Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:11, 6 August 2007

China B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Japan B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:43, January 12, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Military history: Asian / Japanese / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force World War II task force

Archives

1. 2003
2. 2004
3. 2005
4. Jan—May 2006

question to author

I have looked at both the Chinese and Japanese perspectives on the issue of this topic. I notice legitimate questions as to the sources of the figures for these terrible events including what seems to be logical errors. I have also looked at what seems to be compelling evidence proving this event. My conclusion so far has been that a number of Japanese wont admit what seems obvious and the Chinese have intentionally inflated casualty figures to make the event more significant. I dont want to argue which is a right action, what I want to assert is that it is unfortunate that friction is the case surrounding the investigation of this event and that both sides should work together to bring peace to these families and to reiterate to the people of Japan how their government lied to them. I also want to read your response as to if you provide the facts that question the figures involved with the Nanking massacre, (for example, one person witnessing and counting 57,000 people die). Could it happen, Yes, but even with a strong college education, I dont think I can count that high with patience or tolerance. There are numerous discrepencies within the accumulating of the number dead, however, this should not detract from the overall importance of this horrible event. Just thought you could display more objectivity in stating some of what I have mentioned. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

Well, if you look at the 3 years worth of discussion on this page, there has been numerous edit wars regading stuff you've mentioned. This is an extremely touchy issue for many people, and the article seems to be going in the right direction for now =). If you check the edit history of the article, you'll see there has been numerous edit wars regarding figures, pictures, accounts, sources, verifiability of sources, etc. Deiaemeth 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That has to be hard to deal with edit wars over such a touchy subject. Sorry. I praise your involvement with this article, it must be hard. However, what are the figures of casualties from Japanese perspectives (not the idiots that deny it even happened). In addition, you could also read some of the literature attempting to refute the claims of Nanking, including good literature that refutes some of the assertions by your woman author mentioned within the article. I have read both sides, this is why I ask you about this. You could avoid edit wars if you did. If you want my help please let me know by responding below. I want to contribute any way I can to this article. Thanks

I am curious why you used the word "extremist" so much. What makes them extreme? It looks to be an attack on the people that hold that view. --141.129.1.98 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

lenaga textbook incident

Are you referring to the time that Japan declared its support for the US against China in the question of the Taiwan issue, then immediately afterwards, China protested textbooks in Japan by destroying Japanese businesses in China and dragging innocent Japanese exchange students into the streets and beating them to near death, then afterwards CNN publishes a article mentioning the several lies within the Chinese textbooks about the cultural revolution, cannabalism of American GIS during the Korean War, etc.etc.etc. and a quote from Chinese scholar at Cambridge that admits that China is using the atrocities of Japan during World War II and textbook objectivity for propaganda and political reasons? If it is , I would like to offer you several articles of sources for a contribution please. I hopr you would look at my sources, if you are open to this path please respond below, I am currently scheduled to write about this topic so I am now in the process of research but hopefully, what I have uncovered may be corrected by you or may beneift you. Thanks.

Chinese people in Taiwan like my parents are anti-comnuist but we know about the lies in Japanese textbooks.CHSGHSF 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to lenaga textbook incident

About this recent addition to the lenaga textbook incident section:

While most in Japan do not deny that a massacre took place in Nanking, many Japanese citizens feel that the extent of crimes committed have been exaggerrated in order to give a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism, which aims to weaken Japanese power and influence in the region. This is especially true with the more hardline members of the government cabinet, who have grown increasingly wary of China's military build-up in recent years.

I'm concerned about the part where it says "While most in Japan do not deny..." and then "many Japanese citizens feel...". Do we have a source to claim that "most" or "many" Japanese feel this way? Or was this completely anecdotal of the author? Also, does that fall under the usage of weasel words? Hong Qi Gong 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many or most are weasel words! I mean it is better than "some" and "some". And really most people don't listen to ultra-nationalists who try to deny this stuff. I think there is a sense of proportion. BlizzardGhost 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's always best to give a concrete answer. Are there studies done, eg public opinion surveys? -- Миборовский 05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think more accurate description is to say that "After publication of Japanese military reports as well as collected interviews of Japanese veterans of the battle, the debate over whether massacre took place or not has ended by the 80s. The debate shifted in 90s to the estimates of death toll and the legality of killing of "enemy combatant".". I would say past 90s, the debate pretty much died down. I hardly read about it now a day. I think the publication of Iris Chang's book was the peak of the controversy. That didn't go down well on massacre side of the debate. Vapour

Btw, why is "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch" photo (or for that matter, any photo from Prenceton University Gallery, which were compiled by a student body) still used in this article. That was shown to be misatribution. Vapour

Safety Zone

I added a section about the Nanking Safety Zone. Normally I wouldn't mention it in the talk page, but since this is such a touchy subject, I thought I would mention it. Please, though, if you have a problem with something I wrote, PLEASE DO NOT DELET IT. Discuss it on the talk page first, make edits, whatever. I just think that the Safety Zone is a very important factor in the massacre, and has been mostly overlooked in the creation of this article. My point: whether or not what I wrote was correct, something about the Nanking Safety Zone needs to be in this article. Heavy Metal Cellist_contribs

Nanjing Safety Zone -- Миборовский 06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Doubts

I think this section is full of neutrality and source to fit with the rest of the article. Whoever put that section in there put in the necessary citations. If citations can be given, I suggest having that section improved all together given it is an two-sided story with a plethora of support. Thanks you for your wonderful contribution.

Image text

sigh, I hate when users argue over tiny things. I decided to take the "claim" text off for the following reasons:

1. The Japanese denial on the Massacre questioned the factual accuracy of the released Nanking photographs in general (See 南京大虐殺論争#写真の真偽). They did not specifically point out those two photograph is "fake" (unless there is an citation).

2. It is not the best way to "specify" the claim in the photograph. I will add the related text in "Historiography and debate" section because by specifying it in the photograph, there is POV problems (As if your saying "The Japanese rightists claimed this picture is fake. How ridiculous!"). It is truth that they did state so, but you don't describe it like that.

3. I am planning to translate the 南京大虐殺論争 (Debates on Nanking Massacre) page. It'll be much more specifying on this field of interest.

AQu01rius 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, John Smith's has the link.
2. Taken.
3. Thanks.

-- Миборовский 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Mib it was you that wanted the longer captions. I was only trying to make them more NPOV. John Smith's 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence was very unclear however. The "Revisionists claim.." sentence was not neutral because of its lack of citation and the intentional specification, not because of its wording. The wording of the sentence itself was reasonable. AQu01rius 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide" or "massacre"?

This is a very simple question. This event has been called a lot of things. However it isn't appropriate to have both category tags, especially as genocide rather implies massacres went on. So please decide amongst yourselves which you would prefer. It would be a lot simpler that way. John Smith's 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer both. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does it require both? I've been through similar pages and they've been happy to use one or the other. Why is this a special event that requires both? It didn't even have "massacres" until recently. John Smith's 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I actually think it strange that you insist on using only one category out of the two, but seeming to no longer have a preference for which category to use. Also, I believe if similar events can be considered both a genocide and a massacre, they also should be included in both categories. The two are not the same things. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a preference at the moment because you were quite obstinant in refusing my earlier edits. So rather than just start an edit war, I thought it would be polite to actually give people here a choice as to what they thought was better for the article. It has got along fine with just one such category in the past.

I have never heard of genocide that did not involve the massacre of human beings. John Smith's 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the Genocide Convention , any act intended to wipe out a racial (etc) entity (in whole or in part) is genocide. So, for example, systematic sterilisation of a people is genocide as well.

In this case, I think "Massacre" is much more appropriate. The Japanese soldiers weren't killing to intentionally wipe out the Chinese people. They were killing for fun or revenge or even military expediency. --Sumple (Talk) 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I rather agree with Sumple. Genocide isn't really what went on. John Smith's 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We've got links in the External links section saying that it is a genocide. It would either violate no original research or it would be POV to say it's not. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You have SOME links that say it was genocide. If they all said genocide, maybe. But there are other sources that dispute the very nature of the event, so that argument won't work. John Smith's 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What this only means is that there needs to be a category for disputed events. Your logic here would mean we should also remove the Massacres category and the Japanese War Crimes category, because not all the sources label it as such. We've got sources that label it only as an "incident". NPOV means we provide opposing points of views. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, what is your problem? I simply asked people to choose between the two categories, as having both was not necessary. Sumple has given his opinion as have I, so I think you should just leave it. John Smith's 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the point of your rhetoric of asking me what "my problem" is. I simply don't understand why we must choose only one of those two categories. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's have "murder", "rape", "death", "Japan", "China" and any other category you can think of in there too. There is no need for having both categories - it got on fine without both, didn't it? Besides, as I said, I don't think that genocide is appropriate, like Sumple. John Smith's 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have those categories for the article. Also:

1. The fact that we've got sources saying it's a genocide would override editors' personal opinions that it's not a genocide.
2. Your logic that "it got on fine" before would mean that we should no longer add any categories or content to the article.

--- Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on - now you're being daft. As I have kept saying, there are many opinions on it. People that say it's used for propaganda, so let's have a propaganda category too! John Smith's 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think "categories" is the same as "keywords". --Sumple (Talk) 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should have both categories. It is certainly a Massacre. It is also a Genocide because large proportion of the population in Nanking were killed, and therefore it falls under the definition given above. --Vsion 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then go check the dictionary definition. Genocide means when people are out to kill an ethnic group. The soldiers were on a general rampage, but they weren't out to kill all Chinese. If they were they would have entered the safe zone and killed everyone there too. The article makes it quite clear that part of the killing was motivated by trying to detect Chinese soldiers. John Smith's 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the same argument could be used against claims of other genocide. If they left a "safe" zone, gave excuse about killing soldiers or insurgents, then it is not a genocide? The fact is, a large proportion of the people in Nanking were killed. What was the long-term effect on native Nanking people? their demographics, their culture? They were as devastated as victims of other genocides. --Vsion 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In other genocide events, there was a clear agenda to kill everyone based on their race. That is not what happened in Nanjing. Genocide is a term bandied about too often these days, so perhaps in some other cases it shouldn't be used. John Smith's 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I did any contribution to this page, just to express my opinion. After reading the rationale by John Smith's, as well as the page of Genocide, I think I agree with John Smith's. While during the second Sino-Japanese war the Japanese army is indeed trying a genocide (such as enforcing Japanese as the only official language), the particular incident of Nanking Massacre doesn't seem to be nationality/race oriented. It looks to me just as simple as "occupy the city, and kill every civilian in it", and I don't think the westerners will be any safer than Chinese if they are out of the safety zone. — Ming Hua 10:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is indeed nationality/race motivated. --Vsion 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree that it's a genocide, because they weren't killing ppl with the intention of wiping out the ethnic (etc.) group. If there had been Tibetans or Mongolians in the city, I'm sure the Japanese would've been happy massacring them as well. --Sumple (Talk) 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. John Smith's 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the UN definition (from the Genocide article):

" any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

- Note the requirement that the actions must be with the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part' the group being targeted. Personally I believe this excludes the Nanking massacre (for much the same reasons as Ming Hua & Sumple above. Lisiate 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for posting out of order, but I think whether the actions of the Japanese constitute genocide or not depends on your definition of genocide. If we work from the "UN definition" quoted above, the Japanese army intended to destroy in part a subset of the Chinese race - specifically, the part in the armed services of China. Japan also clearly caused "serious bodily harm to members" of a racial group.

However, if we work from the original oldest definition of genocide, "the killing of a tribe or race", well, the populace of Nanking did not constitute a single tribe. Nor did the Japanese kill the majority of a race.

My personal opinion is that the UN definition is overly broad. The definition I prefer for genocide is closer to the original meaning. So, yes, the Japanese massacre of Nanking was brutal, bloody, vicious, perverse, dissembled, denied and disguised almost from the get-go. But it was not, to my definition, genocidal.

If you prefer to use a different definition for the word genocide, that is fine. We are speaking (or rather, writing) in English and hence allowed to use the definitions we each prefer. The UN is a noble organization; their definition of genocide is as good as many and better than most. If you disagree with me because you prefer a different definition of genocide than mine, I will understand (even sympathise with) your arguments and defend to the death your right to speak them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.30.98 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The actions of the Japanese military commanders clearly indicate that they intended to wipe out the population of Nanjing, and they almost succeeded. And the carnage was motivated by nationalism and racialism. According to the above definition, it was clearly a genocide. To suggest that they didn't have "intent" or did it for "fun" shows poor understanding of human nature. Why else did they killed women and the youngs? Were the babies insurgents or suicide bombers? Now, 70 years later ... why did Koizumi visit Yasukuni Shrine? for fun? to pay "personal" respect? And the western media are asking: "Why can't they forgive?" The Forgotten Holocaust, indeed! --Vsion 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The actions of the commanders does not show they had the intent to kill everyone. Yes, they killed women and children. So does that mean every time women and children are killed that is genocide? Of course not.

The fact you're now bringing Koizumi and the Holocaust into this shows you're far too emotional. John Smith's 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not emotional, but in fact very much amused by your fallacious arguments and attempts to sanitize the whole thing. Anyway, there are sources that refer the incident as a genocide. If you have sources to dispute such classification, please present it. --Vsion 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fallacious"? Oh, boo-boo, do I care what you think? Not everyone agrees it was genocide at all. I came up with this with my first search. I'm not going to trawl the internet for information that is readily available. John Smith's 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, you managed to find an article that tries to distinguish the Holocaust from other mass murders. Is this the best you can find? --Vsion 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I should supply you with a simple source so that you could understand properly. It was also the first result I found. But it's not up to me to prove anything to you. It is for you to tell me why your opinion counts for more than one person, given that more people have considered "massacre" to be more appropriate than genocide. John Smith's 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me supply this quote from

The Japanese-Chinese holocaust (JCH) reached its pinnacle in the infamous 'Rape of Nanking’ when over 300,000 Chinese were raped and slaughtered in a matter of days in 1938, immediately preceded and followed by state-planned, systematic extermination of over 7 million Chinese civilians of all ages and classes. Lacking a powerful holocaust lobby in the West, and given the Cold War realignment of the West and Japan against the People’s Republic of China, no monuments, foundations, billion dollar compensation have commemorated the JCH, despite the fact that far more Chinese civilians were murdered than Jews. No doubt the self-serving claims of Jewish publicists of the 'uniqueness’ of the JNH has contributed to collective amnesia.

If we examine the definition of genocide given by User:Lisiate above, the Japanese soldiers did all of the five things. It was systematic and widespread. It was clearly a genocide. --Vsion 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That article rather seems to be designed to attack the very nature of the Holocaust, which belies its bias. The "Japanese-Chinese Holocaust"? Give me a break! So what is more Chinese were killed in the war than Jews by the Germans? First not every Chinese death was planned, though he may not be taking account of that. But more importantly 7 million Chinese was a drop in the ocean compared to its population even then. On the other hand the 6 million or so Jewish deaths counted for a lot more when compared to their numbers across Europe. Plus the German attempt at genocide was a lot more obvious and centrally planned than any deaths in China. John Smith's 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, the article does not diminish the magnitude of the Holocaust, please don't misrepresent. Instead, it decries the "failure of Western intellectuals to recognize the multiple holocausts of the 20th and 21st centuries". Your comment above is precisely what the author is denouncing.--Vsion 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, John Smith's, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your edit was not based on any bias on your part concerning the Nanjing Massacre. But this last comment of yours is really starting to make me change my mind. And it's not what you're trying to say, but the way you're saying it. It really seems like you're trying to lighten the severity of the Nanjing Massacre. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I could write a brand new article with the time you guys spend on pointless arguments.

But hmm, let me take a moment and sort out your logic as it seems from what I'm reading, Mr. John Smith.

1. The Japanese did not intend to kill all residents in Nanking.

2. The percentage of Chinese population slain during the war is less than the percentage of Jews slain by Nazis, therefore the Japanese people did not intend to kill all Chinese people.

3. The percentage of Chinese population slain during the war is tiny, therefore it's not big deal.

4. If you do not previously plan out a massacre, it's technically not a genocide even if you killed nearly all destined targets.

5. Japanese are not racist to Chinese. It's just average war deaths.

If that's what your thinking, I will reply later in detail. Read carefully the opinions of people disagreed with you and respect their opinion. Most of them are more experienced in Asian topics than you and from what your saying, it's as if your trying to justify all Japanese actions during the war with the "neutrality" flag. AQu01rius 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A salient point worth noting: The IJA did not kill a single foreigner. In fact, they were afraid to harm the foreigners. Ergo, they were not targeting Nanking residents, they were targeting the Chinese residents of Nanking. -- Миборовский 07:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong, how can you lighten the severity of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians? I think you're being rather snide to suggest that I am.

AQu01rius, I haven't used any of those points as a reason why the event wasn't genocide, though point 1 is somewhat related. 2 & 3 were in relation to an article written by someone who is obviously out to discredit the Holocaust, claiming that because more Chinese died than Jews it meant it was a worse case of genocide (or whatever) - so I pointed out that when compared to the overall populations it was obvious the guy was being selective in what he was discussing.

Anyway, I think I'd better file a mediation request, as this discussion is going nowhere. If anyone has a problem with that, please say so here. John Smith's 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know... rhetoric like 7 million Chinese is a "drop in the ocean"...? Again, it's not what you're saying, it's the way you're saying it. You could have said, "7 million Chinese is a much smaller percentage of the Chinese population......" But your rhetoric really sheds light into what you think of the Nanjing Massacre. There's also the insistence that it was "less obvious" and "less planned" - I'm not sure how that matters. Of course it's less obvious to you. If you go to China though, you'll discover that the Jewish Holocaust is the one that is "less obvious" compared to the Nanjing Massacre. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong, I am getting really tired of this rubbish. Are you going to object to mediation or not? Or are you going to throw a temper-tantrum and dig your heels in? Or would you prefer I file with the arbitration committee? John Smith's 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never objected to mediation. What I'm saying, essentially, is that I'm seeing a bias in your views and subsequently it is difficult for me to assume good faith in your editing now. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I never said deaths weren't important. I said that some anti-Semitic jerk trying to dismiss the Holocaust as the important event it was talking out of his backside. My comments were made in response to his article, not this wikipedia entry. I'm sorry if I offended you, but you'll just have to accept there was a misunderstanding. John Smith's 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I want to point out that if you think someone is being anti-Semitic or trying to lessen the severity of the Jewish Holocaust, the appropriate response should probably be to address that specifically instead of in turn, downplaying the severity of another holocaust like the Nanjing Massacre. And to all the editors here, I suggest we stay away from comparing which holocaust was worse. That is in very bad taste, in my opinion. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

... Can we not go off-topic? Nationalism, revisionism, Koizumi being an idiot, etc, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The quesion is one of semantics, really. What does genocide mean? Given the documented historical facts, is this genocide? Please present on-topic arguments only!

If you are talking about bias, I'm as pro-Chinese on the Nanking Massacre as anyone, just look at the previous discussion. But I'm standing with John Smith's on this point. --Sumple (Talk) 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the above. I'm not pro-chinese or pro-PRC, not when editing wikipedia at least. Lets look at the issues:

• (a) did the Japanese army (IJA) committed act to destroy in part, a national, ethnic group? Yes
• (b) Did the IJA Killed members of the group? Yes
• (c) Did the IJA targeting more on the Chinese group? Yes significantly more. If you read Ketuanan Melayu, the IJA even used other races against the Chinese.
• (d) Did the IJA killed civilian? Yes including many women and young.
• (e) Was the atrocities systemic and widespread? Yes
• (f) Did the IJA deliberately inflicted on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part? Yes the IJA even destroy the cultural resource in Nanking. When Prince Asaka was asked about removing Nanking cultural heritage, he said to the effect that the Nanking people didn't need them anymore. The issue here is not really about semantics, it about facing the truth. --Vsion 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm "standing" with the sources that say it's a genocide instead of presenting my own original research. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Genocide Convention is not original research. --Sumple (Talk) 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but editors determining whether or not it fits the Genocide Convention would be original research. Better to leave that to our sources. Here's an extra three sources that refer to the Nanjing Massacre as a genocide in addition to what sources we already have that do that. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but when you're talking about the existence of something (in this case, a particular characterisation of an event), source-stacking doesn't work. What i mean is, say I want to prove that the moon landings were fake. Just finding a stack of sources that say that the moon landings were fake doesn't prove it. Ideally we need an academic source that actually discusses whether it was a genocide, rather than just one that calls it a genocide. --Sumple (Talk) 06:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sources like that would be even better. But the point still remains - there are sources that label it as a genocide, and regardless of why they do, it should override editors' own personal opinions on whether or not it is a genocide. We're not here to write original research into the articles. --- Hong Qi Gong 07:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not just any source would do. On this point, any source which doesn't describe it as a genocide would be a counter to any that does do so, because it is a question of characterisation, not just attributes. To lower the bar a little, I'll fully support your argument if you can find an academic source that calls it a genocide. (Challenge of the week! =D) --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, two more things I want to point out:

1. Nobody is pushing to add a section to the article illustrating why and how the Nanjing Massacre is a genocide. The issue here is simply the categorisation of it as a genocide. This merely and very simply reflects what many sources already do, including the UHRC.

2. While you say that you "stand" with User:John Smith's, his concern is not so much that this article is categorised under Genocides, but rather that it is categorised under both Genocides and Massacres. I believe he would be OK with leaving the Genocides category in if we removed the Massacres category, and you'll notice that he has edited to take out the Massacres category while leaving in the Genocides category. --- Hong Qi Gong 07:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong, I do not think the genocide category is appropriate. However I thought that having just one was a comprimise we could use. However because that was repeatedly thrown back in my face, I might as well press for just the massacre category to be used. John Smith's 10:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm okay. I still don't think it's a genocide. BUT, on the question of whether, if something is both a genocide and a massacre, it can be categorised as both, I think the answer would be "yes". This is because a genocide doesn't have to be a massacre and vice versa. --Sumple (Talk) 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sumple's point about sources. There are thousands of things talking about how and why there is a global Jewish conspiracy. In contrast, how many are there that refute it? Not actually as many, because it's deemed to be a point not worth refuting. So just because a lot of websites, etc call the Nanjing Massacre "genocide" isn't a sufficient argument. John Smith's 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, can you qualify what you would consider "academic"? Two of the sources (which refer to the Nanjing Massacre as a genocide) I've already linked up recently in this Talk page are:

1. An online copy of a chapter in the book War and Genocide, written by Martin Shaw, who holds a PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations.
2. An article about a conference on genocide denial, held at Georgetown University, where Professor Henry Theriault, talked about the Japanese government's genocidal denial concerning the Nanjing Massacre. Henry Theriault is the Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies.

Would you consider these two sources I've already linked up to be "academic"? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's, here is your original comment about your concern with the categories:

• "Genocide" or "massacre"? This is a very simple question. This event has been called a lot of things. However it isn't appropriate to have both category tags, especially as genocide rather implies massacres went on. So please decide amongst yourselves which you would prefer. It would be a lot simpler that way.

For even better context, scroll back to the top of this section in the Talk page. It really seemed like you didn't care which category is there. Would you say you've changed your mind? You said you agree with Sumple's opinion about whether or not the Nanjing Massacre can be considered a genocide, and thus that the Genocides category is not appropriate. Now you are saying it is OK to leave in the Genocides category if the Massacres category is removed? I apologise in advance, but I'm a little confused about what exactly you would like to see. Do you want to see the Genocides category gone? Or do you just want to see either one of the two categories gone? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was tired of being accused of making unilateral changes "against the consensus", so I wanted to open the discussion without getting involved in an argument from the start. When I saw a lot of people said they thought genocide wasn't appropriate (as I believed), that encouraged me to actually support that as well on the talk page. John Smith's 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Erh, you earlier wrote that 7 million people is a drop in the ocean, now you said you saw "a lot of people" when actually it was only two or three editors. ?!? Your choice of words is very "interesting". --Vsion 06:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm prepared toa ccept the Martin Shaw article as an academic work. The second one appears rather partisan, though. --Sumple (Talk) 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. Just as long as you know that sources that are calling it a genocide are not blogs of 16-year old kids. It's human rights organisations and people with PhDs that are calling it a genocide. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, on this question I'm sceptical of anything comeing out of a human rights organisation because they have their own partisan agendas. --Sumple (Talk) 01:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another source online, hosted at the University of Tokyo. Prof. Henry Theriault is affiliated with Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights. Judging from its name, the center is an academic entity, not a human rights activist organisation. Hence, this should address Sumple's concern about partisan agendas, especially when the workshop was held at U-Tokyo. I thanks Hong Qi Gong for providing the original sources. --Vsion 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

comment for mediator -- You can check my posting history, I've not been involved in this article or this dicussion before tonight, and my ethnicity is not Asian. But, reading the above, it strikes me as very strange that John Smith opened this section of discussion asking "which category do you want, 'massacre' or genocide'" -- seeming to be neutral in the matter -- but was very soon passionately arguing his point that Nanjing was not genocide.

While it may be debatable whether Japanese motives involved the extermination of the Han ethnicity and culture specific to Nanjing and its surrounding area, no workable definition of "genocide" can be dependent on knowledge of motives. The widely-accepted number of deaths that occurred in a period of less than 2 months, the high number of rapes, mutilations and other atrocities inflicted a wound on the population of Jiangsu province that would last far beyond the wartime period. I think it's an important struggle for the survivors of Nanjing, and for all Chinese affected by the Japanese actions there, to see these actions viewed in an appropriate light. There are massacres that are genocidal, and there are massacres that are not. I think the distinction is an important one. The few electrons used to maintain the "genocide" category on this article are not, in my opinion, wasted. Bustter 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"But, reading the above, it strikes me as very strange that John Smith opened this section of discussion asking "which category do you want, 'massacre' or genocide'" -- seeming to be neutral in the matter -- but was very soon passionately arguing his point that Nanjing was not genocide."

What do you want to say? You're making an implied allegation about me without having the courage to actually say what you're thinking. Come out and say it or don't make cheap jibes. John Smith's 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, saying things like this only make you look worse. -- Миборовский 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in with silly comments like that doesn't do you any credit either. Take a look in the mirror before you start wagging your finger at me. John Smith's 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What, so now everyone who criticises you must be a jerk? -- Миборовский 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did I call you a jerk? I said making a comment like you did hardly reflected well upon you. If there is a dispute between two people, a third party should act to cool things down, not make them worse. John Smith's 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you said to Bustter was rude and inappropriate. So was your response to my criticism of your reply to Bustter, though I will not comment upon that since it personally involves the two of us. When a third-party editor, who has no prior indication of being negatively predisposed towards you, comments upon an observation he made, the first thing you did was call him a coward. Extremely rude. Where is assuming good faith? More importantly, where are your manners? You know, he was courteous enough not to come out directly and criticise you. But what did you do eh? -- Миборовский 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mib, you didn't say "you're not being fair on him - assume good faith and don't be rude" the first time, you made a snide little comment, something which has almost become your trademark. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that I threw the same comment back at yourself. Now I've left two messages on your talk page suggesting we should resolve our differences, so please respond to them.

Personally I would have prefered it if he had made a direct point, because that way I could have addressed it easily. But being ambiguous as he was is not polite as it could mean anything. However, as you eventually said, I shouldn't have assumed he was being nasty - so I'm sorry, Bustter, for over-reacting. John Smith's 00:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I treat people with respect, when they deserve my respect. Unfortunately, I do not respect you as I do most people. But since you already apologised to Bustter, there's nothing else to for me to say here. Good hunting. -- Миборовский 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never came across User:Bustter until now. I've never seen his edits or comments, so I have no idea if he has a habit of being ambiguous or not. But may I suggest - maybe he really just thought it was strange that you (User:John Smith's) changed your stance about the issue halfway through the discussion. I certainly thought so myself. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was hardly halfway through and I did explain. So if he read my change of position, why didn't he read my later point? Someone might think that was strange as well. John Smith's 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

About 24 hours after your pointedly 'neutral' question, you stated that 'I think I rather agree with Sumple. Genocide isn't really what went on.' Sumple's statement that genocide is defined by its intentions is not exactly a new twist, so it's rather surprising that this caused a change of mind in you at this late date, when you have long been dealing with this article.

Anyway, Sumple's statement is not a matter of consensus. Perpetrators of genocide are seldom open with their intentions as was the Third Reich; and of course the German example has served well to teach the genocidal to be doubly careful to conceal intentions. For this reason requiring clear intent is not an appropriate requirement in determining genocide.

Yehuda Bauer, for example, has argued that "genocide is the proper name for the brutal process of group elimination accompanied by mass murder resulting in the partial annihilation of the victim population as described by Lemkin and the U.N. Convention. Total annihilation can be labeled Holocaust for want of a more acceptable word."

No mention of intent. The UN in particular needs to leave intent out of the picture, as it would not be becoming for them to ignore wholesale suffering on the genocidal scale, just because the perpetrators' intent cannot be pinned down.

As to any perceived rudeness to you, I was actually trying to avoid engaging in ad hominem by simply pointing out your words rather than specifically characterizing them. I am not the most skilled at tactful disagreement, and I do apologize for that shortcoming. Bustter 11:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, just thought I'd declare my position on this issue, because I haven't been here for a while and the discussion's taken some interesting turns... Anyway, regarding the original issue, I still personally think it's not genocide. But seeing as 1) there are some reputable sources labelling it as such, and 2) genocides and massacres are not inclusive of each other (? is that the right term? think of inclusive sets here..), I would not oppose dual-categorisation under both. --Sumple (Talk) 11:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, um, Bustter, no offence but "Genocide" being defined with respect to intention is the concensus. There is already a word for killing people on a big scale - "massacre". There are big problems with the Bauer argument, but this is not the place to discuss it - that belongs on the Genocide talk page, if anywhere.

As to your argument that "perpetrators of genocide are seldom open with their intentions", please understand that the fundamental principle of Western criminal law is based on the duality of mens rea and actus reus, the "criminal mind" and the "criminal act". Inherent in any consideration of such a full liability offence is a determination as to mens rea. Even consideration as to a strict liability offences must entail some determination as to the defendant's state of mind - as to volition and, possibly, absence of mistake. Do you think all convicted murderers openly declare, "yes, I shot him with the intent to kill him or to inflict grievous bodily harm?" No. The court makes the determination from the available evidence on his actions and accompanying mental state, if any. In the same way, we know the Third Reich committed genocide, not because it declared "We are proud to announce our new genocide policy", but because of the intentions inferred from their policies of selective elimination of people of certain ethnic groups (primarily the Jews) and large scale killing of these people in the absence of the proper process of law.

In case what I've said there was confusing... in summary, most crimes are defined with respect to intention. Courts can and mostly do determine whether that intention exists based on available evidence. --Sumple (Talk) 11:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if some great nation were, through murder, rape, enslavement, or whatever other means, to eradicate, in the matter of a few years, an entire native population. Yet, throughout the great nation's literature and culture, there was nothing expressed regarding this native population but admiration for their noble savagery, appreciation of their primitive art, the childlike simplicity of their creation myths and religious ceremonies. Would the fact that they held their victims in such high esteem exculpate them from the crime of genocide? I rather doubt that would be the case. If an aggregation of intentional murders add up to the eradication of a race, I suspect the intent of the individual murders in aggregation would be found sufficient. Bustter 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bustter, what are you going on about? Where has anyone said Japan held China in esteem as a defence against a claim of genocide? John Smith's 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if a hypothetical doesn't play for you, but don't insult me by pretending you see no point. I am simply saying that a definition of genocide that includes intentions isn't workable. This is the stumbling block that prevented the US from agreeing that Rwanda was a case of genocide until the killing had been done. That will not happen again, I assure you.

As to whether this is the appropriate place for this discussion, I did not open this discussion, nor did I call in a mediator in order to get the genocide category removed. Bustter 12:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Busster, I appreciate your sentiments. But what you are advocating is bordering on WP:OR; I still think it's a valuable opinion - but probably more valuable on the genocide page. --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are not familiar with the literature doesn't mean its original research. I recommend you kick around the a bit. Bustter 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you think. It's got nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre in any case. This discussion is not about the definition of the genocide. There is a concensus, at least on this talk page, that genocide is whatever international law defines it to be - and your Institute for the Study of Genocide is not the arbiter of international law. If you believe otherwise, the place to raise the matter is at Talk:Genocide, not here. Either that, or try lobbying the UN. --Sumple (Talk) 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you are being deliberately insulting, while telling me that this conversation that you and John engaged in prior to my arrival, and for which John has summoned a mediator, has no need of my input.

I'm pleased for the "consensus" you have on the talk page, except that others here seem also to think that the genocide category does belong, so it isn't a "consensus" at all. It's fine that you believe the present legal definitions of genocide are all that matter, you are entitled. But the definitions offered by social scientists are equally valid. If this matter is to be mediated, I will continue to politely express my point of view. I ask you and John to please kindly curb your insults, thank you in advance. Bustter 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, while I don't wish to come off as a Rules lawyer, you might wish to review Rules lawyer. Bustter 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bustter, I have already apologised for over-reacting at first. Sumple has not been making personal insults, so I think you're over-reacting certainly in respects to him. John Smith's 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sure, whatever you think." Bustter 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly grounds to make a fuss. I was told to assume good faith with you - why can't you assume good faith yourself? "don't insult me by pretending you see no point"? That's not an insult. You need to calm down. John Smith's 13:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the offensiveness of your language versus mine- offence is a subjective matter, afterall. I mean, I'm offended by people talking to me in Mandarin... Anyway, I meant to clarify the subject of this argument: It's not about what is a genocide. It's about whether the Nanking Massacre is a genocide and/or a massacre. As you will probably see, the two sides of the argument differed on whether the event qualified as a genocide, but both sides argued on the premise that a genocide is as defined under the genocide convention. Sure, the views espoused by social scientists are valualbe. But they do not represent the international law, and there is no clear concensus among them as to what, if anything, should be the alternative to the present international law.

I appreciate from your earlier posts that you have doubts about the authority of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the Genocide Convention is an important part of international law and is acceded to by most nations of the world. Until a coherent concensus emerges otherwise, we really have no choice but to follow the law.

What on earth are you talking about, rules lawyer? Knowing the law does not make one a rules lawyer; a vampire maybe, but as I understand a rules lawyer is specifically someone who acts like a lawyer without knowing it, which is, like, the total opposite of what I'm doing. --Sumple (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of categories is to organize knowledge, not to conform to law. Nanking is examined in many books regarding 20th century genocide. Your assertion early in this conversation regarding definitions arrived at through the "genocide convention (insert year)' was not agreed upon by Hong Qi Gong, who only made reference to external links that deal with Nanjing as a genocide.

Only Vsion attempted to argue that the Chinese "intent" met the UN definition. I would argue that the UN would indeed accept Nanking as genocide were it to occur today, but I choose not to argue that point, since the organization of knowledge not law is the reason the genocide category should be kept. If someone chooses to use Misplaced Pages as a gateway to studies of genocide, the omission of Nanking from the category would make his results incomplete, simply because of the amount of study done of Nanking as genocide.

It is much easier for someone using categories to winnow out a result or two that he finds irrelevant, than for someone who needs comprehensive results to "fill the holes." The category, therefore, should stay; the dichotoomy of "massacre" or "genocide" is false, as each category would have different significance and use. Bustter 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Now we are (sort of) on the same planet. There is no dichotomy between massacre and genocide - genocides can be massacres, but don't have to be; likewise massacres can be genocides, but don't have to be. they're intersecting sets. --Sumple (Talk) 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, I thought Bustter made that same point at the start. John Smith's 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But then he/she started talking about some (delete adjectives) academic's argument about how genocide shouldn't be genocide... anyway, it's all sorted now so that's all good. --Sumple (Talk) 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, John Smith, listen. I have encountered you before, and so has HongQiGong, which is why I believe he entered this discussion. First of all, whatever your opinions, please use evidence and sources, not just what you think. Second, there's absolutely no problem with having two similar categories as long as they are valid, which is proven by external links given. Third, removing something because "only some external links" agree with them is absolutely POV. We have a view here, and a view there, and we include both - we don't remove one. Fourth, if two users including you agree on a matter, and another doesn't, that doesn't mean you should say "OK, somebody agreed with me, everything's solved, get out", etc. I'm not going to continue this discussion - avoiding conflicts, they say - but these are a few behavior problems you need to adjust with. And, no, I'm not agreeing with you - what you are claiming is completely wrong in my opinion - but every man has his own view of things, so I hope you'd just discuss logically and strive for the good of Misplaced Pages instead of for your own pleasure.Aran|heru|nar 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide is the mass killing of a population of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'" - "Genocide," Misplaced Pages

I apologize if I was opening up an old wound, but I was wondering about this question myself. One of the issues I've been thinking about is whether or not the Nanking Massacre was an insolated event. Were there other mass killings? I believe one of the reasons the Nanking Massacre is so well known is because Nanking is city with many foreign, or Western, bankers, investors, missionaries, etc. But what of lesser villages, towns, or cities with few or no Western bankers, missionaries, etc.?If that were the case, the Nanking Massacre can be considered a mass killing within a genocide. I'll admit that I have a minor bias in that I am ethnically Chinese myself and I have heard stories of massacre and brutality from my grandparents regarding their hometown as I'm sure many other ethnically Chinese have often heard. I'm going to be pretentious for a second and assume that you ask me for my evidence and why such an event would be concealed from the public. For the first, many of us heard it from word of mouth that is quickly aging and dying, who were also mostly illerate even in their own native language nevertheless English. For the second, I'm going to tell you that ever since the Cold War Communism has become synonymous with Evil. I think any such story would be proclaimed as Communist propaganda or lies by Western media.

But I believe I have a piece of evidence nonetheless. Following the Doolittle Raid on Japan in April of 1942, many of the American pilots involved in the raid were forced to land in rural China. They were hidden from the Japanese army by Chinese peasants. The Japanese in retaliation began the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign in which they sometimes slaughtered entire villages suspected of harboring the Americans. The estimated civilian death toll of this campaign is believed to be around 250,000(http://en.wikipedia.org/Doolittle_Raid) (http://en.wikipedia.org/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_Campaign). First, I'd like to note the Western involvement in this event, and second, I'd like note how little information there is on this event. There could be countless other similar events that we are not aware of. If the Nanking Massacre itself is not a genocide, then it is at least part of one. AkrobaticMonkey 06:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith: it was a massacre, but not a genocide. There were a few genocides in the twentieth century: Holocaust, Armenian, Bosnia-Herzoviginia, and Rwanda. But Nanking doesn't fall in that category. Nanking is in the same group as the Allied bombing of Dresden: the deliberate massacre of innocent civilians during wartime. Reprehensible, but not genocide. Brian Cunnie 05:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can see where you're coming from when you say it's a massacre, but I do not think the bombing of Dresden would be adequate example to prove such a thing. The Holocause, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Bosnia-Herzoviginia, and Rwanda all stem from racial hatred or the scape-goating of a particular ethnic/religious group. The Dresden fire-bombings were aimed at no particular ethnic/religious group. It was just a bombing to put a dent in Germany's industrial/economic output and lower German morale during WWII. If the Japanese army had merely taken over the city and then executed a number of people on faked up charges or no reason at all for show (or they could even ransack a couple of houses and rape a couple of women like the Russian did after they took Berlin in WWII), then that could be considered a massacre. However, they did it because they viewed the Chinese as little better than animals that they could slaughter, and there are many quotable sources for this bit of information. Therefore, I think the Nanking Massacre qualifies as genocide because it the mass killing of a group of people of a particular ethnicity out of hatred/prejudice. AkrobaticMonkey 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It matters little what we personally think. What matters is that there are credible sources that label it as a genocide. We as WP editors should only be reflecting our sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Name?

Why is this article here, rather than at Nanjing massacre? The article on the city is Nanjing, not Nanking, and this article should reflect that. The capitalization seems wrong as well. --tjstrf 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Nanking Massacre" is the most often-used name for this incident, and the title reflects this. This is the name of one specific incident so both letters are capitalised. -- Миборовский 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Every other english name for the event gets more Google hits, and "Nanjing Massacre" has over 5 times as many as Nanking Massacre, and according to what links here, Nanjing Massacre is highly used on Misplaced Pages as well. --tjstrf 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also note the page Nanjing Safety Zone. --tjstrf 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very sure. Knowledge about the event in English-speaking countries was popularised mainly by Iris Chang's book, "Rape of Nanking", which as you note gets 792,000 google hits, 8.62 times as many as "Rape of Nanjing" and 1.62 time as many as "Nanjing Massacre". However, internet sources and google hits in particular are not the only yardsticks to measure the popularity of a term with, as books are still the more informative, better-researched and more thorough medium, generally speaking. In English book sources the event is mainly called "Nanking Massacre" or in Iris Chang and others' more emotional case, "Rape of Nanking". However due to POV issues we have to avoid "Rape of Nanking" so we are using "Nanking Massacre". In addition, the event took place before the official adoption of pinyin by the Chinese government for transliterating place names. As the person who wrote the bulk of stuff on Nanjing Safety Zone, I must thank you for bringing this to my attention. Its name has been changed appropriately. -- Миборовский 03:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the Rape of Nanking --203.173.165.132 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's emotionally charged and that's something we want to avoid in the title. -- Миборовский 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Aye, same with "The Rape of Austria" in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. It's not only emotionally charged, it's an inappropriate description of what actually happened. Aran|heru|nar 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nanking was used in the 1940s. Nanjing is the modern name for the city. One should use "Nanjing" when referring to the modern city, and "Nanking" when referring to the city as it was then.--Ryan! 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Eroguro Nansensu

I wonder if the EroGuro movement may have influenced the Japanese military to perpetrate the Rape of Nanking. 205.188.116.9 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd doubt it personally, and it would need to be verified. Find a published source that states so, and you can include it. --tjstrf 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

let's not taint the article with unverified connection to japanese horror porn. BlueShirts 00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Citation style" tag

For your information, the discussion concerning citation is archived at Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4#.22Citation Style.22 Tag. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Headline text

My great grandfather was part of the IJA in China and he can confirm that this never happened.

Well, assuming your great grandfather was 20 when he joined the IJA in 1937, and assuming we were kind enough not to pop a bullet to his head and sent him back to Japan where he had your grandfather when he was 29 in 1946 (unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China), and assuming your grandfather had your father when he was 25 in 1971, and assuming your father had you when he was 25 in 1996, you're about 10 years old. It's good to see a young'un who knows so much. Kudos. -- Миборовский 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mib, you're so naive. That guy obviously is not even Japanese - his only other contribution on wikipedia was to say Mao Zedong was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century AND that his grandparents were persecuted during the CR but still had nice things to say about Mao. John Smith's 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OR, I just didn't check who made the edit? Unlike some people I don't stalk others checking out their edits, casing them before I make a reply. -- Миборовский 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

When people make stupid comments like that it's normally a good idea to see what they're up to, rather than getting suckered into responding to a fake statement like that. John Smith's 06:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have as much experience as you do dealing with stupid people. And no, it wasn't a stupid comment. It's exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese. And, as I said, I don't stalk people's edit histories. But some people do, so they have a much better chance of spotting these stupid people, and for that I thank you for bringing this particular one to my attention -- Миборовский 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "Exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese?"Bakarocket 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky, don't be such a troll. Your point is valid, but the insulting little nuances like "assuming we (my italics) were kind enough not to pop a bullet in his head" and "unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China" don't do your credibility much good. The two of us have been at loggerheads before, but in the past I've managed to convince myself that you are, at heart, fair and objective. Unfortunately this one comment makes it crystal clear what your views are and suggests pretty well what your objective is in stalking this page.

Bathrobe 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm stalking this page. How? Do you own this page? I think not. Hey you! Stop stalking this page. Shoo! Still here? Well so am I. Misplaced Pages apparently has a really cool stalking tool called the watchlist.

I'm happy that you finally ended your delusion that I am "fair and objective". I don't see how I can be "fair and objective". What I write might be "fair and objective", but I'm not. And neither are you. Whether you can write NPOV articles is another matter, and all that matters. -- Миборовский 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't own this page, although I sometimes get the impression that you think you do.

At any rate, my point is that what you wrote is not "fair and objective" either. The guy who posted the comment was obviously weird, but for you to come out with that little torrent of hatred certainly wasn't fitting of someone who seems to take a keen interest in this page and wants to be taken seriously as an contributor.

Bathrobe 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I think I do (however that might work), but an outstanding strawmen nevertheless, Bathrobe. So you still haven't explained how I am stalking this page, when nobody owns it. Oh, and I get the impression that you think you own this page, too. And I just presented about as much evidence as you did.

In case you don't know, this is the talk page. Maybe I should rephrase - What articles I write should be "fair and objective". And since you talked about my "little torrent of hatred", firstly, I don't use p2p; secondly, I know that someone with a huge torrent of hatred is being taken seriously and viewed as the foremost authority in her area of ranting... just ask John Smith. In any case, attack what I write on articles, alright? I suck at defending against attacks on my person, so please give me a chance to fight on favourable ground. -- Миборовский 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CHSGHSF 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)== Nanking Massacre is not assumed the fact in Japan == Nanking Massacre is not believed for a fact in present Japan. The research how it does and Nanking Massacre was fabricated is active. The evidence photographs of Nanking Massacre were proven to be entire imitation. There was not man who witnessed Nanking Massacre by the Japanese either.--202.157.51.120 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Japanese version of this article http://ja.wikipedia.org/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%A4%A7%E8%99%90%E6%AE%BA . It is a fact even in Japan as far as I know. --Leo 06:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Japanese version of this article http://ja.wikipedia.org/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%A4%A7%E8%99%90%E6%AE%BA%E8%AB%96%E4%BA%89--202.147.217.166 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

200,000 people of Nanjing when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. 250,000 people of Nanjing after one month when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. The rape case in Nanjing by a Japanese army is one.--202.157.50.82 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Testimony person's image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBLDqLU0TU&mode=related&search=

Japanese army(pilot)

There were many foreigners in Nanjing, too and it was peaceful at that time though this person had gone to the barber of the Chinese management of Nanjing.--202.157.50.82 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion and your sources are in the distinct minority I'm afraid, even among Japanese historians. Grant65 | Talk 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

１．300,000 slaughters on which China insists are fictions.

２．It is verified that corroborative facts of the slaughter that people who insisted that there was a slaughter announced after World War II contradicted are individual remarks, diaries, and imitations.

３．There is no evidence that the massacre can be proven.

４．There is no recognition that there was Nanking Massacre in Japan, China, and the foreign country in World War II.

５．The public peace is kept after a Japanese army is occupied and it gains population rapidly. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)

６．The population of Nanjing of the Nanjing surrender is 150,000 ~ 200,000 according to material. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)

７．The population of Nanjing of January is 250,000 according to material, and the population has not decreased. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)

８．There are no citizens except the refugee refuges such as safety districts and "Tacaratouhashimati" according to material. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)

９．As a result of the research, all the evidence photographs of the slaughter have been fixed that the imitation. (Material: Photograph with slaughter and point of the fabrication)

１０．The evidence photograph without the slaughter is a lot, and no one assumes to these photographs it is an imitation.

11. Woman's corpses are 83 people and child's corpses are 48 people or 46 people in the burial record of the Benimangege association.( Material: Burial record of Benimangege association)

12. The number of deaths of citizens is 12000 people in the Smais investigation.。(Material: Smais investigation)

13. The appeals that Nanjing resident's Japanese army did the homicide are 49 people, but the appeals that the false rumor was a lot, and straight appeals were 0 people..

14. The rapes of the Nanjing resident who has the possibility that a Japanese serviceman took part are seven people. Fixation is one person. (Material: Official document of Japanese embassy where it was received with international committee.)

15. Japanese army prohibited murdering, and punished the transgressor severely.( Material: Military record of Japanese army)

16. A JAPANESE army supplied food to the citizens.( Material: Citizens' letters of thanks and military records of Japanese army)

18. The murder of the enemy force is not a slaughter by the combat.

19.China is refusing the investigation that clarifies the truth.

20. An international committee is not witnessing any unlawful murder of a Japanese army. It was judged that both were lawful execution though two murders were witnessed.

21. A military record of the Japanese army that the captive murdered in large quantities doesn't exist. (There is a diary individual with the origin uncertain.)

24. The numbers of dead are from 40,000 ~ 50,000 including the serviceman who died of the combat. (Material: Burial record)

※International committee:International organization that ruled Nanjing after Chinese army escapes

※Benimangege association:Organization that buried people who died in Nanjing at the request of Japanese army--202.157.50.82 14:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

«Last night about 1000 women and girls were raped. If any husbands or brothers attempted to protect the victims, they were immediately shot to death by the Japanese soldiers.» John Rabe, December 17.

«I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1000 cases a night, and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disaproval, there is bayonet stab or bullet. People are hysterical. Women are being acrried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases.» Reverend James McCallum, December 19.

«Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her one year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby being killed with a bayonet. Some japanese then went to the next room, where were Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74 and her two gdaughters, aged 16 and 14. The soldiers killed the old woman. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2-3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed into her vagina.» Reverend John Magee, commentary of a self-made film sent to the Nanking Office of the German Embassy on 10 February 1938.

Excerpts from American goddess at the rape of Nanking, the courage of Minnie Vautrin, p. 97 and The good man of Nanking, the diaries of John Rabe, p.281.

--Flying tiger 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The novel is useless to the problem of the history. If "1,000 people had a Japanese army done the rave" is true, International committee doesn't know of what one speaks. --202.157.52.182 06:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

202.157.52.182, I'm afraid you are going to have to do a lot better then that, given your counterpoints are delivered without really stating their sources. Should the amount of evidence you have supposing your incredible proposition that population really increased during the period of the occupation along with other things prove to be anything more then a house of cards that one might desperately like to believe in… perhaps you could educate all of us here by coming up with an article that opens all of the facts to scrutiny?

For one I regret to inform you not only do I find your claims incredible, should they prove to be false would prove to be a great dishonor of sorts to the Japanese people. While one must realize that the PRC government has a vested interest in inflating the scale of the tragedy, to cover up a lie with another lie in the extreme opposite really proves to be no better. Lets get our latent nationalism out of this talk and focus on the true scale of the humanitarian disaster that almost certainly happen.

I for one found the facts on a peaceful and happy life under a Japanese regime extremely hard to believe. For starters I do not live in China and my nation has little vested interested in making the Japanese look bad. HOWEVER, I have long listened to eyewitness accounts from my very own grandparents (who were in china during the war) on how they saw their own friends and families rounded up and killed on often the barest of reasons. I've seen the most nonpolitical of elderly folk harbour extreme bitterness for anything Japanese to the point they cannot bring themselves to even handle anything Japan even thought they are now in Singapore and not China.

As much as the PRC has a vested interest in making the tragedy bigger, I find it extremely hard to believe that this much of harbored personal resentment in many of the war survivors is the result of listening to too much radio PRC… not especially when the people involved often had vivid personal eyewitness accounts to much of the things committed. There's a big difference from saying "I heard they killed Bob," to actually becoming "I SAW them kill Bob and do all those awful things."

If Nanking was the liberated paradise you described, it must be a very odd anomaly in the general conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in their areas of occupation. You are telling me to believe that my grandparents are delusional (or worse lying to be to make me hate anything Japanese for some reason) and that their vivid accounts are all fabrications as part of a general Chinese conspiracy worldwide.

And not to mention I do not think whitewashing history is the way to go about honoring your war dead. Our forefathers did not die for a lie. -Rexregum

Japs, they are always fucking idiot, non-human sense fetcher, before and after time. -- John55556 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image after Nanjing surrenders(Image of people who end war and return at shelter destination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYXmyAW_fw&mode=related&search=

--202.157.15.87 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Television program of Japan that explains thing that is lie Nanjing slaughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Njb3sG-7U&eurl= --202.157.15.87 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Ha ! Ha ! Your naive propaganda video made me laugh so much !! Thank you !! --Flying tiger 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because Chiang Kai-shek and the commander of a Chinese army deserted Chinese soldiers, and only we had escaped, China invited pandemonium. The number of victims kept increasing because a seceding Chinese soldiers took off the service uniform, changed clothes to the citizens clothes, and used the Chinese citizens for the escutcheon. A Chinese soldier who did not have food wore citizens' clothes, and disappeared in the citizens, became the burglar, the thief, and Zoc, and was repeating plunder, the rape, the assault, and the slaughter from the Chinese citizens. A Chinese soldier stole the service uniform and the firearm of a Japanese army, took the shape of a Japanese soldier, set fire in the Nanjing city, raped Chinese's women and children in addition, murdered, and had slaughtered it. And, a Chinese soldier is pretending all these atrocities to the act of a Japanese army. When withdrawing, a Chinese army destroyed and carried out all goods that a Japanese army was able to use. This is 'Scorched-earth strategy ' of a Chinese tradition. (The scorched-earth strategy of the most famous Chinese army is a strategy to which the embankment in Hwang Ho is destroyed, the deluge is caused, and several hundred thousand members' Chinese was drowned. )--202.157.18.221 10:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You got to do a lot better then that 202.157.18.221. And firstly I am surprised you could even put up such flimsly arguments which brings up the question if you are really a true Japanese apologist to begin, given your arguments are so silly one tends to wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese by putting such an opinion as their own. Frankly I think there are better arguments to be used even by the most rabid defenders of Japanese actions in WW2.

Not to mention your "idea" on the Chinese army somehow managing to carry out a mass slaughter of Nanking draws entirely from speculation, defies all eye witness accounts, and not to mention suggests that the victims had no common sense themselves are were so competely fooled. You bend so many rules of proper history accounting and basic logic that I wonder if you even bothered with them to begin with... which makes one wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese with such arguments to begin with. I find it hard to believe that any Japanese person would dishonour his forefathers with such a twisting of facts.

How the Chinese army managed to get such a large number of Japanese uniforms and firearms to stage such an act is hard to imagine, not to mention that even if they did manage to do this... the average citizen of Nanking could still easily tell if the soldier was truly Japanese or Chinese, and would hardly be fooled. More tellingly, if this was really the case the surviviors of Nanjing would have easily pointed it out post war and exposed the whole thing to independent sources that were not affiliated to the PRC. If the Chinese army was really behind this thing, there would be no lack of Chinese victims that would eventually speak up. We hear many stories from Chinese Christians, democratic activists and what have you not exposing the actions of their government... but so far no word from any Nanjing victims of the Chinese army pulling such a prank. The red-handedness has really been all pointing towards the Japanese. I won't even start on all the accounts of the tortures and mass killings from the survivors in my country of Singapore of which we can still easily get a first hand eyewitness account from.

Frankly even the most militant Japanese apologists don't deny killing took place in Nanking, they try instead to downplay the severity of the incident or justify it somehow. Your positions of no killing or conspiracy theories simply hold no weight... and often make people wonder if you are even Japanese to begin with. For so far we know most Japanese to be reasonable people who are honorable and brave to admit the truth and face the facts. We see none of that in your posts, if you are truly Japanese, please stop disgracing your nation in this place by such behavior. You are really dragging the name of your nation in the mud before the international community here.

Rexregum 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In W W II, military forces that kill a lot of Chinese are not a Japanese armies but Chinese armies.To begin with, there was no intention of invading China in a Japanese army.Japan was only drawn in to the civil war of a national party and the communist party in China.A Japanese army only counterattacked to the attack of a Chinese army.A Chinese army did not stop the attack to a Japanese army though withdrew even if defeated, and the thing occurrence that a Japanese army also stops counterattacking did not come.A Chinese army did the scorched-earth strategy when withdrawing, and killed a lot of Chinese.Japan rebuilt the city that a Chinese army had destroyed.The purpose of Japan is a modernization and a public peace recovery of China. It is the same as the United States in Iraq today. This is true.--202.147.217.166 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! You are even funnier than 202.157.15.87 ! I almost though for a moment you were serious. Thanks a lot ! You prove that dramatic subjects sometimes need humour...--Flying tiger 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In Asian nations, the majority were colonies in Europe and America. Only Thailand had been barely escaping occupying excluding Japan.China was continued after Qing Dynasty had collapsed confusion in the state of a half colony.Afterwards, China was in the state of the civil war of Kuomintang and Communist.（It looks like Iraq over which Shiite is fighting against Sunni.The transitional government is a Nanjing government of Wang Zhao ming.The standpoint of the U.S. military is a Japanese army. The United States hoped for the democratization of Iraq, and Japan hoped for the modernization of China.） Communist that had started defeating at a Kuomintang drew in Japan to the war.The final target of Japan was to have made Asia where it was able to oppose Europe and America.Stability and the modernization of China were indispensable for that. To defend one's independence, Japan stood up.--202.147.217.166 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you have any sort of a good grasp of the situation on the ground then. First and foremost the actual reported actions of the Japanese army on the ground were reported to be invariably, and greatly, different from the propaganda leaflets that they distributed promising liberty and modernization. Not to mention the average Japanese soldier didn’t go into China with the lesson drilled into them that they were supposed to be improving the lives of the Chinese they were supposedly “liberating”. The American grunts have the humanitarian mission on the top of their list in Iraq now and even they can screw it up at times.

I have no reason to see why the Japanese army that was not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, with a brutal and dehumanising military system made up of suppressed conscripts that were drafted for slightly over one ren (and considered at times even more expendable then equipment) bears even the slightest resemblance to the Americans in Iraq now. They had plenty of reasons to act out their murderous impulses unabated and preventing abuses of the civilian populace was never high on the list of Japanese war plans.

I don't recall any great gains that the Japanese made in promoting an "Asian Asia". If anything the revolt of independence against the colonial masters after WW2 was not because the nations had seen the light of independence under Japanese rule, but because the colonial masters had failed to protect these nations from the BRUTALITY of the Japanese empire. I don't think the island of Singapore made any progress from its previous, prosperous state under the occupation... in fact so much was lost and suffered that the current nation of Singapore places a heavy emphasis on DEFENCE to prevent another repeat of any half-assed-in-word-only "liberations" like what the Japanese did to them.

No, I do not think the Japanese came in with the idea of “liberating” China. There were more complex reasons involved. I don’t think Japan is necessarily evil for starting the war, and the situation then was more mixed. What more likely happened however, was that the Japanese military system based on “bullshitdo” (a greatly corrupted form of the actual Samurai code), that encouraged the average Japanese conscript to disregard common morality to do anything for the empire, along with a general apathy to humanitarian concerns, a rigid and repressive life in the Japanese military as well as some racial superiority to mix it all up. What resulted was the perfect conditions for the Japanese army to commit the atrocities they were blamed for.

The prove is pretty exhaustive, and once again I think the plenty of war survivors I can still interview/ have interviewed also told me quite clearly that a lot of the unnecessary killing in Asia was done very by the Japanese army. Non of the sides in the war were really innocent of doing any great wrongs, and I find you idea of this suddenly magnanimous Japanese liberator greatly mistaken. Japan had her interests threatened and she moved to defend them, but she did not move as a righteous liberator striking out in self-defence, but rather in a very aggressive, and often unnecessarily bloody way. Her future generations would do good to learn from these mistakes or they will repeat them. There is no honour in defending a lie, nor making people who became monsters in our interests our heroes.

I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here by trying to twist history around to become as favourable to Japan. I doubt it cuts any ice at all to those moderates who knew that the Japanese were not the simple “bad” guys in WW2, but nevertheless did many very bad things. All the twisting in the world won’t change that, and I’m afraid your attempts to draw from radical right-wing revisionist arguments that flout most common laws of handling historical evidence don’t really help your case here. If anything it drives international opinion against Japan.

Rexregum 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wang Zhao ming organized the Nanjing government of the pro-Japanese in Nanjing.If the Nanjing slaughter is true, he will choose another place.Is the establishment of the pro-Japanese government impossible by the slaughter site even though.

It is a book that verified the thing that is the lie the Nanjing slaughter.

http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4794213816/ref=sib_dp_pt/503-2243263-6995145#reader-link

--202.147.217.166 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You really have to come up with better arguments.

Sorry, the “point” of “Wang Zhao Ming” you raised does not seem to have any bearing on the point of the debate. Wang Jingwei, given his position, never had any real choice in choosing where to set up his “government”, nor did he really have any say in what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese back then, given he was pursuing a policy of collaboration. It’s hardly amazing that he should end up in Nanjing and turn a blind eye to what was being committed there. History has no lack of such characters, so I’m not sure what you prove at all, except trying to read a lot more into what is really there.

Which sums up your arguments here mainly, which consist of trying to dismiss rather blatant and obvious evidence like first-person eyewitness accounts from multiple sources (not just the Chinese), photographic evidence, and a whole array of other concrete evidence with extremely fragile and fanciful speculations like the massacre was perpetrated by “Japanese-dressed Chinese soldiers”, and trying to take neutral facts and twist them to your prove your point, such as saying what printed on Japanese propaganda articles as what actually transpired on the ground.

I’m afraid you have to do a lot, a lot better then that. I am rather disappointed in fact, that you have chosen not to really answer any of the points I raised such as the vivid, first person accounts I can easily get from any of my surviving forefathers on a snap, the consensus of virtually all historians of different nationalities on what transpired, and even the obvious holes I have pointed out in you argument. What you have chosen to do however, is to continually draw from a pool of shallow, right wing conspiracy theories and speculations that invariably support your case with blatant disregard for truth. Truly, this is rather disappointing, and I wonder if your society frowns on such unreasonable behaviour.

Even if there was no PRC to distort things, the agreement of various historians in the international circle that the massacre did indeed take place. And what’s more telling such a massacre is not at odds with the general conduct of the Japanese army in WW2. I think the evidence is pretty damming and anybody trying to deny that is really fighting uphill against a mountain of evidence. Unless you can really come up with something extraordinary rather then the parlour tricks you are putting up here, I doubt you are even making any dent on the credibility of the Nanjing massacre. One could have a far easier job denying the rape of East Timor.

Rexregum 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Capital Punishment. I have added David Bergamini's excellent book, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, to the source list, as this scholar of the Japanese language has reviewed the War Crimes Tribunal testimony in both Japanese and English texts, and done considerable interviews revealing the previously and deliberately hidden role of Emperor Hirohito in authorizing Japan's plans for war. As part of that record, it turns out that the general nominally in charge of the assault on Nanking, General Matsui, actually intended to conduct an honorable battle, but his command was undermined by an uncle of the Emperor, Prince Asaka, who actually carried out the order to "Kill all prisoners." Matsui was hung for the crime; Prince Asaka was never called to testify at the war crimes trial (p. 47), thus Bergamini's scholarship also makes an important contribution to the literature of capital punishment and war crimes.

NPOV and Citation tags

Why are these still up?

• Please itemize which statements require citation, otherwise this tag will be removed.
• Which parts of the article are contested for NPOV?

Djma12 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Nanking Hospital

People who are familiar with my edits know that I feel strongly about preserving the record on international atrocities. However, this statement seems to me to be exceptionally POV and unsourced:

• Nanjing Hospital was the site of some of the most gruesome atrocities committed during the occupation. Bandages were torn from the flesh of the wounded, casts were smashed with clubs, and nurses were repeatedly raped.

First of all, atrocities are not diminished if recalled with an objective voice. (We don't need the "torn from the flesh of the wounded", etc...) Also, per WP:V, extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. If this statement does not provide any citation, I think it should be removed. Djma12 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: If someone can find a citation for this, it should definitely be re-introduced. (Calmer language, though, please.) Djma12 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many bodies has been found?

--Arigato1 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They weren't lost. 71.68.17.30 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Urban Legend

"Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets."

This HAS to be an urban legend. I've heard it said that the Germans did this in WW1, etc. Most of the time, when the story is basically the same, but the names change, it's an urban legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

How do you know for sure that it is an urban legend? I've read the witness accounts as well, though i'm not saying that it's necessarily true, how can you so readily say it is not? I've also seen a photo of a japanese soldier with babies impaled on his bayonet, so i'm not so ready to say that it didn't happen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.43.82 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-17 02:34:56 (UTC)

One of the Victims which i had known and now long since dead, was forced into sex slavery at the age of 16. She was "thankfully" raped only by the higher officials cause of her looks but she had to watch as other less fortunate(understatement) women were raped by hundreds of men every day. Afterwards, females ransacked by the battalions, whom they were done with or were nearly dead, were then lined up and cut open to rip out the womb(uterus) and placed over their head's so they can suffocate to death.

Grisly. A lot of older chinese elders still say, "You buy a Japanese product, your giving them another bullet to kill you with."

15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)70.18.52.179`

Excavations?

I`m very curious about the reference to recent excavations in the article, and would like to follow it up. Citations?

133.19.126.5 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Shaun O`Dwyer

Tongshu massacre

Hi why someone deleate the part of Tongshu thats important background right? Misplaced Pages should not be a one side propaganda Tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

29th July 1937 Chinse Troops attacked Japanese reserve at Tongshu. Some Japanese Ladies Raped and killed and put the bloom to Vagina,and Chinese Troops pierce the wire at the nose/ hands of Japanese children and dagged and killed. The other Ladies Raped and ripped the stomach. Some family cutted neck and hand and legs and trushed to garbage bin. And a old lady cutted her hand and trushed and a pregnantlady Raped and pierced her stomach by bayonette.

This affair reported by most of Japanese News Paper,and some Japanese Troops swear the retaliation

• (This is important background because 4month before Nanjing Masacre and Newspaper Propaganda this affair but ofcourse this affair will not justify Nanjing Massacre)

• Tongshu Massacre1
• Tongshu Massacre2
• This Article Under Vandalism,especially all the article with photos burned by Vandalism for hiding truth
• Wiped out affair Tongshu
• Reviw China-Japan War
• Leftist Unti War Org> No more Nanjing Grop report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.229.7 (talk • contribs)

because it has nothing to do with Nanjing Massacre, and no it was not "background" to what happened in Nanjing. And plus it has its own article here. And what you wrote with really bad grammar and organization, not to mention misspellings. Blueshirts 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Relations between the Nanking Massacre and the Nanking Incident

Should be called Rape of Nanking. There is no such thing as the Nanking Massacre. It is the Rape of Nanking. Use common names and real names. Dont try to appease the Japanese. TingMing 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, the name Nanking Massacre does not appease the Japanese, as to the best my knowledge, the Japanese have refered to the series of events in Nanjing as the Nanking Incident. I believe that the name Nanking Massacre is more accurate as the main atrocity that was committed by the Japanese was mass murder, in other words massacre. Although mass rape was evident and was also a major crime committed during the war and during the series of events in Nanjing during this period, mass murder was more evident. --Nat.tang 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See #Name? above. This has been discussed, probably extensively throughout the archives as well. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

These are not same definition.If these matters will be made one definition, confusion will happen.Please see the Japanese page of the argument of the Nanking Incident 1937.Don't remove stab about the stub of the {{totally-disputed}}.--203.70.54.205 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Intention to remove picture

There is a link in the section "Theft and arson" to a image 'Nanjing1937_BabyOnTracks.jpeg'. The caption is just "Famous picture of baby stranded among the devastation" which implies that the picture is taken of a scene during the Nanking massacre.

This picture is however found link to the the Shanghai War article and is described as "A baby on the tracks near the Shanghai South Railway Station after it was bombed by the Japanese on August 28, 1937"

I think it is clear from the discussion on the image page that this picture should not be linked by this article. Agree? GrantB 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, and also rename the picture to avoid further confusion. Blueshirts 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Those arguments are a little different. Historical reconfirmations are necessary. A doubt is presented that this picture was taken by Frank Capra. If so, this picture were taken in 1943.--Hare-Yukai 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

this was taken in 1937 in Shanghai. Frank Capra had nothing to do with it. Stop adding nonsense to the picture and its related article. Blueshirts 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I will prepare the evidence. please wait a little time.--Hare-Yukai 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The photo appeared in Oct.4 1937 of Life Magazine, showing the Shanghai north station after Japanese bombing. It has nothing to do with Nanjing and Frank Capra Blueshirts 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I show you this picture. At least, you should be understood the Fact that this is not a document photograph.--Hare-Yukai 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been beaten to death already. Now where's your evidence that Frank Capra or Nanjing had anything to do with it? Blueshirts 08:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You can see the movie (The Battle of China) with the following HP site. Download it, and then see it.Evidence is distinct from 24min07sec to 24min10sec of this movie scene.--Hare-Yukai 09:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand my question. Where is the evidence that it was shot by Capra and in Nanjing? You are pointing me to a documentary whose makers did not shoot the primary footage, which is rather useless in this discussion. Blueshirts 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that it was Nanjing about it?The meaning of the evidence which I say is that it is in the film of the Frank Capra.--Hare-Yukai 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like saying 9/11 terrorist attack was in the film of Michael Moore's because it was in Fahrenheit 9/11. You're not making sense at all. Blueshirts 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

At least, it is obviously that this picture was not the documentary one. It was produced picture being used as the documentary picture. All of the things were propaganda of the communist. For the long time, we were deceived by them. As the result, meaningless war was caused between the good friends.--Hare-Yukai 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a dumbass, to be honest with you. Who bombed the station? Did the Chinese get the kid shot up? The same issue has been discussed on the main Second Sino-Japanese War talk page already, you're late. Blueshirts 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the baby had hurt, why were they taking commemoration photography?　It was clear that he (the baby) was the victim of the Shanghigh war, but it was produced too much, too. It should be grieved for the victim of the war, but they used the victim, too.--Hare-Yukai 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all, and I'm not sure if that stems from your limited English. "Commemoration photography"? "Should be grieved"? "Used the victim"? So are you saying that the allies shouldn't have taken pictures of holocaust survivors posing with the camp or pictures of dead and injured people? Please just go away. Blueshirts 23:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I say just only, take the pictures as it is. I don't want to see such a made up picture.--Hare-Yukai 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deniers to include

http://iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/nanking.php 65.60.208.212 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another information

Please see the following articles. zh:王小亭,ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist community) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.--Hare-Yukai 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excavations2?

I'm putting this question again - this time without a dangling participle: I was interested to see some brief discussion about archaeological excavations in Nanjing. Could someone provide some references?--133.19.126.5 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the conclusive evidence of the fabrication of the Nanjing Massacre.--Hare-Yukai 08:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link with some documented sites: http://neverforget.sina.com.cn/crime/map.html. The main page of this site also provide comparison of old pictures and a recent picture of the current site. There are some bury grounds discovered during construction, which I heard in the news when I was in China. (Postdoc 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Page protected

This page is now protected due to revert warring. Please settle your dispute here, and contact me when the dispute has been settled. --Deskana (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

My position is as it was last time we had this discussion. It was not a case of genocide. Just because some sources refer to it as such doesn't mean a thing. Other commentators don't call it genocide. You also don't need to spell out "I don't think it was genocide" to think it was not the case. Some people believe green space lizards control global affairs - just because most people don't keep denying that doesn't mean such theories are correct.

Personally I don't see how we can reconcile our views. Maybe we need to ask for mediation or something. John Smith's 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources I've included in the last discussion:

• UHRC
• Martin Shaw, PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations
• Henry Theriault, Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
• Prevent Genocide International

I'm pretty sure I can find others. It's important to note that none of these sources are actually Chinese, so there's no issue of Chinese bias with these sources. But to be NPOV, I do not mind also including the article in a category called "Incidents". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, that's irrelevant. I have never said there were no sources that said it was genocide. I said that there is no academic agreement on it. Also the official definition does not apply here. It's not enough to put "incident" in, because it is still classified as genocide. An incident had to have taken place for genocide to take place - but not every incident is genocide.

This has been debated to death on this talk page, so I think I will file a case for mediation. John Smith's 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should try Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment first, to bring some third-party editors into the discussion. At any rate: 1) Those that do not label it as "genocide" also does not state "it's not a genocide". There's an important distinction there - neutral vs. negative. 2) WP:NPOV dictates that different POVs be represented, not eliminated. That the Nanking Massacre is labeled a "genocide" by reliable academic sources cannot be ignored. 3) I am absolutely willing to include the article in another category, something like "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something. So I'm extending my olive branch here for compromise. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We've already had lost of third-parties comment. Are you ignoring the above talk discussion? But if that's the way you want to play it, fine. I doubt any consensus will appear, but I'll make one. John Smith's 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV talks about article content - it does not refer to categories. I don't think your compromise is really a compromise for the reason I outlined. An incident must take place for genocide to occur - but not all incidents are genocide. John Smith's 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute as to whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute

• Genocide is not a term that can be applied here because it was not a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Chinese population of Nanjing. Some sources label it as genocide, but others do not. Thus if there is no clear academic agreement it is much simpler to use the term "massacre", which is already included. John Smith's 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Some sample sources that label the Nanking Massacre as a "genocide":
  • UHRC
  • Martin Shaw, PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations
  • Henry Theriault, Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
  • Prevent Genocide International
  • Donald G. Duttona, Ehor O. Boyanowskyb, Michael Harris Bondc (respectively of Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia; School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University; and Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong
  • Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies Resource Center
  • Jane Springer, author of Genocide
• However, I do acknowledge that there are sources that claim it is not a genocide, or that there was no massacre at all. In the spirit of WP:NPOV, which states that different POVs be represented instead of eliminated, I suggest we include the article also in a category called "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something similar. However, reliable sources label it as a "genocide" and this cannot be ignored. As an aside, getting rid of the "Genocide" category would set a precedent for the category to be deleted from other similar articles, such as The Holocaust, as long as not absolutely all sources say it is a "genocide" - this seems to be User:John Smith's argument. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Please do not misrepresent what I said. I have always said that the fact academics do not agree is a reason to say the fact some academics call it genocide is not enough. Otherwise just about every massacre should be labelled "genocide" on wikipedia because some people always call it that. That seems to be your argument.
• The important issue is whether it fits the defined terms of "genocide", which the massacre at Nanjing does not. John Smith's 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For us editors to determine amongst ourselves whether or not it is a genocide would be WP:Original research. What we need to do is look to our sources and reflect what they state. If there are a number of sources to label an event as a "genocide", such as The Holocaust, then yes, absolutely I think articles for such events should be in the "Genocide" category. That is my argument. If there are also other sources to refute that it was a genocide or even a massacre at all, then perhaps including it in a category called "Disputed events" or some such should be considered. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is not original research to decide on this matter, because the term has been officially coined as discussed last time. For the article content, the disagreement could be discussed. But over something as simple as a category entry wikipedians are allowed to exercise their judgment - otherwise how could anyone decide what went in which category? We are not making a decision on the article content, just what categories should be used.John Smith's 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You asked, "how could anyone decide what went in which category?". The answer is simple - sources. And that's something which should override editors' own interpretations every single time. We can disagree till the end of time whether or not the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, that does not matter in the face of sources that call it such. And to reiterate, I abosolutely acknowledge that there are sources which do not call it a genocide or even a massacre at all. Which is why I think we should consider including the article in another category to reflect this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Sources are not needed to classify an article's inclusion in a category when an existing definition clearly identifies whether it should go in or not. Sources are required for content in the main body of an article - I believe they are not needed to decide on categories. John Smith's 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
          • And the only thing I can say to that is that I disagree. I suggest we wait for others to respond to the RfC that you filed here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, for what it's worth, here's my thinking process on this. I can see both sides, and I don't have a strong feeling either way. Having read the rather lengthy exchange John Smith's, HQG, and others had regarding this topic from last year, I'm a bit mystified as to why you want to include the Genocide category, Hong. From what I could tell (admittedly, there was quite a lot of extraneous fluff in that exchange), your main argument for its inclusion was that there were a number of sources that categorized the Nanking Massacre as genocide. I don't think anyone's contesting that point, but from the very brief look around that I had, there are sources that wouldn't classify it as genocide, and there are quite a number of definitions of genocide, many of which wouldn't apply to Nanking. So, given that there's a demonstrated lack of agreement on whether Nanking was or was not, is there a compelling reason to include the Nanking Massacre in the Genocide category, other than the fact that some sources describe it as such? --Folic Acid 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's also a lack of agreement on whether the Halocaust was even real. Yet the Halocaust article is included in the Genocide category. I would assume this is because there are sources that label it as such. Now, the sources that label the Nanking Massacre as a "genocide" are academic and reliable. For me, that's a compelling reason to categorise this article in the Genocide category. But like I said, I acknowledge that not all sources label it as such, and that's exactly why I suggest we consider including the article in another category, called "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something similar. The disagreement between John Smith's and me seems to be how to resolve the fact that not all sources label the Nanking Massacre as a genocide (and again, the same can be said of the Halocaust). I prefer that we include both the Genocide category and another category called "Disputed events" or something similar. John Smith's prefers that we do not include it in the Genocide category at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If you read his comments again, you will see the point about definition. Please, Hong, stop misrepresenting what I said. The issue of sources is not to say that because there is disagreement the category should not be used - it is to say that the claim that as there are some people who say it is genocide it should be used, is not valid. The matter concerns definitions, as Folic Acid pointed out. Holocaust denial is not relevant, because we are not discussing whether the Nanking massacre happened or not. It is to do with the definition of genocide. Holocaust deniers can't really refute the claim that the "Final Solution" was genocide if they accept the events as they are generally told really happened - they try to dispute the events themselves. No one here is claiming the events at Nanking did not happen, merely that they do not constitute genocide. John Smith's 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • And again, I would like to point out, for us editors to determine amongst ourselves what the definition of "genocide" is would be WP:Original research. We should only reflect what our sources say. I did not say, "it was a genocide". I'm saying there are numerous sources that label it as such, so it should be categorised as such. And as I keep repeating, I think we should consider also categorising the article under "Incidents" or "Disputed events". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • (Stupid edit conflict) I understand your point, Hong, but I think if we followed that logic, we'd have to classify any event that had a (credible) dissenting view as a "Disputed Event" - a process that I suspect would result in a lengthy and unwieldy list. In any case, while I continue not to have a strong opinion, my reading of the various definitions of genocide here would seem to indicate that a majority of definitions would exclude the Nanking Massacre, since they deal mainly with the premeditated extermination of an entire racial/ethnic/religious/etc. group, and my (limited) understanding of the Nanking Massacre was that it was more indiscriminate than that. Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. --Folic Acid 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If there are enough sources that dispute an event, then absolutely, I think they should be categorised as a "Disputed event". And the point with my suggestion on that is to offer it as a compromise that adequately addresses the issue that not all sources label it as a genocide. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm just going to go by what the U.N. is saying here, but the High Commission for Human Rights defines genocide as:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

• Were the Japanese killing members of an ethnic group? Yes, namely the Chinese. Were the Chinese targeted, as opposed to other ethnicities? Yes. But we can argue that the Chinese are the native group in their own country, which doesn't make them very ethnic at all. However, in relation to the Japanese, the Chinese are ethnic to them.
• Bodily harm? Without question
• Calculated attempts to ruin lives? This was one incident, but the fact that comfort women were used indicates a deliberate deterioration of life conditions for those women. So, hesitant yes.
• Preventing births? Deliberate abortions were done, as stated by "Often times, Japanese soldiers in the case of pregnant women, cut open the uterus and removed the fetus." (also a cited statement)

The key word is "any." More than one condition did indeed apply to the Japanese killings of Chinese during the Nanking massacre. However, (a) could very well apply to armies of various countries, which, like John Smith's said, would make every battle or massacre in history a genocide. Now, going to John Smith's' point (again), there are several seemingly contradicting definitions. Much like Folic Acid did in summary, here is a subjective comparison of definitions. In the following table, I am only going to put a Yes if ALL of the conditions apply, just to be fair; "No" if any doubts are raised. According to Genocide definitions, each of which is cited for proof:

1. Diane F. Orentlicher Genocide
2. Raphael Lemkin, Genocide American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 (April 1946), p. 227-230
3. Adam Jones p. 15
4. ^ Hans-Lukas Kieser & Dominik Schaller Kolloquium: Der Völkermord an den Armeniern und die Shoah
5. Adam Jones pp. 14,15
6. Adam Jones pp. 14,16
7. Adam Jones pp. 3,14,16
8. ^ Adam Jones p. 16
9. Adam Jones notes that Bauer distinguishes between "genocide" and "holocaust"
10. ^ Adam Jones p. 17
11. Adam Jones pp. 17,32
12. Yaroslav Bilinsky Was the Ukrainian Famine of 1932-1933 Genocide? Journal of Genocide Research (1999), 1(2), 147-156
13. 2007 Global Conference on the Prevention of Genocide – What is Genocide? McGill Faculty of Law (McGill University)
14. Social Scientists' Definitions of Genocide Institute for the Study of Genocide, International Association of Genocide Scholars
15. ^ Adam Jones p. 18
16. Adam Jones notes that Horowitz supports "carefully distinguishing the Holocaust from genocide"; and that Horowitz also refers to "the phenomenon of mass murder, for which genocide is a synonym".

So what does this leave us with? Thus far:

Yes: 8

No: 10

In other words, there is no consensus, and it would be fair to neither side, according to the pundits, to call it a genocide. Let's take another example: the Muslim attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. The ruling faction of India (or the "governing elite" as defined by some scholars) at the time was predominantly Hindu and Sikh. The author of a book on the incident implies that the attack was an outright genocide. Going by this assertation on its own, the Nanking Massacre too would fit the description of a genocide.

I am going to explicitly state my POV right here and now that I feel that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because the occupying Japanese powers, who were the ruling faction after the surrender of the city, conducted a systematic murder of Chinese people in the city of Nanking, and enslaved scores of women for the purposes of prostitution. However, POV aside, it would be fairer to label this a policide - or the intentional destruction of a city. As opposed to just "bombing the heck out of the buildings," I see policide as a process in which civililans are targeted. Pandacomics 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Panda, going by the UN definition, one has to show the Japanese were out to wipe out the Chinese population of Nanjing and the surrounding areas (I mention surrounding areas because when death estimates are used, it's argued they include the environs as well) - this is the "group". That is not the case from what I understand. Many, many Chinese were killed, but more as a "general rampage" and to a lesser extent rather heavy-handed attempt to find hiding soldiers. There's also the issue of the safety zone, which appeared to function with the authorisation of the Japanese forces. Had they been intent on genocide, they would never have allowed for it to be set up in the first place. Although they did enter it, they selected people from the group there before taking them away. Again, they would have killed everyone there if they had been intent on wiping out the Chinese population. It is not enough that they simply killed Chinese people.

Also I think according to the definition (again) there is no reason to count forced prostitution as a sign of genocide.

That said I am glad to see you are actually willing to look at the definition of the word "genocide". John Smith's 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion that the very existence of the safety zones negates argument for genocide is very hard to swallow. Do you really think Japan would have gone on a full rampage inside foreign enclaves, at the risk of killing foreigners and further alienating the international community and inviting more embargoes? Realpolitik eh? USS Panay was bad enough. Regardless of whether it was a genocide, I find your take on the presence of safety zones in this discussion rather ridiculous. Blueshirts 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say the very existence of the safety zone negates an argument for genocide? Please show me.

What I said was, if it had been the intent of the Japanese forces to exterminate all Chinese in Nanjing (as per the definition of genocide) they would have surely not allowed it be set up or simply went in and killed all the Chinese there. Given the Japanese were already indulging in a general rampage of the city, if they had thought about an international response they would have realised they'd already be inviting the maximum probable penalty short of massacring all the foreigners too. The fact they did go in to take some Chinese away at times suggests they didn't care about an international response.

It's a point that might suggest it wasn't genocide, but a fairly minor one. John Smith's 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're dodging the question but you specifically said that the safety zones were authorized by the japanese, thus it wasn't a genocide because the japanese surely wouldn't have set up this if they weren't so hell-bent on killing every chinese person there. And then you said it's a "minor point". Plus it's your own opinion that the safety zone is relevant to whether it was or wasn't a genocide.Blueshirts 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese authorities never actually formally recognised the Nanking Safety Zone. The only thing that kept the Chinese civilians safe in the zone was the presence of the foreigners, especially that of John Rabe, for being a member of the Nazi Party. They've had to literally physically get in between Japanese troops and the Chinese civilians on occasion. The existence of the Nanking Safety Zone actually argues for why the Nanking Massacre may be considered a genocide, because Japanese troops did not harm the foreigners that ran the zone. Anyway, we can disagree amongst ourselves till the end of time on whether or not the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, and I very much appreciate User:Pandacomics's research efforts. But at the end of the day, none of us are, to the best of my knowledge, trained in any formal sense to give us any academic authority on whether or not an event was a "genocide". This is why I keep emphasising the need to look at our sources. That's what WP was built on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Murdering foreigners would have prompted the strongest possible response from Allied nations - the Japanese weren't going to do that whilst they weren't at war with them.

Panda has actually tried to look at the definition much like Folic Acid. Currently you're the only person refusing to do so. I'll re-state my position that for something as simple as a category we can make a decision based on the UN/dictionary definition. Sources are for the main body of the article.

I note that the article itself has absolutely nothing on it being genocide, so that's another reason for it not to be in a category. The fact that no one has even tried to put in a section rather suggests to me that they don't really think it was genocide. John Smith's 10:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why the presence of the safety zone suggests that it wasn't a genocide. Blueshirts 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• My guess is that if a Safety Zone did exist, and the IJA respected (more or less) the sanctity of that zone, and a large number of Chinese civilians escaped the horrors of the massacre because of their presence in the zone, then the actions of the IJA must not have been directly aimed at a particular ethnic group (in this case, ethnic Chinese), but rather was either a case of indiscriminate killing or a targeted attack on Chinese military forces. In either of those two cases (indiscriminate killing or attacking the Chinese military), the criteria for being considered a genocide are not met (IMHO). --Folic Acid 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The Japanese authorities never officially recognised the safety zone. It was the literal presence of the foreigners that prevented Japanese soldiers from harming the civilians because they would not touch the foreigners. It wasn't the simple perimeters of the zone that kept civilians safe - it was the fact that the foreigners were inside the zone making sure Japanese soldiers do not harm civilians. From one of the entries of Rabe's diary:

You would have thought it impossible, but the raping of women even occurred right in the middle of the women's camp in our zone, which held between 5,000 and 10,000 women. We few foreigners couldn't be at all places all the time in order to protect against these atrocities. One was powerless against these monsters who were armed to the teeth and who shot down anyone who tried to defend themselves. They only had respect for us foreigners - but nearly every one of us was close to being killed dozens of times. We asked ourselves mutually, 'How much longer can we maintain this 'bluff'? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to argue the point, Hong - I'm just responding to Blueshirts' question. However, I will point out that the current article states that the Japanese government did recognize the safety zone. I'm not sure where the original author got that information, but that's what it says. --Folic Acid 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's all good, I know you were just responding to Blueshirts' question. That whole section about the Nanking Safety Zone is unreferenced though. There was no official recognition from the Japanese authorities. But I'm sure depending on who you ask, some will say that the Japanese soldiers did (unofficially) respect the zone, and others will say that they did not. What we do know, however, is that from the personal testamonies of the foreigners that ran the zone, we see that they needed to be physically there to protect the civilians, and that civilians had been harmed when they were not actually with the civilians, even inside the zone. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents, I did link to a Nanking Massacre: Fact or Fiction article on there. Well, actually it's a book, and I think t's even linked in the external refs/further reading somewhere. Despite its obviously pro-Japanese POV (the guy was a Japanese author, after all), he did provide arguments to some extent whether this zone was indeed respected. Furthermore, he includes documentation of the Safety Zone in Chapters 11 and 12. If anyone has the book, I guess this info could always be thrown in. (shrug) Pandacomics 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Panda, I think it's inappropriate to talk about "pro-Japanese POV", because Japanese academia is split on the matter of whether there was a massacre at Nanjing or not. Some are denialists, whilst others affirm it quite strongly. John Smith's 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's an interesting point, John. Hong, if you feel so strongly about this, and if there is evidence (as you've laid out in your arguments here) of Nanking being a genocide, perhaps a paragraph about that in the article itself would be in order, and at least in my mind, would help justify the addition of the Genocide Category tag. Currently, the article says something like "The Japanese did respect the Zone to an extent; no shells entered that part of the city leading up to the Japanese occupation except a few stray shots. During the chaos following the attack of the city, some were killed in the Safety Zone, but the atrocities in the rest of the city were far greater by all accounts," and "The Japanese government had agreed not to attack parts of the city that did not contain Chinese military, and the members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone managed to persuade the Chinese government to move all their troops out of the area," both of which stand in contradiction to your view. If those conclusions are wrong (and I don't know enough of the event myself to make that judgment), then I think these would need to be corrected in order for the article to qualify for a Genocide Category tag, in my opinion. --Folic Acid 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll be perfectly willing to add to the article when it comes out of protection, to show that experts consider it a "genocide". And the reason that I don't want to engage in a discussion amongst ourselves on what is considered a genocide is because I believe that to be WP:Original research. None of us here are formally trained to give us any academic authority on what is a "genocide". So some of us here think it's a genocide and some do not. But no offense - what made us such experts on the subject matter? This is why we need to reflect what our sources say. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hong, you said that opinion was split - so you can't say "experts" regard it as being genocide. Only that it has been described as genocide. But you can't put anything in until we resolve this matter. You can claim WP:OR as much as you want, but it won't get the block lifted any faster. If anything your refusal to look into the definition of genocide is holding things up. Don't keep repeating yourself - it's a waste of time. If you won't budge, have the courage to say so directly and we can at least say the RfC failed and move on to something else. John Smith's 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• John Smith's, I'm one of the people in this RfC so far that have looked sources up. I have offered sources that label it as a genocide. As I've repeated, I do not feel that any of us have any academic authority to decide what is or is not a genocide. This is why I would rather rely on what the sources say. I'm not sure why this is so unacceptable to you. WP should reflect what sources say, it's what WP is founded on. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sources are irrelevant on the disputed matter because you've already admitted other sources do not call it genocide. Nothing would be achieved by someone digging out sources that do not describe it as genocide. So, I'll say this again, in light of the disagreement over this point by academics we have to make some sort of a judgment because the sources can't make that decision for us! If you are going to default to your old position of "some sources call it genocide so we should list it as such", then as has been pointed out that will make just about every massacre, etc on wikipedia part of the genocide category. In which case it would become very meangingless. We are not deciding on article content - just category usage. It is ridiculous for you to keep claiming that we cannot decide on categories - people do it all the time without looking at sources. I will never be convinced that wikipedians can't use their own brains to classify articles.
• Now, let's be realistic. If you're going to keep on with your position that we can't make our own decision on the UN definition and I'm not going to change mine, that is going to cause this RfC to fail. So either it fails and we go to mediation and then probably arbitration, or we see if the administrators who manage the categories can help us out by seeing whether they agree we can make up our own minds. Then if we can't make a decision maybe again they could help us out. John Smith's 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Correction - I never said we cannot decide on how to categorise the article, I only said that we have no academic authority to decide if the Nanking Massacre was or was not a genocide. I absolutely think we can decide on how to categorise the article, based on what our sources say. WP:NPOV says that we represent different views, that's why my suggested solution is to include another category. And a point must be made that many of the sources that do not label it as a "genocide" also do not state that "it is not a genocide" - there's a big difference between a source being in a neutral stance and being in a negative stance. If you like, I can participate in a discussion specifically about what we think, whether or not it is a genocide, and my stance is that it is a genocide. The Japanese forces targetted the Chinese, they made the city uninhabitable, looting and burning, they killed whole families and even pregnant women, etc etc. But just like you, I don't have any academic authority to show our readers that our personal opinions should matter. This is why I keep saying we should look to our sources. As far as mediation is concerned, this RfC has only ran for one day, with only three other editors responding. Let's give it more time. And John Smith's, how long have you been editing WP articles? "Sources are irrelevant"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another category could replace "genocide" if an existing, suitable one can be found - but it should replace it, not go alongside it. As to my comments, don't selectively quote part of a statement - that is an attempt to manipulate what someone has said. John Smith's 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Are you talking about your suggestion that we seek mediation and arbitration? I'm sorry if I'm assuming bad faith here, but from the beginning you first sought mediation, only agreeing to RfC because request for mediation failed, due to me disagreeing to participate. Even after RfC started, within one single day, this is not the first time you've mentioned that we should go to mediation instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you've never meant for this RfC to actually work its course. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• You are assuming bad faith. I went to mediation because you agreed to it last time - it failed because the other user wouldn't agree to it, not because you felt we needed to talk about more. I'm being realistic - mediation will follow if we can't agree on something. So I suggested that rather than get to that stage we ask for the input of administrators that deal with categories to help this RfC along. Why don't you see that as a good idea? John Smith's 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• To me this is a simple content dispute. And I know that both you and I have been involved in more elaborate content disputes without going to mediation or arbitration, so I'm not sure why you are so eager to jump on to mediation or even arbitration and deal with all that WP bureaucracy. Procedures like RfC are usually recommended before mediation or arbitration on content disputes, that's why I wanted to try it first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Stop lying. I am not "eager" to jump to mediation or arbitration. I have already told you why I listed mediation - you agreed to it last time, so I thought we should carry on where we left off. You refused to, so we're doing this. John Smith's 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just my opinion that it seems like you're eager to jump to mediation or arbitration. I apologise if I'm completely off on that assumption. I agreed to mediation last time because there was a lengthy discussion involving a great number of editors. And since according to Misplaced Pages:Consensus, "silence equals consent", I had thought the matter was resolved when discussions died down. But then you started editing on the same issue again without discussion, which is why I thought mediation was, and still is, premature. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Then I suggest you change your opinion, now that you have been corrected. "Silence equals consent". Maybe in terms of getting things done on Misplaced Pages, but only as a temporary solution. Whether mediation is premature or not, it is a follow-on if we can't resolve this through the RfC. Which is why I mentioned consulting the category administrators. Now should I form an opinion over the fact you have ignored this suggestion despite the fact I've mentioned it more than once? John Smith's 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hong, perhaps you could take a stab at a paragraph here while the page is under protection. I don't doubt that there are sources that say what you say, and I'm sure there are sources that hold to John Smith's view of the situation. Perhaps those of us participating here could weigh them against each other and make an analytical judgment about which should be predominant. Or, perhaps as you suggested, a new category (Disputed Events, Suspected Genocide, or some such) could be created that might strike an acceptable compromise. --Folic Acid 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure I'll try to come up with something a little later. The sources which I'm talking about are linked right at the top of this section. They include professors that specialise in the study of war and halocaust, and even the UHRC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think any new category like "suspected genocide" would be a good idea - I have a feeling that it would be deleted at some point. The best thing to do is look through existing, established categories that would stay up. Hong if you're going to write anything, please make it balanced and get sources from both sides. John Smith's 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong said The Japanese authorities never actually formally recognised the Nanking Safety Zone, but it is a lie. You have to read a letter which came from John Rabe. Japanese army kept the safety zone, and then Japanese army appreciated it from John Rabe.(It will be able to be read if you will use several automatic translation service.)--Hare-Yukai 05:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1037年12月14日

南京日本軍司令官殿
　拝啓 　貴軍の砲兵部隊が安全区に攻撃を加えなかったことにたいして感謝申し上げる(We appreciate it about the artilleryman of your army didn't add attack to the safety zone.)とともに、安全区内に居住する中国人一般 市民の保護につき今後の計画をたてるために貴下と接触をもちたいのであります。 　国際委員会は責任をもって地区内の建物に住民を収容し、当面 、住民に食を与えるために米と小麦を貯蔵し、地域内の民警の管理に当たっております。 　以下のことを委員会の手でおこなうことを要請します。

安全区の入口各所に日本軍衛兵各一名を配備されたい。 ピストルのみを携行する地区内民警によって地区内を警備することを許可されたい。 地区内において米の販売と無料食堂の営業を続行することを許可されたい。 　われわれは市内の他の場所に米の倉庫を幾つかもっているので、貯蔵所を確保するためにトラックを自由に通 行させて頂きたい。 一般市民が帰宅することができるまで、現在の住宅上の配慮を続けることを許されたい。（たとえ、帰宅できるようになったとしても、多数の帰るところもない難民の保護をすることになろう。） 電話・電灯・水道の便をできるだけ早く復旧するよう貴下と協力する機会を与えられたい。 　昨日の午後、多数の中国兵が城北に追いつめられた時に不測の事態が展開しました。(Yesterday afternoon, the accident which couldn't be predicted happened when many Chinese soldiers are cornered at the north of the castle.) そのうち若干名は当事務所に来て、人道の名において命を助けてくれるようにと、我々に嘆願しました。委員会の代表達は貴下の司令部を見つけようとしましたが、漢中路の指揮官のところでさしとめられ、それ以上は行くことができませんでした。そこで、我々はこれらの兵士達を全員武装解除し、彼らを安全区内の建物に収容しました。現在、彼らの望み通 りに、これらの人びとを平穏な市民生活に戻してやることをどうか許可されるようお願いします。 　さらに、われわれは貴下にジョン・マギー師（米人）を委員長とする国際赤十字南京委員会をご紹介します。この国際赤十字会は、外交部・鉄道部・国防部内の旧野戦病院を管理しており、これらの場所にいた男子を昨日、全員武装解除し、これらの建物が病院としてのみ使用されるように留意いたします。負傷者全員を収容できるならば、中国人負傷者を全員外交部の建物に移したらと思います。 　当市の一般市民の保護については、いかなる方法でも喜んで協力に応じます。 　　敬具

— 南京国際委員会委員長　 John H. D. Rabe

Ps. 昨日の午後、多数の中国兵が城北に追いつめられた時に不測の事態が展開しました。 is one of the famous accident at the Ichiang Gate. --Hare-Yukai 05:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Genocide" is a controversial term in its own way with no universally accepted definition. Rummel finds the concept of genocide so flawed that he has put forward the concept of democide (see also .)

One reason for the controversy over "genocide" is that it is a highly charged term. It carries within it the opprobrium of being labelled in the same way as the Holocaust and also the (controversial) Armenian genocide. As a result, arguments over assigning the term "genocide" are all too often struggles over whether the event is somehow "heinous" enough to be tarred with this much-feared brush. Or course, labelling any heinous event a "genocide" runs the risk of draining "genocide" of its meaning. When any mass massacre is a "genocide", what are you going to call the real thing (extermination of an entire race)?

At any rate, "genocide" itself is contoversial, and so is deciding what is "genocide" and what is not. Whatever may be said in the article about genocide, the categorical assignment of the Nanking Massacre to the category "genocide" looks very much like POV, given that no one is agreed on the issue.

Out of curiosity, I looked at the page on Genocides in history, which notes that "Ben Kiernan, a Yale scholar, labelled the destruction of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War (149–46 BC) the "The First Genocide"". Despite this, the page on the Third Punic War doesn't carry the category "genocide". Perhaps no one cares about it as much as the Rape of Nanking -- which only reinforces the impression that the assignment of the Nanking Massacre to the category "genocide" is driven as much by emotion as anything else.

Bathrobe 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps we need a new category of "democide"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathrobe (talk • contribs) 2007-07-28 05:19:43 (UTC)

• Hare-Yukai - seriously, are you actually using John Rabe letters to justify your points? Do you know how many letters he and the other foreigners sent to the Japanese embassy protesting the atrocities that they were seeing on a daily basis, only to have them ignored? I've actually read Rabe's diary, since it's been translated into English and published. Rabe and the other foreigners had sent a letter to the Japanese authorities requesting the establishment of the safety zone. They never got a reply to indicate that the Japanese authorities would give them permission to do so, and that they would respect the zone. If there's any official recognition of the safety zone by the Japanese authorities, there's certainly no evidence of it. Anyway, you don't seem to understand my point. It wasn't the actual zone that the Japanese military respected, it was the presence of the foreigners in the zone. Girls were raped right inside the zone and men dragged away when the foreigners weren't actually looking. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Hong Qi Gong said sent to the Japanese embassy protesting the atrocities that they were seeing on a daily basis, only to have them ignored?! You say such a lie again. You should check more than tow documents. You should not have a decision with the opinion of only one side. Based on the record of the Japanese embassy, the Japanese embassy staff went to the incident place together many times with John Rabe. But, nothing was here. It is being written in their. At least 70 Japanese newspaper reporter was in Nanjing in those days. If such incidents broke out like that frequently, it is supposed to be left in the newspaper reporter's diary as well. Actually, the facts which fits each other with the documents of John Rabe are only a little. The thing which doesn't fit each other is a lie, and the thing which fits each other are probably truth. --Hare-Yukai 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, the lie being on the part of the Japanese newspapers. While Rabe's diary and the writings of the foreigners were not controlled and censored by any governments, Japanese newspapers were. It's called war propaganda. Japanese troops made sure that when Japanese reporters arrived, it's nothing but smiles and friendliness with everybody. It's very interesting that Nanking Massacre deniers are basically guilty of the same thing for which they attack their opponents, being so ready to accept the "evidence" that support their views, such as Japanese war propaganda newspaper stories. And then they question the evidence of their opponents with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence - "this tree in the background looks funny, so this picture must be fake." "there's no way this man could be that tall, so this picture must be fake." etc etc. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I believe Hare-Yukai mentioned "newspaper reporter's diary", not just newspaper articles. I think he was saying that even if newspaper articles are going to say the same sort of thing, at least some of the journalists would have written down in their private notes what happened (diaries being very popular then). John Smith's 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
        • John Smith's - I have to admit that I seem to have wore myself kind of thin on WP with the other editing that I've personally tasked myself to do, so I really can't spend any more time on this dispute. Arguing about issues like these really takes time away from doing research and contributing real content. I'm going to bow out of the discussion. I just want to ask, as a courtesy, to let the RfC run for a couple more days to see if anybody wants to continue in light of me leaving the discussion. If nobody wants to continue, I would consider the matter resolved. Though I disagree with it, I won't oppose you if you want to delete the Genocide category. Cheers. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Understood. John Smith's 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I will continue it, so consider it not resolved.Giovanni33 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Pandacomics, you're the only other wikipedian here who stated a clear belief in the Nanking Massacre being genocide. Is that merely a personal POV, or does it extend to saying that you would revert a removal of the genocide category? I'm just trying to check that there wouldn't be another revert war if the page is unlocked after this RfC. No one has to like the genocide tag being removed, but if they're willing to live with it then it helps move things on. John Smith's 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I just declared a personal POV, but I am fully aware of what evidence is present. Again, this is not my soapbox, so if removing the tag helps this article go about its writing business, I'm all for it. Pandacomics 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Blueshirts didn't express an opinion/preference in reference to the category tag on genocide. I'll give it another day or so. John Smith's 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a section or two showing what sources have called the massacre a genocide should suffice. Blueshirts 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pandacomics . Do you want to open here for such storker(s)?

Orphaned non-free image (Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg)

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg listed for deletion

Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg listed for deletion

Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Talk:Nanking Massacre

Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg

Talk:Nanking Massacre

--Hare-Yukai 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

But, there is not so many proofs which fits each other between the different standpoint's persons. Some things are provably true, but many things have no proof. For example, the incident of Ichiang Gate is true. At least more than 20 different evidences exist. You must compare it with the incidents which has many evidences and the incidents which has poor information. --Hare-Yukai 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your links, but my point of view will continue to stand. I will reiterate again, however, that I won't let my POV get in the way of how this article is progressing i.e. with academic sources and not photos derived from conspiratorist sources. Pandacomics 05:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it is so, the 'Image:BuriedAlive.jpg' is in equal condition too. --Hare-Yukai 05:46, 30 July :2007 (UTC)

I believe that the topic was 'whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not'. We seem to have gone right off track. The question is not whether the Nanking Massacre was a gruesome affair (it most definitely was), or whether Rabe's evidence is good or not, or whether the Safety Zone was respected by the Japanese or not; the question is whether the Massacre should or should not be indisputably assigned to the category "genocide". I've posted the reasons why I disgaree, which no one has even bothered to address. Perhaps people's emotional involvement in the issue is preventing them from making a sober judgement on the topic under discussion?

Bathrobe 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We've actually pretty much dealt with the issue in question. Hong has withdrawn from the debate and no one else is objecting to the removal of the category. John Smith's 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I had some trouble sorting out comment on the topic in question from all the other issues that were being brought up.

Bathrobe 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing of RfC

Result: Remove genocide category

• HongQiGong has withdrawn from the discussion and indicated that he will respect a removal of the genocide category. All other users who have participated in the RfC either approve of or will respect the removal of the genocide category. John Smith's 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If HongQiGong is withdrawing from this, then I am taking his place. This has been termed a genocide by many autoritative sources, and as such the event is notable as being described as a Genocide, the "forgotten Holocaust of WW2" in the words of the late Iris Chang. The category does not signify unanimity, or absense of dispute, it exists for users to find various historical events that have been described by notable and authoritive sources by the term, and thus it should fall within that category. However, the article should also mention that this is described as a genocide, with the best sources, as well. One should not be done without the other.Giovanni33 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Giovanni, it's too late. He asked me to give it a few days from when he withdrew. I did that. You can't assume his position now because the RfC has already finished and been striken from the list. John Smith's 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

buried alive

Discussion on the two failed deletion requests of the faked photograph is here . Blueshirts 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I can't believe Hare-Yukai removed half the guy's body. Pandacomics 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying, though you changed the picture. Can I edit the new picture too? It can be found easily that there are another Fake-Lines. --Hare-Yukai 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this image the Nanking of a winter? The shadow angle is too high, and this person wears a white shirt. The shadow angle can not become much than 45degree in Nanjing of winter. And there is no fake shadow in this image ?! Furthermore, there is a fake shadow --Hare-Yukai 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

give us a break. Just what do you know about shadow angles? Low angles at dawn and dusk cast long shadows, near-90s at noon cast shorter shadows. So what's the deal with this "too high" shadow angle? Are you copying the usual suspect reasons from the moon landing hoax or just talking out of you ass directly? Enlighten us please. Blueshirts 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"This shadow in this photo looks wrong, therefore Nanking Massacre is fake." Typical denialist argument right there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a bit cumbersome

I tried reading the intro before the TOC and it is unwieldy, it should be reworded possibly because it just doesn't feel 'correct'. Take B-17 Flying Fortress as an example, It is very big on words for the summary/intro, yet very easy to read. If we could reword the first part a bit better it would help a lot. As it is I feel like I'm slogging through for some reason. I don't feel this on many other articles. Please look at other featured articles here Category:FA-Class military history articles To improve this article. (You may want to extract the bullet points from the introduction and then rewrite it from scratch.) Klichka 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It summarizes each section of the article. Unless you'd like to do some précis-ing of your own, it looks fine. Of course, grammar-wise, it could have some copyediting; otherwise, there's no HUGE problem with it. Pandacomics 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• High-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles