Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 2

message: Last time I checked this discussion page a year or so ago linking Koizumi as an abettor to the Crime against Peace. 
But I read that some "40 year old virgin from downunder" frequents this article and mercilessly refutes those he 'believes' has a slanted POV by frequent reverse edits with prejudice and very little intellectual input , was it that guy?
Crimson stranger 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I argued for the inclusion of the material about the Iraq controvery in Japan, but was outvoted by other editors. For some strange reason, one person blamed me for this and then used sockpuppets to abuse me, both here and on my talk and user pages. I have reason to believe Crimson stranger is probably the same person. Grant65 | Talk 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, I just took a wild stab in the dark. By the sound of it you know a lot about those. BTW 2006-1965 = 41, not 40. Back to remedial math for Crimson. Grant65 | Talk 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the Iraq Crimes Against Peace discussion?

message: I find the article very informative and surprisingly I found it to be written in a very neutral way. Congratulations to those that have contributed to it. --Anagnorisis 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also thanks to whomever it was that archived the rest of the talk page! Ahudson 17:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem. It was getting far too large, IMHO. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good neutral article

message: It come to my attention that Japan might have signed this treaty. Also, important question is whether Chinese Nationalists has signed this treaty without it the treaty is not binding between Japan and China. Another legal issue is the nature of mutuality. Because both side killed captured soldiers, the treaty is still a moot. But anyway, we need more detailed exposition because it has strong relevance to treatment of allied POW by Japan. FWBOarticle
We could rewrite the first part of this article based on this page. FWBOarticle
Yes, Japan has signed and ratified Hague Convention of 1907 in Nov 6th 1911. Has China signed it? In addition, legally/techinically speaking, the Hague treaty does not govern Japanese/Chinese/Allied military behaviour. Domestic law implemented under Hague treaty govern the militaly. FWBOarticle
:It does not matter if the countries were signatories to the Hague Convention of 1907. Part of the defence at Nuremberg was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they had not be a signatory to the some of the treaties. This was addressed in the judgement relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It contains an expansion of customary law 
::"the Convention Hague 1907 expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter."
:One can assume that this was also the position in the trials in the Far East. Further see the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and Allied Commission#Japan, For Japan it was not just an issue of domestic military law, it also became an issue of international law and Japanse domestic law covering Japanese commitments under international treaty and customary law. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE LAWS OF WAR ON LAND, BEING THE HAGUE REGULATIONS 

message: Made it more techincal by refereing to relevants treaties. I also provided view for people who argue that war crimes exist whether law exist or not. Korean argument was also included though this would be a very domestic argument.  Accusation of Japanese war crimes before WWII was elimiated due to lack of verification.  By any standard Japanese war crimes refere to conduct of Japanese military during WWII. FWBOarticle
:Yoji, you cannot simply delete valid and long-accepted material. This is highly provocative. The international definitions section is there because there are serious differences between the way in which these matters are regraded from one country to another. Also events in Asia prior to 1941 are not generally regraded as being part of "world war II". Grant65 | Talk 10:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, I should not need to point out to you that your recent edits will be seen by many as serving a Japanese nationalist agenda. Grant65 | Talk 10:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: From the article:
"After the launching of a full-scale military campaign against China in 1937, Japanese soldiers were often encouraged to go on rampages of murder, torture and rape — or at the very least, were not discouraged from so doing. Such acts were repeated throughout the Pacific War."
Although there were plenty of instances of rape, murder, looting, pillaging, etc., it was in fact against the law for Japanese soldiers to do so, and in rare cases, they were actually punished.  I don't think you can say "encouraged" here without using a citation.
So, I have changed this to read:
"After the launching of a full-scale military campaign against China in 1937, instances of murder, torture and rape committed by Japanese soldiers seemed to be overlooked by Japanese commanding officers, and generally went unpunished. Such acts were repeated throughout the Pacific War."
Bueller 007 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed spurious claim 

message: Although much fewer in number, there were some "war crimes" committed by the US against the Japanese.  Is there an article for these?  If not, perhaps we could consider starting one.  I know of at least two incidents, and there are probably more that the WWII buffs who contribute to Wikipedia know about:
- Battle of the Bismark Sea- Commanding General ordered all Japanese survivors killed in the water and their rescue vessels attacked. Ordered no prisoners to be taken.
- Naval Battle of Guadalcanal- After the 1st engagement, a Marine tugboat motored around machine-gunning Japanese survivors in the water until a Navy officer finally ordered it to stop.
- Battle of Iwo Jima- Anecdotal evidence that US forces refused to take prisoners in that battle, although ironically, most of the enemy combatants that allowed themselves to be captured were probably Korean forced laborers.
Any others? Cla68 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of War Crimes or Atrocities by the U.S. 

message: Your attention please on this particular extract
The issue of Japan's de jure sovereignty over countries such as Taiwan and Korea, prior to 1945, is well-documented by historians. Japanese control was not accepted and recognised as illegal internationally, and was unjustified.
It is a personal assumption without reference and it seems not even the frequent Grant65 picked it up. Therefore it warrants an NPOV tag going up and I am also putting up a motion to remove the good article tag.
Also may I raise this point again that the title is deceptive. There are events here that have no lawful backing as war crimes by reference, it is reasonably forseeable that a lay person could assume that all the atrocities reported under this article are war crimes. These events should be separately layed out from crimes as atrocities as such or let alone not be in the same article under the current title of the article. It is only my desire that an earnest consideration be raised here, one that acknowleges there is an NPOV issue here instead of denying it out of prejudice and stubborn assumptions.
Thanks Philip Baird Shearer for the encouragement to start cleaning up this article. What constitutes a war crime is something charged for and can be legitimately alleged in the ICJ and its predecessors of concurrent jurisdiction. Phillip has done a wonderful job in the Allied war crimes article by clearing out what is and isn't determined by law as war crimes, namely the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it was determined under an ICJ that no law continues to exist against the use of nuclear weapons since 1945, he has convinced me that such edits are not acts of denial. This includes removing subjective morality issues that implicates hypocrisy or determining the 'lesser of two evils'. I believe the same practice ought to be placed on this article and objective assessment ought to be the fundamental issue, something this article obviously lacks under the prejudice of hate, rage and general discontent of the Japanese race as a whole.
I have also raised similar points here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes
203.109.211.80 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think renaming the article would be good, substituing "crimes" for "atrocities". John Smith's 16:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV: sovereignty over Taiwan and motion to remove the 'Good Article' tag.

message: If I can belatedly tie the disparate debates back together: I think some of us are being rather finicky in the above debates; it isn't necessary for the events of 1895-1945 to meet the Geneva definition, the Nüremburg definition, or whatever. Neither am I saying that we should accept the idiosyncratic defitions of random persons from Seoul, Honolulu or Melbourne. As the article says: "...many of the alleged crimes committed by Japanese imperial personnel were also violations of the Japanese code of military law, which the military either willfully ignored, or failed to enforce." That makes them prima facie war crimes, never mind that they also meet the common/street definition. Grant65 | Talk 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basic parameters of the article

message: These minor adjustments should be addressed :
* Give a reasonable copyright tag to the image :Image:Slayers.jpg.
* I think the lead section could be expanded.
* The inline external links should become footnotes.
:As for the NPOV tag present atop the article ... it shouldn't be there as the article is neither POV oriented and neither is the title as other titles attributed in the litterature for such topics could be worse than this one. The tag should thus be removed and the parties that disagree should resolve the conflict on the talk page instead of having the tag present. Lincher 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fair to remove the tag, so I did so. John Smith's 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

message: In the current version of the text it says:
:However, the native populations were not consulted on the changes in sovereignty, nor was there universal acceptance of such annexations.
Prior to 1945 it was common that "native populations were not consulted on the changes in sovereignty". AFAIT the concept that they ought to be was not encapsulated in international law until GCIV in 1949 (See Articles 6 and 48). It is extreamly unusual for there to be "universal acceptance of such annexations", so I do not see the relevence of the comment. For this to be a valid point then a source is needed or the sentence should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Phil. The point is not that it was unusual, but that the non-consensual transfer is one reason why the concept of atrocities/war crimes is applicable in the cases of Korea, Taiwan, etc, just as it would be if (e.g.) France managed to annex the Channel Islands in 1938, and French forces committed reprehensible acts against civilians there. Grant65 | Talk 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native populations were not consulted