Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:49, 9 June 2005

Sadly another beautiful and potent mind of our times has been consumed by our new epidemic. From Califonia to Adelaide mental health affects us all. We need to be able to communicate in a better way so people don't get washed away like this. Simon Windsor, Australia

Is she an historian? Historians are supposed to report facts, but not all historians always project an exact image of what went on in history. In fact, to project a perfect or even near perfect replication of history is impossible: there will always be disputed points as well as unfathomable accounts. Iris Chang, at least in Italic The Rape of Nanking, did report several facts and compiled the accounts of eyewitnesses and their relatives. Certainly it is not perfect, but she did the best she could. She spent a considerable time just discussing and making clear the death toll as reported by various agencies and persons. This story cannot be labeled as one-sided. Who is an historian after all? Would there be a dispute if the author had a doctoral degree in History from Bob's University? Certainly five years of studying History does not mean one can tell history better than another. Ben Franklin executed and published several experiments with electricity and he only had a certified 10th grade education. If this isn't enough, who has read the Foreward to the book? "But Ms. Chang shows more clearly than any previous account just what they did." -- William C. Kirby, Department of HISTORY, Harvard University. Do you still think she does not deserve the label "historian? By the way, don't get me wrong, I see errata here and there, but most books are that way -- as a whole the book is of quality.

Dbulwink 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Her primary occupation is in journalism, and like TV directors, she deals with history as a journalist. And putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her misleads readers. It sounds as if she is a professional one. --Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. She has written several history books. She makes money by writing about history. That is what a historian is. Markalexander100 05:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take issue with your statement. Academic historian, which the lable "historian" often imply, do not sell their writing. They "publish" their finding in academic journals. Any so called "history" book you buy in book store usually do not come up in the reading list of history course though those book are undoubtedly more entertaining the one you have to read in the history course. FWBOarticle 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sort of...I don't want to say "a historian is someone with a PhD in history," but someone who is a journalist who writes about history is, well, a journalist who writes about history. john k 06:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why call her "a journalist who writes about history" rather than "a historian who writes journalism"? Most people's jobs have nothing to do with what they studied at university. I studied law, not education, but that doesn't mean I'm not a teacher. Chang is best known as a historian, she calls herself a historian, she is a historian. (Let's be inclusive. She is a historian, she is a journalist. These are not mutually exclusive categories). Markalexander100 06:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you know, history is the field almost everyone can get into. Bookstores are flooded with low quality history books. Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians. So not to lower the quality of Misplaced Pages further, we have to note that.

I was surprized to see . Wow, she claims to be a historian! So I changed the introduction a bit. --Nanshu 03:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians Are you planning to describe Herodotus and Gibbon as "bogus historians" too? Markalexander100 04:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I said "putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her" at the beginning. --Nanshu 06:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know if she officially spells her name as "Iris Shun-Ru Chang"? I ask because this romanization is incorrect. Instead of "Shun-Ru" it should technically be "Ch'un-ju". ]–spencer 00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What shows in her birth certificate may not be translitered in pinyin, so you should go by what she called herself and then annotate her Chinese name in pinyin. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's best not to assume people romanize their names in Mandarin. Her name in Taiwanese, for example, would be Sûn-jû (with an S). I have no idea what her ethnicity is, but for we know, her parents could have named her according to their Chinese language or dialect. A-giau 05:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iris Chang, Historian or/and Journalist?

She travelled around the world to interview the people who personally experienced the history. Unlike a TV reporter who only summarized his findings in a few hours time, she spent years in researching and writing on the topic. Such dedication is more than a PhD candidate spend on any thesis. All her work were documented with notes and tape recording from her interviews. If you argue she is not a historian, please tell me what is missing. Is it because she presented her work as commercial books instead of thesis? So commercial books are disqualified as history? By that standard, we don't have much history in our libraries, and definitely none in bookstores. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All you mentioned is journalist works. Apparently, she wasn't taught how to use primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is essential for historiography, at least in Japan. --Nanshu 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If everyone want to argue over linguistic, one could say that anyone who write about history is a historian. That would incluce journalist who write about vietnam or school kids doing town history as their homework. Just that the word "historian" imply (trained) "academic historian" (which Iris Chang certainly wasn't) who are taught how to handle and grade different historical souce. If someone wish to imply from such label that she was a good (trained/proper/academic or whatever) historian, then one is certainly deluding themselves.

I have found out about her death in the obituary of the Economist. I thought it was fair obituary. Afterall, Brits write the best obituary IMO. http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423136

'"Proper" historians cavilled, and with some reason. Her book, several said, was too polemical, and was riddled with mistakes which she refused to correct. her reliance on oral history, especially the fading memories of Chinese witnesses, was unwise. Even her use of the invaluable diaries of foreign "bystanders" in Nanking was suspect, for these people - who had organised a "safety zone" both for foreigners and Chinese - had no idea of the actual numbers killed. When her book was transalted into Japanese, supporters of the Great Massacre school found they could not defend her figures, which were higher even than those claimed in China. ......

She had been planning, too, to publish the diaries of Minnie Vautrin, and American missionary in Nanking during the massacre. .... She had saved thousands of Chinese civilians from the Japanese, ... In 1941, however, a year to the day after leaving Nanking, she had committed sucide, convinced that she had done too little.

Friends wondered whether Miss Chang had felt the same. This was certainly likely, But she was also aware that her writing had playd into the hands of the massacre's deniers: that she had perhaps not only done too little, but protested too much."

I have previously stated something similar, that her book's standard from POW of academic is below per, that her book was sort of embarrasement to historians in Japan who was on the side of "Massacre" school and that right wingers relished her book saying since her book is false, the whole Nanking Massacre is false (which is obviously false argument). My insertion was vigorously contested by some other members of this site, who no doubt was feeling that to criticise Iris Chang is to criticise the "truth" of the massacre (which IMO is to played into the hands of denier). I feel that it is more honest to state that her book's handling historical material was indeed somewhat "slopply" (or "not of standard considered apropriate by academia") because she was not a trained historian but a journalist. It is undoubtedly true, too, that this has made the book immensely more powerful reading. Go to any university library and try readin something like "American History Review". None of the article woule ever top New York Best seller list. FWBOarticle 16:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have changed "historian" to "she wrote bestselling book on the history of Nanking Massacre". If someone say physicist, there is no ambiguity that the person is a academic, not highschool kid doing physics or journalist writing about Steven Hawking. The same can be said about economist, biologist, pharmacist, sociologist, criminologist and so on. By calling her historian without explaining her lack of academic training (which was quite obvious in her writing) would be inaccurate description of her credential IMO. On the other hand, calling her a mere "journalist", a profession which public consider equal to lawyers, may be bit unfair. How about adding "bestselling author" of the history of Naking Massacre along with freelance journalist? FWBOarticle

I've changed it back. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: someone who writes about or studies history; M-W: a student or writer of history. This is not an appropriate place to redefine words to suit a particular POV. Mark 06:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as that.

historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian

The term historian clearly have implication that they use academic methodology and not of journalist. Many journalist write book about Vietnam war, for example, and they are not described as historians. As far as historical "research" is concerened, her book's main content was collection of interviews by the survivours. Most of what academic historians call "primary" material in her book was from previously researched materials by academics (not that there is anything wrong with that, even in academia, as long as credit is given in the footnote). Also, If you insist on narrower definition of the term, I can do likewise. I can change the term "historian" to "amature historian". Many "amature" (untrained) historian publish and Iris Chang certainly fall into this category (never mind that the term amature often "imply" second-rate work). There are two agenda at war here, one trying to up her credential as "historian" (with added implied credential as scholarly work which her work wasn't) and other trying to discredit her book as a work of a journalist (one of the least trusted profession in America) which is unfair given that many contention of her book was based on previously researched material by academic though she added quite few bits which is not as solid from academic POW. If your insistence of use of the term "historian" is based on the point that she "wrote" about history, then what is wrong with describing her as "the author" (someone who "write" book) of the best selling book on the history of Naking Massacre which is spot on description. This also allow us to avoidthe issue of (rotten) journalist and/or (academic) historian. FWBOarticle

Amateur does not mean untrained, it means not professional. She was a historian because she is known for writing books about history (plural). Mark 00:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that chang wrote several books on (Chinese, Japanese or American) history doesn't change anything about her lack of traning as a historian. And as you should be aware of wikipedia policy, you can't censor a fact. I should also point out that it is your insistence of calling her a "historian" which brought this mud slinging. As the term "historian" has implication that someone is a academic, it is necessarly to clarify the fact that she is a historian but not trained/academic historian. "The best selling author of history of Naking Massacre" would have avoided all the confusion which the term historian would have caused. I will still settle for "the author" but if you want to stick to "historian but not trained one" be my guest.FWBOarticle

Lack of training my ass! Nobody ever doubted Jung Chang, the author of Wild Swans and Mao, why? Because she wrote something that America and Japan likes, by bashing Mao and a communist nation, yet her writing level is similar to Iris Chung's, including the factors you claimed. If Iris Chung's a Jew researching Holocaust victims, I doubt that anyone would doubt her authenticity for fear of being called a anti-Semite. All these crap you spewed are mainly due to anti-Chinese/anti-Communist hysteria, and the notion that somehow Japan's crimes are justified because the Chinese government is communist and killed people as well, while Japan today is a democracy and American ally.

One Fucking Word

Why are you people fighting over the word "historian". This article doesn't need to be changed/reverted every 5 seconds. This is the kind of crap that makes people realize what a fucking joke wikipedia really is. func(talk) 07:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because trolls ought not to be fed. Mark 07:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refering to yourself? (^_^). You were having disagreement with someone about whether to describe her as a mere journalist or historian. I offered compromise as "the best selling author of the history of Nanking Massacre". Given that your insistence of the term "historian" is based on the fact that the term refer to "someone who writer/author history", your refusal is more amusing than anything. Of course, you can insist on inclusion of "historian" because it is a "linguistically" correct. But similarly, I can insist on inclusion of "untrained historian" because it is linguistically correct too. Oh, feel free to appeal to higher process if you want. I don't have problem with the term "historian" as long as the clarification is made to avoid a confusion about the term.  :) FWBOarticle

Because a book with questionable research standard has become the best seller. The denier in Japan relished nitpicking her book, implying that since this (best selling) book is false, Nanking Massacre is a false propaganda. The correct response for such false logic is to state that there are enough authentic research done by proper academics and one single sloppily researched (but emotionally charged) book is irrelevant to the truth of NM. Unfortunately, some clueless liberals instead decided to defend the book which is to do exactly what denier side would want. They now have a ground to assert that NM is a indeed propaganda by the left wing liberal. FWBOarticle 20:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

According to the he American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a historian is:

1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.
2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

According to that definition, Iris Chang is a historian. I am going to revert FWBOarticle's trollish mangling of this article until he or she can show me a definition coming from a reputable dictionary that shows that Iris Chang is not a historian. Zh 20:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appear that you failed to read the previous discussion. Mark has refered to dictionary definition such as yours with the same line of argument. I have refered to other online dictionary

historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian

You or anyone else know that historian, economist or physicist for that matter, in strictly logical manner, should mean someone who do/write/study physics, economics or hisotry, but at the same time, popular usage often confine this term to academics or at least someone with a bachelor degree. Strictly linguistic term, engineer is someone who design mechanical or industrial process and do not require engineering degree. There is no law prohibiting someone without engineering degree from performing engineering.

I came in when there was a spin war going on where one side tried to lower her credential by describing her only as mere journalist while the other side was trying to up her credential by describing her as a historian. I don't have problem with the inclusion of historian as long as the clarification is made. Problem occurs when someone insist on deleting such clarification. I'm still happy with "the best selling author of the history of Nanking Massacre". Afterall, what qulify Chang as a historian is the fact that she authored a book concerning history. It is a spot on description which avoid this credential dispute. FWBOarticle

Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't edit/revert this page for a week. Sorry. FWBOarticle

Whether one conform to a dictionary difinition is totally different from whether it is worth noting at an encyclopedia. One added to an encyclopedia cannot be free from implications FWBOarticle and I mentioned. So I think we make efforts not to mislead readers. --Nanshu 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think it is not worth mentioning in the article? The very fact so many people are willing to defend this definition proves otherwise. Mandel 21:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Please don't add assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of the Rape of Nanking book to this article: there is a lot of dispute about what is and is not accurate about the book, which should be reported (but not pursued!) in the article about the book. Is there any evidence for the "political activist" claim? Thanks, Mark 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not assertions; this is the fact. She herself claimed that she attended leacture meetings which was supported by anti-Japanese groups and the Chinese government.

Besides, she was a lobbyist. For example, May 8, 1998, she attended the Senate's briefing, and she claimed that the Japanese's government had been twisting the history.

I do not know (and I'm not interested in) whether what she said is truth or not, but it is clear that she was working for political intentions. activist: An activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization (Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 3rd edition) --Flowerofchivalry 08:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What political or social changes was she trying to bring about? Mark 08:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, "Nanking Masscre," which is under huge arguing about its truthfulness. She was also working for the Lipinski's Resolution's approval in 1997, etc.

Don't forget, "political activist" does NOT mean something bad. I'm trying to improve Misplaced Pages, not insulting her.--Flowerofchivalry 08:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That's more like it- I've added the specific info. That activity was after she wrote the book though- I'd appreciate it if you removed the she started composing the book with this as a start statement, and the specific discussion of the book which, as I say, doesn't belong here. Mark 09:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. She is a political activist. She is a journalist. She might be a historian. It's ok to write those 3, but if we need to slim it down, it will be the best idea to remove "historian" because she is not a historian actually while we might be able to claim so (I read the above discussion). However, I do not oppose to leave "historian" if people agreed not to slim down the sentence so strictly. Beside, the sentences I added is extremely important. Those ideas I wrote are from The Rape of Nanking (Book), and I summarized it briefly. I believe that we do not need to discuss the book in this particular page, but to discuss about Chang, it seems my brief summary is essential. I'm too tired today to edit the page so I am going to edit the article tomorrow. Please continue discuss here so I can utilize the ideas for the revision if it helps the improvement of the article. --Flowerofchivalry 08:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many people campaign for one cause or another without us describing them as "political activists". That term is simply one interpretation of actions; it's more useful and neutral to describe the actions and allow readers to interpret for themselves. I suspect that part of the problem that we are having is that your English is rather hard to interpret itself, and that you are not as familiar as a native speaker would be with the use of particular phrases and terms in English. I have the same problem in Japanese. Your efforts might be better spent on the Japanese wikipedia, where I would not dare to try to edit. ;) Mark 02:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I enjoyed camping in a mountain. Some people call a mountain as "the place closer to the sky" or "the place used to be under the ocean" or whatever. Your interpretation of mountain is similar to those ideas that closer to the sky or under the ocean, which are still true. Chang decided to write the book The Rape of Nanking for the political reasons. This is what she said.--Flowerofchivalry 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is about "historian." She is not a historian even though she claimed herself so. I'm not a journalist even if I claim so.--Flowerofchivalry 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People call a mountain a mountain, not "the place closer to the sky", because there is no dispute about what it is. If you make your living writing history or journalism, then you are a historian or a journalist respectively. Mark 01:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned already, she wrote her books for political reasons. People call such a person as a political activist. If you (and other people) agree to leave extra info such as a historian, I will agree to leave it, but otherwise, the word "a historian" should be removed. I clearly agree that she is a journalist. Is there any dispute for this point?--Flowerofchivalry 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that she wrote the book specifically in order to change Japanese government policy? Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that she had written it to inform people in general what had happened. In any case your attempted contributions are not in coherent English and cannot stand. Mark 03:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chang tried to influence U.S. residents with the book. The book contains false information (She stated that the Japanese had only spears, for example). If she was a historian, she could detect that easily. She published such the book because she was a political activist. According to her interview with CND, she claimed herself as a political activist; she said "There were other activists..." There are more than enough supporting ideas. How about a historian? She said that the Japanese has only spears. All real historians may disagree, and your ideas does not make any sense so far, unfortunately.--Flowerofchivalry 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained to you that this is not the place for your interpretations or your opinions. If you can't understand that and add some content which complies with our policies, then you will achieve nothing here. Mark 03:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are writing your own biased opinions. This is not your own private world to express your opinion. You have been writing twisted ideas all the time. I recommend your quitting such activities.--Flowerofchivalry 03:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry: It would be nice if you could source some of your information, such as:

• She was supported by anti-Japan groups, — anti-Japan groups? Like what? And what kind of support? Keep in mind that groups that seek recompensation for Japanese wartime atrocities or changes in Japanese policies are not necessarily anti-Japan groups.
• and then she started composing the book with this as a start. — So she's some sort of proxy for anti-Japan groups?
• However, historical researchers have found at least 90 mistakes. — Which historical researchers? And what kind of errors are we talking about?
• and most pictures shown in the book have been proven as fabricated. — Most? How many pictures are there in the book? How many are "fabricated"? What does fabricated mean — doctored, or simply attributed wrongly?

Also, it would be nice for you to explain why you removed: After publication of the book, she campaigned to persuade the Japanese government to apologise for its troops' wartime conduct and to pay compensation. . -- ran (talk) 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ran, I'm glad I can start the real discussion.

• She was supported by anti-Japan groups,

This "anti-Japan groups" comes from "Sokokuto Seinen" Sep 1998. The "groups" are refered as "anti-Japan" because they, for example, Alliance in Memory of the Victims of the Nanking Massacre, do not like Japan is playing leadership role. The Japanese govt already paid huge amount and their seeking compensation is illegal, by the way.

• and then she started composing the book with this as a start.

That's correct. Chang stated in her book.

• However, historical researchers have found at least 90 mistakes.
• and most pictures shown in the book have been proven as fabricated.

These are from SAPIO, Sep 1997.

As far as I know, there are no pictures which proove the incident. The pictures are from other wars, synthesized, and/or made by the Chinese govt. Please note that she stated the incident happened in Winter. It is not my job to prove there are no such incident here. However, there are more than enough proofs that questions the quality of her work. This is the point. In addition, Mark claimed she is not a political activist, or she is a historian rather than a political activist. His ideas do not make any sense. Mark ignores all evidences he does not favor. This is slightly offtopic but if such incident exists, the Chinese govt cannot claim any compensation but the Taiwanese govt can. I think Chang is Taiwanese.--Flowerofchivalry 06:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait... how is seeking recompensation or opposing Japan's leadership role the same from being "anti-Japan"? You don't have to be anti-Japan — in fact, shouldn't at all be anti-Japan — to see that recompensation is justified and that perhaps Japan shouldn't be the only country playing a leadership role. It might be helpful for you to look at some "anti-Japan" websites. Even the most virulent, the really truly anti-Japan ones tend to carry a disclaimer: "Those Japanese who seek truth and justice like us are our friends and comrades-in-arms!" As such, I don't think it's helpful to throw labels like "anti-Japan" around so easily — it demonizes innocent people.

Also, I'm aware that in the Joint Communique, the Government of the PRC renounces all demands for reparations for Japan, however NGO's generally argue that the Government of the PRC does not represent Chinese NGO's and individuals. Moreover it makes no sense to say that Japan should be recompensating the ROC. Are the people who suffered still citizens of the ROC? Is Nanjing still a part of the ROC?

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "no pictures prove the incident". What do you think about the pictures found at Nanking Massacre? Clearly, there are some photos in some books that have been doctored or misattributed, but can you say this about every single picture of the Nanking Massacre, especially every single picture in Iris Chang's book? -- ran (talk) 18:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Technically, a group which is oppose to Japan is called an anti-Japan group(from dic definition). Japan already compensate for the incident which is not yet proven as existed. I don't know you know this or not(are you familiar with the Japanese politics?), but there are huge anti-Japan groups in Japan.

I can't understand what "NGO's" is. I appreciate you if you explain me that more.

There are no pictures prove the incident. This is the point. However, I have never said that there are pictures which prove the incident does not exist. It is Chang's job to prove there is such the incident. I'm very disappointed she commited suicide. She should have seen a better psychiatrist.

I hope this help you and other people.--Flowerofchivalry 21:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NGO = 非政府組織. In the Joint Communique it was the government of the PRC that gave up its rights to recompensation from the Japanese government. The argument is that Chinese NGOs and individuals can still sue for recompensation from Japanese companies.

In any case, once again let me say that asking for recompensation is not "anti-Japan", even if you have doubts about the legal aspects. There are Japanese lawyers and Japanese individuals who are helping Chinese people simply because they feel they're doing the right and decent thing; are they "anti-Japan"? I myself am disgusted by Japanese actions during World War II, and as a Chinese person I am also disgusted by many actions that Chinese governments have taken in the past. But that does not make me "anti-Japan" or "anti-China".

And finally, are you saying that the Nanking Massacre did not happen? In this case, please come to Nanking Massacre and tell us what you think about the article, especially the pictures. -- ran (talk) 18:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I still cannot get the point that why NGOs and people still have rights to demand compensation from the Japanese govt which has been paid already. Such groups are called anti-Japan groups because they are against or oppose to the Japanese govt or Japan or whatever. I have to tell you that those anti-Japan Japanese people are communists and anti-Establishment. Well, there are several people who unknowingly joined them but majority is still anti-Japan. Since there is a freedom of speech in Japan (but not in China), such movement is legal, but still they are anti-Japan. The final point is so-called Nanking Massacre. I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened. This is because it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Once again, it is Chang or supporter's job to prove the incident, but seems it have never succeeded. I wish I could join the argument to the other page at this time, but I have only 24 hours a day. I will join the argument after I finish this argument.--Flowerofchivalry 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The outcome of this argument depends on the outcome of the discussion at Talk:Nanking Massacre. It is clear that your view is not represented at Nanking Massacre. But if we don't represent it there then it makes little sense to argue about it in an article about a writer / historian / journalist whatever who's writing about it 60 years later. So please, let us continue there, not here.

Now look, I'm Chinese, I'm not anti-Japan at all. I think China, Japan and Korea share more in terms of culture and values with each other than with any other country in the world. I think sometime in the future, when China becomes developed and democratic, the countries of East Asia should form a military alliance and economic bloc (peacefully and democratically, unlike the "大東亜共栄圏") to defend and promote our shared civilization and shared heritage. This is how far I believe China-Japan cooperation and friendship should go. But I also think the Nanking Massacre happened, and was a terrible chapter in the joint history of China and Japan. I don't think such atrocities should be repeated for the sake of both China and Japan, and I think your viewpoint is dangerous and unacceptable. If you want to call me "anti-Japan" then please do so, but I don't agree with you on that either.

When we get to Talk:Nanking Massacre, I will defend your right to include your view in the article as a part of NPOV policy, because I am a sysop and I'm obliged to do so. But that doesn't mean I agree with or approve of your views. -- ran (talk) 05:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm gonna move to Talk:Nanking Massacre and continue on discussion. By the way, where is other people. I think Mark may want to join the discussion if he has any reasoning.--Flowerofchivalry 06:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering when you're going to accept that opposing some of the Japanese government's policies doesn't make an organisation "anti-Japan". The Democratic Party of Japan opposes many of the government's policies: is that an "anti-Japan organisation"? If not, perhaps you could try to explain what you think you are saying. Mark 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)