Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Major Chinese figures during the Nanking Massacre

Did anyone notice how ridiculous those Japanese revisionist's approaches have been? I mean, there is an official death toll 60 years ago, and those people has just started the attempt to cut the number only since 1970s. Their main logic is like this: 1. There are 300k-500k people died around that time; 2. Only a small amount of them are documented as civilians or POWs; 3. The majority of the rest could be either soldiers or civilians or POWs, but no documented data to clarify on this 4. Therefore, only that small number of documented civilians should be counted. Any number other than that is CCP propanganda. If a Japanese historian gives me such a reasoning, I will deeply doubt his integrity as a researcher and motive as a human being, because that's not the way genuine research should be done. Historical research always needs to deal with incomplete data, and sometimes other information such as eye-witness, interviews, and authorative esitmates could also be used as evidence. The official number of death toll has been published long ago, and for a genuine historian, the only way to change that number is to FALSIFY it, because regarding the undocumented data, there is always uncertainty in it, and you could not use your own bias to replace the possible noise in an existing official estimate. In other words you could not say there are no 300k victims because you couldn't find enough documented data to prove the 300k number. Since the official number is estimated right afther the war when many witnesses and massacre participants still living, 300k is the most accurate number before you falsify it. For instance, if you could show some event considered by the official estimate did not happen at all, and that event has accounted for 10k killing, then 10k can be subtracted from 300k. Any thing other than that would be an insult to the word "historian".

Were there any major Chinese figures at all? It seems as if the only figures of note were foreign witnesses and a few Japanese generals, no prominent Chinese commanders or soldiers who were witnesses or fought, or lower-level Japanese soldiers. Teh Bomb Sophist 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean eyewitnesses right? Iris Chang's book has a few accounts from Japanese soldiers if memory serve. (Or is that another book?) The high-level Chinese commanders fled after the battle, not that there were many there in the first place. As for the soldiers, the ones who fled did, and those who didn't got killed. I do recall a few accounts from Chinese civilians but they're Chinese sources and I don't see English translations that often. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It just almost seems as if there were no Chinese heroes who were remembered in trying to stop the massacre, only foreign observers. I also wonder if there were any notable Japanese commanders/soldiers noted for either infamy in carrying out the massacre or for disobeying orders (if there were any) to carry it out. Teh Bomb Sophist 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Er, the Chinese were not in a position to save anyone, many of them not even themselves. It wasn't an "honourable" war by any stretch, it was total and devastating. Any Chinese who tried stopping the massacre would simply be massacred himself. As for the Japanese, only 4 of them were ever convicted in te Nanking War Crime Tribunal, and in the IMTFE, Matsui Iwane was the most infamous. Among the ones who "disobeyed orders", I don't know any, as the orders probably were not from a centralised command. There are however numerous journals, photos and other evidence taken by Japanese soldiers, some of whom surrendered them after the war to the IMTFE. There's also a bureaucrat called Ishii Itaro, IIRC, who complained numerous times to the Japanese High Command, but got told that it's not their problem. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
sorry i'm not quite informed on the proper way to respond in wikipedia. but my great-grandfather, hsu chuan-ying, who was a chinese citizen, helped operate the safe zone kept open by the nazis, and, needless to say, was a witness to the rape of nanking. also he testified against the japanese in the tokyo war trials. i know at the moment i don't have any articles to cite...when i look then up i will post them, but i believe they are only in chinese. the nanjing newspaper recently (as in within the past year or so) contacted my grandfather, hsu chuan-ying's son, for an interview. sorry again i don't have anything to cite, but i guess my point is that there ARE chinese people who have been remembered and commemorated as heroes on this event...it's just happened very slowly. (btw i'm not referring to the chinese victims who have been remembered and commemorated.)69.233.84.196 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Videos

the text refers to videos when it means home movies(amateur film footage). there were no vidoes at this time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.209.98 (talk • contribs) .

So? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
they're newsreels. And yes there were camcorders during wwii. BlueShirts 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems a trifle unlikely, as camcorders were invented in 1983.Furby100 21:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's apparent that he was referring to video cameras. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Status of the page

So what is the current status of the page?

The biggest sticking point seems to be photos. Has any consensus been reached on this?

Bathrobe 05:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Current status is protected. We are still waiting to see if and/or what are the objections. El_C 05:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
What he said. And I'm still haunting this page. Can't let the you-know-who take advantage of the situation. :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who the 'you-know-who' are. It seems that between attempts at whitewashing on the one side and "blackwashing" on the other, we should get be able to get some kind of neutrality :) Should Wikipedia have an article on the 'Nationalism and Ethnic Hatred in East Asia'? It would make a fascinating article!
Bathrobe 05:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Er, I think you didn't "get" my humour. Sorry if that's what I sounded like to you, it's not my intent... :) Anyway, suffice to say I am still watching this page but not as frequently as I should. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Voldemort?
Bathrobe 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 :p I think I should have used "they who shall not be named"! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
lol! I haven't been to this page before. so what's the controversy? is it how many ppl got killed, or what?--Sumple 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Er, I'm not exactly sure. We're still waiting for the people who deleted those photos to present their (hopefully coherent) case. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Still waiting. I, for one, with great trepidation. El_C 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody be kind enough to point a link to the deleted photos? I can't comment unless I see them. Is the authenticity of the images in doubt. If not, why should the truth be so unbearable. No matter how compelling the evidence are, there will always be those who deny that the incident ever occurred. Just as there are those who deny the holocaust ever took place. Far from Nanking in then Malaya, the Imperial Army would summarily execute suspects by beheadings. One of the favourite entertainment was filling a suspect with water until the stomach approached bursting point and then stepped upon until water expelled through the mouth, nose and ear. Most did not survive. Like all territories that were occupied by the Imperial Army, there were comfort women. Many memorials were erected in memory of murdered civilians. Even students were not spared and some memorials exist on school grounds. In Singapore, there is a large public memorial for a horrific massacre that took place there though not on the same scale as Nanking. I am sure other regions have their terrifying tales to tell. Apart from China, Korea has been most vocal. Their story deserves a separate article here. I am not relating all this in judgment about the Japanese character. In fact, most Japanese I have personally come across were among the most gentle and polite people one could meet. It is just that these incidents did occur as a result of some wicked individuals. It doesn't matter much if 300,000 or 100,000 were murdered. A Brigadier General, one star, is an officer in command of 5,000 men. The lowest count of 100,000 is 20 times over. That is a lot of deaths. And many of the murdered were women and children. To deny this is a great injustice to the dead. Remember the old adage, 'Those who forget history is doomed to repeat it.' (219.95.236.15 13:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)).

They're in the 2005 archive section and can be found in a link at the top of the page. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of discussions and you are in the thick of it. My gut feeling is that the arguments for the removal of the images are motivated by the strong effect it has on the viewer. A picture offers no excuse for the story it portrays. As the saying goes, A Picture Paints A Thousand Words. And these pictures are very graphic indeed. Where available, they should be included as they say so much more than words can describe them. Speaking of which, there is a photo from a linked site that shows a pile of mutilated babies. That one should be included. (Free Citizen 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)).

  • The problem here is that the phtographs are not necessarily false per se. Just that attribution are. I personally find it hard to believe that someone can safely take photos of major atrocities unless the person(s) is military personel assinged to take photo (who would obviously avoid taking such pictures) or westerners (who were confied to the safety zone). You might notice that, despite the large amount of testimonies from them, not a single photograph is so far attributed to any westerner who was residing in Nanking at that time indicating that such photographs by them probably don't exist. On the other hand, precisely because "the strong effect it has on the viewer", some photograph of Japanese atrocities in WWII was "diverted". I'm not making the case here that all photo are diverted and therefore, technically false. But some indeed were and I have seen enough case where its false attribution being outed to different source. If one is familiar with NM debate in Japan, one would notice that dispute is not about the photograph (of Japanese atrocities) itself but it attribution to nanking massacre. The burden of proof is always on the side asserting the existence of particular case. People who are pushing for inclusion of photo has so far beating around the bush. Please present the source of the photo. Where was the photo originally published? Who took it, when and where (in Nanking) the last and most importantly how. FWBOarticle
  • Which one? There were a few that were persistently removed. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Since I no longer has easy access to the publication regarding NM, I can't give you the catalogue of photo on this spot. You can google and find number of anti-NM site which highlight this issue but I don't really trust the source from there because they tend to strech the argument. But there are quite few instances in earlier period of the debate in Japan where books published by people from "Great Massacre" schools were forced to retract some phtographs in subsequent edition. The most resent case was the fallout between Iris Chang and the intented publisher of her RoN in Japan. Her book was using photos which was accepted by the both side of debate as fake or wrong attribution for more than a decade. You might want to pursue some of the source listeds in David Askew article which mention this issue. However, I can give you a simple demonstration of that the debate is matter of attribution. Look at the first photo of the front page. No one so far is claiming that this photo itself is fake. The photo demonstrate that there are "[h]eaps of dead bodies". This by itself doesn't prove that there was a "massacre" given that Nanjing was a combat zone in urban area. Given that the photo was taken by "Murase Moriyasu, of the 17th Motorized Company of the Supply and Transport Regiment", I'm quite certain that the author of photo has presented this as the photo of war "casualties". So pasting this photo in Nanking "Incident" page is kosher while in Nanking "Massacre" page isn't. That is why I stated that "who, when, where and how". I haven't take the photo out simply because I'm tired of nit picking. Still my point is that every photos ought to be sourced to it's original photographer or publication. This is a valid demand when the issue become the point of contention. Otherwise, we could be arguing forever. And yes, most of us are "google" researcher and can't be asked to do the hard work. So we are all wasting out time here until someone do the real work. FWBOarticle
  • Is there a link where I can see a discussion over whether or not graphic images should be shown in this article? For I personally object to the inclusion of such horrific pictures. Go to a concentration camp article. There's hardly anything to rival the sort of revulsion one faces at a picture on this particular article. Is there a discussion I could see? --WongFeiHung 20:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Nanjing Incident-Recent Research and Trends" by David Askew

I have quoted this article about 18 months ago in this page but somehow, the page has dissapeared. I have discovered that this article has recently gone up in google ranking and I believe it is very useful basis for the further debate of the article. Hope you enjoy reading this. FWBOarticle

It's in the 2004/5 archives. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at the Askew article. Of relevance to the question of photos is the following section:

"The most objective Chinese language materials are the collections of various primary sources, including the recollections of many of the Chinese military personnel in Nanjing. However, these collections show no evidence of any vigorous critical attempt to distinguish between valid primary materials and other materials: photographs, for instance, which are known to be fabricated, or from different areas and different times, continue to be used to "prove" Japanese guilt in the winter of 1937-38 at Nanjing."

The people who are saying, "Quick, get the photos up there, a picture is worth a thousand words! We know they did bad things, these pictures prove it" are simply falling victim to this kind of manipulation.

The Wikipedia article also has a box saying "Two Japanese sublieutenants, Toshiaki Mukai and Tuyoshi Noda said to be competing with each other to see who could kill one hundred Chinese first. The bold headline said, "Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighters Exceed Mark — Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105", complete with a photo of the newspaper article. Askew notes that "Wakabayashi, for instance, has recently published a paper on the competition between two Japanese officers to see who could first kill (decapitate) a hundred Chinese with their swords (Wakabayashi 2000). This competition has become a major part of the myth of Nanjing in both the English and Chinese language literature, but is clearly false." The Wikipedia article makes no mention of Wakabayashi's research and uncritically accepts the myth. (I have not myself checked out the Wakabayashi article).

The Wikipedia article seems to be as guilty as any of playing out the following scenario:

"Sadly for the historian..., the Nanjing Incident is not only an important episode in Sino-Japanese relations, but is also emerging as a fundamental keystone in the construction of the modern Chinese national identity. As a result, the historian's interest in and analysis of this event can be interpreted as an attack on the contemporary Chinese identity, while a refusal to accept the "orthodox" position on Nanjing can be construed as an attempt to deny the Chinese nation a legitimate voice in international society - or, in Iris Chang's words, as a "second rape". Moreover, any demonstrated interest in Nanjing can be viewed in some circles in Japan as "Japan bashing" (in the case of foreign researchers) or "self-flagellation" (in the case of Japanese). In this environment, the debate can become highly emotionally charged, and the historian's struggle to maintain objectivity can quickly fall victim to the demands of contemporary politics."

Bathrobe 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is really no reason why this person's research is more reliable than everyone else's, so it'd be silly to take his words for absolute truth. The parts you bolded are really just the claims, with no support present in the article itself. It would take more than that. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No more reliable than anyone else? Are we talking in a Rashomonesque fashion here? This man at least has done research and appears to have a reasonable grasp of the literature -- unlike some of our more vociferous contributors, I would suggest. He also seems to have a more balanced view, and a better basis for being able to reach a balanced view, than some. This alone gives him more credibility than, say, some of the activist websites posting Nanjing photos on the Internet, which some have quoted as 'authoritative sources'. That is not to say that his words are the absolute truth, as you point out. But his comments do form a useful starting point, and his summing up of the conflict among different competing parties seems to be pretty well borne out by the controversy that we are seeing on Wikipedia.

In fact, this article has been raised before and some people think he is biassed. This may or may not be true. For one, he appears to be mainly working in a Japanese environment, which may compromise his credentials. But the various competing parties he identifies (on both the Chinese and Japanese sides) are obviously going to be unsatisfied with anybody's attempts at balance. I, for one, am willing to attach more weight to what he says than those people who drop in and say, "Wow, these photos are gross! They've definitely got to go up".

As for the bolded claims, the second bolded section is backed up by a cited source, although, as I noted, I haven't actually checked the source. The first, about fabricated photos, is not backed up in the article although a brief mention is made later on. I also presume (although this would have to be confirmed -- obviously nothing can be assumed until it has been corroborated) that some mention of fabricated photos is found in the sources he lists.

Bathrobe 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty others who've done serious research, I hope you're not dismissing anyone in particular. As for "our more vociferous contributors", please see WP:NOR, they are not the ones who came up with the research. Most Wikipedia contributors are not professionals or experts in their field, so it might be a bit unrealistic to suggest that their level of expertise or familiarity be on par with someone with a published paper on hand.
And back to the source, I do not see any source confirming the second bolded claim, the Wakabayashi 2000 source that it mentioned it the very thing the bolded sentence is attacking... I don't see how it constitutes as a source supporting the claim. Maybe I've missed something? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rewriting the above section even as you were replying. And no, I'm not dismissing anyone in particular (although it seems significant that questions have been raised about the reliability of Chang, who may be an important source for some of our contributors). I am principally thinking of the fact that many people "contributing" here seem to have an axe to grind.

As for the Wakabayashi article, it was "Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi, 2000, "The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate: War Guilt Amid Fabricated Illusions", Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, Summer, pp. 307-40."

Askew says: "Wakabayashi, for instance, has recently published a paper on the competition between two Japanese officers to see who could first kill (decapitate) a hundred Chinese with their swords (Wakabayashi 2000). This competition has become a major part of the myth of Nanjing in both the English and Chinese language literature, but is clearly false."

I assume from the above that the Wakabayashi article proved that the myth was false. Or am I missing something? Bathrobe 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK from reading the article I was under the impression that the Wakabayashi persona was the one writing about the decapitation contest. I also get the feeling that people here all have an axe to grind, as you say. It's a sad but unavoidable fate of a emotionally and politically charged historical event. So until all can act as mature adults, no progress can be made on this page. So far, there has been none. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why is it "clearly false"? It's all good to quote out of Japanese or Japanese-sympathising sources that claim that everything is fabricated or a dirty Chinese conspiracy, but I have yet to see hard evidence of such fabrication or conspiracy. --Sumple 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with Miborovsky. Sumple's post is a good reason why the article should stay frozen. I can't claim to have read the Wakabayashi article. But has Sumple? If he hasn't, these throwaway claims that he has "yet to see hard evidence" etc. etc. are completely baseless. I mean, at least Askew has quoted a source. What has Sumple got except the predetermined attitude that "it's all very good to quote out of Japanese or Japanese-sympathising sources..."? Are we to assume that only sources sympathetic to Chinese claims are reliable? If that is the attitude of "contributors", we may as well scrub the article!

(Actually, in this case there is no question of Chinese fabrication because the newspaper article describing the gruesome contest appeared in a Japanese newspaper. I think it it symptomatic that Sumple has automatically and unthinkingly assumed that Wakabayashi has uncovered a "dirty Chinese conspiracy". That is why there can be no progress until people stop closing their minds.)

Bathrobe

It's a knee-jerk reaction that is found on both sides. Not that we can blame any of them. I personally don't. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

When I originally linked this page, it was like 6th page of google with another website. Plus my presentation in this page was totally ignored at that time. Thanks god that the thing has changed. The article has gone up in ranking (it is the first in "najing incident" google search) and, at least, some wikipedian are responding to this article. I don't say the "popularity" necessarily correspond to "authencity" but the tone of article is far superior to our article here. The article make suggestion as to how the debate should be conducted by two side. Hope it helped. FWBOarticle

Tone is far superior? Even Bathrobe has conceded that the article has a visible pro-Japanese slant since the author was working primarily with Japanese material. Furthermore, I did not detect a "how the debate should be conducted" section in that article. What exactly makes it superior? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No Bathrobe did not conced such thing. He merely pointed out that the author is working primarily on Japanese and English environment and this might compromise his credential from the eyes of outsider (such as yourself). The falut is entirely on your misreading of Bathrobe's writing. Secondly, as of superiority of tone, if you can't see it, then you can't. For those who can, it is obvious. I usually forward this article to anyone interested in NM or who has read Iris Chang's RoN. Almost all of them respond poistively and many who came to NM issue from Iris Chang said it was an eye opener. This article is steadily climing up google ranking. So the fact that you can't see it doesn't bother me. It's your loss. Still, two point he made is important. Nationalism and history should not be mixed. And Historical argument should be solely on the matter of evidence. The article presented four historical source, oral, burial records, Smyth's data sampling and Japanese army field report. Our entire debate could be based on these source instead of pulling numbers from whaterver source people find it to be politically acceptable. Also, he pointed out that the difference in death toll estimate is almost solely depended on the extent of geography, period and the definition of the term "massacre", which is what I introduced in this page more than a year ago. FWBOarticle

I do not consider the article to have a pro-Japanese slant. I feel that Askew is about as balanced a view as we are going to get. I merely pointed out that some have felt Askew might be pro-Japanese. His impatience with Chang (which some might find justified) and the use of Nanjing as a rallying point for Chinese nationalism show through quite clearly. However, I personally believe that the tone and content of Askew's article is far superior to that of Wikipedia. This is not to say that Askew is absolutely correct, but in my opinion it is far, far better than what we are getting on these pages. Bathrobe 04:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Pro-Japanese" and "having a pro-Japanese slant"... Is there a difference? Can an article by a partisan person stay completely neutral? If you feel that you can improve this article, feel free. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I said "some have felt Askew might be pro-Japanese"? I don't think there is a need to ride roughshod over nuances. Askew seems impatient with Chang and the use of Nanjing as a rallying point for Chinese nationalism. On neither of these is he necessarily wrong or biassed. In fact, my feeling is that Chang supporters and Chinese nationalists are precisely the ones who find Askew partisan. These people can hardly be called 'neutral'.

It seems to me that you disagree with Askew and want to find a reason to dismiss him as pro-Japanese. I will not put my name to that.

Bathrobe 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I have just scanned two pages of the Wakabayashi's article and put the image on the following link: [[1]] I hope this would be of your help. --Watanabe Hisashi 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you. But i have to say your scan is not sufficient demonstartion of proof that the entire incident was fake. It doesn't show what evidences were uncovered and on what basis 100headchop was "proved" to be false. Can you summerise the arguments in the paper? FWBOarticle
The scan is of only two pages. Neither of the two pages presents evidence for the notion that the "1,000 head-chop" was fabricated. What does emerge on those two pages is even more damning for the minimisers and deniers: (1) in the debate over the head-chop contest, the reality of the massacre was proven beyond doubt (if there ever was any doubt) and (2) the Japanese are alleged to have used poison gas in Nanjing. I think we need to see the whole article.
Bathrobe 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

protection?

ready to try unprot? Been 3 weeks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

No way. See preceding discussion. Bathrobe 07:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty: Talk to El C. My biggest fear is that once we unprotect this the same group that had been persistently reverting without discussion will continue to do so.
Bathrobe: Having an article locked up is quite Unwikipedian. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
(Sigh!) Yes, you are right. But as you say, "until all can act as mature adults, no progress can be made on this page." You seem understanding of knee-jerk reactions. I am less so. I tend to feel that these knee-jerk reactions only confirm that "the worst / Are full of passionate intensity". Their passion is beyond doubt, but my sympathy pales in the face of passionate but uninformed comments. However, if you want to support unprotecting the page, I'm not opposed.
Incidentally, I will admit that I feel the Chinese side is more disruptive than the Japanese on Wikipedia. Before you jump to conclusions, I think that this is simply because Chinese contributors are much more articulate in English than the Japanese! If more Japanese could write decent English, I shudder to think what kind of melee might ensue!
On the other hand, there would also be benefits. See the page on Yasukuni Shrine for the positive impact an articulate Japanese speaker can have. The previous article was pretty much tit-for-tat accusations by Chinese and niggling refutations by Japanese on every little point. It was totally unenlightening. Now Hajime Yoji has added a great deal of information on Japan's domestic debate which shows the complexities of the issue. It is now an article worth reading. The previous article was not.
Bathrobe 09:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Bathrobe, I have a serious problem with you saying my comments are "passionate and uninformed". Which part of my comment was passionate and uninformed? It was a passing comment about allegations of fabrication, how there tend not to be evidence of fabrication, only claims of such. I will admit that I have prejudices against the Japanese, but your repeated attacks on me were uncalled for. I've read your user page, and I don't think you're any more free of prejudices than I am. --Sumple 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sumple, I apologise if you feel I am attacking you. (In fact I have now deleted the reference to Sumple). I was mainly referring to the fact that your passion ("prejudices against the Japanese") led you to say that you were willing to reject evidence simply because it came from people you dislike. In this case, you seemed to assume that some Japanese sympathiser was trying to prove that there was a "dirty Chinese conspiracy". In fact the article about the killing conquest was from a Japanese newspaper, so nobody was claiming a "dirty Chinese consipiracy", at least not in this case! (Later addition: A Japanese newspaper published in Japan during the war. I presume that you have read the Wikipedia article on the Nanjing Massacre and are familiar with its comments.)
Your "passion" (as I referred to it, the line itself is from Yeats' poem The Second Coming) led you to make an inaccurate response -- 'uninformed' was overstating the case and I apologise for that. I was mainly holding your comment up as an example of what is happening on this topic. It seems that many (not just yourself) are quick to make similar trigger-quick responses without bothering to check what they are responding to. One remark leads to another and we end up with a flame war about... nothing at all!
Bathrobe 03:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
An article published by a Japanese paper is certainly not immune to being accused as part of a "dirty Chinese conspiracy". In fact, many Japanese researchers have been accused of, as you aptly put, "self-flagellation" in appeasement of the Chinese. In fact I can quote one right here:

... Watanabe Hisashi のコメントをあえて無視しています。これは中華系の論理で

Now I could at least catch the "中華系の論理" part. Chinese theory/thought/logic, dirty Chinese conspiracy, no? Didn't really care about the rest of the sentence. I assume it's unpleasant enough.
So there, there's more, but I don't know enough Japanese to go find more. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Miborovsky, if we are going to discuss this any further let's get our facts straight: The newspaper reporting the killing contest was published in Japan during the war. I have been to the Nanjing museum and have seen the copy and read the article myself. "Self-flagellation" by post-war Japanese (which was Askew's phrase, not mine) doesn't come into it.
The killing contest has become a gruesome little side story of the Nanjing massacre. What I understand Askew to be saying is that Bob Wakabayashi has done research showing that the killing contest was actually just a myth. Don't ask me, I haven't read Bob Wakabayashi's article.
It seems we are debating something here without even knowing what we are talking about!
As for the Japanese comment above, it says: "(I am) pointedly ignoring Watanabe Hisashi's comments. This is Chinese logic..." (中華is often used in Japanese in reference to 中華思想 or "Sinocentrism").
Bathrobe 04:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Published during the war? I think I know which article you're talking about. Fabricated? By whom? I can't imagine. The Chinese? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It was Sumple who thought people were claiming it to be fabricated. Askew said it was a myth and that it wasn't true. If we want to know how the myth came about or "was fabricated", or whatever, I suggest we all go and read the Wakabayashi article!
Bathrobe 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

You're making next to no sense. Askew said it was a myth and wasn't true. So according to him it had to be fabricated. People (eg Askew) are claiming it to be fabricated - that answers Sumple's questions. But by whom? Simple question, should be easy enough for you to answer. I don't read Japanese, so please stop telling me to read Japanese articles! (Or give an English translation.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, you are making no sense. The article by Bob Wakabayashi is in English. Remember? We cited it above: "The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate: War Guilt Amid Fabricated Illusions", Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, Summer, pp. 307-40. Or are we taking a Japanese surname and assuming it's a Japanese (or Japanese sympathiser)? Why do we keep making these unconscious assumptions?

As I said, I haven't read the article and I have no idea what Wakabayashi's research has uncovered. Was it fabricated? Maybe. Was it Japanese wartime propaganda to bolster morale on the home front? Maybe. Was it an overambitious reporter? I really don't know.

I would suggest that you don't impose your own conclusions on what people say. "People (eg Askew) are claiming it to be fabricated" is simply not true. Askew said that it has become a myth, and that it is clearly false. That may imply that it is a fabrication, but without reading the article, you are not entitled to put words in people's mouths.

Bathrobe 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation Bathrobe. My question is: What, if any, is the difference between "myth" and "fabrication" in this context? Clearly, we are not talking about "myth" in the sense of a creation myth or similar supernatural explanation of the unknown. What we are talking about is some version of a known historical event, which one party (Askew) is claiming to be a "myth", i.e. untrue.
Most importantly, the article cites with approval the research of Wakabayashi, the by-line of whose article is "War Guilt Amid Fabricated Illusions".
In any case, whether Askew claims a "fabrication" is not the main issue. My main concern is that Askew is an expert in Japanese studies and a member of a Japanese university (part time Australian lecturer), and Wakabayashi is, of course, Japanese. There is at least an appearance of the suspicion of bias in these sources. I suggest that we should approach the issue with caution and collect verifiable evidence from both sides of the argument.
That is to say, it is easy to dismiss Chinese sources as being politically motivated fabrications or nationalistic propaganda, but we should cast the same questioning eye towards Japanese sources, too.
Just adding one more thing: have a look at this book: Honda, Katsuichi, Nankin e no michi (The Nanjing massacre : a Japanese journalist confronts Japan's national shame), Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe, c1999. English version translated by Karen Sandness. Should be at your local academic library.
--Sumple 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, the article title does imply that the incident was fabricated.

If you read Askew's article, I think you will find that he notes huge variety on the Japanese side. Not all Japanese sources are to be regarded as inherently suspicious.

I also get the impression Wakabayashi may be Nisei -- but can't be sure.

In Japan Honda has a reputation of being left wing, which compromises him in the eyes of some. Just for your information. I trust you've read the entire Askew article.

Bathrobe

I'm not saying all Japanese sources are inherently suspicious. I'm saying a claim of fabrication that comes from a Japanese source, whether he's born in America or not, has at least the prima facie appearance of bias.
Second point - the way I understand Askew's argument wrt the killing contest, is that analysis of certain events need to be divorced from analysis of the entire episode, so that denial of one event is not treated as denial of the whole episode.
That's all well and good, but I think the best way to settle this argument is to look up the Wakabayashi article and see what evidence he puts forward. I haven't done so. Would you be able to access it Bathrobe?
As to left wing and compromise - I have read the Askew article, thank you very much, and I don't believe he is entirely neutral. As I said, as an American in Japan, it is easy for him to dismiss Chinese research as biased or Communist propaganda. This line is trotted out so often to dismiss any Chinese viewpoint that it's nauseating. He believes that salvation for Nanjing massacre research in China is through relying "on the English publishing World". Quite a patronising comment.
While his point is valid, and much Chinese research does parrot the party line on this sensitive topic, I feel he does not pay sufficient regard to Chinese primary source material, such as eyewitness accounts.
Anyway, Bob Wakabayashi is a professor at York University in Canada. The quality of his writing does suggest a nisei background.
Adding one more thing: Bathrobe, you argue that claims of Askew as partisan should be dismissed because they come from Chinese nationalists or pro-China groups. If we follow that line of reasoning, your claim that these claims should be dismissed should itself be dismissed because you have stated views that the Chinese view of Japan is "irrational", thus disqualifying yourself as a neutral adjudicator.
--Sumple 22:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I believe that many Chinese nationalists are irrational. I also believe that quite a few Japanese right-wingers are even more irrational than most Chinese nationalists. The stuff that some Japanese have posted here would sound even worse if they could write coherent English. (In fact Chinese nationalists and Japanese extreme nationalists have a lot in common with each other. That's just by the by.) So I've expressed a view on both sides. I'm sure that disqualifies me from being a "neutral adjudicator", which is fine. I'm not asking you or anyone to be 'neutral', I'm asking people to stop jumping the gun and assuming, without checking what was said, that "Wakabayashi is some Japanese guy who is trying to prove, without hard evidence, that the Nanjing massacre was a dirty Chinese fabrication". I give you credit for going and checking this out further.
I don't have access to the Wakabayashi article. I'm currently living in Macau and I'm not sure how I would even go about looking for it, especially with Lunar New Year coming up.
As for "dirty Chinese fabrications", your demand for hard evidence is reasonable. However, in principle I don't think it strange that material would be fabricated for propaganda purposes, especially in a wartime situation. In this respect, I find quite amusing the indignant tone on this page [2] that a photo used by Iris Chang to show "Comfort Women Being Rounded Up" was originally a Japanese photo of "A Wartime Refuge: The Rising Sun Flag Village in Jiangnan". The guy is basically complaining, "Hey, they've twisted our propaganda photo!"
Twisting of photographic evidence is not new and is not confined to wartime. You may be familiar with this site [3], which I have posted before, showing that some photos of Chinese being raped in Indonesia during ethnic riots were actually fake. I have no idea who did this and for what motive, but the photos certainly helped stir up anger and indignation in China. They also damaged the credibility of people who claimed that such rapes actually took place.
Bathrobe 01:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't quite like that comment. I believe an apology is in order. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
It was just a gentle dig, Miborovsky. And also true, you yourself must admit. But if you want an apology, I will give it. (Later note: I have now eliminated the personal attack on Miborovsky)
Bathrobe 03:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No I don't think it's true. I do not believe that I am at fault for information that you failed to disclose. I don't think I was supposed to know that "Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi, 2000, "The Nanking 100-Man Killing Contest Debate: War Guilt Amid Fabricated Illusions", Journal of Japanese Studies, vol. 26, no. 2, Summer, pp. 307-40" is an English article. After all, if it is a Japanese article and you gave the reference in Japanese, it'd not make any sense to us would it? Therefore, I logically assumed it to be in Japanese. Furthermore, I am under no obligation to check out every source provided, you as the one quoting the source should be kind enough to quote relevant sections. When I questioned whether Askew believes that the contest was fabricated, you beat around the bush by offering somewhat lame excuses that (paraphrased) "He didn't explicitly say it was fabricated", when he stated in his article that it is a myth, and his unilateral source about that is an article regarding "Fabricated Illusions", and then turned around to niggardly accuse me... Nay, I don't think it's true. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Come on Miborovsky! A suggestion was made by someone to check out the Askew article. I did so, and gave several quotes from that article relating to photographs and the newspaper article. You responded time and time again without (it seems) having a proper look at the Askew article or even familiarising yourself with the content of the Wikipedia article itself. You can't blame other people for that.
Bathrobe 06:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you retract that. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


OK, while I still feel that responses to comments concerning links to other sites/articles should be made after properly checking out the link, it seems that I should have included more material in the quote to ensure that it was intelligible to readers without visiting the link. My regrets to Miborovsky if my failure to do so led to confusion.
The full quote should have been:
"A third trend is the increasing interest shown in the debate by Western academics who are aware of and well-versed in both the Japanese-language and Chinese-language literature. The work edited by Joshua Fogel is perhaps the best example of this, but others such as Timothy Brook and Bob Wakabayashi are also doing highly original research that is bound to change general perceptions of Nanjing in the West. Wakabayashi, for instance, has recently published a paper on the competition between two Japanese officers to see who could first kill (decapitate) a hundred Chinese with their swords (Wakabayashi 2000). This competition has become a major part of the myth of Nanjing in both the English and Chinese language literature, but is clearly false. Wakabayashi's paper is the best piece of academic research on this competition in any language, and demonstrates the advantages of having professional historians outside Japan research and publish on Nanjing."
This would have made it clear that Wakabayashi was writing in English.
Bathrobe 08:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, not every research published in China is a communist propaganda. But every paper published in China will come out of Communist veting/propaganda process. So it will stink no matter what the integrity of the researchers are. Equating Japan and China simply because of the existence of nationalist in both side is to miss the point. In China (or in Germany), there is no open debate. As of personal testimonies, such evidence is accorded lowest level of credibility in any field of historical research. The existence of atrocities debate ended two decades ago in Japan because enough military report was discovered in archive. As of Askew, his credibility does not depend on his non japanese status or his professorship in Japan. In his paper, He elevated the debate at the higher level by stating that difference of estimate boils down to geographical, periodical, legal and semantic definition of "Nanking Massacre". More importantly, he clearly identified 4 existing archival sources which the death estimate can and should be based. Anyone who BS the number outside this textual evidence will eventually be outed as fraud. His tone is superior because he forwarded argument/evidence which can be easily falsfied if someone fake it. My suggestion for the section of death toll is to exclude any reference of number which does not included detailed exposition of these evidences, probably except War Crime Tribunal for the sake of historical record. If someone want to stick to 3000000 line for the sake of 3000000, it's his loss. FWBOarticle

Sorry, no open debate in Germany? Do you mean because of extreme sensitivity towards anti-Semitism?
Bathrobe 09:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In germany and austria, Holocaust denial is a criminal offense so publically stating 5.8 mil is BS wouldn't be legally kosher. Had the similar law existed in Japan, someone here can tip IPS provider and most of Japanese contributors of this page will probably be cautioned by police and ruin any possibility of future career in public. There is a similar case in Korea where a high school kid was sued for libel and lost for having website cussing Empress Myeongseong who is dead for more than 100 years . The fact that there are more Japanese in here who is "more irrational than Chinese nationalist" is the reason the articles like Askew's can be found in the internet. FWBOarticle
Guys, let's not get sidetracked too much here. The main point is not whether Chinese research is biased or Japanese ultra-nationalists are more or less extreme than Chinese ones.
Let's first settle the point of whether Wakabayashi's accusation that the Man-killing contest was fake stands up, shall we?
If I have time I'll go dig up the journal on Monday. I'll report back then.
I don't like FWOBarticle's view that (1) Askew's arguments are perfect and anyone who contradicts him will be "outed" [sic], and (2) that therefore Askew is entitled to adopt a condescending tone towards Chinese (and to a lesser extent, Japanese) research.
Finally, no offence meant, but FWOBarticle's arguments (including criticism of Germany's outlawing of holocaust denial) seems to me like a defence of holocaust denial - a bit revisionist.
Anyway, I'll go dig up the Wakabayashi article. --Sumple 03:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not say Askew's arguments is perfect. I said that his argument that debate sould be based on evidences (4 collection) is valid. And yes, any argument/research which contradicts or not based on archval evidences should be outed. If you can make reference to any other collection of evidence, then please do so. One methodology which is often used is differential population estimate. However, this method is considered more problematic and are not regarded as "primary".
Consequently, I believe the 100 head chop should stay at this point. No one is disputing the existence of newspaper article. And newspaper article is an archival evidence though it's authenticity is just notch above personal testimony. The fake argument must be that the newspaper faked or misreported the incident as a war propaganda. In that case, the burden of proof is on the fake side. Since most lie are half truth, my guess is that some military record might exist about this incident which significantly differs from the newspaper reporting. Until someone present such reference, 100 head chop should stay. And I don't want to hear "It's Japanese (Chinese) research so it must be fake!". The argument should be based solely on the evidence such research present. Then of course, based on another evidence, the research can be subsequently outed as fake in return. But that is the beauty of historical (evidence based) research process.

The argument that anyone who argue for the freedome of speech being defacto neo-Nazi, which I'm not, or pornographer, which I occasionally enjoy (^_^), is a classic example of name calling by association. It is precisely because holocaust denial law would invite such argument that the law is so wrong. FWBOarticle

The 100-nin-giri decapitation contest was only a side story. However, it is frequently used to boost the emotional impact of the massacre, in a similar way to the photos. Even if it was a myth or fabrication, this doesn't really affect the total significance of the Nanjing massacre.
I am looking forward to Sumple's report on the Wakabayashi article. Bathrobe
  • If the historiography (in the world) generally agrees with the Chinese and disagrees with the ultra-right, Japanese historical revisionist version, than this article will reflect that. El_C 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem that continues to distort this entire discussion. It is not a choice between the "Chinese version" and the "ultra-right, Japanese historical revisionist version". It is ridiculous to suggest that we must choose between 300,000 dead and zero dead. No one has ever suggested that -- except perhaps the die-hard Chinese nationalists, who take the view that you either accept 300,000, or you are a dirty revisionist and a Japanese sympathiser. When are we going to get over this fanatical interpretation of the issue? The value of the Askew article is that it tries to achieve some kind of balance based on a clear analysis of the issues and an appeal to factual evidence. But somehow, we keep getting derailed. Bathrobe 16:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem, actually, are the baseless accusations of "fanatical interpretation" which you direct toward myself. Please refrain from that. El_C 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Baseless? In what sense can forcing a choice between "the Chinese version" on the one hand and "the ultra-right Japanese revisionist version" on the other be considered a reasonable approach? You may not like my use of words, but the problem definitely lies with this "either one or the other" approach, not with criticism of that approach.
Bathrobe 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

John Magee Disambiguation Correction

When possible, the link for John Magee should be fixed to refer to John Magee (Reverend), as the former is a disambiguation page, which previously didn't include the proper person. Additionally, John Magee (Reverend) is only a stub; additional input would be good. Thanks. DAllen\talk 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. El_C 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch" attribution

I have found the original source for the photo from a Japanese site which deal with this issue. It is this. The caption state the location to be Hsuchow. It is a different city of the same province Jiangsu. Now, I think I have a legitimate case by stating that attributing massacre which happened in Dallas as Huston Massacre is NPOV violation, unless the name of the massacre is switched to Texas Massacre. So this photo have to go elsewhere relating to Sino Japanese war. And for "it's from Japanese source so it must be false!!" people, if such logic is applied, you can't post it either because "it's anti Japanese so it must be false!!". Please provide evidence to back up counter fake claim and I'm happy to be corrected. Secondly, this is why no photographs should be allowed unless it's source (who, when, where how and what) is identified. I shouldn't have been the one who did this work. Plus, this page is not about Nanking "Incident" but Nanking "Massacre", which means that the photo of war casualties ain't kosher. It have to be photo of (civilian) massacre in Nanking or surrouding area. Which means it have to be something like implaed or bayonetted bodies of women or children. Last thing I should add is that no academic/historical arguments for the existence of massacre is based on photos so those pro-massacre people should stop obsessing about photos. Once, enough fake/misattributed/miscaptioned photos accumulate, I will create "Nanking Massacre Propaganda" section. Remember, even if something is true, hype it up too much and it won't be true anymore. FWBOarticle

Just for the record, the photographer-unknown, publisher "China Weekly Review" 1938, oct 22, Location-Hsuchow, Time-1938 between June1 to Oct22. I expect every photographs to have this level of source attribution. Otherwise, we get this. Undenialble, indeed.
This is like saying the bombing of Buckingham Palace does not count in the London Blitz because the palace is in the City of Westminster, not the City of London. It's part of the same historical episode!
As to Nanjing "Incident" as opposed to Nanjing "Massacre", I don't see what the distinction is. The two terms appear to be synonymous, varying only by the groups who use them. "Incident" is usually preferred by revisionist sources (i.e. right-wing Japanese sources), because it connotes trivialisation; "Massacre" is often preferred by Chinese sources, because it is more inflammatory. Neutral sources tend to use "massacre" more often than "incident".
(edited Sumple 02:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC))
--Sumple 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy does not work. Buckingham Palace is a part of Greater London. Academic historian will not includ bombing of cities outside greater London in the estimate death toll of "London Bliz". They will include it in the estimate death toll of German Bombing of British cities. And Greater Nanjing definition exists in the form of "Nanjing Special Municipality", which consisted of the walled city and its neighboring six counties. Huschow is not part of this definition. Moreover, both War Crime Tribunal did not use this "Greater Nanjing" definition so this definition is categorically not a part of atrocities which can be traced to the definition given by War Crime Court. Still, Greater Nanjing, I consider to be a valid part of Najing Massacre debate. But yours isn't one. I can make an argument that this is a part of spindoctoring (propaganda) of Chinese government. But such non historical issue should be debated in separate section. FWBOarticle
I can point where we are heading if we accept your "episode" definition. As the page I sourced the photo states, atrocities by Japanese army went on for the entire Sino Japanese war. So with your "episode" definition, NM can be expanded forever by establishing the "contiunity" of episode. Congratulation, you suceeded in opening the possibility that deathtoll estimate of Nanking Massacre can be as hight as 6,000,000[4], which is only limited by the amount of bullshit PC concious public are willing to swallow. But wait a min, shouldn't we include everyone who were massacred or be damed for "dishonouring" the memory of dead. Aren't we guilty of "second rape"? Shouldn't we include those who were killed by the Nationalists? Aren't we biased because we are swallowing Chinese "government" spindoctoring that Japan is the only perpatorator of "Asian Holocaust". Congrat, the possible max number for "existential" defnition of NM is now 16,000,000. "Continuality", "dishonouring", "Asian Holocaust", "second rape" or "political correctness" are all philosophical arguments not historical one. Are we going to have a debate over what is or what is not historical method now? If that is the case, the page would remain locked forever. FWBOarticle
As of "Massacre" v.s "Incident", the reason is because definition of "Massacre" is somewhat existential one. People who were killed by Japanese army include, soldiers killed in combat, soldiers who were executed "during" combat (legal, under international law if correct procedure is followed), soldiers who were executed "after" combat (again legal depending on procedure), soldiers who were executed after combat while "hiding within civilian" (act which violate the conduct of war because it endanger civilians), civilian who were "mistakenly" killed as part of "enemy combatant" purge, which can be considered legal (but probably not moral) due to the violation of chinese side, civilian who were killed by caught on cross fire (again legal and should be attributed to both side), and civilian who were killed because of Japanese soldiers just did it for fun of it (which is violation of even japanese military law). All of above "number" and "category" issue is question of fact. Whether which category should be included within "massacre" depends on semantic, legal, moral and philosophical definition. Using the word "incident" allow one to acknwolege that "something" happened while remain neutarl to this existential debate. The word "incident" is used in Japan by both side of academic debate except those (now almost extinct) type who insist even Nanking Incident didn't happen. And the supposedly "neutral" source, such as academic historians within English speaking world actually use quotation marks on "massacre" when they refer to this existential debate. Some actually avoid the issue entirely by avoiding the use of both "nanking incident" and "nanking massacre" unless it is referential. That is why photos of dead body (in Nanking) isn't kosher on the page titled "nanking massacre" while it is kosher in "nanking incident" page. The fault is entirely on Chniese side for elevating the debate to existential from historical one. Also, it is another example of how Political Correctness poison the proper academic debate (in English speaking world). I should also mention that, in Japan, this convention is applied to Tienanmen Massacre/Incident, acknowleging that at least one group (chinese communist) dispute that "massacre" took place. So the use of the word "incident" in Japan cannot be taken as a denial spindoctoring. In fact, making such implication is spindoctoring. FWBOarticle

Death toll

  • Spence, The Search for Modern China: 42,000
  • Gilbert: >200,000 civilians and 90,000 POWs
  • Dict.Wars: 200,000
  • Rummel: 200,000
  • P. Johnson: 200-300,000
  • Palmowski, Dictionary of 20th Century World History: "perhaps as many as" 400,000
  • Liu Fang-chu: 430,000
  • James Yin & Shi Young: 400,000
  • Sun Zhaiwei: 377,400 corpses disposed of
  • Wu Tien-wei: 340,000
  • District Court of Nanking: 300,000
  • International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000
  • Fujiwara Akira: 200,000
  • John Rabe: 50-60,000
  • Hata Ikuhiko: 38-42,000
[Median: 260,000]

El_C 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your work is a shining example of referential research based on google. This list was posted before. Problem with this method is that it has no way to determine the quality of each research. Your let-take-average approach is awful. One side or another can produce whatever number by siting copious number of clappy reseach. Why not cite 10, 50 or 100 japanese guys saying there was no massacre and include in median. The average will easily drop to less than 1000. Any reseach can be accused of anti/pro Japanese/Chinese bias. One side or another will resort to edit/delet/revert war and we will soon see this page back to protected status. My case still stand. Without clarifiying these number in relationship to actual evidences and the definition of "nanking massacre", none of the above "research" is useful. "Who said what (number)" is so yesterday. Let move on. FWBOarticle
Don't be so quick to assume telepathic powers on your part, User:FWBOarticle, that list is well known enough, "shining example of referential research based on google" notwithstanding. Feel free to publish an article on a peer review publication. Observe WP:NOR. El_C 18:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
FWOBarticle, for some reason, I don't think you or I, or most people here on Wikipedia, are as qualified as the people quoted in that list above. You're welcome to prove me wrong, of course. If you are not an academic specialising in World War II history, then perhaps you should defer to those who are?
In reply to your post in the section above - I wish you would stop swearing. I don't feel inclined to have a serious discussion with somebody who swears every second paragraph.
I take your point that Xuzhou is some distance away from Nanjing. Nevertheless, we do not even have conclusive evidence that the photo was taken at Xuzhou, or that it referred to the ten thousand corpse ditch, whether in Nanjing or not.
I stand by my viewpoint that it is in the same historical episode - that is, mass killings in the aftermath of the fall of Nanjing.
On the promised Wakabayashi article - sorry for the delay. will get it today.
--Sumple 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
It isn't pertinent whether he is or isn't a specialist on this subject, he still must fairly depict the historiographical consensus. El_C 07:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my use of the word BS. Most people are not offended by this word especially if it is not directed to particular wikipedian but I'm in clear technical violation of wikipedia guideline so I have no excuse. Secondly, I hold a master degree in economic history specialising in pre modern european financial history (though it was quite long time ago). No, I did not specialised in military history of WWII (though I'm somewhat versed in interwar gold standard and my supervisor was a specialist in economic history of Nazi Germany) but I believe I'm qualified to state what is or what is not a valid historical methdology. Of course, It is perfectly possible that I may be lying about my credential so you can judge my statement on its merit or go and ask a university history student. Lastly, what you are doing is not even historiography. In historiography, each research must be explained in term of historical archive. Though my knowledge is limited, I would say no serious academic paper on histography would pick collection of estimates and calculate average. Look at Askew's paper. He attributed different research to different definition of massacre and of nanking as well as treatment of four different archival souces. FWBOarticle

The point is that the historiography leads (also) to estimates which pertain to figures. El_C 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people has little knowledge of how the academic history is conducted, thinking that it is like history programe on TV. To demonstrate what is or what is not academic history, I usually ask, "when the world war I started?" most can say "1914" then my question is "how do you know it is 1914?". Then they say "I read it in my history text book". I tell them that is not good enough for academic history. Undergraudate history students are at least expected to produce microfilm of newspapers around August 1914. Post grad is expected to cite official government source such as parlimentary (or royal) proclamation. Any phD student specialing in this field are expected to provide internal governement documents chronicling the sequence of event that led to war. Specialist might be expected to know the exac troop movement, or daily schedule of relevant government officals and also capable to point out where each record exist in archive. This is why someone like me whose Engrish is poor can get a degree in history. It is not about narrative ability, it is about one's ability to discover and analyse evidences (just like in science).

I believe we are discussing how we can get out from protected status mess. Tell me. When I introduced an edit that state the death toll estimate to depend on geographical, periodical, legal and semantic definition of "nanking" "massacre", did you not feel more informed? When Askew's paper identified four archival evidences, did you not want to know more about what each evidences state? I already raised the leve of debate to definition of "Naking" and of Massacre" and currently available evidences. Why do some people insist that we revert to lower standard? If a photo attributed to London Blits in a academic paper turn out to be a bombing of, say, Cambridge, such discovery would prompt immediate retraction. The person did not check its source and his sloppiness was outed. No academic would humiliate oneself further by saying "it is part of the same episode". You say "we do not even have conclusive evidence that the photo was taken at Xuzhou, or that it referred to the ten thousand corpse ditch, whether in Nanjing or not." Yes, that may be arguably ture. But if you don't know where the photo was taken then how can you then assert that "it is in the same historical episode"? May I point out something which you completely grossed over? From the photo itself, we can't tell who the soldier is. We can't even tell if the guy is a oriental? What would stop me from saying that it is a chinese (or even british) soldier looking at the mass burial of their own commrade. You jumped to the conclusion because you are so caught up in a massacre mentality. I should add that no valid historical study adovocating the massacre would use that photo even as a "proof" of japanese massacre in Hsuchow just by itself. The photo only show that one unidentified person is looking at lot of dead bodies. To go from this to Japanese massacre in Huschow, historian have to identify the person who took it, verified that he was at Huschow at the aftermass of Battle of Huschow, then "independently" verfied that civilians massacre took place, then authenticated that photo was attributed by the publisher or (preferably) the photographer to be of Japanese soliders looking at dead chinese civilians. So strictly speaing, this photo doesn'e belong to any Japanese atrocities page as a "proof". This is why academic researchers rarely use photo as a proof though, unfortunately, some academic (especially of WWII speciality) going for lucartive publishing carrer do so, which usually get no credit in accredited paper. Photograph, despite what people think, tell very little. And I repeat my point. For the photo to go up, we need who-where-when-what-how of such photo which directly connect it to "Nanking" "Massacre", or we will keep reverting to protected status. FWBOarticle

I'm more interested in an agreement on where the scholarly consensus leans. Afterwards, we can move on to less simplistic ventures. El_C 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no scholary "conseusus" because each scholar employ different definition of Nanking and of massacre. Plus it often the case that some scholar employ particular evidence which they can get to their "desired" number. How many times do I have to tell you that consensus does not equal median of estimated number. For example, 400,000 estimate appear to be from the same source or methodology. My guess is that they utilise differential population estimate. In that case, I may argue that counting the same evidence or methodology is not kosher. I could then in turn argue that median should be for each group, i.e. (400,000 + 300,000 +200,000 +100,000 + 0) = 200,000 hey, I reduced your estimate in single stroke. Obviously this won't take us anywhere. FWBOarticle
I apologise for doubting your credentials FWOBarticle, but what I was trying to say is that Wikipedia is not the Journal of Oriental History (made up name). That is to say, it is not the palce for original historical research.
This is why I believe your standard that any photo uploaded requires who-where-when-what-how is a bit too strct. What percentage of historical photos or drawings on Wikipedia can satisfy that requirement? I submit that if it is commonly associated with an event (e.g. Nanjing massacre), I believe it should go up, until credible evidence establishes it to be otherwise.
Likewise, it is not our role to doubt the validity of photos which are commonly associated with an event. I agree that the photo is not "proof". But it is an illustration of what is discussed in the article.
So I guess the question for us, regarding the photo, is (1) do we accept the contention that the photo was taken in Xuzhou (not Nanjing), and (2) whether a photo which (it is claimed) illustrates Japanese atrocities in Xuzhou, which is two counties away from Nanjing city, is sufficiently related to the Nanjing Massacre to be in this article?
I believe that (1), yes, it was more likely taken in Xuzhou than not, and (2), yes, because the geographical distance is not very great, the time is very contemporaneous, and the fact that it was originally published to accompany an article about the fall of Nanjing and its aftermath, are persuasive factors towards its inclusion. --Sumple 09:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
You didn't really doubt my credential because it was never mentioned before. No offens was taken and no need to apologise. Plus, it is not helpful for someone to swing around his CV to win argument. Afterall, my Engrish is hardly scholary. I'm just here to enjoy good debate.
As your argument that I'm raising standard above wikipedia requirement, I'm merely pointing out that wikipedia's minimum requirement is not sufficent consensus to prevent edit/revert/delet war in this page. So I'm suggesting that we should somewhat raise the standard so to find middle ground. Please do not think that I'm asking people to go out and look for original archive. However, any proper academic book or paper would always list the source of "how, when, what where" of photo so my requirement is merely asking people to source their photos to scholary research, not unreasonable request even under wikipedia policy.
As of Xuzhou phto, I have thought over a bit. I realise that we are in Catch 22 situation. If the photo goes up, then it is endorsement of "episode" argument. If the photo comes down, then it is endorsement of "geographical" argument. So either way, we are violating NPOV. My suggestion is that photo can go up in the section which specifically advocate and explain "episode" perspective. For what I understand, Chinese research include death toll from seige of Shanghai, as well as employing population differentiation in deathtoll estimation which produce large number. As long as photo or +300,000 is attributed clearly to this perspective, I think it is totally kosher. FWBOarticle

Attempt at Consensus

  • May I suggest something which I hope everyone agree. EL C's list can go up, provided no median is used. Since median is original research there shouldn't be an objection here. Similarly, number indicated by War Crime Tribunals should be stated. However, we don't say "consensus among scholars is *********". Given the divergence of number, it is obvious that we don't have consensus of number, definition of nanking, definition of massacre and which or what is valid source of archive. Asserting the existence of academic consensus is not NPOV. FWBOarticle
That list is just a step toward consensus, as we did with the figures for Ottoman Armenian casualties. El_C 02:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Divergence of number is not just result of fake and genuine reseach. It reflect different definition of nanking and of massacre as well as difference in sources. So I don't think so called "consensus" is appropriate here. In Turkish Armenian case, all of victims are civilians which make it slightly easy. Plus, the dispute there is more about the complicity of the ottoman state. So comparison is not that useful. As I said, I have no problem of this list or the number in War crime Tribunal being referred. It will be categorised latter when we explain the different methodology employed. On the other hand, your consensus=median is a original research. FWBOarticle
It's an illustration of where a successful solution was implemented to a controversial death toll. Also, it's not my median, the author adds it. I think pertinent currents should be identified with a certain range rather than listing names somewhat arbitrarily, but that also, identfying how predominant/prominent each methodology/range is, is key. El_C 08:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, then the guy is clearly dumb. Let see what you are asking. One say 0, the other say 10000, so we get 5000. Is this fair? What if one guy give 0 number because he think no chinese soldiers should be included in massacre and the other say 10000 because she think all chinese soldiers should be included in massacre. So we add and devided by two. We get a "consensus" where half of chinese soldiers killed were massacred while the other half of chinese soldiers were legitimately killed. Your argument is only valid when we didn't know the disagreement over the status of killing of chinese soldiers. We are already aware of different causes of attribution, so what you are trying to do is in violation of NPOV. FWBOarticle
Well, then the guy is clearly dumb. I believe it's Professor Ying-shih Yü, but that isn't the point. Yes, whether soliders are included in the account and why that is, is pertinent. El_C 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you stop being so unreasonably hostile? Find out what a median is before ranting. Just a hint: It's not the mean. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 16:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Would you stop being so unreasonably illogical? (^^) It is wrong whether it is median or mean because the content of various estimate deathtolls (ED) are different. ED1 (all civilians and Soldiers killed in Nanking City and suburbs), ED2 (all civilians and Soldiers killed within Nanking Special Municipality), ED3 (all civilian killed in the Safety Zone), ED4 (all civilains killed and POW executed within Nanking Special Municipality)... and so on. To borrow an example from your wiki link, if one guy brought 5 dollars, another guy 100 yuan, another guy 10 pound monopoly note, what is a median or mean? To calculate mean or median from these numbers is incorrect because these shouldn't be treated as equivelant. To present such mathematical result as "consensus" is not NPOV because these estimate represent different consensus of what ED ought to be. FWBOarticle
I support listing different opinions, but not 20 different numbers. I think the best method would be to work out "Many historians argue that the number is ...; On the other hand, other historians, using ..., argue that the number is ..." and restrict it to two or three main groups of views. --Sumple 11:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
How about this. War Crime Tribunal list number at 260,000 based on the estimate arrived from oral and burial record. Some scholar use expanded definition of Nanking or Nanking "episode", streching it as far back as seige of Shanghai to arrive at higher number ranging between 300,000 to 400,000. On the other hand, those historian using japanese military record or survey taken by Smyth arrive at smaller number ranging between 100,000 to 200,000. Some scholars who take narrower definition of "massacre" will arrive at even lower number. Capice? FWBOarticle
Yes, it's a start. El_C 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's the kind of thing I mean... But I don't like the reference to "expanded definition of Nanking or Nanking "episode", streching it ..." because it implies comparison (expanded vs normal) and stretching implies manipulation. I propose "Immediately after the war, the Far East War Crimes Tribunal put the number of victims at 260,000 based on oral and burial records. Historians using Chinese primary sources put the numbers killed in Nanjing and surrounds at 300,000 to 400,000. 300,000 is the number endorsed by the Chinese government. Other historians, using Japanese militray record or Smyth's survey (?? who is Smyth pls??) put the figure at 100,000 to 200,000. Some scholars take narrower definitions of "massacre" and argue for an even lower number." --Sumple 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I think at this point, "using Chinese primary sources" is a bit of problem. We don't know what 300,000 and 400,000 is based on. It could be based on the same burial and oral evidence used in the trial but applying different geographical or periodical definition to get higher estimate (which is what I read), or they indeed discover new evidence (I'm guessing it may be differential population estimate) which we don't know so we can't say at this point. If you don't like "steching" and "expanded", how about, "Some scholar use different geographical or periodical definition of Nanking Massacre to arrive at higher number ranging between 300,000 to 400,000." which parallel "some scholars take narrower definition of "massacre". Capice? As of Smythe, "L. S. C. Smythe (1938), War Damage in the Nanking Area: December 1937 to March 1938. Smythe was an academic and sociologist, and conducted an extensive survey of Nanjing in early 1938 in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese atrocities. He was well qualified to conduct such a survey, having received his PhD in sociology from the University of Chicago, and with experience in conducting at least two similar surveys in 1931 and 1932. Smythe's survey was conducted in two areas: within the city walls of Nanjing and in the surrounding rural areas." It's in Askew paper. FWBOarticle
I don't know why you think the 300K-400K figure came about through an expanded definition of either massacre or nanjing. I seem to remember that the 300K figure is from primary sources and records (burial records, population estimates, etc). I don't know about the 400K figure. That seems to be a little exaggerated.
As for the median debate - many sources (encyclopaedic, not academic) do use it as a summary statistic when there are varying estimates. So I think it's legtimiate for us to use the median. REMEMBER wikipedia is an encylopaedia not an academic journal.
Most western sources say 200-300k. So I think we could say "200-300K", but "... as many as 400k", or "... as few as 100K", where the "..." represents a description of those camps. --Sumple 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • We then explain issue relating to definition of geography, period, semantic, and legal matters as well as utilisation of different historical sources by different historians. I originally said four evidence but it appear that Chinese source use differential population estimate so I'm happy to accept fifth one. FWBOarticle
  • As of photos, I still believe that any photo should have "who,when,where,what,how". This is not impossbily difficult request. Any proper academic research would list such information, so this requirement allow one to weed out some dodgey photo getting into this page. Of course, you can use photo from non academic source provided who/when/what/where/how is provided. If photo has any attribution issue as seen by above huschow debate, then photo should be properly attributed to appropriate perspective (and section) with clear explanation. FWBOarticle
Can we agree on the following. The first photo, "Heap of Body", can stay because it is properly sourced but it have to appear in the section relating to "Battle of Nanking" section created separate from "Japanese atrocities" section. "A woman brutally raped and killed" photo have to come down because it isn't sourced. However, if it is sourced to Nanking Massacre, then it will come up. "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch" photo can stay but move to episode perspective,i.e. +300,000. The title also have to be recaptioned to Huschow. The photo cann't be "Ten Thougsand Corpse Ditch" in Nanking. If we all agree, then I think we can apply for removal of protected status.FWBOarticle

Historical revisionism?

When I see these arguments about numbers of people killed, it makes me wonder. What is the real motive of those that argue the number is substantially lower than the official estimate of 200K to 300K killed? I don't believe that they are searching for truth or aruguing about the technicalities of the estimates. One analogy: most people including myself never doubt that six million Jews were murdered in Holocaust, not once did I have to question about where the number come from. From what I know, most, if not all, of those that do question the number are historical revisionists, racists, Nazi apologists, or people too fascinated with cool uniforms and weapons that Nazis carried (which is true, believe me). So, to those that argue about existence of the Nanking Massacre and/or the numbers murdered, are you a historical revisionist or an anime fan in disguise of searching for the truth? 171.65.66.207 01:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. Also, would it make any difference to extracting an official apology from the Japanese government if the death toll was 30, 3000, 30,000 or 300,000? 70.52.144.185 03:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Well let just take a notice of the fact that the number of massacre estimated in International Military Tribunal of the Far East: 260,000 and 100,000 in the death sentence against General Matsui Iwane. This estimate is based on burial records and oral evidence. I don't know why they came up with two numbers. The actual transcript of the trial is helpful here. Then 300,000 is the offical Communist Government line and few Chinese scholars come up with 400,000 but unfortunately, the number is the only thing which is going around. What is this 400,000 based on? "What is the real motive of those that argue the number is substantially" higher "than the official estimate of" 100K to 260K "killed"? It is more helpful and meaningful to look deeper, examining different arguments and evidences, then present it here. The readers could then make up their own mind. FWBOarticle

DID YOU SEE THAT! Did you see that! FWBOarticle you just proved my point! I specifically asked why you are so obsessed with the numbers, and your real motive behind it. I suspect that you might be a revisionist and/or apologist (I don't bother to check all of your edits, but I get the idea). Instead, you brought out the usual "there-are-many-versions-of-this-history-and-let-the-readers-decide" crap/defense. I don't believe that you are searching for the truth. Because for all I care, it is equally likely that more people are killed than 300K, since the number you mentioned were from burial records, but did all corpse got buried? You didn't question that. Neverthless, you and all other suspected apologists will have to get these straight:

1. There are different numbers, but some numbers are obviously whitewashed numbers. Do you really think that the massacre was less evil if the number were reduced from 300K to 250K? And do you really think that the atrocity was more evil when the numbered increased from 250K to 300K? Regarding teh second question, the answer is no. That answers your question about motive. But what about your motive, you still haven't answered me. A Japanese atrocity is a atrocity, don't whitewash it, learn from it.

2. Wikipedia is the main portal of knowledge for a lot of people. Therefore it has a RESPONSIBILITY to society. It is not a dump for any statistics.

3. Therefore, you don't just put any number you want and say that the numbers are still very disputed, and let the readers decide. Instead, some statistics are more right/wrong than others, and the article will have to mention it. I think I am being rational so far, don't you agree? 171.65.66.8 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like the "let people decide" crap. The 300K estimate has existed way before the communists came to power. It's the same number as in Taiwan. So please don't label it as "communist propaganda." BlueShirts 20:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There are obviously motives on both sides. We all assume that the Japanese are "guilty as charged" and anything said by a Japanese is apologism, revisionism, or denial. That makes it difficult for anyone to say anything, especially if they are Japanese.

But there seems to be a matching motive on the Chinese side, too, and not just the Communists: to squeeze as much guilt and anti-Japanese sentiment as possible out of the massacre. The best way to do this is emphasise its horror, including the figures for the numbers killed.

I don't think this is a very productive approach. As you said, the massacre was no less evil if the number were reduced from 300K to 250K. So why dismiss attempts to arrive at a reasonable factual basis for the claims? That is all that FWBOarticle is trying to do. I didn't notice that he is trying to deny the massacre or minimise the figures, he is merely trying to come to a realistic figure that is neither minimised nor maximised. Bathrobe 01:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So you don't think Japanese (WWII military, not all Japanese) were guilty as charged? Are there any Germans who weren't apologists when they try to downplay or distort the Holocaust? I believe it is clear to evaluate and compare the Japanese atrocities as that of Nazis, so I don't understand why there are people who think that we should treat all arguments equally and present them equally, especially when some arguments are insidious in character.
Regarding motives, as I have said before, making 250K to 300K won't exact more hate. In contrast, trying to downplay both the invasion and the atrocities by the Japanese will create more tension, if not hate. An analogy will make this clear: if German government put that 7 instead of 6 million Jews were murdered, will that create more hate for the Nazis? Not likely. However, if the German government starts to downplay or distort facts about the Holocaust, will that create tension between governments and peoples? The answer is a clear YES. So I don't believe the motives on what you so-called "Chinese side" are what you described.
As I have said before, Wikipedia is not a dump for statistics, and it is a source of knowledge for laymen. Therefore, we need to emphasize which numbers are more likely, and which are just outright whitewashing garbage.
On a side note, FWBOarticle didn't even answer about his motives. Instead, he starts to question the motives of "the Chinese side." I guess that pretty much tells you if he has any ulterior motives in disguise of impartiality or if he is an apologist right away.

171.65.67.80 02:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for the PRC, but on the ROC government on Taiwan has never instigated anti-japanese hate and they also believed the number to be 250-300K. So brushing off higher numbers as PRC propaganda is really pushing the limit. BlueShirts 03:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of username, I assume 171 is new to wikipedia. It help if one familiaise with wikipedia before swinging the torch of justice around wikipedia pages. 171 already violated several wikipedia policies and etiquettes including name calling (of serious kind), not assuming good faith, using talk page like an internet forum (which is what this section has become) and a bit of CAP screaming. But more importantly, it would help if one read NPOV. Attributing different numbers and its justification in term of evidences and arguments is exactly what NPOV is about. My analogy is to point out the futility of flaming on the basis of Japanese bias (which you already mentioned) and Chinese bias (including Taiwan given that it was Nationalist army in Nanking). If you believe that 300,000 or 400,000 is the right number instead of say 260,000, please give justification for it in term of archival evidences. To justify "accepted" estimates in term of acceptance is circular logic. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia. FWBOarticle 04:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

171.65.67.80, you, too, seem not a little obsessed about the numbers. What you are saying is: "These are the figures; they are accurate beyond any doubt; and if you disagree with them you are a historical revisionist, an apologist, or an anime fan". By the way, have you read the Askew article referred to above? Or have you simply weighed in without checking what went before?
Bathrobe 07:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is not one instance where I adovocated the view that killing of civilians did not took place. However, I believe that such view (now a day, almost non existence) should not be censored provided proper attribution is made. I believe this is consistent with NPOV policy of this site. That is why your "you are revisionist" or "you are apologist" isn't helpful here. Plus it is violation of Wikipedia etiquette. If you want to see one of the worst demonstration of the consequence of this line of argument, you might want to go to the front page, click the wiki link about mohammed cartoon then go to talk section Just make sure you have fast internet connection. (^^) FWBOarticle 08:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This may be of interest to some. [[5]]. Temporary account 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but does it really matter exactly how many people there are dead? People died and in possibly one of the most brutal situations ever. It's a crime that so many were killed for a crusade. As they say "One death is a tragedy, A thousand deaths is a statistic." I wish people would start treating every death as a tragedy, because from what I'm hearing, it doesn't seem like it. And let's face it, the communist aren't exactly "clean" either but at the moment, we're debating the past.

And about the jews, so many people learn that fact at such a young age, that they don't question it and by the time they grow up, they probably don't think about it any more. The Rape of Nanqing is an ignored topic that is rarely ever taught in schools until they reach high education in the western world, if ever. Some people call it the Asian Holocaust for a reason

The blatant racism that most of you are showing in regards to the numbers is ridiculous. Of course getting the numbers correct is important.

There is a correct number some 50 years ago: 250-300k is a internationally recognized official figure, not a PRC communist propaganda. Some Japanese revisionists' approach is extremely ridiculous. Japanese people admitted the official death toll 50 years ago, now they attempted to cut it dow just because "there no reliable archivals", "all Chinese sources are biased", blah,blah. This is just bullshit. Using that logic, your Japanese revisionists can wait another 50 years until all witnesses are dead and all "reliable archivals" are buried in history, then at that time, maybe you can claim only "300" are killed because that's the only statistics in Western records...and maybe 100 later, there is no massacre at all, because all direct records are missing and history books are results of propaganda so do not count...

I'm not saying getting the numbers isn't important, just that people ought to treat it as more of each person who died could be a unborn child or 70 year old women speared through with a bayonet. That's what sucks about Western history: they don't care about anyone but the westerners and both China and Japan are definitly going to be biast and nobody who who cares will do anything about it, so we loose stats! Geez, maybe a public apology would be better for the Japanese government.

Actual Transcript of War Crime Tribunal Needed

I was always being puzzeled by two number quoated in International Military Tribunal of the Far East, 260,000 in one instance and 100,000 in the death sentence against General Matsui Iwane. Now, something I read elsewhere stated that Chinese estimate of +300,000 include all chinese (soldiers and civilians) killed starting from the fall of Shanghai. Does the number 260,000 refer to total death tall while 100,000 refer to the estimate of illegal killing (massacre) certified by the Tribunal? Does anyone have acess to the transcript or any internet site which explain the difference of the quoted numbers? This would make disambiguation process much easier. FWBOarticle

I dunno if its eurocentrism or what, but a WorldLII search turned up nothing. This page contains exerpts from the judgments. I skim read it, and it seems that the figures are obtained by adding up the various figures in the judgments. It seems to me, however, that the non-combatant deaths add up to more than 26K. But as I didn't read very carefully I could be wrong.
The actual judgment is published in: The Tokyo Judgment: The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) 29 April 1946 - 12 November 1948. Edited by B. V. A. Röling and C. F. Rüter. Amsterdam: University Press Amsterdam, 1977. --Sumple 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "This orgy of crime started with the capture of the City on the 13th December 1937 and did not cease until early in February 1938. In this period of six or seven weeks thousands of women were raped, upwards of 100,000 people were killed and untold property was stolen and burned. At the height of these dreadful happenings, on 17 December, MATSUI made a triumphal entry into the City and remained there from five to seven days."

Obviously, adding up numbers and multiplying statistical sample to obtain estimate would produce different numberical result. Or it could be difference between total deathtoll (civilian+soldiers) and civilian only deathtoll. It is amazing that no one so far explored the reason for the difference given that War Crime Tribunal ought to be the starting place. FWBOarticle

Found it.

  • Over 30,000 such prisoners of war were so killed. There was not even a pretence of trial of these prisoners so massacred. Estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000. That these estimates are not exaggerated is borne out by the fact that burial societies and other organizations counted more than 155,000 bodies which they buried. They also reported that most of those were bound with their hands tied behind their backs.

It is slightly confusing. Does this mean 100,000 civilians massacred + 30,000 POW executed + +100,000 soldiers killed in combat. I think this math would fit into 155,000 (100,000 civilians+30,000 POW) bodies most of which were bound with their hands tied. Can we agree this as proper disambiguation of War Crime Tribunal. The reader of wikipedia can decided whether + 100,000 killed in combat ought to be included in massacre or not. We only need to give proper attribution as indicated by Wikipedia NPOV policy FWBOarticle

Sorry, I think I misread it. 30,000 refers to soldiers killed immediately after the battle of nanking. +100,000 may be refering to soldiers killed during enemy combatant purge. I'm a bit confused here. FWBOarticle

Deathtoll estimate accord

  • I'm creating a separate section from "attempt at consensus" section. It appear that there is no objection to my second proporition about disambiguation about the definition of nanking massacre and archival evidences. As of my third proposition about photo, am I right in guessing that some are bit unhappy but hasn't raise any strong objection because it is probably the only way to prevent revert war. I'm quite sure some will be unhappy for the opposite reason especially the inclusion of Huschow photo. If some delete photo, then at least we can resort to our interpretation of NPOV in regard to this matter. I think we are nearing the end of the tunnel here. So let discuss whether median (or consensus) ought to be presented in the front page. FWBOarticle

Am I right in guessing that major contention is about mentioning the deathtoll in the intro of the frong page? The current edit is. "More than 300,000 Chinese civilians had been killed." Those research which simply pick median 200k-300k are done by people with little understanding of historical methodology, an example being Professor Ying-shih Yü, an expert in the history of Chinese philosophy. But my main objection is that it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Unlike other encyrcopedias which are written by experts, Wikipedia does not pretend that neutral view exist. However, it insist strongly that different views are sourced with appropriate attribution. This approach is essential in wikipedia which is edited by large number of google researchers. Median is just a covert way to violate this policy. Plus, we already know enough to do proper work of disambiguation here. I see no reason why we should lower ourself to this "consensus" approach which has been the cause of so much flaming inside and outside of wikipedia. My middle of the way proposal is to simply present the numbers presented in War Crime Tribunal. This is certainly kosher from NPOV. Let just make sure that we don't insert edit such as "this number is generally "agreed" by most historians". FWBOarticle

Quoting the death toll from the War Crimes Tribunal seems kosher to me. We might consider adding other official estimates (eg. PRC's) so as to avoid others from complaining. There should also be discussion as to the nature of the controversy surrounding the death toll estimates (eg. timeframe, geographic extent). From my perspective, after reading about the subject, the real death toll cannot (and will not) ever be ascertained. There simply are no accurate numbers. Finally, I feel that regardless of the numbers killed, the the fact that the massacre took place cannot be disputed - civilians (and soldiers) were slaughtered, women were raped, property was thoroughly looted, and a large part of the city destroyed by arson. This important point must be made in the article. Cybergoth 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The other point of contention of course is the inclusion or exclusion of photographs. Cybergoth 23:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Question of whether the massacre itself took place or not ended in Japan 1n 70s. Virtually no group even among japanese right wing take zero massacre line so the existence of massacre should be presented as a fact. On the other hand, arson is blamed for Nationalist's scorched earth tactics but I believe murder and rape is the main point.
Again, it is not ascertainable who caused the arson. - Cybergoth 20:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This is a fault of my writing. I meant that one side blame nationalist for arson. But no one blame nationalist for rape and murder. And no one would think that fire which may have been caused by nationalist resulted in civilian death. Pardon my mistake. So being bit ambiguous about who caused arson isn't the main point of dispute and shouldn't cause edit war if the wording is right. FWBOarticle
Thank-you for clarifying. I agree, this can be worded well. - Cybergoth 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The death toll section (at least the first paragraph) needs to be rewritten. Because to a layman the first impression he gets is that the numbers are confusing and there is no concensus. I am afraid that he might get the wrong idea of not trusting any numbers or that he might mistakenly trust more "revisionist" numbers or deny the incident outright. Even though there is no concensus at a certain number, there is a general agreed number (or range, you decide). I think we need to mention that in the first paragraph. Here is my suggested outline for first paragraph, or introduction to the deathtoll:

1. Say how many or number range of civilians and soldiers (in battle in Defense of Nanking and as POW afterwards).

2. Then say due to method of accounting and various backgrounds, there is debate.

3. But the concensus death toll range is...etc.

I think this is better because I think the present form is very confusing in presentation. All other sections about the death toll look ok so far. But I have to comment on the last section:

1. What is the difference between "modern" historians and others? Any implications?

2. It says that depending on geography...etc, numbers range from 40K to 300K. That's a ten times difference. I don't think depending "solely" on geographical and time duration of the killings the numbers will be that different. If it turns out that 40k comes from a revisionist historian or political group, I think we need to delete it or at least mention it. Can somebody look into this?

171.65.66.218 03:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I believe the 260k figure from the war crimes tribunal (if it does say that - that seems to be the iris chang reading of the judgements. both FWOBarticle and I seem to be getting different figures - but no matter) - is probably the most authoritative and I think it should be going up in the lead. with attribution to war crimes tribunal of course.
in the section about different figures, i think the main POVs that deserve mentioning are: 1. chinese govt line of 300k, 2. japanese/third party sources of 100-200k.
the 400k line or the 40k (or anythign less than 100k) seems to me to be tenuous and probably too biased for inclusion. --Sumple 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
171 should really need to read NPOV policy. It appear that the argument that the median being a covert way to violate NPOV policy is lost to him. The point of presenting the figures in war crime tribunals is that it is a matter of historical record so it is kosher to present the number without getting involved with the debate over what is "the most authoritative" figure, something which is causing so much flame in the past. Secondly, I really don't fancy the idea of presenting Chinese 300k and Japanese 100k-200k at least in the intro. It's fine in the Deathtoll estimate section of course. The main reason being that if we put this two number, we have no valid argument to refuse someone insisting that 50k or even less should be up there as long as it comes with proper attribution. It bloat the intro. We could mention that deathtoll is a source of controversy but I believe people who are more inclined to 300K=consensus would object to "implicaton" that 300k or 260k may not be the correct figure. Let stick to what is part of historical record at least in intro. I believe disambiguation can be done in the separate section. Ideally, we should actually quote the actual transcript of the trials. We don't really want to get into flame war "WCT say 260k was massacred." "No, it didn't, it only say 260k are killed" "Yes, it did." kind of debate. When we have the actual quote, we can apply for the removal of protected status. FWBOarticle

Of course I read the NPOV already, you don't have to remind me. What I am saying is that when a layman is reading about Rape of Nanking, he will want to find the deathtoll (same for all other atrocities or any other battles). But the deathtoll section is not organized well, to the point that I believe some readers are going to be misled. That's why I said that we need to put a reasonable range of number (from the tribunal) in the first paragraph of death toll section. Personally, I don't have any problem putting range number from 200k to 300k. I also suggest that we move debates about definitions such as massacre away from the intro. Also, I don't believe that we will be powerless if someone insists that 50k or even less should be up there as long as it comes with proper attribution because according to NPOV, wikipedia says this (copied direct quote)--

Giving "equal validity"
But wait. I find the optimism about science vs. pseudo-science to be baseless. History has shown that pseudo-science can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudo-science use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.
Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

So even if that low number (or high) has proper source, it is still possible to invalidate or at least caution the readers. That's why I say that in that last section of death toll, if the 40k number is sourced from political group or any group with apparaent political motive, we should remove that number or at least say so.

Temporary account 06:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC) (171 now has an temporary account)

FWOBarticle: what I meant was 260K in the intro, 300k/200K in the "death toll (dispute)" section. --Sumple 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This article may be of interest to contributors: http://www.guardian.co.uk/japan/story/0,7369,804391,00.html 'Japanese rewrite Guardian history'. It makes some reference to the question of numbers. Bathrobe 03:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, a lack of username is an indication of a newbie. My apology. Anyway, I'm glad that we appear to be reaching a consensus about the intro. As of Timperley, I know it well, His telegraph was misattributed by Iris Chang to a Japanese official to assert that Japanese official knew the extent of the massacre which fitted her deathtoll estimate. Rabe, who led the actual rescue effor and stayed there way longer than Timperley (who left immediately) put the figure at 50-60,000, which would now be considered as denial figure. Still, this my dad (i.e. figure) is better than your dad debate is futile. Japanese median (according to Askew) is about 100k-200k, western median is 200k-300k and Chinese median is 300k-400k. So whichever figure we pick we are biased. If "the deathtoll section is not organized well" (i.e. inadequate attribution and explanation), then we need to organise the deathtoll section. If we make enough clarification and attribution, there is no need to present authoritative/consensus figure which in my view is a violation of NPOV. Sticking to strict attribution protocol is the only way to avoid edit war. However, I'm happy to put chinese 300k and 400k attribution/clarification first. It appear that these two figure are based on the same methodology in War Crime Tribunal while those who present different (lower) figures are based on different archival source. FWBOarticle

I think it'd be ridiculous to put Chinese median at 300-400K. The number is almost always 300K, not 400K. BlueShirts 06:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah 400K seems to be coming from ultra-nationalist researchers, who may be putting out big numbers just to be famous, or somehting. Anyway, 260K in the opening, 300K first, then 100-200K in the explanation of death toll estimates. all agree? --Sumple 10:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, fine by me. I just read the excerpt of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

  • "This orgy of crime started with the capture of the City on the 13th December 1937 and did not cease until early in February 1938. In this period of six or seven weeks thousands of women were raped, upwards of 100,000 people were killed and untold property was stolen and burned."
  • "According to another witness Chinese were hunted like rabbits, everyone seen to move was shot. At least 12,000 non-combatant Chinese men, women and children met their deaths in these indiscriminate killings during the first two or three days of the Japanese occupation of the city."
  • "Practically the same situation existed in all the communities within 200 li (about 66 miles) of Nanking. The population had fled into the countryside in an attempt to escape from the Japanese soldiers. In places they had grouped themselves into fugitive camps. The Japanese captured many of these camps and visited upon the fugitives treatment similar to that accorded the inhabitants of Nanking. Of the civilians who had fled Nanking over 57,000 were overtaken and interned. These were starved and tortured in captivity until a large number died. Many of the survivors were killed by machine gun fire and by bayoneting. Large parties of Chinese soldiers laid down their arms and surrendered outside Nanking; within 72 hours after their surrender they were killed in groups by machine gun fire along the bank of the Yangtze River. Over 30,000 such prisoners of war were so killed. There was not even a pretence of trial of these prisoners so massacred. Estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000."

The second quote is bit problematic because it merely refers to a testimony. First and the third is actual judgement from the court so it should be o.k. I did "find" on my mozilla but I couldn't come up with 260,000. Basically, upward do 100,000 civilian were killed in the city and +200,000 civilians and POW wree killed in 66 miles radius (which loosely correspond with Nanking Special Municipality). I'm not so sure what to do with 300,000 which is based on the death toll reckoned at the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal. Some might say it is more biased. Because it is a reference to historical record, I don't have a problem with inclusion in intro provided that actual transcript is quoted. Should we apply for removal of protected status? FWBOarticle

Vote to apply for removal of protected status

Please record your vote for removal of protected status. - Cybergoth 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Unprotect - I think we editors have come to a workable consensus regarding the deathtoll. The issue of photos, I think, can still be worked out. - Cybergoth 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unprotect - Let see if our consensus can withstand the coming onslaught. (^_^) FWBOarticle 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Protect - I think it's better that before we make any changes, we discuss here, then ask for admin to make the changes on the main page. I don't know if that's feasible or not. Right now the article, although far from perfect, looks ok. I think once it's unprotected, there will be an edit war from both sides. BTW, temporary account is my name :) Temporary account 23:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Protect - agree with the dude with the temporary account. if we allow free edits there will be too many issues to keep track of. we're better off doing them one by one -> deathtoll first, then pics, etc. --Sumple 23:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Protect - same reason as above. BlueShirts 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having pages permanently protected is UnWikipedian. On the other hand, unprotection at the moment is unlikely to result in any tangible improvements to this article. On a third hand, Votes are evil. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! (forgot to sign)
Actually you know I think the article as it stands is pretty good. I don't really see how what we're debating on this page can improve it. --Sumple (Talk) 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Protect - There are not "too many issues". The two issues at present are the numbers and the photos. Temporary Account's comment on an edit war from "both sides" is telling, however. The issue is still polarised and I think we should wait for the "other side" (^_^) to feel comfortable before unprotecting. Bathrobe 01:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unprotect. It has been protected too long. Thus, it has now been unprotected by an admin. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected status - Issues

It looks like the vote is to keep the protected status. I think making proposed changes here first is not a bad idea. We could make a temporary subpage and post proposed versions there. - Cybergoth 02:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. I guess we reach some sort of vague concensus on deathtoll and photo. I think general policy of photo attribution shouldn't be a problem anymore. As of deathtoll, we probably need to work out finer detail. Another suggestion is that most edit war can be "contained" if we have appropriate section for it. If you say something like "concensus of death toll is 300K" in the intro section, then, bang, instant edit war. One of my suggestion is to create "Battle of Nanking", which should remain edit free. As of Japanese atrocities section, there is no dispute on both sides that the atrocities took place. Only problem I can find in the atrocities sections is that some description of Japanese atrocities are not sourced (preferably to War Crime Tribunal or testimonies from foreing resident such as Rabe). Once that happen, NPOV/attribution can be used as a defence for any edit/delete attack. This leave us just Deathtoll estimates. FWBOarticle 09:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the photo policy is fully ironed out. I still think your proposed criteria are too stringent and inconsistent with general Wikipedia policy. Also, to ask every single sentence to be sourced is just nit-picking. Wikipedia is not a legal judgement. Even judgements do not cite every sentence.
Reminder: only a revisionist would try to cast doubt on every claim, in the hope that this would somehow invalidate the whole issue. --Sumple 10:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
"Reminder: only a revisionist would try to cast doubt on every claim, in the hope that this would somehow invalidate the whole issue." This seems a rather dubious approach to me. What you seem to be saying is that if you doubt the "established view" you are ipso facto wrong.Bathrobe 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K. let solve the photo problem first. This is a small fish compared to deathtoll. So we all accept that photo is a major cause of edit war. What is your proposed rule for neutrality? Let not forget that, in wikipedia, NPOV, i.e. proper attribution, is the only way to avoid edit war. If we don't know the source of photos, how are we to properly attributte photo? Let remember that ten thousand corpse ditch photo is already outed as false attribution precisely for this reason. My proposal is this. If you put out photo, get reference. However when you do, state the source of the photo stated in your reference at the same time. Not a difficult request in my view. What is your alternative. FWBOarticle 15:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that FWBOarticle. I think "Source" just has to include the publication (if it is previously published) or creator (if it hasn't been)? E.g. with the historical photos on this page they need to be attributed to the magazine, newspaper, or book that the image came from? I think in terms of acceptable sources, we should rule out personal (i.e. non-academic or government) websites.
--Sumple 22:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I think only academic or government criteria is too harsh. Example being prenceton uni gallery of Japanese war time atrocity which lots of photos are sourced. Given the complete lack of source citation in photo gallery, it is obviousl that the site wasn't done by academics. However, if they cited the source, I think it is perfectly o.k. to post photo from that site. "Legitimate" reference, be it magazine, article, book or website, should be simply about whether it can site the original source, which provide (possible) future refutability/falsibility. 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like there are 3 issues now:

  1. dealth toll
    • Vague consensus: 200,000 - 300,000 based on War Crimes Tribunal and PRC estimates. Notes on the controversies.
  2. photos
    • Photos should have good attribution where possible.
  3. atrocities/war crimes
    • I think if they were described in the war crimes tribunal, or by eyewitnesses, then that is good enough attribution.

- Cybergoth 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I think we need to not label it as PRC estimates. Those were estimated before the PRC came to power. Taiwan also says it's 300K. BlueShirts 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good point. I forgot about that - I think you said it earlier. - Cybergoth 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wakabayashi on First to Kill A Hundred Men Contest

Hi all, you might remember a while back the discussion came up about the reliability of the story about the contest between two Japanese officers to kill a hundred men (using a samurai sword, in some versions) during and after the attack on Nanjing. There was an article by Bob Wakabayashi which was mentioned in relation to this incident. Askew (see above) seemed to think that this paper was the best piece of research in the area.

Well, I looked it up a while back and haven't had the time to report what it says. Basically, Wakabayashi analyses the debate of this incident in Japan, and analysed the claims of both sides. Basically, these are the issues:

(1) Fact: the original newspaper article that talked about the "contest" said that it was a contest to kill enemy soldiers *in combat*. The report seemed to have been based on interviews with the two officers concerned.

(2) Fact: the two officers were arraigned in Tokyo for war crimes, where it was determined that a prima facie case of Class A war crime did not exist. They were then extradicted to Nanjing, where they were found guilty of Class B war crimes for killing about 250 Chinese non-combatants.

(3) Clearly there is a discrepancy between the report and the judgement. There are three alternative views as to how this discrepancy play out:

(a) the view held by the officers' relatives is that the original newspaper article was literally true, that they honourably chopped dead 100 Chinese soldiers each, in combat.
(b) the view held by atrocity/war-guilt camp amateur historians such as Honda is that it was really an atrocity. Some argue that the newspaper article was distorted in order to get past the censors.
(c) the view held by minimalist/revisionist [terms used by Wakabayashi] amateur historians was that the whole story was fabricated, either by the two officers themselves, as macho boasting, or by the newspaper as war propaganda.

(4) Wakabayashi analysed the sources and claims to argue that there is insufficient evidence to judge that the two men committed an atrocity. He thought that the story was most likely exaggerated by the men or the newspaper, as boasting or as propaganda.

In terms of the wider relevance of this debate, Wakabayashi said:

(1) Despite (probably) losing this battle, the atrocity school (represented by Honda) demonstrated superior style and research skills, in unearthing new sources, and in putting forward verifiable arguments. Significantly, the minimliast/revisionist school often put forward claims without releasing their sources, so that their analysis could not be checked. These two factors made further claims by the atrocity school much more dependable than those made by the minimalist/revisionist school.

(2) The debate brought to the open the issues surrounding the Nanjing massacre. When these sources became the focus of public attention, it was no longer possible to revisionists to claim that the Nanjing incident did not happen, or that only a few people died. Even extreme right-wing politicians had to admit that at least a few hundred thousand people died during the event.

Anyway, my conclusion from reading the paper is that: no groundbreaking research, but an excellent literature review that categorises and analyses the various arguments for and against the story of the hundred-men-killing-contest.

Main article on this issue: Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword --Sumple 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the argument is more about "lack of evidence" so it is not a "proof" we are looking for. I think the photo and article should stay up but it is appropriate to mention that the original newspaper article describe the contest as a part of "combat". FWBOarticle 13:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Further on page protection

I note that this page has been protected for some time so that everyone can get their act together. Has that happened? enochlau (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kind of. We are just getting to the final stage of negotiation. :D FWBOarticle
Ok, cool, just that the discussion was kind of quiet... I would suggest that all the parties reach a conclusion soon so the page can be unprotected. Page protection is best applied for shorter periods of time. Cheers. enochlau (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that this article has been going back and forth between protected and unprotected status. Most feel that we really need to set down more rigid rule. I'm suggesting a refined version of NPOV and Verifiabligy policy. FWBOarticle 15:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well um. Not really. it's been protected since about the 1st of the year. That's one heck of a long time. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The page has been unprotected on the grounds that it has been protected for too long. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let restart the debate

Given that the page is quiet for a while, I guess we pretty much said what we should. I assume original source attribution of photo is settled. I have noticed that we are neglecting Verifiability criteria. Sourcing photo to prenceton uni gallery may be NPOV but it fails on verifiablity criteria because prenceton itself does not cite the source. I see similar problem in the main article. For example,

"According to testimonies, other women were forced into military prostitution as comfort women. There are even stories of Japanese troops forcing families to commit acts of incest: sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers were forced to rape daughters. One pregnant woman who was gang-raped by Japanese soldiers gave birth only a few hours later; miraculously, the baby was perfectly healthy (Robert B. Edgerton, Warriors of the Rising Sun). Monks who had declared a life of celibacy were forced to rape women for the amusement of the Japanese. Instances of Chinese men forced to commit sex with corpses were heard of during the occupation. Any resistance would be met with instant shootings. While the rape peaked immediately following the fall of the city, it continued for the duration of the Japanese occupation."

Now, comfort women allegation is new to me. Anyway, I'm not going to start debate about the validity of the claims. Reference to Edgerton does clear NPOV criteria but it does not clear verifability criteria. The statement is presented as a "fact" not as an "opinion" of Edgerton. I believe that verifaibility criteria is a way forward here. We should demand that anyone who make referece to book or article should cite the source of such claim written in such book or article. This isn't an unreasonable demand given that the person who make reference should have the access. He said she said has been the cause of flame in the article. FWBOarticle

err the comfort women thing is not exactly new...
again, too stringent a criterion defeats the purpose of wikipedia.
it's an online encylopedia, not an academic journal.
i think a reputable book/magazine/journal/report etc source is good enough for verifiability.
and it's princeton. --Sumple (Talk) 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it Princeton University itself? Or is it a group of students at Princeton? The distinction is rather important.
Bathrobe 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Sumple regarding the issue of verifiability. We should not have to find the primary source. Even Wikipedia's verifiability policy says so. - Cybergoth 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not say we have to find primaly sources. The whole point of verifiability requirement is that wikipedian should not have to do primarly research. And Edgerton edit clearly fail in this respect. Princeton photos is a primarly example of why this is the case. Photos in that site has no source reference whatsoever. This means that no photos from that cite can be "verified" in itself. "We should not have to find the primary source." Yes I agree totally. I should not had to go through the trouble of finding the primarly source of that 10,000 corpse ditch photo to refute the misattribution. Using unsourced material/claim/opinion as reference actually force the verifiability/refutability to the impossible level. Verifiability policy state that "we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources". In history article, "reliable, published source" sould mean material which has primarly source/archive reference. In science article, no one would consider article from New York Times as reliable source even it is a published source. The same thing apply here. If you are quoting from Edgerton, what's the problem of adding bit extra information? Let guess what's going on here. Say I delete Edgerton edit. Then someone who inserted Edgerton edit complain. So I cite verifiability criteria. If he actually did refered the info from Edgerton's book, then the person has no problem reinserting the edit. On the other hand, if the person acutally pulled the material from other website which quote Edgerton, he actually misattributed the edit, a clear NPOV violation. It is a double hearsay and edit should have been attributed to the website, not Edgerton. Let say Edgerton book doesn't have any source attribution. Then the book is not "reliable" so it clearly fail the verifiability criteria of wikipedia. So the edit is out. If Edgerton book has proper source reference, then the edit is in. FWBOarticle 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

verifiable not verified is the criterion.
I agree with you that on a controversial issue such as this any original claims need to be backed up with sources.
But I still think that backed up means any reputable magazine/book/journal/newspaper - provided it can be checked, of course.
Note that the onus on the original poster is only to provide a citation by which the information can be verified. He/she doesn't have to actually provide access, or quotes, or detailed page/paragraph references.
So, for example, I might say "Jonathan Biggins is areligious (Sydney Morning Herald, 18/02/06)", and that should be enough - anyone can go look up the papers of SMH to check whether my claim is true or not. --Sumple (Talk) 10:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, not quite. Your edit is not NPOV. The slightly more correct edit is "According to SMH, JB is areligious". This doesn't work in Edgerton edit because allegations are presented as fact, invitation of another flame war. Plus, I have already shifted focus of debate of verfiability to the later part of the criteria, "reliable, published sources". As I pointed out, reliability criteria change according to the type of article. In science article, "reputatble" published general journalism is not an realiable source. Published book written by a journalist is not a reliable source. In history, anything which doesn't have source citation is not a history work by definition and is not an reliable source. Again, if someone pulled reference from website which merely quote these material, it is a clear technical violation of NPOV. Plus, it is important to realised that this criteria work against both side of the debate. We are talking about how to end flame war, aren't we? There are lot of instances where wikipedia policy is not strictly applied because the topic is not controversial. In edit war, only way foward is to resort to more rigorous application of wikipedia policy. FWBOarticle 13:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want some consolation, most of allegation of atrocities can remain in the main article simply by reattributing reference to the judgements of War Crime Tribunal. War Crime Tribunals are historical archive in itself because it is part of historical event. So just by simply switching attribution of majority of atrocities contents, you can kill off lot of fire before it start. FWBOarticle 13:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... Are you guys aware that Wikipedia is NOT A DEBATING CLUB? This article talkpage is NOT for any debate! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it should be "JB is areligious" because the SMH is recognised as a reliable and NPOV source. Read the verifiability page: you need to say "According to xxx, xxx is xxx" only if it is known to be an unreliable or POV source. --Sumple (Talk) 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when it is about easily available information such as who is married to whom, any general media outlet is a "reliable" source. Just think, how you would defend, say, reference from New York Times or Fox News as a reliable source in an article about Battle of Waterloo or Technetium. I don't think anyone in wikipedia would consider these outlet as a reliable or valid source. In history article, any material which does not cite archival source is not "reliable" source. Distinction between journalism and history is clear. The later can always state its archival source. FWBOarticle

Oh, Talk page is for the debate. FWBOarticle

Obvious errors

I thought let's identify the obvious errors first:

1. In "geographical extent" subsection, it says " ... because the entire province of Jiangsu fell under the administration of Nanjing..."

This is an obvious error becauase up until 1949 Nanjing was a special municipality, and the rest of Jiangsu was administered from Zhenjiang. --Sumple (Talk) 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Change it then. Sourced info would be best, thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
not everyone is an admin, you know. --Sumple (Talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Drat, sorry about that. Gimme the correct version and I'll copy it over. Or get it unprotected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we be doing this? It kind of miss the point of protected status. FWBOarticle

It's a factual error that is not going to be controversial in any way. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Round of Compromise

O.K. hopefully, we are really getting near the end of tunnel this time. I hope I did make my point about why reference source which doesn't have archival verification is problematic. However, I would concede that if we keep deleting any edit insertion on this basis, lot of people would be screaming. So here is a compromise. Any "reliable" (as in general sence) reference from book/article/magazine/webpage is in. But if such source reference cannot site archival justification, then such reference should be contextualise as a part of debate (controversies) rather than fact. And ideally, these reference should be confined to appopriate "controversy" sections rather than getting "honourable" mention in "history" sections. As of photo, because it is almost universally interpretated as "factual", no photo is in unless it has source verification. FWBOarticle

the chinese wikipedia on the nanking massacre is surprisingly balanced, dealing with all point of view. perhaps we can incorporate some of that material. --Sumple (Talk) 22:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hehe, the japanese wikipedia on the naking massacre is suprisingly detailed, providing actual content of different deathtool estimates. Wonder why we get a lot of flamers [6] in this page. :D FWBOarticle

Edit block

Since the article is protected from editing, can I have the help of an admin in adding some links? Nothing controversial, just adding three article links in the See Also section. John Magee (priest), John Rabe, and Minnie Vautrin, who were people present during the events. --Yuje 13:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not perticipate in the debate so we can remove the edit block? :) FWBOarticle

Why not simply unprotect the article? I've requested it. :) — Rickyrab | Talk 19:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
and it worked, too. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Noooo, we decided agains doing so until we somewhat come to some form of consensus about the editorial process. Well, I guess, I will try to shift flamer topics to the gradiatorial pit section. FWBOarticle

See also

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy — Rickyrab | Talk 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (note that it is NOT protected, despite also having controversial imagery.)

Patly because the revert war was extremly one sided. I was there. ;)

My Revamp (Demolition?)

My intention is to leave non controvercial historical narrative (such as Battle of Nanking) at the top. As of "Massacire" section, I left statements which are unlikely to be contested by both side. Secondly, I created "War Crime Tribunals" section. Please put any testimonies of massacre which was presented in the tribunal here. Because the tribunal itself is a historical event, any testimonies in the trial(s) automatically become archival sources. So it is immune from any delete edit based on the alleged (in)validity of such of such testimonies. Lastly, allegations which is damped in the controversies section can come back. But please state its source. If it is archival source, it can probably go up in "Massacre" or "Tribunal" section. If it is not, please leave it under controversies section because it is still a part of ongoing debate. FWBOarticle

I added a couple of pix of a less controversial nature to the article. However, they were the two pix I found on the Nanjing page. I am not convinced that the Sun Yatsen memorial had anything to do with the rape, other than being in the vicinity at the time, and I'd like something closer to a period image of Nanjing, if anyone can find one. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looting and Arson

O.K. Another delete/revert war developing here. Strictly speaking no unverified claim should be stated as fact. However, as far as I can remember "Looting" testimonies are well doccumented, thought arson is more of disputed fact (though it is ruled as a fact in the War Crime Tribunal). On the basis of edit on "Good Intention", we should restore this section which is certainly relevant with "Disputed" banner.

Nanjing, not Nanking


I am not sure of the spelling used in most books on this subject, but the city is now spelled Nanjing, because pinyin (拼音, the modern Chinese phonetics in use in mainland China) seems to be standard in media, by the UN, modern maps，etc. This is arguably because pinyin corresponds better to most phonetic systems.
"Nanking" is using an older phonetic system called Wade-Giles or Conventional, e.g. "k" was used to mean a light j sound, just as "j" is used in pinyin
In the same way, Beijing used to be written Peking, Xinjiang used to be written Sinjiang, and Jilin used be written Kirin.

Spettro9 06:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, Nanjing is the currently accepted form. But there appear to be several factual errors in your post. I don't think Nanking was a light 'j' sound; it was most likely a light 'g' sound (i.e., 'Nanking' was a different pronunciation from that indicated by 'Nanjing'). Xinjiang used to be Sinkiang, not Sinjiang. Kirin for Jilin is Japanese. Bathrobe 07:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In W-G king would be equivalent to jing in pinyin, whereas the hard "k" is written as k', with a dash.
Anyway, the incident is almost universally known in the anglophone world as "nanking massacre" or "rape of nanking". Just coz the city's name is now Nanjing doesn't mean we have to change all references to it. Peking University is still called Peking U even though the city is now called Beijing, for example. --Sumple (Talk) 12:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually Google has only 75,000 hits for "nanking massacre", and 318,000 for "nanjing massacre". Markyour words 13:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
and 705,000 hits for "Rape of Nanking"--Jiang
"Peking" is not W-G. That would be Pei-ching. Peking is romanization based on an archaic form of Mandarin (think Cantonese for a comparison). --Jiang 13:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Enemy Combatants

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."

Chinese guerrila force hiding themselves in civilian clearly failed to satisfy above conditions. FWBOarticle

As of both side not taking prisoners, it was routine practice. If Nationalists or Communist run POW camp for Japanese soldiers during the war, let me know. You can also read reference to it in Askew's article quoted above. FWBOarticle

anybody can quote the Hague Conventions. Where is your source claiming that they were Chinese guerrilas instead of surrendered troops incapable of fighting back or prisoners of war? Otherwise it's original research. Quoting some international laws to cover it up doesn't cut it. BlueShirts 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(Irrelevant?) Picture that I put at head of article

Dr. Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, which is near Nanking and already existed at the time of the Massacre
Dr. Sun Yat-sen Mausoleum, which is near Nanking and already existed at the time of the Massacre

The reason why I put that picture up there was because Wikipedians were complaining here that some of the more grisly pictures of the Massacre were too gruesome to show up on top. However, I agree that the picture isn't really relevant to the discussion or the topic. Would someone mind going to Nanjing and taking a picture of something more appropriate to this discussion? — Rickyrab | Talk 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a gate called the Jiangdongmen, I've heard, which is supposed to have a memorial to the massacre. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
link to page about the memorial — Rickyrab | Talk 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a no-censorship zone. Nothing wrong with having gruesome pictures as long as attribution and sourcing are done properly. Some pics were deleted because it was incorrectly attributed or souce turned out to be unreliable. FWBOarticle

Pre empting possible edit war

This article has gone through numerous edit war. The current revised strucure is carefully constructed to avoid the repeat of edit war. This has been done by positioning section according to how likely it cause edit war. The least likely factual account of NM are placed at the top while while more controvercial topics, edit, photos, which usually were poorly sourced are relagated to the bottom. At this point Battle of Nanking is not controvercial topics. More importantly, the current structure of article separate "the existence" of massacre/rape/arson from "the extent" of massacre. This appear to have contributed to the stability of the article so far. Moreover, particular incidents and examples of rape and massacre, or photographs of massacres are disputed and both side of edits/claims are often poorly sourced. Some of source of photos has already been shown to be unreliable. The reason the current state of article looks thin is due to the fact that, despite the size of the article, very little substantial material has been added due to people's the obsession with controversy of NM. The current top side of the article is thin but healty. The previous version of article was big but it was merely fat with little meat and bone. It was a waste land of edit war. Please be more careful in changing the structure of the article. FWBOarticle

Considering to edits done by lots of people months ago, current structure is difficult to read and intentionally added lots of tags. Since some of frequent and capable editors are not around these days, the article is in a bad shape. Therefore, it would be better to back a little bit. Caiqian 19:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, there is nothing difficult to read about "intro", "battle of nanking" and "japanese atrocities begin" section. Plus, the contents of these sections are solid and delet war free. Plus, you can copyedit to improve each section rather than resorting to wholesale revert. More importantly you fail to engage in discussion over the merit of the current strucuture. Why "the battle of Nanking" section, very relevant and edit war free section have to be demolished? Do you have any argument against the strucutre which speparate the existence of massacre (which has almost zero dispute) from the extent of massacre (edit war waste land)? Moreover, do you agree that War Crimes tribunal is a relavant topic which deserve separate section? Wkipeidia has "stab" designiation for topic which is relevant and ought to be expanded. So unless you think WCT are irrelevant, this section should not be deleted. Wholesale edit without providing "specific" criticism or suggestion is not a constructive editing process. Please be more specific about which part of article you do not like. Then edit/improve each particular section rather than reverting to the state with proven record of problems. I personally do not mind deleting "controversies" section, where most contents are on probation. FWBOarticle

Plus, during the protected status, lot of discussion was conducted to avoid the repeat of edit war. The current structure is the result of these discussion. Please go through this talk page, learn bit more about the consensus which was reached, before resorting to wholesale revert. FWBOarticle

Yes, I have read the relevent talk pages. Unfortunately, it seems to me very few people supported these changes. Anyway, most of constructive changes have been merge to the previous version, so it should not be a wholesale revert. Caiqian 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, not much was resolved by the "discussion" before the protect status was removed, and fwbo seemed to be the only one making edits and original research on it after unprotection. The protected version had better structure and the main point of contention was on photographic source, not wholesale "demolition" as he calls it. BlueShirts 22:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I only did copyediging, transfering and switching contents so it is impossible for me to "add" original research. Moreover, my initial edit deleted no contents. However, I damped unsourced contents to controversy. If you have read the relevant talk pages, you would have known that the photo of Ten thousands Corpose ditch is a clear misatribution. Here is the actual source of the photograph. Photo captioned "A woman brutally raped and killed" is unsourced (no where/when/how/who took the photo) and the original website hosting the photo is lost, indicating that the source was not reliable to begin with. Lastly, this version have rather (in)famous Koki Hirota telegraphy which has been attributed incorrectly to Hirota. The author of the telegraph is not hirota but a British Journalist. Misattribuiting the telegraph to Hirota then claiming that Japanese government "acknowledged" the 300,000 civilian death has been done to death. In wikipedia, the question is not the quantity of content but quality (NPOV, verifiability, no original research). FWBOarticle
You sure you didn't add original research. The Hague Conventions and Chinese "guerillas" maybe? And note I said that the major point of contention was photographic source. BlueShirts 23:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say this is a special case where most of sources are not in the victim's side, while the other side will not reveal them easily, which make finding sources is painful. However, there are still some around with incomplete status information (copyright, photographer). If you believe they are all trustless, why should anybody trust something like [7] intead? Caiqian 00:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why was the article converted into this hopelessly POV state?
Following FWOB's game plan, which involved placing a simple outline of undisputed facts at the start of the article and elaboration of the massacre's horrific nature in detail (including factual details over which there is controversy) in the body, was a definite improvement. As it is, the whole article is now a one-sided presentation of a distincly partisan point of view.
The bald assertion of "300,000 killed", when this figure is heavily disputed, is enough reason by itself to remove the second paragraph.
But actually it is even worse than that because this paragraph is so badly written that it seems to be saying that the Japanese killed 300,000 before they even entered the city! Is the intent to claim an even higher death toll than the Chinese government's claim?
13 December, 1937. By then the Chinese Nationalist army had fled the city and the Japanese entered the city virtually resistance free. More than 300,000 Chinese civilians had been killed. The time period of the massacre is not clearly defined, though the period of unruly carnage lasted well into 6 weeks after, until early February 1938.
It is also a poor rhetorical flourish to start this paragraph with "rape" based on the expression "Rape of Nanjing":
As the term "Rape of Nanking" suggests, rape occurred after Nanking was captured. In addition to rape, war crimes committed during this episode include looting, arson and the killing of civilians and prisoners of war.
All in all, this new introduction represents a marked deterioration in quality. Inserting disputed assertions in the introduction as though they were established fact is blatant POV. I would support that the introduction should be deleted and the article reverted to FWBO's version.
Bathrobe 14:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Rape happened to some tens of thousands of women within the vicinity of the city. We should cite a statistic (I can find it) instead of this blanket statement that really means nothing. BlueShirts 20:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the pre-protect version had better structure and organisation, but yes also, fwob is making a genuine attempt to improve the article.
bathrobe, however, is not helping matters with his blatant anti-chinese biase and inflammatory remarks. just ignore. --Sumple (Talk) 12:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Sumple, that is a personal attack. I would like you to retract that comment.
There is nothing anti-Chinese in the comments above. In fact, even the Chinese version avoids the blatant POV of the English-language article introduction? Quote: 死傷人數等沒有世界共同認可的數字，但大多數華人認為死亡人數应当超過30萬. (There is no world wide consensus on the number killed and injured, but the majority of Chinese (=ethnic Chinese) would consider the figure to be in excess of 300,000)).
Bathrobe 06:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Historiography

Hi guys, good to see FWOBArticle's efforts on this page. One point - the historiography section is done almost entirely from the Japanese POV. E.g. the section dealing with china/international goes "Outside Japan...", when it should, perhaps be "Outside China and Japan" considering that the incident occured in China and the previous paragraph dealt with China. In addition, the section on China is extremely short and seems to imply a past or continuing policy of suppressing debate on this issue which may or may not be supported, but is in any case lacking in citation. And don't tell me it's because there's no sources, because there is plenty of work from the Chinese perspective on this issue. If people are okay with it, I propose to import material from Chinese wikipedia article, which is actually very balanced and a lot better organised than this page (in the historiography section). --Sumple (Talk) 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Death Toll NPOV

This section is completely unacceptable NPOV.

It almost completely ignores the Japanese figures except for those from "The Grand Massacre" school of thinking, which has been all but completely discredited in Japan and by many academics throughout the world. It pretty much accepts the Chinese hardline at face value.

Members of the Illusion School answered that the number was zero (Fuji Nobuo), almost zero, or, in the case of Watanabe, 40 to 50. The Middle-of-the-Road School, which is given a broader definition than the one I use, ranges from "several thousand" (Nakamura and Unemoto) through about 10,000 (Okazaki, Sakurai, and Tanabe) to about 20,000 (Hara) (I would place all but Hara in the Illusion School). The Great Massacre School ranges from at least 100,000 (Eguchi), more than 120,000 (10 sūman), a figure which has become the orthodox position of this school and which is advocated by Himeta, Inoue, Kasahara and Yoshida, to the older orthodoxy, 200,000, which is still advocated by Fujiwara and Takasaki.[8]

In general, this page reads like it came straight from a Chinese propaganda text book. I'm tempted to NPOV the whole thing. Bueller 007 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Trial and conviction for crimes

Please could someone add a section with a list of the people convicted of crimes over this massacre, and what their crimes were. In particular those convicted at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (was the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal something else? If so those as well). This would help clean up this article as these convictions are facts and not speculation. If there were any Chinese trials then anyone convicted in thoses should be added to the list.When they have been added please also add them to List of war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You can find almost all the information you want here, http://cnd.org/mirror/nanjing/NMTT.html .In addition, it is public domain, so feel free to copy and paste them. It is said "This pamphlet is prepared in the spirit of freedom of information. Reproduction and circulation are welcome and encouraged." Caiqian 23:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. A large Japanese contingent maintains that the Tokyo Trials (and of course the Nanjing Trials as well) were simply "victor's justice". The standards by which people were judged were sometimes quite questionable. Citing an example from Noam Chomsky (if you trust that), there was a Japanese commander who had completely lost contact with some of his troops. During this time, they committed some atrocities (I believe it was in the Phillipines). Even though he had had no contact with them at that time, he was found to be responsible and was executed. Also, the guiltiest parties were sometimes not tried at all (i.e. Unit 731 (and Hirohito?)) So providing a list of those convicted (which, by the way, would number in the THOUSANDS) would be an exercise in futility, and only accepted by the "Chinese side" of the argument, if any. Bueller 007 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
We are not to question the accuracy of the IMTFE and Nanking War Crimes Tribunal but only to report them, and other notable estimates. I'll be removing the POV tag as there is nothing POV about the figure. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
The NPOV comes from the fact that the Japanese side is not accurately reported. If you want information on it, you can check the Japanese version of the article. Estimates vary wildly, and the Japanese article lists the scholars who belong to each school of thought. Bueller 007 09:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't read Japanese. It seems that this is what every Japanese-speaker tells me to do. "Read the Japanese version". I have no interest in reading a language I can only half understand.
Is every Japanese estimate notable? Published and reputable? Some are, some are not. Right now it says, Other Japanese historians, depending on their definition of the geographical and time duration of the killings, place the death toll on a much wider scale from 40,000 to 300,000, which is really a generalisation, so if you can add various other Japanese estimates, please do, but please ensure they are notable and reported in a dispassionate way. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, IMTFE and the Nanking Tribunal are two different things. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate/Stolen Newspaper Headline

The image caption for the hyakuningiri kyousou appears to be stolen directly from Iris Chang with no credit to her. I can tell that it was copied from her, because that's not actually what the headline says, and few other authors would be so careless.

The current version on Wikipedia reads: "Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighters Exceed Mark — Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105"

The actual headline for the article, spread across three vertical lines, reads from right to left:
百人斬り '超記録' -- hyakuningiri 'chōkiroku'
向井 106−105 野田 -- mukai 106-105 noda
両少尉さらに延長戦 -- ryōshōi sarani enchōsen
Which literally means:
The Cutting Down of 100 People "Incredible Record"
Mukai 106-105 Noda
Both Sub-Lieutenants Go Into Extra Innings

That's what it says.

There are some important differences there:

  1. Nowhere does it say the word "Chinese". Of course, it was taking place in China, so it's obvious that Chinese people were being killed, but you can't put the word "Chinese" in QUOTATION MARKS of the translation. In fact, nowhere in ANY of the articles about the contest does it directly use the word "Chinese". You can see a complete transcription of all of the Nichi-Nichi articles about the contest (in Japanese) here: http://homepage3.nifty.com/m_and_y/genron/data/nangjin/hyakunin/nichinichi.htm
  2. It uses the term "extra innings" or "overtime", which is, in my eyes, far more offensive than the Chang caption, because it treats the contest like a simple game of baseball.
  3. The term "sara ni" is difficult to translate in this case, as it can mean "to continue/exceed/go further", or "to start again". But the placement of the sentence AFTER the score, in addition to facts from the article make the meaning clear. Because the results of the contest couldn't be decided (it was unknown which officer killed 100 men first), they proposed to start a new contest (on Dec. 11th) in which the first to kill 150 men would win. "New" presumably means "starting again from score 0". The reference is the same link as above. Chang uses the confusing "extended", which could lead readers to believe that the contest ended when the score reached 105/106. This is not true.

I would suggest that the translation read as follows: "Incredible Record in the Contest To Cut Down 100 People – Mukai scores 106, Noda scores 105 – Both Men Go Into Extra Innings." Bueller 007 11:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Two things,
  1. "超記録" can mean "surpassed records", can it not? Is "超" here used as an adjective or verb?
  2. "延長戦" means "extended battle", does it not? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 19:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
"超記録" means "super record". It's an adjective.
Not sure what you mean by "extended battle". In English an "extended battle" is a "very long" battle. Maybe we should be talking about an "extension" of the contest/battle -- which is the meaning of "extra inning".

Bathrobe 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here we go.

  1. "超" (chō) when used as a prefix means "super-, above, beyond, exceeding, surpassing", etc. For example, the term "超人" (chōjin) means "super-human" (i.e. more than just a regular human). Chang says "exceed [the] mark". This is untrue. "記録" means a record recorded for posterity, based on past events. It doesn't mean "mark" or "target". So "超記録" means literally "super-record" (as Bathrobe said), which I changed to "incredible record", because "super-record" sounds awkward. In order to say "exceed [the] mark", the reporter would have said: "目標を越える" (mokuhyō wo koeru), or something like that.
  2. "延長戦" (enchōsen) is the term used for "overtime" or "extra innings" at the end of a game of sports. (Bathrobe: "extra innings" is a baseball term. "Innings" = "Rounds". When a baseball game is still tied after nine regulation "innings", then the game continues into "extra innings". (i.e. 10th inning, 11th inning...FOREVER until the tie is broken) It's like "overtime" in most other sports.)
I understand the meaning: my comment was that an "extended battle" (what Miborovsky wrote) is not the same as "an extension of the battle", which is what an extra innings is. (Bathrobe)

The definition of the term, according to the goo.ne.jp dictionary:

定められた回数または時間内に勝敗の決まらないとき、さらに回または時間を延長して行う試合。
(Of a match/bout/game/contest: When the outcome has not been decided within the set number of rounds or time limit, to continue, extending either the time limit or the number of rounds; this contest itself.) (Emphasis (and translation) mine.)

You can check the Japanese Wikipedia page for 延長戦 here: ja:延長戦. It specifically mentions that it is a "Sports" or "Game" word, and they go on to give the 延長戦 rules for various different sports. In case you have trouble reading Japanese, note that the English equivalent linked to by the Japanese page is "Overtime (sports)". As I said in my earlier post, 延長戦 is a sports word used to refer to "overtime" for the purposes of breaking a tie. That's the key point here. It is used for breaking a tie. In the original Japanese article, the two officers agreed to start a 150-man killing contest because they couldn't decide who won the 100-man killing contest Meaning that, as I said, here, 延長戦 refers to the 150-man killing contest, which was to be used as overtime. I chose the term "extra innings" because "overtime" can also mean "to work overtime", which is not what I wanted to imply. Also, the motion of swinging a sword is similar to swinging a baseball bat. Finally, Japan's national sport is baseball, so that's most likely what the reference was in the first place. I think "extra innings" is far-and-away the best choice of words here.

It's just another example of Iris Chang's incompetence that she would mistranslate this headline and completely miss out on using a word as potentially offensive as "extra innings" in her book.Bueller 007 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Misleading Image Caption

The image caption for the Timperley/Hirota telegram reads as follows:

In January 17, 1938, Manchester Guardian correspondent H.J. Timperley originally wrote a report, which was stopped by Japanese censors in Shanghai, his estimate of 300,000 deaths found its way into the message sent by Japanese Foreign Minister Hirota Koki to Washington, DC, which, in turn, was intercepted and decoded by the Americans. "Since returning (to) Shanghai a few days ago I investigated reported atrocities committed by Japanese army in Nanking and elsewhere. Verbal accounts (of) reliable eye-witnesses and letters from individuals whose credibility (is) beyond question afford convincing proof (that) Japanese Army behaved and (is) continuing to behave in (a) fashion reminiscent (of) Attila (and) his Huns. (Not) less than three hundred thousand Chinese civilians slaughtered, many cases (in) cold blood."

  1. It should be "On January 17", not "In January 17".
  2. His name is Kōki Hirota, not Hirota Koki.
  3. It should say that he forwarded Timperley's telegram to the Japanese embassy in Washington, D.C., not that "[Timperley's] estimate of 300,000 deaths found its way into the message", for reasons I explain below.

As you will note from the image of the telegram, it starts with "Received from Shanghai as #176", it says "Extra message." and "*This message was sent in enciphered English and is the one referred to in S.I.S.#1257". S.I.S.#1257, as retrieved from the National Archives (and posted on this Maboroshi-ha website) [9] starts:

From: Tokyo (Hirota)
To: Washington
January 19, 1938
#206. Received from Shanghai as #175.
The night of the 11th, [Timperley], special correspondent of the Manchester Guardian was discovered by our censors as he was about to send a communication as given in separate message #176.**

Further evidence comes from the fact that the telegram was written in "enciphered English", not Japanese. In other words, the message is a direct quote from Timperley, not from Hirota, sent in a separate telegram. The Wikipedia page on Hirota also mentions that it was a "seized" telegram, not an original communication.

In case you don't trust the above website, The Guardian itself has published that a) the 300,000 figure refers to the number of deaths in the entire Yangtze area, not just Nanjing, and b) the telegrams were censored and forwarded by the Japanese authorities. [10]

Regardless of who wrote it, the report is not even an eyewitness account, as it was written in Shanghai, based on "verbal accounts" and "letters". It is the very definition of hearsay. Please at least remove the misleading parts of this caption, and consider removing the telegram in its entirety.

There's lots of good, conclusive evidence in favor of a massacre. This telegram is not part of it. Bueller 007 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

it is all depends on how you read and interprete it. This is just a simple message during the war time, which came from the neutral side (in case somebody don't believe the vitim's side of evidence). Caiqian 17:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
But he's just quoting what he's heard from the eyewitnesses themselves. So we get the same information that the eyewitnesses would give us, except filtered through one more person with one more agenda. The "value" of this telegram historically, and the only reason it appeared in the book "The Rape of Nanking", is that it was supposedly written by Hirota. And I agree. If a Japanese foreign minister were telling ambassadors that 300,000 people were dead and that there was rape and pillage and all this stuff going on, it would be an invaluable resource. A national treasure. But Hirota didn't write it. And this telegram is nothing more than one reporter's hearsay. Regardless of whether or not it was in Iris Chang's book, it has no value whatsoever, and it doesn't belong on this page.
This page already has quotes from witnesses and "neutral" foreign observers. I take no issue with those, even if I doubt their veracity at times. But we don't need a picture of a telegram written by a guy who wasn't even anywhere near the city at the time. And we especially don't need it because it has been falsely attributed to a Japanese source and its mere presence on the page perpetuates the myth that it was written by him or holds any historical validity. Bueller 007 13:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
When there is misattribution involved, the right thing to do is clear the misattribution, not delete it. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No. The "misattribution" is the whole reason the document is significant. If it's not written by Hirota, then basically, all it says is "I heard from my friends that there's some bad sh*t going down in Nanking." And this is coming from a guy who abandoned the city when the trouble started, got a cushy Chinese government (and later UN) job because of his telegrams, and seemingly never went back.
It's like if there was a letter from Hoess to Hitler saying "I have heard our soldiers have been behaving in a manner befitting of Attila and his Huns". THAT would be the most damning letter ever. Definitely worthy of mention on Wikipedia. Then, when you find out that Hoess didn't write it, and it was actually written by some random Aussie reporter far removed from the action, YOU DON'T LEAVE IT ON THE PAGE. You throw it out. Or if it were newsworthy enough, you'd make another page called "Hoess Letter Hoax" and move it there.
That telegram is an absolutely ridiculous thing to post here. Not only is it hearsay, and the basis of a widely-attributed fraud, its presence on a page about the "Nanking Massacre" also perpetuates the lie that Timperley said 300,000 people had died in Nanjing. He didn't. The 300,000 quote refers to the whole of the Yangtze Valley. One of his other telegrams, in specific reference to Nanjing, states: "...close to 40,000 unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanjing, of whom some 30% had never been soldiers."[11] Quite different, no? Using the telegram, with its quote of 300,000 on this page, is therefore misleading. Although I could, I wouldn't try to use his telegrams as proof against the severity of the massacre, because DUDE WASN'T THERE. He didn't witness the massacre, and the telegram is misleading in several ways. It has to go. Bueller 007 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
No it does not. Regardless of the accuracy of the telegraph or its message, it is considered part of the historical documents of this incident. Therefore it is noteworthy. If there is an error, it is a noteworthy error. If the caption is misleading, change it to a non-misleading one. Better, make a section detailing the deal about the telegraph. If you believe it's a fraud, clear the fraud. AND DON'T SHOUT, IT MAKES ME MAD! -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not letting your own ideology cloud your judgement? The only reason this letter is "considered part of the historical documents" is because Iris Chang published it and said that the number 300,000 referred to the number of deaths in Nanking, and that it was written by Koki Hirota. Both of these claims are false. The document has no significant value whatsoever, and no serious historian would claim that it does. Just because something was in a book, doesn't mean it goes in an encyclopaedia. If you pick up a copy of Britannica, there's no way you'll find this letter there. Nor any reference to it.
FYI, I have already edited the caption three times, each time leaving a note for people to see the talk page before they revert it, and yet it has already been reverted to its original spurious version twice. That's the problem with leaving it on the page. People don't realize that it's a load of B.S. and that it's misleading by nature, because Timperley doesn't say what place he is referring to in the document.
Although I debate its value entirely, if anywhere, it belongs in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war page because the number 300,000 does not refer to Nanking. Imagine that a reporter published a document in the 1970s that simply said "Over 100,000 people have died at American hands" that got attributed to My Lai. When you found out that he was actually referring to the whole of Quang Ngai province, you wouldn't leave it on the My Lai page, you would put it on the Vietnam War page. Take a step back from your own "Chugoku Banzai" mentality and there's no debating that this document does not belong on this page. Move this image to the proper page, and I will fight against it in the proper venue. Bueller 007 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Iris Chang quoted this document and used it in her list of evidence. Whatever you say this piece of document is irreversibly part of the historical documents of this event. Even if Iris Chang completely messed up. If she misquoted it, then it is for us Wikipedians to make it clear that she messed up here. If you remove it, people will come here asking, where is that telegraph Timperley sent? Why is it not here? Because people have read her book and will have questions. Whereas if it remained here, with proper referencing to Guardian's note saying that it is for the entire area not just Nanjing City, then we have accountably included this relevant piece of information. Britannia? Wikipedia is not paper. Every Wikipedian should know that. Why should we restrict ourselves to be a clone of Britannia? Britannia's article on this massacre has 203 words. Why restrict ourselves to 203 words?

And I don't know if you noticed this or not. By including the telegraph and explaining where Iris Chang made an error, I'm undermining her book. I'm weakening support for the 300,000 death toll. Chugoku Banzai? I think not. (Besides, you have to know the full story to fully appreciate my sig.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nanking vs Nanjing

Hi guys, I'm changing references to "Nanking" in the body of the article to "Nanjing", except where it occurs in specific phrases such as "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking". The reason for that is:

  1. The current article proceeds on the footing that "Nanjing" was called "Nanking". However, the name of the city has not changed. It is only the official method of transliteration that has changed. So it is not the same situation as, say, Petrograd vs Leningrad vs St Petersburg.
  2. The name of the city is officially transliterated as "Nanjing", and increasingly that is what it is commonly known as.
  3. Consistency: for example, Beijing is almost never referred to as Peking on Wikipedia except in the context of certain concepts like Peking duck and Peking University. In this article, other cities are all referred to by their pinyin transliteration.
  4. However, the phrases "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking" are specific historical concepts, and so I am leaving those alone.

Hope that's okay with y'all. --Sumple (Talk) 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is good idea, as it is quite confused that every place in China has two translations. Caiqian 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I read somewhere that Nanjing stood for the area around the city of Nanjing, while Nanking was for the area of the city plus an area of land around it. It might not seem to be a huge difference but when you state the people who were killed in Nanjing, it would be less than that of the people killed in Nanking, because the figures for Nanking would include those killed outside the city. I will go look for that article that I read... clragon 18:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the accuracy of what you read... The city and municipality were both transliterated Nanking then, and Nanjing now. --Sumple (Talk) 00:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nanjing was *not* capital of Jiangsu province

Nanjing was not the capital of Jiangsu province. Only the Nanjing Special Municipality were administered from NAnjing. The rest of Jiangsu was administered from Zhenjiang. Making changes accordingly. --Sumple (Talk) 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You can do it! It's not protected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Xianquan Reference

From the article: "Other historians do not limit the massacre to the city itself. For example, the Xianquan area is the suburbs outside Nanjing city (which is about 66 miles), and including that region the combined population of suburban and urban Nanjing runs between 535,000 and 635,000 just prior to the Japanese occupation.[12] Some historians also include six xian (counties) around Nanjing starting from Suzhou, at the western edge of Jiangsu province, known as the Nanjing Special Municipality." I'm requesting a reference on the "Xianquan" area. I googled the web in English for "Xianquan Nanjing" and "Xianquan Nanking" and the only references I could find were copies of this Wikipedia page. I googled Chinese Wikipedia twice, searching for "线圈 南京" and "線圈 南京", and I found nothing except a reference to "线圈炮". I searched again, using "城郊" and "日军" and still got nothing. (Am I using the wrong Chinese characters? I realize that 线圈 means "coil", but my IME says that this is the only way to write "Xianquan".) I'm requesting a web reference to this area, and the fact that it is "about 66 miles". (And shouldn't this say 66 "square" miles?) If I don't get a reference, I will delete it from the text. A Chinese reference is fine, so long as it's not just from some guy's blog. Note that the reference provided in the above quote links to a Chinese newspaper that actually doesn't use the term "Xianquan" anywhere. Also, please provide the correct hanzi for the word. Bueller 007 12:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the answer. The correct word is "Xiaguan" (下关, 下關) and it is 31 square km, not "66 miles" (whatever that means). For more info, see here:[13]
I have made changes accordingly. Bueller 007 17:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For Calgian

Don't revert my changes. I did not, as you said "make massive changes". I made numerous improvements over the saved version.

The grammar in the new version is far superior. The old version read like a book report by a 15-year old kid who didn't even speak English as a native language.

Here's an example of some of the garbage English that I changed. From the old article:

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East or the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, stated the death toll of the Nanking Massacre as ranging between 200,000 and 300,000. The death toll of 300,000 is the official estimate engraved on the stone wall at the entrance of the "Memorial Hall for Compatriot Victims of the Japanese Military's Nanking Massacre" in Nanjing.
In 1947 at the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal, the verdict of Lieutenant General Tani Hisao, the commander of the 6th Division quoted the figure of more than 300,000 death tolls. Apparently this estimate was made from burial records and eyewitness accounts. It concluded that some 190,000 were illegally executed at various execution sites and 150,000 were individually massacred. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated in its judgment that "over 200,000" or "over 100,000" civilians and prisoners of war were murdered during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation. That number was based on burial records submitted by two charitable organizations, the Red Swastika Society and the Chung Shan Tang (Tsung Shan Tong), the research done by Smythe and some estimates given by survivors.
At the Tokyo Tribunal of War Criminals, the Nanking Massacre death toll was presented either as "more than 200,000" or "more than 100,000".

Okay. So I fixed a BUNCH of problems with this entry. The first paragraph says that the IMTFE and Nanking War Crimes tribunal were the same. They weren't. IMTFE = Tokyo Trials, which are in a third and separate paragraph for some reason. The term "death tolls" is incorrect. The number of burials was based on more than just those submitted by the two non-profit groups. The grouping of the paragraphs is poor. This passage is an absolute train wreck. My version now is FAR better. I haven't changed ONE fact in it (other than removing a stupid and mysterious reference to "Smythe" because Dr. Smythe testified that the complete death toll in Nanjing was only 10,000 people, which completely contradicts the findings of the IMTFE). I have only reorganized it.

Three notes:

  1. I did not remove anything from this article.
  2. The things I changed have either been discussed on this talk page already, or are a matter of common sense (i.e. saying "historians agree that" should be qualified with "many" or "some")
  3. The things I added have references, which is more than I can say for the rest of this pathetic article.

If you have issues, correct them one by one. Don't revert my changes unless you can point out what's wrong with them. Don't just look at the "diff" of the article, because there will be a lot of red from my grammar fixes. Actually READ the article. It's far better now.

Bueller 007 14:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bueller 007 I am sick and tired of your repeated personal attacks and aggressive behaviour. Consider this a warning. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the so-called "personal attack" in the above passage? I attacked the poorly-written article, not Calgian. (In fact, I have no idea who wrote the parts of the article I criticized; I didn't check the history before I edited it.) I merely urged him STRONGLY to look at what he had deleted so summarily. That was hours of work, and a significant improvement over the old version of the article, incorporating some changes that you yourself suggested that I make, or to which no objections had been lodged in the talk page. It was summarily deleted by him (who I take not to be a native speaker) because "the grammar changes add nothing to the article". I'm sorry, and this is not a personal attack, but if he is not a native speaker, he is in no position to make that judgement. And even if it were true that "they added nothing", you would have to show that they DETRACTED from the article in order to delete them.
The only "personal attack" I have possibly made is against you, when I said that you "might be letting your ideology cloud your judgement." and talked of your "Chugoku Banzai" mentality. Before you misconstrue this as another personal attack, let me explain. I said those things because I don't believe that someone who posts "Chugoku Banzai" as a matter of course on every single edit they make can possibly remain neutral when it comes to Sino-Japanese relations. The sentence "Chugoku Banzai" is designed specifically so that the Japanese know that you are Pro-Chinese, and the word Banzai is dripping with WWII rhetoric and unforgiveness. If Nanking was the Asian Holocaust, then a Chinese person saying "Chugoku Banzai" is no different than a Jewish person saying "Heil Israel". I don't think either are appropriate, especially for sensitive topics such as these. Because of this issue, I have actually been considering reporting your lack of ability to administrate. Nevertheless, if you took offense, I apologize. I was trying to get you to open your mind a bit, not insult you.
As for aggressiveness, I plead guilty. As Bathrobe said, I am probably guilty of violating netiquette. So I apologize. But it seems like certain people in this forum refuse to listen to mere reason. When I added a POV warning to part of this article, the POV warning was removed because "I could add more information or change something if I wanted". Then, when I spend HOURS doing just that, it instantly gets changed back. (Also, I added a "controversial" tag to this talk page, which suggests that because the issue is controversial, all changes should be discussed in the talk page first. This too was removed for some reason.)
As for the post to which I am replying now, it is, as Bathrobe said below, overbearing, and I would go as far as to say "bullying". Also, from what I understand, "warnings" go on the user's talk page, not the talk page of the article. If you plan to take further action against me, I would suggest that you place the warning on my talk page. Again, sorry if people took offense (especially Calgian, as I specifically avoided criticizing him in the above post). Bueller 007 13:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky, in my understanding, the paramount objective of Wikipedia is to write better articles. I agree that Bueller 007 is in breach of Wikipedia netiquette, for which you have issued the above warning. However, User Caiqian is guilty of constant POV pushing, with virtually no argumentation other than an "improving things here, this looks better" in defence of his changes.

I find it difficult to understand your leniency against people who are creating POV bias in articles and your stringent warnings against breaches of netiquette. No matter how brusque Bueller 007 may be, he is at least making a reasoned case and point-by-point explanation for his changes, which is more than can be said for Caiqian. To deliver a warning in terms of "sick and tired" and "consider this a warning" is pretty heavy, one might even say overbearing, stuff. There are other, less confrontational ways of delivering warnings.

User:Bathrobe 13 April (not logged in)

Bathrobe, you are correct in saying that the objective of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. However, it is to be done in a civil manner. Bueller was being uncivil, and I felt I had an obligation to tell him to cease. Incivility creates stress, conflict and makes editors assume bad faith, all of which detracts from our goal of writing an encyclopedia.
Incivility is undesirable regardless of who is being uncivil. If it was Caiqian who was breaching Wikipedia's civility policy, I would give him a warning. But it was Bueller who was belittling other editors and behaving rudely. So I gave him a warning.
As a Wikipedia administrator I have no right to interfere with people's POV. For Wikipedia to function it is imperative that different POVs be tolerated. Since you and Bueller have different POVs than Caiqian, you may classify his actions as POV pushing, but others may not. It's all subjective. I have no right to judge any of you people's POV.
Therefore I will not issue "warnings" to people who are expressing/pushing their POV. But I do have the duty to prevent and stop incivility. If worse comes to worst, I can take action accordingly. And I take that duty seriously.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
My point was that Caiqian was writing large amounts of material and making blanket reversions without supporting arguments. This is not a "subjective" matter and I can't see why an administrator should profess neutrality regarding this.
The fact is that this article was in a reasonable shape and quality at the time it had been protected, as lots of improvements had been discussed and made by several outstanding users during the last year. It is always welcome for further improvement. However, after this page has been unprotected, there happened a few heavy changes without accepted reason and agreement with other users. I found it is difficult to understand and I am disagree with those recent changes, as I have followed the discussion of the page since the year before last year. In addition, it is impossible for me at the moment to reply to every discussion (especially, for some subtle points, i.e., about ambiguous of English), but I suppose I have given reasonable explanation when I have made reversion. Caiqian 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't be serious when you say "I suppose I have given reasonable explanation when I have made reversion"! Bueller 007 made 14 edits to the article, virtually every one of which he offered a comment or justification for. You reverted the lot in one stroke with the comment:
"Huge changes without the agreement and discussion with other users. I can't see these so-called grammar correction has any oveall improvement on the article"
You didn't address any of his changes or his justifications for them, you merely added your subjective comment that "I can't see these so-called grammar correction has any oveall improvement on the article". I'm sorry, I find that rather breathtakingly presumptuous. No wonder Bueller 007 got a little hot under the collar!
User:Bathrobe
Bueller007 has definitely made several valuable changes to the grammar of English. However, he also changed a lot of other things, which seems to me was not helpful for the overall of the article. I will point all of these out later. Caiqian 15:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you'd better come up with some justifications fairly fast. You have been making unilateral edits and reversions based on nothing more than your own subjective judgement and a vague appeal to what has been discussed in the talk pages. In case you hadn't noticed, there has been NO consensus reached in the talk pages. Which leaves only your subjective judgement. In addition to which, you are resisting efforts to require sources. As it stands, your edits and reverts give a strong impression of vandalism.
User:Bathrobe 14 April (not logged in)
I also wasn't aware that preventing and stopping incivility was the main responsibility of an administrator. I've tried checking the page on powers of an administrator but couldn't find anything. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place.
At any rate, I found your reprimand pretty heavy. If you want to stop other people's incivility in your capacity as administrator, surely it is better to use language that itself is marked by and conducive to civility.
User:Bathrobe 13 April, not logged in
My point is that I was dealing with Bueller's incivility. Nothing else. It's somewhat disturbing that you seem intent on dragging the victim into this. Let's hope you're not really trying to do that. Whether or not I should do anything about the actual contents of the article, ie. whether or not I want to get into the edit conflict, has no bearing on whether I remind Bueller to be civil. So let's keep this on civility, shall we?
I am not aware that I was being uncivil when issuing my "reprimand". Have I been SHOUTING? Calling Bueller a fifteen year-old who does not speak English as a native language? (And I happen to know a person, once a fifteen year-old who did not speak English as a native language, yet scored higher on standardised English tests than 99% of Americans. Yours truly. So maybe I should take that as a compliment?) ;)
To be honest, everyone should ensure that others are behaving in a civil manner. It should not just be the job of an administrator. But as I stated above, as an admin I feel I have an obligation to reduce, eliminate or stop actions that may be detrimental to Wikipedia. Bueller has been making good points, but I'm sure he could achieve his goals without making provocative statements, insulting other individuals (and not just other editors, either), belittling contributors, assuming bad faith, etc.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
You say: "Calling Bueller a fifteen year-old who does not speak English as a native language?" May I suggest that you read what I wrote a little more carefully? I wrote: "The old version read like a book report by a 15-year old kid who didn't even speak English as a native language." I attacked the article. Not him. At the time I wrote this post, I didn't know who had made those contributions. I directed the post to Calgian in the subject field because he had made a summary reversion of my changes, not because the criticisms of the article were directed against him. Bueller 007 13:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you know who you were attacking. You may try to pander around with semantics, but your tone and attitude were clear. And this really is a strawman argument. You don't deny you were being uncivil, do you? Then be more restrained, please. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not see one single "personall attack". Not a single one. He critisized the article, NOT any user. This should, if anything, be applauded; if your going to make grammar improvements, it's good to say why, and make it clear your not making completely random wording changes just for 'shits 'n giggles'. And I highly disagree that pointing out that what you said was false, and that he indeed NEVER compared anyone to a 15 year old who doesn't speak english as a native language is 'semantics', at least not anymore then pointing out an undeniable and proven alabi in a murder case is 'semantics'. 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Citation Style" Tag

I'm adding a "citation style" tag to the entirety of this article, unless anybody can explain why I shouldn't. There is a sizable list of references and links at the bottom of the page, but none of the facts in the article have actually been attributed to them. Verifiability is supposedly one of the keys of Wikipedia, and at present, this article doesn't make it very easy to verify anything. As I stated in an earlier post, this lack of citations is one of the reasons there's so much bickering about the subject matter. People tend not to delete things that have a verifiable and relevant footnote attached to them.

So, any reason I shouldn't "citation style" this whole article?

(Also, I know it's still early in the year, but I would suggest that this talk page needs an archiving.) Bueller 007 14:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I double you can cite every piece of information in this web-based article. Mainly because of there are some limitations.
1) Orginal WWW links may change quickly, and be removed permanently.
2) Lots of photos were taken personally by Japanese soldiers. After such a long time, it is difficult to find out the exact name of the author by normal people.
3) It is unreality to expect web-based and volunteer-based pages as formal as text book.
Of course, we should cite as possible as we can, but you can't expect all of them.Caiqian 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree 100%. We don't need references for everything right away, and I don't plan on removing things just because they have no reference. However, if we find some information that does have a (reliable) reference, and it completely contradicts unreferenced material, I feel the unreferenced material should be thrown out. Otherwise, unreferenced material can be marked with a "citation needed" tag.
That said, I do think that the facts that we currently have listed on this page need citations, for just the reasons I outlined in my post above. To address your points one by one:
1) Original WWW links do often change, however there is a simple solution: www.archive.org Besides, we shouldn't NOT reference something just because it might change in the future.
2) The photos that were supposedly taken by Japanese soldiers should not be any part of this page until they are confirmed. Not a single one of the photos we have now can actually be attributed to Nanking, and as has been shown on numerous websites, (http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/nanjing/photos.htm, http://www.jiyuu-shikan.org/e/fujioka/index.html) the majority of the famous photos attributed to Nanking are actually bullsh*t. As FWBOArticle has PROVEN, the image of the 10,000-man ditch, is in fact, not related to Nanjing. Why it still remains on this page? I don't know.
3) This point may be true for most English and Chinese websites. It is not true for the majority of Japanese websites. (http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/NankingMassacre/, http://www.geocities.jp/pipopipo555jp/han/nich-mai-hikaku.htm) There are numerous Japanese websites that are laid out neutrally and scientifically, presenting just the facts. I am currently in the process of translating all of the articles about the 100-man cutting contest and placing them on a website. (japanesedocuments.blogspot.com) Thus far, I have completed all of the Tokyo Nichi-Nichi articles, I'm starting with the Osaka Mainichi articles, and I plan to continue translating numerous other Japanese resources. Further, in English, we have one EXCELLENT resource: David Askew In fact, much of the section on the "debate" from the current Wikipedia page appears to have been plagiarized from him.
The article NEEDS to cite its resources, precisely because the topic is so controversial, and resources are often biased or dishonest. By adding the "citation style" tag, we draw attention to this fact, and hopefully get some help fixing it. Bueller 007 16:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Rather than polka-dot the piece with [citation needed] markup, I picked out the one assertion that seemed to me most in need of citation:

On the other hand, recent excavation activities and efforts at historical re-evaluation have suggested that the original casualties may have been underestimated largely due to the fact that the large number of refugees fleeing from other provinces and killed in Nanking was uncertain until recently.[citation needed]

If there is excavatory evidence supporting the 100k+ death toll figures, I'm sure we'd all like to know about it.

This stands diametrically opposite to the David Askew piece cited on this page, in which he claims that those Japanese historians who believe a massacre did happen are adjusting their figures downwards. It would be nice to know which of these two assertions assertion is correct (if either). Bustter 16:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed New Article Intro

The intro for the article currently contains a lot of repetitive information. I suggest the intro be changed to this:

--

The Nanking Massacre
Chinese name
Simplified Chinese 南京大屠杀
Traditional Chinese 南京大屠殺
Pinyin Nánjīng Dàtúshā
Japanese name
Kanji 南京事件,
南京大虐殺
Hepburn Rōmaji Nankin Jiken,
Nankin Daigyakusatsu

The Nanking Massacre, commonly known as "The Rape of Nanking", refers to the most infamous of the war crimes committed by the Japanese military during World War II—acts carried out by Japanese troops in and around Nanjing (then known in English as Nanking), China, after it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army on December 13, 1937. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the period of carnage lasted well into the next six weeks, until early February 1938.

During the occupation of Nanjing, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, a large number of innocent men were wrongfully identified as enemy combatants and killed. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread.

The extent of the atrocities is hotly debated, with numbers ranging from the claim of the Japanese army at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East that the death toll was military in nature and that no such atrocities ever occurred, to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000. The West has generally tended to adopt the Chinese point-of-view, with many Western sources now quoting 300,000 dead. This is in no small part due to the popularity of Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking", which set the stage for the debate of the issue in the West.

The event continues to be a point of contention in Sino-Japanese relations.

--

Nothing has been removed from the article; the stuff I removed from the intro is all still available in the article below. I've just left in the most important points in the intro. I think it's a VAST improvement. Any complaints? Bueller 007 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre Memorial

I'm very new to wikipedia, so I'm posting here first, rather than editing the page directly, especially in view of the fact that the contribution is my own and I do not wish to appear self-promotional, especially regarding a topic of this nature.

A couple of weeks ago (March 19, 2006) I returned from a conference in Nanking and while there I naturally took the opportunity to visit the memorial and discuss it with some English speakers there.

Although I have no independent information on the massacre itself, I think that the pictures I took during the visit may be of interest to viewers of this article, especially since the memorial was build specifically as a result of the outrage of some Japanese claims that the incident didn't happen/wasn't that bad/etc. It's an attempt to set the record straight, or rather present the official Chinese view, and from that angle is important, I believe.

Some pictures are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79715717@N00/tags/nanjing/

And I have several hundred from around the memorial, including things like trees planted by Japanese citizens in apology, a mass grave dig site, and so forth. Many were not directly appropriate to a series of photos primarily about a conference, but it seems a shame to not let people see them.

My question is, is this appropriate/of interest? I can release copyright easily, since they are mine, and I have many more that may be of interest to this article.

Ian

If you think there are photos in your set that would make a nice addendum to the article, why not. The apology tree sounds promising. If you need help deciding on photos, uploading, choosing an appropriate licence, just ask. Shinobu 09:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Slayers.jpg is the forged picture

During the world war II or before, Japanese never used "Hiragana" Letter. However, in this picture, Hiragana is used. Therefore, we can say this picture is FORGED by someone. This picture is not proper evidence of [ropving Japan's brutality. Therefore, this picture should be removed ASAP.During the world war II or before, Japanese never used "Hiragana" Letter. However, in this picture, Hiragana is used. Therefore, we can say this picture is FORGED by someone. This picture is not proper evidence of [ropving Japan's brutality. Therefore, this picture should be removed ASAP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.145.114.24 (talk • contribs).

Eh? The Wikipedia page on Hiragana says otherwise. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The poem Iroha-uta ("Song/poem of colours"), which dates to the 10th century, uses every hiragana (except n ん) once.

Hiragan, katikana, and kanji. Anata no daigaku wa doko ni arimasuka?

Romaji is hard to read. Type in Japanese. Hong Qi Gong 05:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/n/Talk%7ENanjing_Massacre_Archive_4_2c6e.html"