Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4

message: Did anyone notice how ridiculous those Japanese revisionist's approaches have been? I mean, there is an official death toll 60 years ago, and those people has just started the attempt to cut the number only since 1970s. Their main logic is like this: 
1. There are 300k-500k people died around that time;
2. Only a small amount of them are documented as civilians or POWs;
3. The majority of the rest could be either soldiers or civilians or POWs, but no documented data to clarify on this
4. Therefore, only that small number of documented civilians should be counted. Any number other than that is CCP propanganda.
If a Japanese historian gives me such a reasoning, I will deeply doubt his integrity as a researcher and motive as a human being, because that's not the way genuine research should be done. Historical research always needs to deal with incomplete data, and sometimes other information such as eye-witness, interviews, and authorative esitmates could also be used as evidence. The official number of death toll has been published long ago, and for a genuine historian, the only way to change that number is to FALSIFY it, because regarding the undocumented data, there is always uncertainty in it, and you could not use your own bias to replace the possible noise in an existing official estimate. In other words you could not say there are no 300k victims because you couldn't find enough documented data to prove the 300k number. Since the official number is estimated right afther the war when many witnesses and massacre participants still living, 300k is the most accurate number before you falsify it. For instance, if you could show some event considered by the official estimate did not happen at all, and that event has accounted for 10k killing, then 10k can be subtracted from 300k. Any thing other than that would be an insult to the word "historian".
Were there any major Chinese figures at all?  It seems as if the only figures of note were foreign witnesses and a few Japanese generals, no prominent Chinese commanders or soldiers who were witnesses or fought, or lower-level Japanese soldiers. Teh Bomb Sophist 00:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean eyewitnesses right? Iris Chang's book has a few accounts from Japanese soldiers if memory serve. (Or is that another book?) The high-level Chinese commanders fled after the battle, not that there were many there in the first place. As for the soldiers, the ones who fled did, and those who didn't got killed. I do recall a few accounts from Chinese civilians but they're Chinese sources and I don't see English translations that often. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It just almost seems as if there were no Chinese heroes who were remembered in trying to stop the massacre, only foreign observers.  I also wonder if there were any notable Japanese commanders/soldiers noted for either infamy in carrying out the massacre or for disobeying orders (if there were any) to carry it out. Teh Bomb Sophist 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, the Chinese were not in a position to save anyone, many of them not even themselves. It wasn't an "honourable" war by any stretch, it was total and devastating. Any Chinese who tried stopping the massacre would simply be massacred himself. As for the Japanese, only 4 of them were ever convicted in te Nanking War Crime Tribunal, and in the IMTFE, Matsui Iwane was the most infamous. Among the ones who "disobeyed orders", I don't know any, as the orders probably were not from a centralised command. There are however numerous journals, photos and other evidence taken by Japanese soldiers, some of whom surrendered them after the war to the IMTFE. There's also a bureaucrat called Ishii Itaro, IIRC, who complained numerous times to the Japanese High Command, but got told that it's not their problem. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: sorry i'm not quite informed on the proper way to respond in wikipedia. but my great-grandfather, hsu chuan-ying, who was a chinese citizen, helped operate the safe zone kept open by the nazis, and, needless to say, was a  witness to the rape of nanking. also he testified against the japanese in the tokyo war trials. i know at the moment i don't have any articles to cite...when i look then up i will post them, but i believe they are only in chinese. the nanjing newspaper recently (as in within the past year or so) contacted my grandfather, hsu chuan-ying's son, for an interview. sorry again i don't have anything to cite, but i guess my point is that there ARE chinese people who have been remembered and commemorated as heroes on this event...it's just happened very slowly. (btw i'm not referring to the chinese victims who have been remembered and commemorated.)69.233.84.196 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Chinese figures during the Nanking Massacre

message: the text refers to videos when it means home movies(amateur film footage). there were no vidoes at this time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.209.98 (talk • contribs) .
:So? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: they're newsreels. And yes there were camcorders during wwii. BlueShirts 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's apparent that he was referring to video cameras. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Videos

message: When possible, the link for John Magee should be fixed to refer to John Magee (Reverend), as the former is a disambiguation page, which previously didn't include the proper person.  Additionally, John Magee (Reverend) is only a stub; additional input would be good. Thanks. DAllen\talk 20:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. El_C 13:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Magee Disambiguation Correction 

message: Please record your vote for removal of protected status. - Cybergoth 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually you know I think the article as it stands is pretty good. I don't really see how what we're debating on this page can improve it. --Sumple (Talk) 22:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to apply for removal of protected status

message: Hi all, you might remember a while back the discussion came up about the reliability of the story about the contest between two Japanese officers to kill a hundred men (using a samurai sword, in some versions) during and after the attack on Nanjing. There was an article by Bob Wakabayashi which was mentioned in relation to this incident. Askew (see above) seemed to think that this paper was the best piece of research in the area.
Well, I looked it up a while back and haven't had the time to report what it says. Basically, Wakabayashi analyses the debate of this incident in Japan, and analysed the claims of both sides. Basically, these are the issues:
(1) Fact: the original newspaper article that talked about the "contest" said that it was a contest to kill enemy soldiers *in combat*. The report seemed to have been based on interviews with the two officers concerned.
(2) Fact: the two officers were arraigned in Tokyo for war crimes, where it was determined that a prima facie case of Class A war crime did not exist. They were then extradicted to Nanjing, where they were found guilty of Class B war crimes for killing about 250 Chinese non-combatants.
(3) Clearly there is a discrepancy between the report and the judgement. There are three alternative views as to how this discrepancy play out:
:(a) the view held by the officers' relatives is that the original newspaper article was literally true, that they honourably chopped dead 100 Chinese soldiers each, in combat.
:(b) the view held by atrocity/war-guilt camp amateur historians such as Honda is that it was really an atrocity. Some argue that the newspaper article was distorted in order to get past the censors.
:(c) the view held by minimalist/revisionist [terms used by Wakabayashi] amateur historians was that the whole story was fabricated, either by the two officers themselves, as macho boasting, or by the newspaper as war propaganda.
(4) Wakabayashi analysed the sources and claims to argue that there is insufficient evidence to judge that the two men committed an atrocity. He thought that the story was most likely exaggerated by the men or the newspaper, as boasting or as propaganda.
In terms of the wider relevance of this debate, Wakabayashi said:
(1) Despite (probably) losing this battle, the atrocity school (represented by Honda) demonstrated superior style and research skills, in unearthing new sources, and in putting forward verifiable arguments. Significantly, the minimliast/revisionist school often put forward claims without releasing their sources, so that their analysis could not be checked. These two factors made further claims by the atrocity school much more dependable than those made by the minimalist/revisionist school.
(2) The debate brought to the open the issues surrounding the Nanjing massacre. When these sources became the focus of public attention, it was no longer possible to revisionists to claim that the Nanjing incident did not happen, or that only a few people died. Even extreme right-wing politicians had to admit that at least a few hundred thousand people died during the event.
Anyway, my conclusion from reading the paper is that: no groundbreaking research, but an excellent literature review that categorises and analyses the various arguments for and against the story of the hundred-men-killing-contest.
Main article on this issue: Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword --Sumple 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wakabayashi on First to Kill A Hundred Men Contest 

message: I thought let's identify the obvious errors first:
1. In "geographical extent" subsection, it says " ... because the entire province of Jiangsu fell under the administration of Nanjing..." 
This is an obvious error becauase up until 1949 Nanjing was a special municipality, and the rest of Jiangsu was administered from Zhenjiang. --Sumple (Talk) 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Change it then. Sourced info would be best, thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 11:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  not everyone is an admin, you know. --Sumple (Talk) 05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drat, sorry about that. Gimme the correct version and I'll copy it over. Or get it unprotected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a factual error that is not going to be controversial in any way. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious errors 

message: My intention is to leave non controvercial historical narrative (such as Battle of Nanking) at the top. As of "Massacire" section, I left statements which are unlikely to be contested by both side. Secondly, I created "War Crime Tribunals" section.  Please put any testimonies of massacre which was presented in the tribunal here. Because the tribunal itself is a historical event, any testimonies in the trial(s) automatically become archival sources.  So it is immune from any delete edit based on the alleged (in)validity of such of such testimonies.  Lastly, allegations which is damped in the controversies section can come back.  But please state its source. If it is archival source, it can probably go up in "Massacre" or "Tribunal" section.  If it is not, please leave it under controversies section because it is still a part of ongoing debate. FWBOarticle
:I added a couple of pix of a less controversial nature to the article. However, they were the two pix I found on the Nanjing page. I am not convinced that the Sun Yatsen memorial had anything to do with the rape, other than being in the vicinity at the time, and I'd like something closer to a period image of Nanjing, if anyone can find one.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 05:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Revamp (Demolition?) 

message: :Article 1.
:The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
:To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
:To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
:To carry arms openly; and
:To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
:In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." 
Chinese guerrila force hiding themselves in civilian clearly failed to satisfy above conditions. FWBOarticle
As of both side not taking prisoners, it was routine practice.  If Nationalists or Communist run POW camp for Japanese soldiers during the war, let me know.  You can also read reference to it in Askew's article quoted above. FWBOarticle
:anybody can quote the Hague Conventions. Where is your source claiming that they were Chinese guerrilas instead of surrendered troops incapable of fighting back or prisoners of war? Otherwise it's original research. Quoting some international laws to cover it up doesn't cut it. BlueShirts 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enemy Combatants 

message: The reason why I put that picture up there was because Wikipedians were complaining here that some of the more grisly pictures of the Massacre were too gruesome to show up on top. However, I agree that the picture isn't really relevant to the discussion or the topic. Would someone mind going to Nanjing and taking a picture of something more appropriate to this discussion?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a gate called the Jiangdongmen, I've heard, which is supposed to have a memorial to the massacre.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: link to page about the memorial  —  Rickyrab | Talk 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Irrelevant?) Picture that I put at head of article 

message: Hi guys, good to see FWOBArticle's efforts on this page.
One point - the historiography section is done almost entirely from the Japanese POV. E.g. the section dealing with china/international goes "Outside Japan...", when it should, perhaps be "Outside China and Japan" considering that the incident occured in China and the previous paragraph dealt with China.
In addition, the section on China is extremely short and seems to imply a past or continuing policy of suppressing debate on this issue which may or may not be supported, but is in any case lacking in citation.
And don't tell me it's because there's no sources, because there is plenty of work from the Chinese perspective on this issue. If people are okay with it, I propose to import material from Chinese wikipedia article, which is actually very balanced and a lot better organised than this page (in the historiography section). --Sumple (Talk) 01:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiography  

message: This section is completely unacceptable NPOV.
It almost completely ignores the Japanese figures except for those from "The Grand Massacre" school of thinking, which has been all but completely discredited in Japan and by many academics throughout the world.  It pretty much accepts the Chinese hardline at face value.
:Members of the Illusion School answered that the number was zero (Fuji Nobuo), almost zero, or, in the case of Watanabe, 40 to 50. The Middle-of-the-Road School, which is given a broader definition than the one I use, ranges from "several thousand" (Nakamura and Unemoto) through about 10,000 (Okazaki, Sakurai, and Tanabe) to about 20,000 (Hara) (I would place all but Hara in the Illusion School). The Great Massacre School ranges from at least 100,000 (Eguchi), more than 120,000 (10 sūman), a figure which has become the orthodox position of this school and which is advocated by Himeta, Inoue, Kasahara and Yoshida, to the older orthodoxy, 200,000, which is still advocated by Fujiwara and Takasaki.
In general, this page reads like it came straight from a Chinese propaganda text book.  I'm tempted to NPOV the whole thing. Bueller 007 16:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll NPOV 

message: Hi guys, I'm changing references to "Nanking" in the body of the article to "Nanjing", except where it occurs in specific phrases such as "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking". The reason for that is:
# The current article proceeds on the footing that "Nanjing" was called "Nanking". However, the name of the city has not changed. It is only the official method of transliteration that has changed. So it is not the same situation as, say, Petrograd vs Leningrad vs St Petersburg. 
# The name of the city is officially transliterated as "Nanjing", and increasingly that is what it is commonly known as. 
# Consistency: for example, Beijing is almost never referred to as Peking on Wikipedia except in the context of certain concepts like Peking duck and Peking University. In this article, other cities are all referred to by their pinyin transliteration.
# However, the phrases "Nanking Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking" are specific historical concepts, and so I am leaving those alone.
Hope that's okay with y'all. --Sumple (Talk) 02:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is good idea, as it is quite confused that every place in China has two translations. Caiqian 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I doubt the accuracy of what you read... The city and municipality were both transliterated Nanking then, and Nanjing now. --Sumple (Talk) 00:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanking vs Nanjing 

message: Nanjing was not the capital of Jiangsu province. Only the Nanjing Special Municipality were administered from NAnjing. The rest of Jiangsu was administered from Zhenjiang. Making changes accordingly. --Sumple (Talk) 02:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can do it! It's not protected. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanjing was *not* capital of [[Jiangsu]] province 

message: The intro for the article currently contains a lot of repetitive information. I suggest the intro be changed to this:
--
The Nanking Massacre	The Nanking Massacre
Chinese name        	Chinese name
Simplified Chinese  	南京大屠杀
Traditional Chinese 	南京大屠殺
Pinyin              	Nánjīng Dàtúshā
Japanese name       	Japanese name
Kanji               	南京事件,南京大虐殺
Hepburn Rōmaji      	Nankin Jiken,Nankin Daigyakusatsu
The Nanking Massacre, commonly known as "The Rape of Nanking", refers to the most infamous of the war crimes committed by the Japanese military during World War II—acts carried out by Japanese troops in and around Nanjing (then known in English as Nanking), China, after it fell to the Imperial Japanese Army on December 13, 1937. The duration of the massacre is not clearly defined, although the period of carnage lasted well into the next six weeks, until early February 1938.
During the occupation of Nanjing, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, a large number of innocent men were wrongfully identified as enemy combatants and killed. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread.
The extent of the atrocities is hotly debated, with numbers ranging from the claim of the Japanese army at the International Military Tribunal for the Far East that the death toll was military in nature and that no such atrocities ever occurred, to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000. The West has generally tended to adopt the Chinese point-of-view, with many Western sources now quoting 300,000 dead.  This is in no small part due to the popularity of Iris Chang's "The Rape of Nanking", which set the stage for the debate of the issue in the West.
The event continues to be a point of contention in Sino-Japanese relations.
--
Nothing has been removed from the article; the stuff I removed from the intro is all still available in the article below.  I've just left in the most important points in the intro.  I think it's a VAST improvement.  Any complaints? Bueller 007 05:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed New Article Intro 

message: I'm very new to wikipedia, so I'm posting here first, rather than editing the page directly, especially in view of the fact that the contribution is my own and I do not wish to appear self-promotional, especially regarding a topic of this nature.
A couple of weeks ago (March 19, 2006) I returned from a conference in Nanking and while there I naturally took the opportunity to visit the memorial and discuss it with some English speakers there.
Although I have no independent information on the massacre itself, I think that the pictures I took during the visit may be of interest to viewers of this article, especially since the memorial was build specifically as a result of the outrage of some Japanese claims that the incident didn't happen/wasn't that bad/etc. It's an attempt to set the record straight, or rather present the official Chinese view, and from that angle is important, I believe.
Some pictures are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/79715717@N00/tags/nanjing/
And I have several hundred from around the memorial, including things like trees planted by Japanese citizens in apology, a mass grave dig site, and so forth. Many were not directly appropriate to a series of photos primarily about a conference, but it seems a shame to not let people see them.
My question is, is this appropriate/of interest? I can release copyright easily, since they are mine, and I have many more that may be of interest to this article.
Ian
:If you think there are photos in your set that would make a nice addendum to the article, why not. The apology tree sounds promising. If you need help deciding on photos, uploading, choosing an appropriate licence, just ask. Shinobu 09:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanjing Massacre Memorial