Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:11, 16 April 2005

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

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

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

This article is due for a serious revamp.

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

Kmlawson

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

Okay, I will unlink them. Thank you for your advice and help. --Ed Poor

I think "Rape of Nanking" will stand as the popular name for the events much longer than it will to the book. What's wrong with "Rape of Nanking (book)"? Check Google for '"Rape of Nanking" -book -young -yin' Hotlorp

I agree -- When I hear "Rape of Nanking" the event pops into my mind not the book. I've rarely heard this event called the "Nanjing Massacre" and have never heard it called the "Battle of Nanjing". --mav 14:08 Jul 29, 2002 (PDT)

Mav, I agree with you on the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm okay with it. User:kt2

PinkBotRX, do you have a source we can cite for the 200,000 figure? -- Pde 08:10, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would like to question the neutrality of translating 'Jiken' to 'incident'. This seems to show that 'other side' is trying to downplay this event which is not true. While technically possible translation, 'Jiken' term is used very broadly in Japanese from very minor everyday incident to the like of the Tianmen Square 'Jiken' which is a bona fide masscre or the Aum cult's Sarin 'Jiken' which killed and injured more than 5000. I suggest the use of 'event' for the translation.

Revth 17:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Forgotten memory

I removed the following:

This was almost forgotten(Maybe that is true for people of other country, but Chinese will never forget this massacre, forever), but since 1980s, the Communist China has utilized this incident as a diplomacy card and to take the spotlight off from massacres by themselves.

It is POV, both the original version and the annotated one ("Maybe..."). People's memory of this event is not as easily measurable as the statements above imply. If it is, provide legitimate sources to back up the statements. --Menchi 01:10, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article says that Chang reached a figure of 260,000. But this page says: "Ms. Chang concludes that upwards to 350,000 Chinese lives were destroyed by the Japanese." What gives? Is Kagan talking about something other than the death toll? -- Pde 00:13, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

-Pde, the death tolls for this vary hugely, some of the articles I quoted discuss the issue. Basically the estimates range from 20,000 all the way to 400,000. Many very well respected historians stay the number is probably in the range of 60-120,000. China's official figure is 300,000. It also depends on the area, who you include and a range of other factors...

Move?

seems to be more common: . Should this be moved? --Jiang 10:54, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is ist really necessary for NPOV reason to include the reference "ABC...."? Encyclopedia should not mean that it holds every opinion of a certain timepoint.

I think so too. Although Japanese "ABC..." pages have some good materials, English pages are not so good. So, I changed it to another site. How about this one?Kadzuwo 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

三月亡華

There is not the word "三月亡華" in Japanese language as you see.
This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. --Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海，三月亡支那 is the japanese version

There is not the word "三月亡支那" in Japanese language. --Snow steed 06:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Denial of Nanjing Massacre

Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? --Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. --Poo-T 19 May 2004

I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle

At first, What I wrote means, 'At least, sporadic raping is not deniable, But estimating the number of raping is a hard problem'. I can't understand why I was identified as 'Denial side'. I write back one question and one impression. #As you wrote, No one doubts about the existance of killing. Then, what is the meaning of your 'Denial side'. As you wrote, people 'under 100,000' can be devided into two groups, at least. You tend to treat both groups as just 'they'. It sounds strange. You should describe them separately. #Who can say 'most historians in Japan belongs to one group'? I agree that 'less than 10,000' and 'more than 300,000' are minority, but not agree '100,000 and above' is the majority. But your didn't write which group is the majority. Your attitude seems fair, and suitable for Misplaced Pages. Poo-T 27 Aug 2004

This is what you wrote. "About raping, personal records of Japanese soldiers suggest existance of sporadic raping, but determining the actual extent of rape cases is more difficult and, therefore, the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." The record suggest that Japanese soldiers indeed committed rape. The assertion that these records only suggest "sporadic raping" is your POV. "determining the actual extent of rape case is more difficult" is also POV. It all depends on availability of hisotrical records. It may not possible to present "exact" number of rapes, however it is possible to assertain if such practice was "widespread" or not. Therefore, "the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." is your POV. And as far as current "majority" opinion goes, the assertion of mass rape is substantiated and widely documented by testimonies from Japanese, Chinese and Fwww.google.com/search?ie=Shift_JIS&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%8EO%8C%8E%96S%89%D8&btnG=Google+%8C%9F%8D%F5&lr=lang_ja you see].

This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. --Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海，三月亡支那 is the japanese version

Denial of Nanjing Massacre

Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? --Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. --Poo-T 19 May 2004

I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle

At first, What I wrote means, 'At least, sporadic raping is not deniable, But estimating the number of raping is a hard problem'. I can't understand why I was identified as 'Denial side'. I write back one question and one impression. #As you wrote, No one doubts about the existance of killing. Then, what is the meaning of your 'Denial side'. As you wrote, people 'under 100,000' can be devided into two groups, at least. You tend to treat both groups as just 'they'. It sounds strange. You should describe them separately. #Who can say 'most historians in Japan belongs to one group'? I agree that 'less than 10,000' and 'more than 300,000' are minority, but not agree '100,000 and above' is the majority. But your didn't write which group is the majority. Your attitude seems fair, and suitable for Misplaced Pages. Poo-T 27 Aug 2004

This is what you wrote. "About raping, personal records of Japanese soldiers suggest existance of sporadic raping, but determining the actual extent of rape cases is more difficult and, therefore, the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." The record suggest that Japanese soldiers indeed committed rape. The assertion that these records only suggest "sporadic raping" is your POV. "determining the actual extent of rape case is more difficult" is also POV. It all depends on availability of hisotrical records. It may not possible to present "exact" number of rapes, however it is possible to assertain if such practice was "widespread" or not. Therefore, "the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." is your POV. And as far as current "majority" opinion goes, the assertion of mass rape is substantiated and widely documented by testimonies from Japanese, Chinese and Foreign residents in Naking. But our job is to make proper attribution of POV. So I don't intend to censor denial side argument as long as attribution of POV is properly made. FWBOarticle 13:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think, the debate about raping will never reach to an agreement, but present description seems relatively, fair. Then, could you answer to my question? What is the meaning of your 'Denial side'? Does it means just 'under 10,000' group? If not, you should write as 'Group1 and Group2', for example. And I have another question. You rewote '10,000 -40,000' to '10,000-40,000 or less'. I can't catch the meaning of your writing. Does it means 'less than 40,000'? Poo-T 27 Aug 2004

Firstly, "10,000-40,000 or less" is my bad. I fixed it. To be honest, I prefer this one to be included in "100,000 or less" because the number 40,000 is attributed to the standard of proof set by Hata. However, it seems to be the case that depending of the standard of the proof and method of estimation, the number jump from group 2 ( 40,000) to group 3 (120,000 or 130,000 or more to upward of 250,000). I really wish someone can explain how the different method of estimation cause this fluctuation and jump in numbers but unfortunately, I don't have access to Hata's book. I don't live in Japan at the moment. As of denial side. I think there is two type. The first type is denial of killing and rape itself, which is pretty much extinct now. The second type is denial of Nanking "massacre" and "Rape" of Naking, which is bit more complex because it is more about moral implication of facts. I personally think 100,000 or 300,000 being killed is both pretty bad. True, 300,000 is 200,000 more bad than 100,000. But we don't say American is 40% "guiltier" in Hiroshima (140,000) than Nagasaki (100,000), do we. There is something off about mixing mathematics with ethic. And I find it bit far fetched to think that soldiers somewhat behaved themselves and kept their pants on while at the same time they somewhat ended up killing that many. Anway, the second type is about asserting that "lower" number of killing and "less" rape took place. It also asserts that that killing was directed against "suspected" illegal gurrilla, which is another way of admitting that civilians were killed but for the reason of unfortunate misunderstanding. I consider this "mass killing or massacre???" debate to be bit too "post-modern". I also think there is a bit of politics about the number 300,000 because it notch the death toll above combined total of 240,000 of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally I find that number starting from 120,000 to 130,000 then ending with 250,000 depending of the range and method of estimate to be more politically netural. I think Hata apply standard of proof of criminal prosecution for individual crime which is not appropriate for historical research. Also, as far as I know 300,000 is sort of more PC number but in fact somewhere between 150,000 to 250,000 is indeed more standard among academic historians. I hear that in China, attempt is made to increse the death toll above 300,000 by uping the estimate of population of Naking at the time, which I find is somewhat on the same league as denial side. I don't intend to start edit/delete war by trying to force the current article's presentation 300,000 as accepted death toll to 150,000-250,000. The subastance of the ethical issue is same in both numbers in my opinion. Plus, I need exact detail of the content of evidence used in arriving at both numbers. FWBOarticle

My guess is that good analogy of Hata's method can be found in Harold Shipman's case. The guy is convicted of killing 16. However, it is estimated that he killed at leat 215 of his patient. 215 as number comes up because all of them died within his clinic or while being examined by him. How many patinet who is not suffering any critical illness droped dead quietnly while being watched by a doctor? I'm quite sure that he cannot be found guilty of all 215 murder because that require discovery of morphine in dead body which is long gone. But on the balance of proof, it is correct to say he killed at least 215. And that is definitely a massacre. FWBOarticle 23:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't ask you to compare reliiability of 'more than 100,000' and 'less than 100,000'. I have asked you about the meaning of your writing,'Denial side'/'They'. Do you want to equate #1 group with #2 group? For me, Putting two groups into just one saying,'Denial side' seems arbitrary categorization. How can you say '10,000-100,000 killed'='Denial'? But before that, a Chinese guy came and deleted text what he dislike without discussion, as usual. What do you do to his edit? Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

O.K. it may be appropriate to name the first group as "Maboroshi-ha" (Illusionist) according to Japanese page. For the second group 40,000 yes, it may be appropriate not to use "Denial side" as an attribution because the term somewhat implies that all members belogning to this group are right wing Ideologue. Hata, especially, are known for exposing several hoax (such as claim that American government knew attack on Pearl Harbour which was quite popular among nationalists) Should we make up new word, such as "conservative"? Anyway, feel free to edit for better attribution. FWBOarticle 04:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your naming. But 'Illusionist' sounds like magician :P) Do you have a better idea about the naming for the 1st group? For Ex. cynical/negative.Poo-T 31 Aug 2004

Discussion in Japan

This was moved from the article space. Rewrite before posting. --Jiang 23:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The text was merged with Nanjing_Massacre#Death_toll_estimates, so I deleted the talk about it to save sapce--Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

I would like to make some changes on this after reading Honda Katsuichi's book, (The Nanjing Massacre) an excellent account with very good reference backup. Hopefully it will clarify some areas. Mandel 09:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through some parts of the article and have removed some portions which seems insufficiently substantiated. The problem with writing articles like this is that if it is not sufficiently documented, the right-wing Japanese will have a field-day picking out the errors and inconsistencies, then make a whole hula-point from a nitpick. That's the problem with the Rape of Nanking book by Ms Iris Chang. There're some misquotations and supposed poor documentation, and now it's backfired upon the author. In short, we can't be overly careful. For example, someone added this:

However, by mid-1930s the city was filled with 1 million people, many of them refugees fleeing from the Japanese army which had invaded northeast China.

after one party added this:

It should be noted that the city normally held 250,000 people.

I'll like either parties to substantiate with a reference. I can do it for the second one, from both a Chinese website , which states the number between 535,000 and 635,000. Even so, I think one good reference is not enough.

There's another problem. Apparently a lot of the writing is quoted directly from Kajimoto Masato's website without acknowledgement at all. It's a copyrighted website. See for example and compare with the present article. Mandel 10:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have rewrote the category of Japanese opinion in line with Japanese Wikepedia. This is not to state which opinion is true. Japanese page also say Jyusumannin Ijyou = More than 100,000 and several 10 thousands. I have adjusted this to simply "more than 100,000" FWBOarticle 20:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However, some groups in and out of Japan insist the massacre never took place, and was fabricated as a point of propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China, which frustrates the Sino-Japan relationship from time to time. It is true to some extent. For example, more than half of pictures in The Rape of Nanking are retouched.

Care to elaborate?

I'd like to mention that if it is based on Tanaka Masaaki's refutation I'd revert the changes. It is not Iris Chang but rather Tanaka Masaaki who rewrote so-called documents to his liking. Mandel 11:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I've deleted it, no evidence of any credibility to back the claim. Fuzheado | Talk 09:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To Mandel, I have to point out two things. #1 That text doesn't depend on Tanaka's writings. As you wrote, his doing also impaired his credibility. #2 The linked text is now disputed. About 'Hundred Head Contest', writer Mr.Honda and the publisher was sued for libiel by the bereaved of the 'war criminals' he reported. Many Japanese doubt neutrality of 'Shukan Kinyobi'. Do you know that editor of 'Shukan Kinyobi' is Mr.Honda?

I don't get your point at all. Mandel 13:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

To Fuzheado, Please Ask to others before editinig. At least, you should ask to FWBOarticle, as he wrote it. Without discussion, 'no evidence of any credibility' is just your POV.--Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

While I understand your concern about the removed text, it is not "POV" to require evidence to back up what is clearly against the grain of accepted scholarship and evidence. It is not my job to have to disprove the negative. It is the writer who must provide positive supporting evidence. Without that, the text cannot stand. Fuzheado | Talk 17:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"The grain of accepted scholarship and evidence" means nothing to this argument and you can't use a generalization as a proof. I can simply repeat back what you wrote as the precise reason that the text should stand. It is not my job to disprove the negative. It is the writer who must provide positive supporting evidence. Without that, the text cannot stand. BTW, read this and tell me why any evidence written by a Chinese from Chinese mainland should be considered "the grain of accepted scholarship and evidence". Chinese can write only what the government consider appropriate or they would be arrested. You must know that as a researcher that this is true. Revth 03:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

However, not only the Chinese scholars but even the Taiwan Chinese historians agree with what is written. If you want, I can give you the KMT version of the massacre (the death toll is placed even much higher). Do you think the high bodies between the two countries sit down for a conspiracy?

It is not factual because it has been proven so by the Japanese scholars, not Chinese. Mandel 13:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

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

Mr. Honda has produced a courageous account backed by irrefutable interviews and thorough research into the atrocities perpetrated by the Japanese Imperial Army in Nanking in 1937.

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

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

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

Death Toll Estimate

I was just reading Chinese Wiki page which says, "總數可能會高達一千萬人". O.K. my chinese is not that good but it appear that it say "the death toll potentially reach up to 1000,000". This sounds bit absurd but should I include it by attributing on Chinese POV? FWBOarticle 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it possible with reference, as there still exsists a debate about the estimation. Inflation is so commmon in China :P) and their will to increase the number is valuable to describe, I think.Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

"一千萬" means "10,000,000", not "1,000,000". Nachi 12:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I've read the text in chinese, but it describes as follows. - Japanese historians think of posiibility that Japanese army might kill 3 millions civilians "near Nanjing", but Chinese historians think ut could be up to 10 million civilians. - It is not related to 'nanjing massacre'. Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

Yeah, that sounds about right. Thought where that 3 millions attributed to "Japanese historian" is another matter. FWBOarticle

That is, if the massacres outside Nanjing is taken into account as well -- 若連華東地區被殺人口也計算在內的話. It is not POV: it states specifically it is what the Chinese historians think.

Although I think there's a problem with the figures. They ought to be 30, 000 and 1 million respectively, not 10 million. Mandel 13:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I've reread the article. It refers to massacres committed by Japanese soldiers up to and including the Nanking massacre, in the areas Shanghai, Suzhou, Wuxi, Jiaxing, Hangzhou, Shaoxing and Changzhou. ie. 3 million killed. Mandel 03:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

User Qizil bayraq

I'm reverting the suspicious edits of User:Qizil bayraq who has only 5 edits before changing this page, and has not explained controversial edits or engaged in discussion. Fuzheado | Talk 12:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm soory. But it is fact that some (not all) nationalist groups in Japan claim the massacre was fabricated as propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China. Surely, their claim itself is suspicious. Qizil bayraq

Japanese estimates

I edited, and hopefully improved, the English of the Japanese estimates section. I first separated it in its own section since it appeared to come from a different editor. I tried to minimize the changes. The only change I'm not completely comfortable with is that I couldn't think of a good counterpart to the word "apologist" in naming the two sides of the debate. I preferred "apologists" to "revisionist" because the latter feels like someone who'll lie while apologist connotes someone who'll explain Vincent 05:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't a bit strange that there is a heading entitled "Japanese Estimates," as if the nationality of the scholar affected the nature of their work? Can't the Japanese estimates be merged in?

I think I have discovered an article which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner. I feel that this paper would help to fix the currenst state of the article where the debate (death toll estimate) is separated on national basis. FWBOarticle

Reorganisation

Oh well. I'm quite sure some won't like my edit given that my extra content put 300,000 figures within context. Also I eliminated Japanese perspective and Japanese histography and stremlined into the whole article. I hope this one is considered as the major improvement. I will add more details in "Death toll estimate" section provided the entire section don't get reverted. 84.65.111.142

Opps, it was me. FWBOarticle

I don't agree with a streamlined approach. Firstly, there has been no consensus between Japanese and Chinese researchers, the article gives the misleading idea that there has been such. This doesn't make for NPOV. Secondly, it makes for difficult reading. Structurally it's really hard to follow. Dividing it into more sections originally makes the reading much easier to follow. Mandel 12:29, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Way unbalanced article.

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

• The Causes section is far too short; Again, I'm no expert on the subject, but I've definitely heard of far more explanations, and more complex explanations than what's presented here. There's no mention of the intense Japanese military training process that created troops with a majorly unhealthy need to vent. There's no explanation/description of who the officers were that were present, what their orders were, which officers were complicit and which were not. Except for what I added, there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan.

• There is practically zero explanation of what actually happened here. Aside from the pictures, and the generalized description of "looting, rape, and killing" there is no explanation of precisely what methods were used to kill the Chinese civilians. Did this happen in the heat of battle? To what extent was it organized? Was it more like uncontrolled troops rampaging through the streets, or was it more like a firing squad killing, like the Nazis committed at various times & places? Were people killed by hand, by gun, or by spear & sword? etc.
  • This is an article still in the writing. It is not perfect, or it would have been a featured article. If you think you can contribute in a NPOV way, go ahead and make changes.
  • "there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan."...Again you are biased. There are many telegraphs by Westerners accounting for the deaths to Japan, which are summarily dismissed by the Japanese government. Read for example John Rabe's diaries. Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it terrible that the government should dismiss information like this. Don't get me wrong, by no means do I condone what occurred. But refusing to acknowledge that atrocities were occurring, refusing to take action to stop it, while terrible in its own way, is not the same as ordering that it be done in the first place. I compare this, somewhat, in my mind to the recent Abu Grahib prisoner tortures; I would hope that no one but the most illogical liberals would accuse Pres Bush or anyone high up in our government of ordering that this be done. It was, like the events at Nanjing, the actions of a number of low-ranking soldiers who were going against orders.
      • Although I can't edit this much since I lack experties in Chinese history, it seems to me that the term "low-ranking" has to be deeply misleading. In a military organisation, the actions of subordinates are specifically the responsibility of their commander, and this is a principle which has carried through most of the important war crimes trials. Given that Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, a entered Nanking whilst the massacre was ongoing, and was a general in the Japanese army, he became responsable for ongoing actions from the moment he became aware of them. The current text is dangerously misleading. The fact that the Hirota Koki (the Japanese foreign minister at the time of the Rape of Nanjing) (again ) was convicted and exected for this makes the article in contradiction of a court and without any qualification extremely strong POV. Mozzerati 22:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

• To focus so much on the body count, and on the historiography indicates a POV on the part of the writer, and an intended focus. There is nothing wrong with including this information; it is interesting and relevant. But more needs to be added in other sections, especially in the Causes and Events of the Massacre itself. Perhaps a section could be added on how the Massacre has been used by China (academics, government, general populace) since then, to demonize Japan, to minimize the threat posed by an increasingly powerful China, and to minimize the various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions undertaken by China over the centuries, not only against other nations, but against their own people - see Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen Square Massacre.
  • I disagree. This article is not the result of one writer, but rather a collaborative effort. In fact the section on body count has been added mostly by Japanese contributors generally because it is a big area of contention used by Japanese right-wing academics to minimize their war-crimes. I also disagree with the point that the Massacre has been used to demonize Japan. It is tantamount to saying that the Holocaust has been used to demonize Germany. To date, unlike Germany, Japan has not publicly addressed the issue nor given renumerations to Massacre or war victims. This is a fact which has been time and again "revise" in their local textbooks. To mention that China uses it to minimize their "various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions" is myopic and POV - please give specific examples when China has done so. These are different issues and has never been muddled together by the government. Are we going to enmesh, for example, US's shameful treatment of native Americans and blacks with their WWII contributions? Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, that was unfair of me to say, and I apologize. Looking back at it again, I don't know why I wrote that. What the Communists did, and continue to do, to their own people has no bearing on whether or not Japanese atrocities happened. LordAmeth 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• As others have said, as horrible as this Massacre was, it was not genocide, not even attempted genocide. Genocide involves the intentional extermination of all people belonging to a given ethnic, racial, or religious group. The Japanese may have been racists, believing the Chinese to be inferior in various ways, but they never claimed, officially or otherwise, that it was their goal to eliminate all Chinese people from the face of the earth. Even if they had killed every last inhabitant of Nanjing, which they did not, they still would not have eliminated the Chinese, or the Buddhists, or the Communists, or any other such group from the world. Cruel though their actions were, calling it genocide lessens the evil of true attempts at genocide.
  • Genocide does not mean intentionally exterminating all members of the group. For a definition, see . Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

Removed photographs

Image:Nanjing massacre beheading.jpg

Image:Nanjing massacre heads.jpg

Image:Nanjing massacre rapes.jpg

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

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

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

Concerning the removals of these photographs, I'd like to ask how many of other WWII photos do we know the photographers' names for certain? If we do it for certain in Nanjing Massacre we might as well do the same for other photos as well. Mandel 09:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of these photographs. Any photo can be used as "propaganda", so unless there is reason to think the photos were altered or staged, they shouldn't be discounted as "propaganda photos". They are historically important, as much of the debate about the Nanjing massacre is centered around them. They are certainly widely believed to be photographs of the Nanjing massacre. To remove them sets a very bad precedent, in my opinion. I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. – Quadell 15:37, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the photographs. It's a little bit like showing floating bodies of tsunami victims, or severed heads of Iraqi beheading victims. Even though things happen, we shouldn't show shocking pictures of all of it. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform, not inflame. State things in text instead. -- Curps 16:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revth is ovbiously a Japanese hisotorical revisionist. Since I can read Japanese, I know very well that the allegation of "propaganda pictures" is frequent theme in the Japanese far-right literature. He is not worth discussing with. Everton 18:27, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks. Revth may have any political veiwpoint he likes, but no one who is willing to discuss their changes is "not worth discussing with". (I do think he's wrong, but let's keep the tone respectful if we can.) – Quadell 21:27, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

'Without evidence/source, photographs should not be used'. If the use of photographs without evidence is permitted, we can use the famous photo "a bird coated with black oil" as "How cruel Iraq!" It is not a possibility, but happened in the Gulf War. Mandel/Quadell/Everton, May I add the photo again to the Gulf War page with your theory "photo can be used unitl it is proved as a lie" ? Generally, it is hard to find all the photographs' sources in the net. So it is needed to show reliable source to use photos, especially for encyclopedia/wikipedia. It's not about Left-wing or Right-wing. It's a basic rule for Misplaced Pages. Don't you think so? Mandell, I think, if you know such photos without sources, the photos should be removed from Misplaced Pages, or replaced by photos with reliable sources. Does Misplaced Pages need many photos without evidence? Wikiopedia is not a photoalbum. Poo-T 22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I found the revert -Everton (no historical revisionist disruption). Everton. You know the place to talk and discuss, and you know the question to you. Again. This is about a basic rule about Misplaced Pages. If you think, "branding as 'historical revisionist' is the ultimate weapon", it sounds stupid. 'Talk here first, revise after that'. Or your doing would be recognized just an Advocacy. See What Misplaced Pages is not. Poo-T 18:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've waited to discuss, but still no objection. Before you revert, please discuss about the problem (What kind of photos should be/not be used for Misplaced Pages) here. I kept the photo 'Many bones of the dead' to keep discussing about the problem. Could anyone show the source of the photo? Poo-T 18:58, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Removed section on complicity of upper levels

I removed the following since it needs PoV revision

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

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

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

Some Chinese take great relish...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether or not some Chinese take relish in condemning WWII Japan is besides the question. It has no basis in whether the article is accurate or not. If the article holds true, it is because it is backed by proper historical evidence (as in the Holocaust) and well researched by historians with living eyewitnesses and first-hand documents (eg. John Rabe's diaries). Whether the current Japanese climate chooses to sanitize the event does not make what is described less true. Comparisons of Japan with postwar Germany is also apt, because the Japanese government has not publicly acknowledged, made renumerations or properly educate its younger generation, to safeguard such an event from happening again, unlike what Germany has done.

It seems the idea of "shame" is very different from the West and Japan. Japan frequently finds it easier to "forget" their WWII atrocities which is widely condemned by humanist and international communities. In the West, it takes much courage to admit one's mistake. Remember George Washington's tree (apocryphal though that tale may be)? I guess it's just a completely different culture.

Besides, who in the right mind would take relish in mentioning a war atrocity?Grown men still weep openly at the mention of the Holocaust, especially when their close kin and relations had died in them. Mandel 22:14, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hypocrits! The Chinese

They are increasing the number of Chinese dead in this war and yet, they say killing 1 million Tibetans are okay. What a hypocrite! Needs clean up for sure. I read Iris Chang's book and it was horrible. No accuracy, no foot notes for events and chopping pictures to make it look like there was a massacre. This article is not accurate!

Hey you call the Chinese hypocrites but not the Japanese? They whine to us about the USAF dropping the two atomic bombs yet they turn around and continue to worship those war criminals and build huge shrines for them. What's worse the Germans apologized for their war crimes repeatedly but the Japanese shrugged it off as nothing. Where's the apology for the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, slaughtering our POWs and human testing in Unit 731? I think you better open your mind more before calling one side a hypocrite and not the other.--Secret Agent Man 21:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello, if you are really interested in making the article a better one, do so. Please do not inflame racist or groundless remarks. This article has enough trouble already. Mandel 21:59, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

hi Man, acknowledge the history like germans do. Otherwise I am sure the mistake will be happened again in the future. caiqian

Jinling Girls College?

I noticed there's no reference to Minnie Vautrin and her work with the Jinling Girls College and protecting the women there during the Massacre. Woudl this be something appropriate to add to this article? --WillDarlock 16:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article is now somewhat of a mess. I'm not sure where you can add anything in, but I for one would certainly appreciate an encyclopedic entry on Minnie Vautrin and a link here. I have read about her many times in Rabe's diaries, and there's a book about her Nanking deeds also. Mandel 17:46, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Some References

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

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

Chicago: Innovative Publishing Group, 1997

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

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000

Proposal

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

I'll agree. Caiqian 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and yes - maybe the photograph on the Killing Contest should be shifted down to where the article mentions it in detail. Mandel 22:28, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that would be much better. Caiqian 10:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvivio

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

NPOV

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

Remove the dispute template NOW!

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

"Dispute" template has been removed

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

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

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

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

Put pretty bluntly, the neutrality of this article is only "disputed" between far-right Japanese historical revisionists and people who know the truth. I agree with this previous commentary. I move now to remove the "Dispute" template. Colipon+(T) 01:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with the comments above. Therefore I removed the "dispute" template. AquaExecution

I agree with removing the dispute template, but the reasoning that Colipon and AquaExecution provide for doing so is severely flawed. This is an encyclopedia, and while it may seem cold, the behavior of current Japanese politicians and our sympathy towards the massacre's victims should have nothing to do with determining how the article is presented. Please refrain from doing this kind of thing in the future. --Rroser167 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rroser167, can you guarantee that the Holocaust article is not written through sympathy to the Jews? Any behavior of anti-semitism today is basically considered as a crime. If the Jewish people deserve sympathy, why can't the Chinese get any? How come it's not as big a crime for the far-right Japanese to be anti-chinese compared to anti-semitism? Are you implying that the Chinese people are not as important or valuable as the Jews? Because obviously the current Japanese far-right politicians are not treating the Chinese as an equal. --AquaExecution 11:11, 12 Apr 2005

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

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

POV

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

Providing the views of "denielits" is along with NPOV policy. Article, if written neutral should voice both sides views. An average reader will dispute factual acuracy when "Japanese atrocities" is a topic. If you dont want that you want to write it neutral. --Cool Cat 12:11, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)