Jump to content

Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

A lot of inadequate discription. They should be removed.

I noticed that this artcle has lost its good proportion of volumes of contents as compared with a year before. Especially I think criticism section has grown larger than its appropriate size. And a lot of inaccurate, very subjective, or unnecessary discription are involved in this section now. So I believe those mere mentions which says like that Iris's book is "half baked history" without any proof should be removed from there, or at least summarized to avoid duplication of several same type assertion. For one specific example, I propose that a critical mention by Roger B. Jeans on "Contradiction and factual iaccuracies" section shold be removed. I read his article and noticed definitely he wrote her book "is half-baked histroy", and in following paragraph he attacked her. However body of his article doesn't have clear relation to Iris's book, nor problems of her book. He only introduce several museums about war and peace in Japan. Almost of them are only explanation of pamphlets sent by those museams. Those explanation don't conflict with Iris's view about status of society of Japan. They don't override Iris' discussion in any sense. His conclusion is ordinary thing, and I noticed it contains inaccurate points. For example his interpretaion of "Martyrs of Showa" in Yasukuni shrine brochures is wrong. That words mainly mean War criminals of Class A of IMTFE who have been worshipped in Yasukuni from 1978. Jeans wrote that it reffered to radical nationalists who called for a "Showa Restoration"... in the early and mid-1930s. And he introduced a word 731 Unit member reffered to their victims as "murata"(logs). But correctly it must be "maruta". He may insist that such errors are trivial and don't affect body of his ::article. But we should note the fact that kind of tirivial matters are used to attack Iris Chang's work very offtenly.

Though he wrote accusation against her book in the head part of his article, I should say that it is isolated paragraph in it. This paragraph appears to be unnecessary one in his own article. And this mention is without any proof. He only listed three documents one of which is Joshua A Fogel's Book Review. It is already quoted or introduced in this article of her book.

So I believe that part of critic section is not only unnecessary or redundant but also misleading. I would like to remove it if no objection.

Sfwu 5:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I object. We're not talking about a large section here. As you rightly acknowledge, Roger Jeans did in fact publish criticisms of Iris Chang's book. Therefore, the addition of this cited material is consistent with Wikipedia's core policies of verifiability and no original research. Also, the citation comes from a very reliable source: an academic journal article. There is no rule on Wikipedia that states that only book reviews can be included in that section. Indeed, you seem to be objecting to it because you disagree with Prof. Jeans' comments and would like them removed. I don't feel comfortable with that proposal. Yes, Jeans introduces Iris Chang in the beginning of his journal article, but that's because he is letting the reader know (or is arguing that) the sweeping criticisms that Iris Chang levels against "the Japanese" (in scare quotes) regarding war memory do not hold up to close scrutiny, according to his research. Obviously, the Wikipedia reader is allowed to (dis)agree with his empirical findings, but it's a bad idea to start censoring material because we disagree with someone's conclusions published in a peer-reviewed academic journal article. Rightly or wrongly, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." J Readings (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for swift response, J Readings. But it seems that you totally misunderstand my proposition. I would like to remove Roger's passage not because I disagree it, but it is redundant and duplicated. Why don't you response specific facts I pointed out about his article. You say the quotation is from academic journal, and my proposition is censorship, and Wikipedia rule you think. Writing an article in Wikipedia isn't automatic work without human decision. Do you mean we can't remove any paragraph if it is from academic magazine, irrespective of quality of if. Even if quality of material giving critical paragraph is lower than that of a material which is object of critical? Are we unable to remove anything from Wikipedia article if that part is from academic documents?Sfwu 10:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
J Reading seems to misunderstand Sfwu's comment and Wikipedia policies, because he or she talks about WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, not about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not a repository of every information and editors carefully select contents from every possible info and revise them with their effort. Besides, s/he seeks a WP:CONSENSUS for editing it WP:BOLD, so why don't you assume good faith first from his intention? I agree with SFwu's impression on the unbalalanced expansion mostly inserted by Saintjust (talk · contribs) who has been deeply associated with Japanese 2channel's campaigns against editors developing articles related to Japanese war crimes. This article is also under the umbrella, and redundant info is not good for readers to comprehend the article easily. --Caspian blue (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
To Sfwu You said ”So I believe that part of critic section is not only unnecessary or redundant but also misleading." at first. But after the objection made by J Readings, you also said "I would like to remove Roger's passage not because I disagree it, but it is redundant and duplicated." I'd like you to explain why you omitted the expression, 'misleading' after the objection.--Super1111 (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm welcoming you and congratulating your first edit being made here. Any relation with Blue011011 (talk · contribs) who shares very similar name with yours? --Caspian blue (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about my account? Yours also looks similar to the one you mentioned.--Super1111 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
^v^b You have some sense of humor and are good at turning the subject. You're speculative on other people's comment at the "first appearance" with the account. That is unusual for newbies and you did not answer. Well, I guess you know a lot of things about me already.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I know neither you nor Blue011011. --Super1111 (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


(edit conflict)Thanks for the reply Sfwu and Caspian Blue. I don't recall having written anything about WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Caspian blue. Can you show me where I wrote that, please? What I did respond to is this quote from Sfwu:

I read his article and noticed definitely he wrote her book "is half-baked histroy", and in following paragraph he attacked her. However body of his article doesn't have clear relation to Iris's book, nor problems of her book. He only introduce several museums about war and peace in Japan. Almost of them are only explanation of pamphlets sent by those museams. Those explanation don't conflict with Iris's view about status of society of Japan. They don't override Iris' discussion in any sense. His conclusion is ordinary thing, and I noticed it contains inaccurate points. (Emphasis added)

As for assuming good faith, you don't need to raise this point because there's nothing in my comments that warrant it. I will stress again Sfwu is simply disagreeing with Prof. Jeans' comments and he or she would like them removed. If that's not the point, then perhaps someone should clarify what the objection is.
As for "redundant criticism" in Iris Chang's book, I disagree. There's nothing redundant about it. Please keep in mind that a major part of Chang's book deals with "war memory" in Japan and her arguments related to that. Prof. Jeans is specifically addressing that argument in his own peer-reviewed academic article. He makes that intention clear in both the abstract to the article and the introduction to the article, returns to Chang periodically within the article, etc. The other authors cited above the Jeans quote are dealing with Chang's alleged generalizations regarding "motivations" for the actual historical act. Jeans is criticizing Chang's generalizations regarding war memory in contemporary Japan. I don't see any reason yet to remove Prof. Jeans' cited comments from the article. J Readings (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you seem to be objecting to it because you disagree with Prof. Jeans' comments and would like them removed. I don't feel comfortable with that proposal.......... Obviously, the Wikipedia reader is allowed to (dis)agree with his empirical findings, but it's a bad idea to start censoring material because we disagree with someone's conclusions published in a peer-reviewed academic journal article.

That would be an answer regarding WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:AGF.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Caspian Blue...please. The first rule of WP:AGF: Don't talk about WP:AGF. See WP:AAGF. As for repeating the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay, I already highlighted the quoted area to which I was responding. To accuse me of "misunderstanding Wikipedia policies" is something of an empty statement. What am I *specifically* misunderstanding about WP:UNDUE, especially when we're talking about a five short sentences of criticism on "war memory"? Also, and I have to say this, I'm disappointed that you're suggesting that I am somehow distorting Prof. Jeans' comments with this comment: "Wikipedia is not a repository of every information and editors carefully select contents from every possible info and revise them with their effort." What are you implying Caspian Blue? That I'm duplicitous? J Readings (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
-_-;;; This discussion with you would be a good example of "miscommunication". I did not say that you're distorting Prof. Jean's comment. I'm rather saying about your "inclusionist" point of view. You assumed SFwu's intention to remove some surplus contents stems from WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. As I said, every information here are from what editors selectively collected and edited with their time and effort, BUT many people above agreed with that the criticism section is WP:UNDUE weight, so my saying is another repetition.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. It's not "another repetition" because, as I replied above, Prof. Jeans' peer-reviewed journal article is designed as a specific reply (based on his research) to Iris Chang's generalizations about "Japanese" war memory which, let's face it, is a major part of Chang's book. In fact, it's the whole third section of Chang's book. Prof. Jeans makes it clear in the abstract, again in the introduction, and again in the body text that he's writing his article in reaction to her book. And, as I replied above, the other professional historians are objecting to other aspects of Chang's arguments (specifically the motivations of the "Japanese" soldiers) so it's not fair at all to lump Prof. Jeans' article in with the comments of Drs. Fogel and Kennedy and then claim the brief mention of it in this encyclopedia article is WP:UNDUE, in my view. Granted, if I wrote three or four lengthy paragraphs on Prof. Jeans' article that really would be "undue weight." Right now, no, I can't say in all honesty that the addition is against that policy. J Readings (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
J Readings, I think you read the book of Iris Chang correctly in some sense. Her book isn't mere history, but her theme is a proposal in order to solve forgotten issues caused by Japanese agrresion in 15 years war, 1931-1945. However I can't follow your reading of the article of Prof. Jeans. How can you read and interpret as such a way. By the way, I can't find a phrase quoted in Criticism section as "giving the lie to Iris's generation about the 'Japanese'". Please teach me where it appear in Prof. Jeans's article by number of pages and lines. Or does it appear other article or book or any material by him? As far as I read his article of 2005, he seems to be indifferent to Iris's opinion that Japan should face the cruelities it inflicted on others during WWII.
— J_Readings — continues after insertion below "Many different groups (again giving the lie to Iris Chang's generalizations about the 'Japanese') protested the society's textbook." (Roger B. Jeans, "Victims or Victimizers? Museums, Textbooks, and the War Debate in Contemporary Japan," The Journal of Military History, Vol. 69, No. 1, (Jan. 2005), p. 189)
I want to point out that there are several sorts of criticisms to the book of Iris Chang, not the same each other, so we should be more careful about difference among them.
First is to accuse historical inacuracy, as Jeans refered in begining of his article.
Second is to insist that her view about Japanese current society relating to war is wrong. They say that she says too much.
And third is to oppose her opinion that Japan should face the fact, issue an official apology and pay reparation. As that opinion hurts national interest of Japan.
Though prof. Jeans refered critism of the first in head part of his article, it is mere mention without detail analasys nor proof. So I think his main theme is not in the first criticism, but in the second criticism if he kept his criticism to Iris in his article. His argument continues as that Japanese society is more complicated than a view of Iris Chang. And his conclusion is that there are struggles in Japan between one side which glorify Japanese war and other side which recognize Japanese responsibility and desire peace. His final pointing out is that Japanese scholar confesed as didn't know which side would win. Perhaps Jeans himself doesn't know the answer of the question.
I restate that a view of Iris Chang and that of Jeans aren't of great difference. The view of Iris is not so simple as Jeans thinks. She introduced debate in Japan about the Nanking Massacre with Honda Katsuichi and Hora Tomio, the textbook controversy, and the effort of Ienaga Saburo. She didn't think that all Japanese ignored the fact. At most, the difference between two is difference in degree, not that in kind. That is because I think that his accusation against Iris in the begining of his article is isolated and unnecesary part in his own work. And it is why I would like to remove that part of Wiki page. I don't think I can easily persuade persons who have objection. I am ready to dure long discussion and debate.
And I would like to give another proposition. I think paragraph about Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi concerned to 100-men killing contest should be removed. The article of Wakabayashi is mainly about a debate in Japan, without direct relation to Iris's book. It is still a controversial issue in Japan, as Kasahara Tokushi published a book concerning it, in July 2008. So if introducing Wakabayashi's article, we should also introduce other many materials about it. But this is out of a scope of this theme, the book of Iris Chang. So if some person hopes to put quote from Wakabayashi's that article, besides whether that person take quotation correctly or not, he or she should create new another article about 100-men killing contests.?Sfwu 15:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." So, you don't have to and shouldn't examine whether Jeans' remark is true or not. Even though you think "The view of Iris is not so simple as Jeans thinks.", he thought as he wrote on The Journal of Military History 69 (1)(p.149-150). Jeans did criticize this book and the comment is verifiable. --Super1111 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)(I think you know me as Super11)
Thank you for your information, J_Readings.
Hello J_Super11. Your writing is conplicated and difficult to understand. When I discuss with you, why do I need use English.
Two questions. 1. meaning of verifiability. Does it mean that we can verify if a paragraph exists in some publication or not? Or does it mean that we can verify if it appears to be true, or false, or undefined, by reading some publication which includes the paragraph?
2. I think, in this context, threshold means some limit line. I.e. it means a minimum qualification to be included in Wiki article. If some paragraph doesn't satisfy it, it is to be removed without any discussion. But converse is not always true. It doesn't mean that if some paragraph satisfys that minimum condition, it must be included in a article. To decide if including or removing one description depends on another decision, which is editor's judgement. Is my interpretation is wrong? if so how?
To J_Readings. Reading the part you quote from Prof Jean's article, I can imagine he disliked or hated Iris Chang, and he appeared not to have read her book sincerely, but it informs me of nothing else.Sfwu 14:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


To Sfwu,thank you for your comment. What I said is simple. According to the Wikipedia policy, "verifiability" means" whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability for further information.--Super1111 (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


To Super1111, Thank you for your answer. Please give me that to the second question. I see that I don't get agreement yet about removing quotation of Prof. Jeans. While have no problem about removing that of prof. Bob Wakabayashi. There is already an article for "100-man killing contest" in Wiki English. But I am reading it now. Previously, when about Prof. Jeans' article, I wa so hurry that I didn't keep concentration of reading sections around textbook's struggle. I overlooked sentences about Iris Chang. Though the article of Mr. Wakabayashi is not interesting nor sympathetic for me, I need to read whole of it, before remove the quotation part of him. It will take some more days. My reading speed is slow.Sfwu 6:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi members. I read whole of Bob Wakabayashi's article. And determined that his article is inadequate to be quoted here. So I removed that paragraph.

And I found another inaccurate description in "Criticism section":

In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking, Nobukatsu Fujioka, a professor of education at the University of Tokyo,critically examined all the 34 photographic evidences used in The Rape of Nanking, and concluded that none of them constitutes direct evidence of the incident.

Fujioka and his co-writer wrote:

We examined all photos which can be regarded as witness of atrocity from 34 photos coniained in Chang's book. And concluded none of photos in Chang's book proves Nanking Massacre.(A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", p108)

Their original book contains iaccuracy. Correctly photograph pages of "The Rape of Nanking" contains 43 photographs. And Hata ikuhiko claimed that 11 of them are fakes or misrepresentations. In Japan, authors of the book are not regarded so qualified historian as Hata Ikuhiko. Many of their arguments are defeated in Japan including law suit. It is enough to introduce Hata's claim about photograph issues. Fujioka and his co-witers argument depends on Hata's in its plausible portion. Sfwu (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


To Sfwu I respect for your hard working on this article. But I have to say these. You said, "Many of their arguments are defeated in Japan including law suit." Which arguments about what photographs are defeated when?? And in the Japanese page of this article you are quoting comments made by "not qualified historian." So, when you say"In Japan, authors of the book are not regarded so qualified historian as Hata Ikuhiko," it means that you are using "double standard".

--Super1111 (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

To Super1111
I am grad for your word RESPECT. And I mean not only revisionist theory of Prof. Hujioka and his co-writer has been defeated within many discussions in Japan, but their claims to photographs about massacre e.t.c by Japanese troop in China are almost defeated. I can say safely that their base of discussion is already collapsed.
And to your second point that I am using "double standard", I don't think so. I never mean claims or arguements of scholars can and must be adopted in an article of Wiki, nor that only scholars must be adpopted, and arguments of non-scholars will be excluded. To adopt or to remove depends on editors decision, though sometime it may not be adequate. And I think we should take views from qualified scholars seriously. If exists any about our theme, we need to introduce it. However we need not list up all of such views. If many scholars assert the same thing, and one is original, others are copies, or others add absurd claims to origional assertion, we need introduce original one, and need not , should not list up others. Sfwu (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Claim = >argued

I notice that there is lot of use of the word "claim" in this article. We should try to avoid this word -- on both sides of the argument because it creates POV bias, intentionally or unintentionally. WP:AVOID advises us to use verbs like "state", "say", or "argue" instead. I'm going to change everything to the word "argue" because I think it reads better than "say". Thanks, J Readings (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Because we're talking about a book written by an author, there's no need to insert "she claimed" every other sentence. It's understood from context. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that due to the amount of claims this obviously deranged woman made in her book, that it be considered to be a work of fiction, it is about as relevant as Harry Potter with regards to truth.Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"Deranged". That's mighty generous of you. Thank you for playing along. The Japanese committed horrible crimes all over China, burning, looting, raping, enslaving, murdering, and yet they managed to outdo themselves when they reached Nanjing. Chang got a few facts wrong and got many, many others right. The second edition of the book addressed the simple mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
She got 100s of facts wrong, not a few. She was mentally ill and under medication for her mental illness - oh nearly forgot, she decided that it would be a good idea to shoot herself in the face - not that I would use the term on her article, but I think the term deranged is pretty accurate, would you prefer crazy? insane? mad? Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
She was nervous, highly-strung and felt targeted by right wing hate groups. In the second edition, she corrected the facts that needed correcting; leaving many more facts that have been contested by revisionists but accepted by scholars of the event. Perhaps you're getting your "100s" from the latter group. Binksternet (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)#Criticism - some of her mistakes were corrected by the publisher, some mistakes were ignored, the book tries to see things in part from the Japanese point of view, but she never even bothered visiting Japan. She was a paranoid, delusional, suicidal person. Her book was reported to have 90 errors (some of which were so basic) in the first 64 pages. Commander Perry? LOL. That is laughable. A biased writer with a huge chip on her shoulder and serious mental issues, writing a supposedly factual book, but injecting all of her biased personal feelings into the book. The book is a joke, as is the writer. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"Her book was reported to have 90 errors", this is not correct. One claimed that her book includes "a lot of mistakes", and showed a count of "misstakes" to emphasise his or their claim effectively, . Description of the documents which pointed out ninety-two or so are poor, which are not very plausive. There have been a lot of claims against her book, not because that it was a book by "deranged" woman, but because that the book contains a lot of facts which many Japanese people don't want to believe nor face seriously. .(Sfwu)07:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC))
SFWU, you are most certainly a single purpose account, and possibly a sock/meat-puppet. Your comments are quite obviously biased. I have no desire to enter into discussions with single purpose accounts and/or sock/meat-puppets. Sennen goroshi (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sennnengoroshi(thousand years killer?), funny fellow. sock/meat-puppet? I don't understand this word correctly. Please let me know what it means.
She was a paranoid, delusional, suicidal person. Her book was reported to have 90 errors (some of which were so basic) in the first 64 pages. Commander Perry? LOL. That is laughable.
At least your writing is dirty, and far from elegant.(Sfwu)04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:JohnRabe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am reassessing this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

  1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
  2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
  3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.
  4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
  5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

OK, no problems here, on to main review. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
Is this good? [1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes that will do fine. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  1. b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Images suitably captioned.
  2. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    OK, that has been addressed, confirm GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anon, 213.141.89.53's comment.

Well, comments by some anon, 213.141.89.53 (talk · contribs) have been deleted twice by two editors including me[2][3] because of the inappropriate personal attacks and bashing comments although one editor who tends to fond of including all things once restored.[4]. Anon, if you want a discussion or criticize others' opinion, please keep Wiki policies. However per your candid comment "I mostly go on discussion pages to piss analretentive people off", I wonder the anon can refrain him/herself though.--22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that you would delete the comments from an anonymous user then ask a question of the user in an additional entry. The anon IP editor has been putting valid talk points into the discussion. The anon editor believes that arguments by Higashinakano are being misused here. The anon editor believes Kelly's criticism of Chang's book has nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the massacre. These are valid opinions. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Binksternet, when you read other's comment, why don't you read carefully? I did not ask to the anon about anything. So I believe the amusement is solely for your sake. Whether some of the anon's comment is a valid or not in your opinon, at least two people consider the anon's comments hold inappropriate personal attacks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
A personal attack that is worthy of deletion from Talk pages would have to be blatant, severe or a breach of personal information. I see nothing obvious here. You might want to re-read Wikipedia:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments where you'll see that 213.141.89.53's comments don't cross the line into immediate deletion. There's no name-calling or insults, no profanity or taunts. At any rate, once it has been decided that a personal attack has been mounted, the reaction should be on the same level as the seriousness of the misbehavior. Hateful personal attacks should be deleted right away, of course. Instances of possible gray-area incivility don't call for immediate unilateral deletion. Instead, the offended editor can try putting a message on the uncivil editor's Talk page, or the offended editor can add a notice at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or make a request for comment from an outside editor. Deletion is a later step that is first offered as a tool to the offending party as a chance to make communication flow better. More links that apply here: WP:3RR, WP:HARASS, WP:DISPUTE. Sincerely, Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
From what I've known, offended people could delete the comment and the anon is on dynamic IP, so your possible suggestions are rather moot.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Now I find that I'm adding my own talk entry back in after being accused by Caspian blue of using a notional "automatic add button". It's Caspian blue's unthinking reversion that was automatic—it destroyed my talk entry without comment. In my prior reversion of 213.141.89.53's comments, I examined each talk entry and then added my analysis at the end. Nothing automatic about that. To answer the edit summary question: I do not support personal attacks. My view of the talk page style of 213.141.89.53 is that this person can be unpleasant and even counterproductive but does not violate the rules of Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines such that the editor's entries should be deleted. I see no personal attacks here. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I read the anon's comment carefully, so what don't you say something solid before carelessly denoucing my comment? I just quote your "automatic delete button" from some article.(You also never returned your answer on such false accusation) If does it sound unpleasant, I would be just bemused to the irony. You're surely aware of your own unpleasant comment. I do not hit the button without thinking as you want to believe. I believe that the comment is in violation of Wiki policy. So Hong and I deleted.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand everything you are saying, except that you believe I'm aware of the unpleasantness of my own comment, and that you deleted either my comment or all of 213.141.89.53's comments because it/they were in violation of policy. If you deleted my comment because you thought it was in violation, I am surprised. I have no wish to take part in uncivil exchanges—all I wanted to do today is to prevent an editor's opinions from being erased without a fair review. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry for my engrish (that's why I try not to edit sensitive articles like this one much) I did not delete your comment although that is not civil. BUT, the anon attacks various people from the self-admitted bad faith.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I took the anon IP's phrase "I mostly go on discussion pages to piss analretentive [sic] people off, and the [sic] bust them on any mistakes they make" as a joke, not as a serious statement that every entry by the editor was intended to be uncivil. Perhaps it's time for everybody to step back and laugh at the situation for a moment. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Second edition photo caption

The reference for this lists four things that were changed between the first edition and the second edition, and a few other things that weren't changed but the author thinks should have been. I guess changes between the two editions were an aspect of the controversy over this book, so I can see why they would be noted in the sections devoted to that, but the fact that four inaccuracies were fixed for the second edition is not at all notable in itself and shouldn't be in this caption.Prezbo (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral to the removal, but next time you remove a citation (in any article), please check if it is being used anywhere else. Scroll to the bottom of your edit and you'll see what I mean. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Timothy Kelly's criticism

There's been a bit of edit warring over Timothy Kelly's criticism. Per WP:BRD, I think it's time for Shii to stop making edits to the article text on this point and for all of us to discuss our opinions on this issue here. I'll start.

I have no problem with mentioning Timothy Kelly's criticism here. For me, this is not a debate about content but about style. That is, I am not objecting in any way to Timothy Kelly's criticism. I tend to accept it as "on the mark".

However, I think we are putting too much detail in this article in the current presentation of this criticism. IMO, the picayune spelling and factual errors identified by Timothy Kelly do not need to be mentioned explicitly in the article text. I think all that detail is distracting and doesn't actually give the reader useful information. This is the sort of thing that the reader can get if he wants to by reading the source itself. That is why I prefer Shii's version. I would make slight modifications so that it reads "Timothy Kelly described the book as "simple carelessness, sheer sloppiness, historical inaccuracies, and shameless plagiarism." He pointed out Chang's "lack of attention to detail", and claimed that she had plagiarized passages giving an illustration from Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini.

If there is a strong desire to put present the picayune spelling and factual errors in the article, I suggest we do it as a Note. I will do so now so that you can see what it would look like.

--Richard S (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with using a note as a compromise Shii (tock) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with having less detail, nothing about spelling or punctuation mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)/Archive_2&oldid=1245517178"