Misplaced Pages

Talk:Nanjing Massacre: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:36, 22 April 2005 editとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →Chineese Defeat← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:32, 14 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,169 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (Top) (Rater) 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skip to talk}}
*]
{{talk header}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=16:38, 14 April 2009
|action1link=Talk:Nanking Massacre/GA1
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=283598757


|currentstatus=FGAN
|topic=War and military
|otd1date=2004-12-13|otd1oldid=16335518
|otd2date=2005-12-13|otd2oldid=30907354
|otd3date=2008-12-13|otd3oldid=257220582
|otd4date=2011-12-13|otd4oldid=465577737
|otd5date=2012-12-13|otd5oldid=527862573
|otd6date=2014-12-13|otd6oldid=637738627
}}
{{Old moves
| title1 = Nanking Massacre
| title2 = Nanjing Massacre
| list =
* RM, Nanking Massacre → Nanjing Massacre, '''Not moved''', 12 September 2018, ]
* RM, Nanking Massacre → Nanjing Massacre, '''Moved''', 30 October 2018, ]
* RM, Nanjing Massacre → Rape of Nanjing, '''consensus against move''', 31 July 2022, ]
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject China|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Mid|milhist=y}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1= no
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2= yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3= yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4= yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes|Chinese-task-force=yes|Japanese-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Top}}
}}
{{copied|from=Nanking Massacre|to=Nanking Massacre controversy and denial|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nanking_Massacre_controversy_and_denial&oldid=278789328}}
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 13 2014 (24th)|Aug 28 2022}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{tan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 11
|minthreadsleft = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{not censored}}


== DATEVAR ==
== Reminder to all those posting to this discussion! ==
Please post at the end this page, not the top! Also, please sign your comments - just click the second to the last button above the edit window.--] 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


@], is there a particular thing you were looking at that made you choose DMY to standardize? The article seemed to me like it mostly used MDY. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
----
:No, change it as you see fit. I took a stab at mdy, should be okay now. <span style="font-family: Cambria;"> ] (])</span> 09:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{thank}} MDY seems to be the original per ], so I think I'll take the plunge and set it formally to {{tlx|Use mdy dates}}. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 09:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
'''The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more today.'''

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

Neo Nazis 'dispute' the Holocaust, yet the Holocaust article has no 'dispute' template. The 'dispute' by ultra nationalist Japanese revisionists is not to be recognised either.

It does not honour the memory or honour yourselves to recognise these racist veiws - you may as well recognise Neo Nazi veiws and call it a day!!

DISGUSTING!!

(Ansar)

I removed the picture "Nanjing_ditch" , it is confirmed that the picture was taken in Suzhou&#34311;&#24030; instead of Nanjing. And this picture first appeared in "The&#12288;China&#12288;Weekly&#12288;Review" whichi says it was taken in Suzhou. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/scene%20j.jpg

:I can't see anything in your source proved it was taken in Suzhou. ] 13:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== "Dispute" template has been removed ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

:: Just a foot note, placing the opposing view does not mean you are denying facts. Its just a nother "explanation". I sincerely think this article does not go by ] --] ] 06:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

*Message to people opposing Massacre view: You should allow verifiable facts to be presented. While it is perfectly normal for you to dispute all of this, NPOV suggests your oponnents voices also need to be heard. --] ] 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the disputed template. You must follow wikipedia policiy. This is not a forum. I can guide you with NPOV process. You dont want the tag. If you insist on removeing the tag, you will eventualy get the topic locked. You dont want that either. --] ] 12:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

by ANSAR - The 'in dispute' template is highly disrespectful - it is in dispute by nationalistic Japan, but the world knows what happened.

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

The Holocaust is also in dispute by some neo-nazis - they maintain it never happened. This does not mean that the Holocaust did no happen or that it is appropriate to recognise the veiws of neo-nazis by having an 'in dispute' template.

Japan is truely evil - It never happened that Germany honours, prays and worships a shrine to Hitler, Himmler, Henrich, Mengeler or the other convicted Nazi war criminals. Yet Japan does this and the world does not care - It seems a Jew is worth more than a Chineese. - by ANSAR

----------------------------------------------------------------------

::Don't bother Coolcat, the guy deny the Armenian Genocide, wants the Turkish government version be what the Misplaced Pages entry regarding the genocide present. And now, seems to me that to dilute the suspicions againsts him, he would criticise other war crimes article to show how "neutral" he is. He as well question the Holocaust. The Nanjing Massacre is just one aspect of Japanese war Crimes in WWII, and yet again Coolcat has no clue of the subject he want to introduce himself in. Maybe Coolcat should start reading about the Nanjing Massacre. Starting with the excellent book: "The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame" by Frank Gibney, Katsuichi Honda and Karen Sandness. Or perhaps, does Coolcat expect Suzuki Akira's arguments be presented as "equaly"? Yah right! ] 21:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::As for Worshiping, Japanese nationalism and the way they praise war criminals and butcherers is similar to Turkish nationalists that praise the planners of the Armenian genocide. There are names of schools, streets etc. in Turkey named after those criminals. ] 21:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I have treated you fair, you are testing my patience. --] ] 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
#This is not ]
#Why would I want to push japaneese nationalist POV? I was supposed to be a Turkish Nationalist I though.
#A war crime is a war crime depending on perspective. For instance Japaneese refer to A-bombs as massacre, I believe. Now Americans see it as a patriotic victory.
:I bellive civilan casualties are unethical, but I acknowlege they are a part of war. Yes I know nothing regarding the topic which is perfect for mediation. I don't hold views. Hence I am not biased. So far I havent made a suggestion. --] ] 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::That you are a Turk nationalist, there is no question about that, you already admitted to be a Turk. I have pretty much experience in psychology Coolcat, and I know pretty much why you are posting in the entry talk page. I am not dumb, and I am sure you know that I know.

::There has been a war crime tribunals and there is a great deal of research regarding what the Japanese did, just like there was the Turkish Martial Court in 1919 judging the responsables of the Armenian extermination. You have not much clue of the article you want to get involved in, so please just don't touch it. And please don't propose to mediate. While there might be some things that could be neutralised in this article, I think you are not able to do so, if you stop interupting the progess of the Armenian Genocide entry, I might have some time to get involved in this article, because I have read much about Japanese crimes during World War II, and I have no interest in wanting to "support" one position against the other. But let me tell you something, Nanjing massacre is not one version among other version as equaly valid, no serious historian deny it, in fact, calling it "massacre" doesn't do justice to what actualy happened, since it was a Genocide, killing that much people, involve clear premeditation, and using the UN convention, it is applied, even when using the restrictve term. Misplaced Pages is not the place for war crimes denials and revisionists like you. Call this personal attack, I don't care. I know you thought that by getting involved here, you might sound more neutral... but the only thing you just did is to get other Wikipedians on your back. Oh and, don't worry, Japanese nationalists don't need Turks to make their cases, as I am sure that there would be some that will POV push. ] 22:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Well thats very silly. You declared me turk with psychology analysis. Focus on the topic please.
#This is not ]
#I am not interested in your theories regarding me. Discuss the topic not me. This is a clear personal attack and exeeds way beyond what ] prohibit. I am required to remove personal attacks and I will. I am simplifying your comment. I will keep on doing this untill you do things the wikiway. If you cant, you cant belong to wikipedia. I have been patient with you, I have a finite patience, you exeeded it a day ago. --] ] 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

::Feel free to show me where are my personal attacks. And reread what I said, I did not declare you a Turk with psychology analysis, but rather after you have admitted yourself to be one. The psychology analysis is more about your reason to post in this entry and fuel anther conflict just to sound "neutral." As for the Armenian genocide, as a war crime it is somehow related, more so when both cases contain the most extrem 8nt stage of genocide, which is denial from the party which represent the aggressors side. Besides, our cases is in arbitration, what you are now doing will only bring more people against you. What you expect, that some Chinese start adding their names against you, after you disturb this entry like you did with the other? Please stop, don't get involved here, more so, when it is apparent why you are doing so. And there is no personal attack here but rather only accusations which are supported. Play with the Star Trek entry... but leave those entries which the subject you have no clue of alone. I will just say, that, I might not interupt in Kurdish issues, or Turkey entry etc. but I, as a Wikipedian, won't tolerate a croisade from your part to edit war crime entries, just to fake neutrality and disolve the suspicions about you. As for you being permitted to edit my posts, my posts are within Wikipedias rules, leave them alone please. ] 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

:These comments are better suited in each other's personal talk pages. Please refrain from making such remarks unless they really pertain and is helpful to the topic, ie. Nanking Massacre. ] 05:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, lets work on NPOVisisng this article. And Fadix read what I placed in your talk a few days ago. --] ] 23:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Assesments==
*On this entry the word "Historians" is abusively used. This is a bad idea as not all historians think alike regarding the topic. If some historians did not believe in it it wouldnt be here. --] ] 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Pictures. I am not sure how authentic they are. I am not sure showing dead people or naked woman contributes to the topic. Such content is not easily visible on the ] entry for a reason. Some peole are sensetive with it. People can click on the picture if they need to. --] ] 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Entier Japanese atrocities category has acusations and claims. Is there no view opposing this? --] ] 02:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


*Ok Ill stop now before I comment out the entier article. Lots and Lots of work needs to be done. --] ] 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat, could you please stop removing content from this article? You admit that you know nothing about the subject, so please leave it alone. Maybe you could take your 'mediation' to another massacre that you deny: the Holocaust? ] 06:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== This article needs plenty of work. ==

This article is in shambles right now - the sections are poorly placed, the text is long, there are POV and unsupported statements everywhere, and grammar needs to be corrected. I started on it, but after the first paragraph, I realized I'm going to need to spend some real time on it at some other time.

People, I understand that we are talking about a horrible atrocity - but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If you don't believe that this article is in need of work, I challenge you to submit this for a Featured Article. --] 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that this article need more work, but feel I don't have the time and the qualifications to do so. The article is badly structured, important statements are unsupported. It mentioned "according to some", "it is said", "according to historians" -- these are all too vague: we need to mention ''who'' said ''what''. I also seriously do not like the photo of the brutal treated woman - i feel it's poor respect to the dead. ] 15:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Caiqian - I reverted to my text before your revision because I believe that you didn't mean to erase my changes. You just happened to be working at the same time to restore that picture. If I am wrong, please discuss. --] 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Image free version ==

It dawned upon me that some of the images in this article might be disturbing to some folks. Thus, I created ]<BR>
--] 15:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Are you speaking about the photo I mentioned (see above). If so, I think we might as well remove it. Having another image free version will pose a lot of problems IMO. ] 15:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat,

Despite your claims to be "unbiased," you clearly are.

- The term historians isn't "abused." Find me a topic where you can't dig up some historians who disagree.
- I agree with you that a picture of a dead naked woman should probably be less conspicuous.
- But charging that they aren't authentic? I'm been interested in this topic for quite awhile and i'll be the first to admit that we are not 100% certain that those pictures are authentic. But do you realize that no historic picture can meet that standard? I've heard claims (with backing) that the pictures of concentration camps are staged; and dead bodies of holocaust victims are really German POWs starved to death by the British and Americans. Do you know when I hear the claims made? When I am debating with neo-nazis and holocaust deniers. Likewise, guess where I hear claims that Nanking pictures are all fake and are really executed Chinese criminals? The bottom line is these pictures are conventionally believed to be genuine. Absent, credible proof that they are false (and when I say credible, I mean by real historians and not by right-wing PRC or right-wing Japanese nationalist historians), I don't see why they should be omitted.
- There are opposing view points in to the fact that Nanking was an atrocity committed by the Japanese. There are also opposing view points that the Holocaust was an atrocity committed by the Nazis. Sure, they warrant mention and discussion. BUT... does there existence somehow demote the historic truth of the Nanking massacre?
- I agreed lots and lots of work needs to be done. But you have to realize something. Unlike, Holocaust denial, revisionism and denial of wartime atrocities is more mainstream in Japanese society. The Nanking Massacre Tribunal, historians, and the international community already agree that there was such an event as the Nanking massacre and various facts related to it. Our decision is whether we side with the tribunal who reviewed the evidence, the internaitonal community, and historians, or do we bend to revisionists and deniers. You seem to have made your decision. Stop trying to give an air of impartiality.

Coolcat: your partiality has been impugned. Do us all a favour and withdraw from this. Otherwise, this article is as good as dead. I respect your attempts to "mediate" and you may think you are "unbiased" but this is not how you are being perceived (and no, i'm not Chinese or a awashed with Chinese propaganda). So please, for the sake of history, stay out of this and let these fine other fine ladies and gentleman do their work. -Unsigned
:Whoever you are please sign your work. I am unbiassed regarding this. I know nothing regading it. Now, there is no such thing as fake historians. You may not agree with their "retorical" ideas but wikipedia requires them to be present. I am not disputing Najings "truths". Now the Holocaust is not contraversial. No goverment including Germany is denying them. Japan does not acknowlege this as a massacre, I presume. Please read if you dont see what I am doing. --] ] 01:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=='''Dispute?'''==
Nanjing massacre has never been an established history, but a rejected illusion amoung many scholars.
Many disgusting picutres the Chinese show are already proven to be fake or not related to nanking, and abusolutely lack of authenticity.

Basic question.
How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?

I wonder since when Chinese government earned such trustworthiness.
We are all supposed to know that the chinese goverment has been infamous for lying for last half of century.
We should not make an exception of this one also.

In Japan, for many decades we have been intensely discussing and studying this issue more than any other country including China herself where there is freedom of speech or freedom of press, and have made quite a stock pile of data on Nanking.
I think the Japanese really are obsessive Nanking maniacs. People most obsessed with Nanking are Japanese, I can tell you.

Afterall it all turned out that there was'nt any Nanjing massacre they claim to exist.
There was no witness of the masscre by a third party.
There was no picuture that can prove the massacre (although picture is not necessary proveing masscre, it proves that they had to do this kind of things for some reasons).
There is no logical explanation that can clear up population contradiction.

I am not denying the Nanjing massacre.
I am saying that they are just failing to prove Nanjing massacre.

We don't have any responsibility to prove Nanjing massacre not happened.
People can't prove things that did'n happen, because there is no informaition about things did't happen. That is not our responsibility.
Resopnsibilities are for people who are claim that it happened. Then our argument starts.

::You Neo Nazi Japan bastard - China will crush Japan like a bug and North Korea will come to the party. How about China nuke Tokyo and we'll call it even. --] 09:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:So there you have it, a Japanese who says that the Nanking Massacre doesn't exist. How do you then explain:

* John Rabe's diaries
* Rev. John Magee's film on Nanking civilian victims
* Minnie Vautrin's diaries
* Robert Wilson and James McCallum's letters to their families
* First-hand confessions by Japanese imperial soldiers
?

We'd love to hear your explanations. ] 19:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

:: I am not the anonymous person who posted above comments and I do not claim that Nanjing Massacre did not occur but let me here recommend you to read by a non-Japanese/non-Chinese historian "which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner", as is referred in the Archive 1. (I strongly recommend this article to the believers of the Illusion School too.)

:: Let me also comment that John Rabe, the very person you cite, estimates the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy as 'thousands' unlike the propaganda of Chinese government 300,000, see the linked article for the corresponding reference. The article itself supports the estimate of 20,000-42,000 victims, a horrible number anyway but it must be written for NPOV in this Misplaced Pages page, I believe. ] 03:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::John Rabe has never conducted a systematic count and left Nanking in February, before the slaughter ended, that is why he gave only 50,000-60,000 were killed. ] 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::I would be grateful if you could read the before commenting the thing which is already answered in it. First, Rabe's estimate 50,000-60,000 includes at least 30,000 soldiers ], not even executed, as is clearly stated by himself and his estimate of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was 'thousands', as I mentioned already. Second, the Chinese government itself has been literally set in concrete the definition - that of the post-war war crimes trials - that the Nanjing Massacre lasted for six weeks, from mid-December to late January. I'll come back to this point below in another comment. ] 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::I don't know why you want to mislead people. Let's look what John Rabe really said,

:::::"Enemy Planes over Nanking," report to Adolf Hitler, in the Yale Divinity Scholl Library. Rabe write: "According to Chinese reports, a total of 100,000 '''Chinese civilians''' were murdered. But that seems to be an overassessment--we Europeans estimate the number to be somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000".

:::::However, The worst of Nanjing Massacre was concentrated in the first six to eight weeks, but the slaghter has never ended.

:::::Still, John Rabe has never conducted a systemtic count, but I think the number he estimated is far more than you realized.
:::::: Dear Anonymous, It's great that you have direct access to the primary source in the Yale Divinity School Library. It may well be that there is discrepancy among his diary and letters because the seems to be based on his diary for his statement on the 30,000 Chinese soldiers killed in combat. Can you also read the Letter from John Rabe, included in 'Reports from the German Foreign Office in China to the German Foreign Office in Berlin'? According to the article, there you will find his official report to the German Embassy that estimates the civilian death toll 'thousands'. This Reports should be cited as well in Pritchard, R. John, and Sonia Magbanua Zaide, 1981, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, New York: Garland Publishers.

:::::: For my basic standing points and current understanding on this problem, please see my comments below. ] 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::First of all, let me state that John Rabe worked with the living, not the dead, of Nanking. His humanitarian works were with 200, 000 - 250, 000 refugees in the International Zone, and he never scoured the large city of Nanking counting bodies of the dead; and specifically, he worked within the confines of the city wall, and the death toll in Nanking by the PRC includes suburban and rural areas around Nanking. The death toll of Nanking Massacre has been a big area of contention, but that has been addressed in the article. I mentioned John Rabe because the anon user above claimed the Massacre never did happened.

:::What is the final estimate will never be known for sure. The word however which states that your view is biased is the word "propaganda". I'm not an expert of the Nanking death toll, but looking at records, I do feel that to arrive at a number, ''both'' Japanese and Chinese scholars must worked together with the conscience of righting history, not whitewashing them. To state that one side is propanganda, one has to list the reasons, and not state that, well, since they are the PRC, everything they say must be lies. Most people who make this sweeping statement never really to bother to examine the claims of either parties.

:::One very important difference is that the PCR estimates take into account disarmed POWs who surrendered and ought not be killed under international laws. These POWs are often killed in massive bands, and that often in bands of ten thousands (see Honda Katsuichi, who make a very thorough examination for over a decade and recently concluded his estimate as slightly over 100, 000) ] 07:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

:::: You look sensible and that is why I would like you to read by a more neutral scholar from Australia. The word "propaganda" is with a list of the reasons you can see there, so please, please read through before judging. (Actually to me the presence of a propaganda seems obvious by merely reading the plain racist comments against Japanese above in this page, but I would refrain from asking you to agree to such extent. ;P)
:::: In the article you will see that in Japan, unlike in the communist PRC where you could be sentenced to death by criticizing the government's orthodoxy, there has been a long standing debate among many historians and journalists who are now roughly classified into three categories, namely the Illusion School, the Middle-of-the-Road School, and the Great Massacre School.
:::: The last School argues that 100,000-200,000 or even more were "massacred" in Nanjing, basically to match PRC's claim. I personally remember the era when they were dominant in Japanese media, among whom Katsuichi Honda was the most prominent ideologue. Do you know that he loved communism so much that he reported about Cambodia in 1975 as follows? "America's propaganda 'massacre by communist' turned out to be a total lie, as always the case, and the Japanese anti-leftish believers who mediated the propaganda were even more laughable." Later he realized that there really was a ] in which more than a million people were killed by the ] supported by PRC. Then he revised his expressions, and then finally he removed the whole article from his book. There exists quite the same story of him about North Korea. Yes he is famous in Japan. If you read Japanese, funny stories are available in the too.
:::: Actually to cook up 300,000 is not that easy. As you mentioned, the Great Massacre School has to add Chinese soldiers into 'victims' assuming that the eight out of nine dead were captured and executed, not ], without any explanation. Even this was not enough to make up 300,000 and they drastically widened the area so that six surrounding xian (countries) as well as Suzhou (190 kilometers away) and even Shanghai (320 kilometers away) are included in "Nanjing". Accordingly the starting period of the incident had to be pushed back into November and even August.
:::: After decades of debate, a large group within Great Massacre School has begun to revise its numbers downwards. See the review for details.
:::: The Chinese tactic to use soldiers in civilian cloths, which is clearly against the International ] and does not guarantee the status of ] for them when captured, also complicate the matter but I'd leave it for the moment.
:::: I do feel that "Japanese and Chinese scholars working together with the conscience of righting history" will be meaningful when and only when China develops democracy to the extent to assure the ]. (You can clearly see in this page itself how meaningless it is without a culture of debate. ;)
:::: Finally let me repeat that I am not claiming that there was not Nanjing Massacre. The tens of thousands of victims in 6 weeks are dreadful enough to memorize the Japanese Empire's evil doing in China. It doesn't matter if the number of victims in Nanjing counts 30,000 or 300,000 after hearing that tens of millions of Chinese are killed totally in the war anyway. I just try to get closer to NPOV, keeping a distance from a propaganda at least in Misplaced Pages. ] 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== '''Reminder''' ==


I don't know why this is so hard for everyone to get, but please, please, click on the signature button when you post here. It's the second button from the right above the edit window. --] 17:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Exactly. If you don't, who else should we address the replies to then? A ghost? ] 19:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
:: I guess with many browsers the signature button simply doesn't work. At least this is the case with mine. It might work if you instead ask all to type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> directly after any comment. ] 04:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?"

:According to census reports before war broke out, there are exceeded 1 million people lived in Nanjing in 1937. During the japanese occupation, there are at least half a millon longterm residents, plus 90,000 Chinese soldiers and tens of thousands of migrants. ] 06:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been addressed at nauseum. --] 04:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

:''Ad naseum'' indeed. See . ] 08:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Japan free speech my arse. This is an excerpt from another website:

"In a 1999 interview with salon.com, Chang noted: "Japanese extremists have used lawsuits, death threats and even physical intimidation to silence their opponents. Just this year, a fanatic with a baseball bat trashed the offices of a Japanese publisher who printed the diary of a Japanese veteran of the Nanking massacre. Also, when a Chinese feature film on the Rape of Nanking was shown in Japanese theaters a few months ago, right-wingers harassed theater owners, slashed up movie screens with knives and even smashed a loudspeaker truck through theater gates. In Germany, Holocaust deniers have no significant voice, and they remain on the fringes of society. But in Japan, those who deny the existence of the Nanking massacre often occupy leading positions in government, business and academia. For instance, I find it extremely disturbing that the newly elected governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, is an outspoken revisionist of World War II history. He told Playboy magazine back in 1990 that the Rape of Nanking was a "lie" and "a story made up by the Chinese." He's enormously popular in Japan, and he won the election by a landslide. Last summer, Kunihiko Saito, the Japanese ambassador to the U.S., made headlines when he attacked my book as "inaccurate" and "one-sided" -- though he couldn't come up with one good example to support his allegations, even when grilled by reporters. People were pretty shocked by his comments, because they were made not by some notorious ultranationalist fanatic but by a major Japanese government official -- indeed, the top official representative of the Japanese government in the U.S. And many people spoke up and criticized him for it. The People's Republic of China, my American publisher (Basic Books) and human rights groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia all wrote letters protesting the ambassador's statements."

--] 04:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

== Rape Paragraph ==

Somone has butchered the Rape Paragraph. 7 consecutive sentences begin with watered down rhetoric as below.

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Is this a joke - are we talking about something that happened or not?!

Is this some Chineese mythology that the Chineese happen to 'say', 'beleive', and 'consider' happened?

It is highly disrespectful!!

Also Note - 'It is as well said...' Japan wrote this one - should be, 'it is ALSO said'. (the ''way'' it is 'said' is not pertinent). --] 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I happen to be that someone. And no, this is not a Chinese mythology, and I do believe it happened. The changes were made after Coolcat placed the POV banner again and again. What I did is called neutralization. If you have propositions, feel free to present them. ] 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey.

Coolcat - Please stop watering down the article with a ridiculous tone of fantasy that this massacre exists in peoples' minds only. --] 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I am suggesting. NPOV suggests this, please read my post below. There are certain things wikipedia has guidelines for. AussieSoldier, the opposing view is not disrespectfull, it is disrespectull to ignore the opposing view. --] ] 00:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Coolcat, I respect that the article must be NPOV, as you state. Yet you state, "is is desrespectful to ignore the opposing view". You have not been consistent Coolcat and it seems you have other intentions to what you state.

:It IS indeed disrespectful to acknowledge the 'opposing veiw' if it is put forward by Neo Nazis Japan as such is not a 'veiw', but racist nationalistic rhetoric. --] 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Nanjing=Nanking? ==

Why is Nanking being called "Nanjing"? ] 03:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
:&#21335;&#20140;=]: Nánj&#299;ng--] 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And shouldn't the article's title be instead "The Rape of Nanking"? ] 03:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
:"The Rape of Nanking" by ].--] 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== Nationality of editors ==

Somebody posted this comment earlier on this talk page: "Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey."

I could not disagree with this comment more. Our understanding of history would be much poorer if it was written only by those who had the same nationalities as the countries they were writing about. It also seems to me that those who are involved tend to write with some bias towards their own nationality. Imagine if we turned this page over to only Chinese or Japanese writers. Based on what I've seen in the talk page, a revert war would result, and the article would degenerate into propaganda for the two sides.

I disagree with most of CoolCat's assessments, but to say that being Turkish or non-Chineses should disqualify him from providing input is not the kind of thing Misplaced Pages needs. --] 13:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I never suggested its bad to have chineese or japaneese contributers, they are most likely to research their own history best. I am here to make sure both sides provide information in a NPOV way. No one is disqualified from contributing IMHO. --] ] 04:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: CoolCat - what I was trying to do was to defend your right to participate in this page. I'm also not trying to say that Chinese or Japanese shouldn't be contributing; rather, it just seems that most people tend to insert their own biases into this kind of thing, and it's nice to have independent views to keep things in balance. Looking at most of the Chinese and Japanese posters on this talk page, I think that this is especially true here. --] 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Coolcat,
:::No one is denying that you have a right to contribute. But yourself admitted you know little about it and your interference is obviously unappreciated by many. Why do you stubbornly continue to tamper?
:::--] 14:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)MadHatter

*I am not trying to tamper, please understand that I dont have views regarding either version (I will not favor either side), massacre or not. I am here only and only to make this article in such a way its Neutral. You have to understand a significant amount of people, at least jappanese goverment as far as I can tell denies this being a massacre. Now regarldess of how inaccurate their assesments are, they should have logical reasons. ] suggests neutrality. ] also points out certain guidelines. I am not accusing any one of you of violating wikipedia policies. I am here to help you work together. I believe all of you here have resaons to believe what you believe in. Sometimes its very hard to see the difference between facts and perspective. I dont understand why my edits in the article were removed. If some one explains them I will be happy. --] ] 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I do not think it is a good idea to have a no picture version. After time versions will look very different. You can place pictures in this article. People can read it. I made them small so people cant exactly tell what they are. If people want to see them they can click and enlarge them at their own risk. Also keep inmind this way pictures apear larger than they currently appear on the page. Please do not revert my edits or anybody elses edits unless you have a clear explanation. That way we can tell whats in your head. --] ] 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I've noticed the Nanking vs Nanjing edits. I dont know the details but sisnce this is Nanjing massacre its best to agree with the title. How about Nanjing (Nanking)? Since its in Chineese territory, chinese name must come first. --] ] 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*What is <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki>? It means that this article does not follow NPOV guidelines. I am not suggesting you are lying. I do not hate the Chineese/Japaneese. Article is not NPOV. Dont claim it is. There are certain ways we use in wikipedia to present cases. This article does not abide by them. I am sorry but that is the case. --] ] 00:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Causes ==
The section 'Causes' doesn't touch on the causes of the massacre at all. It just lists the events leading up to the caputre of the city, even this in a flighty manner that confuses me as I read it. Shouldn't its contents be listed under something like 'Events leading up to the capture of Nanjing'? What caused the state of mind -- what ''was'' the state of mind that the Japanese troops were in to commit such atrocities? Were the troops acting alone in some sort of personal reaction to something, or was the massacre and rape sanctioned by the military or the government?
----
It doen not matter - they did it, by order, then they chose to follow the order, Nueremberg says its no defense, and if by no order, then they are even more guilty and sadistic and evil to take it upon themselves to carry out such acts of imagination.
----
This is not what I meant at all. I'm not curious about this in the sense of its relevance to contemporary prosecution of the act, I'm not curious about its relevance to contemporary recognition of past war crimes. I'm very interested to learn '''''why it happened.''''' Nowhere in this article does it state ''why the troops did it.'' All that can be inferred is that the troops captured the city after defeating the Chinese troops at the ], and proceeded to commit the massacre for no apparent reason. There must have been ''something'' that caused this catastrophic event. Does nobody know? --Anonymous 22:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The Japanese committed these atrocities because they considered the Chinese inferior, as the Nazis considered the Jews. ] 00:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:There is a lack of motives. There is a lack of oposing views. I think some editors should searriously start reading ] --] ] 00:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The article already ''is'' NPOV. ] 00:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
::All due respect it is not. --] ] 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Fight==
I do not know what you believe in regarding the matter. I urge you to stop arguing with each other like this. This isnt productive: ''Lies vs Facts''. You do have strong cases right? Why are you not inclined to present them? --] ] 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there basis for this: <i>According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets</i>

If so present it. It looks very much like propoganda to a person not knowlegable to topic. Citing sources is good practice --] ] 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=Lets get started=
{{User:Coolcat/mediat}}
===...===
Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --] ] 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example:
''I think the rewording below is necesary''
*According to other reports, some Chinese were <font color=red>burned</font>, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets
*According to other reports, some Chinese were <font color=green>set on fire</font>, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets

...And why should it be more neutral to use 'set on fire' instead of 'burned'? Anyway, you didn't just made 'minor modifications to the article.' You deleted large parts of it, eventhough you admit that you know nothing about the topic. Why don't you (for a change) edit an article where you have at least some '''basic''' knowledge about the topic? Read the comments by the other editors here. You are wasting peoples time. ] 08:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --] 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
----

The title 'The Incident' is problematic as it is the term used in school text books in Japan.

Someone has already changed it back to 'Japanese Atrocities'.

It may be helpful to discuss such change rather than simply revert back - it is the more constructive way about it, otherwise the hostility will continue and it'll get no where.

As I stated above, the rape paragraph commences with 7 consecutive sentences as below;

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Apart from my emotive position againt these sentences, something has to be done about this as it makes the article far from 'iron clad' -
it all has a tone to it which seems like a fairy tale. If it is fact, then it is to be stated simply as such, if it is not fact, then it is not to be stated at all - the purpose is to state what happened, not what people commonly believe happened - the article is about a said 'massacre', not about the people who ponder it. --] 08:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:"Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).
:Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:AussieSoldier to fix <i>"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..."</i> words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --] ] 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --] ] 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fantastic - if a sentence has a 'reputable source', then it is to be stated as fact. --] 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to the title 'The Incident' / 'Japanese Atrocities' it is established that atrocities took place on '''''some''''' level. Hence, the content may need work, but the title 'Japanese Atrocities' is neutral - China and Japan do not dispute the taking place of atrocities, it is the scale which is disputed, and the scale is not biased in the current title. --] 08:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I still think its too strong of a word. However thats the least of our worries. People will have an easier time believeing you if you can show us your sources. We are not suggesting you are lying. Best reputable and Neutral source probably will be a Non-Chineese, Non-Japan govermental web page. Like CIA factbook. You have to understand that the other party should not be able to dispute the material you provided, that way you have made a very strong case. --] ] 09:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more ==

The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more. I have an emotive position againt such template - but as it will only revert back if it is removed, it may be best to let it be as the article is still under construction. As the article continues to be worked on in a constructive way it will be removed once the article is complete.

It may be less hostile to others if the person who posted the 'dispute' template discussed it - the reason for it and that it will be happening. It is not constructive to take yourself on a frolic of your own. --] 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:This article does not abide by ] it is maditory that the POV tag stay there. I am not saying "lies" I am saying "non neutral". Once again this is how we do things on wikipedia. --] ] 09:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - the problem may be your understanding of english - I am being highly reasonable and taking some steps back in the hope that the article can be worked on and completed. I ask that you recognise and respect this. The 'dispute' template will only increase the hostile climate here, but our end aim is to complete the article which will see the end of the template.

I never suggested that you were implying 'lies'. Im asking you to work with ALL of us. --] 10:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - I also ask you to state in particular what is not neutral in the article. --] 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am clarifying my standing. I was trying to tell you that I did not acuse of anything. Apperantly I had the opposite effect. First of First chill. :) --] ] 10:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will tell you what I think is not neutral slowly so we can fix things one problem at a time. I can tell you however there needs to be a "tuning" down of words. --] ] 11:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have to see that article has "blunt" accusation of japaneese "denial". The "revisionist" views maybe unnaceptable to you but it is the other version of the stroy which should be mentioned in the aproporate tone. This is a very hard article to neutralise, I made some suggestions below, you are welcome to decline them, or help me rewrite them. --] ] 11:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me why japan wont accept this? And japaneese motive? Sane people dont kill without a reason. Asserting resons is a good way to start the NPOVisation. --] ] 11:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The economic and political reconstruction of Japan has a lot to do with it. The happenings of the war were suppressed in a lack of education. It can be contrast to the denazification in Germany - nothing like that happened in Japan - the Emperor, Hirohito, was never brought to account and continued to be the 'arahitogami', living god, to the people of Japan. Japan officers who carried out such atrocities were never brought to account and took prominent positions in Japan society - business and scholastic - In particular, the officers who worked on chemical and biological war. In contemporary Japan society there is a highly nationalistic element, vehement that Japan not recognise such atrocities. --] 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I see this in the article as it is presented. --] ] 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:As to motivation - it may be described in terms of nationalism and culture in general. The culture in Japan is complex. It is often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'.--] 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Umm... I serriously am unsure, defining an entire culture of a nation as "sadistic" may not be a good idea. --] ] 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Images==
<i>I do not agree with having two pages. Its not proper wiki practice, I also think usage of smaller images, same size as ].</i> --] ] 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:One page is preferred - I agree. --] 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Japanese atrocities==
<i>Japanese atrocities be replaced with a different and more neutral word. I can suggest misconduct.</i> --] ] 11:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:As I stated above - it is established that atrocities took place on '''''some''''' level. It is the '''''scale''''' of atrocities which is in dispute. Hence, the title 'Japanese atrocities' is not problematic at all. It is the '''content''' of that part of the article for which we will seek 'reputable sources' so the sentences can be stated as fact, or not at all. --] 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:'Atrocities' may be a 'hard' word - but a neutral article must state fact. --] 13:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I understand that may be the fact, but the Japanese disagree of its clasiffication. From the article I see a significant opinion does not see this as it appears in this article. We could call it "the event" or maybe "background". Bear in mind for any random reader less hard words appears as more believeable in general. Article should not suggest "Atrocities" directly but may imply. --] ] 14:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*]


== Reminder to all those posting to this discussion! ==
Please post at the end this page, not the top! Also, please sign your comments - just click the second to the last button above the edit window.--] 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

'''The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more today.'''

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

Neo Nazis 'dispute' the Holocaust, yet the Holocaust article has no 'dispute' template. The 'dispute' by ultra nationalist Japanese revisionists is not to be recognised either.

It does not honour the memory or honour yourselves to recognise these racist veiws - you may as well recognise Neo Nazi veiws and call it a day!!

DISGUSTING!!

(Ansar)

I removed the picture "Nanjing_ditch" , it is confirmed that the picture was taken in Suzhou&#34311;&#24030; instead of Nanjing. And this picture first appeared in "The&#12288;China&#12288;Weekly&#12288;Review" whichi says it was taken in Suzhou. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/scene%20j.jpg

:I can't see anything in your source proved it was taken in Suzhou. ] 13:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== "Dispute" template has been removed ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

:: Just a foot note, placing the opposing view does not mean you are denying facts. Its just a nother "explanation". I sincerely think this article does not go by ] --] ] 06:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

*Message to people opposing Massacre view: You should allow verifiable facts to be presented. While it is perfectly normal for you to dispute all of this, NPOV suggests your oponnents voices also need to be heard. --] ] 12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not remove the disputed template. You must follow wikipedia policiy. This is not a forum. I can guide you with NPOV process. You dont want the tag. If you insist on removeing the tag, you will eventualy get the topic locked. You dont want that either. --] ] 12:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

by ANSAR - The 'in dispute' template is highly disrespectful - it is in dispute by nationalistic Japan, but the world knows what happened.

The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.

The Holocaust is also in dispute by some neo-nazis - they maintain it never happened. This does not mean that the Holocaust did no happen or that it is appropriate to recognise the veiws of neo-nazis by having an 'in dispute' template.

Japan is truely evil - It never happened that Germany honours, prays and worships a shrine to Hitler, Himmler, Henrich, Mengeler or the other convicted Nazi war criminals. Yet Japan does this and the world does not care - It seems a Jew is worth more than a Chineese. - by ANSAR

----------------------------------------------------------------------

::Don't bother Coolcat, the guy deny the Armenian Genocide, wants the Turkish government version be what the Misplaced Pages entry regarding the genocide present. And now, seems to me that to dilute the suspicions againsts him, he would criticise other war crimes article to show how "neutral" he is. He as well question the Holocaust. The Nanjing Massacre is just one aspect of Japanese war Crimes in WWII, and yet again Coolcat has no clue of the subject he want to introduce himself in. Maybe Coolcat should start reading about the Nanjing Massacre. Starting with the excellent book: "The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame" by Frank Gibney, Katsuichi Honda and Karen Sandness. Or perhaps, does Coolcat expect Suzuki Akira's arguments be presented as "equaly"? Yah right! ] 21:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::As for Worshiping, Japanese nationalism and the way they praise war criminals and butcherers is similar to Turkish nationalists that praise the planners of the Armenian genocide. There are names of schools, streets etc. in Turkey named after those criminals. ] 21:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I have treated you fair, you are testing my patience. --] ] 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
#This is not ]
#Why would I want to push japaneese nationalist POV? I was supposed to be a Turkish Nationalist I though.
#A war crime is a war crime depending on perspective. For instance Japaneese refer to A-bombs as massacre, I believe. Now Americans see it as a patriotic victory.
:I bellive civilan casualties are unethical, but I acknowlege they are a part of war. Yes I know nothing regarding the topic which is perfect for mediation. I don't hold views. Hence I am not biased. So far I havent made a suggestion. --] ] 22:18, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::That you are a Turk nationalist, there is no question about that, you already admitted to be a Turk. I have pretty much experience in psychology Coolcat, and I know pretty much why you are posting in the entry talk page. I am not dumb, and I am sure you know that I know.

::There has been a war crime tribunals and there is a great deal of research regarding what the Japanese did, just like there was the Turkish Martial Court in 1919 judging the responsables of the Armenian extermination. You have not much clue of the article you want to get involved in, so please just don't touch it. And please don't propose to mediate. While there might be some things that could be neutralised in this article, I think you are not able to do so, if you stop interupting the progess of the Armenian Genocide entry, I might have some time to get involved in this article, because I have read much about Japanese crimes during World War II, and I have no interest in wanting to "support" one position against the other. But let me tell you something, Nanjing massacre is not one version among other version as equaly valid, no serious historian deny it, in fact, calling it "massacre" doesn't do justice to what actualy happened, since it was a Genocide, killing that much people, involve clear premeditation, and using the UN convention, it is applied, even when using the restrictve term. Misplaced Pages is not the place for war crimes denials and revisionists like you. Call this personal attack, I don't care. I know you thought that by getting involved here, you might sound more neutral... but the only thing you just did is to get other Wikipedians on your back. Oh and, don't worry, Japanese nationalists don't need Turks to make their cases, as I am sure that there would be some that will POV push. ] 22:37, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Well thats very silly. You declared me turk with psychology analysis. Focus on the topic please.
#This is not ]
#I am not interested in your theories regarding me. Discuss the topic not me. This is a clear personal attack and exeeds way beyond what ] prohibit. I am required to remove personal attacks and I will. I am simplifying your comment. I will keep on doing this untill you do things the wikiway. If you cant, you cant belong to wikipedia. I have been patient with you, I have a finite patience, you exeeded it a day ago. --] ] 01:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

::Feel free to show me where are my personal attacks. And reread what I said, I did not declare you a Turk with psychology analysis, but rather after you have admitted yourself to be one. The psychology analysis is more about your reason to post in this entry and fuel anther conflict just to sound "neutral." As for the Armenian genocide, as a war crime it is somehow related, more so when both cases contain the most extrem 8nt stage of genocide, which is denial from the party which represent the aggressors side. Besides, our cases is in arbitration, what you are now doing will only bring more people against you. What you expect, that some Chinese start adding their names against you, after you disturb this entry like you did with the other? Please stop, don't get involved here, more so, when it is apparent why you are doing so. And there is no personal attack here but rather only accusations which are supported. Play with the Star Trek entry... but leave those entries which the subject you have no clue of alone. I will just say, that, I might not interupt in Kurdish issues, or Turkey entry etc. but I, as a Wikipedian, won't tolerate a croisade from your part to edit war crime entries, just to fake neutrality and disolve the suspicions about you. As for you being permitted to edit my posts, my posts are within Wikipedias rules, leave them alone please. ] 01:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

----

:These comments are better suited in each other's personal talk pages. Please refrain from making such remarks unless they really pertain and is helpful to the topic, ie. Nanking Massacre. ] 05:34, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
::Agreed, lets work on NPOVisisng this article. And Fadix read what I placed in your talk a few days ago. --] ] 23:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Assesments==
*On this entry the word "Historians" is abusively used. This is a bad idea as not all historians think alike regarding the topic. If some historians did not believe in it it wouldnt be here. --] ] 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Pictures. I am not sure how authentic they are. I am not sure showing dead people or naked woman contributes to the topic. Such content is not easily visible on the ] entry for a reason. Some peole are sensetive with it. People can click on the picture if they need to. --] ] 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Entier Japanese atrocities category has acusations and claims. Is there no view opposing this? --] ] 02:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


*Ok Ill stop now before I comment out the entier article. Lots and Lots of work needs to be done. --] ] 02:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat, could you please stop removing content from this article? You admit that you know nothing about the subject, so please leave it alone. Maybe you could take your 'mediation' to another massacre that you deny: the Holocaust? ] 06:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== This article needs plenty of work. ==

This article is in shambles right now - the sections are poorly placed, the text is long, there are POV and unsupported statements everywhere, and grammar needs to be corrected. I started on it, but after the first paragraph, I realized I'm going to need to spend some real time on it at some other time.

People, I understand that we are talking about a horrible atrocity - but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. If you don't believe that this article is in need of work, I challenge you to submit this for a Featured Article. --] 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I agree that this article need more work, but feel I don't have the time and the qualifications to do so. The article is badly structured, important statements are unsupported. It mentioned "according to some", "it is said", "according to historians" -- these are all too vague: we need to mention ''who'' said ''what''. I also seriously do not like the photo of the brutal treated woman - i feel it's poor respect to the dead. ] 15:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Caiqian - I reverted to my text before your revision because I believe that you didn't mean to erase my changes. You just happened to be working at the same time to restore that picture. If I am wrong, please discuss. --] 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Image free version ==

It dawned upon me that some of the images in this article might be disturbing to some folks. Thus, I created ]<BR>
--] 15:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Are you speaking about the photo I mentioned (see above). If so, I think we might as well remove it. Having another image free version will pose a lot of problems IMO. ] 15:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat,

Despite your claims to be "unbiased," you clearly are.

- The term historians isn't "abused." Find me a topic where you can't dig up some historians who disagree.
- I agree with you that a picture of a dead naked woman should probably be less conspicuous.
- But charging that they aren't authentic? I'm been interested in this topic for quite awhile and i'll be the first to admit that we are not 100% certain that those pictures are authentic. But do you realize that no historic picture can meet that standard? I've heard claims (with backing) that the pictures of concentration camps are staged; and dead bodies of holocaust victims are really German POWs starved to death by the British and Americans. Do you know when I hear the claims made? When I am debating with neo-nazis and holocaust deniers. Likewise, guess where I hear claims that Nanking pictures are all fake and are really executed Chinese criminals? The bottom line is these pictures are conventionally believed to be genuine. Absent, credible proof that they are false (and when I say credible, I mean by real historians and not by right-wing PRC or right-wing Japanese nationalist historians), I don't see why they should be omitted.
- There are opposing view points in to the fact that Nanking was an atrocity committed by the Japanese. There are also opposing view points that the Holocaust was an atrocity committed by the Nazis. Sure, they warrant mention and discussion. BUT... does there existence somehow demote the historic truth of the Nanking massacre?
- I agreed lots and lots of work needs to be done. But you have to realize something. Unlike, Holocaust denial, revisionism and denial of wartime atrocities is more mainstream in Japanese society. The Nanking Massacre Tribunal, historians, and the international community already agree that there was such an event as the Nanking massacre and various facts related to it. Our decision is whether we side with the tribunal who reviewed the evidence, the internaitonal community, and historians, or do we bend to revisionists and deniers. You seem to have made your decision. Stop trying to give an air of impartiality.

Coolcat: your partiality has been impugned. Do us all a favour and withdraw from this. Otherwise, this article is as good as dead. I respect your attempts to "mediate" and you may think you are "unbiased" but this is not how you are being perceived (and no, i'm not Chinese or a awashed with Chinese propaganda). So please, for the sake of history, stay out of this and let these fine other fine ladies and gentleman do their work. -Unsigned
:Whoever you are please sign your work. I am unbiassed regarding this. I know nothing regading it. Now, there is no such thing as fake historians. You may not agree with their "retorical" ideas but wikipedia requires them to be present. I am not disputing Najings "truths". Now the Holocaust is not contraversial. No goverment including Germany is denying them. Japan does not acknowlege this as a massacre, I presume. Please read if you dont see what I am doing. --] ] 01:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=='''Dispute?'''==
Nanjing massacre has never been an established history, but a rejected illusion amoung many scholars.
Many disgusting picutres the Chinese show are already proven to be fake or not related to nanking, and abusolutely lack of authenticity.

Basic question.
How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?

I wonder since when Chinese government earned such trustworthiness.
We are all supposed to know that the chinese goverment has been infamous for lying for last half of century.
We should not make an exception of this one also.

In Japan, for many decades we have been intensely discussing and studying this issue more than any other country including China herself where there is freedom of speech or freedom of press, and have made quite a stock pile of data on Nanking.
I think the Japanese really are obsessive Nanking maniacs. People most obsessed with Nanking are Japanese, I can tell you.

Afterall it all turned out that there was'nt any Nanjing massacre they claim to exist.
There was no witness of the masscre by a third party.
There was no picuture that can prove the massacre (although picture is not necessary proveing masscre, it proves that they had to do this kind of things for some reasons).
There is no logical explanation that can clear up population contradiction.

I am not denying the Nanjing massacre.
I am saying that they are just failing to prove Nanjing massacre.

We don't have any responsibility to prove Nanjing massacre not happened.
People can't prove things that did'n happen, because there is no informaition about things did't happen. That is not our responsibility.
Resopnsibilities are for people who are claim that it happened. Then our argument starts.

::You Neo Nazi Japan bastard - China will crush Japan like a bug and North Korea will come to the party. How about China nuke Tokyo and we'll call it even. --] 09:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:So there you have it, a Japanese who says that the Nanking Massacre doesn't exist. How do you then explain:

* John Rabe's diaries
* Rev. John Magee's film on Nanking civilian victims
* Minnie Vautrin's diaries
* Robert Wilson and James McCallum's letters to their families
* First-hand confessions by Japanese imperial soldiers
?

We'd love to hear your explanations. ] 19:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

:: I am not the anonymous person who posted above comments and I do not claim that Nanjing Massacre did not occur but let me here recommend you to read by a non-Japanese/non-Chinese historian "which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner", as is referred in the Archive 1. (I strongly recommend this article to the believers of the Illusion School too.)

:: Let me also comment that John Rabe, the very person you cite, estimates the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy as 'thousands' unlike the propaganda of Chinese government 300,000, see the linked article for the corresponding reference. The article itself supports the estimate of 20,000-42,000 victims, a horrible number anyway but it must be written for NPOV in this Misplaced Pages page, I believe. ] 03:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::John Rabe has never conducted a systematic count and left Nanking in February, before the slaughter ended, that is why he gave only 50,000-60,000 were killed. ] 06:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::::I would be grateful if you could read the before commenting the thing which is already answered in it. First, Rabe's estimate 50,000-60,000 includes at least 30,000 soldiers ], not even executed, as is clearly stated by himself and his estimate of the civilian death toll in an official report to the German Embassy was 'thousands', as I mentioned already. Second, the Chinese government itself has been literally set in concrete the definition - that of the post-war war crimes trials - that the Nanjing Massacre lasted for six weeks, from mid-December to late January. I'll come back to this point below in another comment. ] 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::::I don't know why you want to mislead people. Let's look what John Rabe really said,

:::::"Enemy Planes over Nanking," report to Adolf Hitler, in the Yale Divinity Scholl Library. Rabe write: "According to Chinese reports, a total of 100,000 '''Chinese civilians''' were murdered. But that seems to be an overassessment--we Europeans estimate the number to be somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000".

:::::However, The worst of Nanjing Massacre was concentrated in the first six to eight weeks, but the slaghter has never ended.

:::::Still, John Rabe has never conducted a systemtic count, but I think the number he estimated is far more than you realized.
:::::: Dear Anonymous, It's great that you have direct access to the primary source in the Yale Divinity School Library. It may well be that there is discrepancy among his diary and letters because the seems to be based on his diary for his statement on the 30,000 Chinese soldiers killed in combat. Can you also read the Letter from John Rabe, included in 'Reports from the German Foreign Office in China to the German Foreign Office in Berlin'? According to the article, there you will find his official report to the German Embassy that estimates the civilian death toll 'thousands'. This Reports should be cited as well in Pritchard, R. John, and Sonia Magbanua Zaide, 1981, The Tokyo War Crimes Trial, New York: Garland Publishers.

:::::: For my basic standing points and current understanding on this problem, please see my comments below. ] 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::First of all, let me state that John Rabe worked with the living, not the dead, of Nanking. His humanitarian works were with 200, 000 - 250, 000 refugees in the International Zone, and he never scoured the large city of Nanking counting bodies of the dead; and specifically, he worked within the confines of the city wall, and the death toll in Nanking by the PRC includes suburban and rural areas around Nanking. The death toll of Nanking Massacre has been a big area of contention, but that has been addressed in the article. I mentioned John Rabe because the anon user above claimed the Massacre never did happened.

:::What is the final estimate will never be known for sure. The word however which states that your view is biased is the word "propaganda". I'm not an expert of the Nanking death toll, but looking at records, I do feel that to arrive at a number, ''both'' Japanese and Chinese scholars must worked together with the conscience of righting history, not whitewashing them. To state that one side is propanganda, one has to list the reasons, and not state that, well, since they are the PRC, everything they say must be lies. Most people who make this sweeping statement never really to bother to examine the claims of either parties.

:::One very important difference is that the PCR estimates take into account disarmed POWs who surrendered and ought not be killed under international laws. These POWs are often killed in massive bands, and that often in bands of ten thousands (see Honda Katsuichi, who make a very thorough examination for over a decade and recently concluded his estimate as slightly over 100, 000) ] 07:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

:::: You look sensible and that is why I would like you to read by a more neutral scholar from Australia. The word "propaganda" is with a list of the reasons you can see there, so please, please read through before judging. (Actually to me the presence of a propaganda seems obvious by merely reading the plain racist comments against Japanese above in this page, but I would refrain from asking you to agree to such extent. ;P)
:::: In the article you will see that in Japan, unlike in the communist PRC where you could be sentenced to death by criticizing the government's orthodoxy, there has been a long standing debate among many historians and journalists who are now roughly classified into three categories, namely the Illusion School, the Middle-of-the-Road School, and the Great Massacre School.
:::: The last School argues that 100,000-200,000 or even more were "massacred" in Nanjing, basically to match PRC's claim. I personally remember the era when they were dominant in Japanese media, among whom Katsuichi Honda was the most prominent ideologue. Do you know that he loved communism so much that he reported about Cambodia in 1975 as follows? "America's propaganda 'massacre by communist' turned out to be a total lie, as always the case, and the Japanese anti-leftish believers who mediated the propaganda were even more laughable." Later he realized that there really was a ] in which more than a million people were killed by the ] supported by PRC. Then he revised his expressions, and then finally he removed the whole article from his book. There exists quite the same story of him about North Korea. Yes he is famous in Japan. If you read Japanese, funny stories are available in the too.
:::: Actually to cook up 300,000 is not that easy. As you mentioned, the Great Massacre School has to add Chinese soldiers into 'victims' assuming that the eight out of nine dead were captured and executed, not ], without any explanation. Even this was not enough to make up 300,000 and they drastically widened the area so that six surrounding xian (countries) as well as Suzhou (190 kilometers away) and even Shanghai (320 kilometers away) are included in "Nanjing". Accordingly the starting period of the incident had to be pushed back into November and even August.
:::: After decades of debate, a large group within Great Massacre School has begun to revise its numbers downwards. See the review for details.
:::: The Chinese tactic to use soldiers in civilian cloths, which is clearly against the International ] and does not guarantee the status of ] for them when captured, also complicate the matter but I'd leave it for the moment.
:::: I do feel that "Japanese and Chinese scholars working together with the conscience of righting history" will be meaningful when and only when China develops democracy to the extent to assure the ]. (You can clearly see in this page itself how meaningless it is without a culture of debate. ;)
:::: Finally let me repeat that I am not claiming that there was not Nanjing Massacre. The tens of thousands of victims in 6 weeks are dreadful enough to memorize the Japanese Empire's evil doing in China. It doesn't matter if the number of victims in Nanjing counts 30,000 or 300,000 after hearing that tens of millions of Chinese are killed totally in the war anyway. I just try to get closer to NPOV, keeping a distance from a propaganda at least in Misplaced Pages. ] 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== '''Reminder''' ==


I don't know why this is so hard for everyone to get, but please, please, click on the signature button when you post here. It's the second button from the right above the edit window. --] 17:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Exactly. If you don't, who else should we address the replies to then? A ghost? ] 19:12, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
:: I guess with many browsers the signature button simply doesn't work. At least this is the case with mine. It might work if you instead ask all to type <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> directly after any comment. ] 04:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?"

:According to census reports before war broke out, there are exceeded 1 million people lived in Nanjing in 1937. During the japanese occupation, there are at least half a millon longterm residents, plus 90,000 Chinese soldiers and tens of thousands of migrants. ] 06:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been addressed at nauseum. --] 04:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

:''Ad naseum'' indeed. See . ] 08:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Japan free speech my arse. This is an excerpt from another website:

"In a 1999 interview with salon.com, Chang noted: "Japanese extremists have used lawsuits, death threats and even physical intimidation to silence their opponents. Just this year, a fanatic with a baseball bat trashed the offices of a Japanese publisher who printed the diary of a Japanese veteran of the Nanking massacre. Also, when a Chinese feature film on the Rape of Nanking was shown in Japanese theaters a few months ago, right-wingers harassed theater owners, slashed up movie screens with knives and even smashed a loudspeaker truck through theater gates. In Germany, Holocaust deniers have no significant voice, and they remain on the fringes of society. But in Japan, those who deny the existence of the Nanking massacre often occupy leading positions in government, business and academia. For instance, I find it extremely disturbing that the newly elected governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, is an outspoken revisionist of World War II history. He told Playboy magazine back in 1990 that the Rape of Nanking was a "lie" and "a story made up by the Chinese." He's enormously popular in Japan, and he won the election by a landslide. Last summer, Kunihiko Saito, the Japanese ambassador to the U.S., made headlines when he attacked my book as "inaccurate" and "one-sided" -- though he couldn't come up with one good example to support his allegations, even when grilled by reporters. People were pretty shocked by his comments, because they were made not by some notorious ultranationalist fanatic but by a major Japanese government official -- indeed, the top official representative of the Japanese government in the U.S. And many people spoke up and criticized him for it. The People's Republic of China, my American publisher (Basic Books) and human rights groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia all wrote letters protesting the ambassador's statements."

--] 04:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)Bob

== Rape Paragraph ==

Somone has butchered the Rape Paragraph. 7 consecutive sentences begin with watered down rhetoric as below.

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Is this a joke - are we talking about something that happened or not?!

Is this some Chineese mythology that the Chineese happen to 'say', 'beleive', and 'consider' happened?

It is highly disrespectful!!

Also Note - 'It is as well said...' Japan wrote this one - should be, 'it is ALSO said'. (the ''way'' it is 'said' is not pertinent). --] 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I happen to be that someone. And no, this is not a Chinese mythology, and I do believe it happened. The changes were made after Coolcat placed the POV banner again and again. What I did is called neutralization. If you have propositions, feel free to present them. ] 23:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey.

Coolcat - Please stop watering down the article with a ridiculous tone of fantasy that this massacre exists in peoples' minds only. --] 01:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is not what I am suggesting. NPOV suggests this, please read my post below. There are certain things wikipedia has guidelines for. AussieSoldier, the opposing view is not disrespectfull, it is disrespectull to ignore the opposing view. --] ] 00:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Coolcat, I respect that the article must be NPOV, as you state. Yet you state, "is is desrespectful to ignore the opposing view". You have not been consistent Coolcat and it seems you have other intentions to what you state.

:It IS indeed disrespectful to acknowledge the 'opposing veiw' if it is put forward by Neo Nazis Japan as such is not a 'veiw', but racist nationalistic rhetoric. --] 03:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Nanjing=Nanking? ==

Why is Nanking being called "Nanjing"? ] 03:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
:&#21335;&#20140;=]: Nánj&#299;ng--] 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And shouldn't the article's title be instead "The Rape of Nanking"? ] 03:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
:"The Rape of Nanking" by ].--] 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


== Nationality of editors ==

Somebody posted this comment earlier on this talk page: "Coolcat - As you are a Turk and your ancestors were not affected whatsoever by Japan's imperial war and war crimes, please take yourself to wherever and whoever cares about something to do with the histroy of Turkey - perhaps something similar to this discussion, oh yes, the massacre of Armenians by Turkey."

I could not disagree with this comment more. Our understanding of history would be much poorer if it was written only by those who had the same nationalities as the countries they were writing about. It also seems to me that those who are involved tend to write with some bias towards their own nationality. Imagine if we turned this page over to only Chinese or Japanese writers. Based on what I've seen in the talk page, a revert war would result, and the article would degenerate into propaganda for the two sides.

I disagree with most of CoolCat's assessments, but to say that being Turkish or non-Chineses should disqualify him from providing input is not the kind of thing Misplaced Pages needs. --] 13:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I never suggested its bad to have chineese or japaneese contributers, they are most likely to research their own history best. I am here to make sure both sides provide information in a NPOV way. No one is disqualified from contributing IMHO. --] ] 04:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:: CoolCat - what I was trying to do was to defend your right to participate in this page. I'm also not trying to say that Chinese or Japanese shouldn't be contributing; rather, it just seems that most people tend to insert their own biases into this kind of thing, and it's nice to have independent views to keep things in balance. Looking at most of the Chinese and Japanese posters on this talk page, I think that this is especially true here. --] 13:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:::Coolcat,
:::No one is denying that you have a right to contribute. But yourself admitted you know little about it and your interference is obviously unappreciated by many. Why do you stubbornly continue to tamper?
:::--] 14:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)MadHatter

*I am not trying to tamper, please understand that I dont have views regarding either version (I will not favor either side), massacre or not. I am here only and only to make this article in such a way its Neutral. You have to understand a significant amount of people, at least jappanese goverment as far as I can tell denies this being a massacre. Now regarldess of how inaccurate their assesments are, they should have logical reasons. ] suggests neutrality. ] also points out certain guidelines. I am not accusing any one of you of violating wikipedia policies. I am here to help you work together. I believe all of you here have resaons to believe what you believe in. Sometimes its very hard to see the difference between facts and perspective. I dont understand why my edits in the article were removed. If some one explains them I will be happy. --] ] 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I do not think it is a good idea to have a no picture version. After time versions will look very different. You can place pictures in this article. People can read it. I made them small so people cant exactly tell what they are. If people want to see them they can click and enlarge them at their own risk. Also keep inmind this way pictures apear larger than they currently appear on the page. Please do not revert my edits or anybody elses edits unless you have a clear explanation. That way we can tell whats in your head. --] ] 00:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*I've noticed the Nanking vs Nanjing edits. I dont know the details but sisnce this is Nanjing massacre its best to agree with the title. How about Nanjing (Nanking)? Since its in Chineese territory, chinese name must come first. --] ] 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*What is <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki>? It means that this article does not follow NPOV guidelines. I am not suggesting you are lying. I do not hate the Chineese/Japaneese. Article is not NPOV. Dont claim it is. There are certain ways we use in wikipedia to present cases. This article does not abide by them. I am sorry but that is the case. --] ] 00:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Causes ==
The section 'Causes' doesn't touch on the causes of the massacre at all. It just lists the events leading up to the caputre of the city, even this in a flighty manner that confuses me as I read it. Shouldn't its contents be listed under something like 'Events leading up to the capture of Nanjing'? What caused the state of mind -- what ''was'' the state of mind that the Japanese troops were in to commit such atrocities? Were the troops acting alone in some sort of personal reaction to something, or was the massacre and rape sanctioned by the military or the government?
----
It doen not matter - they did it, by order, then they chose to follow the order, Nueremberg says its no defense, and if by no order, then they are even more guilty and sadistic and evil to take it upon themselves to carry out such acts of imagination.
----
This is not what I meant at all. I'm not curious about this in the sense of its relevance to contemporary prosecution of the act, I'm not curious about its relevance to contemporary recognition of past war crimes. I'm very interested to learn '''''why it happened.''''' Nowhere in this article does it state ''why the troops did it.'' All that can be inferred is that the troops captured the city after defeating the Chinese troops at the ], and proceeded to commit the massacre for no apparent reason. There must have been ''something'' that caused this catastrophic event. Does nobody know? --Anonymous 22:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The Japanese committed these atrocities because they considered the Chinese inferior, as the Nazis considered the Jews. ] 00:58, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:There is a lack of motives. There is a lack of oposing views. I think some editors should searriously start reading ] --] ] 00:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The article already ''is'' NPOV. ] 00:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
::All due respect it is not. --] ] 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Fight==
I do not know what you believe in regarding the matter. I urge you to stop arguing with each other like this. This isnt productive: ''Lies vs Facts''. You do have strong cases right? Why are you not inclined to present them? --] ] 01:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there basis for this: <i>According to other reports, some Chinese were burned, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets</i>

If so present it. It looks very much like propoganda to a person not knowlegable to topic. Citing sources is good practice --] ] 01:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=Lets get started=
{{User:Coolcat/mediat}}
===...===
Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --] ] 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Example:
''I think the rewording below is necesary''
*According to other reports, some Chinese were <font color=red>burned</font>, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets
*According to other reports, some Chinese were <font color=green>set on fire</font>, nailed to trees, or hung by their tongues, and some women had their breasts cut off. Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets

...And why should it be more neutral to use 'set on fire' instead of 'burned'? Anyway, you didn't just made 'minor modifications to the article.' You deleted large parts of it, eventhough you admit that you know nothing about the topic. Why don't you (for a change) edit an article where you have at least some '''basic''' knowledge about the topic? Read the comments by the other editors here. You are wasting peoples time. ] 08:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --] 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
----

The title 'The Incident' is problematic as it is the term used in school text books in Japan.

Someone has already changed it back to 'Japanese Atrocities'.

It may be helpful to discuss such change rather than simply revert back - it is the more constructive way about it, otherwise the hostility will continue and it'll get no where.

As I stated above, the rape paragraph commences with 7 consecutive sentences as below;

"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that...".

Apart from my emotive position againt these sentences, something has to be done about this as it makes the article far from 'iron clad' -
it all has a tone to it which seems like a fairy tale. If it is fact, then it is to be stated simply as such, if it is not fact, then it is not to be stated at all - the purpose is to state what happened, not what people commonly believe happened - the article is about a said 'massacre', not about the people who ponder it. --] 08:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:"Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC).
:Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --] ] 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:AussieSoldier to fix <i>"According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..."</i> words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --] ] 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --] ] 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fantastic - if a sentence has a 'reputable source', then it is to be stated as fact. --] 08:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As to the title 'The Incident' / 'Japanese Atrocities' it is established that atrocities took place on '''''some''''' level. Hence, the content may need work, but the title 'Japanese Atrocities' is neutral - China and Japan do not dispute the taking place of atrocities, it is the scale which is disputed, and the scale is not biased in the current title. --] 08:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand. I still think its too strong of a word. However thats the least of our worries. People will have an easier time believeing you if you can show us your sources. We are not suggesting you are lying. Best reputable and Neutral source probably will be a Non-Chineese, Non-Japan govermental web page. Like CIA factbook. You have to understand that the other party should not be able to dispute the material you provided, that way you have made a very strong case. --] ] 09:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more ==

The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more. I have an emotive position againt such template - but as it will only revert back if it is removed, it may be best to let it be as the article is still under construction. As the article continues to be worked on in a constructive way it will be removed once the article is complete.

It may be less hostile to others if the person who posted the 'dispute' template discussed it - the reason for it and that it will be happening. It is not constructive to take yourself on a frolic of your own. --] 09:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:This article does not abide by ] it is maditory that the POV tag stay there. I am not saying "lies" I am saying "non neutral". Once again this is how we do things on wikipedia. --] ] 09:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - the problem may be your understanding of english - I am being highly reasonable and taking some steps back in the hope that the article can be worked on and completed. I ask that you recognise and respect this. The 'dispute' template will only increase the hostile climate here, but our end aim is to complete the article which will see the end of the template.

I never suggested that you were implying 'lies'. Im asking you to work with ALL of us. --] 10:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - I also ask you to state in particular what is not neutral in the article. --] 10:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I am clarifying my standing. I was trying to tell you that I did not acuse of anything. Apperantly I had the opposite effect. First of First chill. :) --] ] 10:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will tell you what I think is not neutral slowly so we can fix things one problem at a time. I can tell you however there needs to be a "tuning" down of words. --] ] 11:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have to see that article has "blunt" accusation of japaneese "denial". The "revisionist" views maybe unnaceptable to you but it is the other version of the stroy which should be mentioned in the aproporate tone. This is a very hard article to neutralise, I made some suggestions below, you are welcome to decline them, or help me rewrite them. --] ] 11:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell me why japan wont accept this? And japaneese motive? Sane people dont kill without a reason. Asserting resons is a good way to start the NPOVisation. --] ] 11:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The economic and political reconstruction of Japan has a lot to do with it. The happenings of the war were suppressed in a lack of education. It can be contrast to the denazification in Germany - nothing like that happened in Japan - the Emperor, Hirohito, was never brought to account and continued to be the 'arahitogami', living god, to the people of Japan. Japan officers who carried out such atrocities were never brought to account and took prominent positions in Japan society - business and scholastic - In particular, the officers who worked on chemical and biological war. In contemporary Japan society there is a highly nationalistic element, vehement that Japan not recognise such atrocities. --] 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I see this in the article as it is presented. --] ] 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:As to motivation - it may be described in terms of nationalism and culture in general. The culture in Japan is complex. It is often described by foreigners as 'sadistic'.--] 13:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Umm... I serriously am unsure, defining an entire culture of a nation as "sadistic" may not be a good idea. --] ] 14:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Images==
<i>I do not agree with having two pages. Its not proper wiki practice, I also think usage of smaller images, same size as ].</i> --] ] 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:One page is preferred - I agree. --] 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Japanese atrocities==
<i>Japanese atrocities be replaced with a different and more neutral word. I can suggest misconduct.</i> --] ] 11:02, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:As I stated above - it is established that atrocities took place on '''''some''''' level. It is the '''''scale''''' of atrocities which is in dispute. Hence, the title 'Japanese atrocities' is not problematic at all. It is the '''content''' of that part of the article for which we will seek 'reputable sources' so the sentences can be stated as fact, or not at all. --] 12:41, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:'Atrocities' may be a 'hard' word - but a neutral article must state fact. --] 13:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I understand that may be the fact, but the Japanese disagree of its clasiffication. From the article I see a significant opinion does not see this as it appears in this article. We could call it "the event" or maybe "background". Bear in mind for any random reader less hard words appears as more believeable in general. Article should not suggest "Atrocities" directly but may imply. --] ] 14:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

==Chineese Defeat==

<i>"Despite their difficulties, it is likely that China fielded the largest army in the world at the time in terms of troop numbers" the explanation why china lost perhaps differs in the Japaneese version. Siplisticaly calling it a defeat may prevent such conflict. The actual battles article is the right place for such details, I can see that beeing framed as propoganda.<i> --] ] 11:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Excessive detail belongs in the 'battle article' - I agree. --] 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:The above is not about 'defeat' at all - it seems you have read it incorrectly. --] 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:I suggest having a small paragraph about the battle itself which sets the scene for the occupation, and a link to the 'battle article'. --] 13:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Chineese were defeated by the japaneese during ww2 I think. I understand the nature of the battle was very unpleasant, brutal at least. Thats fine. The exact sentence above (my italicied text) for instance just is unnecesary. Do japaneese see this same? As traumatic/blody ? --] ] 14:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:AussieSoldier, I see you as a reasonable, civil, and knowlegable individual. Would you mind me inviting people with same qualities as you to this article whom are likely to disagree with material? Perhaps you may choose the people you can discuss this? I am not trying to provoke a revert-war but NPOV encourages any significant view be present, how contraversial they may be of course is open for debate. --] ] 14:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:32, 14 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nanjing Massacre article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Former good article nomineeNanjing Massacre was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 13, 2004, December 13, 2005, December 13, 2008, December 13, 2011, December 13, 2012, and December 13, 2014.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject icon
  • flagChina portal
    • 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
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconEast Asia (defunct)
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia
    WikiProject iconJapan: Military history Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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: 18:08, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
    WikiProject Japan to do list:
    • Featured content candidates – 

    Articles: None
    Pictures: None
    Lists: None

    WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconLaw Enforcement Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
    WikiProject iconMilitary history: Asian / Chinese / Japanese / World War II
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    B checklist
    This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
    1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
    2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
    3. Structure: criterion met
    4. Grammar and style: criterion met
    5. Supporting materials: criterion met
    Associated task forces:
    / 
    Taskforce icon
    		Asian military history task force
    Taskforce icon
    		Chinese military history task force
    Taskforce icon
    		Japanese military history task force
    Taskforce icon
    		World War II task force
    WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
    LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconHuman rights Top‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
    TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Text and/or other creative content from Nanking Massacre was copied or moved into Nanking Massacre controversy and denial with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

    Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
    Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

    DATEVAR

    @Abductive, is there a particular thing you were looking at that made you choose DMY to standardize? The article seemed to me like it mostly used MDY. Remsense ‥ 论 09:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

    No, change it as you see fit. I took a stab at mdy, should be okay now. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
     Thanks MDY seems to be the original per Diff/129316, so I think I'll take the plunge and set it formally to {{Use mdy dates}}. Remsense ‥ 论 09:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: