Jump to content

Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Remove picture?

The picture next to the section "Establishment of the Nanking Safety Zone" is of bad quality, and although it is supposed to show a sword from a museum exposition, it is hard to see the actual weapon, it merely seems to be the mirrored version of the picture shown in the same article next to the section "Extrajudicial killing of Chinese prisoners of war", therefore it is redundant. Furthermore, using multiple versions of the same picture in the article is unfortunate when there is an ongoing heated debate about the accuracy of the actual circumstances of the incident. But I'll let the devoted editors to decide about this. Kolorado (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject depicted is the sword not the background photo. --MtBell 23:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It's up to you. As I said, I don't see a sword on this picture, just the "background" image. But even if it clearly was visible, this article is about the historical event, not the shin gunto, so I'm not sure that a picture of a sword is the most useful illustration here. Kolorado (talk) 12:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
That "shin gunto" is not merely a sword but an evidence of Japanese crimes in Nanking. It was wielded by a Japanese officer in Nanking Massacre. He marked on the right side of his weapon: "killed 107 in the Battle of Nanking". --MtBell 00:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Death toll estimate

I think we should make the death toll claim at the start of the article, listed as over 200,000 because while most Chinese claim that over 300,000 were killed, many western historicans put the number at 200,000 to 250,000. I think it would be much more unbiased to do so, but since this article is locked, I need permission. In my opinion the I believe 200,000 were killed, because ten years before the massacre, the Nanking incident happened, in which a massive riot broke out against foreign residents in Nanking by Communists and Nationalist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Incident — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please cite sources. Shii (tock) 14:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at Archive 8 on this page. There was a long discussion on this topic just a few months ago. LionMans Account (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the discussion there, just citing an academic source. If you have a source that says the academic consensus is something else, we can put it there too. Shii (tock) 21:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
While the discussion in Archive 8 became extremely heated at times, consensus was eventually reached based on principally on a composite of the extensive historiographical study of Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, as well as several noted Chinese historians who cite figures up to 300k. In particular, I should add that the figure of 7,540 for primary source estimates appears to be entirely spurious, and not representative of the majority of primary source estimates (which typically range from 50k-300k). In the same talk page discussion, consensus was reached that while Wakabayashi cites the general scholarly consensus as being a range of 40k-200k, it was also fundamentally inaccurate to attribute the figure of 300k to the Chinese government alone, rather than the conclusion of Chinese scholarship, which is the reason for a figure of 40k-300k, though I do not recall entirely whether the discussion was completely settled. Whatever the case, it can be definitively be said from not only the conclusions reached the talk page discussion, Wakabayashi's study, but also from the scholarly consensus indicated by this pages' sources and those listed on the Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre page that while figures over 200k are to some degree subject to suspicion, that a figure as low as 100k would definitely be excluding a very significant portion of the scholarly consensus on Nanjing Massacre historiography. Finally, also regardless of the final range to be selected, I believe it was the consensus that whether 300k is or is not included in the 200k range or classed as a separate outlier, that classing the 300k figure as that of the Chinese government alone, rather than Chinese scholarly consensus, was also inappropriate.Zmflavius (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Can we add citations to that effect? I don't think it's helpful to readers to simply have a discussion without adding the conclusion to the page. The current page has the statement "300,000 people dead" without any explanation about where this figure came from; I was attempting to elucidate. Shii (tock) 23:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that would be quite helpful, and have added the relevant figures accordingly.Zmflavius (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Disturbing images

There were complaints some time ago that some of the images in this article are disturbing. Disturbing enough that some find it difficult to read the text of the adjoining section. I'm not in favor of removing the images, but would it be appropriate to "collapse" them, providing text saying something like?

Spiel496 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I could not find any Wiki guideline on disturbing images but your suggestion is very useful and would have my support. Maybe there's a Wiki Project that deals with images and let them look into this. STSC (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your support. My searching came up empty as well. A search of the Talk pages for the phrase "disturbing images" reveals several dead-end discussions, typically including the mantra WP:NOTCENSORED, which misses the point in my opinion. The issue isn't that the content is objectionable; of course the Nanjing massacre was objectionable. The issue is that an image can cause damage before a person has a chance to react. Collapsing the image seems like it could solve the problem. Spiel496 (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There's little reason to not display these accompanying images and related commentary as is, other than to avoid purportedly harming sensitivities. I find that the images provide a clear informative purpose to the nature of the topic, which should not be hidden behind some extra "step" for this. Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles applies to this suggestion. --Cold Season (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Danyang

150px does not depict Nanking but Tan-yang.

Caption: Soldiers from the Imperial Japanese Army enter Tan-yang in December 1937.

Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2014

Under section Battle of Nanking paragraph Pursuit and Mopping Up the sentence '"was literally packed with", the literally is redundant, should just read "was packed with" 199.90.58.143 (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

checkY Fixed. Literally. Blackguard 20:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dodd

Do we have an independent source to Dodd's statement other than

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/12/content_7236237.htm

I can't seem to find his statement covered in the western media. Hcobb (talk) 19:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

See [1]. Possibly you may find this document (RG59-793.94/11631) in the National Archives and Records Administration. Western media does not cover everything. --MtBell 18:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indecency, Multiple Issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Started by a meatpuppet and/or agenda-pusher who is now indefinitely blocked. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This article contains indecent images not suitable for minors. They should be removed.
LoveJapanChika (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The issue of the unpleasant images has been raised multiple times before. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is not censored. The multiple issues tag is not used merely to flag an article as controversial. It is used when there are three more specific problems with the article, and being controversial is not in itself considered a problem. --Yaush (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Please read the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. STSC (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The "civil authorities"?? You reported this article to the police? Or the district attorney? Not sure what you mean here, and not sure how you think that will help. - Boneyard90 (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
The referral to "civil authorities" is an attempted recruitment of meatpuppetry on this revisionist Google+ page: [2]. Blackguard 22:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That group is ridiculous. They believe that Japan "freed" other Asian countries during WWII. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks like the user is attempting to recruit others, but with very little success [3]. The google plus page sure seems to suggest s/he is WP:NOTHERE. LionMans Account (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Please see WP:LEGAL. Threatening legal action is as close as anything at Wikipedia comes to the sin against the Holy Ghost. --Yaush (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anti-Japanese sentiment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Started by a meatpuppet and/or agenda-pusher who is now indefinitely blocked. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This is now a formal dispute. Please discuss. LoveJapanChika (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Is there a specific complaint or area where the article's POV needs to be changed or improved? If your only complaint is it makes someone looks bad, well, there's a reason it does. LionMans Account (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Multiple issues. We'll bring them out one by one over time. The opposing historical viewpoint is not represented well at all. Many mainstream Japanese scholars dispute the historical accuracy of Chinese Communist Party accounts in particular. Victor's justice and historical bias are other issues. The entire article is as politically charged as the PLO issue is for Israelis and Palestinians and deserves the same level of oversight and debate. LoveJapanChika (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • LJC, because the majority of sources outside of Japan, and many Japanese sources as well, support the Chinese side of events, this article is likely to retain that bias. The minority of sources in Japan that have a different perspective are summarized in the "Debate in Japan" section in the article. I would suggest you work on expanding that section to better portray that perspective instead of trying to change the tone of the entire article. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgetting it is not possible, Binksternet. The Debate in Japan section does not adequately address the concerns of the tens of millions of overseas Japanese who have suffered personal discrimination due to misinformation concerning the subject. LoveJapanChika (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What nonsense. It will not be long before you are blocked for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
LJC, if the section doesn't adequately address it, then please expand and improve that section so that it does. If you have reliable sources that state that the Japanese diaspora has been unfairly targeted because of the massacre, then please present them here. Cla68 (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You may find the article Nanking Massacre denial more in line with your point of view. I'm not sure we can make that article any more visible in this article, but it is mentioned. - Boneyard90 (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are some aging 'citation needed' tags in this article ......

Tagged in 2010 -- 'The people of Nanking fled in panic not only because of the dangers of the anticipated battle but also because they feared the deprivation inherent in the scorched earth strategy that the Chinese troops were implementing in the area surrounding the city.' - needs to go quick unless someone documents the statement! HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


Article name

The article is currently titled "Nanking massacre", using the old Wade-Giles romanization convention. For one thing, Wade-Giles is no longer used by any country and has not been for quite some time. For another, I would argue under WP:COMMONNAME that the event is known better by "Nanjing Massacre" as compared to "Nanking Massacre."

For instance, "Nanjing Massacre" has twice as many hits on Google as "Nanking Massacre". To look at reliable/published sources specifically, "Nanjing Massacre" has ~10,000 hits on Google Books, whereas "Nanking Massacre" has ~6,000. On Google News, we have ~8,000 results for "Nanjing Massacre" vs. 604 results for "Nanking Massacre." Nanking Massacre may have been the common name in the past, but it's clear that it's far less prevalent now. As such, I suggest a name change. 140.180.255.205 (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Compare the alternate term for the incident: "Rape of Nanking" = 429,000 hits on Google. - Boneyard90 (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem with a raw Google search is that (a) it picks up every mention of Iris Chang's book (such as in citations), and (b) it picks up every page that prefers "Nanking/Nanjing Massacre", but happens to mention somewhere on the page "Rape of Nanking" (e.g. "Nanjing Massacre - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com", "Gendercide Watch: The Nanjing Massacre", both page 1 hits even though I've quoted "Rape of Nanking"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Google Ngrams is interesting.[4] Thincat (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to dismiss Google hits for "Rape of Nanking" then I don't see why Google hits should be used for evidence of any of the terms. That's just subjective selection. Without the evidence of Google hits, that nullifies nearly all the evidence that's been brought up in this proposed move. The only evidence left concerns use of the old Wade-Giles system., which is technical and unconvincing. Nobody would suggest moving Peking duck to "Beijing duck". - Boneyard90 (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I didn't dismiss anything—there are legitimate concerns about the raw results of Google hits. "Nobody would suggest moving Peking duck to "Beijing duck"."—of course not, because nobody ever calls it that. "Nanjing nassacre" is a term that is actually in widespread use—moreso that "Nanking Massacre", as has been demonstrated. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rape of Nanking" is the only feasible alternative to the present name, Nanking Massacre. The phrase "Rape of Nanking" appears far more often in the literature, and has for many decades. The Google Ngrams chart shows that this was the case long before Iris Chang's book. I disapprove of any ahistorical, revisionist "correction" of Nanking to Nanjing, since it was known as Nanking at the time. Binksternet (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that Binksternet's take on the issue makes the most sense. David A (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I agree. The choice of romanization may not be politically motivated -- that seems a touch bizarre -- but it is arguably anachronistic. --Yaush (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you making the argument that it is anachronistic? Because both spellings have been shown to be widespread in the literature. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In the recent literature. At the time of the massacre, and for decades afterwards, it was most widely known as the Rape of Nanking. The Nanjing spelling did not come into use until the 1970s, as you yourself pointed out. This is what I mean by an anachronism: We are imposing a modern romanization on an event that took place well before that romanization was widely adoped, and which entered the historical literature under that contemporary romanization.
    • Should this matter? That's largely a matter of judgement and taste; but considering that the public most widely knows about the event from the Chang book (whatever its merits) and from subsequent popular documentaries based on that book, I don't consider the case for the modern romanization to be anything like open and shut. --Yaush (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • That makes as much sense as stating that 19th-century topics on Japan should use the romanization "Tokio" for Tokyo, because that's what contemporary sources would have used, and thus to do otherwise would be "anachronistic". Nobody would buy such an argument. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that if we look at news articles, Nanjing Massacre is far far more widely used (~7,400 hits) than Rape of Nanking (~1,140 hits.) Looking at Google Scholar results from 2010 and later, Nanjing Massacre has a slight advantage (1,120 hits) compared to Rape of Nanking (864 hits.) So my conclusions are that: - It's debatable whether Nanjing Massacre or Rape of Nanking are more popular today. The latter seems to be used in more books; the former used in more news articles (by a massive margin) and scholarly articles - However, Nanking Massacre is not really in use anymore. So, I think some sort of article title change is in order, whether we change it to "Rape of Nanking" or "Nanjing Massacre." My preference is for the latter. 140.180.249.73 (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Neither "Nanjing Massacre" nor "Rape of Nanjing" are fringe spellings, nor are they recentisms—an NGram shows they've both been in use since at least the 1970s. Another shows that "Rape of Nanking" only barely outpaces "Nanjing Massacre", and another that "Nanking Massacre" and "Nanjing Massacre" combined are more prevalent than "Rape of Nanking"—thus "Rape of Nanking" fails the COMMONNAME test rather badly. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now isn't his interesting: a Google search for "nanjing massacre" -chang gives us 374,000 hits—including ones from History.com, The Guardian, the BBC, The Economist, The Telegraph, Al-Jazeera, and Voice of America all on the very first page of hits. Compare that to "rape of nanking" which gives us 363,000. It appears that "Rape of Nanking" is even less of a COMMONNAME than I thought. Also, "nanking massacre" -chang gets 184,000, and "rape of nanjing" gets 58,300, which puts "Nanjing Massacre" clearly in the lead. Meanwhile, the lead of this article only mentioned the "Nanjing" spelling in passing until I changed it. It still highlights neither "Nanjing Massacre" nor "Rape of Nanjing", despite the pedigree of sources that have come to prefer the "Nanjing" spelling. Is it time for a RfC? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The current title has been stable for a long time on Wikipedia, there's no need to change to an alternative title unless there's any inaccuracy in the original title. The function of redirection has already covered those alternative titles. STSC (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Suspicious about Neutrality of the issues and quotations

This article Nanking Massacre contains largely the one-side claims (one-side means in this case, Allies and Victors' governments of WW2 or Chinese or other communists activists or Anti-Japan activists), and we hugely suspect its neutrality. Either it includes the false photos that later were proved by historian as fabricated ones, either include too many deliberately written sentences that would cause the misunderstandings by westerns .

One-side claims

- The number of casualties, 40,000-300,000 has been never proved with evidences. And there are many other analysis made by several historians, but we cannot see any cites of them in the main page and thus it might cause the misunderstandings for taking this number as authorized although it suggests the wider range. It lacks of accuracy of who was responsible for the sources, neither.

- These testimonies submitted by the Prosecutions at IMTFE have so many contradictions as many historians (not only so-called revisionists in Japan, but also Americans or other westerns) pointed out, some of which themselves apparently deny the massacre either or talk only with hearsay speculations, but main page shows only the excerpts that tell as if they are evidences that proved the massacre, despite that these members of testifiers didn't witness the crime made by Japanese army, and doesn't tell that the arguments of how there testimonies are reliable or not. That's unfair.

- There are some sentences that, in a unilateral way, define these historians who submitted objections, to be called as a "revisionist" , without testing if so. For example, in the first section of related topic Nanking Massacre denial there is this kind of expression. That's unfair.
On one hand, it's strongly biased to feature the argumentation made by these such as Katsuichi Honda to be read as a majority in Japanese discourse, for example, regardless of the fact that he is the one who took very much pro-China stance and was strongly influenced by communists thoughts than having the neutral position as a journalist.

-See also this article : Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo "The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims"
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter2-1.html#chapter2-1 This includes the objection submitted by several American historians, too.

Why not mention these objections ?

False Photos

-Why these fake photos and articles of the press fabricated by journalists and Chinese are still here on the main page?? without extra captions to tell the correction??

-for example, it's validated by the writer himself that the article of "Contest To Cut Down 100 People" was fabricated and the place and date where/when this photo was taken are not clear.

-Also "Photo taken in Xuzhou, showing the body of a woman who was profaned in a way similar to the teenager described in case 5 of John Magee's film" has no evidences that prove that the criminal was really Japanese, as Richard Finn, American historian later pointed out and criticized that there have no evidence in Iris Chang's 'The Rape of Nanking' for example. But caption and related issues tend to imply the criminal was Japanese. That's really unfair , rather assume sinisterness

-There are many other photos which were fabricated, for example, even Katsuichi Honda himself admitted those fabrications afterwards (but English translation of his page doesn't show this fact). Why don't you remove them or at least add the extra caption to correct them??

-See also this reference : Arimasa Kubo "The So-Called Nanking Massacre was a Fabrication" http://www2.biglobe.ne.jp/remnant/nankingm.htm
Takemoto Tadao & Ohara Yasuo "The Alleged 'Nanking Massacre' Japan's rebuttal to China's forged claims" http://www.ne.jp/asahi/unko/tamezou/nankin/alleged/chapter3.html#chapter3


These are not enough to show our objections, but I'm not a specialist of this topic, so won't write more.

But at least the authors of this subject have to deal with these objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbador 3 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC) — Sarbador 3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I am at work so will not dare to open the final two links with a .JP domain, but my TL;DR summary is as follows: the 'concerns' peddled here are so outlandish that I suspect the 'honourable user' has not read this article and veer on the precipice of displaying Japanese ultra-nationalism / chauvinism / jingoism. For one, to address the point Re: Neutrality in general the article version as of this writing prominently links to Nanking Massacre denial and that "The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since the 1980s", the latter even having two citations. Addressing specific points above:
  1. These testimonies submitted by the Prosecutions at IMTFE have so many contradictions as many historians - no citing of reliable sources for that one, despite having made over 35 edits
  2. On one hand, it's strongly biased to feature the argumentation made by these such as Katsuichi Honda to be read as a majority in Japanese discourse, for example, regardless of the fact that he is the one who took very much pro-China stance and was strongly influenced by communists thoughts than having the neutral position as a journalist. Again, failure to cite sources, and the underlined portion in particular requires ample documentation, of which none has been provided. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


@CaradhrasAiguo:I will reply for your suggestions when I have time, but before doing so, I'd like to ask what "this article" in your notes means: but my TL;DR summary is as follows: the 'concerns' peddled here are so outlandish that I suspect the 'honourable user' has not read this article and veer on the precipice of displaying Japanese ultra-nationalism / chauvinism / jingoism.
The article in the fist link I added ? or this main page of Nanking Massacre of Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarbador 3 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarbador 3: [[Nanking Massacre]] on Wikipedia. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarbador 3: The so-called references you mentioned don't look reliable to me. There's nothing alleged about the Nanking Massacre. Only the Japanese refuse to believe the truth about this. For example, you'll note there are citations for the casualty figures. That's how Wikipedia comes up with those numbers. There's no evidence that any of the photographs depicted are faked. The "contest" photo, for example, has an entire article about the incident. As it describes, the Japanese judiciary admits the incident actually happened. As you say, you're not an expert on the topic; leave it to those that are. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Chris troutman:　Why do you think that the references I mentioned don’t look reliable to you? As far as you haven’t shown the reason, in a similar fashion, you cannot say that these accusations made and evidences submitted only by victors’ side at IMTFE are all truth and not fabricated.
Well, I would say, I’m not biased at all to impose such as so-called Japanese ultra-nationalism / chauvinism / jingoism here.
My point is that rather, you should be very careful about the fact that they are mostly based on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, either or hearsay reports and no scientifically validated evidence. Remember also that these testimonies at IMTFE are all one-sided statements which have not been cross-examined at all (they didn’t even provide any opportunity of countercharge at all) yet, as being so-called Victor's justice (as many historian and even some of the juries afterwards criticized about : i.e. Minear, Richard H. Victors' Justice - The Tokyo War Crimes Trial. / John W. Dower Embracing Defeat; Japan in the Wake of World War II / P.W.Schroeder,The Axis Alliance and Japanese-American Relations, Bernard Victor Aloysius (Bert) Röling; The Tokyo Judgment translated into Japanese B.V.A.レーリンク「東京裁判とその後　ある平和家の回想」中公文庫...etc. etc. ) . Besides, War Guilt Information Program of GHQ prohibited Japanese and American from criticizing this victor’s judgment at IMTFE during their occupation and post-war period.
These are enough for us to assume why the majority of foreigners tend to believe only these as a truth and most cases of refusion have been made by only Japanese (which are not always seen as refusing the history by the way).
I will go on later with more detailed issues(> photos and other ) ...I need time to write in English...sorry.Sarbador 3 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarbador 3: Don't bother. No one wants to argue with cranks. The book you want to cite, The Alleged "Nanking Massacre": Japan's Rebuttal to China's Forged Claims is slanted by its own admission. The book's publisher, Meisei-sha, Inc., isn't Random House. Comments on Amazon bury this book as revisionist junk. While this article needs to be better sourced the citations present are uniformly more respected than the jingoist stuff you're pointing to. I'm sorry your nationalism can't allow facing facts. Don't waste our time trying to misinform everyone else with your beliefs. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I suggest reading WP:Verifiability then later WP:Fringe theories. They will have a good start for you to understand about adding to articles here. Just a note, you're not the first (and almost certainly not the last) denialist to appear on this article to make the same claims. LionMans Account (talk) 03:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

Npl1771 (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

What edit do you want done? LionMans Account (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Toggling; the redirect is not protected. — Andy W. (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

NGRAM: "Nanjing" vs "Nanking"

Interesting NGRAM: "Nanjing massacre" has been the preferred spelling for the entire lifetime of Wikipedia (since 1995, it seems, predating even Chang's book), and use of "Nanking massacre" has fallen so precipitously that since 2006 "Nanjing massacre" has outnumbered "Nanking massacre" by nearly 4 to 1. Given that the city never changed its name—only its romanization—the city's article is at Nanjing, and this article itself uses "Nanjing" in the lead, what arguments are there for keeping the title at a non-standard romanization? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually in agreement with your points about using Nanjing instead of Nanking, but one argument for using Nanking is that Iris Chang's book was titled "The Rape of Nanking" and it seems her book started a lot of the public conversation about this. --45.62.219.104 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC) (Patrick Melanson, pj2melan) (not actually an expert on Nanjing)

Change phrasing in introduction paragraph 4

Edit request for introduction, paragraph 4:

Original text:

"The event remains a contentious political issue, as aspects of it have been disputed by historical negationists and Japanese nationalists,[8] who assert that the massacre has been either exaggerated or fabricated for propaganda purposes.[13][14][15] The controversy surrounding the massacre remains a stumbling block in Sino-Japanese relations and in Japanese relations with other Asia-Pacific nations, such as South Korea and the Philippines.[16]"


Proposed version:

"The event remains a contentious political issue and a stumbling block in Sino-Japanese relations. The Chinese government has been accused of overly exaggerating aspects of the massacre such as the death toll [1], while historical negationists and Japanese nationalists[8] go as far as claiming the massacre was fabricated for propaganda purposes.[13][14][15] The controversy surrounding the massacre remains a central issue in Japanese relations with other Asia-Pacific nations as well, such as South Korea and the Philippines.[16]"


Reason:

This edit aims to correct a phrasing that is slightly biased, based on the provided link.

Mainly, the phrasing was misleading as it gave the impression that Japanese nationalists and historical negationists are solely responsible for the discord between Japanese and Chinese government. Although the existence of these vocal negationists needs to be mentioned, the issue about the political discord is more complex, and revolves more on the death toll rather than the existence of the massacre (thus the proposal for a link to the wikipedia page about the death toll). Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that an additional reason why the two countries cannot agree on a death toll is because China has been keeping a hard line of 300,000 civilian death, a number most scholars nowadays would admit is exaggerated (cf the link to the academic article by Askew in [1]). I do not wish the downplay the responsibility of Japan in this conflict, but I think it would be biased not mention the responsibility of the Chinese government. Japan is responsible for the massacre, but not necessarily for the current discord between the two countries. Nijies (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording needs to be changed

"Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest — a race between the two officers to see which could kill 100 people first using only a sword — was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days.[27][28] In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967.[29]

In 2000, historian Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit.[30]

In 2005, a Tokyo district judge dismissed a suit by the families of the lieutenants, stating that "the lieutenants admitted the fact that they raced to kill 100 people" and that the story cannot be proven to be clearly false.[31] The judge also ruled against the civil claim of the plaintiffs because the original article was more than 60 years old.[32] The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan.[33]"

(Wouldn't this be better.........)

In 1937 the Tokyo Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser reported on an alleged contest between two (named) Japanese officer, to see who could kill 100 enemy first. Controversy has raged ever since about a) whether the contest actually took place, b) whether the reported results of such a contest would imply that submissive prisoners of war or civilians must have been included in the total.

Whether the contest actually took place, and whether or not the death count included civilians, the manner of the reporting tells us much about the environment in Japan in the mid-late 1930's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.189.138 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

About the victims among Chinese Muslims

Books in Turkish it is absolutely unreliable source. The figure in 100 people looks as too small. It could be just casual victims which didn't have any relation to this mass slaughter. All victims among Muslims (if such really were) are provoked by the Chinese chauvinists hating Islam and Muslims. Muslims have no reasons to hate Japanese.Let better Turks be engaged in own crimes of racist character, made together with Torkaman-Shiites against Sunni Muslims on border with Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.172.58.15 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The Talk Pages are not for your ridiculous rants - read the top of the page, Anon. 104.169.36.161 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

"Admin help" Photo of dead raped naked Chinese woman with feather in vagina

I would like someone in authority to pass judgment on whether it is necessary or good form to include the photo. I find it highly disturbing. I am a woman. I don't think it would be a good thing for children to see. Christinedoby (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Citation 2 is now a dead link. The website moved to a new URL.

The Citation 2, "nankingatrocities.net" has moved to "http://thenanjingmassacre.org". This website is also listed as an external link #3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.207.83.17 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The reference now contains a working link to an archived version of the original page. The suggested link thenanjingmassacre.org appears to contain a similar, but not quite exact, copy of the original site. Given that we have a good archive link, I'm not going to try to evaluate the suggested replacement link. However I have no objection if someone determines the suggested link is superior. Alsee (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Clear consensus against move. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


Nanking Massacre → Nanjing Massacre – Per main article. Unreal7 (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/Askew.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanjing_Massacre/Archive_9&oldid=1092054419"