Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

message: # Hong Qi Gong's claim that adding a mere two paragraphs to the article will disqualify it from future FA status just because of its length is ridiculous when there are many featured articles that are longer than this (e.g. Japan, Arrested Development).
# This is an article about a book and not about a historical fact. Criticism is only a natural content of articles on books. Moreover, this is a controversial book. Like every other article on a controversial book such as the Bell Curve and Michael Moore's works, it's only natural that it has a long criticism section. The sections "Research" and "The book" already describe Chang's point of view in great length. The size of these two sections plus the section "Responding to criticism" is way bigger than that of the criticism section. In fact, the criticism section should be expanded and split into subsections by the topics of criticisms rather than the names of critics.
# The criticisms by David M. Kennedy and Sonni Efron that I added in my edit are well-sourced and noteworthy. They address new issues that are not mentioned by the ones existing in the old version of the article. Flat rejection of them in their entirety is uncalled-for.
# Even if Kennedy and Efron address some same issues that are already mentioned by other critics in the article, that they address those issues also is still a noteworthy fact because it shows the very significance of the issues. That many critics are making an issue out of the same point shows the greater significance of the point than only one critic questioning it. Wikipedia:Notability states that "multiple sources are generally preferred."  At the least the criticisms by Kennedy and Efron should be incorporated into the article partially if not in their entirety; or just the citation of their criticisms may be footnoted in the relevant section of the article. In either way, flat rejection is not acceptable.
# While Kennedy and Efron are addressing the same issue of factual inaccuracy, for example, they are not pointing out the inaccuracy of exact same parts of the book as other critics. What's important is not just the general inaccuracy of the book, but the inaccuracy of the specific claims that Chang is making in the book. She discusses many issues, and each of them is important and noteworthy in its own right. --Saintjust (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break #1

message: I am proposing this article to be delisted due to the currently undergoing content dispute above at #HongQiGong's reverts, 16 December 2007. 
A certain editor is adamantly opposed to the expansion of the criticism section in the name of keeping it pretty for FA nomination, resulting in content dispute. This is a very controversial book that still has much room for expansion. The article has a npov tag on it now (placed by myself). --Saintjust (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GAR was archived here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 33.  GAR is not the place to solve content disputes.  Please keep these discussions on the article talk page.  If you seek additional comment or wish to build consensus, please go to WP:RFC.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]] 

message: Need more info on this. --Saintjust (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese translation of the book just came out in December 2007 

message: What is the point of this - bar a desire to include any criticism one can find:
"Timothy M. Kelly writes that Chang was "less than a polished writer" and that "her editor and proofreaders were negligent in their duties." He provided examples of writing from the book as evidence: Chang wrote, "Another rape victim was found with a golf stick rammed into her" but that, he wrote, "Golfers do colloquially refer to their clubs as 'sticks,' but surely the generic term 'golf club' is called for here or possibly 'the shaft of a golf club'."[43]"
Firstly, this is a criticism of the editorial team, not of the author, but more importantly it is so utterly trivial it makes the "criticism" seem desperate and petty. Thirdly, it is not a "contradiction" (the title of the section in which it appears) Paul B (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Saw the GAR and came over here to offer an observation). I agree with Paul Barlow's observation. While the article should contain criticism, the current version is swamped with trivia critical of the book. Trim it back to make the article encyclopedic. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The golf stick criticism is from the old version of the article that became GA, not from the expanded version of mine. --Saintjust (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your excessively expanded version holds too many trivial contents. --Appletrees (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the criticisms that I added is "trivial." --Saintjust (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Saintjust. You broke the balance as adding "trivial" contents to the article from your sources. Prof. Kennedy's critic is full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism. According to wiki, Mr. Kennedy is specializing in "American history" not in "East Asia" and has his own controversies. Even though his reputation is notable to study of American history, but not to history of East Asia. --Appletrees (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kennedy is a reputable professor of history at Standard whose credibility is far greater than that of Iris Chang or most of other scholars mentioned in the article. Your personal opinion of him doesn't count without reputable sources to back it up. --Saintjust (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You picked especially the "trivial sentences" among his critic along with "petty" subcategories from your own standard, which makes the article "unbalanced". The reputable professor is also a human and if his critic were not worthy to include here, then we can delete his opinion with "consensus".--Appletrees (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like I said, a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor's unsourced, ad hominem attack on a reputable scholar like Kennedy doesn't count. --Saintjust (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you said? when? where? here? You might've mistook your wording to someone somewhere else with your above comment. And yeah, you're making this article with your "ad hominem attack". And I simply point out on the general problems of his critic and your writings--Appletrees (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is that as far as the source of the info on professor Kennedy's criticism being "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism" is a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and nothing else, it doesn't merit consideration. --Saintjust (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is made and operated by the very "pseudonymous Wikipedia editors". You're forgetting Wkipedia spirit? My opinion itself also has amerit to enrich Wikipedia unlike vandals or disruptive editors. I, of course, have my opinion and thought on the "notable professor". So far, you're the only one to insist expanding the criticism section. Interesting. --Appletrees (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not without reputable sources. Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. --Saintjust (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reputation of the professor does not always guarantee the quality of his every writings. Please don't use fallacies like "appeal to authority". I think you should re-read the mentioned the likes. --Appletrees (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pseudonymity of a regular Wikipedia editor will never guarantee the quality of such a loaded judgement of a reputable Stanford history professor's criticism  as that it is "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism." --Saintjust (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A certain Wikipedian with pseudonymous ID also hasn't convinced others here at all because of the user's fallacies. His/her general expanded wording looks "petty" and are not favorable by far. The editor's personal attacking is also in the same vein.--Appletrees (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the only one making an unsourced, ad hominem attack on the Stanford professor as being "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism" here. --Saintjust (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  Thank you.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Golf stick

message: I deeply concern about your lack of logical strategy" like your repeating one sentence several times and confusing personal attacking with my valid criticism on the professor's writing. I haven't attacked the professor unlike you doing this to me. I only "criticize" his credibility on the history of East Asia and the critic. Like I said, he has his own controversies on his critics per "Wikipedia" (of course, sourced). Besides, your selected citations of the professor is to defame the quality of this featured book and author. That is beyond good faith. And the judgement of his criticism is up to many readers like me. --Appletrees (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your criticism of professor Kennedy is that his criticism is "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism."  This is what you wrote yourself right above, in your very second reply in the section. You also mentioned Kennedy's "bias" in the edit summary of : "The source is biased, so the whole citation by Kennedy can be deleted." This is the very first comment that you made on Kennedy. This is an unsourced, ad hominem attack on Kennedy, that could very well be in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. --Saintjust (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a thoughtful editor you are. You don't need to bother yourself searching the link over the jungle. I need to paste his several comments here from the web text. I'm really curious as to why you missed to put the link in the cite template which is easily found and accessible by googling. By the way, your ad hominem attack on me is certainly inexcusable and please stop doing disruptive behaviors. We're here to build up Wikipedia in a constructive way. I get you are not "happy" about the article's GA status. My comment on the edit summary was to initiate a rebuttal against your unilateral expansion. You need to be more patient of other people following your "so-call improvement". My criticism on the professor is not violating anything but is like the all criticisms against our author here.--Appletrees (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your criticism of professor Kennedy is an unfounded, ad hominem attack. Either provide reliable sources to back up your criticism or it's not worth consideration. Any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in WP:V, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (cf. WP:NOR) are unacceptable on Wikipedia. This applies to user and talk pages also. Please be careful. --Saintjust (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your bare assertion fallacy doesn't prove your theory that I made a personal attack on the professor. But your certainly made ad hominem attack on me. Your comments resorting to the fallacy of appealing to authority are also "unsourced" and "unconfirmed" except you. And you're acting like a ruler of the article, which behaviors can be found throughout this talk page and the GA discussion. You should also re-read WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Kennedy is a valid source, no matter what other imbroglios he's gotten himself into. His criticism of the book is right on the money. Chang should never have written that the book was "not intended as a commentary on the Japanese character". The storm of her writing within belies this calm statement. The Kennedy quote stays. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems of Saintjust's editing

message: Please stop removing the NPOV tag at the least. That you consider your version neutral is not a good reason to remove it when there are other editors who are contesting its neutrality. Whatever version the article stays at a moment, it doesn't change the fact that the POV of this article is being disputed. --Saintjust (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You wrote earlier that you put the tag in for MY sake.  So that's why I've removed it.  But if you insist, I'll keep the tag in for the time being.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The NPOV tag is for the state of the article, not just for a particular version. Of course the disputing parties consider their own version "neutral". That's the very cause of the dispute. --Saintjust (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Qi Gong's removal of the NPOV tag 

message: *Point 1Timothy M. Kelly critcism should not be thrown out. Itmay be about the book and not the incident itself. However this article is about the book -the incident itself has a  distinct separate article. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninvolved

message: Would somebody please make a redirection, so that when you type "The rape of Nanking" you are directed to this page? (I do not quite understand how to do that myself)
--Kåre Fog (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the current redirection situation where it takes you to the article about the historic event. The event itself was referred to as The rape of Nanking long before Chang's book. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: Well, comments by some anon,  have been deleted twice by two editors including me because of the inappropriate personal attacks and bashing comments although one editor who tends to fond of including all things once restored.. Anon, if you want a discussion or criticize others' opinion, please keep Wiki policies. However per your candid comment "I mostly go on discussion pages to piss analretentive people off", I wonder the anon can refrain him/herself though.--22:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it very interesting that you would delete the comments from an anonymous user then ask a question of the user in an additional entry. The anon IP editor has been putting valid talk points into the discussion. The anon editor believes that arguments by Higashinakano are being misused here. The anon editor believes Kelly's criticism of Chang's book has nothing to do with the book and everything to do with the massacre. These are valid opinions. Binksternet (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Binksternet, when you read other's comment, why don't you read carefully? I did not ask to the anon about anything. So I believe the amusement is solely for your sake. Whether some of the anon's comment is a valid or not in your opinon, at least two people consider the anon's comments hold inappropriate personal attacks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A personal attack that is worthy of deletion from Talk pages would have to be blatant, severe or a breach of personal information. I see nothing obvious here. You might want to re-read Wikipedia:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments where you'll see that 213.141.89.53's comments don't cross the line into immediate deletion. There's no name-calling or insults, no profanity or taunts. At any rate, once it has been decided that a personal attack has been mounted, the reaction should be on the same level as the seriousness of the misbehavior. Hateful personal attacks should be deleted right away, of course. Instances of possible gray-area incivility don't call for immediate unilateral deletion. Instead, the offended editor can try putting a message on the uncivil editor's Talk page, or the offended editor can add a notice at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts or make a request for comment from an outside editor. Deletion is a later step that is first offered as a tool to the offending party as a chance to make communication flow better. More links that apply here: WP:3RR, WP:HARASS, WP:DISPUTE. Sincerely, Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've known, offended people could delete the comment and the anon is on dynamic IP, so your possible suggestions are rather moot.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Now I find that I'm adding my own talk entry back in after being accused by Caspian blue of using a notional "automatic add button". It's Caspian blue's unthinking reversion that was automatic—it destroyed my talk entry without comment. In my prior reversion of 213.141.89.53's comments, I examined each talk entry and then added my analysis at the end. Nothing automatic about that. To answer the edit summary question: I do not support personal attacks. My view of the talk page style of 213.141.89.53 is that this person can be unpleasant and even counterproductive but does not violate the rules of Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines such that the editor's entries should be deleted. I see no personal attacks here. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I read the anon's comment carefully, so what don't you say something solid before carelessly denoucing my comment? I just quote your "automatic delete button" from some article.(You also never returned your answer on such false accusation) If does it sound unpleasant, I would be just bemused to the irony. You're surely aware of your own unpleasant comment. I do not hit the button without thinking as you want to believe. I believe that the comment is in violation of Wiki policy. So Hong and I deleted.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand everything you are saying, except that you believe I'm aware of the unpleasantness of my own comment, and that you deleted either my comment or all of 213.141.89.53's comments because it/they were in violation of policy. If you deleted my comment because you thought it was in violation, I am surprised. I have no wish to take part in uncivil exchanges—all I wanted to do today is to prevent an editor's opinions from being erased without a fair review. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for my engrish (that's why I try not to edit sensitive articles like this one much) I did not delete your comment although that is not civil. BUT, the anon attacks various people from the self-admitted bad faith.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the anon IP's phrase "I mostly go on discussion pages to piss analretentive [sic] people off, and the [sic] bust them on any mistakes they make" as a joke, not as a serious statement that every entry by the editor was intended to be uncivil. Perhaps it's time for everybody to step back and laugh at the situation for a moment. Binksternet (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon, 213.141.89.53's comment. 

message: The image :Image:JohnRabe.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:JohnRabe.jpg

message: The reference for this lists four things that were changed between the first edition and the second edition, and a few other things that weren't changed but the author thinks should have been.  I guess changes between the two editions were an aspect of the controversy over this book, so I can see why they would be noted in the sections devoted to that, but the fact that four inaccuracies were fixed for the second edition is not at all notable in itself and shouldn't be in this caption.Prezbo (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am neutral to the removal, but next time you remove a citation (in any article), please check if it is being used anywhere else.  Scroll to the bottom of your edit and you'll see what I mean.  Thanks.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second edition photo caption 

message: There's been a bit of edit warring over Timothy Kelly's criticism.  Per WP:BRD, I think it's time for Shii to stop making edits to the article text on this point and for all of us to discuss our opinions on this issue here.  I'll start.
I have no problem with mentioning Timothy Kelly's criticism here.  For me, this is not a debate about content but about style.  That is, I am not objecting in any way to Timothy Kelly's criticism.  I tend to accept it as "on the mark".
However, I think we are putting too much detail in this article in the current presentation of this criticism.  IMO, the picayune spelling and factual errors identified by Timothy Kelly do not need to be mentioned explicitly in the article text.  I think all that detail is distracting and doesn't actually give the reader useful information.  This is the sort of thing that the reader can get if he wants to by reading the source itself.  That is why I prefer Shii's version.  I would make slight modifications so that it reads "Timothy Kelly described the book as "simple carelessness, sheer sloppiness, historical inaccuracies, and shameless plagiarism." He pointed out Chang's "lack of attention to detail", and claimed that she had plagiarized passages giving an illustration from Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini.
If there is a strong desire to put present the picayune spelling and factual errors in the article, I suggest we do it as a Note.  I will do so now so that you can see what it would look like.
--Richard S (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with using a note as a compromise Shii (tock) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with having less detail, nothing about spelling or punctuation mistakes. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timothy Kelly's criticism 

message: :"When [Iris Chang] searched the local public libraries in her school and found nothing, she wondered why no one had written a book about it."
Why doesn't this article mention Harold John Timperley's What War Means: The Japanese Terror in China (1938)? Chang's own book refers to it. Muzilon (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier English-language book(s) on Nanjing Massacre? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on The Rape of Nanking (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070805185413/http://www.irischangmemorialfund.org/A_Brief_Biography_of_Iris_Chang.pdf to http://www.irischangmemorialfund.org/A_Brief_Biography_of_Iris_Chang.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070110100610/http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/proposal.pdf to http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/proposal.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210146/http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/rape_of_nanking.html to http://us.penguingroup.com/static/rguides/us/rape_of_nanking.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705141913/http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/history/faculty/entenmann.html to http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/history/faculty/entenmann.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211035132/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewswc3.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewswc3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811062736/http://japanreview.net/interview_ivan_hall.htm to http://www.japanreview.net/interview_ivan_hall.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041019024336/http://homepage3.nifty.com/kadzuwo/fact/ to http://homepage3.nifty.com/kadzuwo/fact/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @LilAhok per WP:MOSLEAD and MOS:QUOTE the quote doesn't belong in the lead. It has nothing to do with the book itself either, this is an article about a book not an article on the rape of Nanking. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote in lead