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.
:again, your justification for removing the sourced info was "removed fatalities section per discussion. New source has no description or clarification for a contested idea and is not easily accessible." info that is not easily accessible is not a valid justification for removal. that is the reason for my reversal of your edit.
:again, your justification for removing the sourced info was "removed fatalities section per discussion. New source has no description or clarification for a contested idea and is not easily accessible." info that is not easily accessible is not a valid justification for removal. that is the reason for my reversal of your edit.
:Also, this isn't the appropriate forum to accuse someone of edit warring. You've made baseless accusations that violates ]. ] (]) 04:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
:Also, this isn't the appropriate forum to accuse someone of edit warring. You've made baseless accusations that violates ]. ] (]) 04:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not accusing you of starting an edit war, I was addressing the situation in the article. Your behavior is manipulative and your tone is off base for what I'm willing to accept from an interaction with anyone. Let me know if I need to bring this to dispute resolution, because we are going no further with policy lawyering and disrespectful tone. --] (]) 22:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
::I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not accusing you of starting an edit war, I was addressing the situation in the article with multiple reverts happening at once. I think you behavior is manipulative and your tone is ''way'''''Bold text''' off base for what I'm willing to accept from an interaction with anyone. Let me know if I need to bring this to dispute resolution, because we are going no further with policy lawyering and disrespectful tone. --] (]) 22:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Japanese war crimes was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:00, December 26, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This 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
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This 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
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This 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
This 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
I physically vomited after skimming this article. Can a warning banner be placed on it please?
Japanese imperialism should be distinct from Japanese militarism
In this article the hyperlink 'Japanese imperialism' in the opening para redirects to 'Japanese Militarism'. The two are different and nor does the article on the latter claims to use the terms synonymously. Please make the necessary changes.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Concerns the capture, torture and execution of American airmen during the battle. The paragraph that relates these facts seems well sourced. However, other references mention the torture of two airmen and their execution by beheading on the aircraft carrier Hiryu (?). Anyone have any additional information? Hanafunda (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Removal of content
I've reverted two edits by @NmWTfs85lXusaybq that removed large chunks of this article. If there is concenses to remove them then we should go forward with that but since these removals were done with an edit summary that claimed to only move content around and didn't mention content removal I felt that it should be discussed here. Dr vulpes21:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I mentioned some paragraphs have been reordered and merged, with the removal of the redundant content. If you have any concern about this, I can make edits step by step. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that might be best, I see that you've consolidated the article a bit but didn't include the references which are important. Maybe just removing the quotes from the article would tighten it up enough. Dr vulpes21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion caused by my edits. I will write more detailed summary. I'm trying to remove some of these content to balance regional aspects of victims, according to WP:PROPORTION. A reference will be kept if it does help. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Fatalities
The source for the upper limit of the fatalities count, 30,000,000 , in the fatalities section of the key info box is a Mark Felton YouTube video. This video doesn’t contain any source for that number. The number is sourced later from an interview by Mark Felton and a book. The mark felton interview also does not include any source for the claim. Can the source Felton uses to ce come to that number be found? Removed the interview citation since there is already a second citation anywayDogsrcool420 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree on this point. It was added very recently without reference on early May 2023. Could be fabricated and the figure of 30 million casualties have been propaganda point by the Chinese media recently citing source from Wiki. 2406:3003:2073:3202:C455:7510:F8E3:9F9B (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Mark Felton is a leading scholar on the subject (and he has a PhD in history). See Mark Felton, Japan's Gestapo: Murder, Mayhem and Torture in Wartime Asia (Casemate Publishers, 2009) and Felton, "The Perfect Storm: Japanese military brutality during World War Two." The Routledge History of Genocide (Routledge, 2015) pp. 105-121. His You-tube and interviews are based on his published reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I checked the cited material and Felton didn’t provide a source for the 30,000,000 claim or give any explanation of how it was reached. The Hawaii edu source used for the lower estimate gives information about how the numbers were reached. If you have citations from Felton’s work where he does provide an a source for the number or more depth of how he reached that number then feel free to add that instead. Dogsrcool420 (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Also: I checked the route ledge history of genocide and while the work as a whole is reliable the specific number claim also contains no source or explanation beyond stating it even though the claims before and after are sourced. This isn’t to say that this number itself is inaccurate, but that the citations were insufficient and conflicted with the more reliable citation used previously. If the page number was incorrect and there was a better explanation to the claim than add it with the correct page number Dogsrcool420 (talk) 10:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
The claim has been reasserted with a different source and no explanation. Since consensus looks like it's on the remove side, I'm going to take it out until someone can verify in detail, hopefully with multiple sources. Also, I feel like the casualty count relies too much on Rummel his "Democide," which is not a mainstream concept. It's possible that the article could have a strongly constructed narrative bias. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's a source that says 30,000,000 million in mainland China alone:
A user added a new source for the 30,000,000 figure without description of the text. It's not a publically available source. Anyone have it on Jstor or something? I don't appreciate that a user is circumventing discussion. Here is the source: Carmichael, Cathie; Maguire, Richard (2015). The Routledge History of Genocide. Routledge. p. 105. ISBN 9780367867065. User Salfanto added the source with little explanation, even though the information it was sourcing was in contest on the talk page and had been removed several times. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The line used in the contested source is "Japanese troops killed up to, according to some estimates, 30 million people during the war, most of them civilians." In my view, this fails verification, as I believe this figure is used for the number of people killed in the war overall, and not the number of people killed as a result of war crimes. Loafiewa (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like it. Even the article from the Chinese forum doesn't specify that the number was killed by Japanese war crimes. I think it's dubious to claim that all civilian deaths in a war are due to war crime. Such diffuses the meaning of war crimes and distracts from the targeted and systematic nature of Japanese war crimes. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
provided sources to books. just in case google is down.
"Japanese troops killed up to, according to some estimates, 30 million people during the war, most of them civilians." how is killing a civilian not a war crime? LilAhok (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Your tone with "google being down" is beyond what I'm going to accept here. It does not say 30 million people killed by Japanese war crimes. Have you read the discussion above? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Edit War
User:LilAhok is approaching edit war with myself and several other editors in the history. They even posted the edit war template post on User talk:Yaujj13's page, which I'm not sure was justified in this situation, but I don't know the whole story. LilAhok also did not sign their message so that it looks, to me, like an automated message from Misplaced Pages. For me, I'm just trying to get them to explain the context of the extraordinary claim mentioned in the above section of discussion, but they've so far refused to do so or to enter the talk page. Instead, these users are fighting in the edit summaries.
I also want to point out that the user violated talk page consensus and undid my edit referencing an unrelated policy to anything I had said in my edit description. I said that the source had no description and was in contest, they said that I was saying the source needed to be available on the internet. I don't understand. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
i added justifications to my edit, and Yaujj13 is currently arguing with other users in the admin board with other users for edit warring and POV pushing across multiple articles. i provided contradictory evidence from the sources Yaujj13 provided. I am not in an edit war with "several users." I'm not even in an edit war with you. if you want to accuse me of engaging in edit wars with several users. provide proof. otherwise, avoid making inapproriate accusations.
review WP:EW - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions" how is one reversal considered edit warring? I reversed one of your edits, and stopped.
again, your justification for removing the sourced info was "removed fatalities section per discussion. New source has no description or clarification for a contested idea and is not easily accessible." info that is not easily accessible is not a valid justification for removal. that is the reason for my reversal of your edit.
I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not accusing you of starting an edit war, I was addressing the situation in the article with multiple reverts happening at once. I think you behavior is manipulative and your tone is wayBold text off base for what I'm willing to accept from an interaction with anyone. Let me know if I need to bring this to dispute resolution, because we are going no further with policy lawyering and disrespectful tone. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
