File talk:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg

Chinese and Western sources I got from my library use this photo as the vivisection example. They made no mention that it was a japanese corpse lying on the table. Googling reveals only around five links had "&#23665;&#26481;&#30465;&#21205;&#20081;&#35352;&#24565;&#20889;&#30495;&#24086;" as the source. Care to explain? Stop orphaning images. --Waliwali

As I said before, the principle of the benefit of the doubt should be applied. There are many propaganda photos by Chinese that have wrong captions, are trimmed to mislead people, or are even manipulated. We have to suspect these photo by default. If you disagree with me, show me the "true" source. Who? When? Where? What? Why? See also. --Nanshu 00:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

content from Talk:Unit 731 moved back

Please answer my questions at Talk:Unit 731. It is not only this image that is in question, but the other one and overly generalized and unsubstantiated sentence you added there. Please address that problem there. Move this discussion there if the need is present. --`Jiang 23:33, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

copied from Images for deletion

it's actually unit 100 based in Changquan performing vivisection, capital of Manchukuo. Source: 1). Japanese Atrocities in China, 1928-1945, call number DS777.533.A86.H86.1985 86152706 2). Japanese invasion: history and atrocities, call number DS777.533.A86.H83 1992, isbn 9624291071 3). plague upon humanity : the secret genocide of Axis Japan's germ warfare operation, isbn 0060186259. My univesity library uses call # like the Library of Congress. The book and internet sources I got never mentioned what Nanshu said, which only appeared on a few extreme right-wing sites. Googling should reveal that.--User:Waliwali.


 * Good. You listed the list of books calling it "vivisection". Then what supports your claim? Photos don't tell enough. It's easy to mislead people with wrong captions. --Nanshu 23:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Waliwali's claim is supported by the books s/he listed. What supports your claim that those books have the wrong information in them?--Jiang 23:48, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

He only listed the supportes of his claim. He don't prove the reality of the photo at all. I asked "Who?" Of course, it doesn't mean, "Who supports your claim?" but "Who took the photo?" I demand you to provide evidences and reasoning to prove it is real. --Nanshu 03:14, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

moved from Talk:Unit 731

"propaganda photos"
The image in question is already tagged as disputed. If you are trying to use it for some kind of demonstration, then you need more elaboration than this ungrammatical sentence:

''Chinese activists show photos of unknown origin as that of Unit 731. Some of them have already turned out wrong and others remain doubtful.''

Who are the "Chinese activists"? How are you so sure this photo came from these unspecified "Chinese activists"? Which photos are wrong? How are they doubtful? If these weasel terms are not replaced by facts, then I don't see how the sentence belongs.

It would benefit your little demonstration here to put up photos that have been proven by western sources to be false.--Jiang 01:17, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Every photo is doubtful by default, of course and Chinese activists include Iris Chang. Photos don't tell enough. It's easy to mislead people with wrong captions. The best way to solve the problem is to find the primary sources, and it's your duty!
 * This is the photo that was shown in a book by communists and become a focus of criticism about 20 years ago. It's impossible to access to &#23665;&#26481;&#30465;&#21205;&#20081;&#35352;&#24565;&#20889;&#30495;&#24086; but it's sure that the photo is of 1928. --Nanshu 23:06, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You need to provide a credible source that shows all of these photos can be doubted, and specifically, the one posted on the page (not the vivisection one on images for deletion), is not by Unit 731. Once you provide this information, please then use it to expand the the sentence you added:

''Chinese activists show photos of unknown origin as that of Unit 731. Some of them have already turned out wrong and others remain doubtful.''

I told you that this sentence is overly generalized and not backed up by sources or examples and is therefore unnacceptable. What do you say of this? You didn't answer.

Again, you have failed to prove that these photos originated from "Chinese activists", and since you came up with Iris Chang, that these photos came from Iris Chang. If the photo on ifd is from a "book by communists", name the book and document any criticisms. Back your word with your own sources. You have the burden of proof. What you are advocating now is somewhere in the lines of "All Japnese people are imperialist propagandists. None of their edits should be trusted. We should revert all their edits by default and have them prove that they are telling the truth". That's not going to work. It is up to you to provide reasons for doubting certain images. Oh, and note, right wing Japanese websites will not work. The source must be unbiased. Dont make me quote the People's Daily. --Jiang 23:42, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You keep Chinese claims until they are disproved but delete Japanese claims until they are proved. Jiang's nice double standard! My sentence is valid until your claim is proved. And I've never said these photos "originated" from Chinese activists. The book is "&#24746;&#39764;&#12398;&#39165;&#39135;". It has already been explained by Kadzuwo.

You failed to understand my pretty simple logic.


 * It is far easier to fabricate photos than prove they are fabricated.
 * So you have first to prove it is real.
 * Then in my turn. I have to prove it is not real.

You like to label people arbitrarily as "authoritative", "right wing", "imperialist" etc. I'm not interested in such a labbelling. What I want is evidences and reasoning. This time I focus on photos, so we are immune from long and boring debates. If they are concrete proofs, they must be clear to everyone, not only to the "authorities". --Nanshu 03:14, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not against you having adding commentary the the "politicization of history" section explaining how people have been manipulating photos and history to achive their aims. However, I will repeat again - the sentence you added was overly general and therefore cannot be accepted. If you want to show everyone that the Chinese are making stuff up, then cite a credible authority and provide concete examples - photos that have been proven to be wrong, not ones that you suspect are wrong.


 * As for your claim that I keep Chinese claims until they are disproved but delete Japanese claims until they are proved, I don't see it. First, I am not keeping the Chinese claims, per se, and it was I who added "disputed" to the caption of the first image. I have no problem with images being tagged as disputed, only when images tagged as "propaganda" with no backing and no proof that they are indeed propaganda. Second, I am not against mentioning the Japanese claims, but if you are to mention them, do it right (see paragraph above) and do demonstrate why such claims can be considered reasonable.


 * Again, we ask that you provide a source that should lead us to doubt these photos. Surely if this "propaganda" is a common phenomenon, commentary on this issue would surely be found. Are you having trouble finding this? As for the source of the photos, I agree that we need to find its original source. I suggest that Waliwali look up where these texts got these photos in the first place. However, this is no excuse for deleting them (as long as they're tagged as disputed and cited as unit731/100 in a somewhat credible published book) and no excuse for labelling them as propaganda. --Jiang 05:07, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Again, I don't say that they are cooked up by Chinese. It may be true and may not be true. I said, "Chinese activists show photos of unknown origin as that of Unit 731." This sentence is perfectly true until you find the origins.

There need some evidences to claim something is "disputed". One can "claim" everything: "The earth is flat." "Black is white." But it is unnecessary for Wikipedia to deal with these claims. Currently, I get no information except that these photos are "claimed" to be the truth.

I've already mentioned to its origin. As I said before, the book showing the photo was bashed in Japan two decades ago. The error was admitted by the communist writers, so it is never shown in Japan today. I don't see why Chinese still show this photo.

There may be people who are not informed that the earth is round and belive that the earth is flat. And they don't offer any evidence to support their belief or even don't discuss it because they take is for granted. Maybe Wikipedia should say, "Whether the earth is round or flat is disputed." --Nanshu 02:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You call the photo posted there and "example", therefore you imply that there really is a dispute over that photograph, with both sides providing arguments for their claims. This is not the case, but rather one where we just don't have the evidence either way.


 * I repeat: if you dont expand upon that single ungrammatical sentence and provide details on these "Chinese activists," what exactly they have done, and evidence of their activites, then we can't accept it at all. What you have written there is completely unsubstantiated on that page. If you feel it is substantiated, then do substantiate it. on the article itself Do you copy?


 * It appears that you are the one failing to provide evidence as to why those photos are "doubtful". If it's a book, give the title. Be specific or no one will buy your argument. --Jiang 02:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are two photos. Do you need more? I show them here. Iris Chang did. So do other Chinese that run questionable websites. Do you need more?

Again. It's you who have to prove, and you failed. If you cannot prove they are real, then don't show them (even under the "disputed" tag). I get no information except that these photos are "claimed" to be the truth. This is an encyclopaedia, not a Chinese yellow paper. --Nanshu 03:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You completely ignored my points. Please re-read them. It's not just about the validity of the photos, but the unsubstantiated crap dubious demonstration you're inserting into the article. --Jiang 05:06, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Instead of endless reverting and the debete with a gap, I decided to resolve problems one by one. --Nanshu 23:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

--- Where are your sources? I've got mine, and they are not from ultra-nationalist chinese websites. Anybody can sign up at geocities and put up some webpage--- Waliwali 03:47, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Read my comment above. --Nanshu 04:05, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about your comments. Where are your sources? Why don't you go to a public library and stop wasting time on those five far-right sites. --Waliwali 03:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From WP:IFD

April 4

 * Image:Vivisection.jpg - delete or "move". Bad file name. This is not a vivisection but a postmortem. Nanshu 00:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * See the image description page. Nanshu says it's one thing and Waliwali says it's another. Want to back this up with sources? --Jiang 03:19, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * it's actually unit 100 based in Changquan performing vivisection, capital of Manchukuo. Source: 1). Japanese Atrocities in China, 1928-1945, call number DS777.533.A86.H86.1985 86152706 2). Japanese invasion: history and atrocities, call number DS777.533.A86.H83 1992, isbn 9624291071 3). plague upon humanity : the secret genocide of Axis Japan's germ warfare operation, isbn 0060186259. My univesity library uses call # like the Library of Congress. The book and internet sources I got never mentioned what Nanshu said, which only appeared on a few extreme right-wing sites. Googling should reveal that.--User:Waliwali.
 * Discussion is now at Image talk:Vivisection.jpg. KEEP until Nanshu backs up his claims with sources. --Jiang 23:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Jiang failed to prove that it is real. We cannot keep this under the current file name. --Nanshu 02:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Waliwali has cited his sources. Nanshu has not provided reason that these sources are not telling the truth. He has chosen to ignore them. --Jiang 03:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Waliwali didn't bring info to prove it at all. He only listed the books showing the photo and did arbitrary labellings. In contrast, I give the source although it's not easy to verify it. As I said above, we cannot keep this under the current file name. Delete or rename! --Nanshu 03:35, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * What source did you give? Please provide it here on this page. Otherwise, we cannot find reason to doubt WaliWali's sources. --Jiang 05:03, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * All we can get from Waliwali's list is that there are books showing the image. If they say more than that, then quote it. Currently, you don't provide any information about the photo itself. Unless you do that, it shouldn't claimed to be the truth, and the current file name is unacceptable. --Nanshu 23:00, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * whenever we see things published in a book we assume truth unless there are other factors to suggest otherwise. It is up to you to provide these factors. Why should be doubt these books? --Jiang 01:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, if they provide information on the photo itself. Otherwise we should assume it is another oiled bird. After all, you don't have information on it. --Nanshu
 * "it's actually unit 100 based in Changquan performing vivisection, capital of Manchukuo" --Jiang 00:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't you see what I said? Unless adequate information is provided, we cannot check your claim. But, O.K. I cannot expect you to do so. It's my turn.
 * According to, this photo was originally shown in &#23665;&#26481;&#30465;&#21205;&#20081;&#35352;&#24565;&#20889;&#30495;&#24086; by &#38738;&#23798;&#26032;&#22577;&#31038; (1928) as an autopsy on a Japanese victim killed by the Chinese, at Jinan Hospital in May 1928. And the magazine &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454; reported it in April 1983 and June 1985. Since, unlike the Chinese claim, the source book is identified, this is convincing. And if that book contains the photo, it cannot be a photo of Unit 731 regardless of the validity of the caption because 1928 is too early for Unit 731. The only thing I have to do is to check them. Unfortunately, my neighborhood libraries don't have either. But I confirmed that the Toyo Bunko stocks &#23665;&#26481;&#30465;&#21205;&#20081;&#35352;&#24565;&#20889;&#30495;&#24086; . So I hope someone who lives near Tokyo verify it.
 * Next. We can gain a certain level of information from the photo itself. First, she wears white socks and there seems a slit. Apparently, they are Tabi, traditional Japanese socks. And the men bihind her. They don't look experimenters on a human body at all! Maybe a man in a suit with a hat openly performed a top-secret operation. Rather, it exactly matchs the description of the autopsy at Jinan Hospital. Quote from &#28168;&#21335;&#20107;&#20214;&#12434;&#20013;&#24515;&#12392;&#12375;&#12390; by &#23567;&#24029;&#38596;&#19977; (1928):
 * ...&#27515;&#20307;&#12399;&#28168;&#21335;&#30149;&#38498;&#12395;&#36939;&#12403;&#12289;&#25105;&#36557;&#38538;&#12289;&#35686;&#23519;&#20596;&#12392;&#25903;&#37027;&#20596;&#12392;&#12398;&#31435;&#20250;&#12356;&#12398;&#19978;&#26908;&#27515;&#12434;&#36930;&#12370;&#12383;&#12364;... (...[Japanese] corpses were carried to Jinan Hospital and were autopsied with the presence of our military men, policemen, and Chinese representatives...)
 * In fact, the man in the left dresses in military uniform but other do not.
 * Thus I conclude that this is an autopsy on a Japanese victim killed by the Chinese, at Jinan Hospital in May 1928. --Nanshu
 * Angela, don't move this discussion. Many multimedia stuffs have been uploaded to Wikipedia, but there seems no policy on their file names. At least ordinary users cannot change their file names unlike articles. So I think this is a good opportunity for reviewing the current practice. --Nanshu 03:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus to delete it, it should not be on this page. Please move it back to the talk page. Angela. 21:48, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Will I create a new page in the Wikipedia namespace like Images to be renamed? There seems limited demand for such a page, and I think it is better to keep the discussion here. --Nanshu 23:14, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your argument is convincing but having a right wing Japanese website as a source is not. Are there no western sources to back up your arguments? Oppose deletionbut do not oppose renaming. What would you like this to be called? --Jiang 23:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I dont't think I have to get involved in your labelling game. It is unlikely that one makes reference to a real book that doesn't really contain what he says. After hard days, I fitted in a visit to a library and browsed the magazine &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454;. It picked out the topic twice (April 1983 and May 1985). The former article was about mass killing of Japanese residents by the Chinese and the latter specifically dealt with the photo in question. Page 71 of the former shows the one. It isn't exactly the same with the photo in question, but the same men at the same place are shown. The victim also seems the same person. It seems to have been taken slightly after the photo in question was taken. And page 24 of the latter article contains the exactly the same photo. According to &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454;, it was borrowed from &#31119;&#30000;&#21213;&#20043;, whose father &#27941;&#27425; had been a police officer of the Japanese Foreign Ministry residing in Jinan. Also, the first photo taken from &#23665;&#26481;&#30465;&#21205;&#20081;&#35352;&#24565;&#20889;&#30495;&#24086; at page 72 was of the same postmortem. Now the photo is identified.
 * Renaming. It should be renamed to something like: "autopsy_on_a_Japanese_killed_in_the_Jinan_Incident" (too long?). --Nanshu 04:56, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What is the political bias of &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454;? Can it be trusted? Trusted above Waliwali's sources? Should I doubt it with the same reasoning you doubted Waliwali's sources? Calling it "autopsy" is enough, given that what the picture is showing is still in dispute?--Jiang 02:19, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how people can bias this kind of plain facts, and I don't see why you place importance on books without concrete info (yeah, your brazen manner amazed me). But I let you know that for your interest. &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454; was an anti-communist magazine. But the article in May 1985 quoted an article titled "&#12300;&#32048;&#33740;&#25126;&#23455;&#39443;&#12301;&#12398;&#20889;&#30495;&#12399;&#30097;&#21839;" by the JCP supporter &#27743;&#21475;&#22317;&#19968; taken from Asahi Journal on December 14 1984.
 * I have new information about the photo. According to &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454;, the name of the victim &#26481;&#26781;&#23403;&#22826;&#37070; is shown on the back of the photo. In the meanwhile I found a news report by &#38738;&#23798;&#26032;&#22577; on June 7 1928 at Japan Center for Asian Historical Records. (You can access to it by: Layered Search -> The Diplomatic Record Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs -> Records of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs -> "A Politics, diplomacy/Category 1 Imperial diplomacy" -> Section 1 China -> [Search] -> 15. Jinan Incident / Documents relating to Anti-Japanese Movement and Boycott, Vol. 1 -> 5.  2. From May 4, 1928 to May 15, 1928 -> 10th among 53 images ) And the 38th image is the list of the victims. You can see the names &#26481;&#26781;&#24396;&#22826;&#37070; and his wife &#12461;&#12531;. Apparently he was the same person with &#26481;&#26781;&#23403;&#22826;&#37070;. Piecing all stuffs together, we can identify the victims.  was &#26481;&#26781;&#12461;&#12531; and  was &#39640;&#29066;&#12512;&#12513;. And the photo in question was of &#26481;&#26781;&#24396;&#22826;&#37070;. --Nanshu 01:49, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I re-uploaded the photo under Image:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg. Delete Image:Vivisection.jpg. --Nanshu 23:50, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, haven't you read my comment? It was I who concluded that the victim in the photo was Tojo Yataro, and my conclusion was drawn from various sources:
 * the website I mentioned
 * Zembo's two articles
 * Asahi Journal's article quoted by Zembo
 * news reports by &#38738;&#23798;&#26032;&#22577; right after the incident
 * MOFA's documents

Actually, the features of the three victims in the photos exactly correspond to the accounts of that news report (You can verify it by yourself in the procedures I explained before).

You only mentioned to &#12476;&#12531;&#12508;&#12454; with the labbel "right-wing" and ignored the rest. Now your intention is obvious. I feel disgusted with your nasty labelling. --Nanshu 04:01, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess I misread your comments. I gave you more credibility than you deserved. Refer to no. 10. If you are the one making the conclusion/deduction, then it doesn't belong in this encyclopedia.


 * How did I ignore the rest? Are you denying that the publication mentioned is not right wing? You may label the sources that claim this photo is of Unit 100 if you can come up with a truthful term to use. Using ad hominem attacks does not excuse the truth. --Jiang 04:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Don't use sophistry. The main theme is that this photo is not of Unit 731 but of the Jinan Incient, which has already been pointed out by others. The identification of the victimes is an outlying stuff. Anyway, I don't think the 10th article bans research. If your edit is based on more than one source, then it needs some extra work to integrate them (and it's not a primary research). And I don't hesitate to reflect additional info I found.

And you missed the point again. You tried to make the plain fact look like just a claim that is advocated only by "right-wing" groups (as my list indicates, it's wrong). You did, saying "balance it out." You have a different sense of balance. I can't believe detailed info about the photo itself is equal to the list of books that just "claim" without its source. --Nanshu 02:38, 26 May 2004 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it, do you? I'm not reverting the photo. I removed it myself. I'm removing your overgeneralized and unsubstantiated additions to the article. If you want to support your view, illustrate it with details and back it up with credible sources. If the photo is about the Jinan Incident, then perhaps it is on the wrong page?

The fundamental problem you made is that you try to show these photo in the context of Unit731 itself. But as I said dozen of times, they don't have foundations adequate enough to be dealt with in Wikipedia. If they are to be kept, it should be put at the section of political exploitation of history.

Now, I found these groundless claims were came not only from Chinese. --Nanshu 00:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You obviously don't get it. Please read slowly and carefully. Cheers, Jiang 01:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Should I repeat?
 * And any objection to my way to handle these photos? --Nanshu 02:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this claim is not just limited to "right-wing" groups. Care to explain yourself better?--Jiang 03:13, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Even if considering it is a plain fact, it was claimed by a supporter of Japanese Communist Party (JCP). --Nanshu 00:58, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You tend to divert subject. You accused me of making the history section not so good when we are talking about whether to separate Tibet and the TAR. You criticized bad English when we are taling about whether to keep Post-war Germany vs post-war Japan. This time, you mixed up:
 * where to put the passage, in other words, whether the subject belongs to the policial exploitation of Unit 731 or to Unit 731 itself
 * the content of the passage itself

You only question the latter. So don't revert. If you disagree, rewrite, not delete, the passage.

Plus, It is on topic. And it is symbolic of the policial exploitation of history. --Nanshu 02:04, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * don't erase the pointer from Unit 731 to this photo.

I cannot rewrite it because I do not buy right-wing Japanese arguments and would not give them fair treatment. Unlike you, I can see my own biases. Please take a look at the NPOV tutorial. Don't you think that if you had a solid argument that you could present it on the page? --Jiang 03:39, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I clarified my demands not to let you dodge them, but you did once again. And, NPOVing doesn't mean hidding unfavorable facts, of course. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If you really had a case, you would be able to insert these generalizations without controversy. However,this topic is controversial. Controversial facts need to be attributed and alternative views given for there to be NPOV. It doesn't mean providing one part of the story as an universal truth. Is two unattributed sentences all you can provide? --Jiang 05:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's your task. Deleting content isn't what you are expected to do.

Once again. I clarify my requests. I hope you will answer one by one.

--Nanshu 03:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you have any opinion on where to put the passage, in other words, whether the subject belongs to the policial exploitation of Unit 731 or to Unit 731 itself?
 * Don't put another photo (the unidentified one) on the top of the page. Since it is much easier to fabricate such a photo than identify them, we need sufficient ground.
 * Do you have any opinion on the content of the passage itself?
 * Don't erase the pointer from Unit 731 to this photo.


 * If there is to be a discussion on fabricated photos, then it does in #Politicization of history. Please do not insert your own conclusions based on circumstantial evidence into the article. It's unverifiable.--Jiang 01:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Unless you answer, I have no choce but to revert. --Nanshu 02:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Answer what? If you asked a question I did not understand, then perhaps I am not aware that you are asking a question or cannot comprehend what you are asking? --Jiang 02:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Read the above list with four items. Should I transform them in the form of question? I asked how you legisimate your edit. --Nanshu 06:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is this article (photo aside) actually disputed by anyone other than Nanshu? One person should not be able to just add "disputed" to an article and then start disputing it (as has happened in this case). As we know, anyone can dispute anything, but the "disputed" link should be added where there is dispute from a significant percentage of readers.

"An example of doubtful photos" is definitely unreasonable WP style. The article is about Unit 731, not about disputes over what a particular photo represents.

Quoting other doubtful photos is also not relevant to the article, and does not help with the dispute either way. Ambiguous photos are not evidence, but a photo and a caption does carry a powerful message - so how about wording its caption along the lines of "image showing vivisection at Unit 731, claimed by  to be accurate, disputed by ". Mat-C 23:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article about Unit 731 should mention political exploitation of it. And considering the present situation where activists and even the PRC spread propaganda without sufficient evidences, quoting these photos is relevant. --Nanshu 02:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you have to be simple minded and bigoted by using terms such as "activists" and "propaganda", I'm afraid I'll have to keep reverting. I gues you haven't yet read about NPOV and don't plan to...fine. --Jiang 02:55, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Information without any evidence. That's propaganda. Or can you provice evidences or anyone provinding evidences? --Nanshu 06:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally I find Nanshu's evidence persuasive, and I don't see any interesting contrary evidence given here. However, I still have a concern based on the photo itself. You can see that the victim's hands are tied by a strap to something outside the photo. If you look really carefully about 1-2cm up from the end of the trousers, I think that you can also see straps around the ankles. So the question is: if this person is dead, why is he tied down? I don't know anything about autopsies so maybe there is a reason related to rigor mortis. Just asking. --Zero 03:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)