Talk:Manila massacre

message: Created hopefully non-copyvio version of page in Manila_Massacre/Temp. --Pikhq
:You show me where I supposedly stole those two paragraphs. Give some evidence or you have no argument.--Secret Agent Man 02:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not saying you stole anything. The page had the entire "All Rights Reserved" text of one of the references in it, which I took out. --Pikhq 03:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy vio? 

message: Delete a link. Comparing other two references, it is not a kind of reference, as many photographes are disputed in Japan about it's explanation. Additionally, the website seems far from NPOV. For ex. http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/go-chosun.htm 'Chinese dynasty has its root in 9000 years old Korean Dynasty'  --Poo-T 05:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV link

message: I did a basic cleanup of the entry. I tried to remove some of the more emotionally weighted stuff to make it more encyclopaedic. It still needs proper sourcing and more detail. I don't have my books in front of me, but I'll try to add more details to the entry and sourcing this evening when I have them available. --Lendorien 20:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article Battle for the Liberation of Manila seems to cover everything here with more detail. Perhaps a merge or redirect is in order? --Lendorien 06:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and possible merge/redirect?

message: Article has the IJA special research units category list at the bottom - article needs to explain why.  Tempshill 06:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any relation; template has been removed. -- Kguirnela 07:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IJA special research units 

message: Many Filipinos told me the death toll was 200,000.  I know the Japanese literally destroyed the city to the ground. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.245.58.40 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought death toll was 200,000 

message: This article would be clearer if some more was said about the context.  Can someone please fill in some background information:  Why did General Tomoyuki Yamashita have to withdraw from Manila, was it because the Americans were coming?  Did Vice Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi make the decision to disobey Yamashita's orders, or was it a failure of the marines to follow the chain of command?  Were the marines part of the army, or a separate branch?  And when there were lulls in the battle for control of the city, exactly who was fighting for control of the city, was it the IJA and the Americans, or the marines against the Americans?  Which started first, the Battle of Manila or the Manila Massacre?  How did the massacre come to an end?  I suppose I could read the whole article on the Battle of Manila to learn more, but if this article just had a bit more explication, I wouldn't have to. Thanks in advance!--Brambleshire (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the allies killed many civilians on manilla... but in the article is not mentioned, it looks like a friendly U.S side of the story to me.  The version of this article on the spanish wikipedia is a lot better, i could translate some things and with its proper references add it to this article.--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because this article is specifically about massacres in Manila and only the Japanese deliberately murdered, raped, and tortured tens of thousands of Filipinos. The article about the Battle of Manila makes mention of the fact that many civilians were indeed killed inadvertently by American forces.172.190.146.145 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions/suggestions for improvements 

message: The massacre was in response to the firebombing of Japanese cities by the US air force. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. The massacre ended in February 1945; the first fire bomb raid took place on 9-10 March. A more plausible explanation is that Iwabuchi was pissed that he had been humiliated by the U.S. Navy off Guadalcanal, and was burning for revenge. An even more plausible explanation is that this is simply what fanatical Japanese commanders did in that era.  --Yaush (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The US air force was bombing Japanese cities in 1944. (5.81.222.174 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that bombing was against industrial targets. The U.S. firebombing against Japanese civilian populations effort started in early 1945. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Manila Massacre 3 Feb-3 Mar 1945. My quick scan of Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun": the first firebomb raid against Nagoya [3 Jan 1945] was unimpressive to both sides. 4 Feb the port city of Kobe was firebombed: 5 of 12 factories were damaged; of the two shipyards one was reduced to half capacity. The third and first major firebomb air raid was 25 Feb against Tokyo. After that, General Curtis Lemay began planning incendiary "area attacks" on Japanese cities without specific targets based on the fact precision bombing was negated by the seasonal poor visibility and high winds over Japan. The fourth and most destructive incendiary air raid was 9 Mar; the false confidence the Japanese had that they could easily handle a Nagoya level firebombing was then shattered. Are there reliable sources claiming that Admiral Sanji Iwabuchi even knew about the early incendiary air raids, or even that General Curtis Lemay had heard about the Manila Massacre when he ordered incendiary attacks on Tokyo? (According to Spector many Americans felt that Tokyo "had it coming" due to Japanese bombings of Chinese cities in 1937 and the Pearl Harbor Raid.) Often events follow in history without a direct cause and effect connection.--Naaman Brown (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allied war crimes 

message: I have removed the section regarding Max Von Schuler.  As far as I can tell, he does not appear to be a notable scholar on the subject.  Per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS, I don't see any reason that his opinion warrants inclusion in an encylopedia article.  Gnome de plume (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Mr.Gnome de plume.
I am not sure of your definition "notable scholar", however, as I've researched, I detected some further books of which contents are similar to that of Max Von Schuler.
* A Child in the Midst of Battle : One Family’s Struggle For Survival In War-Torn Manila  Authors:Evelyn Berg Empie, Stephen H. Mette 
* Manila: A Memoir of Love & Loss   Author:Purita Echevarria de Gonzalez 
* The Remedios Hospital, 1942-1945 : a saga of Malate / Pedro M. Picornell  Author:Picornell, Pedro M 
* Manila: Memories of World War II,  Author:Manalac, Fernando J. 
* Philippine Daily Inquirer presents Intramuros (Intramuros.
Philippine daily inquirer)  Author:	Nick Joaquin 
Eddal (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for taking a look.  To be honest, I'm not sure where to draw the line between unacceptable and acceptable sources either.  But a quick review suggests to me that your sources are definitely better than the one I removed.  Gnome de plume (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Max Von Schuler criticism

message: I revised text and cited the book by Allan Ryan, Yamashita's Ghost-  War Crimes, MacArthur's Justice, and Command Accountability.  The book deals in detail about  Yamashita's actions and the trials leading to his execution.  Additional Wikipedia articles about Yamashita's role is available at the pages for Tomoyuki Yamashita and Allan Ryan (attorney). 
Bryantbob (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of template message for more citations at General Yamashita's Role...