Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Archive 1

message: Has this link been previously considered for this article? I think this is relevant to both supporters and critics of this book.jiyu-shikan 219.163.12.72 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: This is absurd. Is there any way to only LOCK the page from non-registered users? I don't know who the person at 218.221.107.162 is, but the person is from Kyoto. This should be resolved quite simply. If this Kyoto person has a reliable source or any source even that the photos are fabricated, INCLUDE it. Because indeed it is a "photo whose caption is disputed" but there is no evidence that it is fabricated. Dan 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Absurd

message: Protected - material present on page copied to Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Draft -SV(talk) 01:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is poor — someone seems to be wanting to hollow it out and remove any substance to it - see the draft to edit, and make notes. Le poizel-SV(talk) 01:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected Page

message: NPOV.  Neutral point of view.   The accuracy of the book is disputed.   This article should say that the accuracy of the book is disputed, not that the book is inaccurate.  Markalexander100 08:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what makes you think my version says the book is inaccurate. The article says only some say so. Namely this sentence. "Some US and Japanese scholars have disputed the accuracy of the book." -- Taku 15:16, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Your version states as fact that there are "factual errors", that the book "cannot be trusted', and that its figures are "misleading".   These are all disputed statements. Markalexander100 01:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't think you have read sentences correctly. It is the fact that some people contend figures are misleading. It never means the figures are misleading. -- Taku 02:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
"They pointed out that the book contains many serious factual errors including fabricated photographs and cannot be trusted. They noted that particular figures presented in the book are misleading--for example, the number of people killed outnumbers the residents in Nanking at that time."
In English, you can only "point out" or "note" something if it is true.   Markalexander100 02:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Many people do note or point out false things. But it is true that they do say those false things. -- Taku 02:28, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
Who states factual errors are not errors? For propaganda photos, this book shows photos of unknown origin. Critics identified some of these photos and proved that they are trimmed, manipulated or irrelevant photos with misleading captions. Does someone really offer rebuttals to criticism? If so, show me. --Nanshu 02:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: I think you are right, Nanshu but let's not go to a game who is right, who is wrong. I think it would suffice if we just state some scholars, not a couple of crazy guys, questions the accuracy of the book. That's all. -- Taku 02:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
And stop labelling your critics "various conservative and revisionist factions." Kashiwa Shobo is a left-wing, pro-PRC publisher. Even Kashiwa Shobo feared that publishing such an inaccurate book without notes would ruin its credit. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Taku, the page was protected last time because you reverted to a POV text without even commenting on my explanations of why it was POV. Be calm, talk before reverting. Markalexander100
:No, it is you who stopped talking. As I said, some people claim something and nothing is wrong with reporting such. -- Taku 16:07, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)
OK, a few examples.
#Ptolemy pointed out (or noted) that the sun orbits the earth.  This statement is incorrect, as Ptolemy's belief was incorrect.
#Noam Chomsky pointed out (or noted) that President Bush is a fool.  This statement is POV, as it presents a disputed opinion (Chomsky's ) as a fact.
#Noam Chomsky claimed (or alleged) that President Bush is a fool.   This statement is accurate and NPOV.   It reports a claim without judging its validity.   This is the appropriate form for reporting disputed claims. Markalexander100 03:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: I'll put this very clearly - any sentence with pure POV like this:
: Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book.
will be removed. Fuzheado | Talk 05:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I have "no problem" with mainstream academic ignoring the book. It was an attempt to compromise and allow some of your edits to stand. However, if you're going to use it as the thin end of the wedge then I'll go back on even accepting that small edit. Your bias in pushing "the truth" puts serious doubt on your ability to work towards NPOV. Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: FWBOarticle: there are a few very important things that you don't seem to comprehend.  Firstly, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedic source, is NOT the place to conduct a research.  I do not dispute with your allegation of Chang's factual errors, but by nature of you having researched and published those errors yourself your allegations are inherently POV.  If you feel so strongly and so confident about your research, feel free to create your own web site or publish a paper somewhere and add a link this article to your work.  I my opinion, the most you can say is that there are very strong evidence against the book accuracy, though some may not agree with me on this.
Secondly, statement like Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book is necissarily biased.  By stating that these people as "those who support the truth" you imply that these people are knowledgeable of the truth to the exclusion of all oppositions.  This, of course, cannot possibly be NPOV.
Lastly, Fuzheado already pointed out error is spelt with E-R-R-O-R; not E-R-R-O.  (Well, it culd just be my opinio, but I have it on good authurity that it's allso the truth.)
Uly 15:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact? 

message: What is the problem???
The Rape of Nanking is, unfortunately, less than kid's work.
User from So-net, Japan, please join talking here and why your assersions have the reasoning.
Mark, I think you are just supporting Chang. You need NPOV. Yeah, she is cute :P
But we have to deal with the contents of the book. If you want to prove the book is great, cite the source of the pictures in the book.
--Flowerofchivalry 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i minored in east asian studies, speak/read a waning japanese and a waxing mandarin. when i read chang's mini-history of japan i laughed aloud--and this was in a corrected edition. she not only constantly lists japanese names in GN-SN order, despite announcing in the front of the book that all asian names would be in SN-GN order, but she actually managed to transpose a chinese name into GN-SN (tho take that with some salt; i left my copy in taiwan when i came back to the mainland). she waxes anthropologic to the effect of sword-über-chysanthemum to a degree which invites charges of polemicism. her expertise, and ability to access primary sources, was limited to english, chinese and (maybe, im not sure) german--but did not exend to japanese. the dispersions being cast on whether or not she is a historian stem from the simple fact that a peer review by a Western scholar of Japanese history  would have caught errors like those regarding Matthew Perry with little difficulty, and would have done so prior to the publication of the first edition.
Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the hell going on here

message: One problem with attacking/defending Chang's stats is that she actually cites several different numbers. One is incredibly high, one is as low as, IIRC, 40,000 or so(?). she claims one stat as a personal preference, but knowing which stats are actually underfire would help.
Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple sets of stats

message: The preface in the debate section, 
"As to be expected from a subject of high sensitivity, Chang's book has provoked widespread response from readers and critics alike,"
unfairly biases that particular section by implying that high-emotion rather than reasoned criticisms are the primary motivations for Chang's critics.  Furthermore, I must insist that mention of Ambrose contain some mention of his having been almost entirely discredited within the academic community after the revelations regarding his having used false or plagiarized material over the course of his career.
:I've no particular objection to removing the preface, though I would take it to cover her supporters at least as much as her opponents.  The Stephen Ambrose article does not seem to reflect your evaluation of him; you're entitled to your opinion of him, and it should be reflected in the Ambrose article, but it shouldn't be inserted here as unquestioned fact. Mark1 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preface to debate and regarding Ambrose 

message: Chang did not just make claim Japanese government of acknowledge of the massacre.  In addtion, she clearly made claim that Japanese government acknowledged the death toll of 300,000 civilians.  This is not clearly spelt out in the previous edit, therefore, this information cannot be redundant. Moreover, the claim of misatribution is not mentioned in previous version of the edit, therefore, this section cannot be redundant. Plus, I have clearly attributed the claim of misatribution to critics so it also clear NPOV hurdle. Chang's two "separate" claim is not redundant. Her critics's view that this is due to Chang's misatribution is not redundant. If one is more proChang, one could expand on Chang's side of claim but censoring the clarification of the debate as well as explanation of the other side of debate is against NPOV and not productive for wikipedia.FWBOarticle
:I don't know which part of acknowledged the higher death toll you have trouble understanding, but that's really your problem. Markyour words 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says, "Chang cited this relayed telegraph as proof the Japanese government acknowledged the higher death toll".  It makes it clear that this is her interpretation.  The rest of your point is incoherent; if you can make sense of it, I'll try to respond. Markyour words 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What original criticism? Markyour words 10:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chang's telegram misatribution 

message: Regarding your revert, Henry Flower (please look at the surrounding text when making edits- coherent sentences and structure), you eliminated information without giving a reason. Yes, one sentence had incoherent sentence structure, but the other did not. You also eliminated an off page link. Do you mind justifying this revert as it comes across heavy handed. Loft3 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is on you to add coherent content. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, why expect others to? HenryFlower 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of eliminating that content under the false pretense of "structure" (I.e. an external link that was perfectly alright), perhaps you could be a little more patient? Loft3 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost all books contain more or less trivial factual errors; the uncontested errors in the first edition are pretty trivial and do not merit mention in the lead. HenryFlower 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the contrary, the errors that the book contains are not quite so trivial that they can be dismissed so readily. Take a look at the stuff she made up about post-war Japan. It's not that having mistakes like those is any serious issue, but as it is now the paragraph makes it sound like it's a credible, scholarly book that just happens to include some controversial photos. Using wrong photos is really the least of the things that she did wrong. I'm not saying that she made up the atrocity or anything like that, but given the multitude of factual errors shouldn't it be clear that Iris Chang's work is not an academic resource at all? --Rmc 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I'd suggest something like, "It is a work of popular history rather than the authoritative book on the subject". HenryFlower 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good. I'll chang the article then. --Rmc 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a poor solution, and I've changed it.  It sounds very much like a disclaimer about errors, which is Q.E.D. for the page.  And it sounds absolutely un-encyclopedic.  
More generally, the text as it currently stands does not seem to present the central thesis of the book, and the various discussion of factual inaccuracies, which obviously will be dynamic on this page for some time, do not mention whether or not they overwhelm that thesis.  It is my very cursorsy understanding of the controversy that they do not.  The book essentially presented to historical review (and especially to a Japanese audience) that atrocities X, Y, and Z had been committed.  The rebuttal is that the atrocity X wasn't really so bad, and Y never happened, and Z is being mis-represented somewhat.  That's all very important, but it doesn't undercut the thesis, and there is no way for the reader to appreciate that as is.  Ethan Mitchell 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the thing is that everyone knows that the Nanking Massacre happened, so it's not much of a thesis. I mean you won't say that a book on the American Civil War has a thesis of A: the war happened, and B: the war ended, now would you? The rebuttal is not in fact a rebuttal, but a defense of what actually occurred, historically. That the central theme of her book did happen does not excuse the fact that it is full of errors.  --Rmc 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert