Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 2

Undeclared War
Though this is not a uniquely Japanese behavior, and as far as I know the treaty signed at the end of the Russo-Japanese War (which the Japanese won) did not take it into account, I was wondering if this was ever considered by the war crimes tribunal.

What happened to the Iraq Crimes Against Peace discussion?
Last time I checked this discussion page a year or so ago linking Koizumi as an abettor to the Crime against Peace. But I read that some "40 year old virgin from downunder" frequents this article and mercilessly refutes those he 'believes' has a slanted POV by frequent reverse edits with prejudice and very little intellectual input, was it that guy? Crimson stranger 15:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I argued for the inclusion of the material about the Iraq controvery in Japan, but was outvoted by other editors. For some strange reason, one person blamed me for this and then used sockpuppets to abuse me, both here and on my talk and user pages. I have reason to believe Crimson stranger is probably the same person. Grant65 | Talk 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL yes I believe you are a sockpuppet Crimson stranger, for all I know you might be 'jacking it off' right now! or asking people to seed your porn on torrent in random forums. Confess to doing all these things Crimson!

Um BTW why do you think he was talking about you Grant? oh don't accuse me of sockpuppeting too mate ROFL Kilimanjaronum 05:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just took a wild stab in the dark. By the sound of it you know a lot about those. BTW 2006-1965 = 41, not 40. Back to remedial math for Crimson. Grant65 | Talk 06:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A wild stab in the dark? don't make people think you are doing the same with your pro-active edits. Just a tip. I say so because many of your refuting arguments against any lenient interpretations for the Japanese lack any source of reference. "The many editors" you frequently cite for support on subjective matters are not identifiable, I'm not saying you are making them up or lack material scholarship, I am just observing that you are merely pandering to those who harbor prejudice against the Japanese for all they are worth. It's also common knowledge that you quickly dismissed the discussion of Japanese Crimes Against Peace with regards to the War in Iraq by windfall in subjective opinion where you were the only voice, your motive was perhaps because you do support the War in Iraq or you don't want Australia to be placed in the same negative light of an all apparent 'decadent' Japan that you have developed in this article.

Now do you want to accuse me of lacking in arithmetic? Go ahead Grant, show us the true character of the 'bastion of truth'. Kilimanjaronum 07:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The conversation was archived to: /Archive 1 /Archive 1, /Archive 1; and it does not seem that any constructive consensus is going to be built by continuing the vitriolic exchange above, so perhaps it is best if all parties drop the subject. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Good neutral article
I find the article very informative and surprisingly I found it to be written in a very neutral way. Congratulations to those that have contributed to it. -- Anagnorisis 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also thanks to whomever it was that archived the rest of the talk page! Ahudson 17:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. It was getting far too large, IMHO. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

THE LAWS OF WAR ON LAND, BEING THE HAGUE REGULATIONS
It come to my attention that Japan might have signed this treaty. Also, important question is whether Chinese Nationalists has signed this treaty without it the treaty is not binding between Japan and China. Another legal issue is the nature of mutuality. Because both side killed captured soldiers, the treaty is still a moot. But anyway, we need more detailed exposition because it has strong relevance to treatment of allied POW by Japan. FWBOarticle

We could rewrite the first part of this article based on this page. FWBOarticle

Yes, Japan has signed and ratified Hague Convention of 1907 in Nov 6th 1911. Has China signed it? In addition, legally/techinically speaking, the Hague treaty does not govern Japanese/Chinese/Allied military behaviour. Domestic law implemented under Hague treaty govern the militaly. FWBOarticle


 * It does not matter if the countries were signatories to the Hague Convention of 1907. Part of the defence at Nuremberg was that some treaties were not binding on the Axis powers because they had not be a signatory to the some of the treaties. This was addressed in the judgement relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It contains an expansion of customary law
 * "the Convention Hague 1907 expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the [London] Charter."
 * One can assume that this was also the position in the trials in the Far East. Further see the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and Allied Commission, For Japan it was not just an issue of domestic military law, it also became an issue of international law and Japanse domestic law covering Japanese commitments under international treaty and customary law. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Atrocities Photo Sourced from Princeton Gallery
None of the photos in this site has been source. Plus, one of the photo has been proven conclusively as a misattribution. Plus, it appear that the site was organised by students' organisation. Therefore, any photos from this particular source cannot be regarded as reliable or verified. Please read [] FWBOarticle

Definition
Made it more techincal by refereing to relevants treaties. I also provided view for people who argue that war crimes exist whether law exist or not. Korean argument was also included though this would be a very domestic argument. Accusation of Japanese war crimes before WWII was elimiated due to lack of verification. By any standard Japanese war crimes refere to conduct of Japanese military during WWII. FWBOarticle
 * Yoji, you cannot simply delete valid and long-accepted material. This is highly provocative. The international definitions section is there because there are serious differences between the way in which these matters are regraded from one country to another. Also events in Asia prior to 1941 are not generally regraded as being part of "world war II". Grant65 | Talk 10:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I should not need to point out to you that your recent edits will be seen by many as serving a Japanese nationalist agenda. Grant65 | Talk 10:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

" your recent edits will be seen by many as serving a Japanese nationalist agenda" as in accusing someone of sockpuppeting will infer that one is a dick? just an analogy Crimson stranger 05:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Counterbalance
I know that there's been a lot of POV debate about this article, and I don't want to get into that, but I feel that this entry should have at least a small section covering war crimes that never were, or common myths about the Japanese war crimes that don't meet up to historical scrutiny.

Just a thought. —This unsigned comment was added by 82.34.112.4 (talk • contribs).

Changed spurious claim
From the article:

"After the launching of a full-scale military campaign against China in 1937, Japanese soldiers were often encouraged to go on rampages of murder, torture and rape — or at the very least, were not discouraged from so doing. Such acts were repeated throughout the Pacific War."

Although there were plenty of instances of rape, murder, looting, pillaging, etc., it was in fact against the law for Japanese soldiers to do so, and in rare cases, they were actually punished. I don't think you can say "encouraged" here without using a citation.

So, I have changed this to read:

"After the launching of a full-scale military campaign against China in 1937, instances of murder, torture and rape committed by Japanese soldiers seemed to be overlooked by Japanese commanding officers, and generally went unpunished. Such acts were repeated throughout the Pacific War."

Bueller 007 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted "From the point of view of bushido, POWs taken by Japanese forces were not worthy of treatment as soldiers. Compassion for defeated enemies was considered a sign of weakness. Some Japanese personnel considered the execution of prisoners as honourable, since it released the POWs from the dishonour of surrender. Perhaps as a consequence, Japan was not a signatory to the Geneva Convention &mdash; which stipulates the humane treatment of POWs &mdash; until after World War II" since it is unfounded, and also "Nevertheless, the treatment of prisoners by the Japanese military in earlier wars, such as the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), had been at least as humane as that of other militaries" since it is self-contradicting, considering the officers who fought in the Russo-Japanese war were mostly from former samurai class. --TokyoJapan 14:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

List of War Crimes or Atrocities by the U.S.
Although much fewer in number, there were some "war crimes" committed by the US against the Japanese. Is there an article for these? If not, perhaps we could consider starting one. I know of at least two incidents, and there are probably more that the WWII buffs who contribute to Wikipedia know about:

- Battle of the Bismark Sea- Commanding General ordered all Japanese survivors killed in the water and their rescue vessels attacked. Ordered no prisoners to be taken.

- Naval Battle of Guadalcanal- After the 1st engagement, a Marine tugboat motored around machine-gunning Japanese survivors in the water until a Navy officer finally ordered it to stop.

- Battle of Iwo Jima- Anecdotal evidence that US forces refused to take prisoners in that battle, although ironically, most of the enemy combatants that allowed themselves to be captured were probably Korean forced laborers.

Any others? Cla68 17:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a page called "Allied war crimes." I'll research and add the incidents I mention above to that article, only IF I can find reputable sources to validate the reported incidents. Cla68 14:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)



Time frames

 * Different societies use widely different timeframes in defining Japanese war crimes. For example, the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910 was followed by the widespread use of violence and deprivation of civil liberties against the Korean people. Millions of Koreans may have been killed during the occupation.  Thus, some Koreans refer to "Japanese war crimes" as events occurring during a period from 1910 to 1945. By comparison, the United States did not come into military conflict with Japan until 1941, and thus Americans may consider "Japanese war crimes" as encompassing only those events that occurred from 1941 to 1945.
 * With apologies to all the Koreans out there, political and legal considerations aside, and purely as a matter of organizing entries in an encyclopedia, Japanese excesses as a colonial ruler should be discussed under a different heading from Japanese war crimes.219.163.12.72 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

This paragraph does not make sense:
 * There can not have been war crimes if no war was taking place.
 * Further does this mean that the Swiss may not consider there to have been any war crimes in the region because the Switzerland never entered the war? --Philip Baird Shearer 07:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Philip. On the first point, a "war crime" does not have to be committed in a conflict between sovereign states. Both Japanese and Korean editors have had a lot of input into this (English language) article and it appears that the annexation of Korea was unilateral and unpopular with Koreans, who (it seems) do not tend to distinguish between misdeeds committed by the Japanese against Koreans in 1894 and misdeeds committed in 1945.
 * To answer your question: it means that the Swiss are more likely to be unaware of war crimes committed in WW2 than say British, Germans or Israelis.
 * Nevertheless, perhaps we could word both this material a little better. Grant65 | Talk 09:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Annexations usually are unpopular with the native populations! (otherwise a different term is used eg "German reunification"). Pre GCIV a war crime had to be committed during an armed conflict. One can argue that since GCIV contining occupation after the end of an armed conflict has ended can involve War Crimes, but this is strictly pre-GCIV. I would draw your attention to the Nueremberg Tribunal ruling about this:
 * With regard to crimes against humanity, there is no doubt whatever that political opponents were murdered in Germany before the war, and that many of them were kept in concentration camps in circumstances of great horror and cruelty. The policy of terror was certainly carried out on a vast scale, and in many cases was organised and systematic. The policy of persecution, repression and murder of civilians in Germany before the war of 1939, who were likely to be hostile to the Government, was most ruthlessly carried out. The persecution of Jews during the same period is established beyond all doubt. To constitute crimes against humanity, the acts relied on before the outbreak of war must have been in execution of, or in connection with, any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that revolting and horrible as many of these crimes were, it has not been satisfactorily proved that they were done in execution of, or in connection with, any such crime. The Tribunal therefore cannot make a general declaration that the acts before 1939 were crimes against humanity within the meaning of the [London] Charter, but from the beginning of the war in 1939 war crimes were committed on a vast scale, which were also crimes against humanity; and insofar as the inhumane acts charged in the Indictment, and committed after the beginning of the war, did not constitute war crimes, they were all committed in execution of, or in connection with, the aggressive war, and therefore constituted crimes against humanity.

For the crimes committed during the Annexations, one would need to show that the international community of nations did not recognize the annexations and that most thought that a state of war existed in the territories involved, League of Nations declerations would be the obvious forum to look for such statments as well as any bilateral treaties the Japanese made with China and the Russian Empire and/or the Soviet Union. To fulfill the Verification the very least that the paragraph needs are cited reliable sources (eg an article in a internationally recognised international relations jounal, or a book with relevent pages cited) stating that war crimes were committed during the annexation. I came across an interesting side point to this recently when looking up something completly different in an article called The Israeli "Disengagement" plan: Gaza stil occupied:
 * In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations' basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that "[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany's occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the "occupying power"—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will.  References
 * 34 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 461, 187 Consol. T.S. 227, entered into force Jan. 26, 1910, hereinafter "The Hague Convention."
 * 35 U.S.A v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948. [United States military tribunal: USA v. Wilhelm List (Hostage case), XI T.W.C. 757]

As it is based on Hague IV, it must be read that "occupying power" is "military occupying power in a time of war". That is if the war is over this treaty is not effective, as World War II was not over so this ruling applied but for it to apply to Korea one would have to prove that a state of war existed before it could be applied. This will be difficult because the at the Moscow Conference (1945) the Foreign ministers stated:
 * With a view to the re-establishment of Korea as an independent state, the creation of conditions for developing the country on democratic principles and the earliest possible liquidation of the disastrous results of the protracted Japanese domination in Korea, there shall be set up a provisional Korean democratic government which shall take all the necessary steps for developing the industry, transport and agriculture of Korea and the national culture of the Korean people. ...

Which would imply that unlike the other occupied territories, eg Yugoslavia (which was a different regime from that at the start of the war), there was no independent Korean state and that it had been under "protracted Japanese domination". The question the arises when did the domination start? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As to the second point it does not say that "they are aware" it says "thus Americans may consider". There needs to be a source to back up this statment. For example the terms of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and any interpretation by the Far East Tribunal like the one above for the Nuremberg Tribunal would be much better than such a sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: sovereignty over Taiwan and motion to remove the 'Good Article' tag.
Your attention please on this particular extract

''The issue of Japan's de jure sovereignty over countries such as Taiwan and Korea, prior to 1945, is well-documented by historians. Japanese control was not accepted and recognised as illegal internationally, and was unjustified.''

It is a personal assumption without reference and it seems not even the frequent Grant65 picked it up. Therefore it warrants an NPOV tag going up and I am also putting up a motion to remove the good article tag.

Also may I raise this point again that the title is deceptive. There are events here that have no lawful backing as war crimes by reference, it is reasonably forseeable that a lay person could assume that all the atrocities reported under this article are war crimes. These events should be separately layed out from crimes as atrocities as such or let alone not be in the same article under the current title of the article. It is only my desire that an earnest consideration be raised here, one that acknowleges there is an NPOV issue here instead of denying it out of prejudice and stubborn assumptions.

Thanks Philip Baird Shearer for the encouragement to start cleaning up this article. What constitutes a war crime is something charged for and can be legitimately alleged in the ICJ and its predecessors of concurrent jurisdiction. Phillip has done a wonderful job in the Allied war crimes article by clearing out what is and isn't determined by law as war crimes, namely the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as it was determined under an ICJ that no law continues to exist against the use of nuclear weapons since 1945, he has convinced me that such edits are not acts of denial. This includes removing subjective morality issues that implicates hypocrisy or determining the 'lesser of two evils'. I believe the same practice ought to be placed on this article and objective assessment ought to be the fundamental issue, something this article obviously lacks under the prejudice of hate, rage and general discontent of the Japanese race as a whole.

I have also raised similar points here: Good articles/Disputes

203.109.211.80 17:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's interesting that this tabloid article which hardly bothers to cite any primary sources such as transcripts of interviews with witnesses and survivors, while listing copious amounts of secondary materials that relies on largely 'hearsay' reports to merely allege could be highly commended as such.

However if ignoring or denying the allegation and evidence that there is a slanted point of view is an accepted custom of Wikipedia, then there's no effort to dispite. Afterall, this article is not the work of historical scholars who are disciplined. It is substantially a blog of self-interest which could manifest 'prejudice' as the person above said in the form of a reliable article. The like-minded prevail by show of superior numbers. Feefeeisthatyou? 21:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I find the article fairly neutral in light of the subject matter. This is a great article considering "official" japanese children text books have only a paragraph on pearl harbor.

Hd8888 05:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow it's been like nearly a month and the best counter-argument is placed by a copout hack. "He hit me first" Kilimanjaronum 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think renaming the article would be good, substituing "crimes" for "atrocities". John Smith&#39;s 16:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unable to kill 100 persons using a Japanese sword!
When a Japanese Sword is used to kill a man, the edge is broken. A false possibility of this newspaper article is high.Objectman 13:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a seperate article for this, by the way: Contest to Kill First 100 Chinese with Sword. Ahudson 17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Japanese swords must be the crappiest in the world, then. So you mean all that stuff I've heard about katanas are false? -- Миборовский U 00:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not crap. I say only that Katana cannot kill many. By the way, why "Bravo China"? Objectman 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A sword that can kill only one person is crap. (It's not "Bravo"...) -- Миборовский U 02:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I matters not if the same sword was used or not. It's the immorality of the article subject that best portrays the ignorance of the time.

Hd8888 05:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about the contest between the two Japanese captains to see who would chop off 100 Chinese heads first, then it is possible. How can the edge break when you kill one person?? Thats pretty much impossible unless the sword is in bad condition.


 * By the way, the two Japanese captains both killed more than 100 Chinese people so the contest didn't have any point except show Japanese savagery. Good friend100 05:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference I just added to the main article (Japan at War: An Oral History, by Haruko Cook, 1993) contains an interview with a Japanese survivor of military service in China during World War II.  In the interview he describes conducting multiple beheadings of Chinese captives in the same "sitting", one after another (up to 10 at a time).  He doesn't mention having to change swords after every few heads.  Perhaps his sword was better than the ones you're familiar with or else he had superior technique, which is possible since he goes into some detail in the interview about the proper technique for using a sword in that way. Cla68 18:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's the quote from Uno Shintaro, a former Imperial Japanese Army officer who served in China and served eight years in Chinese prison for war crimes:

My everyday sword was a Showa sword, a new one with the name Sadamitsu. My other sword was called Osamune Sukesada. It was presented to me by my father and dated from the sixteenth century. Sukesada was a sword made for fighting. It cut well, even if you were unskilled. It wasn't a particularly magnificent sword, but it was the best sword for murder. With Sadamitsu, you couldn't really take a head with a single stroke. The neck was cut through, but it didn't fall. Heads fell easily to Sukesada. A good sword could cause a head to drop with just an easy motion...I lined them up, nine of them, and cut their heads off. I knew that only two of them would have bent my Showa sword all out of shape, so I used my father's sword. As might be expected, that good old sword did the job with no ill effects. Cla68 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That research and conclusion is at odds with Shintaro's testimony whose personal experience belies that research. Perhaps that "main researcher" needs to have a talk with Shintaro Uno, if Shintaro is still alive. Cla68 12:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, to my knowledge, the 14 december edition of the Japan advertiser report the comments of Mukai saying he "almost broke" his katana while hitting through the helmet of one chinese soldier : "Mukai's blade was slightly damaged in the competition. He explained that this was the result of cutting a Chinese in half, helmet and all..." --Flying tiger 15:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC) (This comment was an answer to a post deleted by 219.163.12.72 (Oscar) on the 28th)

Basic parameters of the article
If I can belatedly tie the disparate debates back together: I think some of us are being rather finicky in the above debates; it isn't necessary for the events of 1895-1945 to meet the Geneva definition, the Nüremburg definition, or whatever. Neither am I saying that we should accept the idiosyncratic defitions of random persons from Seoul, Honolulu or Melbourne. As the article says: "...many of the alleged crimes committed by Japanese imperial personnel were also violations of the Japanese code of military law, which the military either willfully ignored, or failed to enforce." That makes them prima facie war crimes, never mind that they also meet the common/street definition. Grant65 | Talk 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes I made earlier
1. The point about "different societies" and what they consider war crimes is completely unsourced and no one has bothered sourcing it since it was tagged. It's also completely unverifiable. If you can find a source please do, but don't insist on keeping there if you can't.

2. War crimes may have been committed (ref Taiwan)? Oh, come on. That's another piece of hearsay, which doesn't add anything to the article.

3. Kneeling at a statue does not parallel "dogeza", as it can't be considered humiliating.

Other small edits are fine - removed links to articles that don't exist, etc. John Smith&#39;s 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you will have to do better than that. The point about "different societies" and what they consider war crimes is "completely unsourced" because it's completely obvious and logical. For example, people from pre-modern societies all over the world found it acceptable to kill, mutilate, enslave, rob, rape and cannibalise their defeated enemies. Clearly if Japan had the same conception of war crimes to western countries, prior to 1945, it would have been a signatory to the Geneva convention.


 * There is no doubt that Japanese imperialism was better accepted in Taiwan than on the mainland and in Korea. But military/political imperialism is never peaceful. Taiwan under Japanese rule states: "...in December [1895] a series of anti-Japanese uprisings occured in northern Taiwan, and would continue to occur at a rate of roughly one per month. By 1902 however, most anti-Japanese activity amongst the ethnic Chinese population had died down, and would remain relatively calm until the Beipu Uprising in 1907. The reason for the 5 years of calm is generally attributed to the OGG's dual policy of active supression and public works [my emphasis]."


 * Other reliable sources state that 14,000 Taiwanese lives were lost in the first seven or eight years of Japanese rule, 0.5% of the island's population. and


 * As for "Links to articles that don't exist", or redlinks as they are known, are very often the reason why such articles get written!!! Grant65 | Talk 02:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Grant, can you tell me how kneeling is the same as/parallel to dogeza? The former is not humiliating at all. It doesn't matter if a Japanese person suggested it, because he may have misunderstood the significance of what the Chancellor did. John Smith&#39;s 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are focusing too much on the act, not that there is even much difference there. Look at the historical context and the impact that the Warschauer Kniefall had:


 * ''In Germany, Brandt's action was very controversial and widely unpopular, especially among conservatives and liberals but also many social democrats, and Brandt was heavily criticized by the press for being unpatriotic. According to a Der Spiegel survey of the time, 48% of all West Germans thought the "Kniefall" was exaggerated, 41% said it was appropriate and 11% had no opinion.


 * It was also one of many arguments the opposition used to put forth a Constructive Vote of No Confidence in April 1972 against Brandt, which he survived by only two votes. It was revealed later that at least one (possibly two) members of the conservative opposition had been paid off by the Stasi to vote in favor of Brandt.


 * Thanks for discussing this, Grant65 | Talk 00:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know that 41% of Japanese would agree with dogeza. More than 48% would complain, which is why a Japanese politician simply couldn't do it. You've also got different social aspects. It's a lot easier for a European to do something like that against public opinion than a Japanese politician.
 * By the way, kneeling is very different because with dogeza you have to get your head right down towards the floor. John Smith&#39;s 00:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that the page you linked to is unsourced, so you can't rely on it. John Smith&#39;s 01:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then check it out for yourself in other sources! And take it up on the Warschauer Kniefall page. Clearly many Germans found it humiliating and we are only arguing about degrees. The parallel is clear and you have not demonstrated how and why a similar gesture is far more humiliating in Japanese culture...unless we revert to racist stereotypes about how the Japanese are prouder/more sensitive/etc than westerners or somesuch nonsense. Grant65 | Talk 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Grant, it is not for me to go wandering off to find information. If you want to allege something, you have to show that is the case. If you can't then it gets pulled. That is wikipedia policy. Something as specific that what the Chancellor did was a parallel/precedent has to be sourced.
 * I have already said that according to the page that describes what went on, only a narrow majority of West Germans were offended. Also kneeling is not "shameful" or anything like that. If dogeza was performed, I can promise you that a lot larger majority of Japanese would outraged. It is not because they are "more sensitive", it is because it is an experience not of a parallel to kneeling. Bowing would actually be a much better parallel. John Smith&#39;s 10:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Up to 41% of Germans thought that kneeling at the memorial was shameful; 41% of any public is a significant proportion, to disagree with a head of government they elected. I suggest that the parallels are clear to any reasonable person editing in good faith. Furthernmore you are not seeking consensus for changes to long-standing material, which is one of the cornerstones of joint editing in Wikipedia. I don't think you understand 3RR either. Grant65 | Talk 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you know the 41% were his voters? They could have been from the Opposition parties.
 * Just because something is left in doesn't mean it can't be changed. If there were lots of people here now talking about it, I might respect it. But it's just us two. And your argument is "well some Japanese guy put it in to begin with". That's not sufficient.
 * I am editing in good faith. You on the other hand still have not told me how the two things are a parallel. As a European and someone that has a good understanding of Japan, I can safely say they aren't. How much do you know about Japan? John Smith&#39;s 13:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There is clearly a parallel in the minds of several people, including me, the Japanese person (User:Yoji Hajime) who wrote that passage and another editor who has reverted your deletion. I suggest you stop your inflammatory and hypocritical whining to administrators. I also suggest we have a poll on the matter. Grant65 | Talk 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for you two to be having an edit war over this article. An article such as this includes a lot of controversial, disputed, facts and very subjective interpretations. Thus, the solution is that every single idea, thought, or assertion in the article must have it's own in-line citation. Don't follow the "common sense" rule-it's too subjective. I plan on assisting with this article some, but rest assured that everything I add will have an in-line, cited source. Everyone else needs to add more in-line citations. If someone adds an in-line citation to the article, then that portion of the text shouldn't be arbitrarily deleted without discussion. Otherwise, any unsupported statement is fair game for deletion. Deleting and then reverting back a bunch of unsupported statements is a waste of everyone's time. So, in-line cite your sources and the article moves forward. Since you two (John Smith's and Grant65) are so involved in this article, I assume you two have access to most of the sources listed in the references section? Cla68 15:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added a "Notes" section to the References section, so the article is now ready for everyone to begin placing in-line citations through-out the entry. Let's go! Cla68 16:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, with all those fact tags added, I expect Grant or someone else to go find some references for the bit about the Chancellor's visit being a precedent for dogeza. If they can't then I'll delete them again. If it's that obvious, facts to back them up should be really easy to get. How long do you want? John Smith&#39;s 18:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd give it a week at least, but that's just my personal preference. Most of the article actually needs to be cited, but deleting all of the uncited text isn't probably the best way to go.  It would be better for interested parties to try and find citations to support the established text first, before they start deleting stuff. Cla68 20:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's see where we are after a week. John Smith&#39;s 20:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Come off it guys. There shouldn't be any need to references for statements of the bleeding obvious. Try to find, for a example, a sentence in a book on citrus fruits which specifically states that lemons are similar to limes. There probably is one, but it will be difficult to find because it doesn't need saying to most people.

Quite clearly, the comparison between Brandt's act and dogeza has been made in Japanese popular culture. If I lived in Japan and had access to libraries there, I'm sure it would be easy to reference. Maybe JS could use his extensive expertise on/contacts in Japan to check it out or at least find an Japanese source which deals with the matter.........personally I prefer to trust the Japanese editors of this page over JS.

Similarly, JS may very well known a great deal about Japan, but it also doesn't mean he knows anything about Germany (*waits for immediate claim of expertise on Germany by John Smith's*) and the respective intra-cultural impacts of a real act by a German leader and a hypothetical one by a Japanese leader.

By the way, I think the first half of that paragraph is far more speculative and worthy of deletion than the Brandt/dogeza passage. Grant65 | Talk 03:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where has the comparison been made in Japanese culture? Please show me.
 * Oh, if I lived in Japan.........? Well that doesn't cut any ice on wikipedia. And if the Japanese editors take your side, they would be able to find a source too. But they haven't.
 * I'm not German, but I am a Western European. So I think I can compare the two. John Smith&#39;s 13:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have a feeling the first part you don't like would have been written by the Japanese editors as well. John Smith&#39;s 13:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The information in that paragraph may be true, but it's still unverified until a source is cited. I'm going to search around on the Internet to see if I can find a source to verify it and then add it.  If this article is ever to reach FA-level quality, which there isn't any reason why it shouldn't, every assertion needs to be cited or it won't pass the FA review.  If you really do have a vision of what you think this article should say and how it says it, which I think is commendable, I would recommend you trying to find some of the books listed in the reference section, such as at the local public or university library or buying them used on-line or in a second-hand book store, and then using them as your references for in-line sources.  That's what I do with the articles I edit (see my user page).  Text that is directly sourced is much more difficult for someone to come along and dispute it or recommend that it be deleted.  For example, in another discussion above, someone claimed that a "Samurai" sword couldn't be used over and over to slice off heads, because it would break after just one or two attempts.  I added a sourced quote that provides evidence to the contrary and stands a better chance of resolving the debate, since referenced information is harder to dispute. Cla68 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added citations to the paragraph in question. You'll notice however, that I had to alter the text somewhat in order to accurately express what the cited sources were actually saying.  That's another reason for the necessity of cited sources, it forces you to detach yourself from your own interpretation or bias concerning the event or issue in question.  If you'll edit articles this way, I think you'll be more successful at avoiding edit conflicts.  Now, if someone disagrees with that paragraph, they'll need to state here on the discussion page why they think the text is inappropriate for the article, why the source is non-credible, or how they think the text should actually read and why, along with their own source if using a different one. Cla68 15:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's some very nice work, Cla68. It's much better than before. :) John Smith&#39;s 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Cla68. Grant65 | Talk 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review
These minor adjustments should be addressed :
 * Give a reasonable copyright tag to the image Image:Slayers.jpg.
 * I think the lead section could be expanded.
 * The inline external links should become footnotes.
 * As for the NPOV tag present atop the article ... it shouldn't be there as the article is neither POV oriented and neither is the title as other titles attributed in the litterature for such topics could be worse than this one. The tag should thus be removed and the parties that disagree should resolve the conflict on the talk page instead of having the tag present. Lincher 18:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to remove the tag, so I did so. John Smith&#39;s 20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Native populations were not consulted
In the current version of the text it says:
 * However, the native populations were not consulted on the changes in sovereignty, nor was there universal acceptance of such annexations.

Prior to 1945 it was common that "native populations were not consulted on the changes in sovereignty". AFAIT the concept that they ought to be was not encapsulated in international law until GCIV in 1949 (See Articles 6 and 48). It is extreamly unusual for there to be "universal acceptance of such annexations", so I do not see the relevence of the comment. For this to be a valid point then a source is needed or the sentence should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil. The point is not that it was unusual, but that the non-consensual transfer is one reason why the concept of atrocities/war crimes is applicable in the cases of Korea, Taiwan, etc, just as it would be if (e.g.) France managed to annex the Channel Islands in 1938, and French forces committed reprehensible acts against civilians there. Grant65 | Talk 10:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Negationnists comments by 58.136.72.160
58.136.72.160, the comments you added in the article are mainly typical of the subjective point of view of japanese negationnists. I kept most of them and put them in the section "Position of the Japanese government". However, comments such as "China actively revive war memories through gory movie meant to provoke hatred of Japan" and "many of these events are subject to contreversy among historians of different nationalities" are pure propaganda.

If you do not recognize the legality of the Tokyo trial, Wikipedia is probably not the place for you, maybe Tsukurukai would be better.

Introduction
Grant 65, I do not see any partial point of view in the introduction of this article. Apart from negationnist japanese movements, I do not see anyone who see "contreversy" in these events. Most of them were investigated by the international trials and even serious japanese historians such as Mitsuyoshi Himeta, Akira Fujiwara ans Yoshiaki Yoshimi recognized them as facts. So, who are the "many historians from different nationalities" ?

The position and arguments of negationnist movements and japanese right-wing politicians is VERY WELL explained and justified in numerous section of this article. --Flying tiger 12:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What?! You only have to read this talk page and its archives to appreciate how controversial these subjects are. There are countless debates over the details. How does it detract from the article to point this out? And how does it enhance the article to give attention to crackpot revisionists like the Tsukurukai?
 * By the way, you have also made incorrect use of capitalisation ("War Atrocities") &mdash; see Manual of Style (capital letters). Grant65 | Talk 02:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You simply do not answer the question. Can you simply NAME the many nationalities apart from Japan where events descibed in this article "are subject to controversy" ? I do not refer here to some anonymous Wikipedia contributor but to historians. I gave you three names of japanese historians to which I precisely made reference in this article who recognized them as facts. Is it in China, Korea, Malaysia, USA, Australia ? If you can name them we will keep the sentence AND name the countries.

For example, for the rape of Nanking, Tokyo tribunal judged about 200 000 deaths, Nanking tribunal about 300 000, Japanese negationnists : about 20 000, maybe less mostly soldiers in the course of battle. Where does the controversy come from ? China ? Is it a controversy because the death toll is between 200 000 and 300 000? What about Hiroshima ? I there a controversy in many countries about Hiroshima as people do not really agree about the death toll ? The point is that the events are only controversial in right-wing Japan. So why write this ambiguous sentence ? By refering to Tsukurukai, it shows where the controversy come from. By keeping the sentence, it seems to infer that the events are incertain and that maybe, after all, Tsukurukai is right... P.S. I do not know what your are refering about for "War Atrocities", I simply use "revert". --Flying tiger 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand what you mean. I have come up with a slightly altered wording which I hope you find acceptable.


 * My point is that the Tsukurukai/Japanese right are not the only sources of controversy. There are controversies about many aspects of the subject from one country to another. For instance there is no agreement on the start date (1895/1931/1937/1941). And the Japanese right have admirers even among a minority of Koreans (see Japanese_war_crimes) &mdash; who arguably should know better &mdash; and among westerners who are ignorant &/or unaware of the events and/or feel sympathetic to Japan because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are just a few examples.


 * To answer your last point, Wikipedia style is "war atrocities" not "War Atrocities". Grant65 | Talk 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)