nanjing Massacre were fabricated, inaccurately portraying the situation, and coming from "unknown sources". By putting "massacre" in quotes he is basically denying the factual existence of the great wartime atrocities committed by the Japanese army. To remove these pictures (or the obviously biased and incorrectly coined term "propoganda photographs") gives the encyclopedic article only a partial if not false viewpoint. I demand that Wikipedia, in the process of trying to represent a neutral viewpoint, also consider not hiding the truth. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know nothing of this event, but I think that the photo of the naked dead raped woman is unnecessary. I know its a part of history, but I had trouble reading the article with it there.

February

Some Chinese take great relish...

I would just like to make the observation that, contrary to what I would expect from some people - discussing a tragic event (the war), the extent of the massacre, and even whether whatever happened qualifies as a 'massacre' or not (viz. the American occupation of Iraq has resulted far in excess of 10,000 civilian fatalities, is it a 'massacre'? Probably not.), no less - there does appear to be a certain relish with which the 'prosecution' carries itself during the course of its accusations.

Different groups appear to react differently to the topic at hand, whether naturally defensive (Japan), playing the self-appointed role of 'objective mediator' that in reality has its own unsavory agenda (oftentimes America); but the 'prosecution' in particular in this case, from my experience with the material, often exceeds itself out of a blind desire for some kind of revenge. Being enraged is not the best way to sound convincing, and it shows. Some Chinese take great relish in this topic, self-righteous accusations which are sometimes but really not quite often met with acerbic and reactionary Japanese replies.

Historical accuracy, much less factuality, simply cannot be claimed in this case. The only way to make the claim that 'what happened' is an established fact is to perpetrate the worste form of selective analysis, in other words seeing exactly what one wants to see and disregarding all potentially conflicting evidence or the lack thereof.

Clearly the problem of historical accuracy should be addressed in an academic setting with as full and impartial treatment as is possible. The so-called 'right-wing revisionist' criticism and likewise the sometimes passionate, oftentimes virulent condemnation of WWII Japan (perhaps even modern Japan as well), should be studied as symptoms of a much larger problem.

I would like to suggest, from a psychological point of view, that those who take a certain type of pleasure in the condemnation of WWII Japan, which is carried over into the present, are really themselves much more concerned with the present. Their own present, and the present state of Japan-China-American affairs - not with historical accuracy at all. Even if given a certain 'objective' sheen, far too often an interest in historical accuracy only exists to be called into the service of an ideological bent.

And if, as seems to be the dream of the 'prosecution', Japan were to throw up its hands and say, in a historically unprecedented gesture of self-immoliation, "Yes, everything you say is right! We will bow our heads in shame for our terrible crimes", it only seems logical that the elation and sense of righteous justification amongst the 'prosecution' would reach a shrill, victorious, and equally unhealthy extreme as before.

So while naturally there is no resolution to the present conflict as a whole, I believe it would be in the best practical interest of all parties involved to remove the emotional, condemnatory component from the historical debate, or if that is impossible, reduce it to insignificance in as open and honest a manner as is possible. And as I said before, this is most characteristic of the 'prosecution', which I believe to be most responsible for inflating the historical importance of the issue. It has even been recently suggested, if not proven outright, that the present Chinese state is itself complicit in inflaming anti-Japanese sentiment amongst its people, naturally for its own political reasons.

So my suggestion in short - the article needs a segment that places the current historical debate in the context of the current political climate! It's not just about 'how bad a thing happened' and 'failure for Japan to repent' and a dozen other phrases, used as epithets and repeated like mantras. No, I believe that the very core of this issue, given that the vast majority of evidence surrounding it is contentious at best, is of political nature. For the debate to extend itself beyond 20th century squabbling, the political and even psychological aspects of this issue, now an archtype of sorts, needs to be presented, in my view, on almost as equal a footing as the objective historical dialogue. --A Japanese

Whether or not some Chinese take relish in condemning WWII Japan is besides the question. It has no basis in whether the article is accurate or not. If the article holds true, it is because it is backed by proper historical evidence (as in the Holocaust) and well researched by historians with living eyewitnesses and first-hand documents (eg. John Rabe's diaries). Whether the current Japanese climate chooses to sanitize the event does not make what is described less true. Comparisons of Japan with postwar Germany is also apt, because the Japanese government has not publicly acknowledged, made renumerations or properly educate its younger generation, to safeguard such an event from happening again, unlike what Germany has done.
It seems the idea of "shame" is very different from the West and Japan. Japan frequently finds it easier to "forget" their WWII atrocities which is widely condemned by humanist and international communities. In the West, it takes much courage to admit one's mistake. Remember George Washington's tree (apocryphal though that tale may be)? I guess it's just a completely different culture.
Besides, who in the right mind would take relish in mentioning a war atrocity?Grown men still weep openly at the mention of the Holocaust, especially when their close kin and relations had died in them. Mandel 22:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

March

Proposal

I proposed removing one photograph from the page itself, the one captioned "Old woman were not spared...." Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it is an authentic photograph - but the photo resolution is so low, I' don't think anyone can tell any details from it, and so hardly explains the caption. I hope that all photographs here are immediately self-explanatory and irrefutable - for obvious reasons (so as not to feed Nanking denials). Mandel 21:11, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree. Caiqian 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and yes - maybe the photograph on the Killing Contest should be shifted down to where the article mentions it in detail. Mandel 22:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, that would be much better. Caiqian 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvivio

The section under "Destruction" is copyvivio via Britannica. [4]. Copyvivios have no right to be in Wikipedia - we ought to remove it. Mandel 07:16, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

April

NPOV

The question is: must we insist on NPOV for the sake of NPOV, even if one side of the story is false? It is so hard to perfect this article because the truth makes it seem biased against the Japanese. But the truth is the truth - it could be in favour of one side or another, but it is definitely not biased. Having said this, i refrain from editing this article. --Plastictv 12:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remove the dispute template NOW!

I can't believe that this article is disputed! What is there to dispute about? All I see in other people's comments are about the accuracy of the numbers and the precise meaning of one phrase. Does it really matter if the number varies? Does it matter if the death toll is 100,000 or 1,000,000? An atrocity is an atrocity, regardless of the number! Do you think people are 100% sure about the number of Jews killed in the concentration camps? How come I don't see anyone arguing about those numbers? Go to the Holocaust article and see if that article is disputed. If the number is actually exaggerated, does it automatically make the atrocity a "small thing"? If so, the two atomic bombs on Japan are no big deal either and no one should pay much attention to them. Germany is able to apologize to the Jewish people repeatly and is able to illegalize any fascist movements. How come Japan did not? How come people like Shintaro Isihara can hold a government position while his war-denial views is well known? How come Koizumi can visit the Yasukuni Shrine to pay tribute to the war criminals? This only means that the former Axis Japan is not dead yet. One of Hitler's partner still remains in the world. AquaExecution 9 Apr 2005

"Dispute" template has been removed

It doesn't matter whether or not the article is NPOV. Because, simply put, it happened. The Japanese has committed many war atrocities during the War and the Nanjing (or Nanking) Massacre is one of them. It is not Chinese propaganda, it is not totally fabricated. Why should the article bend towards neutrality if the other side is a fraud?

If, for example, Germany were to claim, in their textbooks, that the Holocaust never happened (which they did not), and all the Germans reading the article about the Holocaust would be arguing that it is not written from a neutral point of view. However, they is because what they perceive as the truth is distorted. Similarly (pardon my bad analogy above, no offence to Germans nor Germany), this is the point that I'm trying to put forward right now.

I say, that we should report the massacre as happened, the numbers can be disputed, but it doesn't deny the fact that the incident or event (as some of you prefer to call it) has occured before in the course of history.

Let's look at it this way, you wouldn't want your kids to think that the Holocaust never happened, right? Think about the people who have died innocently during that time, how would THEY want the event to be reported?

Put pretty bluntly, the neutrality of this article is only "disputed" between far-right Japanese historical revisionists and people who know the truth. I agree with this previous commentary. I move now to remove the "Dispute" template. Colipon+(T) 01:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with the comments above. Therefore I removed the "dispute" template. AquaExecution
I agree with removing the dispute template, but the reasoning that Colipon and AquaExecution provide for doing so is severely flawed. This is an encyclopedia, and while it may seem cold, the behavior of current Japanese politicians and our sympathy towards the massacre's victims should have nothing to do with determining how the article is presented. Please refrain from doing this kind of thing in the future. --Rroser167 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Rroser167, can you guarantee that the Holocaust article is not written through sympathy to the Jews? Any behavior of anti-semitism today is basically considered as a crime. If the Jewish people deserve sympathy, why can't the Chinese get any? How come it's not as big a crime for the far-right Japanese to be anti-chinese compared to anti-semitism? Are you implying that the Chinese people are not as important or valuable as the Jews? Because obviously the current Japanese far-right politicians are not treating the Chinese as an equal. --AquaExecution 11:11, 12 Apr 2005


I've never had this many words stuffed in my mouth before. Re-read what I wrote again - where did I say anything about the Chinese not deserving sympathy? Or being less valuable than Jews? All I'm saying is that this is an encyclopedia article and that your arguments for removing the disputed tag need to contain pertinent information. Try to understand this: Wikipedia is a repository of facts, not a political forum. --Rroser167 18:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


I do apologize for harsh words, but it is very frustrating to see people denying about history (I'm not saying you are). I did provide pertinent information. The far-right Japanese politicians only argued about the exaggeration of the numbers of deaths, but they never argued about whether the massacre excist or not. Why? Because they can't deny it doesn't excist. Even by saying that the number is exaggerated proves to us that they admitted this massacre (otherwise where would the numbers come from?). They are trying very hard to make the number as few as possible so that it justifies the event as a "small thing". The reason why I deleted the dispute template is because this article cannot be disputed of whether it happened or not. Everyone knows that it happened, and there is no reason why the article should bend to "neutrality" while the other side is fake. Also, those far-right people argued that the pictures of corpses are not all Chinese and there may be Japanese in there too. How do they know? How come no one have doubt about that the corpses in the Nazi concentration camps are "undesirable" people (according to Nazis)? There could be Germans there too. Overall, the reasons the history-revisionists gave are very arbitrary and unreasonable. They actually sound like Neo-Nazis or the KKK, who said the holocaust is a hoax. I hope these statements answer your question. Again, sorry for being rude. -- AquaExecution 02:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just a foot note, placing the opposing view does not mean you are denying facts. Its just a nother "explanation". I sincerely think this article does not go by WP:NPOV --Cool Cat My Talk 06:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV

On wikipedia even articles like creationism are been made neutral. Artilce accuses Japan of things. This simply conflicts with NPOV. If you dont like the tag, work on the article. I will personaly come and check your work. I can help mediate this if you like. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Message to people holding Massacre view: Providing the views of "denielits" is along with NPOV policy. Article, if written neutral should voice both sides views. An average reader will dispute factual acuracy when "Japanese atrocities" is a topic. If you dont want that you want to write it neutral. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Message to people opposing Massacre view: You should allow verifiable facts to be presented. While it is perfectly normal for you to dispute all of this, NPOV suggests your oponnents voices also need to be heard. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the disputed template. You must follow wikipedia policiy. This is not a forum. I can guide you with NPOV process. You dont want the tag. If you insist on removeing the tag, you will eventualy get the topic locked. You dont want that either. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

by ANSAR - The 'in dispute' template is highly disrespectful - it is in dispute by nationalistic Japan, but the world knows what happened.

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

The Holocaust is also in dispute by some neo-nazis - they maintain it never happened. This does not mean that the Holocaust did no happen or that it is appropriate to recognise the veiws of neo-nazis by having an 'in dispute' template.

Japan is truely evil - It never happened that Germany honours, prays and worships a shrine to Hitler, Himmler, Henrich, Mengeler or the other convicted Nazi war criminals. Yet Japan does this and the world does not care - It seems a Jew is worth more than a Chineese. - by ANSAR

Don't bother Coolcat, the guy deny the Armenian Genocide, wants the Turkish government version be what the Wikipedia entry regarding the genocide present. And now, seems to me that to dilute the suspicions againsts him, he would criticise other war crimes article to show how "neutral" he is. He as well question the Holocaust. The Nanjing Massacre is just one aspect of Japanese war Crimes in WWII, and yet again Coolcat has no clue of the subject he want to introduce himself in. Maybe Coolcat should start reading about the Nanjing Massacre. Starting with the excellent book: "The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame" by Frank Gibney, Katsuichi Honda and Karen Sandness. Or perhaps, does Coolcat expect Suzuki Akira's arguments be presented as "equaly"? Yah right! Fadix 21:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for Worshiping, Japanese nationalism and the way they praise war criminals and butcherers is similar to Turkish nationalists that praise the planners of the Armenian genocide. There are names of schools, streets etc. in Turkey named after those criminals. Fadix 21:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I have treated you fair, you are testing my patience. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. This is not Talk: Armenian Genocide
  2. Why would I want to push japaneese nationalist POV? I was supposed to be a Turkish Nationalist I though.
  3. A war crime is a war crime depending on perspective. For instance Japaneese refer to A-bombs as massacre, I believe. Now Americans see it as a patriotic victory.
I bellive civilan casualties are unethical, but I acknowlege they are a part of war. Yes I know nothing regarding the topic which is perfect for mediation. I don't hold views. Hence I am not biased. So far I havent made a suggestion. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That you are a Turk nationalist, there is no question about that, you already admitted to be a Turk. I have pretty much experience in psychology Coolcat, and I know pretty much why you are posting in the entry talk page. I am not dumb, and I am sure you know that I know.
There has been a war crime tribunals and there is a great deal of research regarding what the Japanese did, just like there was the Turkish Martial Court in 1919 judging the responsables of the Armenian extermination. You have not much clue of the article you want to get involved in, so please just don't touch it. And please don't propose to mediate. While there might be some things that could be neutralised in this article, I think you are not able to do so, if you stop interupting the progess of the Armenian Genocide entry, I might have some time to get involved in this article, because I have read much about Japanese crimes during World War II, and I have no interest in wanting to "support" one position against the other. But let me tell you something, Nanjing massacre is not one version among other version as equaly valid, no serious historian deny it, in fact, calling it "massacre" doesn't do justice to what actualy happened, since it was a Genocide, killing that much people, involve clear premeditation, and using the UN convention, it is applied, even when using the restrictve term. Wikipedia is not the place for war crimes denials and revisionists like you. Call this personal attack, I don't care. I know you thought that by getting involved here, you might sound more neutral... but the only thing you just did is to get other Wikipedians on your back. Oh and, don't worry, Japanese nationalists don't need Turks to make their cases, as I am sure that there would be some that will POV push. Fadix 22:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well thats very silly. You declared me turk with psychology analysis. Focus on the topic please.
  1. This is not Talk: Armenian Genocide
  2. I am not interested in your theories regarding me. Discuss the topic not me. This is a clear personal attack and exeeds way beyond what Wikipedia:No personal attacks prohibit. I am required to remove personal attacks and I will. I am simplifying your comment. I will keep on doing this untill you do things the wikiway. If you cant, you cant belong to wikipedia. I have been patient with you, I have a finite patience, you exeeded it a day ago. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to show me where are my personal attacks. And reread what I said, I did not declare you a Turk with psychology analysis, but rather after you have admitted yourself to be one. The psychology analysis is more about your reason to post in this entry and fuel anther conflict just to sound "neutral." As for the Armenian genocide, as a war crime it is somehow related, more so when both cases contain the most extrem 8nt stage of genocide, which is denial from the party which represent the aggressors side. Besides, our cases is in arbitration, what you are now doing will only bring more people against you. What you expect, that some Chinese start adding their names against you, after you disturb this entry like you did with the other? Please stop, don't get involved here, more so, when it is apparent why you are doing so. And there is no personal attack here but rather only accusations which are supported. Play with the Star Trek entry... but leave those entries which the subject you have no clue of alone. I will just say, that, I might not interupt in Kurdish issues, or Turkey entry etc. but I, as a Wikipedian, won't tolerate a croisade from your part to edit war crime entries, just to fake neutrality and disolve the suspicions about you. As for you being permitted to edit my posts, my posts are within Wikipedias rules, leave them alone please. Fadix 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
These comments are better suited in each other's personal talk pages. Please refrain from making such remarks unless they really pertain and is helpful to the topic, ie. Nanking Massacre. Mandel 05:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, lets work on NPOVisisng this article. And Fadix read what I placed in your talk a few days ago. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reminder to all those posting to this discussion!

Please post at the end this page, not the top! Also, please sign your comments - just click the second to the last button above the edit window.--Rroser167 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assesments

  • On this entry the word "Historians" is abusively used. This is a bad idea as not all historians think alike regarding the topic. If some historians did not believe in it it wouldnt be here. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Pictures. I am not sure how authentic they are. I am not sure showing dead people or naked woman contributes to the topic. Such content is not easily visible on the Holocaust entry for a reason. Some peole are sensetive with it. People can click on the picture if they need to. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Entier Japanese atrocities category has acusations and claims. Is there no view opposing this? --Cool Cat My Talk 02:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • Ok Ill stop now before I comment out the entier article. Lots and Lots of work needs to be done. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat, could you please stop removing content from this article? You admit that you know nothing about the subject, so please leave it alone. Maybe you could take your 'mediation' to another massacre that you deny: the Holocaust? Stereotek 06:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article needs plenty of work.

This article is in shambles right now - the sections are poorly placed, the text is long, there are POV and unsupported statements everywhere, and grammar needs to be corrected. I started on it, but after the first paragraph, I realized I'm going to need to spend some real time on it at some other time.

People, I understand that we are talking about a horrible atrocity - but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If you don't believe that this article is in need of work, I challenge you to submit this for a Featured Article. --Rroser167 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article need more work, but feel I don't have the time and the qualifications to do so. The article is badly structured, important statements are unsupported. It mentioned "according to some", "it is said", "according to historians" -- these are all too vague: we need to mention who said what. I also seriously do not like the photo of the brutal treated woman - i feel it's poor respect to the dead. Mandel 15:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Caiqian - I reverted to my text before your revision because I believe that you didn't mean to erase my changes. You just happened to be working at the same time to restore that picture. If I am wrong, please discuss. --Rroser167 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image free version

It dawned upon me that some of the images in this article might be disturbing to some folks. Thus, I created Nanjing Massacre (no images)
--ZekeMacNeil 15:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you speaking about the photo I mentioned (see above). If so, I think we might as well remove it. Having another image free version will pose a lot of problems IMO. Mandel 15:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dispute template = Disgusting

The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more today.

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

Neo Nazis 'dispute' the Holocaust, yet the Holocaust article has no 'dispute' template. The 'dispute' by ultra nationalist Japanese revisionists is not to be recognised either.

It does not honour the memory or honour yourselves to recognise these racist veiws - you may as well recognise Neo Nazi veiws and call it a day!!

DISGUSTING!!

(Ansar)

I removed the picture "Nanjing_ditch" , it is confirmed that the picture was taken in Suzhou蘇州 instead of Nanjing. And this picture first appeared in "The　China　Weekly　Review" whichi says it was taken in Suzhou. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/scene%20j.jpg

I can't see anything in your source proved it was taken in Suzhou. Caiqian 13:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reminder

I don't know why this is so hard for everyone to get, but please, please, click on the signature button when you post here. It's the second button from the right above the edit window. --Rroser167 17:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. If you don't, who else should we address the replies to then? A ghost? Mandel 19:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I guess with many browsers the signature button simply doesn't work. At least this is the case with mine. It might work if you instead ask all to type ~~~~ directly after any comment. Gerryben 04:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fuzzy Math

"Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?"

According to census reports before war broke out, there are exceeded 1 million people lived in Nanjing in 1937. During the japanese occupation, there are at least half a millon longterm residents, plus 90,000 Chinese soldiers and tens of thousands of migrants. Caiqian 06:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been addressed at nauseum. --24.42.88.192 04:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

Ad naseum indeed. See [5]. Mandel 08:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Japan free speech my arse. This is an excerpt from another website:

"In a 1999 interview with salon.com, Chang noted: "Japanese extremists have used lawsuits, death threats and even physical intimidation to silence their opponents. Just this year, a fanatic with a baseball bat trashed the offices of a Japanese publisher who printed the diary of a Japanese veteran of the Nanking massacre. Also, when a Chinese feature film on the Rape of Nanking was shown in Japanese theaters a few months ago, right-wingers harassed theater owners, slashed up movie screens with knives and even smashed a loudspeaker truck through theater gates. In Germany, Holocaust deniers have no significant voice, and they remain on the fringes of society. But in Japan, those who deny the existence of the Nanking massacre often occupy leading positions in government, business and academia. For instance, I find it extremely disturbing that the newly elected governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, is an outspoken revisionist of World War II history. He told Playboy magazine back in 1990 that the Rape of Nanking was a "lie" and "a story made up by the Chinese." He's enormously popular in Japan, and he won the election by a landslide. Last summer, Kunihiko Saito, the Japanese ambassador to the U.S., made headlines when he attacked my book as "inaccurate" and "one-sided" -- though he couldn't come up with one good example to support his allegations, even when grilled by reporters. People were pretty shocked by his comments, because they were made not by some notorious ultranationalist fanatic but by a major Japanese government official -- indeed, the top official representative of the Japanese government in the U.S. And many people spoke up and criticized him for it. The People's Republic of China, my American publisher (Basic Books) and human rights groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia all wrote letters protesting the ambassador's statements."

--24.42.88.192 04:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

Rape Paragraph

Somone has butchered the Rape Paragraph. 7 consecutive sentences begin with watered down rhetoric as below.

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Is this a joke - are we talking about something that happened or not?!

Is this some Chineese mythology that the Chineese happen to 'say', 'beleive', and 'consider' happened?

It is highly disrespectful!!

Also Note - 'It is as well said...' Japan wrote this one - should be, 'it is ALSO said'. (the way it is 'said' is not pertinent). --AussieSoldier 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be that someone. And no, this is not a Chinese mythology, and I do believe it happened. The changes were made after Coolcat placed the POV banner again and again. What I did is called neutralization. If you have propositions, feel free to present them. Fadix 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey.

Coolcat - Please stop watering down the article with a ridiculous tone of fantasy that this massacre exists in peoples' minds only. --AussieSoldier 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I am suggesting. NPOV suggests this, please read my post below. There are certain things wikipedia has guidelines for. AussieSoldier, the opposing view is not disrespectfull, it is disrespectull to ignore the opposing view. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I respect that the article must be NPOV, as you state. Yet you state, "is is desrespectful to ignore the opposing view". You have not been consistent Coolcat and it seems you have other intentions to what you state.
It IS indeed disrespectful to acknowledge the 'opposing veiw' if it is put forward by Neo Nazis Japan as such is not a 'veiw', but racist nationalistic rhetoric. --AussieSoldier 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute?

Nanjing massacre has never been an established history, but a rejected illusion amoung many scholars. Many disgusting picutres the Chinese show are already proven to be fake or not related to nanking, and abusolutely lack of authenticity.

Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?

I wonder since when Chinese government earned such trustworthiness. We are all supposed to know that the chinese goverment has been infamous for lying for last half of century. We should not make an exception of this one also.

In Japan, for many decades we have been intensely discussing and studying this issue more than any other country including China herself where there is freedom of speech or freedom of press, and have made quite a stock pile of data on Nanking. I think the Japanese really are obsessive Nanking maniacs. People most obsessed with Nanking are Japanese, I can tell you.

Afterall it all turned out that there was'nt any Nanjing massacre they claim to exist. There was no witness of the masscre by a third party. There was no picuture that can prove the massacre (although picture is not necessary proveing masscre, it proves that they had to do this kind of things for some reasons). There is no logical explanation that can clear up population contradiction.

I am not denying the Nanjing massacre. I am saying that they are just failing to prove Nanjing massacre.

We don't have any responsibility to prove Nanjing massacre not happened. People can't prove things that did'n happen, because there is no informaition about things did't happen. That is not our responsibility. Resopnsibilities are for people who are claim that it happened. Then our argument starts.

You Neo Nazi Japan bastard - China will crush Japan like a bug and North Korea will come to the party. How about China nuke Tokyo and we'll call it even. --220.101.63.169 09:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


So there you have it, a Japanese who says that the Nanking Massacre doesn't exist. How do you then explain:
  • John Rabe's diaries [6]
  • Rev. John Magee's film on Nanking civilian victims[7]
  • Minnie Vautrin's diaries
  • Robert Wilson and James McCallum's letters to their families [8]
  • First-hand confessions by Japanese imperial soldiers

[9]?

We'd love to hear your explanations. Mandel 19:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous person who posted above comments and I do not claim that Nanjing Massacre did not occur but let me here recommend you to read this excellent review article by a non-Japanese/non-Chinese historian "which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner", as is referred in the Archive 1. (I strongly recommend this article to the believers of the Illusion School too.)
Let me also comment that John Rabe, the very person you cite, estimates the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy as 'thousands' unlike the propaganda of Chinese government 300,000, see the linked article for the corresponding reference. The article itself supports the estimate of 20,000-42,000 victims, a horrible number anyway but it must be written for NPOV in this Wikipedia page, I believe. Gerryben 03:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
John Rabe has never conducted a systematic count and left Nanking in February, before the slaughter ended, that is why he gave only 50,000-60,000 were killed. Caiqian 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you could read the linked article before commenting the thing which is already answered in it. First, Rabe's estimate 50,000-60,000 includes at least 30,000 soldiers killed in action, not even executed, as is clearly stated by himself and his estimate of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was 'thousands', as I mentioned already. Second, the Chinese government itself has been literally set in concrete the definition - that of the post-war war crimes trials - that the Nanjing Massacre lasted for six weeks, from mid-December to late January. I'll come back to this point below in another comment. Gerryben 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why you want to mislead people. Let's look what John Rabe really said,
"Enemy Planes over Nanking," report to Adolf Hitler, in the Yale Divinity Scholl Library. Rabe write: "According to Chinese reports, a total of 100,000 Chinese civilians were murdered. But that seems to be an overassessment--we Europeans estimate the number to be somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000".
However, The worst of Nanjing Massacre was concentrated in the first six to eight weeks, but the slaghter has never ended.
Still, John Rabe has never conducted a systemtic count, but I think the number he estimated is far more than you realized.
Dear Anonymous, It's great that you have direct access to the primary source in the Yale Divinity School Library. It may well be that there is discrepancy among his diary and letters because the review article seems to be based on his diary for his statement on the 30,000 Chinese soldiers killed in combat. Can you also read the Letter from John Rabe, included in 'Reports from the German Foreign Office in China to the German Foreign Office in Berlin'? According to the article, there you will find his official report to the German Embassy that estimates the civilian death toll 'thousands'. This Reports should be cited as well in Pritchard, R. John, and Sonia Magbanua Zaide, 1981, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, New York: Garland Publishers.
For my basic standing points and current understanding on this problem, please see my comments below. Gerryben 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First of all, let me state that John Rabe worked with the living, not the dead, of Nanking. His humanitarian works were with 200, 000 - 250, 000 refugees in the International Zone, and he never scoured the large city of Nanking counting bodies of the dead; and specifically, he worked within the confines of the city wall, and the death toll in Nanking by the PRC includes suburban and rural areas around Nanking. The death toll of Nanking Massacre has been a big area of contention, but that has been addressed in the article. I mentioned John Rabe because the anon user above claimed the Massacre never did happened.
What is the final estimate will never be known for sure. The word however which states that your view is biased is the word "propaganda". I'm not an expert of the Nanking death toll, but looking at records, I do feel that to arrive at a number, both Japanese and Chinese scholars must worked together with the conscience of righting history, not whitewashing them. To state that one side is propanganda, one has to list the reasons, and not state that, well, since they are the PRC, everything they say must be lies. Most people who make this sweeping statement never really to bother to examine the claims of either parties.
One very important difference is that the PCR estimates take into account disarmed POWs who surrendered and ought not be killed under international laws. These POWs are often killed in massive bands, and that often in bands of ten thousands (see Honda Katsuichi, who make a very thorough examination for over a decade and recently concluded his estimate as slightly over 100, 000) Mandel 07:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
You look sensible and that is why I would like you to read the review article by a more neutral scholar from Australia. The word "propaganda" is with a list of the reasons you can see there, so please, please read through before judging. (Actually to me the presence of a propaganda seems obvious by merely reading the plain racist comments against Japanese above in this page, but I would refrain from asking you to agree to such extent. ;P)
I wouldn't call it racism, but rather anti-Japanese sentiments, which is common not in China but also Korea as well (both South and North, hence it has no left-right political bias) - for reasons quite apparent and in the news lately. Yes, I have read the article, but I can also cite an American scholar who holds quite a different viewpoint. Mandel 16:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
In the article you will see that in Japan, unlike in the communist PRC where you could be sentenced to death by criticizing the government's orthodoxy, there has been a long standing debate among many historians and journalists who are now roughly classified into three categories, namely the Illusion School, the Middle-of-the-Road School, and the Great Massacre School.
The last School argues that 100,000-200,000 or even more were "massacred" in Nanjing, basically to match PRC's claim. I personally remember the era when they were dominant in Japanese media, among whom Katsuichi Honda was the most prominent ideologue. Do you know that he loved communism so much that he reported about Cambodia in 1975 as follows? "America's propaganda 'massacre by communist' turned out to be a total lie, as always the case, and the Japanese anti-leftish believers who mediated the propaganda were even more laughable." Later he realized that there really was a genocide in which more than a million people were killed by the Khmer Rouge supported by PRC. Then he revised his expressions, and then finally he removed the whole article from his book. There exists quite the same story of him about North Korea. Yes he is famous in Japan. If you read Japanese, funny stories are available in the Wikipedia page about him too.
Thank you for calling me sensible, but just as I can only understand the Chinese side of the matters, not the Japanese - I can read Chinese but not Japanese - I have the odd feeling that you much better understand the Japanese side of things rather than the Chinese. In China, it is no longer true that "you could be sentenced to death by criticizing the government's orthodoxy" - though China does not match US's standards of freedom of speech, there is no reign of terror like that in the Cultural Revolution. So badpainting Chinese communism (I'm not even sure the term communism isn't a misnomer in present Chinese politics) isn't going to put one side in better light in this Nanjing debate. There has been so much untruth circulating about the PRC's role in the Nanjing Massacre's "propaganda" that I'm surpised where it came from. Simply state, for years the PRC avoided the issue (the Mao regime stifled mention of the Massacre) - it is only recently that the PRC addressed it formally in public. True, Katsuichi Honda is a leftist - but I'll leave the name-calling to the Japanese. In present-day Japan, the political climate is that it's one of the very few nations which have only right-right political inclinations, and both ruling party and major opposition are right-wing. Hence left-sided views are often marginalized and caricatured by the mainstream, and I won't be surprised when the mayor of Tokyo - an extreme rightist - is so popular in Japanese society.
Actually to cook up 300,000 is not that easy. As you mentioned, the Great Massacre School has to add Chinese soldiers into 'victims' assuming that the eight out of nine dead were captured and executed, not killed in action, without any explanation. Even this was not enough to make up 300,000 and they drastically widened the area so that six surrounding xian (countries) as well as Suzhou (190 kilometers away) and even Shanghai (320 kilometers away) are included in "Nanjing". Accordingly the starting period of the incident had to be pushed back into November and even August.
After decades of debate, a large group within Great Massacre School has begun to revise its numbers downwards. See the review for details.
The Chinese tactic to use soldiers in civilian cloths, which is clearly against the International Laws of war and does not guarantee the status of POW for them when captured, also complicate the matter but I'd leave it for the moment.
You seem adamant to suggest that 300,000 is a propaganda. While I am no expert of the Massacre, what I do believe is that even if this number is wrong and erroneous, it is certainly not "propaganda" - an effort to come up with a wrong estimate at any cost by the PRC. My question is have you examine the claims from the Chinese point-of-view rather than from the Japanese?
Secondly, it appears all your understanding of the Massacre seem to come from Japanese sources. While it is true that some soldiers are in civilian clothing, it is not used as "a tactic against the Japanese", but rather as their personal ploy to escape being caught as POW. Many soldiers have been recruited by force by the Kuomintang. A large group - maybe even majority - of the victims are POWs who are massacred under rules contrary to international laws.
I do feel that "Japanese and Chinese scholars working together with the conscience of righting history" will be meaningful when and only when China develops democracy to the extent to assure the Freedom of speech. (You can clearly see in this page itself how meaningless it is without a culture of debate. ;)
Finally let me repeat that I am not claiming that there was not Nanjing Massacre. The tens of thousands of victims in 6 weeks are dreadful enough to memorize the Japanese Empire's evil doing in China. It doesn't matter if the number of victims in Nanjing counts 30,000 or 300,000 after hearing that tens of millions of Chinese are killed totally in the war anyway. I just try to get closer to NPOV, keeping a distance from a propaganda at least in Wikipedia. Gerryben 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The number is important, because historical accuracy is important. I don't submit to the latest Japanese history textbook preface that "historical accuracy is not important - what's more important is that we understand the psychology of the age and period" crap. And if two sides do not agree, obviously the best way is to sit down and show the other party the evidence, as in a courtroom. As of now, China is not a democracy - but does it mean that only in a democracy could the standard scholarship be trusted? And some of the people who submit rants to this page are Americans you know. :-)Mandel 16:55, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. Gerryben: Japan is a democracy, but that fact is not saving the left wing from being marginalized and ridiculed - a tyranny of the majority, in other words. I would say that the "Japanese and Chinese scholars working together with the conscience of righting history" will only happen after both China and Japan get over their current frenzied tides of nationalism. Unfortunately, that won't happen for quite some time. -- ran (talk) 17:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing=Nanking?

Why is Nanking being called "Nanjing"? → JarlaxleArtemis 03:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

南京=pinyin: Nánjīng--Snow steed 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And shouldn't the article's title be instead "The Rape of Nanking"? → JarlaxleArtemis 03:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

"The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang.--Snow steed 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Nanking" is an old transliteration used in the time the event took place probably non-Mandarin dialect-based. "Peking" (sometimes Beiping) and "Canton" are also examples of old transliteration used in that period in the West before pinyin transliteration was standardised. Personally, I've seen the the event most referred to using "Nanking". Naturally, the place name is the same in Chinese. --Kvasir 21:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are many languages in China. The predominant ones are Mandarin and Cantonese.

In the Cantonese vernacular, the Chinese ideographs are read as Nanking, to be more precise, Namking, and in Mandarin it is read as Nanjing.

When the European invaders first reached China, their point of reference was mostly Cantonese, hence place names like Peking, Nanking and Canton.

They have all been romanised according to the Hanyu Pinyin romanisation system now and are Beijing, Nanjing and Guangdong according to the Mandarin vernacular reading of the places.

Well... I think it is more likely that "Nanking" and "Peking" are Ming & Qing Dynasty-era Mandarin pronunciations. You're right in saying that in Cantonese, Nanking would have been Namking. And Peking would have been Pakking. There are other examples... e.g., the province of Jilin, which was spelled as Kirin (with a southern k- sound), but if this were based on a southern pronunciation like Cantonese, then it should have been "Katlam" or something similar. -- ran (talk) 20:36, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with you Ran but that is completely incorrect, the Chinese vernaculars did not start shifting at that time. You can do more research by looking up Middle Chinese and Classical Chinese. The Mandarin never altered the King sound to Jing sound as quickly as that. Most of the colonial invasion came from the Southern Coasts in those days, thus, they romanised from Cantonese and Minnan. Kirin is romanised according to the dialect around Jilin at a different stage that is why it is not calle Katlam. By the way, you are really offensive by blocking me yesterday. You did not read the regulations on Wikipedia that you are not supposed to call users who are newbies Vandals. That is an abuse of your privilege. I notice a lot of experienced editors here who like to block and delete the text contributions of newbies are really mean. Why are educated people so mean? This is a free world and we all have a privilege to speak out part but should also listen to others and not be so quick to censor others.

It is Nanking and Peking, not Pakking and Namking because you are confusing these early romanisations with the Jyut Ping which is a later linguistic invention. They are also not all romanised according to English. The British invaders came the last. They were first romanised by an Italian Missionary called Ricci and then by the French missionaries. That is why Guangdong is written as Canton. Canton was never meant to be an English romanisation. If you pronounce it in French, it sound exactly like the Cantonese pronunciation of it, even today. Same thing for Peking and Nanking. When you pronounce them in French, Italian, they sound more like the original Cantonese vernacular variant. Do not be so quick to dismiss what you do not know or understand because one day when you need someone to understand you when you are old ugly and lonely, others will also dismiss you in the same way. -- anon

Replied to on User talk:194.206.179.4 -- ran (talk) 02:31, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

At the time the massacre took place the city was named Nanking in English (and some other European languages), and that's probably the reason why one gets more hits by searching "Nanking" on a search engine. Somehow I do agree changing the title as "Nanking Massacre". — Instantnood 08:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

But the Chinese capital was also usually referred to as Peking at the time by foreigners. When people write about that city now they use "Beijing", even if it comes from a period when it was widely called "Peking". The reason you get more hits for "Nanking" is that Iris Chang used it in the title of her book (possibly because she was American) and that's the most common associated "thing" with the Massacre. We shouldn't add to this and follow the flock like good little sheep. Let's set things strait and educate others. John Smith's (talk) 22:35, 13th June, 2005 (DST)

CoolCat

CoolCat,

Despite your claims to be "unbiased," you clearly are.

- The term historians isn't "abused." Find me a topic where you can't dig up some historians who disagree. - I agree with you that a picture of a dead naked woman should probably be less conspicuous. - But charging that they aren't authentic? I'm been interested in this topic for quite awhile and i'll be the first to admit that we are not 100% certain that those pictures are authentic. But do you realize that no historic picture can meet that standard? I've heard claims (with backing) that the pictures of concentration camps are staged; and dead bodies of holocaust victims are really German POWs starved to death by the British and Americans. Do you know when I hear the claims made? When I am debating with neo-nazis and holocaust deniers. Likewise, guess where I hear claims that Nanking pictures are all fake and are really executed Chinese criminals? The bottom line is these pictures are conventionally believed to be genuine. Absent, credible proof that they are false (and when I say credible, I mean by real historians and not by right-wing PRC or right-wing Japanese nationalist historians), I don't see why they should be omitted. - There are opposing view points in to the fact that Nanking was an atrocity committed by the Japanese. There are also opposing view points that the Holocaust was an atrocity committed by the Nazis. Sure, they warrant mention and discussion. BUT... does there existence somehow demote the historic truth of the Nanking massacre? - I agreed lots and lots of work needs to be done. But you have to realize something. Unlike, Holocaust denial, revisionism and denial of wartime atrocities is more mainstream in Japanese society. The Nanking Massacre Tribunal, historians, and the international community already agree that there was such an event as the Nanking massacre and various facts related to it. Our decision is whether we side with the tribunal who reviewed the evidence, the internaitonal community, and historians, or do we bend to revisionists and deniers. You seem to have made your decision. Stop trying to give an air of impartiality.

Coolcat: your partiality has been impugned. Do us all a favour and withdraw from this. Otherwise, this article is as good as dead. I respect your attempts to "mediate" and you may think you are "unbiased" but this is not how you are being perceived (and no, i'm not Chinese or a awashed with Chinese propaganda). So please, for the sake of history, stay out of this and let these fine other fine ladies and gentleman do their work. -Unsigned

Whoever you are please sign your work. I am unbiassed regarding this. I know nothing regading it. Now, there is no such thing as fake historians. You may not agree with their "retorical" ideas but wikipedia requires them to be present. I am not disputing Najings "truths". Now the Holocaust is not contraversial. No goverment including Germany is denying them. Japan does not acknowlege this as a massacre, I presume. Please read [[WP:NPOV] if you dont see what I am doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nationality of editors

Somebody posted this comment earlier on this talk page: "Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey."

I could not disagree with this comment more. Our understanding of history would be much poorer if it was written only by those who had the same nationalities as the countries they were writing about. It also seems to me that those who are involved tend to write with some bias towards their own nationality. Imagine if we turned this page over to only Chinese or Japanese writers. Based on what I've seen in the talk page, a revert war would result, and the article would degenerate into propaganda for the two sides.

I disagree with most of CoolCat's assessments, but to say that being Turkish or non-Chineses should disqualify him from providing input is not the kind of thing Wikipedia needs. --Rroser167 13:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I never suggested its bad to have chineese or japaneese contributers, they are most likely to research their own history best. I am here to make sure both sides provide information in a NPOV way. No one is disqualified from contributing IMHO. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CoolCat - what I was trying to do was to defend your right to participate in this page. I'm also not trying to say that Chinese or Japanese shouldn't be contributing; rather, it just seems that most people tend to insert their own biases into this kind of thing, and it's nice to have independent views to keep things in balance. Looking at most of the Chinese and Japanese posters on this talk page, I think that this is especially true here. --Rroser167 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Coolcat,
No one is denying that you have a right to contribute. But yourself admitted you know little about it and your interference is obviously unappreciated by many. Why do you stubbornly continue to tamper?
--65.95.230.185 14:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)MadHatter
  • I am not trying to tamper, please understand that I dont have views regarding either version (I will not favor either side), massacre or not. I am here only and only to make this article in such a way its Neutral. You have to understand a significant amount of people, at least jappanese goverment as far as I can tell denies this being a massacre. Now regarldess of how inaccurate their assesments are, they should have logical reasons. WP:NPOV suggests neutrality. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not also points out certain guidelines. I am not accusing any one of you of violating wikipedia policies. I am here to help you work together. I believe all of you here have resaons to believe what you believe in. Sometimes its very hard to see the difference between facts and perspective. I dont understand why my edits in the article were removed. If some one explains them I will be happy. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is a good idea to have a no picture version. After time versions will look very different. You can place pictures in this article. People can read it. I made them small so people cant exactly tell what they are. If people want to see them they can click and enlarge them at their own risk. Also keep inmind this way pictures apear larger than they currently appear on the page. Please do not revert my edits or anybody elses edits unless you have a clear explanation. That way we can tell whats in your head. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've noticed the Nanking vs Nanjing edits. I dont know the details but sisnce this is Nanjing massacre its best to agree with the title. How about Nanjing (Nanking)? Since its in Chineese territory, chinese name must come first. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • What is {{POV}}? It means that this article does not follow NPOV guidelines. I am not suggesting you are lying. I do not hate the Chineese/Japaneese. Article is not NPOV. Dont claim it is. There are certain ways we use in wikipedia to present cases. This article does not abide by them. I am sorry but that is the case. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Causes

The section 'Causes' doesn't touch on the causes of the massacre at all. It just lists the events leading up to the caputre of the city, even this in a flighty manner that confuses me as I read it. Shouldn't its contents be listed under something like 'Events leading up to the capture of Nanjing'? What caused the state of mind -- what was the state of mind that the Japanese troops were in to commit such atrocities? Were the troops acting alone in some sort of personal reaction to something, or was the massacre and rape sanctioned by the military or the government?

It doen not matter - they did it, by order, then they chose to follow the order, Nueremberg says its no defense, and if by no order, then they are even more guilty and sadistic and evil to take it upon themselves to carry out such acts of imagination.

This is not what I meant at all. I'm not curious about this in the sense of its relevance to contemporary prosecution of the act, I'm not curious about its relevance to contemporary recognition of past war crimes. I'm very interested to learn why it happened. Nowhere in this article does it state why the troops did it. All that can be inferred is that the troops captured the city after defeating the Chinese troops at the Battle of Nanjing, and proceeded to commit the massacre for no apparent reason. There must have been something that caused this catastrophic event. Does nobody know? --Anonymous 22:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Japanese committed these atrocities because they considered the Chinese inferior, as the Nazis considered the Jews. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
There is a lack of motives. There is a lack of oposing views. I think some editors should searriously start reading WP:NPOV --Cool Cat My Talk 00:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The article already is NPOV. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
All due respect it is not. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From what I've learnt about the event, was that Nanjing held lengthy defense to the city. Was it because it was walled? I can't remember, but at any rate, the atrocity was probably commited as some kind of a revenge on the population. This is practice is not unheard of in history. The Romance of Three Kingdoms had illustrated instances of armies ramsacked conquered cities to revenge a lengthy and stuborn defense. --Kvasir 22:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Nanking had a horrible defense to their city. Apart from racial issues, the Japanese committed these atrocities because of the great Chinese defense of Shanghai. Shanghai was heavily defended, and the troops there were very well-trained. The Japanese bragged that they would conquer China in a mere three days. However, the Chinese troops at Shanghai held them off for months. After defeating the Shanghai troops, the Japanese quickly worked their way further inland to Nanking. Unlike the troops of Shanghai, the Chinese troops of Nanking were poorly trained and were mostly new recruits. They were defeated in a few days. The Japanese then took their frustration out on the citizens of Nanking. Apart from that, as I mentioned above, the Japanese considered the Chinese inferior, as the Nazis considered the Jews. Also, at the time, it was honorable for captured Japanese soldiers to commit suicide. The Chinese, however, did not believe in this practice, so the Japanese saw them as dishonorable and less than human. This is also why the Japanese led American POVs on death marches. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fight

I do not know what you believe in regarding the matter. I urge you to stop arguing with each other like this. This isnt productive: Lies vs Facts. You do have strong cases right? Why are you not inclined to present them? --Cool Cat My Talk 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there basis for this: According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets

If so present it. It looks very much like propoganda to a person not knowlegable to topic. Citing sources is good practice --Cool Cat My Talk 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who's arguing, dumbass. → JarlaxleArtemis 03:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Lets get started

This is a suggested mediation procedure.

Method

  1. Initial assessment. Complete...
  2. Assessment
  3. Neutralisation
  4. Edit
  5. Feedback -- if good go to step 6, otherwise, to step 2
  6. Final clean up

During all discussion a civil tone should be maintained. The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy should be respected, with no insults or accusations. I will not be making any edits to the article on my own aside from spelling and grammar. We will start this from scratch, meaning all past hostilities will be forgotten. Please provide your arguments in bullet format and sign each. In order not to get involved in a "revert war", allow me to make the changes based on what we agree here. I will stay neutral in the article itself.

  • <-- Bullet.

Please, refrain from "you are wrong, we are right"-type arguments: use a more productive "I see your point, but this is what I think, how about rephrasing it as...". Insisting on a single, unaltered version does not help.

Please say what, in your opinion, is POV or what isn't factual in the article in the format below:

Categories

Argument (italic non indented)

  • View Pro Argument (bullet with no indenting)
  • View Against Argument (bullet with one indenting)
  • View neither for nor against (bullet with two indenting)
  • Consensus (Bold, italic non indented text)
Colours

This is how it appears in the article:

This is a randomly generated string.

This is how I recommend suggesting a change in article:

  • This is a randomly generated string. (material to be removed red in color <span style="color:red;">string</span>)
  • This is a randomly generated text. (material to be removed green in color <span style="color:green;">string</span>)

While you are not obligated to use this format, for the sake of clarity I highly recommend it.

...

Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --Cool Cat My Talk 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example: I think the rewording below is necesary

  • According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets
  • According to other reports, some Chinese were set on fire, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets

...And why should it be more neutral to use 'set on fire' instead of 'burned'? Anyway, you didn't just made 'minor modifications to the article.' You deleted large parts of it, eventhough you admit that you know nothing about the topic. Why don't you (for a change) edit an article where you have at least some basic knowledge about the topic? Read the comments by the other editors here. You are wasting peoples time. Stereotek 08:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --AussieSoldier 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The title 'The Incident' is problematic as it is the term used in school text books in Japan.

Someone has already changed it back to 'Japanese Atrocities'.

It may be helpful to discuss such change rather than simply revert back - it is the more constructive way about it, otherwise the hostility will continue and it'll get no where.

As I stated above, the rape paragraph commences with 7 consecutive sentences as below;

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Apart from my emotive position againt these sentences, something has to be done about this as it makes the article far from 'iron clad' - it all has a tone to it which seems like a fairy tale. If it is fact, then it is to be stated simply as such, if it is not fact, then it is not to be stated at all - the purpose is to state what happened, not what people commonly believe happened - the article is about a said 'massacre', not about the people who ponder it. --AussieSoldier 08:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AussieSoldier to fix "According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..." words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fantastic - if a sentence has a 'reputable source', then it is to be stated as fact. --AussieSoldier 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to the title 'The Incident' / 'Japanese Atrocities' it is established that atrocities took place on some level. Hence, the content may need work, but the title 'Japanese Atrocities' is neutral - China and Japan do not dispute the taking place of atrocities, it is the scale which is disputed, and the scale is not biased in the current title. --AussieSoldier 08:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I still think its too strong of a word. However thats the least of our worries. People will have an easier time believeing you if you can show us your sources. We are not suggesting you are lying. Best reputable and Neutral source probably will be a Non-Chineese, Non-Japan govermental web page. Like CIA factbook. You have to understand that the other party should not be able to dispute the material you provided, that way you have made a very strong case. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more

The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more. I have an emotive position againt such template - but as it will only revert back if it is removed, it may be best to let it be as the article is still under construction. As the article continues to be worked on in a constructive way it will be removed once the article is complete.

It may be less hostile to others if the person who posted the 'dispute' template discussed it - the reason for it and that it will be happening. It is not constructive to take yourself on a frolic of your own. --AussieSoldier 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article does not abide by WP:NPOV it is maditory that the POV tag stay there. I am not saying "lies" I am saying "non neutral". Once again this is how we do things on wikipedia. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - the problem may be your understanding of english - I am being highly reasonable and taking some steps back in the hope that the article can be worked on and completed. I ask that you recognise and respect this. The 'dispute' template will only increase the hostile climate here, but our end aim is to complete the article which will see the end of the template.

I never suggested that you were implying 'lies'. Im asking you to work with ALL of us. --AussieSoldier 10:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - I also ask you to state in particular what is not neutral in the article. --AussieSoldier 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am clarifying my standing. I was trying to tell you that I did not acuse of anything. Apperantly I had the opposite effect. First of First chill. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 10:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will tell you what I think is not neutral slowly so we can fix things one problem at a time. I can tell you however there needs to be a "tuning" down of words. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have to see that article has "blunt" accusation of japaneese "denial". The "revisionist" views maybe unnaceptable to you but it is the other version of the stroy which should be mentioned in the aproporate tone. This is a very hard article to neutralise, I made some suggestions below, you are welcome to decline them, or help me rewrite them. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me why japan wont accept this? And japaneese motive? Sane people dont kill without a reason. Asserting resons is a good way to start the NPOVisation. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The economic and political reconstruction of Japan has a lot to do with it. The happenings of the war were suppressed in a lack of education. It can be contrast to the denazification in Germany - nothing like that happened in Japan - the Emperor, Hirohito, was never brought to account and continued to be the 'arahitogami', living god, to the people of Japan. Japan officers who carried out such atrocities were never brought to account and took prominent positions in Japan society - business and scholastic - In particular, the officers who worked on chemical and biological war. In contemporary Japan society there is a highly nationalistic element, vehement that Japan not recognise such atrocities. --AussieSoldier 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see this in the article as it is presented. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As to motivation - it may be described in terms of nationalism and culture in general. The culture in Japan is complex. It is often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'.--AussieSoldier 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Umm... I serriously am unsure, defining an entire culture of a nation as "sadistic" may not be a good idea. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


AussieSoldier, your statement "the Emperor, Hirohito continued to be the 'arahitogami', living god, to the people of Japan" is plainly wrong. If you assert this statement, at least please show your source that provides such a funny story.
As a Japanese I agree that the guys conducted the Unit 731 must have been put under trial and executed. Unfortunately for Japanese too, they are not even brought to trial because USA wanted their data in return for waiving them and whitewashing the fact. (Some claim that US exercised this data in biological warfare in the Korean War.) All the documents are taken away and they kept silence until their death. In Japan, it is very difficult to put somebody on trial without any evidence.
Still, I learned about unit 731 in schools as a shameful evilness. Many documents are now available online too in Japanese language, see e.g. google search result. So saying that Japan is trying to hide it would be somewhat misleading.
About comparison with Germany, I would just suggest you to try to compare whatsoever evil of the Japanese Empire with the Holocaust in front of Jewish people, and see what they will say.
For 'sadistic', I do not have much to say to this racist comment.
By the way, do Chinese kids learn about their own past such as invasions of Vietnam, the last one being 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, and PRC's support of Khmer Rouge during its genocide which killed more than a million Cambodians? Gerryben 14:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gerryben- The above statement is NOT incorrect - It must be read in context and I refer you to the article on Japane and Emperor. Emperor Hirohito 'renounced' the title, 'arahitogami', living god - but it is true that he remained a figure of Japan Imperialism in the hearts and minds of the Japanese people - the purpose of the statement was to elucidate the reason of contemporary denail. --AussieSoldier 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Gerryben - Also - I have not stated that Japan attempts to 'hide' Unit 731 - I stated those officers were "never brought to account" - please learn some english. The purpose of the statements about such officers was to elucidate the contemporary denial - when the prominent people who choose to recognise such atrocities are the same people as those that carried it out, then there is a problem. --AussieSoldier 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gerryben - It is the hope to complete the article about the particular Nanjing Massacre - and indeed whatever China does or does not do in terms of its own people or recognition has no place here. It is not a political forum. If a massacre took place - and it has been established, then whatever China did in '1979' does not matter for the purposes of the article - it is a fallacy to sugest that because China doenst recognise what it did in '1979' that a massacre never took place - it is highly perplexing why some Japanese suggest such fallacy at all.

I am an Australian and in school we learn about what atrocities were commited in our name against Aboriginal Australia. Regradless of what China does not recognise - Japan may or may not have comitted a massacre - but saying that as China doesnt recognise such and such in 1979 will somehow disprove whatever it is alleged Japan did is ridiculous - it is so perplexing how Japanese people take such logic - what is wrong with them?! if this is the common trend of thought, we are wasting our time. --AussieSoldier 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Gerryben - The statement is, '[Japan culture] is often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'. It is not a racist comment at all - It is merely stating what has ben described by others. The problem may be your understanding of english. The culture in Japan is indeed complex - 'Hikikimori' and other such exist only in Japan as a product of such culture. Walk into any magaznine store in Shinjuku, Tokyo and ALL the Hentia is about young girls bound and tortured for sexual pleasure for the young boys who purchase it - tv also has a high element of humiliation for pleasure of audience and I could go on and write an entore article just about it - all of which often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'. --AussieSoldier 01:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gerryben - The statment about the highly nationlistic element in Japan society is not hidden either - spend some time walking around Shinjuku, Tokyo and you'll come across the convoy of nationalistic buses - draped in the old Imperial Japan flag of the Imperial war, mounted with loud speakers, nationalistic rhetoric is boomed out over the populace about Japan innocence in war , anti-foereign rhetoric and other frightful stuff. --AussieSoldier 01:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Gerryben - The statement about denazification and that such never happened in Japan sets the social and cultural scene of today where denial is the theme - I don't suppose someone from Japan could see this anyway. You have a problem with english, or your nationalistic veiws have clouded your capacity to actually read what I have written - I never compared the Holocause with Japanese atrocities - I stated denazification as a political reconstruction and a shift in the minds of the people - AFTER THE WAR PEOPLE WERE DISILLUSIONED WITH HITLER - YET PEOPLE STILL LOVED, HONOURED AND WORSHIPPED THE EMPEROR. Either way, I have systematically shown that you had best take a step back and read what I have written, or you had best learn some english then come back. --AussieSoldier 02:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AussieSoldier, its my job as a mediator to point out to people when they get carried away. Please keep your prejudice towards the japanese off of the discussion. It may be viewed offensive by the remote party and when that is the case it may be seen as a personal attack. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Coolcat - I have absolutely no 'prejudice' against Japanese at all - I responded to an incoherent attack on what I had written above - it is highly reasoned and states facts. Had Gerryben not 'put words into my mouth', then I would not have written anything. You have to make a distinction between 'negatives' wich are fact, and 'prejudice' Colcat. --AussieSoldier 07:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same could be said about all the cultures I am exposed to. My past experience shows that best strategy aggainst an agressor is to not to "go down to his/her" level, dont reply to insults. Dont insult people either I will be removing such comments now on as discussed on WP:No personal attacks. All parties should not be discussing each other or each others culture. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'Please learn some english' and 'you had best learn some english then come back' is not a very helpful or respectful way of dealing with comments from people whose language is not English, merely because you disagree with what they are saying. Also, while some may have said that the Japanese are 'sadistic', I think you need more than that come out and state that unequivocally. Perhaps it would be better to restrict statements to a particular time, place, or group (e.g., the Imperial Army during WWII). I don't think the Japanese have a monopoly on sadism, which can also be found in such Western practices as 'bastardisation' or 'hazing'.
Bathrobe 12:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please see below --AussieSoldier 16:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Images

I do not agree with having two pages. Its not proper wiki practice, I also think usage of smaller images, same size as The Holocaust. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One page is preferred - I agree. --AussieSoldier 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japanese atrocities

Japanese atrocities be replaced with a different and more neutral word. I can suggest misconduct. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I stated above - it is established that atrocities took place on some level. It is the scale of atrocities which is in dispute. Hence, the title 'Japanese atrocities' is not problematic at all. It is the content of that part of the article for which we will seek 'reputable sources' so the sentences can be stated as fact, or not at all. --AussieSoldier 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Atrocities' may be a 'hard' word - but a neutral article must state fact. --AussieSoldier 13:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand that may be the fact, but the Japanese disagree of its clasiffication. From the article I see a significant opinion does not see this as it appears in this article. We could call it "the event" or maybe "background". Bear in mind for any random reader less hard words appears as more believeable in general (which I believe is your goal aside from article being neutral). Article should not suggest "Atrocities" directly but may imply. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not all Japanese disagree. Many Japanese people agree that the massacre happened. There is more in the historiography section.
Misconduct is a POV word, and very offensively so. -- ran (talk) 16:46, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Coocat - there is a line between NPOV and watering down words so it sounds lovely to some of those involved. If we watered down the Holocaust article and took out hard words such as 'genocide' to make the Germans feel better about it, then it would no longer be neutral. We must state fact Coolcat. Japan who dispute 'atrocitices' rather than 'scale' are Neo Nazi like Japanese who for the purposes of a neutral article cannot be recognised, neither are Neo Nazi veiws in Germany or the Holocaust article.--AussieSoldier 01:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To be neutral it must be fact, regardless of the veiws of any party Coolcat. This is a distinction of reason and logic you have to make. --220.101.63.169 03:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes but lead statement should have speciality. Its imperative that no accusations are in lead. Its best to say to the reader: "Something happened" and then "This is what happened". You are not rewriting historical "facts". You are just having a lead with no conclusions. I highly recomend that, while you dont have to agree. Once we are done with lead I will be interefereing with discussion less. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it is accepted that atrocities took place. There are plenty of Japanese who would agree with this assessment. There is a group that is in 'denial', but their credibility is very much in doubt. You should read this article before capitulating to the 'Illusionist' school of thought:

http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html

As for the name, 'Nanjing Incident', for people unfamiliar with this terminology it may sound 'callous', as if something is being covered up, but this is actually fairly standard Japanese historical terminology which does not involve denying that atrocities took place. --Bathrobe 13:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if the Japanese terminology describes what happened in Europe as the "Auschwitz Incident". Do they use the euphemism systematically or only when it describes the event at Nanking? --Kvasir 03:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
an amalgam of invasion, rapes, murders, inhumane torture...misconduct, eh? That's simply out of the question! Picking a flower in a public park can be a misconduct too, but certainly it's a thousand times less serious... -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:12, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chineese Defeat

"Despite their difficulties, it is likely that China fielded the largest army in the world at the time in terms of troop numbers" the explanation why china lost perhaps differs in the Japaneese version. Siplisticaly calling it a defeat may prevent such conflict. The actual battles article is the right place for such details, I can see that beeing framed as propoganda. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excessive detail belongs in the 'battle article' - I agree. --AussieSoldier 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above is not about 'defeat' at all - it seems you have read it incorrectly. --AussieSoldier 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suggest having a small paragraph about the battle itself which sets the scene for the occupation, and a link to the 'battle article'. --AussieSoldier 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Chineese were defeated by the japaneese during ww2 I think. I understand the nature of the battle was very unpleasant, brutal at least. Thats fine. The exact sentence above (my italicied text) for instance just is unnecesary. Do japaneese see this same? As traumatic/blody ? If so no need to tune this down or elaborade. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AussieSoldier, I see you as a reasonable, civil, and knowlegable individual. Would it be fair if I see you as the Chineese or Pro Massacre view? Would you mind me inviting people with same qualities as you to this article whom are likely to disagree with material? Perhaps you may choose the people you can discuss this as I dont want you to deal with an uncivilised attitude? I am not trying to provoke a revert-war but NPOV encourages any significant view be present, how contraversial they may be of course is open for debate. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
yes, whatever pleases you Coolcat - I am neutral here - but I hold neutrality to be about facts and not about the nationalistic veiws of Japan or China. AussieSoldier

Duplication

According to the history page, you seem to have duplicated the whole page. Please look at the index. Since I only know the way to delete section by section, by hand, I don't want to do that labour by myself. It would be nice if you could delete the latter half of the duplication. Please delete this section too once you have completed it.

I would also suggest you and others to click on the "Show preview" button before clicking "Save page" button all the time and leave your whole history of editing. --Gerryben 15:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a result of the "Edit wars" I am having with parties not involved in the actual discussion but keep reverting points we agreed on. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat, It is duplicated solely by youself. Here is the evidence. Please recover. I would be grateful if you could listen to my second suggestion too. --Gerryben 15:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is a result of two people posting at the same time, I fixed it. You only need to tell me a problem once, I was working on it while you were typing. I actualy merged them rather than deleting. I thought you ment the article itself having this problem on my post above. --Cool Cat My Talk 16:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. (It seems that you deleted my post completely, i.e. deleted the first half half of the duplication rather than second, but I can recover it and don't worry. I wish you haven't deleted others' too, though.) Sorry for confusion but you can clearly see that there have never been "edit war" today if you look at the history page. (My second suggestion will help too in order to make the situation better.)
By the way, shouldn't this section be moved to the first half of the current version, since the latter half of the current version seems to be originally meant to be the exclusively an editing page for a better article. The classification would be better in the line of "Discussion" and "Edition" etc.
Anyway, thanks for your work.--Gerryben 16:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese and Japanese only have one "e" in them. -Uther Dhoul.

Lead

The following rewording is suggested

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to what many historians recognize as widespread atrocities conducted by the [[Imperial Japanese Army|Japanese army]], including the looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to [[Imperial Japanese Army|Japanese troops]] on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (a war that would later become a part of World War II). To this day, the event continues to stir Chinese anger.


The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to conduct by the Imperial Japanese Army in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), later become a part of World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army is accused of looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians during the same era. The incident had been a diplomatic dispute between China and Japan since 1972.

  • I assume this wasnt a diplomatic issue since 1972. Is this correct? I am basing this on the article already there. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Japan and China didn't have diplomatic relations before 1972. Until 1972 Japan recognized the Republic of China government in Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 16:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • You see "what many historians recognize" as fary taling, I agree so no need for this. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • ... well, the only people who don't seem to agree are right-wing politicians and historians in Japan. -- ran (talk) 16:41, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this is a dispute its best not to start with conclusions. Starting with open mind and then making cases in the article is a good lead. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagreement with such a change? --Cool Cat My Talk 15:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks okay to me. However I would also mention that this dispute does not only caused diplomatic discourse, but also met with public disapproval, as seen from recent widespread protests. --Kvasir 22:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a mess

I got a scare after I returned to this topic after days. A revert war has started, the talk page has been a complete mess, and the amount of pointless drivel here in the past few days make me seem as if I ended in a forum page. What happened, and can you people exercise some restrain. Mandel 16:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there was an machine error. See the Duplication section. --Gerryben 16:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Rewrite

Here's an attempt at a rewrite:

Instead of:

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to what many historians recognize as widespread atrocities conducted by the Japanese army, including the looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (a war that would later become a part of World War II). To this day, the event continues to stir Chinese anger.

I have:

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to what many historians recognize as widespread atrocities conducted by the Japanese army, including the looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), a war that would later become a part of World War II. The Nanjing Massacre was quoted to have a death toll of 300,000 at the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal.

To this day, the event continues to be highly controversial. In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism. The given death toll of 300,000 is generally accepted, as are descriptions of various atrocities by both eyewitnesses and official government accounts. In Japan, opinions are more divided, with some people accepting the extent of the massacre as presented by the Tribunal, and others denying that it ever happened. There is a general sentiment in Japan, especially among the right wing, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions, however, are considered by Chinese people as historical revisionism, and as such continue to stir anger and resentment.

-- ran (talk) 16:53, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

It reads pretty NPOV to me at least, though the last sentence of the opening paragraph may be disputed by some users. The 300, 000 controversial figure ought to be mentioned later in the article - at least it won't read as if it is an accepted fact. Mandel 18:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
I second that. However, if the 300,000 figure had been decided upon in the Tribunal, i don't see why it can't be where it is. A figure is neccessary to illustrate why it was considered a massacre. --Kvasir 22:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, like this then:

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to what many historians recognize as widespread atrocities conducted by the Japanese army, including the looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), a war that would later become a part of World War II. The Nanjing Massacre was quoted to have a death toll of 300,000 at the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, and there are also estimates ranging down to about 40,000. [10]

To this day, the event continues to be highly controversial. In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism. The given death toll of 300,000 is generally accepted, as are descriptions of various atrocities by both eyewitnesses and official government accounts. In Japan, opinions are more divided, with some people accepting the extent of the massacre as presented by the Tribunal, and others denying that it ever happened. There is a general sentiment in Japan, especially among the right wing, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions, however, are considered by Chinese people as historical revisionism, and as such continue to stir anger and resentment.

-- ran (talk) 18:28, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC

I have to say that I'm really in favor of the direction that Ran is going with the writing. Here's my support for updating the article according to this kind of writing style. --Rroser167 18:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. The rewrite looks good to me. Nandesuka 22:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rewrite looks good to me, but a small statement can be made on the general western perception and account, not just on the Chinese and Japanese claims. This article, for example, slightly leans towards the Chinese side, and there were also foreigners (esp Christian missionaries) present when the massacre occurred. --Jiang 01:50, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang - It must be stated that it is Japan only who hold such perception and it is NOT only China who hold the opposite perception, namely, the rest of the world hold that a massacre occured. --AussieSoldier 03:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the statement "The given death toll of 300,000 is generally accepted" is meant to be "accepted by Chinese people", it must be made clearer.

Also, at least the following fact must be included in the article for NPOV: the Chinese delegate to the League of Nations at the time put the civilian toll at 20,000 and a Communist Chinese newspaper of the period put it at 42,000.

I have already linked the review article by an Australian researcher working on this subject. (This has been already linked in Archive 1 and I wonder why people do not try to start from basic facts.) If this was not enough for you, I show another article written by Nicholas D . Kristof on New York Times, December 20, 2003.

"Even the Chinese recounting of history has become hysterical. Take the Rape of Nanjing in 1937, which was so brutal that there's no need to exaggerate it. One appalled witness in the thick of the killing, John Rabe, put the death toll at 50,000 to 60,000. Another, Miner Searle Bates, estimated that 12,000 civilians and 28,000 soldiers had been killed. The Chinese delegate to the League of Nations at the time put the civilian toll at 20,000. A Communist Chinese newspaper of the period put it at 42,000."

"Yet China proclaims, based on accounts that stand little scrutiny, that 300,000 or more were killed. Such hyperbole abuses history as much as the denial by Japanese rightists that there was any Rape of Nanjing at all. It nurtures nationalism by defining China as a victim state, the world's punching bag, that must be more aggressive in defending its interests."

Note that he is not a ultra right wing Nazi sympathizer, nor does worship Emperor. (If so, he could not write any article on NYT.) Contrary, he is generally pro-China and describes himself as "one who loves China and is rooting for it to succeed", e.g. he has written an article reporting that Japan removed Nanjing Massacre material from original plan for museum on World War II.--Gerryben 05:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... So what is the lowest numbers japaneese claim and higest chineese? I see it as good practice to write the lowest and higest claims as a range. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Highest is in the range of 300,000 or so. Lowest would probably be 0. -- ran (talk) 15:36, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
this version is acceptable by me, good work. --Kvasir 22:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

..

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to what many historians recognize as widespread atrocities conducted by the [[Imperial Japanese Army|Japanese army]], including the looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to [[Imperial Japanese Army|Japanese troops]] on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (a war that would later become a part of World War II). To this day, the event continues to stir Chinese anger.

  • The statement above (last version you guys came up with) is a bit confusing, how about the follwoing? Keep in mind this is a lead statement while I also have difficulty to write a short lead statement on many articles it should contain maximum information and minimum and less perspectives. We can discuss that in detail below. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes in Japan as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to conduct by the Imperial Japanese Army in and around Nanjing, China after its fall to Japanese troops on December 13, 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), later become a part of World War II. The Imperial Japanese Army is accused of looting, rape, and killing of Chinese civilians during the same era which a death toll is estimated in the range 40,000—300,000 however was quoted as 300,000 at the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. The event continues to stay highly controversial and also is a diplomatic dispute between China and Japan

  • Not exactly delete but relocate the material below. Its "details" right? --Cool Cat My Talk 06:18, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Lead should not alarm anybodies beliefs. That way people will read on. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I cannot accept the description of the Nanjing Massacre as the "conduct of the Japanese Imperial Army". That already alarms my beliefs (and a good indication too is how many people are complaining). The Nanjing Massacre is an accusation of horrendous atrocities. Either it happened or it didn't. Those who don't think any atrocities occurred wouldn't use the term in the first place. Those who think it did are going to call it an atrocity.
    • You have to see that NPOV is not about toning down language (atrocity -> conduct), because that offends even more people. How about toning down the Holocaust article ("The Holocaust refers to the conduct of the Nazis...") to please neo-Nazis? Or a less extreme example -- toning down (say) Islam ("Islam is a dubious and unsupported belief system") to please virulent anti-Islam fundies? NPOV is about presenting views in their full form. This means presenting the Nanjing Massacre both as an atrocity (since that's how people who believe in it view it) and also as a fabrication. (And to use the Islam example -- Islam should be described as whatever the Muslims think it to be in full, and also what everyone else thinks it to be in full, not some halfway compromise that will piss everyone off.) -- ran (talk) 15:31, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry, the lead statement can contain no conclusions in a well written article, that will promote the need of one of the disputed, pov. or totallydisputed tags. You are welcome to find a word defines the incident that wont bother both sides. Neither Islamic beliefs nor Holocaust is disputed either at a govermental or academic level. There is no serrious dispute, for najing that is the case. I do not determine international politics and acadamenia, it just is. I made minor research before comeing here, I was aware of the level of disagreements. I am not qulaified to discuss these disagreements, no one is. I am qualified to help them presented in a reasonable manner. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:33, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(Ran - I agree completely with what you have written above). --AussieSoldier 00:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks AussieSoldier. :)
Coolcat: You are welcome to find a word defines the incident that wont bother both sides. . There is no such word. That's the problem. -- ran (talk) 15:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Then the solution is easy, its not going to be displayed at all. You cannot start the lead by acknowlieging this as Massacre. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To this day, the event continues to be highly controversial. In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism. The given death toll of 300,000 is generally accepted, as are descriptions of various atrocities by both eyewitnesses and official government accounts. In Japan, opinions are more divided, with some people accepting the extent of the massacre as presented by the Tribunal, and others denying that it ever happened. There is a general sentiment in Japan, especially among the right wing, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions, however, are considered by Chinese people as historical revisionism, and as such continue to stir anger and resentment.

  • One problem I have above is the level of generalisation, I not sure if all Chineese/Japaneese uniformaly agree to that statements. Also the usage of "historical revisionism" may appear like an accusation. What do you think? Generaly its good and NPOV, I dont think its lead material though. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course historical revisionism is an accusation. If Japanese accusations of "fabrication" are going to appear in the intro then so should Chinese accusations of "revisionism". Also, I don't see how this can be written with less generalization... after all, the article already states that some Japanese people do agree with the account of the Massacre. -- ran (talk) 15:33, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with ran as above --AussieSoldier 16:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both sides are acussing each other of fabrication. Neither sides accusation should be presented as an accusation. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then what do we present? There would be nothing left to say, except for a halfway account of things that will offend both sides. -- ran (talk) 15:43, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • I honestly am impresed the way you guys are discussing this. Thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Ok, this isnt going well... I take that back. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat what are you doing? It is an encyclopedia and aint page of opinions! write what happend and not what any people think happend. doesnt matter if they all agree, its about what happend. it aint a reconciliation page of opinions.

Whoever youy are FIRST sign your post, you can do that by either clicking on the icon between W and -- on the top bar, 2nd rigten most or you could type: --~~~~. History has varous explanations. All notable views are REQUIRED to be present, this is an online Encyclopedia. Or you will have to deal with {{totallydisputed}} tag. What happened is not the issue here, you have to understand that this incident is seen diferently in Japan, as you can clearly see at the last paragraph, japaneese are not accepeting this as a massacre, like it or not those are notable views as far as NPOV is concerned. Therefore must be present. Even articles like creationism exists, wikipedia is based on everybodies facts even if those facts conflict. I am not suggesting you or the japaneese are lying. But this is how articles are written. Because I know nothing regarding the incident I see my self capable of pointing out when people get carried away. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Memorial Hall photo

There's a stark "carving" of sorts at the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall in Nanjing, which says in 3 languages; "遇难者 Victims 遭難者 300000". There's a photo at [11]. I believe there's also a wall covered with the names of victims. I wonder if anyone has a GFDL version? -- ran (talk) 16:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Current 'neutraliser' is not neutral!!

Coolcat - I have had a look at the history of the 'Armenian Genocide' discussion page - you clearly have other intentions here - I ask you stand down as 'neutraliser' immediately. --AussieSoldier 04:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't order me around. You cant order anyone around. I will tag along as an adviser then. Just becasue I am polite I am accepting this. This article is NOT neutral. I was banned for 18 hours so that no one else in the discussion did, I see it as self sacrifice. Can you elaborate what my intentions are? --Cool Cat My Talk 08:29, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am acting as a mediator in nanjing massacre which requires me to not hold views either way. I am neither denying or acknowliging any material. It is hard to deal with NPOV when people have strong views regarding the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Coolcat has no official role as a mediator; this is merely a self-applied label. He has previously attempted to cast himself in the role of 'mediator' on Talk:Armenian Genocide, Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh and Talk:Greco-Turkish relations, where he has met considerable resistance. He loves to use coloured text on talk pages and quote highly unique interpretations of Wikipedia policies, especially NPOV. Anyone is free to reject his self-styled 'mediation' and any advice he offers. He has been known to engage in personal attacks and edit other users talk page postings. — Davenbelle 09:00, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
You have no official status either. I am trying to help, you are not. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Armenian Genocide I was insulted on an edit basis.
  • Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh I still apear as a mediator, no discussion has been made in this article last time I checked.
  • Talk:Greco-Turkish relations My mediation attempt was destroyed by several people affiliated with Talk:Armenian Genocide, My suggestions are visible, my edits to the artilce is vissible. Wikipedia is anybody can edit median, I can assume any label. I never said I was official. I am only trying to help here regardless of the outside interference by several people affiliated with Talk:Armenian Genocide
"Official status" is such an Anti-wiki philosophy. I am a user, period. I am, however, most certainly here to help. — Davenbelle 09:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Hence no one can be an official mediator. thank you. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You just posted what 4th comment on which all you were discussing me. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

why were you banned for 18 hours?

I reverted the article more than 3 times. I did not want the version to change, and I did not want the image concenssus to be affected. 3rr (three revert rule) dictates article not to be reverted more than 3 times. This rule is enforced. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My first real mediation effort was in that article. That article is not Neutral. I was accused of many things and irritated/insulted on a daily basis. I learnt alot from past mistakes I am learning more about mediation while working here. Mediation is an art in which you never stop learning. Pretty much like Kung-fu, the chineese fighting art. I recomend ignoring outside interference from people in Armenian Genocide for their comments regarding me. I am ignoring them, so should you. The discussion started ok, lets not make a mess out of it. Random people who just locked the topic (like silsor did here) due to 3rr violations. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let me mention something about US History. Untill the modern times Indians (Native Americans) were accused of massacring pilgrims, soldiers, villeges. Every one believed this throughout the world. Even on compic books this was there. Today this is not the case. And even "Indians" are pardoned for the mistreatment and false accusations they recieved. What does this mean? Historic "facts" are not allways the way they appear. While I am not suggesting this is the case in this article, as far as the Japannese ("revisionists" as you call them) think otherwise. You are not required to accept their views by no means, and neither they are to accept yours. Please understand that they "believe" their facts are as factual as you believe yours are. That is why you should not accuse japan or the japannese. This is why you may not be able to see what appears to the other side as opinions. I can see this not been affected by either sides views. I am not trying to make things look nice, neither side is suggesting what happened was pretty. They see it as a consequence of war is that correct? Chineese see this as massacre right? See the conflict in facts? Now whenever the japannese comunity withdraws their opposition this wont be an issue, currently that is not the case. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shall we follow suit and dimiss the Holocaust becuase some neo-Nazis have opposition that it happened?! AussieSoldier
No, because only a minority sees a problem. No issues at a govermental or academic level. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have accounted for the lack of government level recognition - please see above. AussieSoldier

Define "governmental or academic levels", If minor political parties say it, is it on a "governmental level"? If a small number of professors say it, is it on an "academic level"? -- ran (talk) 15:48, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

As an acting mediator I still will not take sides. I am not disputing or acknowlinging any material as facts because of my seat. Since you object me being a mediator, I will not conflict with you. I wish we could work on the problem in the same relationship. I dont want to leave the topic though untill either you can find a replacement for me, or withdraw your request. Meanwhile I will comment on things you ask me only. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coocat - you stated above, "All parties should not be discussing ... each others culture." It is sometimes pertinent to discuss the culture of Japan to elucidate the reason for such and such - if it is not allowed, then how can the article ever be 'neutral'. The purpose to discuss culture IS NOTHING to do with personal attacks, yet it is to do with the content of the article - you have to make such distinction otherwise you are not 'neutral' at all. --AussieSoldier 08:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to motivation - it may be described in terms of nationalism and culture in general. The culture in Japan is complex. It is often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'.--AussieSoldier 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This above can lead to a persons block on wikipedia, evade such material I suggest. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Collcat - you stae yourself that ALL veiws must be presented as part of NPOV - if it is the common veiw by FOREIGNERS - it is not MY veiw - then what is the problem - you are far form neutral, and you are predjudiced as you seem to hold all cultures are alike. AussieSoldier

Being a foreigner that isnt how people I know who have been to japan described it there. They said: "Beaultifull people". People who also wnt to china said the samething about the people. No one is sadisctic here, thats a product of propoganda. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is the product of propaganda, then so is the nationalistic revisionist claim that the massacre never happened - if propaganda is not to be recognised, then the Japan veiw is not to be recognised indeed!

If it is offensive to quote what others have described, surely it is more offensive to state that a massacre never happened. AussieSoldier

Excuse me, I am not saying only you are wrong, I am saying all such comments are wrong. I never denied or acknowleged this as a massacre, and WP:NPOV dictates certain rules. I see you as an individual whom sincerely wants to see this artilce neutral. Please do not discuss me or other people, thats all I ask. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will have to live with disputed tags or neutrality. I am telling you starting declaring it as a Massacre from beginning till end is not remotely neutral. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it was a massacre by definition it should be referred to as such, from beginning to end. A Holocaust is a Holocaust is a Holocaust. No mainstream media is questioning the existence of it even there are groups denying it. Are we calling the report of the Holocaust not remotely neutral? Why are we siding with the minority here in this case and treating it as a disputed event? --Kvasir 13:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agree. That would be a sheer understatement, if not a whitewash. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Koizumi

"In the past Japan through its colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering for the people of many countries, particularly those of Asian nations." Koizumi.

Can you please elaborate? --Cool Cat My Talk 08:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

do you even know who Koizumi is. --AussieSoldier 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No I dont, can you please elaborate? --Cool Cat My Talk 09:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO! — Davenbelle 09:22, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
see: Prime Minister of Japan. — Davenbelle 10:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Davenbelle, it sounds like your purpose there is to annoy or insult Coolcat. Do you think you could show a little more Wikipedia:WikiLove? silsor 09:46, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; I will give it a try. I find it quite ironic that Wikipedia:WikiLove ends with a link to see also Wikipedia:Wikicrime. — Davenbelle 10:13, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
It is a bit rich that Cool Cat is trying to moderate this article when he doesn't even know who the current Prime Minister is. How can you decide what the facts are when you don't even know the basic ones? --Bathrobe 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Judging from this talk page, it looks like he deserves to be insulted.--220.240.177.5 18:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the editor who first referred to "Koizumi" explained who he is we wouldn't have this discussion now. It is a good practice in any article to explicitly state who such a figure is when it is first introduced in an article by name. ie: "Current Prime Minister of Japan Junichiro Koizumi". And then this figure can be referred to as "Koizumi thereafter. --Kvasir 13:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

documentation - sadism

SIXTY years ago, Albert Cleary at last found comfort in the arms of his mates.

They took his filthy, battered and tormented body, washed it in a creek and cradled him until he died. His death ended 11 (perhaps 12) days of brutality during which the 22-year-old Australian had his hands tied high up behind his back and was made to kneel with a log tied behind his knees.

He was systematically kicked and beaten by guards; one held his head while the other repeatedly punched him in the throat.

To add to his agony, guards jumped on the log behind his knees and, every half-hour, forced him to stand, causing excruciating pain as the blood returned to his lower legs.

They beat Cleary with rifle butts, sticks and anything else that was handy.

They chained him to a tree, tortured him, humiliated him, starved him, beat him, spat on him and even urinated on him. When death was near they threw him into a ditch.

The young gunner's sin was to try to escape the hell that was Borneo near the end of World War II.

A cairn under a spreading tree on the outskirts of Ranau, an untidy and undistinguished town in the centre of Sabah, marks his martyrdom and the end of what has become known as the Sandakan Death March, Australia's Via Dolorosa.

Death March is a brutally evocative and accurate description of what happened but it reduces to one dramatic event – a campaign of murder that was the worst atrocity committed against Australians, and probably the least known.

At various times, about 2700 allied soldiers – most captured in Singapore – were held at Sandakan, on the northeast coast of what was then known as British North Borneo.

A steady toll of death and transfers meant that by January 1945, there were 1787 Australians and 641 British still in the camp.

By August all but six who escaped into the jungles were dead.

The rest were starved, condemned to death by disease and neglect, shot, bludgeoned, bayoneted and even crucified in a catalogue of purgatory that lasted three years.

They died at Sandakan, where they were brought in 1942 to labour on a military airfield, they died in a series of three marches through 260km of jungle, and they died at Ranau as the Japanese tried to complete a mission of annihilation and to silence the witnesses to their depravity.

The depth of their suffering can be judged by the fact that one of the escapees heard Chaplain Harold Wardale-Greenwood lament: "There cannot be a God, there just cannot be a God for men to suffer and be treated like this."

Seemingly forsaken by God, they were also forsaken by the top brass of the Australian Army who failed to rescue them.

General Sir Thomas Blamey tried to blame American General Douglas MacArthur for refusing the aerial support but the evidence points at Blamey's ineptitude and idleness.

Sandakan is story of extermination difficult to compile, more difficult to understand, despite the testimony of six escapees and their native helpers, the Borneo resistance, and the efforts of authors Lynette Silver (Sandakan: A Conspiracy of Silence) and Don Wall (Sandakan: The Last March) and Fevered, Laden, Starved (www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/sandakan/index.htm).

It is a horror confused by the murder of witnesses, the destruction of records, the duplicity and lies of the Japanese who razed the camps and tried to expunge their deeds, and the relentless march of the tropical jungle.

However, we know the first Australian died at Sandakan on July 30, 1942.

The last was beheaded on August 15, 1945, the day Japan surrendered.

At Ranau, in the foothills of Mt Kinabalu, the last 15 prisoners were massacred on August 27, when the world had officially been at peace for almost a fortnight.

It was a campaign of torment, torture and murder driven by sadism, the insanity of the Japanese wartime code of bushido, and officially sanctioned by the highest authority.

After the war eight Japanese were hanged as war criminals and another 55 imprisoned, events little noted in Australia and little publicised by an army that had failed to rescue its own men.

Between 1945 and 1947, searches of the Sandakan site, Ranau, and along the jungle track found the personal relics and remains of more than 2163 POWs, most of whom were unidentified.

The remains of another 265 who are known to have been at Sandakan in early January 1945 were never found.

above post, by AussieSoldier (diff) restored by Davenbelle; User:Coolcat: Do not delete talk posted by others. — Davenbelle 10:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
User:Coolcat deleted this post again. Please do not delete or edit text posted by others on talk pages; restored by Davenbelle 08:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think the deletion of the posted article was unwarranted. But I think AussieSoldier would've gotten his point across better if he/she cited the title and author for the article and/or give a link to where it was found. --Kvasir 13:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I do side with the fact that sadism was a military practice in the Japanese Imperial Army, I don't think it's particularly NPOV to mention it in every instance as an added adjective to describe them. The sadistic nature is worth discussion in the "Causes" section of the article, however. In a Holocaust article, German civilian and the Nazi army are not described as "anti-semetic" and "racist" every instance. The same should go here. --Kvasir 13:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not hope it to be stated in 'every instance' - I hope it will be stated and recognised in the article, IN THE CONTEXT of the article, to elucidate the reasons behind the horror of the massacre, (as opposed to a 'systematic' way about it). It does NOT purport to be against Japan individulas, but a recognition of fact. --AussieSoldier 08:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[Article: Australian War memorial - referenced texts: Lynette Silver (Sandakan: A Conspiracy of Silence) and Don Wall (Sandakan: The Last March) and Fevered, Laden, Starve (www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/sandakan/index.htm) - an Australian government site. --AussieSoldier 08:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While the article is locked

You can work on Nanjing Massacre/temp while the article stays locked. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


'Tom Uren, ex-prisoner and ex-Minister in the Whitlam government, made a clear distinction between "Japanese militarists" and their sadism and brutality ... A question was even asked in the Australian Parliament, and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Bruce Scott, assured members that ex-prisoners had told him that [it] was accurate.'

--AussieSoldier 10:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please stop this, you will get yourself blocked, this isnt a threat, I am incapable of blokcing you and do not intend to request one, someone else might. Do not accuse the people of an entier nation as sadistic, also wikipedia does not allow copyrighted material and also Wikipedia:no original research policy. If you want to provide material regarding the discussion, you are welcome to use weblinks. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now you listen to me Cooclat - I provided documentation to support that it is a common held veiw that Japan's soldiers and Japan is sadistic - it is a view held and it is in no way for the purpose of 'personal attacks'. The material is endorsed by the 'AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORAIL' and relevant to the article to support my claims of sadistic mindset as motivation for the brutality involved in the Nanjing massacre. --AussieSoldier 10:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not recognise a veiw held by the Australian War Memorial, yet you recognise a racist veiw held by nationalistic, revisionists, 'sadistic' Japanese - you dishonour ALL those who were tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered in ALL massacres by Japan's Imperial Sadistic Soldiers! --AussieSoldier 10:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You dont need to ask me to listen to you. I am all ears all the time. I am not taking sides however. Material you have provided supports your case. Thats good. I wont acknowlege anything as facts or lies. I however need verifiable sources, Australian War memorial is one. I prefer a link to an australian goverment side so we can put that in the article. Japaneese dont see their action as "sadistic", I presume so thats a POV. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Australian War Memorial IS a government site! --AussieSoldier 03:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Factuality

I dont see discussion going productive. It may be best to establish what both sides agree up on. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What both sides agree with? As in the (nationalist) Japanese and (nationalist) Chinese sides? Well... there was a war. I think that's about it.
Actually I find this discussion very productive so far. The main problem, as I see it, is to write a lead that does not offend anyone. I've already written a lead above that both sides seem to agree on. -- ran (talk) 15:54, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
I was refering to the issue way above as not being productive. In any disagrement there is always a common ground we can build up on. I do not want either "Nationalistic" propoganda. That falls under WP:What Wikipedia is not. I need scholaristicaly what japaneese say. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the causes of Nanking Massacre:

1. The Japanese replaced the Confucian doctorine of Benevolence with Loyalty, in order to suit their traditional militarism - Bushido.

2. Unlike the Westerners, whos behaviors are controlled by inner conscience (guilt culture); The Japanese orientalism sanctions its members by a sense of shame (shame culture); Unfortunately, the shame culture does not function very well, once the men leave the collectivity - their wives, parents, siblings and neighbours; That is why the Japanese can be so gentle at home, but so brutal aboard.

I asked for what both sides argee regarding the incident, I did not want an analysis of the japaneese culture. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article is limited to what BOTH sides agree upon it will be a BLANK page - the only way to navigate the page in a 'neutral' way is to state fact and also the contemporary veiws of Both sides - the veiws are of course of different sides and are therefore different. Although not agreed upon by ALL people of Both sides, it is agreed by MANY in Japan and China that atrocities took place on some level. As to culture, the two sides will never agree on that either, so we have another blank paragraph - it is only expedient to stop the focus of 'sides', and begin the focus on happenings of fact and sentiments, differing or not, opposed or not. AussieSolider

Suggestion to Coolcat

If you're going to appoint yourself mediator, at least try to learn the basics. Visit your local library and borrow a couple of books. Some good suggestions are cited in the "Further Reading" section. It would make things a lot easier.

With regards to finding reasons for the Nanjing incident, you won't find them. At least not any that meet your standards. Why? For the most part, this was not something that came from the top. Each soldier contributed on their own initiative. It's not like with Germany where you could say that you were just following orders. They did it all on their own.

While you'll probably be able to find plenty of discussion on what drove these people to behave the way they did, it will only remain discussion. You can either include the discussion with disclaimers, or you can leave no explanation. Both don't seem acceptable to you, but we can only go with one or the other.

  1. Whoever you are sign your edits.
  2. Dont tell me to do "Further Reading", instead please present your cases.

I will leave this article only when I see it as unbiased, even then I will ask for another review. You can feel very strong regarding your case. I am feeling very very strong on NPOVisation of this article. What Germans did was unacceptable, it was NOT ok. I am NOT saying/claiming it is ok to mass murder chineese or anything. I am saying, japaneese do not accept this as mass murder, Americans do not see Berlin Bombing as mass murder. Its about perspective. I am not concerned with the emotion behind the article, I can be understanding, but there is a limit. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not asking for standards, I am asking the reasons either party sugests that lead to the incident. Just dont claim japaneese are traditionaly sadistic, thats far fetced and quite frankly is a product of propoganda. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not write that above - i sign posts. you say it is, "... far fetched ... a product of propaganda."?! i did present my caes to you as documentation, yet then below you stated you won't recognise it as fact anyway. --AussieSoldier 03:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not recognise a veiw held by the Australian War Memorial, yet you recognise a racist veiw held by nationalistic, revisionists, 'sadistic' Japanese - you dishonour ALL those who were tortured, raped, mutilated and murdered in ALL massacres by Japan's Imperial Sadistic Soldiers!

I have provided documentation CollCat, (you DELETED it), yet you state it is "... far fetched ... a product of propaganda"?! - your LACK OF NEUTRALITY is clear!

Educate yourself to the facts which are NOT in dispute by Japan in other massacres - The Nanjing Massacre is disputed by Japan, but other massacres are admitted by Japan. It is documentation of Japanese attrocites and sadism which Japan does not dispute at all - the torture, mutliation, and murder of Australian, NewZealand and British Prisoners - young boys. If this is the accepted sadistic mindset admitted by Japan in other massacres, then it is likely Japanese soldiers had the same mindset in the Nanjing massacre. AussieSoldier

It is ANZAC day today - I am highly offended that CoolCat state the war crimes against my countrymen are "... far fetched ... a product of propaganda." --AussieSoldier 03:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely sympathise with your position AussieSoldier. Before anyone would dispute even the very existence of an Australian War Memorial (which seems to be the route by the rate of things has been going on here), I would like to say, YES, it exists and I have visited it on my visit to Canberra.
Japan has, at the conclusion of WWII, already acknowledged the war crimes done against citizens of WESTERN allies and had compensated financially to survivors of the victims of those crimes. China was left out of the discussion table and there was no acknowledge nor compensation until recently. It is not far-fetched that the similar/or worse events happened in China. Yes, that was an episode in history so horrible that it seems unimaginable, and unbelievable today. There are groups out there claiming the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication. Are we also to treat the Holocaust as a dispute? --Kvasir 03:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I THINK COOLCAT IS COOL BUT COOLCAT HAS NO KNOWLEDGE AT ALL ABOUT ASIAN HISTORY LET ALONE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN JAPAN AND CHINA. WE SHOULD APPOINT A NEW EDITOR TO THIS SECTION. COOLCAT COULD BE AN EXCELLENT EDITOR FOR THE CATS PAGE BUT DEFINITELY NOT FOR THE JAPANESE WAR ATROCITIES PAGE. BOTH AUSTRALIAN BRITISH CHINESE KOREAN HONG KONG SINGAPORE MALAYSIAN TEXTBOOKS HAVE DOCUMENTED MANY UNIMAGINABLE WAR ATROCITIES INCLUDING BAYONNETING PREGNANT MOTHERS TO FIND OUT THE GENDER OF THE CHILD DURING GAMBLING BETS, FORCING CHINESE PEASANTS TO DIG TRENCHES AND THEN BURY EACH OTHER ALIVE. The facts and photographs are too grotesque to recount and seem very fantastic to people who have no knowledge of wars or of war history. WE SORELY NEED AN EAST ASIAN STUDIES PROFESSOR AS AN EDITOR, PREFERABLY FIVE FROM CHINA, SEVERAL FROM U.S., BRITISH, KOREAN, HONG KONG, MALAYSIA, SINGAPORE, JAPAN NATIONALIST, JAPAN NON-NATIONALIST SOURCES. IN ADDITION, BEFORE WWII THE JAPANESE IMPERIAL ARMY INVENTED A SYSTEM WHERE THEY EXPORTED JAPANESE GIRLS TO WORK AS IMPERIAL BROTHELS TO SERVE THE JAPANESE ARMY, THESE GIRLS WERE REPLACED BY COMFORT WOMEN FROM KOREA AND CHINA AS THE WAR WAGED ON. THERE HAVE BEEN TONS OF BOOKS AND DOCUMENTARIES ON THIS SUBJECT BUT NOT TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH SINCE THE WEST DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ATROCITIES IN ASIA, THEY ARE MORE EURO AND AMERICANO-CENTRIC, FOCUSING ON THE HOLOCAUST, WHICH IS VERY UNDERSTABLE. HOWEVER INCREDULOUS THEY ARE TO WESTERN READERS, THESE ACCOUNTS ARE HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACTs, NOT POV and SHOULD NOT BE EDITED OUT. PLEASE LET US APPOINT NEW EDITORS FOR THIS VERY SENSITIVE SECTION. COOLCAT THANKS FOR YOUR HELP BUT BYE -- anon

Food for Thought

Do we all honestly think that we can untangle 60 years of unresolved dispute through a Wiki article? Accounts by witnesses of the crime didn't matter, nor did the cover up succeed. --Kvasir 22:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See below. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are making this very difficult

I guess you wont be satisifed untill all japaneese are openly declared sadistic and all their arguments never been mentioned. You will have to deal with {{totallydisputed}} tag, other opinion is to chill. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not ask me to acknowlege Japaneese as sadisic or any material you provided as facts. I cannot due to my seat. I wont take sides. I just know what you provide here and in the article. I dont need lenghty websites or posts. This is a dispute, right? Can we please treat it LIKE a dispute? --Cool Cat My Talk 02:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who are you refering to in "You"? I was referred to this heading in your reply, so I assume you meant me. For your information I have just entered this discussion and I don't know why you are treating everyone like they are your enemy and taking every opportunity to vent at people. --Kvasir 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat - you stated above, "please do not ask me to acknowledge ... any materail you proivided as facts." - If you WILL NOT recognise documentaion, then the article will never be completed! You have some pre-defined veiws on the article and you WILL NOT recognise anything else, whether documented or not - you are not 'neutral'! --AussieSoldier 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry I cant mediate this, AussieSoldier I wont even bother answering you. I am only a Japaneese nationalist who wants to murder as many chineese as I can. I am also a Turkish nationalist and all your armenians are belong to us. Sarcasm aside, Davenbelle, since you know every wikipedia policy and know NPOV inside out, here, mediate this. Ill se your work. Take this as a challenge, I dare you. --Cool Cat My Talk 14:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're too predictable... quit this game please. Do you realise that you're playing with Wikipedias integrity just by doing the same thing you've been doing on the Armenian genocide entry, so that people stop suspecting you? The next time, read psychology books, to play a better "role." Fadix 16:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Back to the topic

This talk page is here for the purpose of writing this article. If anyone wants to start a debate on various aspects of Japanese culture, there are many Chinese and Korean political forums I can refer you to.

I have already written an alternate intro above. CoolCat: why do you not agree with it? Sorry if you've went over this before -- let's start afresh. -- ran (talk) 02:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ran - It is highly pertinent to the writing of the article to discuss culture - other massacres by Japan soldiers have been documented, and it is established that a sadistic element in culture is reason for such pleasure in horror - accounts of laughter as soldiers were tortured for example.
The culture of Japan is pertinent to elucidate the reason for the horror in the Nanjing massacre.
The culture of Germany is also pertinent in the Holocaust discussion - on two levels - how a dictator came to power, and how ordinary people could commit such genocide - 'systematic' has come up a lot. --AussieSoldier 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's get the intro done first. We can move on to that later. -- ran (talk) 03:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Section Levels

see: Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines; "Start with a second-level heading (==); do not use first-level headings (=)."

User:Coolcat has repeatedly adjusted the section levels of this talk page (and others) so that sections posted by him are first level headings which makes the posts of other users (who use the default second-level) subordinate to his "Lets get started" 'mediation' impertinence. This refactoring of talk pages is against policy and should be especially unwelcome here as I see no indication from other participants on this talk page that he has been accepted as any sort of mediator. I, for one, do not accept that he has any right to dictate the format of the discussion here. In his edit he asserts that he has done this for a reason, but does not give his reason. If he has a reason other than manipulation of the hierarchy of posts in the table of contents of this page in order to imply a structure of his choosing and an authority he merely presumes, he is welcome to post it. — Davenbelle 08:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly think there is an agenda here. "Who died and made him boss?" as the proverbial expression goes. He said he appointed himself as the mediator yet his POV sides with the minority that denies the existence of the event. If this is not dictatorship I don't know what is. --Kvasir 13:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More Images

see: http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/nanking_gallery.html

The above site has 14 public domain images available, two of which are currently used in the article. They are all highly relevant and I have uploaded these two for inclusion once the page is unprotected. — Davenbelle 10:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nanking 1937 (?): One of the earlier images of the war to come out from China, this photo appeared in LIFE magazine
File:Nanjing1937 self-organized burial team.jpeg
Nanking 1937; A self-organized burial team after the massacre
Is there any "official" caption to these images? We only know that they are images from Nanking 1937 because it's stated that they appeared in LIFE magazine. --Kvasir 13:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
see also [12].The photograph is Shanghai.Photo used with inaccuracy caption.--Snow steed 14:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The caption given on the 'BabyOnTracks' image from the Princeton site is "One of the earlier images of the war to come out from China, this photo appeared in LIFE magazine" with "Nanking 1937" as part of the page background. The second photo's caption is "A self-organized burial team after the massacre" with the same "Nanking 1937" in the background. These captions are given on the image description pages. I'm inclined to view the Princeton site as having more credibility than http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/child.htm which appears to be a personal web page. I will seek further info re these images. — Davenbelle 18:11, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The 'BabyOnTracks' image also appears here: jpg; page; main — Davenbelle 08:08, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. You're right, the caption is there, just not at the usual obvious place... It would be even better if there are images available directly from an original source. --Kvasir 18:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I removed the 'BabyOnTracks' image from the main page on the basis that it actually occurred on August 28, 1937 when the Japanese bombed the Shanghai South Railway Station. However, other photos apparently do exist and various groups and persons have raised accusations that the whole event was staged. An article on that matter that includes the other photos, with a view of the photo being false, is here.
I am uncertain as to whether or not the photo itself is really valid, but I think it still has a place (albeit in an article covering the fall of Shanghai in the war) due to its immense historical value. -- Xanadu 02:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


Thoughts on restoring this image (removed here)

File:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg
A Chinese man being beheaded


and these:

File:Nanjing massacre heads.jpg
File:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg
Many women and children were killed after being raped
a cropped version of this last one is available here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/image_9.html

— Davenbelle 04:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Let's make some progress, shall we?

How about:

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes, in Japan, as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in and around Nanjing, China after the city's fall to Japanese troops on 13 December 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (later to become a part of World War II). The atrocities include looting, rape, and the killing of civilians and prisoners of war. The event and the actual extent of the misconduct are highly controversial, remaining a point of diplomatic dispute between China and Japan.
In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism. In Japan, consensus among the public about the event is divided, with some sentiment, especially among comservatives, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions are considered by in China as historical revisionism, and as such they continue to stir anger and resentment.

First of all - I think that the word 'atrocity' has to be included in that first paragraph. We may debate the actual death toll or the source of pictures - and yes, the Chinese government isn't the most trustworthy source of information - but there's been plenty of independent testimony to confirm that atrocities did, in fact, occur.

Secondly - the death toll figures can be talked about in detail in the section that we've set up for it. Since there is no real consensus on the figures, I don't see us as putting them into the introductory paragraphs.

While I disagree with CoolCat that Ran's original second paragraph was accusatory, I agree with that there's a tone of generalization when talking about the Chinese and Japanese. Does anyone have any way to beef up the language with facts? Otherwise, I recommend we finish editing soon - and move onto teh rest of the article. A good way of doing that would be to debate CoolCat rationally, which I believe far too many of us are failing to do. --Rroser167 16:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, read up on the Nanking Debate in Japan, mmkay? You'll find that there is disagreement but that it is between largely scholars (who accept the massacre did occur) and right-wing nationalists who don't. Claiming that the 'nanking massacre is not accepted as a massacre by the Japanese' is wrong and belies, as several other things, your total ignorance on the issue. I add my voice to several others who have asked you to step aside and appoint another mediator. And no, i'm not Chinese (or Japanese or even Asian). --128.100.29.55 17:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bobbay

Roser, Coolcat has already demonstrated that he is refusing to be rational. What else would you call it when everyone (not just the Chinese or Japanese) asks you to step aside because of your ignorance on the issue and you adamantly refuse saying you have a right to be here...etc --128.100.29.55 17:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bobbay

Listen - CoolCat is flat out wrong in a bunch of things - not wanting to use the term "massacre" sticks in my head as one of the stranger arguments he makes, but the fact of the matter is that this article, without opposition from someone like him, was turning into an emotion-driven POV POS.

But now, the time has come to finish this thing, and yes, I think he's being obstructionist. Let's get it done correctly. China-Japan relations are very much a current event, and there's no doubt that this page is probably getting more traffic than normal. Let's make a good page that describes what happened to the best of our factual knowledge without becoming a bloodthirsty hate article.

Cool-Cat, if you have any opposition to the two paragraphs I've presented above, please write it out now. I'll discuss it with you here, and in a rational tone, and if there is still disagreement, we'll go to the WikiGods for arbitration. --Rroser167 17:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rroser - the discussion turned emotive after Colcat's continued blocking of words such as 'atrocities' - and a perplexing interpretation of NPOV which would have seen the article become a blank page so as not to 'accuse' the other side, nor to 'alarm anyone's beleifs' whatever those belefs may have been. --AussieSoldier 12:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Headline text

Is there a way to block CoolCat from this? He's clearly a vandal.

Coolcat,

We are asking you in a very polite way: please let someone else be mediator.

I agree. Both CoolCat and AussieSoldier have swamped this page with barely coherent meta-discussion. I don't think either is actually capable of contributing positively to a NPOV article about Japanese war atrocities anyway: coolcat has demonstrated total ignorance of the subject matter and AussieSoldier a clear anti-Japanese bias.--Zaxios 05:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no "anti-Japanese bias". I have referred to a 'sadistic' culture IN THE CONTEXT of the article, to elucidate the reasons behind the horror of the massacre, (as opposed to a 'systematic' way about it). It does NOT purport to be against Japan individulas, but a recognition of fact. --AussieSoldier 12:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Sorry, AussieSoldier, but I have to agree with Zaxios that you seem to have a bias. I know that you're going to argue that everything you've said is fact, and is well documented, but the point of the page is to make an encyclopedia article about the Nanjing Massacre, not to provide a list for as many demonizing facts about the Japanese as possible.
I'll quote the NPOV page here: "The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. " --Rroser167 13:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to work for a balance - I will be 'neutral'. I was always happy for the revisionist side to be presented as justly as it can be, just not at the expense and white-wash of the other side - a balance is exactly what I have been after. --AussieSoldier 13:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rroser - I am confident by the path you have taken that the article will be balanced. --AussieSoldier 13:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can we move forward?

So, I'd like for us to agree on the intro and move on to the rest of the article. Does anyone have a problem with this:

The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes, in Japan, as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in and around Nanjing, China after the city's fall to Japanese troops on 13 December 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (later to become a part of World War II). The atrocities include looting, rape, and the killing of civilians and prisoners of war. The event and the actual extent of the misconduct are highly controversial, remaining a point of diplomatic dispute between China and Japan.
In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism. In Japan, consensus among the public about the event is divided, with some sentiment, especially among conservatives, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions are often considered to be in China as historical revisionism, and as such they continue to stir anger and resentment.

And I'll requote what I wrote about it earlier:

First of all - I think that the word 'atrocity' has to be included in that first paragraph. We may debate the actual death toll or the source of pictures - and yes, the Chinese government isn't the most trustworthy source of information - but there's been plenty of independent testimony to confirm that atrocities did, in fact, occur.
Secondly - the death toll figures can be talked about in detail in the section that we've set up for it. Since there is no real consensus on the figures, I don't see us as putting them into the introductory paragraphs.

I know that eveyrone blames CoolCat, but he hasn't posted in a few days. If no one else has a problem, can we agree on this and go to the rest of the article?--Rroser167 13:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragraphs look good to me. --Kvasir 13:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine. -- ran (talk) 13:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, people. I should have already made it clear that the paragraphs are merely an edit of Ran's fine work.--Rroser167 13:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragrpah is prefect - i do contend the word 'conservative' - 'nationalisitc' is better placed - it is the same description used for China in the paragraph, and such veiw is more than common 'conservative' politics - I am confident that Japanese will not have a problem to be desribed as nationalistic as they are proud and patriotic. --AussieSoldier 14:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

AussieSoldier - excellent point - it seems wrong to use "nationalist" for the Chinese and "conservative" for the Japanese. However, it also seems to me that in the interests of good writing style, we should avoid using the word nationalist twice in two sentences so close together. Can anyone come up with a better way to describe the two groups? It also seems to me that this isn't a major sticking point - neither term could be considered derogatory to anyone involved in any side of the current debate.

Now, once we finish this up, should we just post it into the temp page, or should we see about getting the main page unlocked so that we can at least have the edited introduction available at the time. As I've mentioned before, Chinese/Japanese relations are a hot topic at this point, and the sooner we make visible progress, the better. --Rroser167 16:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above are a better opening. My only concerns are that the view of denial being historical revisionism is not unique to China and that 'misconduct' is a pretty lightweight word. 'Widely viewed' and 'warcrimes' would be more appropriate. Specifically mentioning China's view of historical revisionism (which should be linked to Historical revisionism (political)) is appropriate.

Rather than work on a temp page, I feel that the article should be unprotected and defended against unilateral rewrites. — Davenbelle 17:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Davenbelle. You're right about misconduct. I'll insert "warcrimes" for one of the "atrocities" in the paragraph, and substitute "atrocities" for the "misconduct". I don't know if I want to use "widespread" where you were suggesting it, however. I wouldn't necessarily call a Japanese person a revisionist for believing that the Nanjing death toll has been exaggerated by the Chinese government. Could you suggest a good rewrite here?

I did not mean to imply that all Japanese critics of China's view are revisionists; there's a huge difference between outright denial and charges of fabrication, and debate over specific numbers.
"Such opinions are often considered to be historical revisionism, and as such they continue to stir anger and resentment, especially in China." ???
Be bold Rroser167; I suggest you update the page with an opening based on the talk in this section. — Davenbelle 17:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I agree about making these changes live rather than putting them on the temp pages; I just don't know how we get around the article lock. Who do we appeal to? --Rroser167 20:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are some things problematic with this rewrite. For example, can you in good grammar say "consensus ... is divided". Consensus means "something people agree about", so "divided consensus" makes no sense. Ran's version sounds, at least to me, to make better sense ("opinions...are divided"). The sentence "The event and the actual extent of the misconduct are highly controversial" is also problematic - it implicitly implies that the event is fabricated, when almost everyone nowadays agrees to the contrary. "Right-wing" is also more descriptive and accurate than the feeble word to sanitize -"conservatives". All in all, I prefer Ran's earlier version. Mandel 04:40, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, yes, "divided consensus" doesn't really work. The thing about the "event and the actual extent of the misconduct (now 'atrocities') are highly controversial" is tougher - I think we could eliminate "event", but the extent (ie, death toll) appears to be very much in dispute, and I believe that there certainly is controversy over it, especially between Japan and China.
As for the right-wing vs. conservative, others may have a different view, but I think that using "right wing" suggests that only the most extreme in Japan believe that the massacre has been exagerrated, whereas it seems to me that this belief actually extends to Japanese in the center-right, and because of this "conservative" is more appropriate. However, I have no factual basis for saying this - can anyone provide specific analysis of Japanese beliefs on the matter with respect to their political spectrum? --Rroser167 12:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mandel and Rroser - I agree the word 'event' is problematic and has to be taken out. Rroser - I agree, for a balance, the word 'extent' is necessary -the sentence should just read, "The 'extent' of the 'atrocities' is debated". --AussieSoldier 07:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

photos

I think the top photograph is excessive in that place, and belongs lower. -SV|t 02:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is an atrocity wether you like it or not. Its so interesting how you all try to whitewash this atrocity. Is it called "mis-conduct" when you go into a nation and rape and pillage the capital city and systematically murder countless thousands of people?

as to the above, whoever you are please sign posts. The use of the word 'misconduct' has been addressed - it will be replaced with 'war crimes' - please see above. If you had been with us in the above discussion, then you will reaslise it is the intention to write an article which presents both the revisionist side and the other side - no side will be presented at the expense of the other - the use of the words 'atrocities' and 'war crimes' was vehemently opposed by some here and one individual in particular is not with us anymore - not one person STILL HERE is "try[ing] to whitewash" what happened. The article will be written in a balanced fashion - please do not upset the process. --AussieSoldier 08:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(I almost suspect its my 'archenemy' CoolCat back to play the other side as the anonymous). --AussieSoldier 08:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first photo seems highly appropriate as the first photo, given that the common name for this incident is The Rape of Nanking (which redirects here; and, of course, Iris Chang's book). — Davenbelle 17:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I posted this above, but I've moved it here because it has been ignored until now (14 May). I hope to get an answer. If not, I will have no choice but to put a note below the photo that accusations have been made that it was staged. My original note:
Sorry, but accusations have been made that the Baby on Tracks photo was staged. See this web site:
http://www.thenausea.com/elements/japan/child.html
True, Fujioka Nobukatsu may be what is known as a 'revisionist' or 'denier', but he makes a prima facie case that the photo is staged. It's intellectually dishonest to present photos as truthful when there are doubts as to their authenticity, whatever version of the Nanjing Massacre you believe in. Iris Chang's book has been heavily criticised because its inaccuracies, which gave 'deniers' like Fujioka a field day.
Bathrobe 05:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I read the link and googled this guy and don't view his opinion as particularly credible. He's got an obvious agenda. Of some concern was the repeat of the view that the photo is from Shanghai (See User:Snow_steed, above). If this is the case, the entire photo is inappropriate here. If you're content to keep the photo, how about a mention of the dispute somewhere else — it is a minority view. Best, — Davenbelle 06:08, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the guy's views are distasteful, but I suggest that:
(1) he does present some actual evidence for his views (although how solid this may be is hard to judge) and
(2) he is not the only one with an agenda. The Chinese have an agenda in exaggerating the Massacre. Granted that the Chinese were the victims of this brutality, but there is no need to suspend your critical judgement as to their claims.
While you are at it, I would check out some of the guy's other analyses of faked photographs. Not all of them are convincing, but there does appear to have been some kind of tampering going on, sufficient to throw doubt on some photos.
I'm not sure if I agree with your 'minority view' comment. What is the 'majority view'? This is an issue on which no consensus has been reached. Iris Chang's book was eventually not published in a Japanese edition because even Japanese scholars who were totally in agreement that Nanjing was an unspeakable atrocity felt that the book contained too many errors to be published as it was. These errors, I believe, included the use of staged or fake photos.
The photo is certainly a graphic start to the article and presents a dramatic message. I suggest that since it is such a well-known photo that epitomises the massacre, this is precisely where a note on the dispute should be put. Where would you suggest putting it?
Bathrobe 13:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of staging of the other photographs on this page? I'd hate to start this page with this photo with a caption under it stating that it may have been faked. --Rroser167 16:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Try this site for more claims of tampering: http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/fujioka/
The fourth photo in the Wikipedia article has the caption: 'Heaps of dead bodies wait for disposal on the wharves of Hsiakwan, the port suburb north of Nanjing.' There is no great problem with this as it stands (although the location is questioned). Fujioka has a note on this at http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/fujioka/4.html He claims that "(1) The corpses were not those of civilian residents of Nanking, but of Chinese soldiers who died in battle..., (2) these photographs are not from the land battle fought at Xinhezhen. Since some of the corpses are naked, they either died in combat on the Yangtze, or drowned, (3) The dead soldiers did not expire where the photograph was taken. Since the corpses all face in the same general direction, it is obvious that they had drifted, carried by the current of the river...Whatever the case, these photographs, which were for many years accepted as irrefutable evidence of a massacre in Nanking, cannot, under any circumstances, be connected with the massacre of civilian residents of that city."
The case made for some of the photos is extremely weak. In particular, the final one at [13] has this paragraph:
"We will not reproduce Photograph D in this book, due to its gruesome nature. It shows a woman with her trousers pulled down, and her upper garments pulled up over her head. The lower half of her body has been stripped naked, and an object resembling a stick is protruding from her genitals. There is no precedent for such macabre deeds as this in Japan, but they were often perpetrated by the Chinese."
This is the second photo in the Wikipidea article. The problem with the 'proof' is that it is openly contemptuous of the Chinese -- racist, in fact -- without offering any kind of evidence whatsoever that it wasn't 'our boys' who did it.
I am not qualified to judge whether the proof presented by Fujioka, who is one of the infamous 'revisionists', is convincing or not. However, he does present what looks like independent evidence that some of the Nanjing photos were tampered with at some time (e.g., the row of heads photo).
The use of faked or unrelated photos to stir up nationalistic or ethnic sentiment is not uncommon, especially in a war-time context. I might point out (perhaps gratuitously) the recent manipulation occurred at the time of the anti-Chinese riots in Indonesia, when unrelated photos were posted at Chinese websites and stirred up considerable resentment amongst the Chinese. See http://www.ishipress.com/indofake.htm Unfortunately, these kinds of photo do harm because people then tend to discount the real atrocities that took place.
The fact that atrocities took place on a large scale is not in dispute. The problem is how factual the article is. No matter how strongly people feel about the massacre, I don't believe it's in Wikipedia's interest to use material that has question marks hanging over it.
Bathrobe 23:51, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolute bull****, why don't you go and use 'facts' from neo-Nazi sites on the Holocaust article huh? Is it because you are afraid of pissing off the Jews? Damn China-haters/Japanophiles.

protection

So - does anyone know who we write to ask for the page to be unprotected? --Rroser167 16:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I found you can submit unprotected requirment to [14] Caiqian 17:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I left a request to unprotect the page at User talk:Silsor (who protected the page). I should have time to comment here further tonight... — Davenbelle 17:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's done; Thanks Silsor. — Davenbelle 17:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Davenbelle, thank you Silsor. Thank you AussieSoldier for your support. I'm updating the intro. I won't be able to touch the rest of the article until this weekend. If anyone wishes to begin, please go right ahead. --Rroser167 18:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

May

Memorial Hall for Compatriot Victims of the Japanese Military's Nanjing Massacre

This building was mentioned in the article. Could someone add where this building is located? (at least the country, maybe even the city...) —Tokek 09:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Nanjing. (If this is the hall where all the photos of the massacre, etc. are on display, then it's in the suburbs of Nanjing).

Bathrobe 13:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it's not in the suburban area of Nanjing. It's right beside the original city wall. The address is 418 Shuiximen Dajie, Nanjing.

Colinoncayuga 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name change: Nanking Massacre

I am currently reading Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking, and I noticed that she points out the fact that Nanjing was, at the time, known as Nanking. Even many Mandarin speakers referred to it as such, and it was universally known as such in the West. For this reason, I believe "Nanking Massacre" would be a superior title. Even though the universal spelling is Nanjing these days, a historic event should use the names of the day. (We don't call the Battle of Stalingrad "the Battle of Volgograd", for example.) - Gavin 05/27/2005

You should have consulted the community on such a change, at the very least inform them before you make the switch. Mandel 09:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

June

Iris Chang

Hello, I have been working on Iris Chang discussion. Ran proposed me to join the discussion here. I am an Irish Japanese electrical engineer living in the United States. As the first contribution to this article, I point it out that the third picture is not a part of Nanking Massacre. Carefully watch the picture, and you will find out those bodies are soldiers of Chinese Nationalist Government Army. One thing I'm disgusted with Nanking Massacre discussions(I'm not talking about this particular discussion) because people who support the incident ignores any proofs they do not favor. Princeton University is one of the leading university in the U.S., but they use pictures widely known as fabricated. (a baby sitting on the railroad is from Shanghai and trimmed not to allow us to see the parents were next to the baby; this fabrication is very malicious crime) I believe this is because they are "anti-Japan" groups and not interested in the truth. I and Ran are discussing about Chang was supported by "anti-Japan" groups or "plain" groups, by the way.--Flowerofchivalry 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • I think your accusation "they are "anti-Japan" groups and not interested in the truth" could use better phrasing.
    • The United States in 1945 was anti-Japan. They were in a state of war. To this day, many Asian people still consider the war to be on, not militarily but diplomatically. These people see perceived Japanese cultural/economic imperialism and holocaust-denial as an extension of a war that started 74 years ago.
    • Why are "anti-Japan" groups not interested in the truth? I suppose the Simon Weisenthal Center is an anti-Nazi group and not interested in the truth?
    • I mentioned Simon Weisenthal. Both Simon Weisenthal and "anti-Japan" groups seek to bring unrepentant criminals to justice. (At least that's what they claim.) Since the Japanese government has not recanted for their crimes during the war, from their POV, they are searching for the truth.
  • "this fabrication is very malicious crime"
    • More malicious than the murder of 25 million civilians? I think not.
  • I followed your discussion with Ran in the Iris Chang talk page, and you accused most or all of the pictures being fabrications. Take the baby sitting on a railroad track for example. It might be frequently misattributed, sure, but it doesn't deny the existence of a boy somewhere, who was wailing in the debris of a destroyed railroad station. While the picture might not apply to the Rape of Nanking by itself, it IS a part of what happened in the war, and I am incensed, even insulted, that you suggested it as fabrication.
-Hmib 00:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Hello and thank you for your reply.

  1. They are not interested in the truth because it is a propaganda. However, this is not unique to them. The most propagandas have lie.
  2. Even if the incident exists, the Jew massacre and this incident are not the same. Hitler killed Jews because of his hatred.
  3. Even if anti-Japan groups claim that they are trying to find the truth, they claim something physically impossible such as 20 million or 30 million or whatever.
  4. The fabrication is very malicious crime. I said once again. This might be less serious crime if and only if(iff) 25 million civilians were killed. 25 million civilians... Where this number came from, I mean, there were 20 million people both before and after the so-called incident.
  5. Hmib, please read this carefully. Since I'm a scientist(or engineer), I think things logically. They modified the picture intentionally regardless of the reason. That picture was trimmed not to allow us see the parents. Besides, the picture was from Shanghai. It is NOT a part of what happened in the war. This is one of the reason I don't trust pictures very much in terms of history. In order to use a picture to proove something, the picture MUST HAVE ITS CONTEXT. Needless to say, the picture must not be modified.

By the way, do you think fabricating data while lab experiment is legal in order to prove something value us? In the world of science, those people who have comitted this sort of crime will be expelled forever, no questions asked.

--Flowerofchivalry 03:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  1. You seem to brand the Rape of Nanking as propaganda. It's a war. in war, propaganda is used.
    1. Did Pearl Harbor happen? Yes it did. Did the American government make a huge propaganda off it? Yes they did. Were the propaganda untruthfully exaggerated? They most likely were. Did Pearl Harbor happen? YES IT DID. Just because an event has been used for propaganda purposes, it does not mean it did not happen.
    2. Did Hitler kill 6 million Jews? Did the German public know it? Most did not. Did the Allies know it? No they did not. Did Hitler kill 6 million Jews? YES HE DID. Just because you don't know about something, it doesn't automatically make it false.
  2. And the Japanese killed Chinese because of their all-encompassing love for their fellow beings and out of compassion?
  3. Why is killing 20 million men impossible? Hitler has shown that killing 6 million people out of a extremely small sample size, over a relatively short period of time, and with the utmost secrecy is possible. Now change that to indiscriminate slaughter, over a period of 14 years, and openly in full view of international press and media. It is not unfeasible.
  4. I am having trouble coming to grips with this statement.
    1. So... it's the Chinese people's fault that 25 million of them were killed? How does the Chinese people not pursuing justice make the JAPANESE crime any less malicious? It would have been a less malicious crime, but a malicious crime nevertheless, had certain Japanese grown a spine and just admit their wrongdoing.
    2. Don't quote me on this, but IIRC, The population of Imperial China in 1840 was 450 million. In 1945 it was 400~ million. Anyone who has done population studies will tell you that is NOT normal growth, not even for during wartime.
  5. How is the picture not part of what happened in the war? Are you saying that the bombing of Shanghai was not an act of war? Granted that particular picture was not in the right context, but can you vouch that ALL the other pictures are misattributed? Even if that is the case, those pictures HAD to be a photo of an atrocity SOMEWHERE, if not Nanjing! Is a life lost at Nanjing any more precious than a life lost anywhere else?
  6. I think logically too, and let me present you with another analogy: If you, the scientist, destroys the undisputable results of many peoples' research over decades, just because you don't LIKE it? You, and everyone around you, firmly believe that the earth is flat. Suddenly you are presented with undisputable proof that the earth is ROUND, but publishing the findings would mean that your entire belief system, your way of life, and everything you hold dear, would be forever changed. Do you, as a scientist, proclaim the truth, or destroys the evidence, dooming mankind to toil, blissfully ignorant, in the Dark Ages?

-Hmib 04:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


OK, I think that I got the problem you have...

  1. The existance of propaganda does not prove the existance of the incident.
  2. Please note that we are discussing about "Nanking Massacre", not the Japanese-Sino war or WWII or whatever. I said there were 20 million population. Once again, where is the number come from.
  3. Please do not start discussing other incidents but Nanking Massacre here. We are discussing Nanking Massacre and I'm saying the pictures are not from the incident. While we are discussing about Nanking Massacre, the pictures are not from the incident, therefore the pictures have been fabricated. I don't evaluate other incidents here.

I hope this helps you. --Flowerofchivalry 05:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Fabrication" and "misattribution" are different things. Besides, we removed the picture from this article and moved it to Second Sino-Japanese War once we noticed our error. -- ran (talk) 05:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

The picture is both fabricated and misattributed. I know you guys have moved the picture, but I'm talking about the book.--Flowerofchivalry 05:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. The existence of propaganda does not negate the existence of the incident.
  2. When you talked about 20-30 million, I assumed you were talking about the total number of people killed. If you were talking about only the Nanking Massacre, then the most quoted number is 250,000 to 300,000. When the number is derived exactly, I have no solid data yet, but I'm sure there is something on the Rape of Nanking article itself.
  3. I apologise, I thought you were talking about the whole war since you mentioned '30 million people'. However, you seem to be branding the entire picture itself as fabrication, not only in the context of the Nanking Massacre but the entire invasion of China. Do explain where the original 'stock' photo cam from, then.
  4. You accused most/all of the pictures in Iris Chang's book being fabrications, please provide some evidence besides the already well-known misattributed Shanghai railway station.
  5. Note that fabrication is different from misattribution. You seem to have the idea that all the misattributed photos were created using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop.

-Hmib 15:01, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's start again

I'm a little sick and tired of the to-ing and fro-ing of slinging matches between Japanese and Chinese editors for the past year. Every month or so, some new editor discover this Nanjing massacre article and set the ball going the same motion. But the article itself never seem to improve. It has been in the same mess for some one year now.

Let's admit it, we are all busy people, and we have a life beyond Wikipedia. We don't have time to read all the nitty-gritties without getting to the crux of the problem.

Let me try to set some of the rules of this talk page:

1. Wikipedia is NOT a forum. This talk page does NOT purport to discuss your political inclination, or what you believe in. Its primary purpose is in facts which are verifiable, and NPOV.

2. This talk page is for improving the article and not for arguing for argument's sake.

3. For everything you mention here, please provide evidence - don't wait for anyone to jump on you, because clearly, in debates of this nature, you will get caught sooner or later without any backup. And explain yourself succinctly, with logic. Please don't quote pointless "historians" who talk through their hats and contradict themselves.

4. This talk page is going into its third reincarnation now, and will soon go into the fourth. Please be concise and to the point as far as possible.

I'll start very simply.

Flowerofchivalry, which parts of this article do you take as fabrications, and what evidence do you have for backup? For example, what makes you so sure that those dead people in the third photos are Chinese nationalist soldiers? Mandel 21:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I was so sick and I just got out from ER. I'm fine now. I have a book which explans how and what is modified, and the book is somewhere in my room. However, the picture Mandel mentioned (the third) is not a fake photo. This photo is taken by Murase, a Japanese soldier, and he is still alive. What I said was what he stated so.

This is my big question but why people use 30 million or 40 million as the number of victims of the incident. Hmib realize the differences of those two, but most people don't.--Flowerofchivalry 06:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. Was the book something like "How Japan tried to bring peace, prosperity and order to the world", written by Führermperor Hirohitler? Excuse my sarcasm, but using a book to rebutt another book, is absurd. Please provide evidence that your book is somehow more accurate, more NPOV, and more trustworthy than decades of research by Chinese, Japanese and western scholars.
  2. 30 or 40 million? Hello? Was that from the book you mentioned? Could very well be, eh? Well sorry to burst your bubble, but nobody claimed that 30-40 million people died in Nanking. Maybe only you. See my comments up there. 20-30 million is the figure most often quoted for the entire war, while 250,000-300,000 is the figure most often quoted for the said massacre. The two are different things, in case your book didn't tell you.

-Hmib 08:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. The picture I mentioned the above is from the Newspaper, Mainichi Shimbun, one of the most liberal newspapers in Japan.
  2. yes, million is my bad. 200,000 to 300,000 people are killed, according to the people who support the incident. According to my research from the U.S. newspapers, the civilian was no more than 150,000.


  1. I wasn't talking about the photo, I was talking about the book. Who was it written by? What year? What's the title?
  2. Cite sources, please? -Hmib 22:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. I can't tell you the name until I find it. By the way, you mentioned conservertive Japanese books are wrong and liberal books are correct. I can tell you it is a big mistake. I don't say it is incorrect that the liberals say the current president of the United States is George W Bush, even if I'm conservative.Besides, I was talking about the picture. I need to ask you a question. Where did you find the picture and how did you prove the bodies are innocent citizens of Nanking killed by the Japanese army's soldiers.Once again, it is the affirmative people's job to prove the incident. No body can prove any fact that which did not exist. For example, prove that there is not any martians on the earth which have two horns.
  2. Please read Chicago Daily News 12/18/1937.

--Flowerofchivalry 00:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  1. I think you're mistaking me with someone else... when have I ever said that "liberal" textbooks in Japan are correct? Heck, the major bigots all come from "liberal" parties.
  2. Please refer all the way back for discussions about the photos.
  3. Great, now I'm supposed to look for a 63 year-old article which may or may not be true. One source alone does not good evidence make. We all know how much newspapers can be trusted. Please read Newsweek, 30 April 2005 issue. -Hmib 01:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. I didn't mention anything about textbooks. Since you mentioned "written by Führermperor Hirohitler" and said "but using a book to rebutt another book, is absurd", I said that. Needless to say, what you said there does not make any sense.
  2. Since you requested me the source of the number I mentioned, I cited. I didn't do anything you have to complain me.
  3. You didn't say anything about the photo. Where can I find your assertions on this page.

--Flowerofchivalry 02:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  1. Neither does anything you say. I have not said anything about Japanese "liberal" textbooks being accurate and "conservative" ones not; the "Führeremperor Hirohitler" comment was targeted at your comment about "finding out" that all the Rape of Nanking pictures are faked from a book.
  2. You still have not told us what book you based that accusation on. We want the author, year, etc. Like I said, you have to prove that your book is somehow more accurate, more NPOV, more truthful than all the other sources. I figure you're probably using the 'authoritative' textbook by Hata Ikuhiko "Nanking Incident" (Chuo Koron Shinsho, 1986), right?
  3. I'm sure I talked about the photos, if not on this page then on some other. I'll restate my point. Even if the photos were NOT taken in Nanking 1937, it does NOT negate the existence of the Massacre. Pictures alone can't prove anything, nor can the absence of them disprove anything.

-Hmib 03:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  1. I still cannot understand why you mentioned "Führeremperor Hirohitler" to comment my assertions that most pics are the fake.
  2. Now, you changed assertions. You asked me the number of citizens in Nanking, and I cited. I could not agree with Hata's opinion. My opinions have never been based on someone but myself.
  3. You said good thing. As long as you (or someone) prove the truthfulness of the pics, those pictures don't prove anything. Therefore, the pics cannot be used to support the incident. I just figured out the pic was misattributed. It's less malicious crime than fabrication, but still felony. This is a place to discuss about Nanking Massacre, and not a place to express political opinions. We (including myself) MUST discuss the incident scientifically. If we discuss in scientific manner, this article will be great. If we don't, the same dispute going over over over again.

--Flowerofchivalry 03:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This pointless to-ing and fro-ing of assertions and counter-assertions is frankly pointless. Wait till Flowerofchivalry gather his books and evidence, then we'll talk. Anyway this talk page is already too bloated by now. Mandel 03:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


I agree, but I have this to say before I retire for today and prepare for the final examination onslaught. :p

  1. You don't get humour do you? OK, "Führeremperor Hirohitler" was my tongue-in-cheek way of saying that your book was probably written by a right-wing holocaust denier. Until you provide us with the title, author, year etc of your book, we must assume that since you appear to deny the whole incident (from what I've gathered).
  2. Then what exactly has your opinion been influenced by? Personal opinions are worth next to nothing on wikipedia, so unless you're a war criminal/victim, your words as they are are not going to be reliable, and thus cannot be used in an article.
  3. I agree, however you said that your opinions are not based on anyone's research, and that is not the Scientific Approach. From a 'scientific' POV, misattribution, I think, is not as serious a crime as denial.
  4. You have yet to answer Mandel's question, which I think is pertinent: Flowerofchivalry, which parts of this article do you take as fabrications, and what evidence do you have for backup? For example, what makes you so sure that those dead people in the third photos are Chinese nationalist soldiers?

-Hmib 03:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Please, this has gone on for far too long. Just let FlowerofChivalry come back with evidence against the photos (if he can), and Hmib, please try not to over-react and argue this from an emotional stand-point. The authenticity of the photos and the number of deaths are valid points of debate; doubting the highest death toll estimates by the PRC government does not make someone a massacre denier. --Rroser167 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello guys, I'm sorry for the delayed reply. I'm quite sick these days. The picture was taken at Nanking. You can find the original source at Tanaka, Masaaki. 南京事件の総括[Nanking Jiken no Soukatsu]. Kenkohsha. The photo is the dead bodies of Chinese Nationalist Army. Those soldiers were killed by the Japanese army. Therefore, the picture should be removed from the article. Good luck on Hmib's finals. --Flowerofchivalry 09:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Hope you get better. Now back to Nanjing. Would you do us a favour and transcribe at least part of your source? We know no Japanese, has no access to Japanese books, so the source is pretty much closed to us. Also, which photo exactly are you accusing of being misattributed? this or this? In any case, neither photo's caption specified the victims as civilians, so I don't see any reason they should be removed. -Hmib 02:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You must get an A because "A" means acceptable grade :D The second picture in your comment is misattributed picture. It was taken by Murase, and testified by a first lieutenant Takahashi. However, these things are smaller than the mistake you have made. Chang stated that the Japanese Army killed INNOCENT CIVILIANS and dumped like the picture. Soldiers are supposed to kill their enemy. That's their job. However, killing civilians is not their job. These are two totally different things. I really wish you realize this point. Once again, please describe us why you believe that picture is not misattributed. I will be disappointed if you say that you don't like Japan as the most Chinese people said so.--Flowerofchivalry 07:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


OK here.

  1. Like you said, it's up to the affirmative people's job to establish credibility. Would you mind posting the relevant parts of Murase's/Takahashi's testimonies? Remember though, that Murase and Takahashi's accounts are by nature suspect. We don't really trust Totenkopf guards when they claim the pile of bones and hair stacked somewhere are just cremated remains of soldiers, right?
  2. The Nanjing Massacre was perpetrated against both civilians and surrendered/disarmed soldiers. No doubt some of them would still be in uniform. (They probably had nothing else to wear.) Civilians could also have scrounged the uniforms of fallen soldiers, which were definitely of better make than most of their clothing.
  3. Killing hostile enemy soldiers is their job - killing surrendered enemy soldiers, is not. Nor is killing civilians to "avenge" their own losses.
  4. I was defending the photos were not fabricated, very different from misattributed.

-Hmib 08:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmib, there are things you need to know before you join discussions. No, I'm not insulting you. I believe you are my partner to improve the article, that's why I'm telling you things.

I said that the particular photo is misattributed. Both misattribution and fabrication are felony while misattribution is slightly better than fabrication. So what? Is that innocent?

Please remember that I explained you the above. It is YOUR job to prove those bodies are the surrendered Chinese soldiers. From the picture, we cannot know any more details. There is a reasonable doubt that the picture is not the part of the incident. As long as there is a reasonable doubt, the picture must not be used in the article. Pay attention to the Jackson's case. --Flowerofchivalry 09:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Between this and the comment you left on my talk page, I get the feeling that you ARE insulting me.

You certainly have not paid much attention to either the Michael Jackson case or the American judicial system in general. Reasonable doubt is not enough. The prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is guilty. For now, we are talking about the picture you are accusing of being misattributed, no? So now it's up to YOU, the prosecution, to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the photo was misattributed. -Hmib 15:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, I have taken some police academy courses, and I'm quite familiar with the american criminal justice system. Well, this is not important. You are claiming Nanking Massacre exists, and the photo is the part of the incident. You are accusing the Japanese army of killing and dumping innocent people's bodies. Unfortunately for you, you have to prove it as long as there is a probable cause. Besides, I believe that you are running out of a counterargument. I'm quite sure you cannot prove it. I told you I don't argue with the topic on your talk page, but you stated that I believe only my version of history. You should think about your way of thinking before I advice you something. Believe or not, I'm not insulting you, but I will contempt you if you claim things without proper reasonings. I'm sure you don't. I like the Chinese people, and, in fact, I just ate chinese food :D

I think it's time to remove the picture. Is there any counterarguments besides him? --Flowerofchivalry 02:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


On the contrary, you have been running out of arguments. You are purposefully ignoring my comments. YOU are the one who has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the photo is misattributed. Not me. YOU. YOU are the one challenging establishment, so YOU have to provide evidence. So far, you have not. Quit the merry goose-chase. Get to the point. -Hmib 06:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any other comments? I think Hmib does not listen anything I say. --Flowerofchivalry 11:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hate to become involved with this hot potato, but Hmib, Flower sadly has a point - what arguments do you have that the pictures present actual Nanking atrocities? They have been attributed to the massacre by others and posted in the article- so let's follow the trail back to the original sources and see what we find.
Also, Hmib, I feel like you are going to get upset at my question, and I'm asking you ahead of time not to. I think a horrific massacre did take place - but I also do not think that Wikipedia should support pictures on this page if they have nothing to do with the Massacre.
The article will still be very effective without pictures - especially if the pictures provide those who deny the massacre with ammunition to show that Massacre believers are being brain-washed by false propaganda. There are also many other massacres from the history of our murderous species described in Wikipedia without the benefits of pictures of victims (Magdeburg, Jerusalem in the First Crusade, St Bartholomew's Day, massacres during the American Indian wars, the campaigns of men like Tamerlane, Ghengis Khan, Tsar Ivan, and on and on) and the articles are no less authentic for want of them. --Rroser167 12:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
@Flowerofchivalry: You are the one who has been systematically ignoring my questions and refusing to answer them, giving half-arsed unsupported response when it suits you and ignoring when it doesn't.
@Rroser: You're absolutely right, however Flowerofchivalry has not presented solid evidence that the photo is misattributed, and since it is up to him, the accuser, (and this is definitely not the first time I said this), to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the photo is misattributed, the photo should not be removed until the point has been resolved. Also Rroser, I hate to mention this, but Flowerofchivalry is a regular holocaust denier, just look at his contribs and edits. Ridiculous. He is using a step-by-step tactic here, now he is attempting to remove a single photo, next on his list will be the article itself.
Flowerofchivalry does not listen to anything I say; does anyone have anything else to say? If not, this matter should be considered resolved. -Hmib 15:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is Tanaka Masaaki's argument for the photos being fabricated? Mandel 15:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Hmib, I looked at Flower's contrib page, and there's nothing about the Holocaust, unless you're using the term to refer to something other than the Jewish Holocaust.
Also, I'm sick of hearing you two accuse each other of not listening to the other one; it looks more like you two are just not able to agree about which one of you needs to prove or disprove the origin of the photos.
And as for the American court of law argument, yes the onus is always on the accuser, but both of you are missing each others' points about who the accuser is. Hmib is saying that Flower represents the accuser, accusing someone of misrepresenting the pictures, and Flower is saying that Hmib is the accuser, in that he is accusing the Japanese of committing atrocities as shown in the pictures. For goodness' sakes, did you two really need this explained to you?
Even if this was resolved, who cares? This isn't a court of law of any kind. Both of you should be doing your damndest to prove your points, not demanding that the other side does all the proving. That would at least be the intelligent way to win over people like me.
So, Flower, if these famous pictures are misattributed, you might be able to come up with more sources agreeing with you. And Hmib, don't presume that the matter is resolved just because you want it to be. I myself have doubts about the pictures now, and it irritates me that you would try to brush them aside like that. Don't sit back and point fingers - tell us where the pictures came from. --Rroser167 15:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I certainly need no one to explain this to me; but Flowerofchivalry does, it seems. You are right, we need to prove our own points, but right now, the contention is on the picture - and Flower is the accuser in this. Therefore I am awaiting his evidence and arguments. Oh and as for 'being resolved', I thought you would get my sarcasm... (cf. Flowerofchivalry, Is there any other comments? I think Hmib does not listen anything I say. --Flowerofchivalry 11:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))
-Hmib 21:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems Hmib was upset but I hope he calmed down.

Rroser, this is a website of a Japanese historical researcher who questioned those pictures. The picture I'm talking about is listed here. There are so many opinions of both who support and oppose the validity of the picture. However, I could not find any evidence at all that the picture is a part of the incident. I'm still trying to find some evidence if there is any. Needless to say, there are millions of websites which allege the picture is the part of the incident without any supporting ideas.

Mandel, Tanaka argues that the bodies in the picture of the dead bodies are the bodies of the Nationalist army soldiers. He claimes that Murase who took the picture testified so. In the meantime, Murase supports the incident so he has a no reason to lie.

--Flowerofchivalry 02:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did Murase testify anywhere else that these are Nationalist bodies, or is it merely Tanaka who said so? Mandel 03:05, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Now, I have to appreciate and apology you, Mandel. Murase did not testify that to Tanaka, this was my misunderstanding from the book. The book said that the soldiers such as Takahashi testified that the bodies of the picture was the soldiers of Chinese army with the uniform. After I found that I made a mistake here, I checked my assertions but I couldn't find any further misunderstandings. As I mentioned or cited above, Fujioka and Tanaka claims that the bodies were not civilians.
Fujioka and Tanaka also claims that the site is not in Nanking but lower reaches of the river. Takahashi claims that it was at 下関 or 三叉河.
To vanish my mistake above, I'm gonna compose 10 articles not related to China or politics.

--Flowerofchivalry 22:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could we have the book source verbatim (or faithfully translated), instead of a paraphrase? -Hmib 00:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have a good news for you, Hmib. Follow the link. --Flowerofchivalry 08:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Um, I'm not forking over 15 bucks to buy a book from an author with a dubious agenda. Who knows what kind of things they'll do with my money. Could you copy over the relevent parts? It will not be a copyvio (I believe). -Hmib 19:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Tanaka the same guy who forged parts of diary of General Matsui Iwane to "justify" claims that the Nanking Massacre never happened? [15] Mandel 11:14, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that what flower has said about the photographic evidence is true, in as far as they are disputed. Iris Chang was criticised by scholars from both inside and outside Japan for using photographs that were not properly referenced. In some cases there was supporting evidence, such as in the case of Japanese newspaper articles, where officers pose and are named. But in most cases, there was nothing to suggest when or where something happpened.
For example, take the raped woman. As far as I know, there is no reliable information about where that was taken, who the victim was or indeed who the guilty party was. How do we know she was even killed in Nanjing?
Some of the other photographs have more content, but that still does not prove a link between the dead and Japanese soldiers. The photograph showing dead bodies by the shore only shows a soldier standing next to them. It does not show who killed them.
Criticising photographs does not even begin to discount the idea that atrocities were committed at Nanjing. But being careful about the use of "evidence" is extremely necessary when examining historical events as important as this. I had this rammed into me when I was at university. Thus unless someone can produce some convincing supporting evidence that the photographs display what they are alleged to, I think they should be removed - or at least renamed so that it is clear they have no independent referencing.
Unless someone objects (and please give a reasoned argument), I will remove the rape victim in the next few days as it only shows a dead woman - there is nothing to link it to Nanjing. John Smith's (talk) 16:45, 21st June, 2005 (DST)

Photographs seldom can be used for proof for anything, and to play the devil's advocate, you can seriously doubt everything shown on photographs. Unless you have a person holding the captioning "I am doing some killing" over his head as he commits murder, you won't be able to reference anything with photos. How exactly do you prove a link with the dead and Japanese soldiers? You can't. How do you prove that anything is not staged? The line of logic is the same. Basically the only thing you can do is to trust the integrity of the photographer when he or she vouches for its authencity. For example, the photographs by Murase Moriyasu are taken to be proofs of killings by the Japanese armies, its location notwithstanding.

As for Tanaka Masaaki's claims, read here [16]. (This website can sometimes overload). Another similar website is here [17]. Please note though that Tanaka is commonly known as one of the Illusionist school, or a Nanking denier. Mandel 23:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


Mandel, that's a good point to argue about. However, even without the "caption", as long as there are no probable causes, which deny its truthfulness, I think it is appropriate to use the pictures. I and probably Smith talk about that.

I read japanfocus, and I found that they claim Tanaka forged Iwane's diary. I made some research on the internet, and I found out that the book they are talking about is composed by both Iwane and Tanaka. In this case, Tanaka cannot forge anything.

And then, Mandel, you said Tanaka is known as a denier. I think so, but I don't care. How do you think about this. Leaving from history, Austrian scientist proposed a theory, which is called Schrödinger's cat. Do you support his idea or not? I trust one who wrote a better thesis.

In my opinion, I can't believe there is an enough support to say there was the incident so far. I don't decline the incident so far either. As of now, Tanaka's assertions make more sense to me. One of the problem I can't believe so is that there are too many fabricated pictures.

Without using doughtful picture, if it is possible to prove the incident more reliably than those who decline, I support the incident. I'm an engineer. I judge things from facts.

While I'm doing a research based on my idea, but sometimes I can't find any supporting evidence despite the fact that I'm 99.9999999% sure that is correct. Few people forge the evidence in that case. As I mentioned the above, that is a felony so they can be expelled from the community for the rest of their life.

--Flowerofchivalry 08:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your line of argument. Your phrasing is odd in places, but I'll try.
You said you "trust one who wrote a better thesis". Unfortunately, history is not about thesis-writing. You can write about the most eloquent thesis in the world, but if it is not based on fact, it isn't history.
I know nuts about quantum mechanics, but your quotation of Schrödinger's cat has a telling line: "Since a cat clearly must either be alive or dead (there is no state between alive and dead, e.g. half-dead) surely the same must be true of the nucleus. It must be either decayed or not decayed."
Similarly, the Nanking massacre either did or did not happen. There is no half-way line in between. Like the Holocaust, there are overwhelming evidence that it did: John Rabe's and Minnie Vautrin's diaries, John Magee's documentary film, Robert Wilson's and James McCallum's letters are all proof that it did. They were there and seen it.
As for Tanaka's laughable attempts to discredit the Massacre, may I ask, which are the parts which strike you as making sense? As for the diary, I don't understand what you mean by "Iwane and Tanaka" composed it together. After all, it is Iwane's war-time diary isn't it? Do you co-author a diary, and what's more, in another time? Also, Matsui Iwane has long been executed for his war-crimes and could hardly have made any attempts at co-authoring a book with Tanaka. Mandel 09:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Schrodinger's cat has nothing to do with this discussion. One is a thought experiment, the other is a historical event. Flowerofchivalry, I think you would do much better if you did not flaunt your 'engineer' status around. We have plenty of those, and if you think your opinions are any better than ours because of that, think again. I'm really tired of your smarter-than-thou attitude assigning to us our "homework"... and I don't even want to mention that you should do some homework. You said (in previous conversations) that you research based on facts, yet now you claim to be basing them on your own ideas. Ideas do not make truth. You have not answered any of our questions, please get to the point, cut the chase or forget about this merry goose chase. -Hmib 08:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mandel, I mentioned Schrödinger's cat because Schrödinger is an incredible scientist while he is a sexual pervert. He love to have sex with very young girls. He should be isolated from young girls, but his achievements are still notable. Even Tanaka denies the incident, it does not do anything with his achievement. Logically, Tanaka cannot deny the incident because it is logically impossible to deny something, as I mentioned before.

There is a dispute over Copenhagen interpretation, which states there is a half-state as same as this dispute, by the way. The theory is cited just for example, but I personally recommend everybody's understanding the theory which enrichs our way of thinking.

In my opinion, Mandel is trying to discuss seriously like me, and he finally mentioned about Rabe. According to Rabe, in his diary, he walked all over the place in Nanking, but he had never watched that the Japanese soldiers killed them. If the Japanese army had a special satellite to track Rabe and told soldiers to run away, that could be possible. Besides, many people doubt Rabe's neutrality.

A satellite is just joking but even I think about that was in the war, there is a reasonable doubt. He walked everywhere but he did not watch any single homicide despite the fact hundred of thousand people were killed.

For Iwane's diary, Iwane wrote in the old fashioned way. Younger Japanese people cannot read it. Tanaka just translated into the modern Japanese. I haven't read the book so I have no idea he made mistake or modified something intentionally. But according to a history researching group, there are so many mistakes in his book, which are based on Iwane's messy handwriting.

I would like you to ask a question; do you agree to remove the picture from the article? If no, please state the reason.

--Flowerofchivalry 10:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Schrödinger did have pruerile designs on young girls, then maybe you should document them into the Schrödinger page. As it stands it make no reference to that. See if anyone challenges you. I also think you should get yourself a copy of Rabe's diaries and read them before you make any comments. It's obvious from what you say that you didn't read them. As for Tanaka's forgery, it's so widely known that you can gather info if you want to from the net. 'Nuff said, before we lapse into further pointless semantic syllogism.
I'll cut the chase. I don't agree to remove the pictures from the article. Maybe the woman photo, which I find too grisly and disrespectful to the dead, but the rest, no, they are referenced to Murase Moriyasu, there're enough documentation on that. Tanaka is IMO a forger who doesn't deserve belief. In fact, the photo of the baby ought to be back in the article, plus maybe something in the caption which states that the photo is argued by some Japanese to be staged. But that photo did appear in LIFE magazine, after all, and it has an impact on views of Nanjing Massacre, and it is significant. Mandel 10:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
If someone killed my family, I will hate him, but it does not decline his other work. Look at | here.
I would like to know you disagree to remove if the pictures are fabricated? You said the pictures are known taken by Murase. That's it? You ignore Tanaka because he is a denier? You need NPOV for this point. Don't assume the incident exists or not exist.
Do you want to back the Baby's phote widely known as fabricated because you hate Tanaka?
All the magazines and books tell us truth? All deniers' books are crap and supporters' books are worth to trust?

--Flowerofchivalry 08:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't read Japanese.

The Baby photo is not fabricated. It is at worst staged. I do not think the technology of 1937 allows fabrication of photos.

I ignore Tanaka, not because he is a denier, but because he lacks scholarly integrity. If you go to a court of law, once it is proven you have commit perjury, it'll be very difficult to convince anyone of your statement. It has been proven beyond doubt that he has forged parts of Iwane's diary to forward his doubtful agenda, which is to deny the Nanking Massacre at all costs. He has even cast doubts about Rabe's trustworthiness, and I find it ironic that someone who has done so much forgery himself has the temerity to do so.

I think I have spoken too much already. I've given ample reasons - but I don't own Wikipedia. What do the rest think? Mandel 09:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

You allege Tanaka forged Iwane's diary by using "it is widely known." It is widely known that the Nanking Massacre does not exist. Is this possible? In fact, Tanaka stated he did not forge. That may be truth. That may be force. How did you know that?

--Flowerofchivalry 09:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that you have not done your homework. From the Wikipedia article itself:
In his presentation of the denial argument, Tanaka Shōmei presented the diary of Major Ishine Matsui. It was revealed that Tanaka altered, deleted or even added his own writing in nearly 600 places to support contention that the Nanjing Massacre is false (that it had never occurred). The falsification was discovered by historian Yuriaki Itakura. Itakura himself was much closer to the revisionist side, but he severely criticized Tanaka's distortion.
Tanaka Shōmei = Tanaka Masaaki. (Although I have no idea why he is known by the first name) Itakura Yashiaki, "Matsui Iwane taish 'jinch nikki' kaizan no ayashi" [Suspicions of tampering with the "wartime diary" of General Matsui Iwane], Rekishi to jimbutsu (Winter 1986): 318–31. Mandel 09:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


Who is Tanaka Shōmei and Ishine Matsui.... I'm gonna edit that. Well, the article and Tanaka's excuse does not match. When Itakura reported Tanaka's mistakes, Asahi Shimbun reported that widely, but Tanaka's excuse was totally ignored despite the fact that Tanaka was interviewed. You should listen to his excuse, but it is clear that he made mistakes. Tanaka said that is just mistake but you claimes Tanaka commited felony. I'm gonna edit the article to fix the name, but this does not mean my agreeing the contents, and if Tanaka made mistake unintentionally, I will edit the article for the contents itself. But such naming mistakes show the writer's unfamilier with the incidents. Tanaka is extremely famous for everybody who argues the incident. --Flowerofchivalry 10:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tanaka is extremely famous for everybody who argues the incident.
As is Ernst Zündel. That did not spare him from being exposed a fraud and spending some time in prison.
Tanaka said that is just mistake but you claimes Tanaka commited felony.
Your double-standard is worthy of Bush himself. At a risk of going off-topic here, when Iris Chang makes a mistake, it is a most vile crime; but when an established neo-nazi holocaust denier commits felony, it's just a mistake? -Hmib 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As promised, I removed the rape picture. As I originally stated, it shows a female body. There is no evidence to show it is linked to Nanjing, so it is irrelevant. This does not detract from the view that women were raped in 1937 and 1938 in Nanjing. John Smith's (talk) 12:30, 24th June, 2005 (DST)

I think Mandel also wanted to remove the picture; he said it was too disrepectful to the dead. -Hmib 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What are we going to do about 211.30.211.93? He/she keeps going through so many different articles rewriting everything to suit him/herself WITHOUT joining in on any discussion pages. Are you guys going to start a RfC or discipline him/her yourself/ask someone else to? It's getting really annoying. John Smith's 28 June 2005 09:13 (UTC)

CherryTeaSoda Hello, I want to know what some of the effects might have been on Chinese culture as a result of the Nanking Massacre. If you can answer this A.S.A.P. that would be awesome. If you can give me sources would be even better. Thank you! 69.237.42.254 00:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Charity

The International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone

Shouldn't it me metioned? according to the Chinese wiki articlezh:南京安全区, the safe zone saved hundreds of thousands.

There is an in-depth article at John Rabe, I'll excerpt a part to here and add a link to John Rabe. -Hmib 21:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Even better, I created an article on Nanjing Safety Zone, feel free to contribute, what I need now (if anyone can provide it) is a map of the Safety Zone. A search on google shows that it is poorly documented, and I don't suppose anyone has a 1937 Nanjing map at home. :( I'll try to work something out. -Hmib 22:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A map is found at Acta Scientrium Ngensis[18], but it is copyrighted and the referer is very POV.

Title

I would like to suggest, as others have before, that we change the title to NanJing Massacre. Nanjing was known as Nanjing at the time to Chinese people. Foreigners called it Nanking. When we talk about Beijing during the war, we call it Beijing - not Peking. Also, just because people have heard of Nanking more than Nanjing does not mean we should further this misunderstanding. Let's educate others. John Smith's (talk) 16:50, 24th June, 2005 (DST)

I agree with you. The title was once Nanjing Massacre and I think that should be the main title of this article.CW32 3 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
Before you go about changing it, why was the title changed in the first place?
For a couple of reasons, I disagree with the suggested renaming. For one, the whole Gdansk naming fiasco left us with the general guideline that when discussing historical events, placenames used should be those used at the time (so that, e.g., articles about events during the Tokugawa Shogunate would use the name "Edo", not "Tokyo"). The fact that in this case it's the English transliteration, not the native-language name, that changed doesn't affect this - it was known in the English-speaking world as Nanking at the time. Second, historically, this was known as the "Nanking Massacre", and again, the precedent (from Black Hole of Calcutta) is that events which have become widely known in English under one version of the name of the place where they happened keep that name, even if another version of the name of the place comes into common use (Kolkata in this case). Noel (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Japanese version of this article

I don't read Japanese, but based on an online translator (which provided an admittedly muddled translation), the Japanese version of this article does not seem to match with the same event as the english version. It seems to correspond more to the Battle of Nanjing.

You are right, but it is common in Japan to provide a watered-down account of the massacre. At any rate, the Japanese version is more on the Battle of Nanjing then the real atrocities themselves. Mandel June 30, 2005 10:51 (UTC)
In that case, I think we should undo the interwiki to Japanese connected to this article and add it to the Battle of Nanjing.
I disagree. I can read Japanese and whilst the article may not go into such depth as the English page it most definately talks about the massacre (stating that the number killed can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands depending on the source, and that rape, arson etc. also occured) and so should remain linked to the English page. On a cultural note, it is common for Japanese people to avoid the use of definitives in just about any discussion, not to deny events but to a)avoid conflict with opposing points of view and b) to avoid being accused of pushing their opinions on others. Flame wars like those that seem to be common on English wikipages are not so common in Japan. Judging the content of a wikipage produced by someone in one culture by the norms of your own would, I feel, set a dangerous precedent.

Besides, the article has been protected for a long time because of the stupid battle. However, many people discussed about a large number of evidences here. On this page, people listed all the points at the issue regardless of the standpoint. Those discussions, the both who support and who decline the incident, have better qualities comparing to the discussion here at the English page. I'm now working on brushup the article.

In Japan, there are many people, mainly communists, support the incident. Even they do not support either the idea that 300,000 people killed nor "The Rape of Nanking." In Japan, the argument of the incident is so heated so they cannot defeat deniers by the ideas already proven as faked. I'm working on the article to improve the quality of discussion to benefit both sides so higher quality discussion will be possible.

From my point of view, people here tend to allege the incident exists, and lacks supporting the idea. From my recent researches, I believe the incident exists, and a hundreds of disarmed soldiers were illegally killed by the order of the Army.

Iris Chang is a political activist, and she should not be treated as a historian, but since there are some credible sources treat her as a historian, I believe both ideas should be written.

The Rape of Nanking is a propaganda. Based on this book, it's quite difficult to support the supporters side, so I think the supporter side should prepare credible sources (yes, there are many) without using stupid fabricated pictures. The reason why there are so many the incident deniers in Japan is the fabricated/misattributed pictures.

From my researches, the Chinese people emotionally react to the topic. One of the good example is the RfC. The person advertised about that at Chinese related pages to take Chinese people here. However, we need more third party people, and yes, the only benefit of that is bringing more people here.

I declare that I will not stop working on this article until the NPOV will be established.

--Flowerofchivalry 7 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)

You mean until your POV is established. -Hmib 8 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Hello Hmib, long time to see you. I remembered the idiom you told me "恶人先告状" when I looked at your RfC. Thanks.

I'm working on Mandel's precious comment.

--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 06:23 (UTC)

Sigh. It's obvious that it's not possible to talk any sense into this guy. What shall we do? -8 July 2005 20:38 (UTC)

July

FlowerofChivalry's comments on RfC

Mandel, thank you for your providing comment. Here are the few links you have requested me to provide. Please note that I do not discuss the issues here but providing the links.
Chang stated herself as an activist here. She said "There were other activists or filmmakers..." Also, what she was doing is clearly anti-Japan. Yes, some scholors stated that Chang was paid by the Chinese Government. The Director of Pacific Research Institute stated that Chang and other activists have been supported by the Chinese government (SAPIO Feb.27, 2002).
Yes, Nanking activist, not political activist. You stick the wrong term in. She advocated for no political ideas. As for what the director of Pacific Research Institute say, it is not important. What is important is his evidence. I can say that I believe John Lennon is still alive, but I need evidence to back my story up before anyone would believe me. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Nanking activist == Political activist because Nanking Massacre == Political Issue

--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

What has Nanking Massacre to do with politics, pray? You may want to politicize the whole issue, but it is clearly not a political issue. Politics: "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs." (American Heritage® Dictionary, 2000) Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)
I am not an extremist. I would appreciate you if you could refrain from those kinds of labeling.
The sites you point to are clearly extremist. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
OK, it may be extremist for you, but you should know what the real extremist is. Some people claim that vanish all Chinese from Japan because Chinese always commit crimes. This assertion may be an extreme. None of them claim anything like this.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
This is Rabe was a weapon dealer
in Japanese I translate precisely as I can. "Magee was anti-Japan and he sympathized with Chinese believers. He was extremely biased, and his opinions was not easily accepted by people in the United Stated by that time."
Again, you are quoting a secondary source and an opinion, not a primary source (direct evidence or quote from John Magee himself is needed). I can say that John Magee is anti-Russian, anti-Semitic or anti-American even, but again, what proofs do I have in saying that?
Magee is clearly anti-Japan because he was looking for Japanese evil activities, and he actually could not see any homicide scene(one "homicide" case was the Japanese soldier shot the Chinese person who tried to ran away from stop order). He did not see any single homicide case in small area (same as Central Park) in 2 months, and a hundreds of thousands people were killed. However, he created the story of Nanking Massacre from "someone said something", like a chinese person said that he saw the scene that soldier killed a citizen. Everything John Magee stated is second or third source and therefore his testify does not qualify as the primary source. And don't forget, Siemens used to manufucture weapons (but they mainly manufuctured the related equipment). According to my quick research, Siemens is the biggest electric group and the Nationalist govt bought weapons from Germany. John Rabe was the head of Siemens in China. He must have involved selling weapons. Oh, don't forget, Rabe sold other than weapons to them such as generator. The Nationalist govt was the most important customer for Rabe.

--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

Magee made a film about civilian victims and crimes against humanity in Nanking, which can serve as a primary source and is downloadable from the Net and can be used to dispute what you say. What evidence do you have that he "was looking for (sic) Japanese evil activities"? He served as a missionary in China and would not have encountered any Japanese had they not invaded China, so in what way was he "looking for" anything?
All my life I have never heard Siemens to be a weapons dealing company. Sony is a big electric group. Do they sell weapons to Iraq? (gosh, do I sound stupid) Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)
It seems that Mandel has the fixed idea on that the evil Japanese killed 300,000 innocent people, and all other ideas are not acceptable.
I based my belief on the diaries of John Rabe and primary sources which I have read. I'm not certain about the number, but indiscriminate killings obviously did occur. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
I agree that. As I said, Nanking Massacre exists and a hundreds of disarmed soldiers were killed, and this is illegal. You and my assertion already the same for this point.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
Besides, Japan is in the forefront of the studies of Nanking Massacre. In China, there is no freedom of speech (or if I say more precisely, people have freedom of speech if and only if the Chinese government agree that), so the study the Chinese government does not favor in China is impossible. In fact, Chang made the most research in China.
If some of the primary witnesses and victims of the Massacre are in Nanking and China, what makes you think that Chinese research is unimportant? The way you dismiss studies of other countries reeks of Japanese chauvinism. Mandel July 8, 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Again, there is no freedom of speech in China. In such area, "I saw something" or "I heard something" or "I was raped" does not mean anything. From the beginning, why they did not testify at International Military Tribunal for the Far East when the Chinese government worked very heard to find witnesses and victims.--Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)
Did some of them not testify? Or do you mean all tens of thousands of people need to testify (which probably means the trial will run for years and possibly decades)? And what has "freedom of speech" got to do with Nanking Massacre? Are you asserting that in China, no one ever got raped and robbed? Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)
The same as Wekipedians, there are volunteers who translate documents from Japanese to English, but many credible documents are yet avilable only in Japanese. I have been doing my best to find the sources in English, but if I cannot find the sources in English, I will translate precisely as possible. People can acquire the Japanese people who support the incident so they can verify my translate is not twisted.
I wish I could edit the article with your cooperation to check my writing, but you believe everything I write is "insidious." To be honest, I need you because I need other POVs. I really hope you and I can help each other and make the articles more unbiased.
Cheers, --Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)
I wish those my comments help the discussion. --

Flowerofchivalry 8 July 2005 22:07 (UTC)

What has Nanking Massacre to do with politics, pray? You may want to politicize the whole issue, but it is clearly not a political issue. Politics: "The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs." (American Heritage® Dictionary, 2000) Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)

The Chinese Government and their people wants the Japanese government pay money. Nanking Massacre is one of the most famous politic issues in the world. Pay attentions to what the Chinese govt said to Japan, and what Chang said.

Flowerofchivalry 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears it is you who want to politicize the issue, not Ms Iris Chang. She had never compaigned for Japan's payment to the PRC, merely for renumerations to the victims of the Massacre. Unless you feel that that makes someone a political activist, and not activist for a social cause, I have nothing to say. POV is very apparent here.
China has also waived Japan's payment for the war (amounting to some US$50 billion) and it will be ridiculous for them to ask for the money since they have wavered it in the first place. [19] Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Magee made a film about civilian victims and crimes against humanity in Nanking, which can serve as a primary source and is downloadable from the Net and can be used to dispute what you say. What evidence do you have that he "was looking for (sic) Japanese evil activities"? He served as a missionary in China and would not have encountered any Japanese had they not invaded China, so in what way was he "looking for" anything? All my life I have never heard Siemens to be a weapons dealing company. Sony is a big electric group. Do they sell weapons to Iraq? (gosh, do I sound stupid) Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)

Magee made the film and it shows many dead bodies and injured people. Yes, Nanking was in the war. Is there any scene that the soldier killed innocent people? The film is clearly less then the third source. Magee made the film based on his story, and the story is far from the truth. Don't forget, Japan, England, the U.S., and many countries "invaded" China. Before the WWII, the most western countries invaded and colonized the eastern countries like crazy. They wanted to have all to themselves.
Mandel, do you know Siemens sold weapons to Iraq? It seems you don't know that.Do you seriously believe Siemens and Sony are the similar?

Flowerofchivalry 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

FlowerofChivalry, I do not know. And I would appreciate a link or source which state what weapons they have provided for Iraq. And I sincerely hope you do not get sued by the Siemens Company for libel. And it appears you like to believe a selective everything you see on the Net. Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Did some of them not testify? Or do you mean all tens of thousands of people need to testify (which probably means the trial will run for years and possibly decades)? And what has "freedom of speech" got to do with Nanking Massacre? Are you asserting that in China, no one ever got raped and robbed? Mandel July 9, 2005 10:58 (UTC)

The Chinese Government tried to obtain testimony from "victims" by advertisement. They could not get it, so the government staffs visited people and asked to say something. Finally, they could get "evidence" which they wanted. Needless to say, testimonies the Nationalist soldiers killed the citizens were ignored.
The Chinese people have no freedom of speech. Any study or research in China does not have any reliability at all. Therefore, any research on Nanking Massacre in China does not have reliability at all. There is a freedom of speech in Japan and the United States.

Flowerofchivalry 21:40, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

So that means in China no one gets raped or murdered, since no testimony can be believed? Good lord, that must make PRC the cleanest place to live in all the world.
I appreciate you get your facts right too. There is no single Chinese government during the trial of 1946-8. The PRC has not yet been established. Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
The Chinese people have no freedom of speech. Any study or research in China does not have any reliability at all. The Soviet people had no freedom of speech. Any study or research in the Soviet Union does not have any reliability at all. The first artificial object in space, Sputnik I, is fabricated and really just a piece of cardboard paper launched really high.
I thought you were a scientist? -Hmib 22:17, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

FoC RfC 2

It appears it is you who want to politicize the issue, not Ms Iris Chang. She had never compaigned for Japan's payment to the PRC, merely for renumerations to the victims of the Massacre. Unless you feel that that makes someone a political activist, and not activist for a social cause, I have nothing to say. POV is very apparent here.

Those are the same, as you said just below, the Chinese government gave up payment from Japan. As a result, Chang claimed that Japan needs to pay anyone who states his/herself is a victim. I don't care this is a political issue or social issue, but from these facts, she is a political activist.
"I don't care this is a political issue or social issue, but from these facts, she is a political activist." ???? Mandel 13:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

China has also waived Japan's payment for the war (amounting to some US$50 billion) and it will be ridiculous for them to ask for the money since they have wavered it in the first place. [5] Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's right, so political activists clame that Japan has to pay for the "victims." However, this is not legal either even if the Japanese soldiers killed 300000people.

FlowerofChivalry, I do not know. And I would appreciate a link or source which state what weapons they have provided for Iraq. And I sincerely hope you do not get sued by the Siemens Company for libel. And it appears you like to believe a selective everything you see on the Net. Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Time Europe 12/30/2002. The article "INTO SADDAM'S ARMS" by Peter Gumbel and Ursula Sautter. Gumbel and Sautter claim that several German companies including Siemens are listed on Iraq's weapon list. I appreciate your concern but Siemens will not sue me. I thought this is a famous fact so everyone knows it.
"For almost 30 years, companies such as Daimler-Benz, Siemens and Carl Zeiss allegedly supplied equipment, raw materials and technical know-how which could have been used for Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs." but "Siemens and the German Government have insisted that the machines, which are being used in northern Iraq under a World Health Organisation programme, cannot be used to make nuclear weapons." [20] State the whole truth, not one side of the story. Furthermore, what has Saddam got to do with the Nanjing Massacre? Mandel 13:27, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

This still supports the idea that Siemens sold weapons and Rabe was their representative. However, I agree the fact that there are less sources than other facts, so I now think that the fact the Nationalist Government was a big customer for Rabe must be mentioned.

--Flowerofchivalry 08:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't base your judgments on hearsay. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

So that means in China no one gets raped or murdered, since no testimony can be believed? Good lord, that must make PRC the cleanest place to live in all the world. I appreciate you get your facts right too. There is no single Chinese government during the trial of 1946-8. The PRC has not yet been established. Mandel 13:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mandel, please listen carefully. I have said the same things before. The source which is not credible does not mean anything, this means that does not either affirm the thing or decline the thing.
After the WWII, the new war began; the Nationalist Govt and Communist Govt. When the Nationalist Govt lost, they invaded Taiwan. There are governments.

Flowerofchivalry 03:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking about whether or not I should comment on Hmib. While Mandel is working hard to discuss the topic(so I respect him despite the fact he has completely different opinions), Hmib has been disrupting the discussion. Since I'm very nice, I comment Hmib this time. Don't forget, because of your absurd RfC, people are watching here. Hmib's only achievement is that he told me the nice idiom "恶人先告状" by using himself as an example.

Read the above comment.

Oh, by the way Hmib, I still like you if and only if you repent your sin and you start the real arguing here. --Flowerofchivalry 03:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And I was thinking whether to regard Flowerofchivalry as a lunatic or a demagogue. After all these trading of worthless words enough to fill a book, it should be apparent.
A demagogue is, as said so expertly by H. L. Mencken, one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. Fortunately, most of us here are not idiots, but for the sake of wikipedia, this loon cannot be tolerated anymore.
For those who cannot keep up with the voluminous talk back and forth, what Flowerofchivalry is saying is:
  1. The Rape of Nanking never happened.
  2. The death count of the Rape of Nanking is significantly lower than that supplied by PRC's official commission. (How there even is a death count for a nonexistent event, I honestly do not know.)
  3. His main reason for believing the above is because PRC has no freedom of speech (to criticise anyone other than Japanese).
  4. His supporting evidence is from works by extremist nationalist authors who were later discredited for fraud.
  5. Because somebody was actively trying to protect the local people from a merciless invading mob of murderers, the said person hates Japan.
  6. He keeps on saying that all the research done by international commissions and tribunals and independent researchers are not reliable, though he has yet to provide any evidence that his research is.
  7. It's felony when Iris Chang makes an error in her book. It's an honest mistake when Tanaka's fraud was exposed.
It was nice of Flowerofchivalry to 恶人先告状 by accusing me of it, BTW, haha, haha!
Oh and pray tell, what sins do I have to recant for???

-Hmib 04:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The above fiction is created by Hmib. --Flowerofchivalry 11:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And the above slander was created by Flowerofchivalry. You see, people, when he cannot argue anymore, he resorts to personal attacks and avoids the topic at hand. What a skilled demagogue he is. Fortunately, none of us are idiots. -Hmib 16:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems you cannot argue anymore that's why you wrote fiction. Don't worry, people can read my post directly. I will appreciate you if you write somewhereelse for this out-of-topic talking because it disrupt our discussion.

--Flowerofchivalry 19:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I wrote fiction? Why don't you point out what exactly I wrote that are fiction? BTW, copying someone's ideas when arguing is either a sign of desperation or stupidity. Or both. -Hmib 20:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Hm? Nothing here? Alright then. Everyone, please take a look at Nanjing Safety Zone. Yet another article ruined. -Hmib 01:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I tell you one thing.

Don't lie.

  1. I stated a hundreds of the Chinese disarmed soldiers were killed. Don't lie.
  2. Your 1 and 2 is contradict with each other. Tell a lie more wisely, if you want to.
  3. I have never said so. That's only the one of the reasons. Don't lie.
  4. "extremist nationalist authors who were later discredited for fraud" what are you talking about? Are you talking about Tanaka? He wasn't discredited for fraud while some people who hate him (like Hmib) say so. He just made mistake on translating from old Japanese language to the modern language, especially the original was handwritten. And Hmib said "authors" Are there any other authors who were allegedly "discredited"??? Don't lie.
  5. It is the Chinese Government's job to protect people. It is the Chinese Government's job to help so-called victims, if there is any. However, political activists such as Chang demands money from the Japanese Government. In order to do so, Chang wrote the book with full of lies because she can't get money from the Japanese Government with a book without lie. Don't lie.
  6. He say anything he doesn't favor is "not reliable" while he has never cited any single sources throughout the discussion. Don't lie.
  7. Iris Chang intentionally told a lie while Tanaka made mistakes unintentionally. Don't lie.

As shown above, Hmib has been writing false comments all the time.

--Flowerofchivalry 08:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I hate to jut in here as there seems to have been heated argument. Again, I'm not here to take side but simply to point out to Flowerofchivalry that his last point about "Tanaka made mistakes unintentionally" has glaring inconsistencies with the article (and historical opinion) as it states he altered the diary which he presented as evidence. I hardly call an alteration of evidence unintenional. Unless you can present evidence that it was "unintentional" or was a bad translataion. I have googled two intresting sites [21] and [22] (note the second one is published by the Japanese press) stating that he altered anywhere from 300 - 900 sentences to soften the image... That hardly seems like a traslation mistake... And I doubt Tanaka's evidence can be taken too seriously as he estimates the death toll at much below the accepted standards. If you wish to cite his evidence in this article, I think you will need to make a special note about the contrevery around his research. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Sasquatch, thank you for your comment. I would like to explain the thing. There is a dispute over Tanak's translation, and I think nobody disagree this point. The problem is those "mistakes" are intentionally or unintentionally. Before starting the discussion, I want to clarify the things that Tanaka has never admitted the alteration. I looked up the links you provided, and I found some interesting things.

The article first appeared in is "Shukan Kinyobi." Shukan Kinyobi, 週刊金曜日, or "Weekly Friday" is not a credible source at all. The magazine is issued by Honda, who alleged Tanaka altered the diary. Honda used to work for Asahi Shimbun, one of the big newspaper companies, and Asahi reported Honda's argument several times, but Asahi totally ignored Tanaka's counterargument despite the fact that an Asahi's writer visited Tanaka. This is from Jiyushugishikan Kenkyukai.

Shukan Kinyobi is issued by Kinyobi, and this company makes big problems other than history field. One of the problem is "買ってはいけない", the list of the things must not buy it. They claimed McDonald's hamburger, aspartame, and other common stuffs are "poison" and they also claimed breach must not be used. This book is scientifically questionable. Needless to say, they are sued.

The publisher of Shukan Kinyobi is a kind of underground publishers.

For the first link, the article just introduced that "Tanaka deliberately rewrote or rearranged 900 sentences and words" but this does not argue anything about that. I cannot argue anything about this because he just mentioned without any evidence/citation.

--Flowerofchivalry 19:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, these are the only online sources I could find but I'm sure there are more. If you like I could go to my local library and check some more up for you as it is a pretty prevalent opinion among historians that the diary was in someway altered. Whether you like it or not, there has been controversy over his works much like there has been over Iris Chang's the Rape of Nanking. Both works are not perfect and are obviously written purposely to express one side of the argument. That being said, I repeat that if you are to cite information from his book in any articles, it would be more than fair to note the controversy surrounding it. Agreed? Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:47, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Not really. Why don't you use online magazine databases (if you have any). That's not open to public but you can find someway to access it online (maybe $$$ required). Chang's last two works are less than junk (but I'm not saying Chang is junk). Tanaka's work of diary of Matsui is controversial without any doubt (both side agreed).
I give you a good example. Have you ever heard "ecstasy?" This is a kind of stimulants and hallucinogens, and this substance is illicit drug in the US (and most other countries). A famous doctor reported that this substance caused brain cell damage to test animals.
This is not true. He later admit his mistake. He unintentionally misused other substances as ecstasy. However, there are many people believe that ecstasy causes brain damage on human (nobody has said though).
Ecstasy is stimulant and hallucinogen. --> Ecstasy is classified as illegal substance. -->Ecstasy is bad. --> The credible doctor mistakenly reported that ecstasy caused brain damage on test animals. --> People assume that ecstasy causes brain damage on human (because it's illegal and bad!) --> The doctor admits his mistake --> People don't care about that because the substance is illegal and bad, and so that cause brain damage on human brain.
I used this actual example to show you how the information once published cannot be controlled anymore. When Honda published the article which claims the problem of Tanaka's work, Honda and Tanaka was in a big war. Tanaka said he just made mistakes, and Honda said he intentionally altered the diary. Honda claims Tanaka committed felony. Honda and his ex-employer Asahi Shimbun continuously reported Honda's assertion but they ignored Tanaka's assertion.
Mistake is bad even if that is caused unintentionally. (Ecstasy is bad)
Some people claims he committed felony. (A doctor reported ecstasy's brain damage)
People believe he committed felony because he made the mistakes, and that is the fact!! (People emotionally judge based on something is bad so everythings related to that are bad.)
Once Tanaka explained the situation, people don't listen. Because people don't care about him because he is bad. He is bad because he altered the diary intentionally. (People don't care of ecstasy's real facts)
Ecstasy is a bad substance, but it does not cause brain damage. Well, wait...I should say this...don't use ecstasy (and other illicit drugs) because we don't who manufuctures the substance. I don't want to take mice's shit and probably the most people don't either.
OK, I need some sleep so I need to write conclusion. It is true that Tanaka made bunch of mistakes. This doesn't mean that he intentionally altered the diary. Probably we need to get into the original diary but here is not a right place to do that. Probably we need to find a good source which examines his mistakes in details by comparing to the original diary. Tanaka's controversial work is only that diary, but I don't like it if and only if he has committed such a big crime. It also should be noticed that Honda and Tanaka hate each other like Toni and Triad.
--Flowerofchivalry 11:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I cannot believe how FOC can claim that the Rape of Nanjing incident is fake, when there are numerous testimonies from both Chinese civilians and foreign residents. So far in the dicussion, he has not provided any substantial evidences from reputable sources. Do not feed the troll. --Crazysword

Thank you for your comment. Is "there are numerous testimonies from both Chinese civilians and foreign residents" the only reason you believe there is the incident?

--Flowerofchivalry 20:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Is "Tanaka said so" the only reason you believe there was no 'incident'? But I agree, do not feed the troll. -Hmib 00:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm asking you a question. You agree what? Please specify.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm answering your question by asking a rhetorical question to point out the sheer stupidity of that question of yours. But of course such nuances of language are beyond your ken. So I'll explain:
I agree with Crazyswords's statement, "Do not feed the troll." Therefore, I will no longer answer your pointless questions or debate with an idiot, until you can provide a reliable source for your claims, which I think, is never going to happen. Until then, I will see fit to revert any unwarranted and unagreed-upon POV-cruft you make. -Hmib 10:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to tell you again. You must cite your sources. Even after the vacation, I couldn't find any single citation. Stop excuse. Even though you post the RfC, no comments has been given. Cite your sources.

--Flowerofchivalry 17:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Try not to be a necromancer, OK? We have plenty of parallel 'discussions' elsewhere. Saves us all time and effort. -Hmib 00:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this your excuse of not providing any single source throughout all the discussions?

--Flowerofchivalry 14:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Please provide sources, both of you, for articles in English as well as Japanese. Chinese as well if you have them. Please stop the character assassination and generalization about entire populations of countries (that means calling Japanese chauvenists, or calling the Chinese liars). All that I've seen is you folks arguing back and forth and back and forth without either of you actually just providing a list of sources for those who can read them to peruse and deliberate on.

So please, each of you, put your primary sources down here for us to read (either as links if available on the web, or as titles/ISBN numbers of books if they aren't available on the net).

FoCへ、 日本でスピーチの自由がありますか？本当ですか？東京で先生は国歌を歌わなかったらだめにならなかったですか？先生達は歌わなかったらお給料は下がらなかったですか？去年の十月国歌の時に立ってなかったのせいで先生のお給料は１０％下がりました。それは自由ですか？中国の共産党パーティはそれをしたら怒るけど石原さんがしたら問題ではないですか？ソースを見せて皆で選べます。中国人と日本人の問題だけじゃありません。この「出来事」で何百人だけ殺されたと思う人は中国人だけではありません。この「出来事」で何百人だけ殺されたと思う人は共産だけではありません。


Hello Joshua, I appreciate your interested in this discussion. There are many books you may interested in but I think you can try this:

[23]

enter your credit card number or print the amazon's page out and bring that to a local library. This book is quite famous (for both who deny and oppose).

言論の自由に関して申し上げます。日本では言論の自由は保障されています。ただし、職務中は職務規程に従う必要がありますが、その職業が嫌であれば他の職業に転職する自由があります。上司の命令に従わない人はアメリカでは簡単に解雇されますが、日本では労働者保護のため簡単には解雇されません。従って減給のみで彼らは許されました。私はこれら悪質な教員は職務規程違反で解雇されるべきと考えています。中国ではめがねをかけているから解雇されたり、能率が悪いからと休み時間を失ったり、暴力を受けるなどの話が報告されています。これらは日本では違法行為であり、到底許容することはできません。

私は各所で申し上げているとおり、帝国陸軍による違法な敵兵処刑があったという信頼に足りる証拠を見つけていますが、それ以外に組織的な殺戮があったという証拠は見いだせておりません。

意見を申し上げれば、毛沢東による数千万人にものぼる大虐殺（大屠殺）を隠すために中国側が宣伝しているのがいわゆる「南京大虐殺」ではないかと思料します。

--Flowerofchivalry 08:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I've just finished reading this ENTIRE discussion page and the article -- It took me almost 2 hours. Frankly, it was interesting reading all of your arguments. 

I believe in what happened in Nanking base on my own reading and video documentries that I've seen, but what I want to prove is that the Japanese government does censor many parts of their World War II atrocities base on this article I read. It is from CCN World News about Japan's biological experiments in China during WWII and them censoring their WWII astrocities.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/29/japan/ 

   Flowerofchivarly, you got all(if not all, most) of your information from reading Japanese text, right? Well, I got all the information from reading English. Frankly, there isn't much books out there that supports the Japanese side of the story -- that isn't Japanese, or written by a Japanese. 
   It can be compare to those organizations who denies the fact that the Holocaust existed. --Which absolutely gets in my nerves.   --Zhukeeper 11:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 Oh yeah, please read about how the Japanese is still trying to cover up what they did during WWII. Read the link up there that I've posted.    --Zhukeeper 17:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I read the CNN article. That's not censorship. By regulation, Japanese textbooks must be approved by the Japanese government, but Ienaga still have freedom of publish as a regular book. See also: [24]

Your assertions are derived from the idea "Japan committed war crimes." As long as you have a bias from the beginning, it's difficult to get the fair conclusion.

As I said before, there is a reasonable doubt that why nobody who testified at Tokyo Trial said they saw the the scene of a murder. This must be explained to go to the next step.

Anyhow, thank you for your comment.

--Flowerofchivalry 03:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you got a point there (about me being bias and the Tokyo Trial). Thanks for your reply, if I see anymore interesting news related to this I'll post it up. --Zhukeeper 01:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Numerous eye-witness accounts of the Nanking Massacre were provided by Chinese civilian survivors and western nationals living in Nanking at the time. The accounts included gruesome details of the Nanking Massacre. Thousands of innocent civilians were buried alive, used as targets for bayonet practice, shot in large groups and thrown into the Yangtze River. Rampant rapes (and gang rapes) of women ranging from age seven to over seventy were reported. The international community estimated that within the six weeks of the Massacre, 20,000 women were raped, many of them subsequently murdered or mutilated; and over 300,000 people were killed, often with the most inhumane brutality.
Dr. Robert Wilson, a surgeon who was born and raised in Nanking and educated at Princeton and Harvard Medical School, testified that beginning with December 13, "the hospital filled up and was kept full to overflowing" during the next six weeks. The patients usually bore bayonet or bullet wounds; many of the women patients had been sexually molested.
From here. -Hmib 01:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Wilson's testimony does not have any value. He was visited during the war. There must be bunch of patients. Those who were raped might be raped by Chinese people. Again, he did not testfied that he saw the scene of murder in the safety zone at the trial. Nobody did. --Flowerofchivalry 20:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Continuing Flowerofchivalry's line of argument, how do we know that Martians didn't rape those women? The fact that Mars has gotten off scott-free when its space monster horde may have bayonetted and raped women in Nanjing is nothing short of a travesty, and yet more evidence of the bias of Wikipedia editors. Nandesuka 23:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, it occurs to me that we have failed to eliminate time travellers, hyperintelligent dogs, and interdimensional rifts from being possible culprits. Has anyone looked into this? Nandesuka 23:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

So you now accuse Martians raped those women. Well, read Probatio diabolica.

--Flowerofchivalry 12:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You should really read about sarcasm... how can one know about probatio diabolica and not sarcasm??? Anyways... Perhaps P.T. Barnum said it best with "there's a sucker born every minute". Sasquatcht|c 22:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So you're of of those fools who thinks what we raped ourselves? By your logic Americans attacked themselves at Pearl Harbor, and the Allied POWs build the bridges by their free will.

October

New notice

For the sake of future archiving, please sign any unsigned comments or respond for the timestamp. I've added a more polite, yet much more visible commenting guideline at the top of the page. Feel free to make any suggestions or edits. // Pathoschild 09:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow excellent work. I should give you yet another barnstar.
-- Miborovsky U|T|C|E| 15:24, 16 December 2024
Thanks. ^_^ I've created a new template ({{Comment Guidelines}}), so feel free to edit and use it. // Pathoschild 16:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Undated 1: causes of massacre?

The section 'Causes' doesn't touch on the causes of the massacre at all. It just lists the events leading up to the caputre of the city, even this in a flighty manner that confuses me as I read it. Shouldn't its contents be listed under something like 'Events leading up to the capture of Nanjing'? What caused the state of mind -- what was the state of mind that the Japanese troops were in to commit such atrocities? Were the troops acting alone in some sort of personal reaction to something, or was the massacre and rape sanctioned by the military or the government? -- unsigned

It doen not matter - they did it, by order, then they chose to follow the order, Nueremberg says its no defense, and if by no order, then they are even more guilty and sadistic and evil to take it upon themselves to carry out such acts of imagination. -- unsigned

Undated 2: 'in dispute' template

The 'in dispute' template is highly disrespectful - it is in dispute by nationalistic Japan, but the world knows what happened.

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

The Holocaust is also in dispute by some neo-nazis - they maintain it never happened. This does not mean that the Holocaust did no happen or that it is appropriate to recognise the veiws of neo-nazis by having an 'in dispute' template.

Japan is truely evil - It never happened that Germany honours, prays and worships a shrine to Hitler, Himmler, Henrich, Mengeler or the other convicted Nazi war criminals. Yet Japan does this and the world does not care - It seems a Jew is worth more than a Chineese.

Shame Japan, and shame to those who honour the memory with a template such as 'in dispute'! -- unsigned

The japanese were horrible. Not Genocide? What is it called when you go into soverign countries, ban their language upon pain of death and torture, outlaw their culture, and then put them down lower than dirt. The Japanese still do talk crap about koreans, okinawans, and chinese. Their textbooks don't even mention the atrocities they did and japanese people deny it. The only thing the japanese are good at are putting down everyone who isn't japanese, killing themselves and others, and copying everything. -- unsigned


Someone added a link to genocide, which I removed. This atrocity is an important historical event and we should describe it for what it is. However, it was not a deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, cultural or political group. Thousands of Chinese captured soldiers may have been captured as part of the killings in the aftermath of Nanjing's occupation, but they were not done so in order to rid the world of the Chinese race, in whole or in part. Kmlawson

Undated 3: Serious revamp

This article is due for a serious revamp.

  • I have started things off by separating out a section on historiography, which should be discussed separately from the event itself considering the complexity of it. The massacre only "resurfaced" historiographically speaking in the 1980s with the textbook controversy and the creation of the memorial in Nanjing shortly after.
  • There has been a lot of new and important research on the population estimates (Askew 2002), on the long and complicated battles in Japan over the issue (Yoshida in Fogel ed.) and over two dozen new books published in Japan on the issue in the last few years alone.
  • The naming issue should also be directly considered in the historiography discussion. "Rape of Nanjing" is an older emotional term which resurfaced with Chang's book. "Nanjing Incident" leaves out the fact that it is a massacre.
  • Also, I suggest we add for the Japanese that in Japan it is known by "Nankin daigyakusatsu" (same as Nanjing da tusha in Chinese) by those who believe the massacre happened and as the Nankin jiken by others. The problem with the second term, even for those, is that in Japan, Nankin Jiken also refers to a much earlier incident involving the murder of some Japanese decades earlier. We need to directly address the POV aspects of the naming in the historiography section.
  • Finally, the "Rape of Nanjing" book is problematic. Chang's book, from a historical perspective, is full of errors, which the revisionists have used to their delight to claim the atrocity is fake. It is not, but her book is a very mixed blessing and she did not do a good historical job. Her book is still important and deserves mention for 2 historiographical reasons: 1) Her book single handedly gave the incident a new life in the eyes of the overseas Chinese community and the Western world at large. This has glavanized researchers and produced more work on the issue. 2) Her book uses the Rabe diaries which has moved the research forward. Her effective use of the Rabe account, which I seem to recall her finding (?) is very important.
  • I may make further edits based on the new research but I hope others will too. Particularly I emphasize the work done by Brooks and especially Askew on doing the hard research into numbers and collecting evidence in English.

Kmlawson

Don't link Nanjing Massacre as the same incident of Battle of Nanjing which was indeed a fierce battle of Koumintang amd Japanese forces. -- KTsquare

Okay, I will unlink them. Thank you for your advice and help. --Ed Poor
I think "Rape of Nanking" will stand as the popular name for the events much longer than it will to the book. What's wrong with "Rape of Nanking (book)"? Check Google for '"Rape of Nanking" -book -young -yin' Hotlorp
I agree -- When I hear "Rape of Nanking" the event pops into my mind not the book. I've rarely heard this event called the "Nanjing Massacre" and have never heard it called the "Battle of Nanjing". --mav 14:08 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Mav, I agree with you on the following points:

  • The term Rape of Nanking was in use before the book of that title came out.
  • If an article about the book is written, it should be called The Rape of Nanking (book).

I think Ktsquare was pointing out that the Battle of Nanjing and the Nanjing Massacre are two different things, and we should not REDIRECT one to the other.

If you look over the History pages, you'll see I got lost a couple times trying to untangle it all. Sorry. Ed Poor

The Battle of Nanjing and the Nanjing Massacre are two different things, and we should not REDIRECT one to the other. Nanjing Massacre is the term mostly used by Asians and Rape of Nanking by Americans. I recommanded a note on Rapo of Nanking (book) to delineate the different use of terms. Ktsquare

I just check Check Nanjing Massacre on google, even some universities in the US using the term Nanjing Massacre: an example. The term Rape of Nanjing was probably popularized by the book. IMO it won't hurt to add another term of the incident on the page. Ktsquare

After reading all the comments, I have redirected the article Rape of Nanking to Nanjing Massacre and linked the book The Rape of Nanking (book) directly from the "Nanjing Massacre" article. In turn the article about the book is linking to "Nanjing Massacre". olivier 09:52 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)

I'm okay with it. User:kt2


Undated 5: Anti-denial book

I recently read a very apt review of Honda Katsuichi's Nanjing Massacre at Amazon, which I reproduce here in full. I quote directly from the reviewer (apparently an American) some of his refutations on right-wing nationalist "deniers" of the massacre. Hopefully what is written helps rectify an atmosphere of "collective amnesia" in some of our reviewers and that in Wikipedia we move towards truth and NPOV. I also recommend the book highly; if you can, borrow the book from a local library and read it cover to cover, though I must warn that its descriptions of the atrocities are rather graphic.

Mr. Honda has produced a courageous account backed by irrefutable interviews and thorough research into the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Army in Nanking in 1937.
It is indeed shameful that 66 years after that episode and 57 years after the end of the war, Japanese rightists continue to deny that it happened. Imagine if Germans continued to extoll the virtues of their invasion of Western Europe and Russia! Or if they called the Poles liars for mentioning the Warsaw uprising or the horrors of Auschwitz! It is bad enough that so many Chinese died at Nanking (some Japanese and American apologists of the massacre continue to quibble about numbers of dead: let me ask them: does 40,000 dead make it acceptable versus 250,000 dead ???) It is equally horrible that the Japanese government continues to deny compensation to the victims of that massacre and further insists in erasing all knowledge of the event (We have apologized enough !!!) Others claim that the Chinese themselves caused millions of deaths during the communist regime as if to excuse the Nanking massacre! One massacre should not be used to condone another!! I continue to believe that in this atmosphere of apathy, amnesia and coordinated erasure of history that justice will in the end prevail.

I sincerely hope that none of the WIkipedians fall into the camp as described in the above. Mandel 17:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Should we start calling people who advocate 3m jew being killed in holocaust as passive denier if someone start to claim that 4 million were, in fact, killed. Why not accuse anyone who oppose immigration as racist by default? Or for that matter, anyone who advocate liberal cause as communist and hence emeny of state. Just because someone adovocate figure of 120000-250000 or that saying Irish Chang's book was sloppy history book doesn't make someone an apologist. Something I pulled in other site. "ACCUSATION and outrage, rather than analysis and understanding, are this book's dominant motifs, and although outrage is a morally necessary response to Nanjing, it is an intellectually insufficient one."

Undated 6: Removed section on complicity of upper levels

I removed the following since it needs PoV revision

  1. Of course, the primary reason that this was perpetrated by the lowest ranking infantry troops was that it was not ordered from above, by the Japanese government or military leaders, and certainly not by the Emperor.
  2. While the Japanese, just like most nations at the time, held strongly racist beliefs, it was never their intention, at any level of the government or military, to commit genocide, eliminating the Chinese people from the face of the earth.

sentence 1 because it contradicts earlier information and evidence or references need to be presented. Also the "of course" is somewhat point of view (it's not obviously true, a number of massacres of that period were ordered).

sentence 2 because, it's very difficult to say "at ay level"; you need serious evidence.

Undated 7: Some References

Maybe the following will be useful in constructing a fair and balanced article here:

  • Young, Shi; Yin, James. Rape of Nanking: Undeniable history in photographs

Chicago: Innovative Publishing Group, 1997

  • Fogel, Joshua A. Nanjing Massacre in History and Historiography

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000

Some Fresh Air?

I am new to this page (and to Wikipedia), but decided to apply my editorial skills to the second paragraph, just as a test. Perhaps you all would benefit from a new, more neutral perspective.

Clearly this is a controversial topic. However, I think if you consider all the evidence, weigh all the opinions of scholars knowledgeable about this topic, and drop a plumb line through them, you'd come up with the conclusion that the Nanking Massacre did in fact occur, and that the Imperial Japanese army did commit numerous atrocities against civilians. This is not like the Roswell incident where opinion is more divided. A sizeable majority of historians agree that the rapes and murders attributed to the Imperial Japanese army did in fact occur and were in fact committed by said army. Therefore, I do not see such a perspective as violating NPOV, so long as it remains confined to the Nanking Massacre (i.e., an extrapolation to say that Japanese are inherently evil or imperialist would be out of bounds).

So that we error on the side of NPOV, I see nothing wrong with including a section containing the perspective held by many Japanese that the Nanking Massacre was faked and/or trumped up, so long as we make clear to the reader that is a minority POV and out of sync with scholarly consensus on this subject.

Just my $0.02 worth... BenjaS 04:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Due to the very mob rule nature of wikipedia, added to the fact that most people are apathetic, compounded by the sad state of humanity, we're having trouble protecting this (and other) pages from a deluge of the holocaust-deniers' POV as it is. --Miborovsky 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'm not apathetic and I have a block button for those who vandalise this page. (I just might be a bit slow as there are other duties to attend to). Sasquatcht|c 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Good to hear that.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

killing contest

does

Two Japanese sublieutenants, Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi said to be competing with each other to see who could kill one hundred Chinese first. The bold headline said, "Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighters Exceed Mark--Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105"

warrant its own article? in light of this ruling? Nateji77 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say, go for it, though it'll soon become another battleground.
-- Miborovsky U|T|C|E 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
any thoughts for a concise title? Nateji77 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
comments on Talk:Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword. Nateji77 08:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants an article by itself. Mandel 10:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

But why not? I think this deserves more attention than, say, a Simpsons episode...
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Because a lot of the article will be largely speculative and as such, will skirt POV. Most of what can be written about it is here already. But since it's here already, let's see how it will turn out.Mandel 09:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image of dead woman

I searched the talk history found only "Unless someone objects (and please give a reasoned argument), I will remove the rape victim in the next few days as it only shows a dead woman - there is nothing to link it to Nanjing. John Smith's (talk) 16:45, 21st June, 2005 (DST)".

Again, this photo is at the School of Architecture Gallery in Princeton University. So it is a quite invaluable envidence for people to know what's going on in the war, no matter it has showed some Japanese soldiers or not. The photo will make much more sense when readers try to know the period of history. It is impossible to have all these historical photos (most of them were taken randomly, personally.) clearly linked to the title.

Copied to Talk:Nanjing Massacre as the more appropriate place.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Search back and someone (I think Mandel or ran) thought it too gory, something which I agree with.
Wikipedia is NOT the place to post all the historical pictures, that's the job of wikimedia commons. As it stands there is really no reason to include this picture, as it unnecessarily gory, does not show the extent or perpetrators of the Massacre, and therefore is really not as good as images that do, of which there are many. It is definitely not more invaluable (if such a concept can exist) than other images, which will do just as well. There is a reason TV might show murder scenes and/or the corpses, but never rape... it is far more disrespectful to show THAT than, say, a dead person's head. If you have no more objections I shall remove the image again. You could check the commons to see if the picture is there.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The image on the page showing the dead rape victim is extremely offensive to me. I'm not 100% clear that the image referred to in this edit section is the same one, but I will presume it is. I should like to state my strong opinion that this image be removed. In America, pictures of dead bodies are already a sensitive topic; pictures which display the genitalia of a corpse are considered highly innapropriate in virtually all venues, and are generally offensive and inflammatory to Americans. Genitalia (along with open eyes) are uniformly 'edited out' with blurring or a black bar. The only contribution this picture makes to the article is an emotional one, since it serves only to illustrate the horror of a rape, not any Nanjing incident in particular specifics, and it should be removed. Eaglizard 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the picture tomorrow if there are no further objections. Thanks.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and ditto my previous objection (disrespect to the dead). We don't need to exhibit naked genitalia in a way that's emotionally disturbing but totally unedifying. One doesn't need to see a rape or witness a beheading to understand the horrors of it. Mandel 09:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed. Since Caiqian has not responded, I guess if he still has objections he can raise it here, but please do not restore the photo without discussion. Thanks.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Still object. There are lots of pages (may contain torture and nudity) in Wikipedia using photos for users who do not want to read through tiresome articles. They are not trying to offence anyone, but just emphasize the simple facts.Caiqian 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
One way to work this out is to have two articles, one without the (most) disturbing picture(s). The same measure is taking for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). User:Eaglizard said that the picture is offensive, and I fully agree with that and it is not just to Americans. But have you guys considered why Princeton University chose to display it, in an online website as well? Princeton Univ. was certainly not acting in bad faith or trying to be offensive. They must have carefully considered this and have strong reasons to do so. Those same reasons could apply here as well and is related to what Caiqian was trying to convey. Think about it for a while, please. --Vsion 01:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Princeton ran it as "History in Pictures". Wikipedia on the other hand is mainly word-based and would benefit only if a picture illustrates a point which otherwise using verbal language is much less adequate. Vsion's solution has been used here for some time before, but lots of people complain about the chore of having 2 different articles. Mandel 08:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the infor, I'm not aware of the edit history. Your point is good, that the key question is whether the picture illustrates the atrocities much better than words such that it is enough reason to use the picture even though it will be disturbing to many people. May I suggest that we leave aside the decision about the picture for a while, and focus on examining whether the current text has sufficiently describe the horror, and if not, whether it can be improved. The most relevant section would be Nanking_Massacre#Rape, let's read it and give your comments. Thanks. --Vsion 09:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
To be a little more specific, I am asking whether you guys see any problem with this section? --Vsion 09:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Too many "it is believed", "it is said", according to "historians/reports" etc. without specifying who said what, and what historians/reports. In fact the whole section suffered from that. A quote from Minnie Vautrin's diary would do much more for its credubility. Mandel 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly! To be precise, the article does not say that the rapes took place, it says that historians believe that the rape took place. The advantage of the pictures is that they leave the historian, testimony out of the equation. The pictures are not just illustrations, they are evidences. Anyone, even if they are not familar with the history, but saw the pictures will have no doubt in their mind that these rapes took place. Since the sources are not disputed, these pictures are conclusive evidence. --Vsion 07:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It does not remove the fact that many people consider such grotesque images to be inappropriate under any circumstances. Apparently splitting into 2 pages seems to be the solution to please the most people. I don't know how they do it at Abu Ghraib, but coordination between the 2 different pages seem to be a problem... I'll check out the Abu Ghraib page and see how they deal with it.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Another way is don't include the picture here, but be more explicit in the text at this relevant section. Something like "Photograph evidences have proved that these rapes and murder with mutilation took place. The pictures of the victims were taken by Japanese soldiers themselves as souvenior snapshots, some of these photographs are shown in an online gallery at Princeton University. (Warning: the photos are explicit, and may be offensive to some.)" . I am aware that these links are already listed at the end of the article, but I think they should be brought up earlier at the most relevant section --Vsion 00:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
So you mean the Nick Berg way? Sounds good to me.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Vsion, photos are seldom iron-clad evidence for anything. That's because, without reliable captions, it is impossible to tell where and when those photos are taken. Also, photos are easily fabricated, and that's the very reason seized upon by Nanking deniers. In this age of digital manipulation you can create anything. And their sources are disputed.
Verbal testimonies are much more reliable. You can charge a person for murder based on witness account, but not merely on basis of a photo.
Very strangely Caiqian had agreed to remove the photo (see talk page archive 2005), why is he/she putting them back? Mandel 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. "Old woman were not spared...." is the DIFFERENT image from this one, which had a very bad quality Caiqian 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Is that so? Sorry, my mistake. Mandel 17:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Rereading, I think the entire section "Atrocities begin" need a substantial rewrite. Mandel 09:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If the photo of the crime is from the perpetrator himself, that's pretty convincing. It's really the two sides of the same coin: a person find the photo disturbing because it is convincing to him. The objection to the photo so far is not that it is unreliable, but because of the strong effect it has on readers. Even though the reliability may be questioned, criminal prosecutors would still prefer to use photographic evidence to present their case, for the same reason. It is most effective when both eyewitness and physical evidences are present to argue a case. --Vsion 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
We don't know who took the photograph. We don't know for sure when it is taken. It could be outside Nanjing. Again, if you need me to tell you these info before the photo is convincing, then the photo's very reliability is called into question. This is the very same ammunition Nanking deniers used to attack Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (book). We have many other reliable evidence and proofs like telegrams, diary passages to use, so we shouldn't leave ourselves open to such assaults. Furthermore this kind of photograph is used to stir anger, a big no-no in POV.
Personally I also hate to use this photograph. The woman is dead, maybe raped. Let her die in peace and in dignity. Mandel 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph has problems

'...Most Japanese historians believe that the Nanking Massacre has been substantially exaggerated (if not fabricated) by the Chinese government, and used to damage the reputation of Japan in the world community.'

This seems to imply that most Japanese historians believe the massacre was fabricated by the Chinese government. Wording could be improved. It may be that most Japanese historians believe some aspect of the massacre to be 'fabricated' (e.g., doctoring and misrepresentation of photos), but this is not the same as saying that they believe the Nanking Massacre was fabricated.

'.. The (relatively benign) Japanese version of the incident is considered to be historical revisionism, especially by the Chinese.'

To tar-brush the Japanese version as 'relatively benign' is too simplistic. First, there are many Japanese versions. Secondly, many of these are only 'benign' in the sense that they accept 120,000 (or 200,000, or some other figure) dead instead of 300,000. There is nothing benign about killing on that scale.

Apart from this, I am surprised at how much better balanced the article is than it was before. The problem with much of the shrill rhetoric from some on the Chinese side is that, in its anger, it ends up accusing "Japan" of having committed nothing but evil and accusing "Japan" of refusing to apologise or denying what happened. This ignores the fact that there are many different viewpoints in Japan and many Japanese who feel shame or guilt over what happened and who are trying to set things right. Bathrobe 07:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken. I support correction. Yet for the past 1 year or so I still feel improvements to the article are mainly cosmetic and in areas of NPOV, but the article proper is still pretty anaemic, not that anyone has done substantial reading to beef up the article. Mandel 08:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Is the following acceptable?

Most Japanese historians believe that the Nanking Massacre has been substantially exaggerated by the Chinese government in order to damage Japan's reputation in the world community. The most extreme view held by some in Japan is that the Massacre was fabricated. In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism, and to this day stirs great passions among the Chinese people. Japanese attempts to moderate Chinese claims are rejected as historical revisionism.

(I noticed a second problem with this sentence in the original: "The (relatively benign) Japanese version of the incident is considered to be historical revisionism, especially by the Chinese." This implicitly incorporates the claim that "the Japanese version is considered historical revisionism", which is definitely going too far!)

Please let me know what you think. I'm not sure if I've gone too far the other way.Bathrobe 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

2 nits to pick:
  1. Most Japanese historians... How is most quantified? What constitutes most? 80%? 90% Was there a study done on how many of them thought it was exaggerated? If not, it should be changed to many.
  2. substantially exaggerated.. Again ambiguous. How much is substantially? 40%? 50%? Can't really be quantified. Suggest changing to just exaggerated.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, "substantial" is OK, "most" is problematic. It's always better to say "many", "a number" unless the percentile is justifiable. "Most extreme views held by some" could be supplemented with "held by right-wing nationalists" (and/or anything to that effect). Last sentence is problematic too: "moderate", "Chinese claims" and "reject" are definitely POV in favor of the Japanese. Mandel 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

About the verification based on the first class material in Japan

It is confirmed from various material and viewpoints in Japan. Many of finding the photograph quoted by Nanking Massacre erases production. The scholar in Japan that assumes that Nanking Massacre (massacre of 300,000 people) is true doesn't exist now. Of course, the scholar who insists that there was no slaughter at all doesn't exist either. It is necessary to distinguish the retrieval and feelings of the historical fact. --Fair china 05:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what? You're making no sense. If your English skill is that bad, you can get a translator at Wikipedia:Babel.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Does he deny the fact that the truth is controverting in Japan?　 There is no answer about the thing at all. --Fair china 06:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Who is "he"? There is no denying that the matter is controversial (controverted as you're wont to use). However your statement is POV in that it's insinuating by pointing out that there is free speech in Japan, a transparent attempt to remind the readers that China does not. Nothing outright wrong about that, but in the context of the controversy, this carries a clear connotation that whatever research Japan does is more credible than China's, which is POV. Also, your statement "It is necessary to distinguish the search and feelings of the historical fact." makes absolutely no sense. So discarding nonsensical parts and POV parts, your only worthwhile addition is "The truth is being controverted in Japan", something which is grammatically impossible since the truth is not open to controversy. Besides, the fact that this is controversial is already covered in copious amounts in this very article.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You must not forge the history by feelings. China does not submit grounds of a statement (300,000). The history is inspected for grounds based on a first class document in Japan. There is not a historian insisting that there was not slaughter at all. However, Nanking Massacre =300,000 is denied by those historians. The matter that existence is not confirmed should not be expressed by a conclusion. It is propaganda to conclude Nanking Massacre to be and is lacking in neutrality.--218.42.223.7 08:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You're the same person, I assume.
You contradict yourself by first saying "There is not a historian insisting that there was not slaughter at all." then saying "It is propaganda to conclude Nanking Massacre to be". Make up your mind.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E

A statement (300, 000) with Chinese Nanjing memory building is "Nanking Massacre". Do you think that the number of people that was temporarily slaughtered should express even 49 people with "Nanking Massacre?" Please be aware that it is an exaggeration.--Fair china 08:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You're still not making any sense. How can people be temporarily slaughtered? If you believe it is an exaggeration, provide evidence.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 08:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

When the slaughter number of people assumed it to be 49 people, do you express it with "Nanking Massacre?"--61.205.94.143 09:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Since when was the number of people killed 49? BTW, you've obviously never heard of the Boston Massacre.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 09:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


n short, there was the Nanjing game only "one of a wartime period and the local wars which suited innumerably." It is clearly unnatural that such a thing appears suddenly on the occasion of Tokyo Trial. And in Tokyo Trial, while no verification of proof is also carried out and a counterargument has not been allowed, either, the victorious nation has let in a trial the lie "there was the Nanjing Massacre" pass. This is the first fabrication point first. and for a whilethis problem"as the fact" it was neglected, and after the report of Asahi Shimbun, it was set to 1978 and the "Nanjing Massacre" was described by the Japanese junior high school textbook. Here is the interesting fact. In fact, at the time (1978), there was no publication of the "Chinese textbook" Nanjing Massacre etc. It is wonderful thoroughly because it published from 1979 by following Japan in the Chinese textbook, and the exaggerated name a "massacre" etc. was attached and "it did not appear in China's own textbook as long as 42 years, either" from an incident soon coming and making a great uproar.

It is not only a textbook. Including the journalist of foreign countries, such as "300,000 people's massacre" etc. which China asserts, no one had kept in the soldier and the civilian to memory, and the impossible destruction-of-evidence theory of having buried the man of 300,000 or passing to a river etc. carried out neither whom in the world, nor imagination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.180.176.246 (talk • contribs) .

For the love of God, read the diaries of John Rabe.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image of dead woman - putting to vote

This is the prior discussion reproduced here in full for reference.

I searched the talk history found only "Unless someone objects (and please give a reasoned argument), I will remove the rape victim in the next few days as it only shows a dead woman - there is nothing to link it to Nanjing. John Smith's (talk) 16:45, 21st June, 2005 (DST)".

Again, this photo is at the School of Architecture Gallery in Princeton University. So it is a quite invaluable envidence for people to know what's going on in the war, no matter it has showed some Japanese soldiers or not. The photo will make much more sense when readers try to know the period of history. It is impossible to have all these historical photos (most of them were taken randomly, personally.) clearly linked to the title.

Copied to Talk:Nanjing Massacre as the more appropriate place.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Search back and someone (I think Mandel or ran) thought it too gory, something which I agree with.
Wikipedia is NOT the place to post all the historical pictures, that's the job of wikimedia commons. As it stands there is really no reason to include this picture, as it unnecessarily gory, does not show the extent or perpetrators of the Massacre, and therefore is really not as good as images that do, of which there are many. It is definitely not more invaluable (if such a concept can exist) than other images, which will do just as well. There is a reason TV might show murder scenes and/or the corpses, but never rape... it is far more disrespectful to show THAT than, say, a dead person's head. If you have no more objections I shall remove the image again. You could check the commons to see if the picture is there.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The image on the page showing the dead rape victim is extremely offensive to me. I'm not 100% clear that the image referred to in this edit section is the same one, but I will presume it is. I should like to state my strong opinion that this image be removed. In America, pictures of dead bodies are already a sensitive topic; pictures which display the genitalia of a corpse are considered highly innapropriate in virtually all venues, and are generally offensive and inflammatory to Americans. Genitalia (along with open eyes) are uniformly 'edited out' with blurring or a black bar. The only contribution this picture makes to the article is an emotional one, since it serves only to illustrate the horror of a rape, not any Nanjing incident in particular specifics, and it should be removed. Eaglizard 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I will remove the picture tomorrow if there are no further objections. Thanks.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and ditto my previous objection (disrespect to the dead). We don't need to exhibit naked genitalia in a way that's emotionally disturbing but totally unedifying. One doesn't need to see a rape or witness a beheading to understand the horrors of it. Mandel 09:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed. Since Caiqian has not responded, I guess if he still has objections he can raise it here, but please do not restore the photo without discussion. Thanks.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Still object. There are lots of pages (may contain torture and nudity) in Wikipedia using photos for users who do not want to read through tiresome articles. They are not trying to offence anyone, but just emphasize the simple facts.Caiqian 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
One way to work this out is to have two articles, one without the (most) disturbing picture(s). The same measure is taking for Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse and Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). User:Eaglizard said that the picture is offensive, and I fully agree with that and it is not just to Americans. But have you guys considered why Princeton University chose to display it, in an online website as well? Princeton Univ. was certainly not acting in bad faith or trying to be offensive. They must have carefully considered this and have strong reasons to do so. Those same reasons could apply here as well and is related to what Caiqian was trying to convey. Think about it for a while, please. --Vsion 01:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Princeton ran it as "History in Pictures". Wikipedia on the other hand is mainly word-based and would benefit only if a picture illustrates a point which otherwise using verbal language is much less adequate. Vsion's solution has been used here for some time before, but lots of people complain about the chore of having 2 different articles. Mandel 08:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the infor, I'm not aware of the edit history. Your point is good, that the key question is whether the picture illustrates the atrocities much better than words such that it is enough reason to use the picture even though it will be disturbing to many people. May I suggest that we leave aside the decision about the picture for a while, and focus on examining whether the current text has sufficiently describe the horror, and if not, whether it can be improved. The most relevant section would be Nanking_Massacre#Rape, let's read it and give your comments. Thanks. --Vsion 09:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
To be a little more specific, I am asking whether you guys see any problem with this section? --Vsion 09:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Too many "it is believed", "it is said", according to "historians/reports" etc. without specifying who said what, and what historians/reports. In fact the whole section suffered from that. A quote from Minnie Vautrin's diary would do much more for its credubility. Mandel 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Exactly! To be precise, the article does not say that the rapes took place, it says that historians believe that the rape took place. The advantage of the pictures is that they leave the historian, testimony out of the equation. The pictures are not just illustrations, they are evidences. Anyone, even if they are not familar with the history, but saw the pictures will have no doubt in their mind that these rapes took place. Since the sources are not disputed, these pictures are conclusive evidence. --Vsion 07:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It does not remove the fact that many people consider such grotesque images to be inappropriate under any circumstances. Apparently splitting into 2 pages seems to be the solution to please the most people. I don't know how they do it at Abu Ghraib, but coordination between the 2 different pages seem to be a problem... I'll check out the Abu Ghraib page and see how they deal with it.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Another way is don't include the picture here, but be more explicit in the text at this relevant section. Something like "Photograph evidences have proved that these rapes and murder with mutilation took place. The pictures of the victims were taken by Japanese soldiers themselves as souvenior snapshots, some of these photographs are shown in an online gallery at Princeton University. (Warning: the photos are explicit, and may be offensive to some.)" . I am aware that these links are already listed at the end of the article, but I think they should be brought up earlier at the most relevant section --Vsion 00:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
So you mean the Nick Berg way? Sounds good to me.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Vsion, photos are seldom iron-clad evidence for anything. That's because, without reliable captions, it is impossible to tell where and when those photos are taken. Also, photos are easily fabricated, and that's the very reason seized upon by Nanking deniers. In this age of digital manipulation you can create anything. And their sources are disputed.
Verbal testimonies are much more reliable. You can charge a person for murder based on witness account, but not merely on basis of a photo.
Very strangely Caiqian had agreed to remove the photo (see talk page archive 2005), why is he/she putting them back? Mandel 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. "Old woman were not spared...." is the DIFFERENT image from this one, which had a very bad quality Caiqian 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Is that so? Sorry, my mistake. Mandel 17:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Rereading, I think the entire section "Atrocities begin" need a substantial rewrite. Mandel 09:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If the photo of the crime is from the perpetrator himself, that's pretty convincing. It's really the two sides of the same coin: a person find the photo disturbing because it is convincing to him. The objection to the photo so far is not that it is unreliable, but because of the strong effect it has on readers. Even though the reliability may be questioned, criminal prosecutors would still prefer to use photographic evidence to present their case, for the same reason. It is most effective when both eyewitness and physical evidences are present to argue a case. --Vsion 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
We don't know who took the photograph. We don't know for sure when it is taken. It could be outside Nanjing. Again, if you need me to tell you these info before the photo is convincing, then the photo's very reliability is called into question. This is the very same ammunition Nanking deniers used to attack Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (book). We have many other reliable evidence and proofs like telegrams, diary passages to use, so we shouldn't leave ourselves open to such assaults. Furthermore this kind of photograph is used to stir anger, a big no-no in POV.
Personally I also hate to use this photograph. The woman is dead, maybe raped. Let her die in peace and in dignity. Mandel 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Caiqian, why do you want to keep the photo? Mandel 04:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Votes (Suspended)

You may vote for more than one. Please sign using {{user|username}}. If possible, please explain why you chose what you chose. This is to prevent sockpuppetry and/or editors with vested interest in seeing this photo gone and no intent to improve this article.

Remove this photo altogether

Support:

  1. Poo-T (talk · contribs) -No data about the photo. The only thing we know is 'Some people in princeton show the photo as "Nanking-related". Checking whether the photo is really related to the 'event' or not, must be the stating point for using in a history page. I think, the identity of the photo is also the topic here. Poo-T 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Hermeneus (talk · contribs) - No info on its identity or relevance to the article other than that it's taken from a "fully student-run event" on Nanking massacre at Princeton University. The credibility of such a photo is close to zero in my book. Hermeneus (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
          The accuracy of this photo is not in question here. What we are trying to vote on is whether it's appropriate. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mandel (talk · contribs)
  4. Ypacaraí (talk · contribs)
  5. Watanabe Hisashi (talk · contribs)
  6. Commonsenses 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Bright888 (talk · contribs)-A photo with no data will mislead disputes.

Oppose:

  1. Caiqian (talk · contribs) - This photo will help readers, causing embarrassed should not be a problem here. Otherwise, people can remove all the photos using these personal excusses.
  2. Miborovsky (talk · contribs) - Oppose except as a temporary solution because photo is certainly relevent, if not entirely appropriate.
  3. Brisston (talk · contribs)
  4. Chakuid (talk · contribs) - this user may well be a sockpuppet, he/she has made no edits except to vote here. Mandel 17:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
          Why reject?, I haven't edit this page too as I don't have a good english. I am interested in what happend in this page.
  5. Sadday (talk · contribs) - It is some people's ambition to remove one and then another. Historical photos are quite important　
          Welcome new user ID for Nanking Massacre :P) You are smarter than Chakuid, as you did one minor edit before coming to this page. Poo-T 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Miborovsky (talk · contribs) - Works on Nick Berg, which is a lot tamer. Reduces initial shock value while not censoring anything. Viewers would be making an informed decision before clicking on the link.
  2. Mandel (talk · contribs) - link to Princeton site, not this particular photo
  3. Vsion (talk · contribs) - also please state clearly in the text that photographs of these crimes exist
  4. Brisston (talk · contribs)
  5. Sadday (talk · contribs) - Maybe a solution to avoid embarressed people.
          Another possible sockpuppet (1 edit before vote).

Oppose:

  1. Caiqian (talk · contribs) - personal excusses are pointless. This photo is total acceptable within wikipedia rules.
  2. Watanabe Hisashi (talk · contribs)
  3. Hermeneus (talk · contribs)
Retain this page, then create a Nanking Massacre (no explicit graphics) or similar page and on it remove this and all explicit photos

Support:

  1. Poo-T (talk · contribs)-If it means, to make a page without such kind of "related"-Photos, intead of the page, I agree. The page would be apart from unproductive debate about the data of the photos. If someone want to create two separate-Wikipage, I disagree. The reason is same with Mandel's. Poo-T 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
          It means the latter. So you oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Miborovsky (talk · contribs) - Though perhaps unwieldy, this can serve as a compromise between editors who feel that nothing should censored and everything included, and editors who believe that there are certain things that are unnecessarily graphical and provoke emotional feelings and thus serve no purpose in a factually-based wiki.

Oppose:

  1. Caiqian (talk · contribs) - how to sync two version?
  2. Mandel (talk · contribs) - I oppose the hassle of two Nanking Massacre versions (solution used before and abandoned) There're also real problems of updating dual Nanking Massacre articles. Some people will edit A) and some people B). We'll end up with two dissimilar Nanking articles. Mandel 13:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Watanabe Hisashi (talk · contribs)
  4. Brisston (talk · contribs)
  5. Hermeneus (talk · contribs)
Leave as is (with picture included)

Support:

  1. Caiqian (talk · contribs) - This photo will help readers, causing embarrassed should not be a problem here. What we should look is whether wikipedia rules permit this kind of photo or not. Otherwise, people can remove all the photos using these personal excusses.
  2. Brisston (talk · contribs)
  3. Chakuid (talk · contribs)- Possibly a sockpuppet account of another user (0 edit before vote).
  4. Sadday (talk · contribs) - Straight way to help readers to see what's really happened.
          Another possible sockpuppet (1 edit before vote).
  5. 图片是真实的，可以帮助人们了解事实真相，请保留。Iridiumcao 06:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Miborovsky (talk · contribs) - Does not address the problem that many would find the image extremely disturbing and/or sacrilegious.
  2. Poo-T (talk · contribs)
  3. Hermeneus (talk · contribs)
  4. Mandel (talk · contribs)
  5. Ypacaraí (talk · contribs)
  6. Watanabe Hisashi (talk · contribs)
  7. Bright888 (talk · contribs)
Other?
  1. Suggest other options.

Um, can I say this voting procedure is flawed...we shouldn't be allowed to vote more than once! Now we have people voting once, twice, thrice, so there're conflicts at vote counts. You shouldn't be allowed to vote both for and against a solution...there're people like Brisston who oppose to removing the photo, then vote again to remove the photo with a URL link...I suggest a revote. We'll make the choices simplier and people can only choose one out of a possible three or four solutions. Opinions? Mandel 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, OK. My bad for making a not-very-good poll.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to making a vote again, you should make 3 or 4 options to select instead of 'Support'-'Oppose'Poo-T 03:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh, there were 4 options, which you could choose to either support or oppose.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the vote should be in the following manner. - #1 Delete photos. #2 Delete photos and put external links. #3 make two separate page (With Photos/ Without Photos) #4 Keep . IMHO, This vote should include two photos- Killednanjing and Nanjing_ditch. Same web source (1997_photo_gallery@princeton), same contributor ( Caiqian ), almost same time. Poo-T 03:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

But different contents. The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first. So these photos should be approached at separately.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think, separate but simultaneous voting would be the best. Do you have another idea?Poo-T 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

(a)Killednanjing #1 Delete #2 Delete the photo +put an external link #3 make two separate page (With/Without Photos) #4 Keep (b)Nanjing_ditch.#1 Delete #2 Delete the photo +put an external link #3 make two separate page (With/Without Photos) #4 Keep

I myself do not think it necessary to put the second one on vote. We have already discussed the first photo at length (as reproduced above) so we could immediately get down to voting, but not the second one.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the second one should be put on vote. According to the China Weekly Review page 262 of October 22, 1938, it was photographed in Hsuchow (Xuzhou, 徐州). I have put a phtocopy of the page at the following url: http://hist1937.hp.infoseek.co.jp/CWR/CWR381022m.jpg "Death as far as the eye can see. (Upper left) A Japanese officer surveys the results of brutal butchery of Chinese civilians by Nipponese troops at Hsuchow." --Watanabe Hisashi 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
OK. This page attracts so many people(although Chinese government tries blocking Wikipedia :P) ), and they want to place many photos without origin. Everytime, Everytime, we must discuss, vote, again and again, for each photo. After that, someone put a photo again. Sigh... Now, It's time to make a vote about a rule that 'In this page, "groundless Photo, not supported by data" should be removed without voting'. You don't want to make a vote about the 2nd, and You do the 1st vote. That's OK. I want to make a vote about the rule written above. Support or oppose? Poo-T 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, of course. Arbitrarily letting you decide what to keep and what to delete is ludicrous.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
With the same reason, I put the vote about the 2nd photo. -'The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first.'- It is also your arbitrary opinion. Dont you think so? Poo-T 15:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
We are only interested in voting for or against the inclusion of one particular photo. Mandel 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Hermeneus (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
So, Close the discussion, and let's start the voting about the 1st photo again. You are interested in votigg about the 1st photo. I make a separate areas, voting about the 2nd page, and rule to upload photos related to the page. Of course you can join the discussions. Poo-T 02:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid we are not talking about the same thing here. You guys want to delete both photos because you think they're unrealiable. We want to remove one of the photos from the page because we think it's inappropriate for a variety of reasons as explained above. Until we can agree on why there should be a vote, there shouldn't be one.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Approval vote for the image Killednanjing.jpg

This is an approval vote to decide whether to include the image "Killednanjing.jpg" in the article "Nanking Massacre." You may vote for more than one. Please sign using {{user|username}}. If possible, please explain why you chose what you chose. This is to prevent sockpuppetry and/or editors with vested interest in seeing this photo gone and no intent to improve this article. To avoid sockpuppets, user accounts created after 09:05 October 31, 2005 are not eligible to vote. (ID Chakuid and Sadday are clearly sockpuppets.) -- Poo-T 04:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC); -- Hermeneus (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)|

Such accusations cannot be substantiated. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I have not defined the deadline of the vote. I've already read AfD as reference, but there was no description about 'period for acceptance'. At first, I thought, 2 weeks would be enough for the theme. But still it seems disputed, so if someone wants, 3weeks should be given to the vote. Is there any comments?Poo-T 15:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
NO comments written. Then, I set the end of the vote on /7 November 2005 +2 weeks = 15:50, 21 Nov 2005. The date is also, 3 weeks after the vote beginnig date. Poo-T 03:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
So you just jump in, hijack a perfectly legitimate poll, create a bogus one, calls in your friend, and call it a vote? I can call my friends too, and I'm sure you have lots of them too. This "vote" you have here it totally ineffectual and is not meant to improve the article in any way. Hasn't your "it's not relevant" rhetoric been thoroughly debunked in the "discussion" which you have conveniently archived? Shall we both call for our friends, then? I suggest you approach this rationally instead of zealously, and perhaps this can end amicably.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, I give up to move the writings above from here to the archive chronologically. There is a warning 'Too large text can cause overload to the Wikipedia server', But I don't care. It's your responsibility. By the way, If someone who doesn't share the basic rule for historian, 'prove evidence before using', what kind of discussion could exist? Follow what happened here. Poll you created > The vote was complained of too confused > I crearted a new poll

> Complained about treating two photos simultaneously Vote for the 1st photo first> I modified the poll. Hijacked? There were many sockpuppets in the previous poll, Brisston, Chakuid, Sadday. Miborovsky, you asked me above 'Such accusations cannot be substantiated'. You can easily check these ID again Now. After that, 'I invite many Japanese friend'? At least, I don't have so many puppet friends :P), not having a friend here. Caiqian, worse than you, call me sockpuppetry. With these 3 ID evidences, and such sayings, Someone would play dirty, but the guy should be opposed to me. Have you never thought many Japanese could watch this page, and feel 'NPOV disputed'? At least comparing Wikipedia:China-related topics notice boardand Wikipedia:Japan-related topics notice board, only 'China-related page' tries to mobilize Chinese-Wikipedians to the page as follows -Current dispute-Talk:Nanking Massacre F(or a different reason! See talk.) -. I have no authority to commit the page, and I have never talked about it, but I have no patience with such buck-passing. rhetoric? It's free to call any logic as rhetoric. But if you don't care about logic / proof of history, I recommend you to make your own history blog, not here.Poo-T 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Remove the photo from the Nanking Massacre article:

  1. Poo-T (talk · contribs)-No data about the photo. The only thing we know is 'Some people in princeton show the photo as "Nanking-related". Checking whether the photo is really related to the 'event' or not, must be the stating point for using in a history page.
  2. Hermeneus (talk · contribs) - No info on its identity or relevance to the article other than that it's taken from a "fully student-run event" on Nanking massacre at Princeton University. The credibility of such a photo is close to zero in my book. Hermeneus (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Ypacaraí (talk · contribs) - Same. After all we have no proof that those photos are showing japanese war crimes and not chinese.
  4. Mochi 18:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC) - Who did it? It's not clear.
  5. Nachi 09:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - Same as the above.
  6. Watanabe Hisashi 09:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - This image is quite offensive and we are not sure whether it concerns Nanking Massacre.

2. Remove the photo & put an external link to the image instead:

3. Remove the photo & put an external link to the front page of the originating site in the external links section:

4. Make two separate pages, one with Killednanjing.jpg & other explicit photos, and one without:

5. Leave as is (with the photo included):

  1. Miborovsky (talk · contribs) - We are not voting whether to delete. We are voting whether to put a certain photo on this page. Therefore, keep. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Caiqian (talk · contribs) - totally against this vote, as you cannot creat rules which fit for you, as you can use more smarter method to be a sockpuppetry. However, if I have to vote, I'd vote for keeping. Because whitewashing is unacceptable.

Caiqian, Could you show the rule which is for me or others? At least, you have never tried to discuss about the photos you uploaded, in their talk pages. As this is not the section to discuss, I recommend you to join the ongoing discussion, especially "About Nanjing_ditch.jpg". The photo was originally uploaded by you, too. Thence, I believe, you must show your reason and reference to keep the photo. Poo-T 15:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule saying one has to discuss about the photos one uploaded. As for the reason and reference, Mandel, Vsion, Caiqian and I have ALL answered your questions. Stop making up nonexistent rules which suit you at the moment. Or at least, try to propose it first before saying, "the rule says blahblahblah". If you want the pages deleted that badly, try the formal process.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


Poll closing. Poo-T 02:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Remove the photo 6
Keep the photo 2

Other Photographs

What kind of photographs, other than explicit bodies of victim, can be used in this article? There used to be a Nanking Memorial Hall photo, what happened to it? Mandel 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

About Nanjing_ditch.jpg

I think, the photo has the same ground with Killednanjing, so I want to make a discussion and a vote to delete the photo too. Is there any comment? Poo-T 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not voting whether to delete. We are voting whether to put a certain photo on this page. Therefore, strong oppose.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
This is not the place to vote, but discuss. Your duplicated comment here seems far from discussion. Did I say to delete Body_everywhere'? As it was represented with source and data, I have never offerd vote to delete the photo. (even if the description was presented by others) The photo is worth to discuss, at least.Poo-T 04:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I quote your previous statement: "so I want to make a discussion and a vote to delete the photo too". The word "too" indicates that you wish to delete Image:Killednanjing.jpg as well. Image:Body_everywhere.jpg never was in this "discussion".
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
As you know, My impression is, the two photos has the same features. No data about who, where, when. no-source data. Contributed at the same times, same contributor. But after my writing, you and others opposed to treat them as a unit. So I separated the discussion and created this section as you want. About Image:Body_everywhere.jpg, the has already shown the source of Image:Body_everywhere.jpg, thence I 've never discussed about the origin of the photo. Do you understand the logic flow? I think the some points of the photo to discuss -no data about 'Who took thw photo' 'When, Where' 'Not shown about the 1st appearance source' should be discussed in the following section -general rule to treat photos of Nanking Massacre. Now, I ask you to defend the photo from other's saying.

>According to the China Weekly Review page 262 of October 22, 1938, it was photographed in Hsuchow (Xuzhou, 徐州). I have put a phtocopy of the page at the following url: http://hist1937.hp.infoseek.co.jp/CWR/CWR381022m.jpg "Death as far as the eye can see. (Upper left) A Japanese officer surveys the results of brutal butchery of Chinese civilians by Nipponese troops at Hsuchow." --Watanabe Hisashi 17:48, 2 November 2005

Could you give me your opinion about the quote? Poo-T 06:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Cut the posturing. Is deleting the photos what you want? If so, Vsion has already responded to your gripes about "no data" and you have yet to respond to that, instead raising a plethora of totally unrelated questions in a sad attempt to digress?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
File:Panthers de-train01.jpg

Avail yourself to this photo. Hm. Who took the photo? When? Where? (How do you know it's Kursk?) Should this photo be deleted then? And what about Mr Ardennes? Who took the photo? On what day? Where in the Ardennes? Heck, what is the name of this guy in the photo right here? Guess what, the answer to all the above is, unknown. Therefore, it should be deleted from the US National Archive for being totally unreliable, and... gasp, perhaps fabricated!
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact there are tons of articles with biased descriptions, misinterpreted stats, unsourced quotes as well as unidentified images on Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that such articles are fine as they are right now. Hermeneus (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You have not answered the question. And as a matter of fact, there are such articles, and the right thing to do with them is to improve on them, not delete, as you seem wont to suggest. Or for photographs, find attribution and source, instead of deleting.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 08:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting the deletion of the photo image itself. We are discussing the proper presentation of the photo. If the photo were of a different historical event than the Nanking Massacre, then it should be displayed on the very article that describes that event. Besides we can't decide deletion of images here. It requires a more formal procedure called VfD. --Hermeneus (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
First of all, images are not deleted in WP:VFD as it is not obsolete. Neither in WP:AfD.
Secondly, quoth Poo-T:

I think, the photo has the same ground with Killednanjing, so I want to make a discussion and a vote to delete the photo too. Is there any comment? Poo-T 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thirdly, you have not answered my questions. Should the photo of Mr Ardennes be removed from the US National Archive because, quoth Hermeneus, The "relevance" is to be determined by the accompanying information of the photographs. There is virtually no accompanying information on that photo, you know. Time to write a letter to the US National Archives to delete all photos whose photographer, photographee, time and location is unknown, eh?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Irrelevant and thus unlinked images will be deleted in Wikipedia. 2. I take Poo-T as suggesting the deletion of the image from the Nanking article, not from Wikipedia. 3. I come to Wikipedia for articles of things that I am interested in and concerned about. I would like such articles to be as accurate and founded as possible. I don't go around randomly and contest the credibility of every image and description that I stumble on in Wikipedia. Since I'm not interested in the US National Archive, I don't care much about the said image other than that generally speaking every text and image on Wikipedia ought to be properly cited and presented. If I were big into military type stuff, I might have questioned the credibility of the photo, or at least would request for more spesific info. But I'm not. Anyway this is red herring. Hermeneus (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Find the appropriate clause in the guidelines or policies stating this. 2. But that's not what you said. 3. Indeed not. I don't see you suggesting any of the thousands of undated, unknown-photographer photos be deleted. Except these.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. See Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. 2. We could ask him what he really meant. 3. I would agree with deleting every unidentified/under-identified photo on Wikipedia. As for the tank image, whoever uploaded it must have some evidence to infer that it is indeed of the Panther tanks de-training in the Eifel area in preparation for the upcoming Ardennes Offensive. If so, he should supply that evidence. A good historian may be able to identify old photos without knowing the name of the photographer and what not. Hermeneus (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. Find the appropriate clause in the guidelines or policies stating this. 2. We could, but he's asking us to find what you think. Unless you two are one and the same, please answer our quueries to your own persons. 3. Your last sentence is beyond ludicrous. First you insist every single photograph should be dated, the photographer and the location known, otherwise you think it should be deleted. Then you change your words and say "A good historian may be able to identify old photos without knowing the name of the photographer and what not". You do realise how silly that sounds don't you? Who's a good historian? What's an old photo? What if I gave Stephen Ambrose (nevermind he's dead) that picture, and he fails to identity when and where it was taken? (Because you said the relevance of the photo is tied in to that, without the date and location the photo is worthless in your book.) Would it totally invalidate the photo? Is Stephen Ambrose then a lousy historian? Make up your mind.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. "NS (no source) - The image does not contain source or licensing info; OR (orphan) - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia." 2. Asking about what? 3. Why would anyone be concerned with someone who cannot identify the photo anyway? It's your burden of proof to show the relevance of the photo if you want to retain it in the article. Like I said, if you cannot find the exact date and location of the photo, then you may supplement it with some other secondary evidences, such as an inference on the origin of the photo made by an authoritative historian. If you cannot provide even such evidences, then the relevance of the photo is completely zero. Hermeneus (talk) 07:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. These are public domain, obviously. And yes, there are pages linking to these. You're looking at one yourself. 2. You tell me. About why he (and you) said you want to delete these photos, perhaps? 3. And the same thing goes for both the Panzer tanks photo and Mr Ardennes photo which do not have the exact date and location, and no "inference on the origin of the photo made by an authoritative historian", either. Should they both be deleted from their respective archives then?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 22:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. "Obvious" is pov. The image will be "orphaned" and thus become a candidate for deletion if we decide that its relevance is not sufficiently established to be included in the article. Or you could have the image on your own user page to avoid orphaning if you like it so much. 2. Maybe when he comes here next time. 3. Like I said, I would request further information on any unidentified/under-identified photo images on Wikipedia, and would agree with removing them if no one can provide such info. Hermeneus (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1a. Miborovsky: "The earth goes around the sun, obviously." Hermeneus: "OMG POV!!!" 1b. So, you think this photo should be deleted because it would be orphaned if you remove it from this page because it's orphaned? 2. Sure. Now, how about you address some of the questions posed to you. 3. Please proceed to remove all those images and start the due processes then.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
1. I'm concerned about the inclusion of the photo in the Nanking Massacre article. I don't care much about its deletion from Wikipedia due to orphanage. 2. I have already modified the phrasing of the final approval vote question to be more specific, from "delete" to "remove from the article." He will complain if the modified phrasing was not what he meant. 3. Like I said, I come to Wikipedia for articles of things that I am interested in. I don't go around randomly and contest the credibility of every image and description that I stumble on in order to improve the general quality of Wikipedia. Hermeneus (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I see. So now you've changed your wording. Well, your reasons for removing the photo is exactly the same as your (earlier) reasons to delete it, so I guess all of my questions posed above still stand.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like Killednanjing.jpg to be presented on the article because it's too gory or too graphic, then vote for removal and state your reason. Others may vote for removal for different reasons than yourself. If you don't like any graphic images on the article, then propose a general rule on such images like Poo did about unsourced images below. Hermeneus (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah but you do not want to remove just that photo, do you? You wanted all of them deleted. Now you're relenting and just want them gone from this page. Well, we're not electing a president here. The vote was to gauge whether editors would support removing that particular photo from the article because it's too graphic, and what they would suggest. It was not to vote whether the picture should be deleted/removed. There's an important distinction here. Until you've grasped that I don't think we're even thinking along the same line.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
"I don't like the photo because it's too gory and think it should be removed. Do you agree with me, yes or no?" isn't much of a voting question. If one is more concerned about the reason for removal, like photos being too gory or under-identified/unsourced, then one should propose a general rule for all the photo of such nature. If one is more concerned about the removal of a particular photo image, then it should be a simple vote to decide whether to remove or retain it. People may vote for different reasons, and no one should be prevented from expressing one's own opinion. Hermeneus (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I would appreciate it if you do not put your words in my mouth. As seen in my first poll, there were 4 options given. Secondly, it never was formal vote (like for an election), but a poll to gauge opinions. Thirdly, you are correct that the reason is the most important, but you and Poo-T jumped in without even bothering to find out what we were voting about... which is not whether the photos are relevant. Fourthly, you are free to express your opinions, but wikipedia is not your soapbox. If you have a point to make, raise it in a separate section instead of hijacking our discussion.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Then you should clarify in the section heading that you are discussing the gory/graphic nature of the particular photo and nothing else. I'm talking about the general relevance of photos to be included in the article and am not limiting the discussion to a particular ground, gory nature or lack of source or what not. Hermeneus (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The entire discussion preceeding the poll was about that. You just jumped in and got delete-happy. Don't blame us for your not reading the prior discussion. If you want to start a separate discussion on the relevance of the photo, you should have done it in another heading and avoided disrupting our attempts to improve the article. As of right now I believe Mandel, Vsion and I have addressed your concerns about the relevance too, so I guess it's all moot.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Poo only expanded the poll to encompass the other aspects of the photo to make it more inclusive. Hermeneus (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
No, you guys barged in on our poll and disrupted it without even reading what it was about. If was only until Mandel suggested a repoll because of this that Poo-T "expanded" the poll.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are the only one complaining about the discussion of the other issues of the photo and trying desperately to limit it to the issue of your concern. Anyway there is no point in continuing this thread any longer.Hermeneus (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I could say the same of you. I'm sure Mandel, Caiqian, Vsion and others trust me enough to do the talking for them, I'm also sure they will interject if they feel the need to. I agree that there is no point in continuing this anymore. So let us treat this discussion as ended, shall we?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


During about 2 days, there was a so long talk. It's hard to read all :) By the way, Miborovskty, -No data photo- rule would be discussed in the following separate section, not here. If you think I'm trying to make many questions intentionally, Cool down for 5 minutes. I don't wan't to make many questions, but only one question about the photo. I have to go back to the original point about the photo. As you can easily understand, this photo has a data and a source which means, 'this photo has no relation with nanking'.
>China Weekly Review page 262 of October 22, 1938, it was photographed in Hsuchow (Xuzhou, 徐州). I have put a phtocopy of the page at the following url: http://hist1937.hp.infoseek.co.jp/CWR/CWR381022m.jpg "Death as far as the eye can see. (Upper left) A Japanese officer surveys the results of brutal butchery of Chinese civilians by Nipponese troops at Hsuchow."
There are two options to reply, if you understand the logic. (a)Show an evidence (original data and source) which presents direct relationship between Nanking Massacre and this photo. (b)Back off your statement about the photo 'to keep it' . This is the start point to use a photo, very important. Poo-T 03:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It was the same Imperialist Army serving under the same emperor that committed the same atrocities in the same war in the same province in the same year. And the victims suffered the same fate. If you can't see the relevance, I cannot help you. --Vsion 04:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Hsuchow is not Xuzhou, it's Suzhou. Wikipedia's article for Hsuchow redirects to Suzhou. As Vsion has pointed out, Nanking is right next to Suzhou. It's not unreasonable to believe that such atrocities were magically confined to Nanking and just Nanking.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I've checked the newspaper in closeup, and I've confirmed your saying. It's Suzhou. Then there are two points to discuss more. #1 I don't know chinese word feeling "next to", but distance between Suzhou and Nanking is more than 150km. Such distance is not usually said 'next to'. Do you believe 'The massacre' was done all through the 150km within 6weeks, and War at Suzhou should be included to Nanking? #2 Additional point I'm going to discuss with. The photo is not so clear, so I'm not sure the soldier is Japanese imperial army or not. But even if the soldier is Japanese imperial army, the feature of the neck could be after June 1st, 1938 (Japanese army adopted a new uniform). So with timeline, the photo is also impossible to be included during Nanking massacre (Dec 1937- Feb 1938). Still now, do you really want to include the photo to the page? 150km apart, after more than 3 months. Poo-T 08:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I believe 'Hsuchow' is 'Xuzhou' in Pinyin. In the Wade-Giles Romanization system, 'hs' represents 'x' of Pinyin. For example, 'Hsiakwan'(下関) of Nanking spells 'Xiaguan' in Pinyin. Please see the following webpage - http://www.nzepc.auckland.ac.nz/authors/hyde/china.asp "She reached Hsuchow (Xuzhou) 1 May, visited frontline troops in the field and was still in Hsuchow when Japanese forces overran the city 19 May."--Watanabe Hisashi 09:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
If it is Xuzhou, the distance from Nanking to Xuzhou is more than 200km. Thus, there is no need to change my argument, but it's a kind of interest. Poo-T 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Hsuchow... ugh. Since Wade-Giles is by no means a forumlaic transliteration system the transliterator uses his own imagination of the sounds produced to transliterate it into English. There really is not set rule saying "Hs"="X". I've seen Qu Yuan transliterated as "Hsu Yuen" on a really old book. So we can't say for certain whether it was Xuzhou or Suzhou. Regardless, Poo-T is now saying that he cannot see the image clearly, and because he can't see the image clearly he is certain the uniform of the soldiers in the picture is of a new design adopted on 1 June, 1938. If you look at a map of China, Suzhou is right between Shanghai and Nanjing, and is therefore in the direct path of the IJA force that landed in Shanghai. If the IJA were disgruntled and unruly over their heavy losses in the Battle of Shanghai (1937), why would they wait until entering Nanjing to start raping, murdering, pillaging and destroying? The only symbolic significance for Nanjing would be that it was the capital. If the photo was taken at Xuzhou, then there is an equal likelihood that the same Japanese army, after Nanjing, moved up North to group with the Japanese army bearing down simultaneously. I don't see why Poo-T believes this to be impossible I guess neither does anyone else.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you understand my writing about the time the photo was taken? If the soldier in the photo belongs to Japanese Army, the photo was taken more than 3 months after the Nanking. I recommend you to do traininig about identification / verification of historical photos. To Place your hypothesis, with reading just a book or newspapers, is not welcomed in Wikipedia, (at least in historical pages).Poo-T 03:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
To be truthful I do not understand your point, that even though you claim the soldier in the photo cannot be identified as an IJA soldier, you are actually able to accurately identify his uniform as those that the IJA adopted starting 1 June, 1938. I believe you can see the inherent irony in this.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Even with such an unclear photo, you can identify whether it is stand-up collar or not. I understand, you have a little knowledge about the accouterments of Japanese imperial army. Poo-T 04:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hsuchow is Xuzhou. Suzhou was usually spelled Soochow or Suchow in 1930s. Of course, they didn't always follow the Wade sysyem. If you are interested in Pinyin - Wade conversion, please see the following images:
Pinyin X - Wade HS Conversion Table*
Complete Pinying-Wade table (Aichi Univ. ed. "Chinese-Japanese Dictionary").
I've also put maps of The Battle of Hsuchow ( The Battle of Xuzhou) at the following url:
The Battle of Hsuchow(Frank Dorn, "The Sino Japanese War 1937-41",New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1974, p.134)
The Battle of Hsuchow](close-up of the following map)
Map of Account of First Phase Operation 1937-1938 (Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai ed. "History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)" , Taipei, Chung Wu Publishing Co., 1971, Map 1)
--Watanabe Hisashi 09:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I think most of the atrocity photos appeared in 1938 are authentic and they were taken by Japanese. Carroll Alcott, who worked for a radio station in Shanghai, gives us a clear picture how these photos came into the public. See "My War With Japan".
--Watanabe Hisashi 16:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If it is really shot in Xuzhou then we can just simply shift this photo from here to "Japanese war crimes during WWII" article. Under no circumstances should this photo be removed unless it's proven to be a fake. Mandel 12:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, regarding the Hsuchow/Xuzhou/Suzhou thingy, I'll sift through a few volumes and try to find a definitive location as where the photo was shot, Suzhou or Xuzhou.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I've checked Japanese_war_crimes, and the photo already exists there. With the discussion above, the description of the photo in the page -The infamous "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch", where victims of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre were buried.- should be rewritten. Do you agree? Poo-T 10:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think it's taken at a Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch either. I've seen photos of modern excavations of Ten Thousand Corpse Ditches, but I don't think a Japanese killer then would take a photo beside a killing ditch. This sort of killings are very secretive and no one but the military can gain access. Mandel 14:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

No more argument to remove the photo from the page? Poo-T 02:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Rule before uploading photos

As the history of the page is, someone put a awful photo without origin, and have to discuss for a month, after that, begin voting to delete or not. Again and again. I offer to make a rule about photos in this page.

Photo must be presented with data -who took the photo -when and where it was taken -first appearance source I think the rule has no risk of arbitrary administration. If you don't think so, please write your opinion.Poo-T 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

We are not voting whether to delete. We are voting whether to put a certain photo on this page. Therefore, strong oppose.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
How would you expect a japanese imperial soldier who took a photograph of atrocities committed by his fellow countrymen during war time in the 1940s, to have the state of mind to label the photo meticulously and signed his autograph ? Do you think the japanese soldier was writing a travelogue or something, and when WWII ends, this photographer would proudly stand up and say, "Hey i took this amazing pictures, give me the Pulitzer Prize." Any reasonable person would understand that photos of this nature, are likely to have no record of the photographer nor the exact time and place where it is taken. Having said that, I do agree that stating the first appearance is desirable, and I wonder if Princeton or other publications have this information. Nonetheless this is not a reason to question the photo because reliable institutions do attribute these photos as related to Nanjing Massacre; and other evidences have collaborated that the atrocities depicted in the pictures did in fact took place. --Vsion 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the copyright of Image:Body_everywhere.jpg? Do you think the photo is not enough for the Wikipedia page, and need many unknown origin photos? If so, could you write the reason? Reliable institution? Do you think it "arbitrary free"? Why text description of debates about the Nanking is not enough for you?Poo-T 06:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
You have not answered a single one of his questions.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

At the least you should be able to provide info on (1) where and when the photo was taken, (2) what event the photo is supposed to be of, and (3) the citation of the publication where the photo first appeared, i.e. of the primary source. If the info on exact location and time is not available, then you need to show some other complementary evidence that you used to infer that the photo is in fact of the Nanking massacre and so is fit to be included in the article. If you cannot provide such evidence, then the photo is not credible enough to be included. For example, if a history professor at Princeton University puts a photo of a scene from the Nanking massacre in his publication, it's very likely that he also supplies information on the details and citation of the photo in the publication. Such a photo is ofcourse worthy to be included. On the other hand, if a photo is only used in an event run by some Chinese student activists at Princeton University and no further information is available, then the credibility of the photo is obviously not good enough. --Hermeneus (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

To be frank, the source of these photographs are self-evident. It is obvious that these photos were taken during the Sino-Japanese War depicting wide-ranging atrocities by the Imperial Japanese Army against civilians, and numerous crimes against humanity. It is also quite obvious, from the images, that most of the pictures were taken by japanese soldiers. --Vsion 08:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
That's your pov, not npov. It's not like the Chinese have not commited any crimes during the same period. Besides we are discussing whether the photos are of a particular event of WWII called "Nanking Massacre" or not. We are not talking about any generic atrocities. Hermeneus (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is terrible, all the more reasons why we need to study History and know the truth to understand the horror of war. And so now what, soldiers are required to take pictures of any specific atrocities they commit at every location, and label them properly with time stamp, coordinates, and Human ID, etc. right? They didn't have camera phones at that time, please. Again, the picture is not interpreted in isolation. There are many pictures, and many testimony and survivors have validate them. Did you read the last sentence in the link you gave? It said: "too many have forgotten what happened in China". If Chinese soldiers committed any crimes, then present it, but please don't suppress what is relevant here. Did you read how Tom Simmen, a non-Asian, was so disturbed that he kept the pictures in silence for 59 years? Do you honestly expect the Japanese photographers or their descendents to reveal their identities? As I said, I agreed that there should be more info, on how the picture originate, but this is not a criteria for removal. If you want, you can add a comment at the caption about "unknown photographer", etc. --Vsion 11:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
The "relevance" is to be determined by the accompanying information of the photographs. Accompanying information includes information about the above mentioned facts about the photos. And like I said, if you cannot supply info on the exact date or the location of a photo or the name of the photographer, then you could instead supply some other supplementary evidence to prove that it is indeed a photo of the Nanking Massacre. If this is not fair enough a rule, I don't know what is. How else do you intend to determine the "relevance" anyway? It's only natural that photographic images are held to the same standard of credibility as text descriptions, quotes, stats, and the rest of materials included in Wikipedia articles. It doesn't matter if the Japanese soldiers were not "required to take pictures of any specific atrocities they commit at every location" or not. If no credible photographic materials were available, then no usable photos are available. It's not like you cannot write an article on the Nanking Massacre without photos -- There are tons of good articles on events that happened much earlier than the invention of photography. Anyway, I'm sure that there exist well-identified photos of the Nanking Massacre. There should be plenty of books on the Nanking Massacre written by authoritative historians in your local library, some of which most definitely contain some photographs. You only need to find them. Or you could go find the primary sources of the existing two photos that are being discussed right now. Hermeneus (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Please answer my questions about Mr Ardennes and its accompanying information.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
We see, we all agree that only relevant photos should be in the article, right? So why are you demanding additional conditions? The main criteria is relevance, and that's enough. Why are the photos relevant? As far as I know, without further research, these photos are in websites describing the Nanjing massacre, and these websites are either in university or the official chinese news media, so these are institutions with reputation and responsibility. These are not random gruelsome pictures from the Internet. Yes, I can go to the library to find out more, when I have the time later. But right now, the photos are relevant, even without the photographer's autograph. In fact, the image description pages already cited the source of the image (princeton.edu). What's the problem? It has satisfied the "standard of credibility" used in wikipedia for this purpose. If you disagree, I think you should propose this as a new wikipedia policy accordingly. --Vsion 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
"Websites in university" or "official chinese news media" or what not, you need to provide more spesific info than that. That the photos are taken from a "fully student-run event" on Nanking massacre at Princeton is just not good enough. For some Chinese student activists at Princeton are practically nobodies. If you found the same photo images on other more credible peer-reviewed publications, preferably ones written by authoritative historians on the subject, then cite them and the images could stay just fine. Remember what Mandel said earlier: "We don't know who took the photograph. We don't know for sure when it is taken. It could be outside Nanjing. Again, if you need me to tell you these info before the photo is convincing, then the photo's very reliability is called into question. This is the very same ammunition Nanking deniers used to attack Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (book). We have many other reliable evidence and proofs like telegrams, diary passages to use, so we shouldn't leave ourselves open to such assaults." Hermeneus (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I suggest you propose this as a new wikipedia policy accordingly, thanks. --Vsion 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I did say that; however, I didn't mean no photos should be used here at all. Mandel 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if you want sourced photos, John Magee made a 16mm film of which some of the photos of very badly injured can be used. Mandel 04:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hermeneus, wikipedia is edited by nobodies. You are a nobody yourself. By your own definition you are not fit to edit any article. What's your point?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment by User:MajorG

This article is seriously biased, hardly fits into any definition of neutrality. Needs lots of work to be fixed.

Moving your comment to the bottom where it will be seen. You could start by stating more specific things.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

International Fallout

This article badly needs a brief timeline of the *prosecution* of these war crimes, and a better description of how the news reached *the rest of the world* (perhaps with an overview of the role of new media, like telegraphs, etc. As it is, the section on the propagation of news of the massacre mainly concentrates on its role in 'hardening the hearts of Americans'. Americans are not the rest of the world, and Nanking was a crime against Humanity, and more specifically, the Chinese, not against Americans. ---Sigma-6 19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Assume Good Faith"

The revision history on this page illustrates a number of ideological naivete and practical inadequacies on the wiki concept, with unashamedly biased and disturbingly shameless lying leading the way from Japanese and Chinese wikipedians. Good job, good show.


Trivia Question

Ah I was away for about a year. Where has the past discussion been archived? I posted a link to an article during the discussion (about 18 months ago) and I would like to find it. Yoji Hajime

Witness in Shanghai

Anyone who has doubts about the accuracy of this article can go to the Nanjing Massacre Museum in China, the Museum will provide you all the factual information about the massacre, and in fact, most of the pictures shown here can also been seen in the museum. We should respect history and learn from it.

Note to readers: The museum is based on Chinese accounts which do not meet internationally accepted levels of accuracy. They should be considered in this light, and not as an unbias source of information as it varies, considerably in some cases from, other accepted accounts.

Readers should be aware that this topic is still very fresh in Chinese memories, and that this anger can cloud accounts of this incident. We should respect history, but we should not look at it with one eye closed. Read all sides before making up your mind.

Templates

I wonder why some people remove {{accuracy}} and {{npov}}. Isn't it evident that the factual accuracy and the neutrality of this article are disputed here? Or do I misunderstand the usage of those templates? --nachi 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Pictures don't lie

Pictures don't lie --User:154.5.46.40

The Chicom propaganda machine is widely known as the master of doctoring photos. --217.91.70.55 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this event and those photos existed long before the "Chicom" came to powerDspserpico 01:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanjing_Massacre/Archive_3&oldid=1146736274"