Talk:Iris Chang

message: This article is controversial in many respects:
Ms. Chang was only trying her best to preserve and uncover the past that has been passed on to her from her parents. Genocide is unfathomable even to those who underwent it, let alone people who only know it be definition. 
We should not judge the effort of those trying to educate. If Nazis can write a book about how the Holocaust is a myth, Ms. Chang had every right to voice her opinion. History is written by humans who are ridden with flaws. Historians or not, we all choose, consciously or subconsciously what we want to see, hear and feel. 
Dwarthy 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial

message: Sadly another beautiful and potent mind of our times has been consumed by our new epidemic. From Califonia to Adelaide mental health affects us all. We need to be able to communicate in a better way so people don't get washed away like this. Simon Windsor, Australia
What a sad day for Chinese people, especially searching for truth of the Nanjing Massacre among Japanese lies. Alex Chun, Sydney
Is she an historian? Historians are supposed to report facts, but not all historians always project an exact image of what went on in history. In fact, to project a perfect or even near perfect replication of history is impossible: there will always be disputed points as well as unfathomable accounts. Iris Chang, at least in Italic The Rape of Nanking, did report several facts and compiled the accounts of eyewitnesses and their relatives. Certainly it is not perfect, but she did the best she could. She spent a considerable time just discussing and making clear the death toll as reported by various agencies and persons. This story cannot be labeled as one-sided. Who is an historian after all? Would there be a dispute if the author had a doctoral degree in History from Bob's University? Certainly five years of studying History does not mean one can tell history better than another. Ben Franklin executed and published several experiments with electricity and he only had a certified 10th grade education. If this isn't enough, who has read the Foreward to the book? "But Ms. Chang shows more clearly than any previous account just what they did." -- William C. Kirby, Department of HISTORY, Harvard University. Do you still think she does not deserve the label "historian? By the way, don't get me wrong, I see errata here and there, but most books are that way -- as a whole the book is of quality.
: Dbulwink 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  She has written several history books.   She makes money by writing about history.  That is what a historian is. Markalexander100 05:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I take issue with your statement.  Academic historian, which the lable "historian" often imply, do not sell their writing. They "publish" their finding in academic journals.  Any so called "history" book you buy in book store usually do not come up in the reading list of history course though those book are undoubtedly more entertaining the one you have to read in the history course. FWBOarticle 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Why call her "a journalist who writes about history" rather than "a historian who writes journalism"?   Most people's jobs have nothing to do with what they studied at university.  I studied law, not education, but that doesn't mean I'm not a teacher.   Chang is best known as a historian, she calls herself a historian, she is a historian.  (Let's be inclusive.   She is a historian, she is a journalist.  These are not mutually exclusive categories).   Markalexander100 06:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians  Are you planning to describe Herodotus and Gibbon as "bogus historians" too? Markalexander100 04:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Is she a '''historian'''

message: Does anyone know if she officially spells her name as "Iris Shun-Ru Chang"?  I ask because this romanization is incorrect.  Instead of "Shun-Ru" it should technically be "Ch'un-ju".   00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What shows in her birth certificate may not be translitered in pinyin, so you should go by what she called herself and then annotate her Chinese name in pinyin.  67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: It's best not to assume people romanize their names in Mandarin.  Her name in Taiwanese, for example, would be Sûn-jû (with an S).  I have no idea what her ethnicity is, but for we know, her parents could have named her according to their Chinese language or dialect.  A-giau 05:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling of her name

message: I will edit out reference to hata's estimate as "implausibly low" for the reason that his number is not at all inaccurate in term of "factual" and "legal" (i.e. internaltional treaty)" basis. 
The reason for this confusion start from (for some, deliberately) ignoring the fact that intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict. Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform (most actually didnt have guns), in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible. 
Only area, where every head counts can be added to "killing of civilians outside of military purpose" (i.e. massacre) is when Japanese army went into "Safety Zone" within Nanking City.  This is not to say that atrocities did not take place outside of the Safety Zone.  Just that outside of safety zone, attempt to estimate the extent of "massacre" in numerical term is futile exercise.  Hata's "implausibly" low number is from estimate of Chinese killed in Safety Zone and he make this point explicit in his book. So I will delete the section of the article which state his number being "wrong".  Of course, one could explain the detail of Hata's number but I belive that can be done more appropriatly in NM section, not Iris Chang section. Youji Hajime
::intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict
:Disarmed soldiers and civilians.
::Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform
:Wrong. Many of the 50,000 soldiers defending Nanjing were from the elite creme de la creme of the RNA, the 8 German-trained (and led, I believe,) divisions. You should present evidence of your claim before making such apparent attempts at demonisation.
::in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible.
:The IMTFE concluded the number to be at least 300,000.
:-Hmib 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. FoC, would you do me a favour and send me an email accusing me of being a communist? That way I can sue you for slander. -Hmib 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Implausible" number 

message: The inaccuracies in the text "The Rape of Nanking" are NOT "alleged".  They are a well-documented fact.  I'm not debating the veracity of the Rape itself, just that the book was poorly written.
For example, see:
, which is biased as hell to the Japanese right-wing, and some of their arguments are way out there, but still shows how dishonest her photographs could be.
or
, which not only discusses her NUMEROUS errors in detail, but also her plagiarism.
When this book came out in Japan, even the Japanese historians and scholars in the so-called "Grand Massacre School"  (who admit that up to 300,000 were killed in the Rape) argued against the release of the book.  There are so many errors in it that the ultranationalist right-wing uses the book as a straw man; they say that this poorly-written book is representative of real Grand Massacre scholarship on the subject, which it is not.  In this way, it is her book that is helping to keep alive the crazy Japanese right wing, and increasing the spread of right-wing sites like the one I linked to above.
Here is a list of revisions of mistakes that were revised before the release of the paperback:
There's plenty of GOOD studies out there that verify the Nanjing massacres, but this book surely isn't among them.  Denying that this book is full of mistakes is ridiculous hero worship/ideology.Bueller 007 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is in the context of criticism of inaccuracies.  Many of the critics are batshit insane, and the "inaccuracies" which they are worried about are not the trivial ones which are not disputed. HenryFlower 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: Rebuttals and opposing views about The Rape of Nanking would be relevant for an article on the book. Putting the links here on her bio page seems to violate NPOV. I mean, you don't balance profiles of and eulogies to Chang by linking to personal sites which pick apart one, only one, of her books. Has this been raised before? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think rebuttals of only one of her books are a violation of NPOV, but I agree with you that it would be better to limit those links to the article on her book (given that the book does have its own article). --Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why link to rebuttals of her book on her bio? 

message: Her suicide and depression are linked to sleep deprivation in the article. Where did the sleep deprivation come from? Was Chang probably just overworked, did she suffer from insomnia, or what other reasons have been suggested? --Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for sleep deprivation? 

message: What was all that in her suicide notes about the CIA and the government? Was there an actual reason why she felt that people were watching her, or was it a case of paranoia brought on by her other disorders? A little more info on this please. Ham Pastrami 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did she suffer from paranoia? 

message: Is their a better photograph of her than the one available. Her left eye looks somewhat creepy. I think it is the way the shadows appear on her face.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.148.167 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Could you verify this claim. She is totally unheard of in South East Asia- many authors pre-dating her have written superior books with a far larger readership- in English and SE Asian languages.
This point is highly Americo-centric and thusly biased and inaccurate.
I suggest if you lack the supporting evidence-kindly delete it- it seems like a self-promotional cliche.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.136.54 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved this out-of-place item from the narrative over here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources .--KJRehberg (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Public notability

message: What religious affiliations did Iris Chang have in her life? 138.239.60.79 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: religion?

message: I don't see any mention in the article of plagiarism in "The Rape of Nanking".Shrikeangel (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion of plagiarism is more germane to the book article rather than the biography. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism?