Talk:Japanese war crimes/Archive 4

Japanese military culture and imperialism
How come this section has no citations? Any reader who does not harbor anti-Japanese sentiment or have a bias for the Allied powers could come to the reasonable conclusion that, this section is largely based on generalisation. I also want to express this in light of the attitude with which the article is written, the tone with which the article is written and the non-uniform citation requirements make this article seem to be edited largely by those that harbor prejudice and malice against the Japanese.

118.92.228.23 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hong's latest deletions
"Outside Japan, 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 deprivation of civil liberties and exploitations against the Korean people. Thus, some Koreans refer to "Japanese war crimes" as events occurring during the period shortly prior to 1910 to 1945."

"By comparison, the Western Allies did not come into military conflict with Japan until 1941, and North Americans, Australasians and Europeans may consider "Japanese war crimes" to be events that occurred in 1941-45."

Which parts of those sentences are not self-explanatory?

Also, it would be nice if you made constructive edits, such as discussing issues here and fixing vandalism, instead of just deleting stuff that you alone have doubts about. Grant | Talk 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation needed tags have been on these claims for weeks. I am not opposed to them at all if they can be verified.  Please read WP:Original research and WP:VERIFY.  "Self explanatory" or "it's obvious" are not reasons to include content in an article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you also want citations for "the sky is blue" and "Paris is the capital of France"? Grant | Talk 17:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Those can be verified, and sure, citations for them would be great. Here's a source to verify that Paris is the capital of France, and here's a source to verify that the sky may sometimes be blue.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Which part of the logic in the above paragraphs is it that you do not follow? What would would you like referenced? Grant | Talk 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Please tell me, because I don't understand your reasoning. Grant | Talk 17:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if a piece of content or claim makes sense to us as editors or that we think it's the truth. This is why I asked you to read WP:Original research and WP:VERIFY.  This is just WP basics, and I'm confused that you don't understand that.  Are you new to WP?  The content that needed referencing and verifying were the content that had citation needed tags:


 * 1) Different societies place the war crimes in different time frames, and that "some Koreans" place them at events between 1910 and 1945.
 * 2) North Americans, Australasians, and Europeans place the war crimes at events between 1941 and 1945.
 * 3) It may not be considered "war crimes" if the acts were committed in regions that were "subjected to Japanese sovereignty".
 * Where exactly is this information found? Are these claims made by reliable sources?  We don't know anything about how this information came about on this WP article.  Again, I would not oppose the information being there at all if it can be verified.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Where exactly is this information found?" It is found in logic. The same logic that says 2 + 3 = 5. If anyone can't understand the reasoning in these statements, they are going to have trouble with a great deal of the information in Wikipedia. Grant | Talk 17:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no issue of original research here. The concept does not apply to common sense statements. The issue is that you feel that the statements need citations. They would need citations if they did not include words such as "some" and "may", i.e. more definite statements, like "all Koreans define war crimes as events that occurred between 1910 and 1945" require citations. There is nothing "original" about basic logic, i.e. "Korea was part of the Japanese empire between 1910 and 1945; war crimes occurred in areas occupied by Japan; some Korean people..."

As for your point 3, it explained in the sentences that follow the point where you have put the {cn}}: "Japan's de jure sovereignty over places such as Korea and Formosa, prior to 1945, are recognized by international agreements such as the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895) and the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty (1910). However, the legality of these treaties is in question, the native populations were not consulted, there was armed resistance to Japanese occupation invasions and war crimes may also be committed during civil wars."

There is no reference in France for Paris being the capital. Neither are there references in most articles for statements that conform to basic logic. Grant | Talk 18:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, please read WP:VERIFY. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to us as editors.  Who or what source is saying that different people apply different time frames to the war crimes?  Who or what sources claim that it may not be considered a war crime if the regions were under Japanese sovereignty at the time?  And your explanation of point 3 is exactly why I asked you to read WP:Original research.  Did you arrive at that conclusion yourself?  Or is there a reliable source that's making the claim?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grant. . If any single sentence that is not properly referenced must be removed, Wikipedia will be reduced to a skeleton within the next few days. Furthermore, I don't see any original research here, but only a couple of statements which reflect common sense. --Lebob-BE 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've said, the citation needed tags had been placed there for weeks. I had not removed those statements initially.  But after weeks and no references have materialised, I removed those statements.  It's a simple request - can sources be found to verify those statements?  Furthermore, if there are other statements in other articles that can't be verified, I highly encourage you and other editors to put citation tags on them or remove them.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not "can sources be found to verify those statements", the issue is why should anyone have to? Show me how WP:VERIFY applies to matters of rudimentary induction.
 * I spent some time reducing and rewriting the "Definitions" section because you weren't happy with it. You're only response was to put tags on three sentences. You have now reduced the "Historical and geographical extent" section to a nonsensical stub, but I guess that makes you happy, since you wanted rid of it all together. Grant | Talk 00:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I never wanted to get rid of it.  I thought the original version was misnamed and should be moved down.  And there's nothing "rudimentary" about the claims that need citation.  What's rudimentary is that the sky is blue, not that a "war crime" is not really a "war crime" if the region it happened in was under Japanese sovereignty.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The material is back, with references. You could have researched and added them yourself, if you really wanted that material to stay.Grant | Talk 03:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did do some quick searching weeks ago before I even put the citation needed tags on. I couldn't find anything, so I put citation tags on them.  Weeks later and there are still no sources.  I'm not an expert on the subject and I'm not the only editor on WP.  So I'm absolutely justified in removing them.  Anyway thanks for providing the sources.  That's all that those claims needed.  I haven't verified them yet, but I'll trust that they back up those claims for now.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

148 convicted criminals?
This section is wrong. I checked the actual book in question, and it says there 5,700 individuals indicted for Class B and Class C war crimes, including 178 Taiwanese and 148 Koreans. So the 148 number wasn't the total number of conviincted individuals, but just the number of ethnic Koreans in the entire group of convicted war criminals. Hong Sa Ik was the highest ranking ethnic Korean war criminal, not the highest ranking convicted war criminal in general, which include the 25 Class A war crminals. Here's the actual page, shown courtesy of Google Books. (Embracing defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II By John W Dower, pg. 447) Therefore, I'm fixing the numbers to reflect this. Also, while looking at the 148 number, I also found an interesting sidefact, which I also included.--Yuje 12:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work. That's the kind of edit that really improves an article. Cla68 02:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Revisionism etc
I believe more information needs to be devoted to revisionism in Japan and reaction from allied nations. I don't think the current issue is whether Japan has apologized or not, because they had numerous times. I think the main thing is not about the apologies, but about all kinds of things that keeps popping up like revisionism and textbook controversy, plus Abe's recent denial that comfort women were forced. It's these incidents by high profile politicians that anger Japan's neighbors, not the "lack" of apologies. Blueshirts 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would advice anyone (who can read Japanese) to have a look at the Japanese version of this wikipedia entry. It is litterally filled with revisionism, and gives - in my opinion - a good view of how every day Japanese people see this topic. It might be not a bad idea to actually refer to it form this English page. I would be willing to do the translation. Robby888 (talk) 09:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Immediate Compensation?
The property listed in China were all looted goods from China. Can a robber uses the robbed goods as compensation? This is incredible. Redcloud822 19:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

'No Reference' tag added for the 'Background' section
Origins and the so called 'culture' of Japanese imperialism is no more than personal pragmatic speculation at this moment without any reference to secondary material. Hence the tag will remain until those opinions could be cited through a legitimate endnote. 203.109.234.135 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In some cases 203.109, you have added "citation needed" tags to material where the source is already mentioned in the text or where the citation is in an adjoining sentence. In other cases you have added them in sentences which follow logically from preceding statements, without putting them at the point where the controversy arises. In others you have put them at statements of the obvious. I will clean all of these up in due course. Grant | Talk 03:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll ever understand your "follow logically" argument. Sounds a lot like WP:Original research - meaning you as a WP editor is making a conclusion based on the evidence we have, instead of simply reflecting the sources we have.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, if a sentence says, in essence, that "A = 3", the following sentence says "B = 2", the one after that says "A + B = C" then it follows logically if the fourth sentence says "C = 5". The last sentence is not the point that references should be given or requested.


 * Second, Wikipedia does not have a rule that says every sentence or even every paragraph has to be referenced.


 * Third, requests for references can be mischevious and ways of pushing a particular POV or ideology. Grant | Talk 08:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gtant65 I had a look for the citations requested and under WP:V I do not think that they are unreasonable. For example: The others are in a similar vain and should have citations. But I do no think that the "Unreferenced template" on the background section should be used, but there should be some "fact" templates on things like:
 * For example, many of the alleged crimes committed by Japanese personnel broke Japanese military law, and were not subject to court martial, as required by that law.(citation requested) It is a contentious statement of fact with no citation to back it up.
 *  Had Japan certified the legal validity of the war crimes tribunals in the San Francisco Treaty, the war crimes would have became open to appeal and overturning in Japanese courts. This would have been unacceptable in international diplomatic circles.(citation requested) This definatly needs a citation and as I doubt it was made up it should be easy to fid.
 * By the late 1930s, the rise of militarism in Japan created at least superficial similarities between the wider Japanese military culture and that of Nazi Germany's elite military personnel, such as those in the Waffen-SS. Japan also had a military secret police force, known as the Kempeitai, which resembled the Nazi Gestapo in its role in annexed and occupied countries. Because it is guilt by comparrison and so contentious. Besides it is arguable if Germany's elite  military personnel were in the SS, See for example the attitude of Dietrich von Saucken an aristocratic Prussian conservative and a member of the military class who were probably the real elite military of Germany. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Phil, I wasn't referring to the examples you have given, not that I think any of them are really that controversial, although they may appear so to some people.


 * Most of the material in question &mdash; and in fact most of the article &mdash; was actually added by User:FWBOarticle (under another user name, which he has changed for privacy reasons), who I understand to be a Japanese person living in Japan. He and I have had some serious disagreements rearding various articles, mostly to do with his and my quite different historiographical approaches. But I also believe that he has an excellent knowledge of this subject, from Japanese sources which are inaccessible to most of us. I have suggested to him that references would be a great addition, but he has never provided them.


 * And one reason for my objections stated above is the use of {cn} tags as an insidious form of POV-pushing and political censorship. There are people who use them to justify deletion of facts that they fund unpalatable. I think most of the frequent contribuors to these article would agree with me. I do not think the lack of references, is a good enough reason for the removal of long-standing material, against the wishes of most editors. Grant | Talk 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This year there has been a lot of editing of the Battle of Waterloo one of the things that has happened is that there has been a tendency to ask for and to reference everything. I think if you compare two versions of the article from say 31 December 2006 and now, you will see that thanks to footnoting the article is of far more use as an encyclopaedic source than it was before, although the content of what is said has not altered a lot. I have also found that citations help greatly with controversial topics e.g. Bombing of Dresden in keeping the article focused and removing the more extreme theories. So I would recommend that on a subject like this there should be rather more citations than there are at the moment. Don't look on the request for citations as POV pushing but a chance to copper bottom what is already here. In the long run the article will be much better for it, although in the short term it is a pain to find them. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Un-cited "Long-standing material" could merely be "neglected fiction"that survived time and deletion through maintenance by an overwhelming majority of posters that may harbor anti-Japanese sentiment or other political cause. So far this the implied justification Grant has made to maintain un-cited material indefinitely. Since when did the contributor, whose onus is to cite his or her sources become relieved from that duty and substituted with the favor of a tenuous majority that owes its existence to the mind of that invoker, and then allege guile against those who ask for the source? Such approach to article building is inherently pernicious and any wikipedian who espouse this approach should recognize how they measure demeaningly against a mark of an honorable and dignified researcher. Kilimanjaronum (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comfort Women
I have removed the following reference from the "comfort women" section for it's lack of citation and use of weasel-words: "Some sources claim that virtually all comfort women consented to becoming prostitutes and/or were paid, but others have presented research establishing a link between the Japanese military and the forced recruitment of local women."

I didn't feel it was appropriate to simply tag it and leave it, as this is a massively controversial topic with a lot of bad feeling behind it. Based on that possibility for real harm being done, I think it should be held to a higher standard (on the level of WP:BIO, for example) in terms of the absolute essentiality of good citation. I was in doubt, and I took it out. If the claim has any truth it can simply be cited, de-weaseled, and returned to the article. Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

why is this quote given in full twice? Surely its unecessary to use it twice in the same article?--Jackyd101 11:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * These were not commercial brothels. Force, explicit and implicit, was used in recruiting these women. What went on in them was serial rape, not prostitution. The Japanese Army’s involvement is documented in the government’s own defense files. A senior Tokyo official more or less apologized for this horrific crime in 1993. [...] Yesterday, [Abe] grudgingly acknowledged the 1993 quasi apology, but only as part of a pre-emptive declaration that his government would reject the call, now pending in the United States Congress, for an official apology. America isn’t the only country interested in seeing Japan belatedly accept full responsibility. Korea and China are also infuriated by years of Japanese equivocations over the issue.

I recommend changing the text "regard themselves as having been sexually assaulted and/or sex slaves" be changed to "claim to have been sexually assaulted and/or sex slaves." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.167.175 (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Iraq War
I don't think this even warrants discussion, but I'm not going to risk the 3RR violation. I think it is grossly trivialising to the subject to include the stuff about the Iraq War, especially in the first paragraph.

The historical jury is still out on the rights and wrongs of the invasion of Iraq; I can't see how the presence of a small contingent of Japanese non-combat personnel in Iraq is comparable to the Rape of Nanjing or the Death Railway. In fact, no alleged war crime committed by coalition forces in Iraq is in the same ballpark as that. IMO this is ahistorical, "presentism" of the worst kind. Grant65 (Talk) 08:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. Iraq is totally irrelevant unless allegations of war crimes by the Japanese are made. This is somebody apparently not understanding what "war crime" means. 81.131.124.114 19:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand very well what a war crime is, and while it's OK to mention the controversy about Japan's role in Iraq, I'm not satisfied with the way it has been done by contributors to this page. Grant65 (Talk) 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes like there's logic in determining why abusing your own citizens i.e. the Koreans is a war crime. CHECK MATE


 * I've removed the Iraq War section again. Only Grant65 and I have had any discussion about this recently, and no-one has been able to offer a coherent argument as to why it should be included. If Japanese soldiers in Iraq are accused of war crimes it can be re-instated; but until then its irrelevant to this article as a war crime and a crime against peace are different concepts. JW 14:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeff...clearly they have been accused of crimes against peace by Japanese activists. I don't know what your attitude to the Iraq war is but are you sure you aren't letting it cloud your approach to this issue? Grant65 (Talk) 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a nice idea, but no. Whether the Iraq War was a "crime against peace" or not is debatable. But my understanding is that a "crime against peace" and a "war crime" are different concepts. We could always change the article name to make it clear we are discussing a historical event. Something like Imperial Japanese war crimes or whatever. JW 15:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't that definitive distinction warrant the separation and disposal of acts that are crimes against humanity and not war crimes from this article? you would assume that to be absurd. From Artile 6 of the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity form a consolidated framework that under Artile 5 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is the ambit of jurisdiction for the International Criminal Court “most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole”.

Grant65, you implied that the inclusion of Iraq related material is "grossly trivilising" to the material related to the Pacific War. However, one can reasonably construe that you are trivialising the Iraq material itself. I do not think you understand the gravity of Japan's leaders supporting the invasion. This is a nation that has had leaders convicted of crimes against peace and has duly accepted those judgments under Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. I can only sincerely hope that all of you take due caution in editing and deleting of forthcoming additions to the article with regards to Iraq and convictions of the past.

Deganw23 01:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why this has made a reappearance after it was archived, but I take the opportunity to point out once again that &mdash; in spite of my initial concerns &mdash; I ended up arguing for inclusion of the material relating to the Iraq War. See my post from November 13, 2005 above. User:Jeff Watts (JW) disagreed, as did another editor. Grant | Talk 12:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

''We could always change the article name to make it clear we are discussing a historical event. Something like Imperial Japanese war crimes or whatever. JW 15:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)''

Well, that proposal was never revisited for one and a half years so that's moot (nobody including User:Jeff Watts even bothered to create a rediret link for that "Imperial Japanese war crimes" title to this page since). Hence, the reasonable wiki-browser would be led to believe from the current title that the article could theoretically encompass any war crime in any period between the formation of the Yamato state in the antiquities to contemporary Japan. Kilimanjaronum 16:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone can create a redirect. I repeat: I am not opposed to discussion of the Iraq War controversy in this article. But I think other editors will need to be persuaded. Grant | Talk 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans may consider "Japanese war crimes" to be events that occurred in 1941-45"
Under the "Historical and geographical extent" heading:

By comparison, the Western Allies did not come into military conflict with Japan until 1941, and North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans may consider "Japanese war crimes" to be events that occurred in 1941-45.

Is this not a presumption and a deductive fallacy, and is "may consider" not weasel wording? I have checked the sources cited and have found nothing in them to support this claim. On the contrary, the sources cited clearly contradict it.

"North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans?" That's a lot of people! This looks like a not-so-tactful way of saying "gaijin."

This comment amasses hundreds of millions of people, from dozens of countries and countless cultures all over the globe, into one big homogenous group...

...and then projects a straaangely insular psychology onto that group.

Now, I wonder how that could have happened?

I reccomend that this text be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.167.175 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-26T04:45:21

oh, here's my four tildes: 64.81.167.175 07:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no. A "presumption" yes, because its a reasonable and perfectly encyclopedic presumption. A "deductive fallacy", no because it's inductive and not a fallacy. "May consider" is not a weasel phrase; you are mistaking the cautious use of words for the misleading use of them.


 * You are the first person to suggest the removal of this wording, which is simply pointing out the historical differences between (A) Taiwan and Korea, (B) mainland China and (C) the rest of the world (worded as "North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans", because there can't have been many Latin Americans or Africans who were affected, even though there are rather a lot of them). Others have suggested that the article should be restricted to 1941-45. I don't agree with that either. Grant |  Talk  14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, inductive, thanks to the word "may." 'Thousand pardons. However I have to insist that this is a fallacy, a fallacy of weak induction, a fallacy of "false cause," if you like. It's inferring a conclusion that is not supported by the premise.

Like this:

Japanese Imperial forces committed horrific acts against entire populations, acts which are well known to the entire world, but...

since:

certain populations were not directly at war with Japan until after many of the most notorious atrocities took place, including the massacre of Nanjing,

it naturally follows that:

descendants of those certain populations "may" have no consideration for, or knowledge of, such globally acknowledged horrors. (amazingly!)

It is a serious leap of faith, and I have to respectfully disagree; it is hardly encyclopedic or reasonable.

But whether we agree on that point or not, your response did not address the other serious matter: the fact that the sources cited for this claim do not support the claim; in fact, they contradict it quite clearly. That is hardly encyclopedic.

Without any sources to support such a feeble induction, what place does it have in an encyclopedia? "May have" puts the assertion on shaky ground to begin with, such that it would require a solid basis of circumstantial evidence to warrant mention. No such evidence is provided. In this manner, we "may" assume anything. That's our right to do so, I suppose, but printing such assumptions in an encyclopedia is hardly justified.

Not yet mentioned is the fact that the assumption being made in this passage is one about people's thoughts. That is a broad assumption, and without some kind of data to back it up, interviews, surveys, letters to editors, something, it amounts to mind-reading, and mind-reading on a massive scale, for that matter. I'm unaware if psychics are considered legitimate encyclopedic sources these days, but that's irrelevant since none were cited in this case.

I'll admit, I do have a bit of a passionate stake in this, because the passage I'm contesting seems to suggest that either the enormous group mentioned (Australasians, etc.), or people in general, are so daft and self-centered as to be incapable of comprehending anything that doesn't involve them directly (in this case, human suffering on a catastrophic scale). So I do find it offensive.

Nevertheless, pathos aside, I'm unconvinced that my argument is anything less than solid. I still feel that the passage is irrelevant and inappropriate, that the premise does not support the conclusion, that the sources cited contradict the claim rather than support it, and without sufficient support for the claim, its presence in this article is awkward at best, and, well, forgive me, but revisionist at worst. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Utterly wrong. Would Grant like to add anything, or does anyone else have anything to say? (forgot my tildes again; sorry) 64.81.167.175 09:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if "amazingly" is supposed to be sarcastic, but if it is, it proves that the statements in question are so obvious and logical as to warrant no further discussion or referencing. In which case; Q.E.D.


 * As far as the issue of "people's thoughts" is concerned, the statement is not a precise and definite assertion &mdash; I refer you to that word "may" &mdash; about the thoughts of any person or any group of people, so it is not "mind reading".


 * Let me try this again: we are dealing with a cautious statement, a simple qualified statement of logic which hinges on the word "may". Some very intelligent and well-educated people are uncomfortable with qualifiers like "may", because they like (or are used to) active/definite statements ("This is X, that is Y."). An insistence that such statements are obligatory suggests what is known as a empiricist and/or positivist philosophy or approach to scholarship. Neither of those is a philosophy to which I adhere; they are not (any longer) the standard approaches to the practice of historical scholarship (of which this article is an example, among other things), they are not official Wikipedia policy, and we cannot assume that they are the philosophy of everyone reading the article. They also do not make qualified statements incorrect or unencyclopedic. Grant  |  Talk  11:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I hope no one takes offense.

I understand what you mean about the hedging nature of "may," but to use the "cautiousness" of the word "may" as a license to print in an encyclopedia whatever hunch we conjure up in our imaginations is irresponsible, especially when dealing with such a serious topic.

Here are some not-so-serious examples, because I don't want to cloud the issue with examples of wild inferences about rape, murder, etc:

"Consumption of Coca-Cola is widespread among people of Europe, Australasia, North America, and South-East Asia, therefore, those people may believe that Coca-Cola contains magic healing properties, and that the gods will treat them favorably if they drink it regularly."

"The majority of documented UFO sightings in the U.S. occurred in the 1950s-1960s, therefore, aliens may not like disco, which became popular in the 1970s."

I'm not being sarcastic; the above examples are intended to emphasize my point. Anything's possible. People may think anything. Wild inferences do not suddenly become encyclopedic when stated cautiously. Some people "may" believe that my cautious conjecture about aliens' taste in music is more plausible than a cautious speculation that tens of millions of people "may" collectively disregard the criminal nature of rape, mutilation, torture, enslavement, and massacre of entire populations of civilians, if and when such atrocities are inflicted on people of another skin color, nationality, or continent of residence. That is the meaning implied here. It is the unstated premise upon which the "logic" of the assertion is based, and it is a wild and disprovable one. We cannot separate words from their meaning, and it is an acrobatic act of denial to base an argument on lexicogrammaticality while simultaneously ignoring semantic meaning.

Disprovable, too, is the conclusion drawn. We don't have to remain in the gray area of "caution." A body of representative data could easily be produced to support a counter-assertion: that Australasians, Europeans, South-East Asians, and North Americans do, in fact, overwhelmingly recognize the criminality of the massacre of Nanjing, the mass-rape of "comfort women," and other atrocities committed by Japanese Imperial forces before the year 1941.

Conversely, a comparable body of authentic data, or any authentic data at all, which would take this "cautiously stated" inference out of the realm of wild speculation and place it in the domain of logical assumption, "may" be difficult or impossible to produce. The volume of evidence against it will "certainly" overwhelm it.

Speaking of which... The fact that the sources cited do not support the claim, and the fact that the sources cited contradict the claim, still has not been addressed.

I do tend to rattle on, so let me simplify:

1: Please explain how the cautious inference is "logical."

2: Please explain how the sources cited support the "cautious statement."

I'll be offline for a few days, so, until then, best wishes...

Tildetildetildetilde64.81.167.175 18:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Because of the dates that countries either (a) became part of the Japanese empire or (b) were at war with Japan


 * 2. The sources clearly support the 1941 date for Americans, but I'm assume you are not referring to Americans when you suggest that the sources cited do not support the statement. Please be clear about what you see as the specific problem here. Grant  |  Talk  23:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for my long absence. There is a world of difference between being at war and recognizing war crimes. To illustrate, we Westerners recognize that atrocities are currently being committed against civilians in the Darfur region of Sudan, yet no Western country is at war with Sudan. We don't need to be at war to recognize war crimes. Likewise, no Western country is at war with the People's Republic of China, nor was any Western country at war with the P.R.C. when Mao's forces invaded Tibet. Nevertheless, atrocities committed by the P.R.C. against Tibetan monks and civilians are widely recognized by Westerners. The Khmer Rouge has not invaded North America, Australasia, or Europe, and in fact, U.S. leaders privately supported the Khmer Rouge, yet the West was quick to condemn their atrocities, and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge are names practically synonymous with "war crime" in the psyche of North Americans, Australasians, Europeans, and, of course,  South East Asians. When hard-line Serbs carried out "ethnic cleansing" in former Yugoslavia, they did not threaten North Americans, Australasians, or South East Asians, and, with the exception of several hundred thousand non-Serbs who happened to be living in a certain concentrated geographic location, the Serbs did not threaten Europeans, either. Nevertheless, Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, and the same court currently has an international arrest warrant in effect against Ratko Mladic, who is widely regarded as one of the most despicable murderers of the 20th century. All of these examples serve to prove my point that "Nation B" does not need to be invaded by, or at war with, "Nation A" in order for Nation B to recognize Nation A's war crimes. It naturally follows that a citation showing that Nation A went to war with Nation B in year X does not support the contention that one nation only recognizes the crimes of the other committed during or after year X.

Other facts that serve to further erode the likelihood of the statement I am disputing exist in great abundance.

Specifically in regards to the concept of involvement, the U.S. and Britain were providing material aid to Chinese forces before 1941. This was one of the reasons Japanese leaders viewed the U.S. as a military enemy.

Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking has sold over a million copies worldwide and has been published in several languages. The original publication earned Chang an invitation to the White House in Wahington, D.C., she (R.I.P.) gained worldwide acclaim, received several awards and two honorary doctorates, and was memorialized in ceremonies and monuments following her death. In other words, she, and her work, are widely recognized by North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans.

The rape, mutilation, and massacre in Nanjing of hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians, including infants and elderly, occurred in 1937. North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans are well aware of this fact, and widely condemn these monstrosities as war crimes.

North Americans, Australasians, South East Asians and Europeans also widely recognize the forced sexual slavery of hundreds of thousands of "comfort women" prior to 1941, even if Shinzo Abe does not.

In short, the dates of the beginnings of direct military conflict do not support the statement I am contesting.

Regarding the sources cited: The first, the Craig Symonds article, merely shows the dates of the U.S. war with Japan, therefore it is irrelevant, because, as I have elaborated, the dates of direct military involvement are separate from the recognition of war crimes. The second, the Edward Drea introduction, directly contradicts the statement I am disputing, with the statement: "The atrocities at Nanjing occurred four years before the United States entered the war." First, by using the word "entered," this statement shows recognition that there was already a war going on prior to 1941, and second, this statement recognizes "atrocities at Nanjing" which "occurred four years before the United States entered the war." As for the passage that follows this contradictory statement, regarding the lack of documentation prior to 1945, I trust that it is not being used to suggest a lack of evidence, since it is almost always the case in instances of wartime atrocities that the facts do not become fully known until after the fighting has ceased, as exemplified in a quote from another of the sources cited for this statement which I am disputing, the 59th Session of the U.N. Human Rights Committee: "In August 1945, following the Japanese surrender to Allied Forces, the horrific fate of the Far East prisoners of war was fully discovered." But returning to the chronological order of the citation, from the next source cited, the book review of A History of Japan, 1582-1941, comes another statement that directly contradicts the statement I am disputing: "It was indeed ironic that when Japan thought that it was taking a moral stand, that of liberating Asia from western colonialism in the Second World War, it committed the greatest acts of aggression and the grossest atrocities." I am unable to gain access to the next cited source, volume 64, #2 of Pacific Affairs. Returning to the U.N. document, I'm afraid I'll have to ask for your assistance with this one. It appears to be a legal argument regarding discrimination by the New Zealand government against certain sufferers of internment. Could you please explain how this document supports the statement I'm disputing? Finally, I regret that I have not had time yet to thoroughly read the Reynolds document. At a glance, it appears to be a chronology of the claims made against the Japanese government by former P.O.W.s. Perhaps you could be so kind as to direct me to certain sections that constitute support for the statement which I am disputing?

64.81.167.175 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Briefly, you need to consider the whole definition and the rationale for the writing and inclusion of this passage, rather than looking at it in isolation. The rationale was that certain Japanese nationalists and their sympathisers have attempted repeatedly to reduce the scope of this article, so that it deals with only the events of either 1941-45, 1937-45 or 1931-45. The point of the passage is not to say that events before 1941 were not war crimes, but rather that many people in said countries may not automatically think of events before 1941, and/or connect them to "Japanese war crimes". For instance, you missed the relevant section of the Symonds article, which says: "Ienaga dates the Pacific war from 1931 [emphasis added] and claims that the attack on Pearl Harbor a decade later was a lineal development of the war in China, which for the Japanese was the central theater. Both Schultz and Dull, indeed most American historians, date the war from December 1941. This is perhaps natural, but Ienaga's argument is compelling." And so on. Grant  |  Talk  01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Asian Holocaust
The war crime of Japan was decided according to a International Military Tribunal for the Far East. (As well as Nuremberg Trials) Please look at Article 5 of the international Far Eastern military court ordinance if there is a rebuttal in my opinion. It is not academic to delete this law explanation, and to use the word called Asian Holocaust at all. Asian Holocaust is used for the slaughter of the Tibet people and the Falun Gong believer in Chinese. Moreover, a lot of citizens were slaughtered by China as for Cultural Revolution. --KoreanShoriSenyou 06:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the "Definitions" section again. There is a lot that you seem to be missing there, such as the general concept/definition of war crimes and the fact that a lot of trials after 1945 happened in places other than Tokyo.
 * And how could "Asian holocaust" be used for things that happened only in China or Tibet? Grant  |  Talk  07:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a trial system in Japan though whether it exists in your country is not understood. And, the crime is decided in the court. The war crime of Japan is not decided by your personal feelings. (Because the Japanese is accustomed to hatred, I do not have bad feelings for you. )　--KoreanShoriSenyou 08:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You are making several basic errors of fact and neutral point of view in your edits:

You are odds with Wikipedia policy and the majority of editors here. Please address these issues before you revert again. I also take the opportunity to point out the three revert rule. Grant |  Talk  11:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Asian holocaust" is sometimes used for crimes committed by the Japanese military.
 * 2) War crimes are not simply defined by public international law; for example, they may be defined by the military of the country in question, and it has been shown that the Japanese military did not follow its own code in this respect.
 * 3) Referring to war crimes as being defined by the trials before the (Tokyo) International Military Tribunal is incorrect; most trials of Japanese personnel were held in other parts of Asia and the Pacific and were not under the auspices of the Tribunal.
 * 4) Many ordinary Koreans did not accept the annexation in 1910 and they resisted it by force.
 * 5) The annexation of Korea was illegal, as shown by the reference provided (Yutaka Kawasaki, “Was the 1910 Annexation Treaty Between Korea and Japan Concluded Legally?” Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, v.3, no. 2 (July 1996)
 * 1) "Asian holocaust" is sometimes used for crimes committed by the Japanese military.
 * You should do concrete proof. For instance, please present the two or more jurists' testimonies and the historian's testimonies.


 * 1) War crimes are not simply defined by public international law; for example, they may be defined by the military of the country in question, and it has been shown that the Japanese military did not follow its own code in this respect.
 * 2) Referring to war crimes as being defined by the trials before the (Tokyo) International Military Tribunal is incorrect; most trials of Japanese personnel were held in other parts of Asia and the Pacific and were not under the auspices of the Tribunal.
 * The war crime of Japan is defined by Article 5 of International Military Tribunal for the Far East. And, a Japanese country concluded Treaty of San Francisco based on this agreement.
 * You do not have grounds that define the war crime of Japan. Please present law grounds that define the war crime of Japan.


 * 1) Many ordinary Koreans did not accept the annexation in 1910 and they resisted it by force.
 * Please present the concrete evidence.
 * Is there a nation that protests against the annexation of Japan and Korea?
 * Please explain resisted Many ordinary Koreans concretely.
 * Did Korea sign by force since it fought against Japan? (Please answer with Yes or No. )
 * A law in about 1910 all over the world becomes illegal if it collates it with the law system in 1996. Please present the law person and the nation that insisted in 1910 it is illegal on the agreement of Japan.
 * I am waiting for your proof. I will be able to object by presenting material enough for you because I can understand Hangul and Japanese. --Necmate 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We need "jurists' testimonies" for the statement that "Asian holocaust" is applied to Japanese war crimes? Try Google, it's much easier.


 * You say: "The war crime of Japan is defined by Article 5 of International Military Tribunal for the Far East. And, a Japanese country concluded Treaty of San Francisco based on this agreement. You do not have grounds that define the war crime of Japan. Please present law grounds that define the war crime of Japan."


 * No. I point out once again that many trials of Japanese war criminals occurred in courts other than the International Military Tribunal and its legal framework. I also suggest you read the "Definitions" section of the article and Definitions of Japanese war crimes. As an encyclopedia we are not bound by nationally-specific legal definitions of words; we use common definitions.


 * So you don't accept that the annexation of Korea was illegal, accomplished by force and that war crimes were committed by the Japanese military in the colonisation of Korea? I quote from Korea under Japanese rule:


 * ''Lack of legality


 * ''Main article: Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty


 * ''In May 1910, the Minister of the Army of Japan, Terauchi Masatake, was appointed as "Resident General of Korea", with the mission to finalize the annexation (official commencement of this position after the annexation occurred on October 1 of the same year). On August 22, 1910, Korea was effectively annexed by Japan with the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty signed under duress by Lee Wan-Yong, Prime Minister of Korea, and Terauchi Masatake, who became the first de facto Governor-General of Korea.


 * ''The text was published one week later and became effective the same day. The treaty stipulated:


 * ''* "Article 1: His Majesty the Emperor of Korea concedes completely and definitely his entire sovereignty over the whole Korean territory to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan.
 * ''* Article 2: His Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the concession stated in the previous article and consents to the annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan."


 * ''Both the protectorate and the annexation treaties were declared void in the 1965 Basic Treaty between Korea and Japan since it was: 1. obtained under threat of force, and 2. the Korean Emperor, whose royal assent was required to validate and finalize any legislation or diplomatic agreement under Korean law of the period, refused to sign the document,[9][10].


 * ''Liberation movement


 * ''Main article: Korean independence movement


 * ''Upon Emperor Gojong's death, anti-Japanese rallies took place nationwide, most notably the March 1 (Samil) Movement of 1919. A declaration of independence was read in Seoul. It is estimated that 2 million people took part in these rallies. The protests were violently suppressed: according to Korean records, 46,948 were arrested, 7,509 killed and 15,961 wounded; according to Japanese figures, 8437 were arrested, 553 killed and 1409 wounded.[11] The Encyclopedia Britannica states that about 7,000 people were killed by the Japanese police and soldiers during the 12 months of demonstrations.[12] The March 1 movement was a catalyst for the establishment of the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in Shanghai in April 13, 1919.


 * Even if the treaty was legal, that is not the biggest "crime" here, which is the treatment of the Korean people. Grant  |  Talk  14:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Many treaties are "legal". The problem is that many of them are also Unequal Treaties. I mean it was perfectly "legal" that the colonialists to the New World exterminated the Native Americans and took their land. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An international agreement of Japan and South Korea is not denied to be felt that you are personally illegal. However, there is no official nation that assumes this agreement to be a war crime anywhere. (Though North Korea will be tuned to your idea. )

Finally, you were not able to prove grounds that were called the war crime of Japan Asian Holocaust. Perhaps, you might slander Japan for that though you have a political policy that looks like Chinese Communist Party. KoreanShoriSenyou 10:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KoreanShoriSenyou, I refer you to a relevant official policy, Consensus, which says: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon." You have still not addressed the issues that I have raised above. And please desist from changing the article against consensus.


 * It is also against Wikipedia policy to make a personal attack on another editor, that is call him/her a North Korean/Chinese communist sympathiser just because they disagree with your very personal opinion. Grant  |  Talk  12:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Nanjing
Why is this phrase only uttered in the notes? 71.68.15.63 23:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

=
Holocaust of Asia was introduced by The Rape of Nanking. This word is stirred term made from Chinese's Iris Chang, and Chinese Communist Party willingly uses it. --211.3.113.247 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Korean people No relation with Japanese War crime
1. Nanking massacre happen in 1937. but, 'forced conscription from korean' happen in 1944. so, korean do not relation with massacre. some 'Voluntary conscription unit from korean' exist, too. but, this conscription start in 1938.(Not 1937) also, they were only "406" people in 1938. many of them were statined rear service.

2. Koreans to provide workforces to mines and construction sites around the island nation. Not an invading army. And, Japanese worried about korean handle with gun.
 * so, "Outside Japan, 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 deprivation of civil liberties and exploitations against the Korean people. Thus, some Koreans refer to "Japanese war crimes" as events occurring during the period shortly prior to 1910 to 1945."
 * << This edit is totally inappropriate article. edited by Grant65. also, citation is different, too. 1910~1945? can you prove this from public trusted source? Totally false. exactly, Until 1938, "japanese military soldier who born in korea" never exist.  we must rv his vandalism edit.  Checkorder2 17:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does the article say that Koreans were involved in the Nanjing massacre?


 * As for the issue of Korean people in the Japanese military, I'm aware that they were "second class citizens" and were not generally used in frontline/combat tasks, but the war crimes convictions/allegations against Koreans are primarily related to their service as POW guards (see e.g. Hong Sa Ik). Grant  |  Talk  09:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. Until 1938, "japanese military soldier who born in korea" does NOT exist. you did write inappropriate edit.  so, your edit is totally false.
 * 2. you can not prove by public trsuted source.
 * 3. like already metioned, 'Voluntary conscription unit from korean' exist. but they are very minor. also, one man can not represnt to all korean people. most of them are workforces to mines and construction sites around the island nation.
 * 4. according to your logic, then many of taiwan did Japanese war criminal, too. but, your edit did not metioned taiwanese. you cleary Non-neutal point of edit. also, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, "26" ethnic Taiwanese sentenced to death. korean are 23. (920 of japanese recieved death penalty)
 * 5. you did falsed edit and can not prove by public trusted source. also, you did generalization mistake by some korean Pro.japan traitor. Checkorder2 11:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * also, Hong Sa Ik was ONLY ONE korean did japanese general. only one korean can not represnt to all korean. Hong Sa Ik worked in guard camp of supply unit. not invading army. supply unit was NO relation with 'primarily related to their service as POW guards'. Checkorder2 11:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources on POW abuse are clear that much of it was carried out by Koreans serving in the Japanese military as POW prison guards. For example, the sources listed in the Hong Sa Ik article state that one of the reasons Hong was placed in charge of POW camps in the Philippines is because so many of the camp guards were Korean.  Unfortunately, he was unable to rein in their abuses of the prisoners (if he tried to do so), and that's what contributed to the verdict he received in his trial after the war.  The book Japan at War:  An Oral History, which I have in my possession, includes an interview with a Korean who served as a POW prison guard and was imprisoned for a time after the war by the Allies because of the abuses he perpetrated during his service as a guard.  He talks about how many of the prison guards were Korean. Cla68 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i did not denied some POW guard was korean.(also, this mean is "some". all japanese military POW guard was korean? NO) also, Hong Sa Ik was ONLY ONE korean become japanese military general. this mean some korean traitor can not represnt to all korean. you been generalized mistake and double standard. also, you did not answer these ambiguous.
 * 1. Until 1938, "japanese military soldier who born in korea" does NOT exist. you did write inappropriate edit.  so, your edit is totally false.
 * 2. you can not prove by public trsuted source.
 * 3. like already metioned, 'Voluntary conscription unit from korean' exist. but they are very minor. also, one man can not represnt to all korean people. most of them are workforces to mines and construction sites around the island nation.
 * 4. according to your logic, many of taiwanese did Japanese war criminal, too. but, your edit did not metioned taiwanese. you cleary Non-neutal point of edit. also, International Military Tribunal for the Far East, "26" ethnic Taiwanese sentenced to death. korean are 23. (920 of japanese recieved death penalty)
 * 5. you did falsed edit and can not prove by public trusted source. also, you did generalization mistake by some korean Pro.japan traitor.Checkorder2 04:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's some sourced information for you from the book, Ships of Ghosts by James Hornfischer, 2006, Bantam Books, which documents war crimes that took place along the Burma Railway during the war:
 * p. 188: (speaking of how the Allied prisoners were treated by the Japanese guards) "Later, when rear-echelon support troops arrived and Korean conscripts were given charge over the prisoners, the treatment would grow much worse."
 * p. 223: The contingent of Japanese guards left Batavia and were replaced by a company of Koreans, they vented their frustrations downstream on the prisoners."

I'll add more later. Cla68 12:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's more, from Japan at War: An Oral History, by Haruko Taya, W.W. Norton, 1992.


 * p. 113, Chapter "Korean Guard," an interview with Kasayama Yoshikichi, one of 40 Korean convicted Class-B war criminals living in Japan after the war. He was a prison guard in Indonesia.  Kasayama states, "Sure, we beat and kicked the prisoners in order to make them work." Cla68 13:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't out of topic
Like already metioned, i did not denied some Prisoner guard was korean. but This is not focus of this discussion.

1. 'forced conscription from korean' happen in 1944. 'voluntary conscription from korean' happen in 1938. (They are very minor. only 406 people in 1938) Point.1. until 1938, "ethnic Korean Japan military soldier" does not exist. '''Nanking Massacre happen in 1937. so, Korean never relation with Japanese Massacre criminal. This is Point 1.''' 2. Hong Sa Ik was "only one" korean become a Japan military general. Other korean were not. Point.2. Do not generalized mistake by one korean traitor. 3. In korean under japanese rule, Most of Korean were workforces to mines and construction sites around the island nation.
 * This is source.
 * and Japanese worried about korean handle with gun. If you are russia goverment, you want handle with gun to Chechnya people? maybe no.
 * most of korean forced worked in workforces or rear service.

Point.3. 99.999% ethnic Korean were not participate with Japanese invading army. 4. According to your logic, many of Taiwanese did Japanese war criminal, too. They are annexed with Japan since 1895. This annexation was 15 years early than Korea. Point.4. '''Your edit did not metioned Taiwanese. Why you have double standard?'''
 * According to International Military Tribunal for the Far East, "26" ethnic Taiwanese sentenced to death. 23 ethnic Korean sentenced to death. (920 Japanese recieved death penalty). Tawanese more criminal than ethnic korean. Why didn't you mention of This?
 * you cleary Non-neutal point of edit.

5. In Korea Under Japanese Rule, All military activity controlled by Japanese Goverment. Korean no relation with their decision. just obey. so, why korean responsible to japanese war crime? why? Point.5. '''Japanese war crime by Japanese own will. other country's people not responsible for Japanese war crime''' 6. Last
 * I check you source. but, source is inappropriate. contents are not relation with ethnic korean.

Point.6. You did not prove by Public Trustworth source Checkorder2 13:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your understanding of English is good enough to comment on the article. Grant |  Talk  18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkorder2, have you considered for a minute that your hatred and bigotry might be clouding your judgement? Please, stop acting like a jerk. You're the last person to be throwing around accusations of NPOV. Try to hold a civilised discussion, will you? You may have a valid point, but as long as you act like you do, it's hardly going to get taken seriously. Actually, I'm surprised Cla68 even bothers to reply to you. TomorrowTime 18:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looting - Yamashita's Gold
The use of “Many historians” could be POV pushing. List names to verify historians. Example cited is from a political science novel. See WP:SOURCES. "Yamashita's gold" may be a Filipino urban legend and not actually Japanese war crime(s) related. Jim (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed POV from picture caption Jim 17:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work
I realize this is a touch topic for some, but the truth of these events is of enormous historical significance and I have to say overall this article is pretty good. I'm wondering though if it should be instead of Japanese war crimes maybe it should be Japanese war crimes in the Second Sino-Japanese War and perhaps there could be a second article about Japanese war crimes in Korea. I'd also encourage more citations especially about the historiography. Right now I think it is a fairly accurate assessment of the overall positions of the scholarly community, but there's very little citations to prove that it is accurate. But overall, congrats. on the good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.67 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reasessment
Hi, I am reasessing this article against the good article criteria, and it has a very long way to go before it complies with the current standard required. Although my initial reaction is to immediately delist this, I will give concerned editors seven days to work on the problems listed below. If progress is made in this time then addition time will be granted, but if progress is not made then I will delist the article seven days from today.

General notes

 * The article's prose is highly patchy, consider an extensive rewrite looking at the article as a whole. In places the writing is good, but clearly large parts of the article have been rewritten poorly by editors who have not been involved in the wider process of preparing the article.
 * Numerous sections are very small and provide little context, few examples and not much discussion of the major issues in each case. I suggest that sub-articles be created for all of these sections and this article summarise them succinctly and accurately.
 * Do not put quotes in Italics per WP:MOS.
 * Do not use Ibid. in references. If another editor adds a reference between the two then you later source makes no sense and this creates a highly-confusing mess for people to sort out.
 * All references should be properly formatted, using WP:CITE.

Run through the article

 * The lead is ridiculously short for such an important and controversial article. For an article of this type I would expect at least two and probably more, substantial paragraphs outlining the article's subject, the issues involved and the controversial nature of this topic. At the moment the lead comes nowhere close to achieving this.
 * The "Definitions" section in almost completely unsourced and contains several tags. Citations are absolutely vital for this issue and must be provided. I suggest as a bare minimum that the article have a reliable citation at least once a paragraph and at the end of any sentance which contains a controversial statement or direct quote.
 * This section is also poorly contextualised, a problem exacerbated by the dreadful lead. In several places there are references to fact not yet established and there is little narrative flow. The section also respeatly discusses technicalities without providing a reader with a general picture - why do we need to know about the Kellog-Briand Pact? (I'm not saying we don't need to know about it, we just need it placed in a more clear context). Much more context required.
 * Again, "Historical and geographic extent" is poorly contextualised and would be hugely improved by the provision of examples. The relevance of parts of this section to the subject of the article are very unclear.
 * Background section is rather loosely sourced, especially for such a controversial section. Surely there is some historical argument about what caused the Japanese Army to turn to such brutality in this conflict?
 * First paragraph in "mass killings" has a quote which has no beginning.
 * "massacred as many as 430,000 civilians and prisoners of war, although the accepted figure is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands" - 430,000 is in the hundreds of thousands. In fact the whole second paragraph is poorly written and requires additional sources.
 * What is "GlobalSecurity.org" and how reliable is it?
 * Even from my limited personal knowledge of Japanese War Crimes, substantially more could be said about the "Mass killings" - locations, comparisons and causes could all be expanded and extrapolated on for a start.
 * Again, more can be said about biological warfare - I know Japanese planes dropped plague flees on at least one Chinese city and the scope of this horrible business was much wider than simply those incidents discussed here.
 * Far more explanation needed of poision gas operations, short section seems out of context.
 * The long comfort women section is rather listy - more fluent prose is required.
 * From there on the article improves, but is too long - reparations and responsibility debates belong in their own articles, perhaps linked from here. The prose and references could also use revision as neither are totally at GA standard.

Hopefully the above list is enough for now. There may well be future problems once these are taken care of but for the moment this article is a long, long way belog GA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no way that these problems will be addressed in the next two days, and no one seems interested in dealing with this article at the present time. As a result, I am regretfully forced to delist this as a GA. If anybody disagrees please take the case to WP:GAR, but I am sure they will repeat my concerns here. When this article has been brought up to GA standard, please bring it back to WP:GAN for a review. Thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have taken on board many of your comments and had a start at it, where ever possible breaking text off and linking to other main article. I think it has along way to go and would benefit from less politicking on one hand and less 'atrocity pornography' on the other. Further checking and tightening up on references is required. --60.42.252.205 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All you have been doing is improving "a few" sentences, while removing huge bulks of sourced statements. You have also been using very misleading edit summaries to hide your tracks. Blueshirts (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing poorly cited reference
I have removed the Looting section due to poorly cited references. The reference supplied was to a controversial article here on Wikipedia ( Yamashita's gold ). The Wikipedia article referenced is about treasure hunting, and includes single-sourced conspiracy theories.

This article needs better cited references. Jim (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone knows your POV on this JimBobUSA. Despite the advice of ALL other users, you try for more than a year to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia without ever being able to provide a source to prove your POV....--Flying tiger (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, Flying Tiger, everybody knows how you try to exert ownership of these articles. Despite the advice of other users, the proponents of the conspiracy theorists (such as yourself) refuse to cite any third party or peer-reviewed references that will support your POV.


 * How about citing some references, that supports the Yamashita's gold myth as being factual. The article here on Wikipedia does not supply any worthwhile information for this article about Japanese war crimes or looting. Jim (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the looting section should stay. The Seagraves's writings on Yamashita, the Emperor et al are enough support. Though they are alone in their revelations about organized Japanese looting activities, the Seagraves have extensive documentation available on 2 CDs. Their raw research is open to all. That's enough for me. Binksternet (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Japanese war crimes article should include a “Looting” sub-section. Unfortunately, I do not concur that a novel written around a myth in the Philippines should be the sole contributor to that sub-section.


 * Pertaining to the “extensive documentation on 2 CDs” you mentioned, could you supply a reference or verifiable source that supports the material (documentation) on those CDs? Anybody can slap a CD together


 * Surly, there must be some academic studies or Government studies that would make this article more encyclopedic, and not rely on urban legends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimBobUSA (talk • contribs) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article?
What is the scope of this article meant to be? There are several articles (German war crimes, Italian war crimes, Japanese war crimes, the recently-deleted Korean war crimes) that seem problematic to me for the same reason. The subject matter itself is clearly encyclopedic, and each incident should probably have its own article. But these articles are constructed as (ethnic group) + (type of heinous crime), tending to impugn the ethnic group as a whole. I don't think that's the goal, but it shows the need for a clearer focus. It would be fine to have articles about war crimes in a particular war, and perhaps for war crimes committed by a particular state actor (although these might be better as categories or lists). But there's no need to have an article about war crimes committed by members of any particular ethnic group, jumping across time periods and states. I suggest this article be renamed. --Amble (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For now, I suggest "War crimes of Imperial Japan" to clarify the scope as relating to a single state actor. --Amble (talk) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no comment after several days, I'm being bold and moving the page. If anyone disagrees, I'll be happy to discuss the merits. --Amble (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, while I support your move, I think this article : Definitions of Japanese war crimes, should be considered in the same way... --Flying tiger (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have added Definitions of Japanese war crimes to my list.  Since there are several articles with similar problems in the title, I plan to wait a few days between moves, to see if there's any controversy.  Of course, I would not object if you want to re-title Definitions of Japanese war crimes now.  --Amble (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to move the article back. It makes it sound as if only state sponsored war crimes will be discussed and not those committed without the sanction of the state. The common English name for the country and the nation is Japan, not the name of the state that governs it.

If you still wish to make this move them please use WP:RM and build a wider consensus. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with your point of view. Imperial Japan does not refer to state sponsored crimes but to crimes committed during a period of time which cover the Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa era. The «common english name» for this period is namely «Empire of Japan», not «Japan». Therefore «War crimes of imperial Japan» is clear and furthermore explained in the lead. --Flying tiger (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there's an objection, I'm happy to use WP:RM. --Amble (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust and atrocities
I have moved

to this page for further discussion. Not all war crimes are genocidal or atrocities, some may be all three, but a war crime is a specific action against the laws of war. Including terms like Asian Holocaust and Japanese war atrocities dilutes this article into an amorphous mass and as such is not clear. It would be a much better article if only Japanese war crimes appeared in an article about war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a rather theoretical objection. Could you suggest any specific examples that would be included in the "Asian holocaust" or "Japanese war atrocities," but not in "Japanese war crimes"?   Even though the several terms may be defined differently, if they refer to the same concrete set of events, then there's no conflict.  Analogously, we have an article on George I of Great Britain, who was also George, Duke of Calenberg; George, Elector of Hanover; George, Duke of Luneberg-Celle; George I, King of Ireland; and perhaps even George, King of France.  These offices are largely unrelated, but they were concretely embodied in one human being.  A conceptual difference between terms is not a problem if the same historical events. --Amble (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For example "War crimes may be broadly defined as unconscionable behavior by a government or military personnel against either enemy civilians or enemy combatants." Usually a war crime is a crime against the laws of war. The laws of war consist of two type those that derived from custom and those from treaties. If a treaty specifically place an obligation on a party to the treaty and one of those parties breaches that treaty then that is known as a breach positive international law. For example if the United States had used poison gas gas during World War II then as a signatory if the US had used poison gas then they would have committed a war crime. However if the Japanese used gas as they had not signed the relevant treaties, it has to be decided if that use breached customary law (The Wikipedia article Geneva Protocol claims that "The Treaty of Versailles included some provisions that banned Germany from either manufacturing or importing chemical weapons. Similar treaties banned Austria, Bulgaria, and Hungary from chemical weapons." -- which this source supports). Now I have not idea what the courts decided about this, but whether a state commits a war crime is a legal issue not "War crimes may be broadly defined as unconscionable behavior by a government or military personnel against either enemy civilians or enemy combatants."

In another area theatre of the war the historian Donald Bloxham states that "The bombing of Dresden on 13-14 February 1945 was a war crime". He further argues that there was a strong prima facie for trying Winston Churchill among others and that there is theoretical case that he could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation."(Addison, Paul & Crang, Jeremy A. (eds.). Firestorm: The Bombing of Dresden. Pimlico, 2006. ISBN 1-8441-3928-X. Chapter 9 by Donald Bloxham, University of Edinburgh, The School of History, Classics and Archaeology) p. 180.)

This article is using war crime the vox populi "like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation." Under that category then it is true that it is comparable to the Asian Holocaust and Japanese war atrocities, but Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a blog site. What this article should do is list reliable sources that claim that such and such was a war crime, who committed the war crime and if anyone was found guilty. Unlike the article Allied war crimes during World War II, where there are comparatively few convictions, there is a wealth of convictions of Japanese war criminals. Yet instead of following that approach this article rambles on about all sorts of nasty things that the Japanese did in Asia. Using chemical weapons is nasty and for most of the participants of WWII it was illegal, but after reading this article I am none the wiser if the Japanese breached positive international law, or if those that used chemical weapons breached the customary laws of war or if in fact they did not commit a war crime. Don't get me wrong, I have just picked that as one example, but the whole article suffers from the same flaws and starting it with "Asian Holocaust and Japanese war atrocities are terms also used for these war crimes" is almost bound to lead to these problems because Asian Holocaust and Japanese war atrocities are not the same thing as war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've written a lot of text here, but almost none of it is responsive to my request, which was for concrete examples. The only part that was on-point is the mention of chemical warfare, and it does not support you at all.  As the article explicitly states, Japan was a signatory to conventions banning the use of poison gases in warfare.  Therefore, this lies in the overlap between war crimes, atrocities, and the Asian Holocaust, as the article already makes clear.  Please try harder to come up with a concrete example that supports your position.  --Amble (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have written a lot of text which I thought answered your question. Rather than ramble on about all of the article, I picked one specific example soi lets concentrate on Chemical warfare. You wrote "Japan was a signatory to conventions banning the use of poison gases in warfare" which conventions? BTW AFAICT Treaty of Versailles does not count because it banned Germany not the Allies of WWI from using chemical weapons. So please come up with some verifiable reliable sources (in English) that say that the use of chemical weapons by Japan was a war crime under positive international law, which should be easy to find if as you say "Japan was a signatory to conventions banning the use of poison gases in warfare" and if they were not a breach of positive international law, reliable sources stating what were the breaches in international humanitarian law that were made by their use by Japan. At least if that was included in the article it would be a start to fixing this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The page on the Geneva Protocol there is a link to [a source] that says that Japan signed the protocol on 27 June 1925 but did not ratify it until  21 May 1970. Here is a source that say "The use of chemical weapons  by the Japanese in China and Mongolia during the 1930s and 1940s led to war-crime convictions against Japanese officers." Now that is half way there and could be used for a statement in the article, but ideally we need to know the names of the officers and the specific war crimes of which  they were found guilty. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 2nd Hague Convention, 1907 prohibited chemical weapons. Similar wording in 1st Hague Convention, 1899.  See M.H. Chiang and R.P. Barker, "Victor's Justice and Japanese Amnesia," in Japanese War Crimes: The Search for Justice, P. Li, ed., p. 44 .  There may be better sources, but it's actually not so easy for me to document at the moment as my access to online academic sources is limited.  Returning to the point at hand, the example of chemical warfare doesn't support your position, because it fits all any of the terms in question.  It's like King of Great Britain vs. Elector of Hanover for George I.  --Amble (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a bit dense here. It seems you may only be looking for better sourcing to characterize each of the incidents in the article as war crimes, without necessarily cutting anything out of the scope.  In this case, I fully agree.  In that light, it would also seem appropriate to retain reference to related categories such as "Asian holocaust," with a clearer indication that they (entirely? mostly? partially?) refer to the same events, without being precisely synonymous.  --Amble (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user:Amble on this. user:Philip Baird Shearer writes for three paragraphs on the use of chemical weapons, omitting that the Empire of Japan was signatory of many international treaties, including the Treaty of Versailles, which, on article 171, ban the use of chemical weapons...and concludes by «after reading this article I am none the wiser if the Japanese breached positive international law, or if those that used chemical weapons breached the customary laws of war or if in fact they did not commit a war crime.» I simply fail to see how this is linked to the point of what could be an «atrocity» while not being a «war crime»...--Flying tiger (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Article 171 bands Germany not the Allies. "The use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials or devices being prohibited, their manufacture and importation are strictly forbidden in Germany." As to atrocities not being war crimes. Some people think that the American strategic bombing of Japan and Germany home lands in 1945 were atrocities, but that does not necessarily mean that they were war crimes. Perhaps a better example would be the reprisal killing of civilians for attacks on occupying soldiers occupying enemy territory. To our eyes the killing of civilians in reprisal for attacks on occupying soldiers is always an atrocity (and under modern international law a war crime), but if one reads the Hostages Trial it is by no means clear that at the time all such incidents at the time were war crimes. This is something that has to be examined on a case by case basis using reliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I agree with the general principle that such questions can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis, supported by reliable sources. That's part of why I'm still looking for a concrete example relevant to this article.  The example you suggest here is from Germany, and doesn't appear to come up at all in the article "Japanese war crimes."  Or have I missed an example of reprisal killing of civilians that's relevant to the current article?  If so, please direct me to it more specifically. --Amble (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A short comment on chemical weapons : you only read article 171 without interpreting the first part.... the article says «The use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials or devices being prohibited...» refering to all earlier treaties such as the Hague convention of 1907, signed by the Empire of Japan, and the article 23 of the Treaty Concerning the Laws and Customs of Landwarfare which prohibit the use of "poisonous weapons". Moreover, Japan signed in February 1922 the (Washington)Treaty in Relation to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare


 * which, at article V, explicitly ban the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases" and declared that "a prohibition of such use having been declared in treaties to which a majority of powers are parties"... Overall, an atrocity can be, in some cases, a war crime and I do not see why one has to prove it has always to be .. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reading of Article 171 is interesting but I think you would need to see the original commentary on the Treaty of Versailles or a reliable source, to see if that ins the correct interpretation, as it could be a prohibition from earlier in the same article. Rather than speculating here on what was or was not the state of international law with regards to the use of poison gas by the Japanese, the simplest way to find out what the state of international law was is to find a reliable source on the trial of one of the people found guilty of using such a weapon and see what laws of war they breached. In the mean time the this source could be used to put in a sentence or two on the usage, without all the rest of the information in this article that is not sourced as a war crime.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you consider Herbert Bix a "reliable source" but he refer explictly to article 171 of the Versailles Treaty and use of chemical weapon by the Empire of Japan on p. 361 of Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan... However, I do not refer to speculations and even to reputable author's interpretation, but to facts. You don't even need the Treaty of Versailles... You just have the read article 23 of the Treaty Concerning the Laws and Customs of Landwarfare and article V of the Treaty in Relation to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare to clearly understand that the Empire of Japan infringed two international treaties it had signed. As for trials, I already explained that those crimes were not brought before the Tokyo Tribunal by the prosecution team... Once again, I do not uderstand your purpose in sticking with a restrictive definition of "war crime".--Flying tiger (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to offer some context: PBS has also in the past expressed strong opinions on what should be included in, and excluded from, the Allied war crimes page Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II, and I have stated that any exclusionist policy applied to Allied war crimes would need to be have a wide concensus since it would have to be equally applied to the other similar articles as well, such as Japanese war crimes, War crimes of the Wehrmacht, Italian war crimes, Soviet war crimes etc etc. I presume the best way to censure down the Allied War crimes article would for example be to request citations to formal "war crimes" convictions, since there would be few if any (victors justice after all), but it might spell trouble for the Japanese war crimes article as well, since it would in many cases mean editors would have to start from scratch and try to find sources that both mention convictions for a specific crime and also refer to them specifically as being for war crimes and not crimes against humanity or such. Personally I'm against trying to water down the Allied war crimes article since I feel that it is important that the full story be told.--Stor stark7 Speak 15:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I support your point of view; and this is especially important for the acts committed during the Shōwa regime because many of these were never considered by international tribunals, including unit 731 vivisections and other experimentations, use of bacteriological weapons and most acts of cannibalism. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All these articles should be about war crimes. There does not have to be a legal conviction. That would be unreasonable, because in some cases historians agree that a crime was committed, but the perpetrators were either dead by the end of the war, or were never found or not know, but like all Wikipedia articles reliable sources should be used for all allegations. The articles should not be built on speculation, original research, and unreliable sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry PBS, but I don't see that that statement is in line with your earlier statements, give us an example of what you mean by original research in this article.
 * What about the sentence I removed from this article at the start of this section "Asian Holocaust and Japanese war atrocities are terms also used for these war crimes"? It carries no citation, to say that the three are synonyms. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I was thinking more in the terms of specific incident.--Stor stark7 Speak 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the simplest thing would be if you wrote together your list of demands in a list as the one below, posted it on all the War crimes articles talk pages, and worked on the list until you achieved consensus on all the affected articles for the common list.

These criteria apply to the following articles:
 * Allied war crimes during World War II
 * Japanese war crimes,
 * War crimes of the Wehrmacht,
 * Italian war crimes,
 * Soviet war crimes

All of the criteria listed below must be TRUE for an incident for it to be included in an article, incidents who fail on one or more points shall be removed from the articles:
 * 1) The incident must have occurred during a formal state of war or during the post-war military occupation of the territory of the loosing side.
 * 2) It is enough that one reliable source has made the allegation that it is a crime for it to be included.
 * 3) The perpetrators must not be American or British or Australian.
 * 4) All sources must be from peer reviewed articles, in English, or from English books from reputable publishers.


 * --Stor stark7 Speak 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for that I have made it clear above what should be done, you will find that my views are consistent on all the war crime articles I have had a hand in editing, and I have not edited most of those you list above although I have edited List of war crimes where I have argued that only war crimes and crimes against peace should be listed for example I made these changes German war crimes article.
 * Actually I strongly disagree with your statement that "There is no need for that", there is an urgent need for a transparent and unified approach. That is the only way to avoid bias, with different crimes articles adopting differing levels of exclusionism, likely tailored to the national bias of the majority of editors here.
 * For each article the criteria agreed upon must be made known to both readers and editors. The editors need to know what type of information they can add/remove, which specific criteria that the accompanying citation must fulfill, and the reader must be given the chanse to understand what type of information that is included, and what has been withheld, this is the only way for the reader to be able to judge and understand the contents of the article. That is why we need to put the above box or equivalent in each article.
 * We need to be excruciatingly exhaustive in defining the criteria, as you and I have seen in our legal argument regarding whether war crimes even exist during an occupation of a country that has surrendered, and also whether we should comply with the criteria Nick Dowling wants, i.e. that the incident citation must point to an actual conviction for war crimes in connection to the incident.
 * We need to have a proper process of reaching consensus on the contents of the box, where everybody understands the possible implications, and the rules regarding incidents in gray zones such as Post surrender occupations are clarified. Unilateral decisions, such as I have the feeling you sometimes try to impose, will only result in edit wars and wildly diverging degrees of compliance across articles.
 * The same criteria must apply to all articles of the same class, be it German, U.S. or Japanese war crimes, I presume it is obvious why? In order to achieve thise we must reach a broad consensus and engage all specialist editors since criteria are likely to have more or less far-reaching effects depending on the article in question.
 * We need to define a methodology for what to do with "superfluous" information, i.e. information which might have bee applicable but under the formalized criteria can no longer be included in the article. I.e. we need to set up a super-structure of articles, so that the information does not just get dumped into a new Atrocities_by_xx_during_yy article. Then we have just shifted the problem, although I suppose it would be a step forward. Perhaps we need to have "War crimes articles" and "crimes against the peace", and "crimes against humanity" and perhaps just "crimes" articles in parallel. We need to have figured all these things out before we start trying to implement any type of new policy, otherwise it will just be a big ugly mess.
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 22:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These suggestions seem reasonable to me on first inspection. (Note: I was referring to the five general suggestions immediately above, not the four specific criteria further up, which Piotrus has in mind.) I would also suggest that each article needs to have a well-defined historical scope.  "Japanese war crimes" is so vague as to plausibly include anything that's been called a war crime involving a Japanese person: Hideyoshi's invasions of the 1590's, or Alberto Fujimori's actions in fighting rebels in Peru.  --Amble (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the criterium 4: "All sources must be from peer reviewed articles, in English, or from English books from reputable publishers.". For example, a lot of research about Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles was and is being made by Polish scholars, and described in detail by Polish sources, with much less detail - or even mention of - in English sources. The same is true for other languages: some crimes against Germans themselves are best documented by German scholars (consider Bloody Sunday (1939)). It is a relatively unsurprising fact that people of a given nation will be most interested and in position to research things of interest to them. WP:RS allows the use of foreign language sources. WP:NPOV demands inclusion of all important viewpoints (including non-English). And we have an entire project dedicated to that issue: WikiProject Countering systemic bias. The only POV that would benefit from exclusion of non-English sources would be that which would try to vastly limit and censor the relevant articles, which I am sure is not our design.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This point is covered by WP:V use English sources if they are available in preference to foreign languages, but if English language sources are not available foreign language sources can be use. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that this is not the place to hold this conversation, and that it would be better held at talk:List of war crimes as that would seem to be a central page for all war crimes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Flying tiger you reverted the edit I made which starts this section:
 * 21:35, 23 July 2008 Flying tiger (Rv undiscussed deletion by PBS - You can't ask for consensus for name change and delete a paragraph without discussion...)

I think if you read WP:PROVEIT I was within Wikipedia policy. Please show me the policy that says "You can't ask for consensus for name change and delete a paragraph without discussion" as it seems to me that WP:PROVEIT puts the emphasis on you to source the assertion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just read the history of the article and you will find that the lead is the result of many, many edits wars, discusssions and finally... consensus []. You sure have the right to come anew and decide to change the consensus but we would appreciate discussion before, as you ask the same for name change !! --Flying tiger (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Wikipedia policies more carefully, there can not be a local consensus that overrides the Wikipedia content polices (WP:CONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, can not over-ride community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policy and process pages a higher standard of participation and consensus is expected than on other pages.") WP:PROVEIT redirects to Verifiability one of the three key content policies. WP:RMis a useful process used to stop move warring and several policies and guidelines, contain prohibitions on moving articles from a name that have been stable for some time without a consensus to do so, so that is the opposite of the way WP:PROVEIT works. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Treaty of Versailles & poison gases. As Philip notes, this doesn't appear to restrain Japan from using poison gases, unless they happened to be doing so in Germany.  See article 171 here: .  A connection to Japan pops up on a few web pages, but I wouldn't be surprised if these are based on the Wikipedia article.  Actually, the bit about prisoners of war seems to be spurious too, since the Versailles treaty doesn't apply to prisoners taken in any conflict arising after 1919.  Therefore, I agree with Philip, and I'll rewrite this mistaken passage unless someone else gets to it first.  --Amble (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I already wrote some days ago, this is a minor argument as the main problem raised by user:PhilipBairdShearer was that Japan had not infringed any treaty in using chemical weapons. ou don't even need the Treaty of Versailles... Even if one dispute the Treaty of Versailles and does not agree with Herbert Bix on page 361 of Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, you just have the read article 23 of the Treaty Concerning the Laws and Customs of Landwarfare and article V of the Treaty in Relation to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare to clearly understand that the Empire of Japan infringed two international treaties. --Flying tiger (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fully understand Philip's argument; like you, I initially read him as saying that various parts of the article (e.g. chemical warfare) were not properly war crimes, and should be removed. However, taking everything together, I now believe he's just looking for proper sourcing of the characterization of each incident as a war crime.  Given that understanding, I fully agree with him.  The example of chemical warfare shows that the article has been somewhat sloppy in this respect.  Let's fix it by finding good citations to show precisely which "laws of customs of war" were or may have been violated.  --Amble (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have also removed the characterization of suppression of civil liberties and democracy inside Japan as war crimes under the Potsdam Declaration. As per Philip's comment, this appeared to be a misreading of the Declaration. --Amble (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes → War crimes of Imperial Japan — "Japanese war crimes" is terribly vague. Leaving aside the issue of how to define "war crimes", "Japanese" refers to a language, ethnic group, group of islands, and various states across history. There's no obvious reason why "Japanese war crimes" shouldn't include incidents from Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea or Alberto Fujimori's suppression or rebels in Peru. The current title also lends itself to association of Japanese people in general with war crimes. We should clearly define the historical scope of the article by replacing "Japanese" with "Imperial Japan." — Amble (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nominator. --Amble (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because it sounds as if it only covers state sponsored was crimes and not those based on the initiatives of individuals. As with List of military occupations there is no reason not to state in the introduction that this article will only cover crimes from 1907 when the Hague 1907 was agreed and was by World War II considered customary law under international law. If the article is to be renamed then I suggest using "Japanese war crimes in the 20th century" although I think a better approach would be to split the article into two. Before 1937 and after 1937 (and the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support That would be a much clearer title and make it clear that these crimes were ultimately attributable to the Japanese government rather than the Japanese people. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Did the Emperor give his blessing to these war crimes? Maybe so, maybe not. Keeping the title the way it is makes it possible to have individual initiative of Japanese war criminals listed. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. As I already explined earlier, Imperial Japan does not refer to state sponsored crimes but to crimes committed during a period of time which cover the Meiji, Taishō and Shōwa era. The «common english name» for this period is namely «Empire of Japan», not «Japan». Therefore «War crimes of imperial Japan» is clear and furthermore explained in the lead. --Flying tiger (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * Re: Philip's opposition: Imperial Japan refers to a period of Japanese history. We have articles such as Socialist thought in Imperial Japan, Agriculture in the Empire of Japan, and Demographics of Imperial Japan, so it's hard to see how "Imperial Japan" implies full political control of the state.  Furthermore, the state is responsible for the actions of its military personnel, even when they act on their own initiative.  Therefore, I can't see this as a significant reason to object.  --Amble (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A governmental policy to breach of international treaties and customary war is the responsibility of the state. The breach of the law by individuals as laid out in their own military manuals and rules of engagement are not the responsibility of the state (although usually such breaches would lead to punishment under the same codes of military law and a systematic lack of such punishment could be seen as a policy breach of obligations international law). But there is a distinction between the states obligations and those of an individual. The proposed title suggests that only state war crimes are to be included in the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that based on the same line of reasoning, one could as well argue that Edwardian architecture is properly limited to constructions for which the Sovereign personally reviewed the blueprints. --Amble (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Edwardian means of the Edwardian period. If you were to write "British Government architecture (1901 to 1910)" then you would not mean "British architecture (1901 to 1910)". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: Binksternet - "War crimes of Imperial Japan" is the suggestion, not "War crimes of the Japanese Emperor." Actions taken on the individual initiative of soldiers in the Imperial Japanese Army are within the scope of Imperial Japan, so there's clearly no obstacle to including them regardless.  --Amble (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean to be "state sponsored"? Good friend100 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it is state policy to commit war crimes. For example in world war II German unrestricted warfare was a breach of several treaties that Germany had ratified, those German submarine captains who sank neutral shipping with no warning were obeying orders issued as a policy of the state, that is what I mean by state sponsored. That is very different from war crimes committed by individules that breach their own civil or military codes as happened recently in Britain (see Donald Payne). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy
Wikipedia policy, WP:NC, says:


 * WEB about 63,600 English pages for "Japanese war crimes"
 * BOOKS 700 on "Japanese war crimes"
 * SCHOLAR about 583 for "Japanese war crimes"
 * WEB 48 English pages for "War crimes of Imperial Japan"
 * BOOKS 1 "War crimes of Imperial Japan".
 * SCHOLAR 1 "War crimes of Imperial Japan "

Using reliable sources (a Google search of BOOKS and SCHOLAR) show the name you are proposing is almost never used, so Amble under what policy are you suggesting that we move this page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reasonable minimum of ambiguity is key here. I also note in NC the principle that "Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."  There are similar statements in WP:Naming conflict.  Clearly, "Japanese war crimes" is a descriptive name, and not a proper name (for which a literature search would be more relevant).  As I have argued above, "Japanese war crimes" is unacceptably vague, failing to specify the subject matter of the article; and this vagueness lends itself the Japanese ethnic group, which is a problematic POV implication.  --Amble (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Japanese war crimes" my be descriptive, but is is a commonly used description while "War crimes of Imperial Japan" is not. What are the POV implications of Japanese war crimes? Surly as I have pointed out there is a greater potential for a misunderstand of what the descriptive name "War crimes of Imperial Japan" means than that of" Japanese war crimes" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Asian Holocaust, July 2008
user:Amble thank you for finding some citations. But I think in some cases you are missing the point. It is not enough to find a source that says "Though not approaching the systematic exterminations by the Nazis, the Japanese record of atrocities -- what victims call the Asian Holocaust -- is still producing revelations more than 50 years after the end of World War II." does not say that Japanese war crimes are also called "the Asian Holocaust" for that you will have to find a source that says a much otherwise it is WP:SYN. Some war crimes are also atrocities and some atrocities are war crimes, but they are not synonyms, which is what is being implied. If they are ot synonyms, then this is not an article on War Crimes but nasty things that the Japanese did. Mix them up and you do not have an encyclopaedic article you have a mish-mash of allegations which is wide open to all the usual NPOV issues.

For example is the word "Asian Holocaust" being used as a comparison for the Holocaust or is the word meant to have the original meaning of holocaust (as in say the firestorm in Dresden), if the latter then as Hannah Cleaver wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Strictly speaking, the word 'holocaust,' which comes from the ancient Greek for 'burnt,' might seem apt for Dresden, much of it immolated by the fires started by the RAF's incendiary bombs. But its primary meaning is now so closely linked to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews that such etymology appears to be in bad taste" ("German ruling says Dresden was a holocaust").

If it is the former then The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical (edit by Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan), chapter 12 "Reflections on modern Japanese History in the Context of the Concept of Genocide by Gavan McCormack is worth reading  pp. 265-286. The chapter is well worth reading although some of the pages are protected, However with reference to the comparison note particularly his comments on page 266 about Iris Chang. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The cited sources show that some of the same incidents are referred to as the "Asian holocaust," which is exactly what the article says. We would need a source to show that "Japanese war crimes" and "Asian holocaust" are synonyms only if the article actually claimed that they are synonyms.  But it doesn't.  It says that some people use the term to refer to some of these events; that is both true and demonstrated by the sources cited.  --Amble (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree, however, that it's problematic for "Asian holocaust" to introduce itself in the lead and then vanish, nevermore to be seen. There must be something further to indicate who calls them that, where, when, and why.  --Amble (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I agree with you to the extent that we should exclude from this article any incidents for which we can't find adequate sourcing of the characterization as war crimes. --Amble (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that is to be the case then I recomend you introduce the box listing the chosen criteria into the article main page, or create a general template for war crimes articles.

These criteria apply to the following articles:
 * Allied war crimes during World War II
 * Japanese war crimes,
 * War crimes of the Wehrmacht,
 * Italian war crimes,
 * Soviet war crimes

All of the criteria listed below must be TRUE for an incident for it to be included in an article, incidents who fail on one or more points shall be marked as needing citation and removed from the articles after no less than 1 month and no more than 3 months:
 * 1) For each incident described, the incident in question must be explicitly labeled as "war crime" in at least one citation by a reliable source. It is not enough that other incidents of the same general character have been given such label, or that it would seem "obvious" that it is a war crime based on editor interpretations of legal texts or general public opinion.
 * 2) The time span which the article spans must be clearly indicated in the lead, e.g. December 1941 to September 1945.
 * 3) Each general description or commentary must be clearly linked to one or more war crimes cited according to the above criteria.

If the incident does not seem to fit in here, then check the criteria for the sibling categories: where xx and yy denotes the ethnic group, alliance or nation of choice.
 * xx crimes against the peace
 * xx crimes against humanity
 * xx crimes during the occupation of yy
 * xx crimes against ethnic yy


 * Do you agree with the text?
 * --Stor stark7 Speak 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can document the term "holocaust" validity simply by citing incidents, even if these are good sourced in English language contemporary articles. I have also noticed you have tried above to limit to introduce English literature to this and similar articles as sources only. That's completely wrong idea while editing encyclopedia in relation to historical events. One should concentrate on original records, and these come solely from Japanese, Russian, Chinese, American and any other countries involved in conflict archives, not from famous and very well publicized facts in Anglo-Saxon literature, on which James Clavell's book King Rat is based (Singapore POWs mistreatment), recently also blown out of proportion the Comfort women affair, by which this article is overwhelmed, neglecting more important incidents as mass killing of POWs on Chinese beaches by Japanese low flying aircraft (by sound). Such "incidents" you can find in Warsaw Pact military literature only, mostly in Russian; it never made the English language papers since Japanese are our friends now. Same thing about Katyn - all reliable sources are NKVD/KGB records, not some recently published revelations about Nazi propaganda in Great Britain. Same thing about Hermann Göring - not some British propaganda sent him to the gallows during Nuremberg trials, the German Nazi records did. Please, stick to the records, doesn't matter in which language they are printed, when introducing holocaust. greg park avenue (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good general guideline, but I oppose using this as a rigid rule for all cases. This is a serious question. Can a wikipedian use his brain to decide if the information is relevant to the subject of an article?. I bet he can. For example, a source tells about state-sanctioned murder of prisoners of war, but it does not tell explicitly: "this is war crime". The particular expression "war crimes" may not be used in a source for a variety of reasons. For example, a publication came before this term has even been established in the Nurenberg, or the author does not like strong words ("genocide", "war crimes", "crimes against humanity" and so on). Of course, some argue that such decision would be an interpretation by a wikipedian. However any summarizing of a source is an interpretation by a wikipedian. We can not avoid discussions of interpretations by introducing rigid rules like that.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @greg park avenue, the previous box was just something I threw together to show how the box might look like, what I primarily wanted was for the exclusionists to state exactly what criteria they wanted followed. I'm surprised you didn't understand this, for example when reading the also included bogus criteria that said that if the crime was committed by U.S., UK, or Australia then it wasn't a war crime... @Biophys, We need a strict guideline, especially an explicit guideline that everybody has agreed upon. I think you are wrong when you say that: Quote"Can a wikipedian use his brain to decide if the information is relevant to the subject of an article?. I bet he can." End Quote. Look at what philip is doing in Allied warcrimes. It is not enough for him that a source says that 1000 civilians were massacred by Soviet forces, for him to allow such an obvious war crime it is also required that we provide a cite that says " Who says it was a war crime, and who is supposed to be responsible" To him it is not enough with a cited 1000 civilians massacre, someone has to call it a war crime for him not to remove it from the article. This is precisely why we need explicit and agreed upon criteria, (1) So the reader can know what to expect from the article and (2) to avoid edit wars emanating from editors trying to impose their own very personal criteria on the articles.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We are not legal experts. This is such a wide subject that every case must be judged case by case someone more scholary then us. Also to idea to ban non-English sources would mean deleting tons of info from events that weren't touched in Anglo-Saxon historiography--Molobo (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Molobo, three things; first: please indent your edits properly so we can follow the thread, I know you've been repeatedly asked before by for example Irpen; second please read through the topic you are commenting on, if you had done so you'd have noticed that the language is a non-issue; third what exactly are you opposing? As it stands now your comment makes no sense. You oppose the list with the requirement that we must cite someone calling it a war crime, but at the same time you say "every case must be judged case by case someone more scholary then us". You are contradicting yourself!--Stor stark7 Speak 18:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear:Just like all others here I oppose your idea and the criteria you mentioned. --Molobo (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm that makes it easy doesn't it. Just state that you oppose my "idea and the criteria you mentioned". Seems like a blanket opposition to me by default, and nothing to do with the topic being discussed...

I stated: You stated: And I just go Hmmmmmmmmmm?!?! Forgive me but one could be tempted to think you're here simply to oppose my position regardless of what position that may be.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "For each incident described, the incident in question must be explicitly labeled as "war crime" in at least one citation..."
 * "Oppose. We are not legal experts. This is such a wide subject that every case must be judged case by case someone more scholary then us."
 * I already stated why I oppose your idea(it would mean deleting tonns of information found in non-English literature that is not covered in English writings) and additionally others have gave thoughtful comments as well.--Molobo (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I take it by that reply that you never actually looked in the box above to see which formal criteria I had proposed and that were being discussed here before you decided to oppose them! Had you actually looked in the box you'd see that there is no criteria regarding English or non-English literature.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Had you actually looked in the box you'd see that there is no criteria regarding English or non-English literature" You wrote: All sources must be from peer reviewed articles, in English, or from English books from reputable publishers. --Molobo (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also-you can't create such rule here. Wikipedia article talk is not the place to make such a general rule on Wikipedia. You should ask an admin where to put such request.--Molobo (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee Molobo, you obviously still have not bothered to read the thread of this section, nor looked at the criteria in the box at the top of it. I will make it very simple for you, I'll copy the box so you know what it looks like, just look below.--Stor stark7 Speak 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

These criteria apply to the following articles:
 * Allied war crimes during World War II
 * Japanese war crimes,
 * War crimes of the Wehrmacht,
 * Italian war crimes,
 * Soviet war crimes

All of the criteria listed below must be TRUE for an incident for it to be included in an article, incidents who fail on one or more points shall be marked as needing citation and removed from the articles after no less than 1 month and no more than 3 months:
 * 1) For each incident described, the incident in question must be explicitly labeled as "war crime" in at least one citation by a reliable source. It is not enough that other incidents of the same general character have been given such label, or that it would seem "obvious" that it is a war crime based on editor interpretations of legal texts or general public opinion.
 * 2) The time span which the article spans must be clearly indicated in the lead, e.g. December 1941 to September 1945.
 * 3) Each general description or commentary must be clearly linked to one or more war crimes cited according to the above criteria.

If the incident does not seem to fit in here, then check the criteria for the sibling categories: where xx and yy denotes the ethnic group, alliance or nation of choice.
 * xx crimes against the peace
 * xx crimes against humanity
 * xx crimes during the occupation of yy
 * xx crimes against ethnic yy


 * Again disagree. Those are too complicated matters to leave for Wikipedians to decide. Alos talk page for article is not the place to make such rule. Please find a proper place.--Molobo (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree in general, the criteria look sound and they can really help in writing/ editing many articles, not only about WWII. TRhough I would propose changing the names (Wermacht to German - as SS, of Luftwaffe for example, were not part of Wehrmacht, and Soviet to USSR, Allied to US and UK, or American and British, as "Allied" includes USSR and many other countries that were Allies during the WWII). FeelSunny (talk) 08:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)