Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 1

message: For the vfd debate related to this article see Talk:List of Japanese War Atrocities/delete -- Graham  ☺ | Talk 16:41, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reasons stated by several participants in the VfD debate, this article does not conform to the NPOV policy, and I'm adding the appropriate notification.  Problems go beyond the hopelessly NPOV title -- for example, there is no reasonable definition of "atrocity" that includes the alleged theft of art objects. JamesMLane 17:24, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vfd debate 

message: I have never known the followings can be called 'Atrocities'.
Anti-Government-movement suppression /Stolen Artifacts /Destruction of Royal Palace/Opium policy/
-Poo-T 16 Nov 2004
: And do British or Chinese say Opium War was an atrocity? If Japanese did it, it probably is! :) Revth 03:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have Cleaned up the style / deleted some links. At least, 'Atrocities' in this page require the following standards, 'More than one human was killed.' 'Independent event'.  Poo-T 02:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atrocities 

message: I think that the article should be changed to "Japanese War Crimes". Also, I think comparisons need to be made between Japan and Germany. Also, the differing point of view should be included to make it impartial. While I believe Japan committed war crimes(not just in China and Korea, but throughout Asia as far south as the Dutch East Indies), the Japanese government and many Japanese citizens don't think Japan committed war crimes. So in addition to the sections there now, I think a section needs to be brought up on japanese arguments against war crimes, from people such as Yuko Tojo. 67.181.98.200 03:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing the Article

message: This article, as it currently stands, is poorly organized, incomplete, and highly POV (both in its title and presentation). I would like to suggest one way to deal with those problems.
For any events that were procecuted by a post-war tribunal such as either the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal or the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (aka Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal) (I think that there was also a separate Russian tribunal), create a Japanese section in the following article: List of war crimes. For any events that would qualify as Genocide, there is already a list with a Japanese category (see Genocides in history#Japanese Genocide during WWII). There is also a List of massacres (already containing Japanese events) which should probably include those events that don't qualify as genocide. 
Then for all the different wars that the Japanese have been involved in (World War II, Russo-Japanese War, Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895), etc.) there should be lists that would cover "List of Japanese involvement in WWII", "List of incidents in the Russo-Japanese War" ,etc. These lists can then be either categorized, or annotated (or both).
After all of those are created, then this particular list is redundant and no longer necessary. gK ¿? 16:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: An alternative

message: On wikipedia even articles like creationism 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. --Cool Cat My Talk 12:04, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Below is a suggestion of hierarchy. Germany has a the holocaust in the main page of Germany and redirects it to Germany's genocide. We can have a direct linkage by mentioning Japan War Crimes and Japanese Expansionism in Japan history page which will both link up to Japanese Expansionism
 Japan 
   Japan War Crimes - just a linkage  
   Japanese Expansionism 
       Russo-Japanese War
       Occupation of Korea
       Occupation of Taiwan
       Occupation of Sakhalin
       Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
       Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895)
       Japan War Crimes  
           List of Japanese War Atrocities
               Nanjing Massacre
               March 1st Movement
               Sook Ching Massacre
               Last Empress of Korea
               Bataan Death March
               Manila Massacre
               Unit 731
               Unit 516
               Unit 100
               Death Railway
           Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal
           International Military Tribunal for the Far East
           Japanese arguments against war crimes - new section
Japanese Expansionism currently redirects to Empire of Japan. Empire of Japan can be directly linked from Japan. Empire of Japan can be a stand alone section outside of Japanese Expansionism
Japanese genocide during WWII should be the text of Japan War Crimes and remove Japanese genocide during WWII as a separate section.
:Asian Holocaust was re-directing to Manila Massacre, which is not really appropriate. I have now started a separate Asian Holocaust page. Perhaps this would be a better name than Japanese War Crimes? Grant65 (Talk) 05:01, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
::I have also re-directed Chinese Holocaust to Asian Holocaust, as it was re-directing to Nanjing massacre.Grant65 (Talk) 05:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest we dont rename this. The problem is a culture clash, not a POV clash. The facts are that at the time, the japanese didnt consider they way they treated people constituted an atrocity, whereas westerners did. The roots of THAT derive from the fact that Japanese culture considers that soldiers who do not die in battle, but allow thenselves to be captured are no longer human.
So we need to write an explanation of the culture clash which lead to those events that the west consider atrocities, and then explain that lots of japanese are still in denial about this. Some POW camp commanders on the Burma Railway, for example, deny the treatment was harse, but blame the deaths on poor food, weak prisoners, and disease, but not in any way the japanese fault. Just this week the Chinese  (who were occupied in Machuria from 1933 - 1945), told the Japs that Japan and China cannot have normal diplomatic relations until they stop rewriting the past, a refernce to the fact that Japanese school history books barely mention anything about jap war atrocities.
After all, its not the fact that these events occurred (thats a fact), its who comitted them and why, and the culture clash that was involved.
I think thats how you goet a NPOV on this.
So if no one objects i'll write a para to start the ball rolling....
193.131.115.253 12:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: About 2 million civilians in northern Vietnam died during the Vietnamese Famine of 1945 caused by Japanese troops hoarding food from the farmers.  I think it should be included in this article. DHN 22:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese famine of 1945 

message: What I want to know, and I've asked this before, is what specific matters need references? List them and I will attempt to attend to them. Otherwise the POV tag just seem to reflect a discomfort and/or ignorance about matters which are dealt with elsewhere on Wikipedia without references. It is a standing insult to the integrity of the many people who have contributed to this article. If the specific POV issues are not listed within four weeks of today's date then I will remove the POV tag. Grant65 (Talk) 05:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that, but make it two. --Miborovsky  06:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. There are now at least nine books listed as references, at least 16 external websites and links to numerous Wikipedia articles. Anyone who still has a problem with the page should provide  specific details of what that they believe that problem to be, showing how it is NPOV and/or attempt to resolve it themselves. Grant65 (Talk) 10:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of POV tag

message: I have reverted Ratwod's restructuring because there was some material deleted, including the main definition in the "Other views"
section. I guess that was unintentional. In general I couldn't see that his changes made any more sense than the previous/present structure, and it violated the agreement above with Taku, that the article should include the  Japanese definition of war crimes, which revolves around the Tokyo trials and includes crimes against the Japanese people by the military dictatorship, in addition to those committed against people in and from other countries. My feeling in general is that major changes to structure should be discussed here first. Grant65 (Talk) 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My recent reversions

message: I don't think this even warrants discussion, but I'm not going to risk the 3RR violation. I think it is grossly trivialising to the subject to include the stuff about the Iraq War, especially in the first paragraph.
The historical jury is still out on the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq; I can't see how the presence of a small contingent of Japanese non-combat personnel in Iraq is comparable to the Rape of Nanjing or the Death Railway. In fact, no alleged war crime committed by coalition forces in Iraq is in the same ballpark as that. IMO this is ahistorical, "presentism" of the worst kind. Grant65 (Talk) 08:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. Iraq is totally irrelevant unless allegations of war crimes by the Japanese are made. This is somebody apparently not understanding what "war crime" means. 81.131.124.114 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand very well what a war crime is, and while it's OK to mention the controversy about Japan's role in Iraq, I'm not satisfied with the way it has been done by contributors to this page. Grant65 (Talk) 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Jeff...clearly they have been accused of crimes against peace by Japanese activists. I don't know what your attitude to the Iraq war is but are you sure you aren't letting it cloud your approach to this issue? Grant65 (Talk) 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a nice idea, but no. Whether the Iraq War was a "crime against peace" or not is debatable. But my understanding is that a "crime against peace" and a "war crime" are different concepts. We could always change the article name to make it clear we are discussing a historical event. Something like Imperial Japanese war crimes or whatever. JW 15:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq War

message: I requested protection of the page because of the frenetic rate of edits/reversions which were taking place without discussion. Does anyone have a major problem with the way the page now appears? If so, please tell us. It's better that we resolve it here. Grant65 (Talk) 23:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Iraq is a separate issue and isn't relevant to this article. JW 13:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it clearly is relevant to a some people. We wouldn't have had this flurry of edits and reverts if it wasn't.Grant65 (Talk) 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looked to me like it was the same person constantly reinstating it. We don't generally allow content to be dictated by one user, we create articles by consensus. JW 11:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That's not really what the section says. Its inclusion gives the impression that the Japanese haven't changed since WWII and that the Iraq war is equivalent to WWII Japanese war crimes, neither of which is true. The edit history shows two people reinstating the Iraq section; Hola79 and an anonymous user. Based on the pattern of edits and the language used they look like the same person. And that section has now been removed by at least four different registered users. JW 19:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the sentence which says: "...it is highly controversial to describe Japan's involvement in Iraq as a war crime, and it is considered most unlikely that any official will be charged in relation to these events."  Grant65 (Talk) 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of phraseology or caveats; its inclusion suggests equivalence. It is irrelevant because no Japanese soldiers have been accused of war crimes in Iraq, and considering their role there its unlikely they ever will be. A "crime against peace" is not the same thing at all as a war crime, which is what this article is concerned with. Several editors have removed that section, calling it "nonsense" and "vandalism"; you yourself said it was absurd. I've seen no evidence to suggest that the protests in Japan over Iraq are directly related to Japanese war crimes in WWII. Given the general ignorance in Japan of Japanese behaviour in WWII, it is much more likely that the protests are a) because the Iraq war is unpopular b) because Iraq was invaded without UN approval c) because Japan is now a pacifist country since Horoshima and Nagasaki and d) because of the post-1945 restriction on the deployment of Japanese forces overseas. JW 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There were protests against the war all over the world, I don't think those in Japan had a different basis from those elsewhere.  This article is really about Imperial Japan, which is really a different country from modern Japan. If we start including Iraq, etc. it just becomes a page of complaints against the Japanese, rather than an article about historical events. JW 10:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They were "different" because of Japan's history as having been an extremely aggressive country within living memory. That doesn't apply to the others involved in Iraq (except Italy). You can argue that the two things really have nothing in common — and I would be inclined to agree — but that isn't how a sigificant number of people see the issue. Perceptions are significant things, however wrong they may be. Grant65 (Talk) 10:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think they are related, and I don't, then whose perception is this? Is there any evidence that a link was made between the Iraq war and Japanese war crimes in WWII by anyone other than Hola79 ? JW 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected status

message: Given the sparsity of that article and that it deals exclusively with Japanese war crimes, I think it would make sense, but perhaps be controversial to do this merge. Since the page is protected, I'm placing the mergefrom notice here until it can be placed on the main page.  Caerwine 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Grant65 (Talk) 11:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the merge is reasonable, Asian Holocaust probably shouldn't be a redirect because the phrase is sometimes used to describe events other than WWII, eg. Cambodia. JW 11:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Good God, and you are lynching Negroes! How does anything that either the Nationalist or Communist Chinese do in any way affect JAPANESE war crimes? Does the Holocaust have to be the ethnic cleansing that killed the most people? The Germans killed more Russian civilians than Jews, should Russians get the Holocaust 'title'? Jews weren't the only people being systematically eliminated, should we no longer refer to their destruction as the Holocaust? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergefrom [[Asian Holocaust]] 

message: I've unprotected this article as there seems to be no ongoing discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotected

message: Yoji (now known as FWBOArticle) has raised the issue of the name of the article and basic terminology. From previous discussions of this (see above), I'm not sure what to think. Somehow I got the impression that "atrocities" is regarded as emotive and inflammatory. There is technical justification for the use of the term "war crimes", e.g. in Japan's acceptance of the verdicts of the tribunals, and also in the Japanese military code of the time. What do others think? Grant65 | Talk 04:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "War crimes" v "atrocities"