Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is absurd. Is there any way to only LOCK the page from non-registered users? I don't know who the person at 218.221.107.162 is, but the person is from Kyoto. This should be resolved quite simply. If this Kyoto person has a reliable source or any source even that the photos are fabricated, INCLUDE it. Because indeed it is a "photo whose caption is disputed" but there is no evidence that it is fabricated. Dan 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kadzuwo: the review by David Kennedy seems to be a good examination of the achievements (and serious limitations) of Chang's book. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, please note that it seems to support Chang's numbers, and makes absolutely no mention of forged photography!

I haven't looked at the other sources you cited (since there are a lot of them, and they all appear to be Japanese, thus making them less relevant to the point in dispute here), but please feel free to re-introduce some of them, if they can improve the article. -- pde 00:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The following text was moved here from the article. It needs to be NPOVed. olivier 03:14 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

The photograph currently used is a fabrication photograph and this book cannot be trusted.

[edit] Protected Page

Protected - material present on page copied to Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Draft -SV(talk) 01:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is poor — someone seems to be wanting to hollow it out and remove any substance to it - see the draft to edit, and make notes. Le poizel-SV(talk) 01:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV. Neutral point of view. The accuracy of the book is disputed. This article should say that the accuracy of the book is disputed, not that the book is inaccurate. Markalexander100 08:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think my version says the book is inaccurate. The article says only some say so. Namely this sentence. "Some US and Japanese scholars have disputed the accuracy of the book." -- Taku 15:16, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your version states as fact that there are "factual errors", that the book "cannot be trusted', and that its figures are "misleading". These are all disputed statements. Markalexander100 01:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you have read sentences correctly. It is the fact that some people contend figures are misleading. It never means the figures are misleading. -- Taku 02:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

"They pointed out that the book contains many serious factual errors including fabricated photographs and cannot be trusted. They noted that particular figures presented in the book are misleading--for example, the number of people killed outnumbers the residents in Nanking at that time."

In English, you can only "point out" or "note" something if it is true. Markalexander100 02:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many people do note or point out false things. But it is true that they do say those false things. -- Taku 02:28, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Who states factual errors are not errors? For propaganda photos, this book shows photos of unknown origin. Critics identified some of these photos and proved that they are trimmed, manipulated or irrelevant photos with misleading captions. Does someone really offer rebuttals to criticism? If so, show me. --Nanshu 02:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right, Nanshu but let's not go to a game who is right, who is wrong. I think it would suffice if we just state some scholars, not a couple of crazy guys, questions the accuracy of the book. That's all. -- Taku 02:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

And stop labelling your critics "various conservative and revisionist factions." Kashiwa Shobo is a left-wing, pro-PRC publisher. Even Kashiwa Shobo feared that publishing such an inaccurate book without notes would ruin its credit. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Taku, the page was protected last time because you reverted to a POV text without even commenting on my explanations of why it was POV. Be calm, talk before reverting. Markalexander100

No, it is you who stopped talking. As I said, some people claim something and nothing is wrong with reporting such. -- Taku 16:07, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, a few examples.

Ptolemy pointed out (or noted) that the sun orbits the earth. This statement is incorrect, as Ptolemy's belief was incorrect.
Noam Chomsky pointed out (or noted) that President Bush is a fool. This statement is POV, as it presents a disputed opinion (Chomsky's ) as a fact.
Noam Chomsky claimed (or alleged) that President Bush is a fool. This statement is accurate and NPOV. It reports a claim without judging its validity. This is the appropriate form for reporting disputed claims. Markalexander100 03:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The following writing should be removed. The followings describes Japanese response, And majority of criticism against this book didn't come from right-wing. I want to know Why non-Japanese can say as followings?

In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, both because it is generally accurate and because the volume is more of popular history rather than for academia.

I think mentioning the Japanese response to a book is quite relevant to an article on a book about what the Japanese did. ;-) Non-Japanese people can mention it for the same reason as Japanese people can- it's true. The sites complaining about the book which this page links to are right-wing nationalist sites; if you know of any more moderate ones, let us know. Markalexander100 01:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Before that, I want to know 3 points. <1> Which language you can read. Can you read Japanese? As you can easily imagine, most responses and discussions in Japan are written by Japanese.<2> Could you tell me your definition about Japanese right-wing nationalist? <3> How you could affirm the response of academia /the reason of Mainstream academia response.- Poo-T

I'm not sure it's relevant, but nihongo wa amari yoku wakarimasen. This being the English Wikipedia, we use English-language sources (such as the ones linked to from the article).
I can give you an example. http://www.history.gr.jp/nanking/index2.html asserts not just that the book is exaggerated, but that "The Massacre of Nanking is a lie !" and "The Greater East Asia War was fought in Self-defence.". Those are both somewhat extreme views.
As the article mentions, mainstream academics did not generally concern themselves with the book, because it's popular history, not an academic treatise. Markalexander100 03:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

<1> It's very important, as the text describes "mainstream responses in Japan". For example, Do you really trust a description like "Iraqi people trusts US troops" written by a person who can only read/speak English? As for me, I think such text about "Iraqi response" is unreliable. Additionally, How can I show you Japanese discussion? English Wikipedia should be written in English. However it doesn't mean "ignoring responses in non-English country." Especially, the writing is about "mainstream responses in Japan". Can you follow me? <2> It's just an example. I agree that your example is a website of right-wing nationalists. I wanted to know your Borderline to be called "right-wing nationalist" to show you "moderate, not so right-wing web site." But related to <1>, generally, most moderate web sites/books are written in Japanese. As they don't have a strong will to show their opinion in English, as translating is not easy work for most Japanese. <3> I want to know why you could affirm the reason as "both because it is generally accurate and..". Did you think about the possibilities like "just ignored a books sold in U.S., not in Japan" or "recognized as a book with too many mistakes to discuss seriously". As far as I know, most japanese including academic people simply didn't have a concern. Only limited people (left-wing who likes communist countries and right-wing ultra-nationalist) read the book and debated about the book. I can agree if the writing is as follows,

In Japan, it caused an argument only between Right-wing ultra-nationalists and Left-wing communism-familiar people. Japanese mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, because the volume was not for academia.

But this is where academia is a credible source for this type of information, beacuse in general, those circles are multilingual and promote good research in this area. In this sense, the use of academic sources is a good one. For example, see the Comfort women article where I quoted a Japanese professor who performed research and published in English. Fuzheado 04:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

To Fuzheado, I want to ask you same 3 questions To Markalexander100. There are many academia "Left-wing communism-familiar" professors (with my definition. see below)in japan. For example, Prof.Yoshimi is well known "left-wing professor" in Japan. This is not the place to discuss about Comfort Women, but I'll talk about it. With research about "Comfort woman" in these 10 years, japanese academia consensus is "Comfort woman was business, supervised by Japanese government. Its recruitment was delegated to local private companies (prostitution agent) in Korea and Japan. In Korea, traffic in women was common from the age before Japan annexation, especially for poverty class people. Debating in Japan focuses on responsibility of japanese government to supervise Korean prostitution agent's doing.". But as you know, left-wing people (Of course right-wing too,)have tendency to confess their mistakes, and insist on their recognition. In Japan, it's free to talk one's own opinion. But, loud voice and repeated advertising doesn't mean "mainstream consensus with scholarly integrity". (Prof.Yoshimi is relatively much fair than most other left-wing professors in Japan, I think.) Do you really think this text needed in Wikipedia, with a doubt of NPOV? If you think so, could you write your text suitable for here. My saying is just 2 points. <1>comments only about right-wing criticism can mislead the reader like "Most Japanese accepted the book true" <2> "because it is generally accurate" has no evidence-Poo-T

Poo, I'm confused by your answer. You say "most moderate web sites/books are written in Japanese"- are you saying that there are books and/or sites criticising the book from a moderate perspective in Japanese? But you also say that only extremists concerned themselves with the book. If it helps, I'd have no objection to removing the reasons given for mainstream academia not criticising the book. Markalexander100 05:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

To Markalexander100. Generrally, most responses including historians in Japan, as far as I could read/hear, just a short comment about the book. The majority response was "There is a million seller book in U.S., but there are many mistakes in the book. (sigh) " Most writings are just one or two lines, that's all. I can show you many such comments written in Japanese, if you want. -Poo-T

Here I describe my definition about right-wing nationalist and left-wing communism-familiar. Japanese Right-wing needs two points. <1>praise old emperor system in Japan <2>saying "Japan did nothing wrong before/during WW2". Left-wing communism-familiar means "Double standards" For example, "accuse U.S. for Gulf War, but never blame Soviet Union or China for Afghanistan /Tibet". -Poo-T

So can we agree on "In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists. Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book."? Markalexander100 01:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Generally, I think it much better than present writings. The only thing I want to change, is "Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book." It can still mislead readers like "Mainstream was in favor of the book". I recommend "Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, as it was not for academia", or simply, "Mainstream academia did not respond to the book". -Poo-T 25 May 2004

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

I have attributed the factual inaccuracies in the book as fact not allegation. Some of it is just so bad that I doubt she bothered to do fact checking before she published the book. However, I have presented the argument that just because the book is poorly researched does not mean the massacre itself is false. Someone might want to explain how significant the book was despite these problem. FWBOarticle 02:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also pointed out that criticism of book comes from both side in Japan. The book is sort of embarasement to the advocate of Nanking issue. Chang trying to link atrocities to Japanese culture didn't go down well because it widely opend itself to accusation of propaganda and Japan bashing. FWBOarticle

I've reverted. Miss Chang, to the best of my knowledge, maintains that the book is accurate. I haven't read it and I have no idea whether it is accurate, but there is a dispute over its accuracy. NPOV means we don't take sides. We all have better things to do than starting this again ;). Markalexander100 03:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, her assertion can be attributed to her POV. Some of erros is just so bad that it's quite funny. For example, she says, "In 1868 the rebels...ignited a revolution and transformed a patchwork of warring fiefdoms into a modern, powerful Japan." We had about 250 years of peace when supposedly "warring fiefdoms" were united under Tokugawa Shogunate. Probably for Westerners who has very little knowledge of Eastern history, her erros might appear trivial. But some of her erros is just so bad that it is almost equivelant to saying that "Robert F Kennedy was assasinated in Dallas, Texas". Any Japanese book with this kind of standard will be laughed at in English speaking world. And that what happend to Chang's book in Japan. The issue is not about the truth of nanking massacre. It is all about a sloppy research standard of an American book about history of the East and Western readers who tolorate such standard due to their lack of knowlege. There is no point insisting that the book is accurate when it is not. I'm quite sure she wrote well as a literature. FWBOarticle 09:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not think NPOV policy imply that well established fact should be presented as POV. FWBOarticle 10:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There may or may not be any point in insisting the book is accurate, but she does. There is a dispute as to its accuracy. That's all we need to know not to express an opinion on it. If you want to quote someone saying the book is inaccurate, you're welcome to do so. Markalexander100 10:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite sure some people like David Irving would insist that Holocaust is hoax. This doesn't mean we would say Holocaust is an allegation. We simply "attribute" David Irving's insistent to him. You can certainly state her insistence with proper attribution. But that should be stated as her POV while some obvious things should be stated as fact. Her books has numerous erros. Leave it at that. My advice is to add to my article by explaning the contribution which this book made to the issue of the massacre in the West. FWBOarticle 10:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Her website includes praise for the book from two Oxford academics and one from Harvard. We are not talking David Irving here. It would be much more helpful if you would discuss changes to controversial articles on the talk page before leaping in. Markalexander100 10:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oxford "academic" but not "historians". It still doesn't change "the facts" that book contains (lot of) factual inaccuracies. I'm not saying Massacre was a fiction or that her writing wasn't powerful. For example, She say Commander Perry. It is Commodore Perry. Are you saying that she is right? Type of mistake she make is things like name person or place or basic factual matter of histories. If I insist that my statement "Robert F Keneedy was assasinated in Dallas Texas" is accurate then would the statement "J.F Kennedy was assasinated in Dallas Texas" become an "allegation" or still remain as a fact? You can certainly praise her book on other aspects especially the impact the book had on the English speaking world. And I'm keep telling you to do that to provide more balanced assesement of the book. That doesn't allow you to distore the facts.

Correction. It does appear that Oxford historian praised the book. Well, for that I apologise. Still doesn't change my main contention that "book contains many factual inaccuracies" being fact.

Your contention is disputed. Not by me- I have no opinion on the matter- but by Miss Chang and her supporters. The minor mistake you mention was corrected in the second edition (and there are not many books which have no mistakes in the first edition!). You are welcome to provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy; I can then add a quote from someone praising the book's accuracy, and we can end up exactly where we started. But you cannot change the content to reflect your own POV. Reading Wikipedia: NPOV would help you a lot in this type of discussion. Markalexander100 00:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My edit duely mentioned that Miss Chang has corrected many (but not all) mistakes she has made in her previoius edition. However, this does not change facts that her book contained many erros. And the list of mistake she made were quite large. The two external links provided in the article provide part of it. (I do grant that some erros listed in the links depends upon one's POV). However, some of her mistake are embarasingly bad. Since you obviously do not know what is or what is not elementary historical fact of the Far East, I can provide you with one which even you can perceive. She say "In March 1944, the United Nations created the Investigation of War Crimes Committee ..." (p.169). " . I do not think anyone dispute that this is a embarrasing mistake in regard to basic fact of history..

And lastly, why should I "provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy". I can instead provide the list of quotes from her book which is flat wrong and let the readers of wikepedia decide whether she made "many errors regarding elementary facts of history". I don't intend to be that much of nitpicker but if you insist on censoring some simple mention of fact, I'll be forced to go to the point where what I do is beyond your criticism. I repeat this point. I'm not discussing whether Miss Chang wrote good or bad book which is obviously POV. And I'm not saying Naking Massacre is fiction because just one book which describe it contain sloppy research. I'm simply insisting that the fact that she made many errors regarding elementary historical facts should not be censored or wrongly attributed as POV. FWBOarticle 05:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's interesting that when you FWBOarticle don't like what someone else wrote, you demand sources, "not from an agenda site" for each claim. I would say that is a good reason why you should "provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy". You dont like to rely on anyone else's personal knowledge or opinion, so dont expect others to rely on yours. :-) Jpnwatch Sept 7, 2004.

One more. Your version spin critics of Irish Chang as mainly right wing nationalist. That I consider to be wrong attribution and do disservice to many serious historians which has pointed out the problem of the book. FWBOarticle 05:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is: 1) your assertions are not backed up by citations or quotes from others and Wikipedia is not meant to be a refutation by a Wikipedian's original research. Also, 2) the spelling and grammar in your revisions is so badly formed it's hard to put much credibility in your charges. If you are complaining about an author's sloppiness and lack of attention to detail, it's hard to take that seriously when the same can be said of your prose.

There were errors in the book indeed, and as has been mentioned already, they have been corrected in a second edition. You yourself have said some of the "errors" are a matter of POV, so nothing you have mentioned dilutes the significance of the central thesis of the book. And setting up the straw man argument of "Robert F. Kennedy" doesn't work either. Fuzheado | Talk 05:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

O.K. I will make better attribution of her mistakes. FWBOarticle

These are edits I just deleted from the article, with explanations below

In Japan, the opinion of book is generally negative even among those who support the truth of Nanking Massacre.

This is not only a sweeping generalization (as well as grammatically incorrect). It is POV to say "the truth of Nanking Massacre" and is unacceptable. You will not see that kind of language in other English Wikipedia articles. The truth is to be determined by the reader after reading factual information.

Her first edition of the book contained erros relating to some elementary facts about Japanese history. She often confuse family name with given name. League of Nations was refered as United Nation. Wrong number, name or date were attributed to certain well known historical figure or event. Though most of them are not related to the main contention of the book, it was widely seen by Japanese that her research standard was "below junior high school";.

Again, this is not a soapbox or a place for one's own theories - get specific with the examples, name the person who said the quote, or point to web sites that specifically address the discrepancies.

Those who deny Naking Massacre seized these erros to imply that the entire allegation of Naking Massacre is propaganda and therefore false. Japanese historians and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre generally distanced itself from the book.

Again, generalities without quotes or facts. It would help your credibility greatly to spell the basic terms correctly.

errors, not erros
Nanjing or Nanking, not Naking

Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

O.K. then I will quote from the book directly. FWBOarticle 01:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"She often confuse family name with given name".

page 26 Sadao Araki instead of Araki Sadao - also incorrectly indexed under "S" (p.289)

page 30 Tokio Hashimoto instead of Hashimoto Tokio but, correctly indexed under "H" (p.287)

page 40 Taisa Isamo instead of Chô Isamu - Taisa is actually "Colonel" while he was actually liutenant. Also incorrectly indexed under "T"

page 48 Yukio Omata instead of Omata Yukio

page 203 Yasuhiro Nakasone instead of Nakasone Yasuhiro - also incorrectly indexed under "Y" (p.290) He is also very famous Prime Minister

page 209 Nobukatsu Fujioka instead of Fujioka Nobukatsu

page 211 Takehiro Nakane instead of Nakane Takehiro also incorrectly indexed under "T" (p.290)

page 280 Hiroko Yamaji instead of Yamaji Hiroki - Hiroko is a gir's name while Hiroki is completely separate boy's name in Chinse character.

page 281 Noboru Kojima instead of Kojima Noboru

United Nation - League of Nation. On this I admit I probably got it wrong. She say "In March 1944, the United Nations created the Investigation of War Crimes Committee ..." (p.169). " It is likely that she got the date wrong or attributed the committee to wong organisation.

Wrong number, name or date were attributed to certain well known historical figure or event. "For 250 years Japanese military technology failed to advance beyond the bow and sword." page 21 -Japan manufactured rifle and cannons

"in July 1853, he sent two ships belching black smoke into Tokyo Bay" -he sent four not two. Most japanese know this because of a poem which described ships as four cups of strong teas. Plus, he went to Edo Bay not Tokyo Bay. Yokohama has a very famous port but separate from Tokyo.

"Perry strode through the capital of the Shogun" -He never went to the capital.

"With this single visit,Perry not only forced the Tokugawa to sign treaties with the United States..." -He signed treaty on his second visit. What happened between these vist within Japan is also importatnt part of Japanese history.

"Okawa Shumei, a member of the army general staff" -He is nationalist ideologist. Never being a member of the army general staff. It equal to saying Rush Limburgh was a member of the army general staff

""By the late 15th and early 16th centuries Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa family, who sealed off the island nation from foreign influence" -This is quite bad in eyes of Japanese. Tokugawa ruled between 17th to middle of 19th.

"In an era later known as the Meiji Restoration" -Meiji Restoration is an event not an era

"Nichi-Mainichi Newspaper" -Osaka NichiNichi newspaer of Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper. Mainich Newspaper is now the third biggest daily newspaper

One of denial site which list about 90 mistakes. Some I have to say depends on POV. Others are just poor knowledge and sloppy fact checking. http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8783/mistake.html

I have stated that these erros in her first edition are not much relevant to the central contention of her book. So I believe that proper (and fair) attribution of her mistakes is made. I should mentioned that subsequent edition corrects these mistakes. Are you saying that these mistakes are mere "allegation" when the author herself appear to accept it? FWBOarticle 01:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll put this very clearly - any sentence with pure POV like this:

Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book.

will be removed. Fuzheado | Talk 05:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have no problem stating that mainstream academia igonred the book. Why the previous statement is not POV while the supporter of Naking Massacre ignored the book is? The book was widely criticise (and ridiculed) for some elementary errors she made. Another reason her book was unpopular in Japan even among the liberal was that it was widely perceived in Japan that her book bashed Japan by linking the massacre to Japanese "culture". This was something the Japanese liberal were extremly keen to avoid. The similar thing happen in U.S. where the liberal are keen to avoid accusation of unpatriotic or being anti-American. Why are you intent on censoring that the academic and the liberal distance itself from the book? FWBOarticle 10:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I have "no problem" with mainstream academic ignoring the book. It was an attempt to compromise and allow some of your edits to stand. However, if you're going to use it as the thin end of the wedge then I'll go back on even accepting that small edit. Your bias in pushing "the truth" puts serious doubt on your ability to work towards NPOV. Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Chang = Right Wing Denier?

My edit, "In Japan, the criticsm of the book came from the both side of the debate. Right-wing nationalists relished nitpicking some perceived inaccuracies of Chang's book. Mainstream academia there largely ignored the book." was reverted back to "In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists.". I'm quite sure Mark can't speak let alone read Japanese. But still, it appear that he think he is fit to edit something which require at least elementary reading ability of Japanese. Anyway, here is a reference in English relating to Chang's book's reception in Japan from the Economist.

"'"Proper" historians cavilled, and with some reason. Her book, several said, was too polemical, and was riddled with mistakes which she refused to correct. her reliance on oral history, especially the fading memories of Chinese witnesses, was unwise. Even her use of the invaluable diaries of foreign "bystanders" in Nanking was suspect, for these people - who had organised a "safety zone" both for foreigners and Chinese - had no idea of the actual numbers killed. When her book was transalted into Japanese, supporters of the Great Massacre school found they could not defend her figures, which were higher even than those claimed in China."

FWBOarticle

I'm quite sure Mark can't speak let alone read Japanese. Speak for yourself, mate.

In Japan, the criticsm of the book came from the both side of the debate. This has been dealt with. Mark ¹ 01:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so please tell me how you know it? FWBOarticle

The Economist is a libetarian magazine and it is hardly categorised as a right wing not to mention about the fact that it is a non-Japapese source. However, just to top it off, let me quote other source, this time by Sonni Efron, Time Staff Writer.

"In a bizarre twist, Chang has come under attack not only from Japanese ultranationalists--who assert that the 1937 massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops never took place--but also from Japanese liberals, who insist it happened but allege that Chang's flawed scholarship damages their cause." http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/floor/9597/his.html

Your attempt to categorise anyone who criticise her book as right wing nationalist deniers is very low not to mention about the lack of logic. You also have no clue or mean to know what was the prevailing debate in Japan at the time. FWBOarticle

Oh, and here is an commentary of her research skill over another book of hers. http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese_In_America_Chang.html FWBOarticle

I found more mention of how her book was an embarassement to the Great Massacre cause in Japan, which you and few others ostensibly tried to delete.

"Iris Chang’s work has clearly dealt the Great Massacre School a severe blow. Members of this school translated her book into Japanese but, through their publisher, the left-wing Kashiwa Shobö, had a public (and highly embarrassing) falling out with her when she refused her translators permission to correct the enormous number of mistakes her book is riddled with or to add translator’s footnotes, and also when she objected to the publisher putting out a sister volume in which the mistakes would have been explained. In distancing themselves from Chang, and in explaining why their history differs from her myths, academic members of the Great Massacre Faction have found themselves in an unusual position. Rather than concentrating their criticisms on those who argue for a smaller death toll than that which they see as acceptable, they have found themselves criticising a work that argues for a larger death toll, and in doing so have to a certain extent blurred the clear lines that separated them from (or at least introduced some ambiguity in the relationship with) the members of the Middle-of-the-Road School. " FWBOarticle

Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't touch this article for a week. Sorry. FWBOarticle

Mark also broke the rule by reverting it again. ;)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

FWBOarticle: there are a few very important things that you don't seem to comprehend. Firstly, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedic source, is NOT the place to conduct a research. I do not dispute with your allegation of Chang's factual errors, but by nature of you having researched and published those errors yourself your allegations are inherently POV. If you feel so strongly and so confident about your research, feel free to create your own web site or publish a paper somewhere and add a link this article to your work. I my opinion, the most you can say is that there are very strong evidence against the book accuracy, though some may not agree with me on this.

Secondly, statement like Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book is necissarily biased. By stating that these people as "those who support the truth" you imply that these people are knowledgeable of the truth to the exclusion of all oppositions. This, of course, cannot possibly be NPOV.

Lastly, Fuzheado already pointed out error is spelt with E-R-R-O-R; not E-R-R-O. (Well, it culd just be my opinio, but I have it on good authurity that it's allso the truth.) Uly 15:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it...

If I went over to Holocaust and changed every instance of Holocaust to the alleged incident that may or may not have happened called the Holocaust, and provide a few links, www.wirmussenderjudenausrotten.de, www.heilmeinfuhrer.de, www.aryannation.us, then copy-paste some treatise by Hermann Goering, an interview of George Lincoln Rockwell, and append at the end of the article, "Note: The Holocaust may not have happened.", how long do you think that edit would last before being reverted?

Then why does this kind of shit happen here?

Mainly because the good people at Talk:Holocaust show a shocking disregard for NPOV. We can probably do better by showing that 1) We're not afraid of debate and 2) We're actually capable of NPOV writing that accommodates everyone to a degree that they find acceptable. -- ran (talk) 19:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the POV at Holocaust is several magnitudes better than that at Nanking Massacre and its sister pages. -Hmib 22:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The good people at Talk:Holocaust show a shocking disregard for NPOV by not allowing neo-Nazi Holocaust denial into the article? If you meant that, you've seriously misunderstood the NPOV policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

What is the NPOV policy, then? Ban all non-mainstream ideas? -- ran (talk) 21:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could read the policy pages, rather than ask me. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that majority and significant-minority views must be represented in WP. Tiny-minority views should not be represented. Wikipedia:No original research says that everything in Wikipedia must already have been published elsewhere in a credible publication, and we should produce sources for our edits if asked to, to prove that. Jointly then, these policies tell you we should publish only majority and significant-minority views published by credible publications. Holocaust denial is (a) a tiny-minority idea position and (b) is not published by credible publications, so on both those counts it fails our policies.

Are you seriously arguing that Holocaust denial should be covered in The Holocaust? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The two events are not comparable. The issue here is NOT whether people were killed at Nanjing. The issue concerns more how many and why. Holocaust apologists state that the dead were in the thousands, or that the Holocaust never took place. They ignore all information highlighting the Nazi desire to "get rid" of all Jews - there is certainly evidence that suggests the Holocaust was ordered by senior Nazi officials if not Hitler himself.

On the other hand, critics of the "300,000" Nanjing view only suggest that the figure was partially lower. Most still say it was over 100,000 and they agree it happened. However there was no evidence to suggest it was a premeditated cleansing. Japanese soldiers were nasty to many people in the various occupied nations, but they didn't have a policy of wanting to slaughter all Chinese people. What these scholars want to do is examine what happened in Nanjing as calmly as they can. That doesn't mean we have to turn this article into a "nothing happened at Nanjing" post.

I should also point out that Chang took a rather inappropriate attitude towards the photographic evidence. A historian does not say "prove I'm wrong" - he/she says I am right because.... That is one reason why I am uncomfortable describing her as a historian, because she did not display the characteristics historians do (or should do). John Smith's 16.30 (DST), 24th June 2005

I think we're talking about different things. The view that the number killed was less than 300,000 is perfectly respectable (IMHO quite likely true) and should be fully represented (at Nanking Massacre, not here). Some people, like Flower, do deny that there was any massacre. Whether that view is academically respectable and therefore worthy of inclusion (at Nanking Massacre) I doubt, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. Mark ¹ 03:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who denied the Massacre itself. Don't lie. I introduced credible scholors' opinions, which you wish to ignore. You have to realize how many credible publicities decline the incident. I do not oppose to include that there was the incident. --Flowerofchivalry 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Iris Chang you wrote I personally believe it did not happen. Mark ¹ 06:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I said "personally", which means that has never affected to my contribution, and it does not make sense to say that.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that it had affected your "contributions". I said that you denied the massacre. You do. Mark ¹ 08:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't understand your ``"contributions"` means. Did you need to put quotations mark to show my contributions?

OK, I have stated my personal opinion which is totally not related to the contributions. How about the rest of the post.

I introduced credible scholors' opinions, which you wish to ignore. You have to realize how many credible publicities decline the incident. I do not oppose to include that there was the incident.

I still cannot understand why you reverted. Explain me, please.

--Flowerofchivalry 09:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's the hell going on here

What is the problem??? The Rape of Nanking is, unfortunately, less than kid's work. User from So-net, Japan, please join talking here and why your assersions have the reasoning. Mark, I think you are just supporting Chang. You need NPOV. Yeah, she is cute :P But we have to deal with the contents of the book. If you want to prove the book is great, cite the source of the pictures in the book. --Flowerofchivalry 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kid's work? I'll tell you what's kid's work, your bloody revisionist Jap history textbooks.

i minored in east asian studies, speak/read a waning japanese and a waxing mandarin. when i read chang's mini-history of japan i laughed aloud--and this was in a corrected edition. she not only constantly lists japanese names in GN-SN order, despite announcing in the front of the book that all asian names would be in SN-GN order, but she actually managed to transpose a chinese name into GN-SN (tho take that with some salt; i left my copy in taiwan when i came back to the mainland). she waxes anthropologic to the effect of sword-über-chysanthemum to a degree which invites charges of polemicism. her expertise, and ability to access primary sources, was limited to english, chinese and (maybe, im not sure) german--but did not exend to japanese. the dispersions being cast on whether or not she is a historian stem from the simple fact that a peer review by a Western scholar of Japanese history would have caught errors like those regarding Matthew Perry with little difficulty, and would have done so prior to the publication of the first edition.

Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple sets of stats

One problem with attacking/defending Chang's stats is that she actually cites several different numbers. One is incredibly high, one is as low as, IIRC, 40,000 or so(?). she claims one stat as a personal preference, but knowing which stats are actually underfire would help. Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How about...

Something to the effect of:

"While several right-wing and ulta-nationalist critics in Japan have vehemently opposed the book's assertions and research methodology, the general Japanese public was too discouraged by the appearance of simple factual errors regarding the non-controversial history of Japan--where it was included for context or background--to take the rest of the book seriously. Chang's assertions regarding Japanese national character and the thought processes of the typical Japanese at the time were viewed by many in Japan as an adoption of broad-stroke racial stereotyping to further an anti-Japan polemic. That several instances of Japanese names occurred given name first, despite Chang's note that all Japaneses name would appear surname first, and employed romanizations of Japanese names that would be impossible to revert to hiragana, did not help her credibility."

どうですか?/怎么样/how 'bout it? Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless you know of a survey of "the general Japanese public"'s opinions on the book, all this is just your guesswork, and not something that belongs in the article. Mark ¹ 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

it's not my guesswork, it's the guesswork of above posters. i personally feel mocking someone for being a non-native speaker of english to be very close to an ad hominem attack, and was attempting to play advocate for what i understood to be some of their requests. i'll see what turns up, though i might be at it a little while. does it have to be the results of a scientific survey, or will a book review/essay suffice? Nateji77 10:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't care whose guesswork it is. Mark ¹ 05:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

so, will anything short of a scientific survey on a locally unnotable (and locally untranslated) book suffice? Nateji77 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that trying to ascertain Japanese attitudes to, as you say, a book which hardly anyone in the country has read, is pointless.

Most of your changes look fine: I cut down the bit about Mr Gibney- since Grey's view and Chang's view obviously differ, we can say so without quoting Gibney. I also took out the bit on the debate with the ambassador- I think we cover this in Iris Chang. In the position you wrote it, you seemed to imply some connection with the liberal attacks on the book, and I couldn't find a place where it really fitted. Mark ¹ 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(this is a reply, they're just starting to look over-indented)

yeah, the gibney line looked verbose to me, and i'd really just stuck the ambassador line in for the time being until i could find some direct quotes for what he'd said. i think at present it'll be more productive for me to find ways to back up "who is deeply respected in China and among overseas Chinese," which i think is a more or less fair claim, but one still being represented as a personal judgement and phrased so as to be hard to verify. even listing some of the prominent obituaries in chinese newspapers would help. though i think that would fit in better in the Iris Chang page--we could leave in "is deeply respected in China... (see Iris Chang)" rather than repeating supporting info in both places. i'm also going to remove the hanzi/kanji for her name from this page, as it's unnecesaary duplicate info that has been around since the 3rd revision.

it would be nice for balance to find a reference to what some critics w/o a history of professed political agendas (be it the ultranationalist right or the activist left) thought of the book, but you're right, it shouldnt be that large a priority, especially with other articles on the subject, as likely to run into pov trouble, yet to be written or needing expansion. Nateji77 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preface to debate and regarding Ambrose

The preface in the debate section,

"As to be expected from a subject of high sensitivity, Chang's book has provoked widespread response from readers and critics alike,"

unfairly biases that particular section by implying that high-emotion rather than reasoned criticisms are the primary motivations for Chang's critics. Furthermore, I must insist that mention of Ambrose contain some mention of his having been almost entirely discredited within the academic community after the revelations regarding his having used false or plagiarized material over the course of his career.

I've no particular objection to removing the preface, though I would take it to cover her supporters at least as much as her opponents. The Stephen Ambrose article does not seem to reflect your evaluation of him; you're entitled to your opinion of him, and it should be reflected in the Ambrose article, but it shouldn't be inserted here as unquestioned fact. Mark ¹ 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] post-WWII view

It seems to me that the post-WWII view that many historians take on the Rape of Nanking reflects the turning perspectives in the wake of American intervention and occupation, not to mention the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Rape of Nanking IS an important historical benchmark, but it is also important to remember that war crimes occurred on all sides. The point in debate on this topic is whether or not the massacres were in as large or as small numbers as hypothesized, and whether or not it was an organized effort. Yes, there was the imfamous Unit 731 that conducted human experiments, but the overall sentimentality of the incident was taken out of context of East Asian history. The treatment of the Han Chinese was just as harsh, though not in such numbers, by the Mongols. High and low estimates range from hundreds of thousands to a mere 20,000. Not to discount the tragedy, no doubt, but in a struggle that is based on occupation, the civilian population (which outnumbered the Japanese force by about 8 to 1) presented a large problem. However, if the executions, etc. were actually organized, planned, and officiated practices, then the appropriate demonization and chastisement has been paid (historically speaking). The pictures and documents have been interestingly interpreted, and while many may see Japanese or Chinese scholarship as unreliabe, it is crucial to respect professionalism--how often has American history been written by the winners? (Reccommended read, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, and John W. Dower, “The Bombed: Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in Japanese Memory,” in Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 116-142.) Overall, Japanese historical views on the war have focues more on the American atrocities from the atomic bomb, the occupation, and censorship. Recent Japanese scholarship, however, has introduced reflections upon Japanese military misconduct, such as in the surrounding islands under occupation. In general, the responsible historian leaves this matter to a positive view, not a normative one. The appropriate attitudes at the time, as well as the political, social, and military climates contributed to each event preceeding and following the nanking "incident." (no connotation intended)

[edit] Chang's telegram misatribution

Chang did not just make claim Japanese government of acknowledge of the massacre. In addtion, she clearly made claim that Japanese government acknowledged the death toll of 300,000 civilians. This is not clearly spelt out in the previous edit, therefore, this information cannot be redundant. Moreover, the claim of misatribution is not mentioned in previous version of the edit, therefore, this section cannot be redundant. Plus, I have clearly attributed the claim of misatribution to critics so it also clear NPOV hurdle. Chang's two "separate" claim is not redundant. Her critics's view that this is due to Chang's misatribution is not redundant. If one is more proChang, one could expand on Chang's side of claim but censoring the clarification of the debate as well as explanation of the other side of debate is against NPOV and not productive for wikipedia.FWBOarticle

I don't know which part of acknowledged the higher death toll you have trouble understanding, but that's really your problem. Mark ^{your words} 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If I write "Jew is evil (Hitler)", did I "acknowledge" Jew being evil, or did I merely quote (relay) Hitler's (hypothetical) comment? JGoverment's "acknowledgement" is Chang "POV" and many disagree on her POV. NPOV require that the controversy being clearly spelt out and different POV explained and attributed. Moreover, report of massacre by japanese militarly itself is well documented and are not disputed by historians. Chang did not stop there and made extra claim that Japanese government acknowledge 300,000 figure. She then, in turn, use this "fact" to claim that anyone who disputre 300,000 figures are revisionists. In Wikipedia, one is not supposed to push someone's POV as a fact. I have clearly indicate criticism of Chang's POV as a "criticims". So please stop trying to bias the presentation of the debate. FWBOarticle

The article says, "Chang cited this relayed telegraph as proof the Japanese government acknowledged the higher death toll". It makes it clear that this is her interpretation. The rest of your point is incoherent; if you can make sense of it, I'll try to respond. Mark ^{your words} 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And does that allow you to censor the original criticism of Chang making misatribution which Chang's is responding? And where does it make clear that her stance diverge with majority of scholastic consensus which agree on Japanese government acknowledgement of massacre but not of the deattolls. How are the readers suppose to make up their own mind about her "defence" when they don't know what she is responding to? You are deleting edit which clarify what the controversy is. Is "I did not have sexual relationship with that women" edit enough to allow Clinton advocate to censor mention of Monica or issue of differense between vaginal and oral intercourse? I have no problem for you presenting Chang's defence. Please stop deleting Chang's critics. FWBOarticle

What original criticism? Mark ^{your words} 10:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Regarding your revert, Henry Flower (please look at the surrounding text when making edits- coherent sentences and structure), you eliminated information without giving a reason. Yes, one sentence had incoherent sentence structure, but the other did not. You also eliminated an off page link. Do you mind justifying this revert as it comes across heavy handed. Loft3 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you to add coherent content. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, why expect others to? Henry ^Flower 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Instead of eliminating that content under the false pretense of "structure" (I.e. an external link that was perfectly alright), perhaps you could be a little more patient? Loft3 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again regarding this Henry Flower guy; perhaps you can give a reason as to why the fact that the book is filled with factual errors is not worth mentioning, when the rather more debatable photographs are? --Rmc 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost all books contain more or less trivial factual errors; the uncontested errors in the first edition are pretty trivial and do not merit mention in the lead. Henry ^Flower 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, the errors that the book contains are not quite so trivial that they can be dismissed so readily. Take a look at the stuff she made up about post-war Japan. It's not that having mistakes like those is any serious issue, but as it is now the paragraph makes it sound like it's a credible, scholarly book that just happens to include some controversial photos. Using wrong photos is really the least of the things that she did wrong. I'm not saying that she made up the atrocity or anything like that, but given the multitude of factual errors shouldn't it be clear that Iris Chang's work is not an academic resource at all? --Rmc 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'd suggest something like, "It is a work of popular history rather than the authoritative book on the subject". Henry ^Flower 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That's good. I'll chang the article then. --Rmc 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is a poor solution, and I've changed it. It sounds very much like a disclaimer about errors, which is Q.E.D. for the page. And it sounds absolutely un-encyclopedic.

More generally, the text as it currently stands does not seem to present the central thesis of the book, and the various discussion of factual inaccuracies, which obviously will be dynamic on this page for some time, do not mention whether or not they overwhelm that thesis. It is my very cursorsy understanding of the controversy that they do not. The book essentially presented to historical review (and especially to a Japanese audience) that atrocities X, Y, and Z had been committed. The rebuttal is that the atrocity X wasn't really so bad, and Y never happened, and Z is being mis-represented somewhat. That's all very important, but it doesn't undercut the thesis, and there is no way for the reader to appreciate that as is. Ethan Mitchell 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that everyone knows that the Nanking Massacre happened, so it's not much of a thesis. I mean you won't say that a book on the American Civil War has a thesis of A: the war happened, and B: the war ended, now would you? The rebuttal is not in fact a rebuttal, but a defense of what actually occurred, historically. That the central theme of her book did happen does not excuse the fact that it is full of errors. --Rmc 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Rape_of_Nanking_%28book%29_b84f.html"

Category: Wikipedia controversial topics

Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Protected Page

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

[edit] Criticism of Chang = Right Wing Denier?

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

[edit] I don't get it...

[edit] What's the hell going on here

[edit] Multiple sets of stats

[edit] How about...

[edit] Preface to debate and regarding Ambrose

[edit] post-WWII view

[edit] Chang's telegram misatribution

[edit] Revert

Views

Navigation

Search