Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 2



''This is the 2004 archive. For more recent comments, please see the Talk page.''

Neutrality of translation
I would like to question the neutrality of translating 'Jiken' to 'incident'. This seems to show that 'other side' is trying to downplay this event which is not true. While technically possible translation, 'Jiken' term is used very broadly in Japanese from very minor everyday incident to the like of the Tianmen Square 'Jiken' which is a bona fide masscre or the Aum cult's Sarin 'Jiken' which killed and injured more than 5000. I suggest the use of 'event' for the translation.

Revth 17:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

ABC...?
Is ist really necessary for NPOV reason to include the reference "ABC...."? Encyclopedia should not mean that it holds every opinion of a certain timepoint. -- unsigned

I think so too. Although Japanese "ABC..." pages have some good materials, English pages are not so good. So, I changed it to another site. How about this one?Kadzuwo 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

&#19977;&#26376;&#20129;&#33775;
There is not the word "&#19977;&#26376;&#20129;&#33775;" in Japanese language as you see. This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "&#33775;" (from &#20013;&#33775;) but "&#25903;" (from &#25903;&#37027; or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. --Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) &#19977;&#26085;&#19979;&#19978;&#28023;&#65292;&#19977;&#26376;&#20129;&#25903;&#37027; is the japanese version

There is not the word "&#19977;&#26376;&#20129;&#25903;&#37027;" in Japanese language. --Snow steed 06:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Denial of Nanjing Massacre 1
Can some know Japanese translation the section "&#21542;&#23450;&#35500;&#12395;&#12388;&#12356;&#12390;" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? --Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. --Poo-T 19 May 2004

I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle


 * At first, What I wrote means, 'At least, sporadic raping is not deniable, But estimating the number of raping is a hard problem'. I can't understand why I was identified as 'Denial side'. I write back one question and one impression. #As you wrote, No one doubts about the existance of killing. Then, what is the meaning of your 'Denial side'. As you wrote, people 'under 100,000' can be devided into two groups, at least. You tend to treat both groups as just 'they'. It sounds strange. You should describe them separately. #Who can say 'most historians in Japan belongs to one group'? I agree that 'less than 10,000' and 'more than 300,000' are minority, but not agree '100,000 and above' is the majority. But your didn't write which group is the majority. Your attitude seems fair, and suitable for Wikipedia. Poo-T 27 Aug 2004


 * This is what you wrote. "About raping, personal records of Japanese soldiers suggest existance of sporadic raping, but determining the actual extent of rape cases is more difficult and, therefore, the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated."  The record suggest that Japanese soldiers indeed committed rape.  The assertion that these records only suggest "sporadic raping" is your POV.  "determining the actual extent of rape case is more difficult" is also POV.  It all depends on availability of hisotrical records.  It may not possible to present "exact" number of rapes, however it is possible to assertain if such practice was "widespread" or not.  Therefore, "the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." is your POV.  And as far as current "majority" opinion goes, the assertion of mass rape is substantiated and widely documented by testimonies from Japanese, Chinese and Fwww.google.com/search?ie=Shift_JIS&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=%8EO%8C%8E%96S%89%D8&btnG=Google+%8C%9F%8D%F5&lr=lang_ja you see].

This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "&#33775;" (from &#20013;&#33775;) but "&#25903;" (from &#25903;&#37027; or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. --Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kadzuwo - Japan has a whole alphabet appart form Kanji which is exact chineese characters. Hence, it is not definitive that the word is not indeed Japanese.

"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) &#19977;&#26085;&#19979;&#19978;&#28023;&#65292;&#19977;&#26376;&#20129;&#25903;&#37027; is the japanese version

Denial of Nanjing Massacre 2
Can some know Japanese translation the section "&#21542;&#23450;&#35500;&#12395;&#12388;&#12356;&#12390;" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? --Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. --Poo-T 19 May 2004

I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle


 * At first, What I wrote means, 'At least, sporadic raping is not deniable, But estimating the number of raping is a hard problem'. I can't understand why I was identified as 'Denial side'. I write back one question and one impression. #As you wrote, No one doubts about the existance of killing. Then, what is the meaning of your 'Denial side'. As you wrote, people 'under 100,000' can be devided into two groups, at least. You tend to treat both groups as just 'they'. It sounds strange. You should describe them separately. #Who can say 'most historians in Japan belongs to one group'? I agree that 'less than 10,000' and 'more than 300,000' are minority, but not agree '100,000 and above' is the majority. But your didn't write which group is the majority. Your attitude seems fair, and suitable for Wikipedia. Poo-T 27 Aug 2004


 * This is what you wrote. "About raping, personal records of Japanese soldiers suggest existance of sporadic raping, but determining the actual extent of rape cases is more difficult and, therefore, the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated."  The record suggest that Japanese soldiers indeed committed rape.  The assertion that these records only suggest "sporadic raping" is your POV.  "determining the actual extent of rape case is more difficult" is also POV.  It all depends on availability of hisotrical records.  It may not possible to present "exact" number of rapes, however it is possible to assertain if such practice was "widespread" or not.  Therefore, "the assertion of mass rape is unsubstantiated." is your POV.  And as far as current "majority" opinion goes, the assertion of mass rape is substantiated and widely documented by testimonies from Japanese, Chinese and Foreign residents in Naking. But our job is to make proper attribution of POV.  So I don't intend to censor denial side argument as long as attribution of POV is properly made. FWBOarticle 13:39, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think, the debate about raping will never reach to an agreement, but present description seems relatively, fair. Then, could you answer to my question? What is the meaning of your 'Denial side'? Does it means just 'under 10,000' group? If not, you should write as 'Group1 and Group2', for example. And I have another question. You rewote '10,000 -40,000' to '10,000-40,000 or less'. I can't catch the meaning of your writing. Does it means 'less than 40,000'? Poo-T 27 Aug 2004


 * Firstly, "10,000-40,000 or less" is my bad. I fixed it. To be honest, I prefer this one to be included in "100,000 or less" because the number 40,000 is attributed to the standard of proof set by Hata.  However, it seems to be the case that depending of the standard of the proof and method of estimation, the number jump from group 2 ( 40,000) to group 3 (120,000 or 130,000 or more to upward of 250,000).  I really wish someone can explain how the different method of estimation cause this fluctuation and jump in numbers but unfortunately, I don't have access to Hata's book.  I don't live in Japan at the moment.  As of denial side.  I think there is two type.  The first type is denial of killing and rape itself, which is pretty much extinct now.  The second type is denial of Nanking "massacre" and "Rape" of Naking, which is bit more complex because it is more about moral implication of facts. I personally think 100,000 or 300,000 being killed is both pretty bad. True, 300,000 is 200,000 more bad than 100,000.  But we don't say American is 40% "guiltier" in Hiroshima (140,000) than Nagasaki (100,000), do we. There is something off about mixing mathematics with ethic.  And I find it bit far fetched to think that soldiers somewhat behaved themselves and kept their pants on while at the same time they somewhat ended up killing that many.  Anway, the second type is about asserting that "lower" number of killing and "less" rape took place.  It also asserts that that killing was directed against "suspected" illegal gurrilla, which is another way of admitting that civilians were killed but for the reason of unfortunate misunderstanding.  I consider this "mass killing or massacre???" debate to be bit too "post-modern".  I also think there is a bit of politics about the number 300,000 because it notch the death toll above combined total of 240,000 of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Personally I find that number starting from 120,000 to 130,000 then ending with 250,000 depending of the range and method of estimate to be more politically netural. I think Hata apply standard of proof of criminal prosecution for individual crime which is not appropriate for historical research. Also, as far as I know 300,000 is sort of more PC number but in fact somewhere between 150,000 to 250,000 is indeed more standard among academic historians.  I hear that in China, attempt is made to increse the death toll above 300,000 by uping the estimate of population of Naking at the time, which I find is somewhat on the same league as denial side.  I don't intend to start edit/delete war by trying to force the current article's presentation 300,000 as accepted death toll to 150,000-250,000.  The subastance of the ethical issue is same in both numbers in my opinion.  Plus, I need exact detail of the content of evidence used in arriving at both numbers. FWBOarticle


 * My guess is that good analogy of Hata's method can be found in Harold Shipman's case. The guy is convicted of killing 16.  However, it is estimated that he killed at leat 215 of his patient.  215 as number comes up because all of them died within his clinic or while being examined by him.  How many patinet who is not suffering any critical illness droped dead quietnly while being watched by a doctor?   I'm quite sure that he cannot be found guilty of all 215 murder because that require discovery of morphine in dead body which is long gone.  But on the balance of proof, it is correct to say he killed at least 215. And that is definitely a massacre. FWBOarticle 23:49, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't ask you to compare reliiability of 'more than 100,000' and 'less than 100,000'. I have asked you about the meaning of your writing,'Denial side'/'They'. Do you want to equate #1 group with #2 group? For me, Putting two groups into just one saying,'Denial side' seems arbitrary categorization. How can you say '10,000-100,000 killed'='Denial'? But before that, a Chinese guy came and deleted text what he dislike without discussion, as usual. What do you do to his edit? Poo-T 28 Aug 2004


 * O.K. it may be appropriate to name the first group as "Maboroshi-ha" (Illusionist) according to Japanese page. For the second group 40,000 yes, it may be appropriate not to use "Denial side" as an attribution because the term somewhat implies that all members belogning to this group are right wing Ideologue.  Hata, especially, are known for exposing several hoax (such as claim that American government knew attack on Pearl Harbour which was quite popular among nationalists) Should we make up new word, such as "conservative"?  Anyway, feel free to edit for better attribution. FWBOarticle 04:02, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your naming. But 'Illusionist' sounds like magician :P) Do you have a better idea about the naming for the 1st group? For Ex. cynical/negative.Poo-T 31 Aug 2004

Discussion in Japan
''This was moved from the article space. Rewrite before posting.'' --Jiang 23:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The text was merged with Nanjing_Massacre, so I deleted the talk about it to save sapce--Poo-T 28 Aug 2004

Moderation
I would like to make some changes on this after reading Honda Katsuichi's book, (The Nanjing Massacre) an excellent account with very good reference backup. Hopefully it will clarify some areas. Mandel 09:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I've gone through some parts of the article and have removed some portions which seems insufficiently substantiated. The problem with writing articles like this is that if it is not sufficiently documented, the right-wing Japanese will have a field-day picking out the errors and inconsistencies, then make a whole hula-point from a nitpick. That's the problem with the Rape of Nanking book by Ms Iris Chang. There're some misquotations and supposed poor documentation, and now it's backfired upon the author. In short, we can't be overly careful. For example, someone added this:


 * However, by mid-1930s the city was filled with 1 million people, many of them refugees fleeing from the Japanese army which had invaded northeast China.

after one party added this:


 * It should be noted that the city normally held 250,000 people.

I'll like either parties to substantiate with a reference. I can do it for the second one, from both a Chinese website , which states the number between 535,000 and 635,000. Even so, I think one good reference is not enough.

There's another problem. Apparently a lot of the writing is quoted directly from Kajimoto Masato's website without acknowledgement at all. It's a copyrighted website. See for example and compare with the present article. Mandel 10:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

I have rewrote the category of Japanese opinion in line with Japanese Wikepedia. This is not to state which opinion is true. Japanese page also say Jyusumannin Ijyou = More than 100,000 and several 10 thousands. I have adjusted this to simply "more than 100,000" FWBOarticle 20:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

# 3.2 Denial of Nanjing Massacre

 * However, some groups in and out of Japan insist the massacre never took place, and was fabricated as a point of propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China, which frustrates the Sino-Japan relationship from time to time. It is true to some extent. For example, more than half of pictures in The Rape of Nanking are retouched.

Care to elaborate?

I'd like to mention that if it is based on Tanaka Masaaki's refutation I'd revert the changes. It is not Iris Chang but rather Tanaka Masaaki who rewrote so-called documents to his liking. Mandel 11:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it, no evidence of any credibility to back the claim. Fuzheado | Talk 09:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * To Mandel, I have to point out two things. #1 That text doesn't depend on Tanaka's writings. As you wrote, his doing also impaired his credibility. #2 The linked text is now disputed. About 'Hundred Head Contest', writer Mr.Honda and the publisher was sued for libiel by the bereaved of the 'war criminals' he reported. Many Japanese doubt neutrality of 'Shukan Kinyobi'. Do you know that editor of 'Shukan Kinyobi' is Mr.Honda?


 * I don't get your point at all. Mandel 13:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * To Fuzheado, Please Ask to others before editinig. At least, you should ask to FWBOarticle, as he wrote it. Without discussion, 'no evidence of any credibility' is just your POV.--Poo-T 28 Aug 2004


 * While I understand your concern about the removed text, it is not "POV" to require evidence to back up what is clearly against the grain of accepted scholarship and evidence. It is not my job to have to disprove the negative. It is the writer who must provide positive supporting evidence. Without that, the text cannot stand. Fuzheado | Talk 17:17, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "The grain of accepted scholarship and evidence" means nothing to this argument and you can't use a generalization as a proof. I can simply repeat back what you wrote as the precise reason that the text should stand.  It is not my job to disprove the negative.  It is the writer who must provide positive supporting evidence.  Without that, the text cannot stand.   BTW, read this and tell me why any evidence written by a Chinese from Chinese mainland should be considered "the grain of accepted scholarship and evidence".  Chinese can write only what the government consider appropriate or they would be arrested.  You must know that as a researcher that this is true.  Revth 03:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * However, not only the Chinese scholars but even the Taiwan Chinese historians agree with what is written. If you want, I can give you the KMT version of the massacre (the death toll is placed even much higher).  Do you think the high bodies between the two countries sit down for a conspiracy?


 * It is not factual because it has been proven so by the Japanese scholars, not Chinese. Mandel 13:41, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Death Toll Estimate
I was just reading Chinese Wiki page which says, "&#32317;&#25976;&#21487;&#33021;&#26371;&#39640;&#36948;&#19968;&#21315;&#33836;&#20154;". O.K. my chinese is not that good but it appear that it say "the death toll potentially reach up to 1000,000". This sounds bit absurd but should I include it by attributing on Chinese POV? FWBOarticle 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it possible with reference, as there still exsists a debate about the estimation. Inflation is so commmon in China :P) and their will to increase the number is valuable to describe, I think.Poo-T 28 Aug 2004
 * "&#19968;&#21315;&#33836;" means "10,000,000", not "1,000,000". Nachi 12:10, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've read the text in chinese, but it describes as follows. - Japanese historians think of posiibility that Japanese army might kill 3 millions civilians "near Nanjing", but Chinese historians think ut could be up to 10 million civilians. - It is not related to 'nanjing massacre'. Poo-T 28 Aug 2004
 * Yeah, that sounds about right. Thought where that 3 millions attributed to "Japanese historian" is another matter. FWBOarticle


 * That is, if the massacres outside Nanjing is taken into account as well -- &#33509;&#36899;&#33775;&#26481;&#22320;&#21312;&#34987;&#27578;&#20154;&#21475;&#20063;&#35336;&#31639;&#22312;&#20839;&#30340;&#35441;. It is not POV: it states specifically it is what the Chinese historians think.


 * Although I think there's a problem with the figures. They ought to be 30, 000 and 1 million respectively, not 10 million.  Mandel 13:32, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've reread the article. It refers to massacres committed by Japanese soldiers up to and including the Nanking massacre, in the areas Shanghai, Suzhou, Wuxi, Jiaxing, Hangzhou, Shaoxing and Changzhou. ie. 3 million killed. Mandel 03:42, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

User Qizil bayraq
I'm reverting the suspicious edits of User:Qizil bayraq who has only 5 edits before changing this page, and has not explained controversial edits or engaged in discussion. Fuzheado | Talk 12:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm soory. But it is fact that some (not all) nationalist groups in Japan claim the massacre was fabricated as propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China. Surely, their claim itself is suspicious. Qizil bayraq

Japanese estimates
I edited, and hopefully improved, the English of the Japanese estimates section. I first separated it in its own section since it appeared to come from a different editor. I tried to minimize the changes. The only change I'm not completely comfortable with is that I couldn't think of a good counterpart to the word "apologist" in naming the two sides of the debate. I preferred "apologists" to "revisionist" because the latter feels like someone who'll lie while apologist connotes someone who'll explain Vincent 05:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't a bit strange that there is a heading entitled "Japanese Estimates," as if the nationality of the scholar affected the nature of their work? Can't the Japanese estimates be merged in?

I think I have discovered an article which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner. I feel that this paper would help to fix the currenst state of the article where the debate (death toll estimate) is separated on national basis. FWBOarticle

Reorganisation
Oh well. I'm quite sure some won't like my edit given that my extra content put 300,000 figures within context. Also I eliminated Japanese perspective and Japanese histography and stremlined into the whole article. I hope this one is considered as the major improvement. I will add more details in "Death toll estimate" section provided the entire section don't get reverted. 84.65.111.142
 * Opps, it was me. FWBOarticle


 * I don't agree with a streamlined approach. Firstly, there has been no consensus between Japanese and Chinese researchers, the article gives the misleading idea that there has been such.  This doesn't make for NPOV.  Secondly, it makes for difficult reading.  Structurally it's really hard to follow.  Dividing it into more sections originally makes the reading much easier to follow.  Mandel 12:29, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)