Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 3

message: I've fixed a lot of the grammatical and spelling mistakes, and tried to balance the POV somewhat. All in all, I find that the content isn't especially bad in terms of POV. That is to say, the facts sound accurate, although I'm no expert on the subject. However, the organization, and the focus implies a heavy tilt towards one point of view. -- unsigned (Mozzerati)
THERE IS ONLY ONE POINT OF VEIW - THERE WAS A MASSACRE YOU IDIOT!! --- unsigned
*The Causes section is far too short; Again, I'm no expert on the subject, but I've definitely heard of far more explanations, and more complex explanations than what's presented here. There's no mention of the intense Japanese military training process that created troops with a majorly unhealthy need to vent. There's no explanation/description of who the officers were that were present, what their orders were, which officers were complicit and which were not. Except for what I added, there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan.
*There is practically zero explanation of what actually happened here. Aside from the pictures, and the generalized description of "looting, rape, and killing" there is no explanation of precisely what methods were used to kill the Chinese civilians. Did this happen in the heat of battle? To what extent was it organized? Was it more like uncontrolled troops rampaging through the streets, or was it more like a firing squad killing, like the Nazis committed at various times & places? Were people killed by hand, by gun, or by spear & sword? etc.
**This is an article still in the writing.  It is not perfect, or it would have been a featured article.  If you think you can contribute in a NPOV way, go ahead and make changes.
**"there was no mention whatsoever that this was NOT ordered by, agreed to, or even known about by the higher levels of government and military, back in Japan."...Again you are biased.  There are many telegraphs by Westerners accounting for the deaths to Japan, which are summarily dismissed by the Japanese government.  Read for example John Rabe's diaries.  Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
***I think it terrible that the government should dismiss information like this. Don't get me wrong, by no means do I condone what occurred. But refusing to acknowledge that atrocities were occurring, refusing to take action to stop it, while terrible in its own way, is not the same as ordering that it be done in the first place. I compare this, somewhat, in my mind to the recent Abu Grahib prisoner tortures; I would hope that no one but the most illogical liberals would accuse Pres Bush or anyone high up in our government of ordering that this be done. It was, like the events at Nanjing, the actions of a number of low-ranking soldiers who were going against orders.
****Although I can't edit this much since I lack experties in Chinese history, it seems to me that the term "low-ranking" has to be deeply misleading.  In a military organisation, the actions of subordinates are specifically the responsibility of their commander, and this is a principle which has carried through most of the important war crimes trials.  Given that Prince Yasuhiko Asaka, a  entered Nanking whilst the massacre was ongoing, and was a general in the Japanese army, he became responsable for ongoing actions from the moment he became aware of them.  The current text is dangerously misleading.  The fact that the Hirota Koki (the Japanese foreign minister at the time of the Rape of Nanjing) (again ) was convicted and exected for this makes the article in contradiction of a court and without any qualification extremely strong POV. Mozzerati 22:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
*To focus so much on the body count, and on the historiography indicates a POV on the part of the writer, and an intended focus. There is nothing wrong with including this information; it is interesting and relevant. But more needs to be added in other sections, especially in the Causes and Events of the Massacre itself. Perhaps a section could be added on how the Massacre has been used by China (academics, government, general populace) since then, to demonize Japan, to minimize the threat posed by an increasingly powerful China, and to minimize the various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions undertaken by China over the centuries, not only against other nations, but against their own people - see Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen Square Massacre.
**I disagree.  This article is not the result of one writer, but rather a collaborative effort.  In fact the section on body count has been added mostly by Japanese contributors generally because it is a big area of contention used by Japanese right-wing academics to minimize their war-crimes.  I also disagree with the point that the Massacre has been used to demonize Japan.  It is tantamount to saying that the Holocaust has been used to demonize Germany.  To date, unlike Germany, Japan has not publicly addressed the issue nor given renumerations to Massacre or war victims.  This is a fact which has been time and again "revise" in their local textbooks.  To mention that China uses it to minimize their "various atrocities, war crimes, and nationalist/racist actions" is myopic and POV - please give specific examples when China has done so.  These are different issues and has never been muddled together by the government.  Are we going to enmesh, for example, US's shameful treatment of native Americans and blacks with their WWII contributions? Mandel 11:08, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
*** Okay, that was unfair of me to say, and I apologize. Looking back at it again, I don't know why I wrote that. What the Communists did, and continue to do, to their own people has no bearing on whether or not Japanese atrocities happened. LordAmeth 11:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Way unbalanced article.

message: The question is: must we insist on NPOV for the sake of NPOV, even if one side of the story is false? It is so hard to perfect this article because the truth makes it seem biased against the Japanese. But the truth is the truth - it could be in favour of one side or another, but it is definitely not biased. Having said this, i refrain from editing this article. --Plastictv 12:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Please post at the end this page, not the top!  Also, please sign your comments - just click the second to the last button above the edit window.--Rroser167 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder to all those posting to this discussion!

message: *On this entry the word "Historians" is abusively used. This is a bad idea as not all historians think alike regarding the topic. If some historians did not believe in it it wouldnt be here. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Assesments

message: This article is in shambles right now - the sections are poorly placed, the text is long, there are POV and unsupported statements everywhere, and grammar needs to be corrected.  I started on it, but after the first paragraph, I realized I'm going to need to spend some real time on it at some other time.
People, I understand that we are talking about a horrible atrocity - but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.  If you don't believe that this article is in need of work, I challenge you to submit this for a Featured Article.  --Rroser167 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article need more work, but feel I don't have the time and the qualifications to do so.  The article is badly structured, important statements are unsupported.  It mentioned "according to some", "it is said", "according to historians" -- these are all too vague: we need to mention who said what.  I also seriously do not like the photo of the brutal treated woman - i feel it's poor respect to the dead. Mandel 15:30, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
Caiqian - I reverted to my text before your revision because I believe that you didn't mean to erase my changes.  You just happened to be working at the same time to restore that picture.  If I am wrong, please discuss. --Rroser167 14:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs plenty of work.

message: The 'dispute' template has manifest itself once more today.
The people who dispute the Nanjing Massacre are the same people who honour, pray and worship 1068 convicted war criminals enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine.
Neo Nazis 'dispute' the Holocaust, yet the Holocaust article has no 'dispute' template. The 'dispute' by ultra nationalist Japanese revisionists is not to be recognised either.
It does not honour the memory or honour yourselves to recognise these racist veiws - you may as well recognise Neo Nazi veiws and call it a day!!
DISGUSTING!! 
(Ansar)    
I removed the picture "Nanjing_ditch" , it is confirmed that the picture was taken in Suzhou蘇州 instead of Nanjing. And this picture first appeared in "The　China　Weekly　Review" whichi says it was taken in Suzhou. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/scene%20j.jpg
:I can't see anything in your source proved it was taken in Suzhou. Caiqian 13:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute template = Disgusting

message: "Basic question. How can you kill 300,000 people in a city of 200,000 that increased to 250,000 right after the killing suposed to take place?"
:According to census reports before war broke out, there are exceeded 1 million people lived in Nanjing in 1937. During the japanese occupation, there are at least half a millon longterm residents, plus 90,000 Chinese soldiers and tens of thousands of migrants. Caiqian 06:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad naseum indeed. See . Mandel 08:31, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Japan free speech my arse. This is an excerpt from another website:
"In a 1999 interview with salon.com, Chang noted: "Japanese extremists have used lawsuits, death threats and even physical intimidation to silence their opponents. Just this year, a fanatic with a baseball bat trashed the offices of a Japanese publisher who printed the diary of a Japanese veteran of the Nanking massacre. Also, when a Chinese feature film on the Rape of Nanking was shown in Japanese theaters a few months ago, right-wingers harassed theater owners, slashed up movie screens with knives and even smashed a loudspeaker truck through theater gates. In Germany, Holocaust deniers have no significant voice, and they remain on the fringes of society. But in Japan, those who deny the existence of the Nanking massacre often occupy leading positions in government, business and academia. For instance, I find it extremely disturbing that the newly elected governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, is an outspoken revisionist of World War II history. He told Playboy magazine back in 1990 that the Rape of Nanking was a "lie" and "a story made up by the Chinese." He's enormously popular in Japan, and he won the election by a landslide. Last summer, Kunihiko Saito, the Japanese ambassador to the U.S., made headlines when he attacked my book as "inaccurate" and "one-sided" -- though he couldn't come up with one good example to support his allegations, even when grilled by reporters. People were pretty shocked by his comments, because they were made not by some notorious ultranationalist fanatic but by a major Japanese government official -- indeed, the top official representative of the Japanese government in the U.S. And many people spoke up and criticized him for it. The People's Republic of China, my American publisher (Basic Books) and human rights groups like the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of World War II in Asia all wrote letters protesting the ambassador's statements."
--24.42.88.192 04:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuzzy Math

message: CoolCat,
Despite your claims to be "unbiased," you clearly are.
- The term historians isn't "abused." Find me a topic where you can't dig up some historians who disagree. 
- I agree with you that a picture of a dead naked woman should probably be less conspicuous.
- But charging that they aren't authentic? I'm been interested in this topic for quite awhile and i'll be the first to admit that we are not 100% certain that those pictures are authentic. But do you realize that no historic picture can meet that standard? I've heard claims (with backing) that the pictures of concentration camps are staged; and dead bodies of holocaust victims are really German POWs starved to death by the British and Americans. Do you know when I hear the claims made? When I am debating with neo-nazis and holocaust deniers. Likewise, guess where I hear claims that Nanking pictures are all fake and are really executed Chinese criminals? The bottom line is these pictures are conventionally believed to be genuine. Absent, credible proof that they are false (and when I say credible, I mean by real historians and not by right-wing PRC or right-wing Japanese nationalist historians), I don't see why they should be omitted.
- There are opposing view points in to the fact that Nanking was an atrocity committed by the Japanese. There are also opposing view points that the Holocaust was an atrocity committed by the Nazis. Sure, they warrant mention and discussion. BUT... does there existence somehow demote the historic truth of the Nanking massacre?
- I agreed lots and lots of work needs to be done. But you have to realize something. Unlike, Holocaust denial, revisionism and denial of wartime atrocities is more mainstream in Japanese society. The Nanking Massacre Tribunal, historians, and the international community already agree that there was such an event as the Nanking massacre and various facts related to it. Our decision is whether we side with the tribunal who reviewed the evidence, the internaitonal community, and historians, or do we bend to revisionists and deniers. You seem to have made your decision. Stop trying to give an air of impartiality.
Coolcat: your partiality has been impugned. Do us all a favour and withdraw from this. Otherwise, this article is as good as dead. I respect your attempts to "mediate" and you may think you are "unbiased" but this is not how you are being perceived (and no, i'm not Chinese or a awashed with Chinese propaganda). So please, for the sake of history, stay out of this and let these fine other fine ladies and gentleman do their work. -Unsigned
:Whoever you are please sign your work. I am unbiassed regarding this. I know nothing regading it. Now, there is no such thing as fake historians. You may not agree with their "retorical" ideas but wikipedia requires them to be present. I am not disputing Najings "truths". Now the Holocaust is not contraversial. No goverment including Germany is denying them. Japan does not acknowlege this as a massacre, I presume. Please read [[WP:NPOV] if you dont see what I am doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: CoolCat

message: This is a suggested mediation procedure.
====Method====
# Initial assessment.  Complete... 
# Assessment 
# Neutralisation
# Edit
# Feedback -- if good go to step 6, otherwise, to step 2
# Final clean up
----
During all discussion a civil tone should be maintained.  The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy should be respected, with no insults or accusations.  I will not be making any edits to the article on my own aside from spelling and grammar.  We will start this from scratch, meaning all past hostilities will be forgotten.  Please provide your arguments in bullet format and sign each. In order not to get involved in a "revert war", allow me to make the changes based on what we agree here.  I will stay neutral in the article itself.
* <-- Bullet.
Please, refrain from "you are wrong, we are right"-type arguments: use a more productive "I see your point, but this is what I think, how about rephrasing it as...".  Insisting on a single, unaltered version does not help.
Please say what, in your opinion, is POV or what isn't factual in the article in the format below:
=====Categories=====
Argument (italic non indented)
* View Pro Argument (bullet with no indenting)
:* View Against Argument (bullet with one indenting)
::* View neither for nor against (bullet with two indenting)
* Consensus (Bold, italic non indented text)
=====Colours=====
This is how it appears in the article:
This is a randomly generated string.
This is how I recommend suggesting a change in article:
*This is a randomly generated string. (material to be removed red in color string)
*This is a randomly generated text. (material to be removed green in color string)
----
While you are not obligated to use this format, for the sake of clarity I highly recommend it.
=====...=====
Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --Cool Cat My Talk 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --AussieSoldier 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: AussieSoldier to fix "According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..." words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets get started

message: # Initial assessment.  Complete... 
# Assessment 
# Neutralisation
# Edit
# Feedback -- if good go to step 6, otherwise, to step 2
# Final clean up
----
During all discussion a civil tone should be maintained.  The Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy should be respected, with no insults or accusations.  I will not be making any edits to the article on my own aside from spelling and grammar.  We will start this from scratch, meaning all past hostilities will be forgotten.  Please provide your arguments in bullet format and sign each. In order not to get involved in a "revert war", allow me to make the changes based on what we agree here.  I will stay neutral in the article itself.
* <-- Bullet.
Please, refrain from "you are wrong, we are right"-type arguments: use a more productive "I see your point, but this is what I think, how about rephrasing it as...".  Insisting on a single, unaltered version does not help.
Please say what, in your opinion, is POV or what isn't factual in the article in the format below:
=====Categories=====
Argument (italic non indented)
* View Pro Argument (bullet with no indenting)
:* View Against Argument (bullet with one indenting)
::* View neither for nor against (bullet with two indenting)
* Consensus (Bold, italic non indented text)
=====Colours=====
This is how it appears in the article:
This is a randomly generated string.
This is how I recommend suggesting a change in article:
*This is a randomly generated string. (material to be removed red in color string)
*This is a randomly generated text. (material to be removed green in color string)
----
While you are not obligated to use this format, for the sake of clarity I highly recommend it.
=====...=====
Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --Cool Cat My Talk 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --AussieSoldier 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: AussieSoldier to fix "According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..." words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Method

message: Since article needs NPOVisation lets get started. I made minor modifications to the article. Please read the actual change before touching it. I spent a lot of time, please read the change. You are welcome to fix parts you dont agree. I will not modify the article further untill we agree --Cool Cat My Talk 07:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Coolcat has used the 'burned' / 'set on fire' change as an example only to show the format he suggests - it is not to be taken as an example of neutralising content. --AussieSoldier 08:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Stereotek you cant tell what is clear propoganda and what is not. An explanation why Chineese lost a war does not contribute to this material. It was an example dude, I wasnt suggesting it. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: "Japanese Atrocities" is accusing Japan of atrocities, while the incident may be atrocities, that is not a NPOV word. Both sides agree there was something going on in Nanjing, that was a NPOV word I came up with, you are welcome to make suggestions. I wont be going into a revert war with Stereotek --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Article is not in good shape I agree. I do not think Stereotek know what he is doing. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: AussieSoldier to fix "According to historians...", "It is believed that...", "It is as well said...", "It is considered that...", "According to the testimonies...", "It is even believed that..." words, the only way I can think of is providing a set of reputable sources. I need those in Extarnal Links so we can talk about things in a different way. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not understand why people are removing the POV tag. There is POV in the article. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: I do not agree with having two pages. Its not proper wiki practice, I also think usage of smaller images, same size as The Holocaust. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One page is preferred - I agree. --AussieSoldier 12:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I got a scare after I returned to this topic after days.  A revert war has started, the talk page has been a complete mess, and the amount of pointless drivel here in the past few days make me seem as if I ended in a forum page.  What happened, and can you people exercise some restrain. Mandel 16:11, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
: It seems that there was an machine error. See the Duplication section. --Gerryben 16:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What a mess

message: SIXTY years ago, Albert Cleary at last found comfort in the arms of his mates.
They took his filthy, battered and tormented body, washed it in a creek and cradled him until he died. 
His death ended 11 (perhaps 12) days of brutality during which the 22-year-old Australian had his hands tied high up behind his back and was made to kneel with a log tied behind his knees. 
He was systematically kicked and beaten by guards; one held his head while the other repeatedly punched him in the throat. 
To add to his agony, guards jumped on the log behind his knees and, every half-hour, forced him to stand, causing excruciating pain as the blood returned to his lower legs. 
They beat Cleary with rifle butts, sticks and anything else that was handy. 
They chained him to a tree, tortured him, humiliated him, starved him, beat him, spat on him and even urinated on him. When death was near they threw him into a ditch. 
The young gunner's sin was to try to escape the hell that was Borneo near the end of World War II. 
A cairn under a spreading tree on the outskirts of Ranau, an untidy and undistinguished town in the centre of Sabah, marks his martyrdom and the end of what has become known as the Sandakan Death March, Australia's Via Dolorosa. 
Death March is a brutally evocative and accurate description of what happened but it reduces to one dramatic event – a campaign of murder that was the worst atrocity committed against Australians, and probably the least known. 
At various times, about 2700 allied soldiers – most captured in Singapore – were held at Sandakan, on the northeast coast of what was then known as British North Borneo. 
A steady toll of death and transfers meant that by January 1945, there were 1787 Australians and 641 British still in the camp. 
By August all but six who escaped into the jungles were dead. 
The rest were starved, condemned to death by disease and neglect, shot, bludgeoned, bayoneted and even crucified in a catalogue of purgatory that lasted three years. 
They died at Sandakan, where they were brought in 1942 to labour on a military airfield, they died in a series of three marches through 260km of jungle, and they died at Ranau as the Japanese tried to complete a mission of annihilation and to silence the witnesses to their depravity. 
The depth of their suffering can be judged by the fact that one of the escapees heard Chaplain Harold Wardale-Greenwood lament: "There cannot be a God, there just cannot be a God for men to suffer and be treated like this." 
Seemingly forsaken by God, they were also forsaken by the top brass of the Australian Army who failed to rescue them. 
General Sir Thomas Blamey tried to blame American General Douglas MacArthur for refusing the aerial support but the evidence points at Blamey's ineptitude and idleness. 
Sandakan is story of extermination difficult to compile, more difficult to understand, despite the testimony of six escapees and their native helpers, the Borneo resistance, and the efforts of authors Lynette Silver (Sandakan: A Conspiracy of Silence) and Don Wall (Sandakan: The Last March) and Fevered, Laden, Starved (www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat/sandakan/index.htm). 
It is a horror confused by the murder of witnesses, the destruction of records, the duplicity and lies of the Japanese who razed the camps and tried to expunge their deeds, and the relentless march of the tropical jungle. 
However, we know the first Australian died at Sandakan on July 30, 1942. 
The last was beheaded on August 15, 1945, the day Japan surrendered. 
At Ranau, in the foothills of Mt Kinabalu, the last 15 prisoners were massacred on August 27, when the world had officially been at peace for almost a fortnight. 
It was a campaign of torment, torture and murder driven by sadism, the insanity of the Japanese wartime code of bushido, and officially sanctioned by the highest authority. 
After the war eight Japanese were hanged as war criminals and another 55 imprisoned, events little noted in Australia and little publicised by an army that had failed to rescue its own men. 
Between 1945 and 1947, searches of the Sandakan site, Ranau, and along the jungle track found the personal relics and remains of more than 2163 POWs, most of whom were unidentified. 
The remains of another 265 who are known to have been at Sandakan in early January 1945 were never found.
----
: above post, by AussieSoldier (diff) restored by Davenbelle; User:Coolcat: Do not delete talk posted by others. — Davenbelle 10:45, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
: User:Coolcat deleted this post again. Please do not delete or edit text posted by others on talk pages; restored by Davenbelle 08:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: I think the deletion of the posted article was unwarranted. But I think AussieSoldier would've gotten his point across better if he/she cited the title and author for the article and/or give a link to where it was found. --Kvasir 13:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do side with the fact that sadism was a military practice in the Japanese Imperial Army, I don't think it's particularly NPOV to mention it in every instance as an added adjective to describe them. The sadistic nature is worth discussion in the "Causes" section of the article, however. In a Holocaust article, German civilian and the Nazi army are not described as "anti-semetic" and "racist" every instance. The same should go here. --Kvasir 13:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: documentation - sadism

message: You can work on Nanjing Massacre/temp while the article stays locked. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You dont need to ask me to listen to you. I am all ears all the time. I am not taking sides however. Material you have provided supports your case. Thats good. I wont acknowlege anything as facts or lies. I however need verifiable sources, Australian War memorial is one. I prefer a link to an australian goverment side so we can put that in the article. Japaneese dont see their action as "sadistic", I presume so thats a POV. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: While the article is locked

message: Do we all honestly think that we can untangle 60 years of unresolved dispute through a Wiki article? Accounts by witnesses of the crime didn't matter, nor did the cover up succeed. --Kvasir 22:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Food for Thought

message: I guess you wont be satisifed untill all japaneese are openly declared sadistic and all their arguments never been mentioned. You will have to deal with  tag, other opinion is to chill. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you refering to in "You"? I was referred to this heading in your reply, so I assume you meant me. For your information I have just entered this discussion and I don't know why you are treating everyone like they are your enemy and taking every opportunity to vent at people. --Kvasir 02:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're too predictable... quit this game please. Do you realise that you're playing with Wikipedias integrity just by doing the same thing you've been doing on the Armenian genocide entry, so that people stop suspecting you? The next time, read psychology books, to play a better "role." Fadix 16:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: You are making this very difficult

message: This talk page is here for the purpose of writing this article. If anyone wants to start a debate on various aspects of Japanese culture, there are many Chinese and Korean political forums I can refer you to.
I have already written an alternate intro above. CoolCat: why do you not agree with it? Sorry if you've went over this before -- let's start afresh. -- ran (talk) 02:52, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:Ran - It is highly pertinent to the writing of the article to discuss culture - other massacres by Japan soldiers have been documented, and it is established that a sadistic element in culture is reason for such pleasure in horror - accounts of laughter as soldiers were tortured for example. 
:The culture of Japan is pertinent to elucidate the reason for the horror in the Nanjing massacre. 
:The culture of Germany is also pertinent in the Holocaust discussion - on two levels - how a dictator came to power, and how ordinary people could commit such genocide - 'systematic' has come up a lot. --AussieSoldier 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to the topic

message: :see: Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines; "Start with a second-level heading (==); do not use first-level headings (=)."
User:Coolcat has repeatedly adjusted the section levels of this talk page (and others) so that sections posted by him are first level headings which makes the posts of other users (who use the default second-level) subordinate to his "Lets get started" 'mediation' impertinence. This refactoring of talk pages is against policy and should be especially unwelcome here as I see no indication from other participants on this talk page that he has been accepted as any sort of mediator. I, for one, do not accept that he has any right to dictate the format of the discussion here. In his edit he asserts that he has done this for a reason, but does not give his reason. If he has a reason other than manipulation of the hierarchy of posts in the table of contents of this page in order to imply a structure of his choosing and an authority he merely presumes, he is welcome to post it. — Davenbelle 08:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly think there is an agenda here. "Who died and made him boss?" as the proverbial expression goes. He said he appointed himself as the mediator yet his POV sides with the minority that denies the existence of the event. If this is not dictatorship I don't know what is. --Kvasir 13:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Levels

message: How about:
:The Nanjing Massacre (Chinese: 南京大屠杀, pinyin: Nánjīng Dàtúshā; Japanese: 南京大虐殺, Nankin Dai Gyaku-satsu), also known as the Rape of Nanking and sometimes, in Japan, as the Nanjing Incident (南京事件, Nankin Jiken), refers to atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army in and around Nanjing, China after the city's fall to Japanese troops on 13 December 1937 in the Battle of Nanjing during the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) (later to become a part of World War II). The atrocities include looting, rape, and the killing of civilians and prisoners of war.  The event and the actual extent of the misconduct are highly controversial, remaining a point of diplomatic dispute between China and Japan.
:In China, the event is a major focal point of Chinese nationalism.  In Japan, consensus among the public about the event is divided, with some sentiment, especially among comservatives, that the Nanjing Massacre has been exaggerated (if not fabricated) as a diplomatic weapon directed against Japan. Such opinions are considered by in China as historical revisionism, and as such they continue to stir anger and resentment.
First of all - I think that the word 'atrocity' has to be included in that first paragraph.  We may debate the actual death toll or the source of pictures - and yes, the Chinese government isn't the most trustworthy source of information - but there's been plenty of independent testimony to confirm that atrocities did, in fact, occur.
Secondly - the death toll figures can be talked about in detail in the section that we've set up for it.  Since there is no real consensus on the figures, I don't see us as putting them into the introductory paragraphs.
While I disagree with CoolCat that Ran's original second paragraph was accusatory, I agree with that there's a tone of generalization when talking about the Chinese and Japanese.  Does anyone have any way to beef up the language with facts?  Otherwise, I recommend we finish editing soon - and move onto teh rest of the article.  A good way of doing that would be to debate CoolCat rationally, which I believe far too many of us are failing to do.    --Rroser167 16:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's make some progress, shall we?

message: This building was mentioned in the article. Could someone add where this building is located? (at least the country, maybe even the city...) —Tokek 09:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking it's not in the suburban area of Nanjing. It's right beside the original city wall. The address is 418 Shuiximen Dajie, Nanjing.
Colinoncayuga 03:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Memorial Hall for Compatriot Victims of the Japanese Military's Nanjing Massacre

message: Hello, I have been working on Iris Chang discussion. Ran proposed me to join the discussion here. I am an Irish Japanese electrical engineer living in the United States.
As the first contribution to this article, I point it out that the third picture is not a part of Nanking Massacre. Carefully watch the picture, and you will find out those bodies are soldiers of Chinese Nationalist Government Army.
One thing I'm disgusted with Nanking Massacre discussions(I'm not talking about this particular discussion) because people who support the incident ignores any proofs they do not favor. Princeton University is one of the leading university in the U.S., but they use pictures widely known as fabricated. (a baby sitting on the railroad is from Shanghai and trimmed not to allow us to see the parents were next to the baby; this fabrication is very malicious crime) I believe this is because they are "anti-Japan" groups and not interested in the truth. I and Ran are discussing about Chang was supported by "anti-Japan" groups or "plain" groups, by the way.--Flowerofchivalry 06:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: -Hmib 00:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iris Chang

message: I would like to suggest, as others have before, that we change the title to NanJing Massacre. Nanjing was known as Nanjing at the time to Chinese people. Foreigners called it Nanking. When we talk about Beijing during the war, we call it Beijing - not Peking. Also, just because people have heard of Nanking more than Nanjing does not mean we should further this misunderstanding. Let's educate others. John Smith's (talk) 16:50, 24th June, 2005 (DST)
: I agree with you. The title was once Nanjing Massacre and I think that should be the main title of this article.CW32 3 July 2005 14:48 (UTC)
: Before you go about changing it, why was the title changed in the first place?
:: For a couple of reasons, I disagree with the suggested renaming. For one, the whole Gdansk naming fiasco left us with the general guideline that when discussing historical events, placenames used should be those used at the time (so that, e.g., articles about events during the Tokugawa Shogunate would use the name "Edo", not "Tokyo"). The fact that in this case it's the English transliteration, not the native-language name, that changed doesn't affect this - it was known in the English-speaking world as Nanking at the time. Second, historically, this was known as the "Nanking Massacre", and again, the precedent (from Black Hole of Calcutta) is that events which have become widely known in English under one version of the name of the place where they happened keep that name, even if another version of the name of the place comes into common use (Kolkata in this case). Noel (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I am new to this page (and to Wikipedia), but decided to apply my editorial skills to the second paragraph, just as a test.  Perhaps you all would benefit from a new, more neutral perspective.
Clearly this is a controversial topic.  However, I think if you consider all the evidence, weigh all the opinions of scholars knowledgeable about this topic, and drop a plumb line through them, you'd come up with the conclusion that the Nanking Massacre did in fact occur, and that the Imperial Japanese army did commit numerous atrocities against civilians.  This is not like the Roswell incident where opinion is more divided.  A sizeable majority of historians agree that the rapes and murders attributed to the Imperial Japanese army did in fact occur and were in fact committed by said army.  Therefore, I do not see such a perspective as violating NPOV, so long as it remains confined to the Nanking Massacre (i.e., an extrapolation to say that Japanese are inherently evil or imperialist would be out of bounds).
So that we error on the side of NPOV, I see nothing wrong with including a section containing the perspective held by many Japanese that the Nanking Massacre was faked and/or trumped up, so long as we make clear to the reader that is a minority POV and out of sync with scholarly consensus on this subject.
Just my $0.02 worth...
BenjaS 04:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the very mob rule nature of wikipedia, added to the fact that most people are apathetic, compounded by the sad state of humanity, we're having trouble protecting this (and other) pages from a deluge of the holocaust-deniers' POV as it is. --Miborovsky  05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, I'm not apathetic and I have a block button for those who vandalise this page. (I just might be a bit slow as there are other duties to attend to). Sasquatcht|c 03:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear that. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Fresh Air?

message: does
:Two Japanese sublieutenants, Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi said to be competing with each other to see who could kill one hundred Chinese first. The bold headline said, "Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword Extended When Both Fighters Exceed Mark--Mukai Scores 106 and Noda 105"
warrant its own article? in light of this ruling? Nateji77 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, go for it, though it'll soon become another battleground. -- Miborovsky U|T|C|E 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: any thoughts for a concise title? Nateji77 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: comments on Talk:Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword. Nateji77 08:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But why not? I think this deserves more attention than, say, a Simpsons episode... -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because a lot of the article will be largely speculative and as such, will skirt POV. Most of what can be written about it is here already. But since it's here already, let's see how it will turn out.Mandel 09:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: killing contest

message: You may vote for more than one. Please sign using . If possible, please explain why you chose what you chose. This is to prevent sockpuppetry and/or editors with vested interest in seeing this photo gone and no intent to improve this article.
=====Remove this photo altogether=====
Support:
# -No data about the photo. The only thing we know is 'Some people in princeton show the photo as "Nanking-related". Checking whether the photo is really related to the 'event' or not, must be the stating point for using in a history page. I think, the identity of the photo is also the topic here. Poo-T 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, OK. My bad for making a not-very-good poll. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to making a vote again, you should make 3 or 4 options to select instead of 'Support'-'Oppose'Poo-T 03:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there were 4 options, which you could choose to either support or oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But different contents. The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first. So these photos should be approached at separately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think, separate but simultaneous voting would be the best. Do you have another idea?Poo-T 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself do not think it necessary to put the second one on vote. We have already discussed the first photo at length (as reproduced above) so we could immediately get down to voting, but not the second one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second one should be put on vote. According to the China Weekly Review page 262 of October 22, 1938, it was photographed in Hsuchow (Xuzhou, 徐州). I have put a phtocopy of the page at the following url: http://hist1937.hp.infoseek.co.jp/CWR/CWR381022m.jpg "Death as far as the eye can see. (Upper left) A Japanese officer surveys the results of brutal butchery of Chinese civilians by Nipponese troops at Hsuchow." --Watanabe Hisashi 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK. This page attracts so many people(although Chinese government tries blocking Wikipedia :P) ), and they want to place many photos without origin. Everytime, Everytime, we must discuss, vote, again and again, for each photo. After that, someone put a photo again. Sigh... Now, It's time to make a vote about a rule that 'In this page, "groundless Photo, not supported by data" should be removed without voting'. You don't want to make a vote about the 2nd, and You do the 1st vote. That's OK. I want to make a vote about the rule written above. Support or oppose? Poo-T 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, of course. Arbitrarily letting you decide what to keep and what to delete is ludicrous. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: With the same reason, I put the vote about the 2nd photo. -'The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first.'- It is also your arbitrary opinion. Dont you think so? Poo-T 15:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We are only interested in voting for or against the inclusion of one particular photo.  Mandel 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea.  00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: So, Close the discussion, and let's start the voting about the 1st photo again. You are interested in votigg about the 1st photo. I make a separate areas, voting about the 2nd page, and rule to upload photos related to the page. Of course you can join the discussions. Poo-T 02:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid we are not talking about the same thing here. You guys want to delete both photos because you think they're unrealiable. We want to remove one of the photos from the page because we think it's inappropriate for a variety of reasons as explained above. Until we can agree on why there should be a vote, there shouldn't be one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes (Suspended)

message: Support:
# -No data about the photo. The only thing we know is 'Some people in princeton show the photo as "Nanking-related". Checking whether the photo is really related to the 'event' or not, must be the stating point for using in a history page. I think, the identity of the photo is also the topic here. Poo-T 03:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove this photo altogether

message: Support:
#-If it means, to make a page without such kind of "related"-Photos, intead of the page, I agree. The page would be apart from unproductive debate about the data of the photos. If someone want to create two separate-Wikipage, I disagree. The reason is same with Mandel's. Poo-T 03:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Retain this page, then create a [[Nanking Massacre (no explicit graphics)]] or similar page and on it remove this and all explicit photos

message: Support:
# - This photo will help readers, causing embarrassed should not be a problem here. What we should look is whether wikipedia rules permit this kind of photo or not. Otherwise, people can remove all the photos using these personal excusses. 
#
#- Possibly a sockpuppet account of another user (0 edit before vote).
# - Straight way to help readers to see what's really happened.      Another possible sockpuppet (1 edit before vote).
#图片是真实的，可以帮助人们了解事实真相，请保留。Iridiumcao 06:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leave as is (with picture included)

message: #Suggest other options.
Um, can I say this voting procedure is flawed...we shouldn't be allowed to vote more than once!  Now we have people voting once, twice, thrice, so there're conflicts at vote counts.  You shouldn't be allowed to vote both for and against a solution...there're people like Brisston who oppose to removing the photo, then vote again to remove the photo with a URL link...I suggest a revote. We'll make the choices simplier and people can only choose one out of a possible three or four solutions. Opinions? Mandel 13:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, OK. My bad for making a not-very-good poll. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to making a vote again, you should make 3 or 4 options to select instead of 'Support'-'Oppose'Poo-T 03:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there were 4 options, which you could choose to either support or oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: But different contents. The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first. So these photos should be approached at separately. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think, separate but simultaneous voting would be the best. Do you have another idea?Poo-T 07:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself do not think it necessary to put the second one on vote. We have already discussed the first photo at length (as reproduced above) so we could immediately get down to voting, but not the second one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the second one should be put on vote. According to the China Weekly Review page 262 of October 22, 1938, it was photographed in Hsuchow (Xuzhou, 徐州). I have put a phtocopy of the page at the following url: http://hist1937.hp.infoseek.co.jp/CWR/CWR381022m.jpg "Death as far as the eye can see. (Upper left) A Japanese officer surveys the results of brutal butchery of Chinese civilians by Nipponese troops at Hsuchow." --Watanabe Hisashi 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK. This page attracts so many people(although Chinese government tries blocking Wikipedia :P) ), and they want to place many photos without origin. Everytime, Everytime, we must discuss, vote, again and again, for each photo. After that, someone put a photo again. Sigh... Now, It's time to make a vote about a rule that 'In this page, "groundless Photo, not supported by data" should be removed without voting'. You don't want to make a vote about the 2nd, and You do the 1st vote. That's OK. I want to make a vote about the rule written above. Support or oppose? Poo-T 08:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, of course. Arbitrarily letting you decide what to keep and what to delete is ludicrous. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: With the same reason, I put the vote about the 2nd photo. -'The second photo is nowhere as obscene and shocking as the first.'- It is also your arbitrary opinion. Dont you think so? Poo-T 15:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We are only interested in voting for or against the inclusion of one particular photo.  Mandel 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea.  00:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: So, Close the discussion, and let's start the voting about the 1st photo again. You are interested in votigg about the 1st photo. I make a separate areas, voting about the 2nd page, and rule to upload photos related to the page. Of course you can join the discussions. Poo-T 02:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid we are not talking about the same thing here. You guys want to delete both photos because you think they're unrealiable. We want to remove one of the photos from the page because we think it's inappropriate for a variety of reasons as explained above. Until we can agree on why there should be a vote, there shouldn't be one. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other?

message: What kind of photographs, other than explicit bodies of victim, can be used in this article? There used to be a Nanking Memorial Hall photo, what happened to it? Mandel 16:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Photographs

message: As the history of the page is, someone put a awful photo without origin, and have to discuss for a month, after that, begin voting to delete or not. Again and again. I offer to make a rule about photos in this page.  
      Photo must be presented with data -who took the photo -when and where it was taken -first appearance source 
I think the rule has no risk of arbitrary administration. If you don't think so, please write your opinion.Poo-T 02:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not voting whether to delete. We are voting whether to put a certain photo on this page. Therefore, strong oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 03:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you expect a japanese imperial soldier who took a photograph of atrocities committed by his fellow countrymen during war time in the 1940s, to have the state of mind to label the photo meticulously and signed his autograph ? Do you think the japanese soldier was writing a travelogue or something, and when WWII ends, this photographer would proudly stand up and say, "Hey i took this amazing pictures, give me the Pulitzer Prize." Any reasonable person would understand that photos of this nature, are likely to have no record of the photographer nor the exact time and place where it is taken. Having said that, I do agree that stating the first appearance is desirable, and I wonder if Princeton or other publications have this information. Nonetheless this is not a reason to question the photo because reliable institutions do attribute these photos as related to Nanjing Massacre; and other evidences have collaborated that the atrocities depicted in the pictures did in fact took place. --Vsion 04:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the copyright of :Image:Body_everywhere.jpg? Do you think the photo is not enough for the Wikipedia page, and need many unknown origin photos? If so, could you write the reason? Reliable institution? Do you think it "arbitrary free"? Why text description of debates about the Nanking is not enough for you?Poo-T 06:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not answered a single one of his questions. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: To be frank, the source of these photographs are self-evident. It is obvious that these photos were taken during the Sino-Japanese War depicting wide-ranging atrocities by the Imperial Japanese Army against civilians, and numerous crimes against humanity. It is also quite obvious, from the images, that most of the pictures were taken by japanese soldiers. --Vsion 08:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your pov, not npov. It's not like the Chinese have not commited any crimes during the same period. Besides we are discussing whether the photos are of a particular event of WWII called "Nanking Massacre" or not. We are not talking about any generic atrocities.  08:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is terrible, all the more reasons why we need to study History and know the truth to understand the horror of war. And so now what, soldiers are required to take pictures of any specific atrocities they commit at every location, and label them properly with time stamp, coordinates, and Human ID, etc.  right? They didn't have camera phones at that time, please. Again, the picture is not interpreted in isolation. There are many pictures, and many testimony and survivors have validate them. Did you read the last sentence in the link you gave? It said: "too many have forgotten what happened in China". If Chinese soldiers committed any crimes, then present it, but please don't suppress what is relevant here. Did you read how Tom Simmen, a non-Asian, was so disturbed that he kept the pictures in silence for 59 years? Do you honestly expect the Japanese photographers or their descendents to reveal their identities? As I said, I agreed that there should be more info, on how the picture originate, but this is not a criteria for removal. If you want, you can add a comment at the caption about "unknown photographer", etc. --Vsion 11:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "relevance" is to be determined by the accompanying information of the photographs. Accompanying information includes information about the above mentioned facts about the photos. And like I said, if you cannot supply info on the exact date or the location of a photo or the name of the photographer, then you could instead supply some other supplementary evidence to prove that it is indeed a photo of the Nanking Massacre. If this is not fair enough a rule, I don't know what is. How else do you intend to determine the "relevance" anyway? It's only natural that photographic images are held to the same standard of credibility as text descriptions, quotes, stats, and the rest of materials included in Wikipedia articles. It doesn't matter if the Japanese soldiers were not "required to take pictures of any specific atrocities they commit at every location" or not. If no credible photographic materials were available, then no usable photos are available. It's not like you cannot write an article on the Nanking Massacre without photos -- There are tons of good articles on events that happened much earlier than the invention of photography. Anyway, I'm sure that there exist well-identified photos of the Nanking Massacre. There should be plenty of books on the Nanking Massacre written by authoritative historians in your local library, some of which most definitely contain some photographs. You only need to find them. Or you could go find the primary sources of the existing two photos that are being discussed right now.  12:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please answer my questions about Mr Ardennes and its accompanying information. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We see, we all agree that only relevant photos should be in the article, right? So why are you demanding additional conditions?  The main criteria is relevance, and that's enough. Why are the photos relevant? As far as I know, without further research, these photos are in websites describing the Nanjing massacre, and these websites are either in university or the official chinese news media, so these are institutions with reputation and responsibility. These are not random gruelsome pictures  from the Internet. Yes, I can go to the library to find out more, when I have the time later. But right now, the photos are relevant, even without the photographer's autograph. In fact, the image description pages already cited the source of the image (princeton.edu). What's the problem? It has satisfied the "standard of credibility" used in wikipedia for this purpose. If you disagree, I think you should propose this as a new wikipedia policy accordingly. --Vsion 02:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Websites in university" or "official chinese news media" or what not, you need to provide more spesific info than that. That the photos are taken from a "fully student-run event" on Nanking massacre at Princeton is just not good enough. For some Chinese student activists at Princeton are practically nobodies. If you found the same photo images on other more credible peer-reviewed publications, preferably ones written by authoritative historians on the subject, then cite them and the images could stay just fine. Remember what Mandel said earlier: "We don't know who took the photograph. We don't know for sure when it is taken. It could be outside Nanjing. Again, if you need me to tell you these info before the photo is convincing, then the photo's very reliability is called into question. This is the very same ammunition Nanking deniers used to attack Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (book). We have many other reliable evidence and proofs like telegrams, diary passages to use, so we shouldn't leave ourselves open to such assaults."  02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you propose this as a new wikipedia policy accordingly, thanks. --Vsion 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I did say that; however, I didn't mean no photos should be used here at all. Mandel 03:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you want sourced photos, John Magee made a 16mm film of which some of the photos of very badly injured can be used. Mandel 04:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule before uploading photos

message: This article is seriously biased, hardly fits into any definition of neutrality. Needs lots of work to be fixed.
:Moving your comment to the bottom where it will be seen. You could start by stating more specific things. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 02:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:MajorG]]

message: This article badly needs a brief timeline of the *prosecution* of these war crimes, and a better description of how the news reached *the rest of the world* (perhaps with an overview of the role of new media, like telegraphs, etc. As it is, the section on the propagation of news of the massacre mainly concentrates on its role in 'hardening the hearts of Americans'. Americans are not the rest of the world, and Nanking was a crime against Humanity, and more specifically, the Chinese, not against Americans. ---Sigma-6 19:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International Fallout

message: I wonder why some people remove  and . Isn't it evident that the factual accuracy and the neutrality of this article are disputed here? Or do I misunderstand the usage of those templates? --nachi 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Pictures don't lie --User:154.5.46.40
:The Chicom propaganda machine is widely known as the master of doctoring photos. --217.91.70.55 03:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures don't lie