Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 5

Comparing the "Nanking Massacre" article with the "Holocaust Denial" article
It's interesting how the authors of the holocaust denial article has effectively painted the concept of "holocaust denial" as basically conspiracy or anti-semitism; however, Nanjing Massacre denial (and related Japanese War Crime denial) seems almost 'reasonable' or actually can be considered as "another historical perspective", rather than anti-Chinese. Please people, review the introduction of both articles, and think for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial


 * Holocaust Denial is generally considered antisemitic because holocaust deniers are, with very few exceptions, antisemites whose denial is motivated by their antisemitism. Capedia (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nanking Rape Denial is generally considered antisinitic because nanking rape deniers are, with very few exceptions, antisinites whose denial is motivated by their antisinitism. --86.135.177.114 (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article should be treated no differently than the Holocaust article with respect to denials in the perpetrator nation. Would Wikipedia accept a link to Holocaust Denial in the lead of the article, much as we have a link to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre here? Jtwang (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

question to author
I have looked at both the Chinese and Japanese perspectives on the issue of this topic. I notice legitimate questions as to the sources of the figures for these terrible events including what seems to be logical errors. I have also looked at what seems to be compelling evidence proving this event. My conclusion so far has been that a number of Japanese wont admit what seems obvious and the Chinese have intentionally inflated casualty figures to make the event more significant. I dont want to argue which is a right action, what I want to assert is that it is unfortunate that friction is the case surrounding the investigation of this event and that both sides should work together to bring peace to these families and to reiterate to the people of Japan how their government lied to them. I also want to read your response as to if you provide the facts that question the figures involved with the Nanking massacre, (for example, one person witnessing and counting 57,000 people die). Could it happen, Yes, but even with a strong college education, I dont think I can count that high with patience or tolerance. There are numerous discrepencies within the accumulating of the number dead, however, this should not detract from the overall importance of this horrible event. Just thought you could display more objectivity in stating some of what I have mentioned. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Well, if you look at the 3 years worth of discussion on this page, there has been numerous edit wars regading stuff you've mentioned. This is an extremely touchy issue for many people, and the article seems to be going in the right direction for now =). If you check the edit history of the article, you'll see there has been numerous edit wars regarding figures, pictures, accounts, sources, verifiability of sources, etc. Deiaemeth 01:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That has to be hard to deal with edit wars over such a touchy subject. Sorry. I praise your involvement with this article, it must be hard. However, what are the figures of casualties from Japanese perspectives (not the idiots that deny it even happened). In addition, you could also read some of the literature attempting to refute the claims of Nanking, including good literature that refutes some of the assertions by your woman author mentioned within the article. I have read both sides, this is why I ask you about this. You could avoid edit wars if you did. If you want my help please let me know by responding below. I want to contribute any way I can to this article. Thanks

I am curious why you used the word "extremist" so much. What makes them extreme? It looks to be an attack on the people that hold that view. --141.129.1.98 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the Japanese actually have official reports while the Chinese are going by verbal stories you need to try and decide who is the more accurate source? That and as some people believe this is a product of Chinese hate propaganda at the Japanese for conquering them. It should be a less black and white label of what happened. Maybe some alleged or claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.241.19 (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

lenaga textbook incident
Are you referring to the time that Japan declared its support for the US against China in the question of the Taiwan issue, then immediately afterwards, China protested textbooks in Japan by destroying Japanese businesses in China and dragging innocent Japanese exchange students into the streets and beating them to near death, then afterwards CNN publishes a article mentioning the several lies within the Chinese textbooks about the cultural revolution, cannabalism of American GIS during the Korean War, etc.etc.etc. and a quote from Chinese scholar at Cambridge that admits that China is using the atrocities of Japan during World War II and textbook objectivity for propaganda and political reasons? If it is, I would like to offer you several articles of sources for a contribution please. I hopr you would look at my sources, if you are open to this path please respond below, I am currently scheduled to write about this topic so I am now in the process of research but hopefully, what I have uncovered may be corrected by you or may beneift you. Thanks.

Chinese people in Taiwan like my parents are anti-comnuist but we know about the lies in Japanese textbooks.CHSGHSF 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to lenaga textbook incident
About this recent addition to the lenaga textbook incident section:

''While most in Japan do not deny that a massacre took place in Nanking, many Japanese citizens feel that the extent of crimes committed have been exaggerrated in order to give a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism, which aims to weaken Japanese power and influence in the region. This is especially true with the more hardline members of the government cabinet, who have grown increasingly wary of China's military build-up in recent years.''

I'm concerned about the part where it says "While most in Japan do not deny..." and then "many Japanese citizens feel...". Do we have a source to claim that "most" or "many" Japanese feel this way? Or was this completely anecdotal of the author? Also, does that fall under the usage of weasel words? Hong Qi Gong 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think many or most are weasel words! I mean it is better than "some" and "some". And really most people don't listen to ultra-nationalists who try to deny this stuff. I think there is a sense of proportion. BlizzardGhost 05:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's always best to give a concrete answer. Are there studies done, eg public opinion surveys? --  Миборовский  05:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think more accurate description is to say that "After publication of Japanese military reports as well as collected interviews of Japanese veterans of the battle, the debate over whether massacre took place or not has ended by the 80s. The debate shifted in 90s to the estimates of death toll and the legality of killing of "enemy combatant".". I would say past 90s, the debate pretty much died down. I hardly read about it now a day. I think the publication of Iris Chang's book was the peak of the controversy. That didn't go down well on massacre side of the debate. Vapour
 * Btw, why is "Ten Thousand Corpse Ditch" photo (or for that matter, any photo from Prenceton University Gallery, which were compiled by a student body) still used in this article. That was shown to be misatribution. Vapour

Safety Zone
I added a section about the Nanking Safety Zone. Normally I wouldn't mention it in the talk page, but since this is such a touchy subject, I thought I would mention it. Please, though, if you have a problem with something I wrote, PLEASE DO NOT DELET IT. Discuss it on the talk page first, make edits, whatever. I just think that the Safety Zone is a very important factor in the massacre, and has been mostly overlooked in the creation of this article. My point: whether or not what I wrote was correct, something about the Nanking Safety Zone needs to be in this article. Heavy Metal Cellist talkcontribs
 * Nanjing Safety Zone --  Миборовский  06:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Image text
sigh, I hate when users argue over tiny things. I decided to take the "claim" text off for the following reasons:

1. The Japanese denial on the Massacre questioned the factual accuracy of the released Nanking photographs in general (See 南京大虐殺論争#写真の真偽). They did not specifically point out those two photograph is "fake" (unless there is an citation).

2. It is not the best way to "specify" the claim in the photograph. I will add the related text in "Historiography and debate" section because by specifying it in the photograph, there is POV problems (As if your saying "The Japanese rightists claimed this picture is fake. How ridiculous!"). It is truth that they did state so, but you don't describe it like that.

3. I am planning to translate the 南京大虐殺論争 (Debates on Nanking Massacre) page. It'll be much more specifying on this field of interest.

AQu01rius 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, John Smith's has the link.
 * Taken.
 * Thanks.
 * -- Миборо в ский 17:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mib it was you that wanted the longer captions. I was only trying to make them more NPOV. John Smith&#39;s 20:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your sentence was very unclear however. The "Revisionists claim.." sentence was not neutral because of its lack of citation and the intentional specification, not because of its wording. The wording of the sentence itself was reasonable. AQu01rius 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Name?
Why is this article here, rather than at Nanjing massacre? The article on the city is Nanjing, not Nanking, and this article should reflect that. The capitalization seems wrong as well. --tjstrf 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Nanking Massacre" is the most often-used name for this incident, and the title reflects this. This is the name of one specific incident so both letters are capitalised. -- Миборо в ский 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? Every other english name for the event gets more Google hits, and "Nanjing Massacre" has over 5 times as many as Nanking Massacre, and according to what links here, Nanjing Massacre is highly used on Wikipedia as well. --tjstrf 02:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note the page Nanjing Safety Zone. --tjstrf 02:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am very sure. Knowledge about the event in English-speaking countries was popularised mainly by Iris Chang's book, "Rape of Nanking", which as you note gets 792,000 google hits, 8.62 times as many as "Rape of Nanjing" and 1.62 time as many as "Nanjing Massacre". However, internet sources and google hits in particular are not the only yardsticks to measure the popularity of a term with, as books are still the more informative, better-researched and more thorough medium, generally speaking. In English book sources the event is mainly called "Nanking Massacre" or in Iris Chang and others' more emotional case, "Rape of Nanking". However due to POV issues we have to avoid "Rape of Nanking" so we are using "Nanking Massacre". In addition, the event took place before the official adoption of pinyin by the Chinese government for transliterating place names. As the person who wrote the bulk of stuff on Nanjing Safety Zone, I must thank you for bringing this to my attention. Its name has been changed appropriately. -- Миборо в ский 03:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

So what's wrong with the Rape of Nanking --203.173.165.132 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's emotionally charged and that's something we want to avoid in the title. -- Миборо в ский 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, same with "The Rape of Austria" in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer. It's not only emotionally charged, it's an inappropriate description of what actually happened. Aran|heru|nar 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nanking was used in the 1940s. Nanjing is the modern name for the city. One should use "Nanjing" when referring to the modern city, and "Nanking" when referring to the city as it was then.--Ryan! 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be Nanjing. Calling Nanjing Nanking is like calling Beijing Peking. It's an outdated name.(Myscrnnm (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC))


 * No, it would be an anachronism to refer to the event by the modern name of the city when it took place at a time when the city was known in the English-speaking world as Nanking and the event is recorded mainly as the "Nanking Massacre", "Rape of Nanking" etc. We don't refer to the Seige of St Petersburg rather than the Seige of Leningrad or the Battle of Volgograd instead of the Battle of Stalingrad because Leningrad and Stalingrad were the names when the events took place. Booshank (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think whatever you decide to go with, you should at least use the pinyin (I think that is the common system used on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.252.190 (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Eroguro Nansensu
I wonder if the EroGuro movement may have influenced the Japanese military to perpetrate the Rape of Nanking. 205.188.116.9 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd doubt it personally, and it would need to be verified. Find a published source that states so, and you can include it. --tjstrf 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * let's not taint the article with unverified connection to japanese horror porn. BlueShirts  00:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Citation style" tag
For your information, the discussion concerning citation is archived at Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Headline text
My great grandfather was part of the IJA in China and he can confirm that this never happened.
 * Well, assuming your great grandfather was 20 when he joined the IJA in 1937, and assuming we were kind enough not to pop a bullet to his head and sent him back to Japan where he had your grandfather when he was 29 in 1946 (unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China), and assuming your grandfather had your father when he was 25 in 1971, and assuming your father had you when he was 25 in 1996, you're about 10 years old. It's good to see a young'un who knows so much. Kudos. -- Миборо в ский 03:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mib, you're so naive. That guy obviously is not even Japanese - his only other contribution on wikipedia was to say Mao Zedong was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century AND that his grandparents were persecuted during the CR but still had nice things to say about Mao. John Smith&#39;s 07:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OR, I just didn't check who made the edit? Unlike some people I don't stalk others checking out their edits, casing them before I make a reply. -- Миборо в ский 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When people make stupid comments like that it's normally a good idea to see what they're up to, rather than getting suckered into responding to a fake statement like that. John Smith&#39;s 06:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't have as much experience as you do dealing with stupid people. And no, it wasn't a stupid comment. It's exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese. And, as I said, I don't stalk people's edit histories. But some people do, so they have a much better chance of spotting these stupid people, and for that I thank you for bringing this particular one to my attention -- Миборо в ский 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? "Exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese?"Bakarocket 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky, don't be such a troll. Your point is valid, but the insulting little nuances like "assuming we (my italics) were kind enough not to pop a bullet in his head" and "unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China" don't do your credibility much good. The two of us have been at loggerheads before, but in the past I've managed to convince myself that you are, at heart, fair and objective. Unfortunately this one comment makes it crystal clear what your views are and suggests pretty well what your objective is in stalking this page.

Bathrobe 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm stalking this page. How? Do you own this page? I think not. Hey you! Stop stalking this page. Shoo! Still here? Well so am I. Wikipedia apparently has a really cool stalking tool called the watchlist.
 * I'm happy that you finally ended your delusion that I am "fair and objective". I don't see how I can be "fair and objective". What I write might be "fair and objective", but I'm not. And neither are you. Whether you can write NPOV articles is another matter, and all that matters. -- Миборо в ский 23:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't own this page, although I sometimes get the impression that you think you do.


 * At any rate, my point is that what you wrote is not "fair and objective" either. The guy who posted the comment was obviously weird, but for you to come out with that little torrent of hatred certainly wasn't fitting of someone who seems to take a keen interest in this page and wants to be taken seriously as an contributor.


 * Bathrobe 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware that I think I do (however that might work), but an outstanding strawmen nevertheless, Bathrobe. So you still haven't explained how I am stalking this page, when nobody owns it. Oh, and I get the impression that you think you own this page, too. And I just presented about as much evidence as you did.
 * In case you don't know, this is the talk page. Maybe I should rephrase - What articles I write should be "fair and objective". And since you talked about my "little torrent of hatred", firstly, I don't use p2p; secondly, I know that someone with a huge torrent of hatred is being taken seriously and viewed as the foremost authority in her area of ranting... just ask John Smith. In any case, attack what I write on articles, alright? I suck at defending against attacks on my person, so please give me a chance to fight on favourable ground. -- Миборо в ский 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

CHSGHSF 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)== Nanking Massacre is not assumed the fact in Japan == Nanking Massacre is not believed for a fact in present Japan. The research how it does and Nanking Massacre was fabricated is active. The evidence photographs of Nanking Massacre were proven to be entire imitation. There was not man who witnessed Nanking Massacre by the Japanese either.--202.157.51.120 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the Japanese version of this article http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%A4%A7%E8%99%90%E6%AE%BA . It is a fact even in Japan as far as I know. --Leo 06:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the Japanese version of this article http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E5%A4%A7%E8%99%90%E6%AE%BA%E8%AB%96%E4%BA%89--202.147.217.166 08:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

200,000 people of Nanjing when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. 250,000 people of Nanjing after one month when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. The rape case in Nanjing by a Japanese army is one.--202.157.50.82 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Testimony person's image

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBLDqLU0TU&mode=related&search=

Japanese army(pilot)

There were many foreigners in Nanjing, too and it was peaceful at that time though this person had gone to the barber of the Chinese management of Nanjing.--202.157.50.82 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opinion and your sources are in the distinct minority I'm afraid, even among Japanese historians. Grant65 | Talk 06:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * １．300,000 slaughters on which China insists are fictions.
 * ２．It is verified that corroborative facts of the slaughter that people who insisted that there was a slaughter announced after World War II contradicted are individual remarks, diaries, and imitations.
 * ３．There is no evidence that the massacre can be proven.
 * ４．There is no recognition that there was Nanking Massacre in Japan, China, and the foreign country in World War II.
 * ５．The public peace is kept after a Japanese army is occupied and it gains population rapidly. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)
 * ６．The population of Nanjing of the Nanjing surrender is 150,000 ~ 200,000 according to material. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)
 * ７．The population of Nanjing of January is 250,000 according to material, and the population has not decreased. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)
 * ８．There are no citizens except the refugee refuges such as safety districts and "Tacaratouhashimati" according to material. (Material: Official documents of demographic of international committee and testimony of important person, etc. at that time)
 * ９．As a result of the research, all the evidence photographs of the slaughter have been fixed that the imitation. (Material: Photograph with slaughter and point of the fabrication)
 * １０．The evidence photograph without the slaughter is a lot, and no one assumes to these photographs it is an imitation.
 * 11. Woman's corpses are 83 people and child's corpses are 48 people or 46 people in the burial record of the Benimangege association.( Material: Burial record of Benimangege association)
 * 12. The number of deaths of citizens is 12000 people in the Smais investigation.. (Material: Smais investigation)
 * 13. The appeals that Nanjing resident's Japanese army did the homicide are 49 people, but the appeals that the false rumor was a lot, and straight appeals were 0 people..
 * 14. The rapes of the Nanjing resident who has the possibility that a Japanese serviceman took part are seven people. Fixation is one person. (Material: Official document of Japanese embassy where it was received with international committee.)
 * 15. Japanese army prohibited murdering, and punished the transgressor severely.( Material: Military record of Japanese army)
 * 16. A JAPANESE army supplied food to the citizens.( Material: Citizens' letters of thanks and military records of Japanese army)
 * 18. The murder of the enemy force is not a slaughter by the combat.
 * 19.China is refusing the investigation that clarifies the truth.
 * 20. An international committee is not witnessing any unlawful murder of a Japanese army. It was judged that both were lawful execution though two murders were witnessed.
 * 21. A military record of the Japanese army that the captive murdered in large quantities doesn't exist. (There is a diary individual with the origin uncertain.)
 * 24. The numbers of dead are from 40,000 ~ 50,000 including the serviceman who died of the combat. (Material: Burial record)


 * ※International committee:International organization that ruled Nanjing after Chinese army escapes
 * ※Benimangege association:Organization that buried people who died in Nanjing at the request of Japanese army--202.157.50.82 14:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

«Last night about 1000 women and girls were raped. If any husbands or brothers attempted to protect the victims, they were immediately shot to death by the Japanese soldiers.» John Rabe, December 17.

«I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1000 cases a night, and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disaproval, there is bayonet stab or bullet. People are hysterical. Women are being acrried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases.» Reverend James McCallum, December 19.

«Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her one year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby being killed with a bayonet. Some japanese then went to the next room, where were Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74 and her two gdaughters, aged 16 and 14. The soldiers killed the old woman. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2-3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed into her vagina.» Reverend John Magee, commentary of a self-made film sent to the Nanking Office of the German Embassy on 10 February 1938.

Excerpts from American goddess at the rape of Nanking, the courage of Minnie Vautrin, p. 97 and The good man of Nanking, the diaries of John Rabe, p.281.

--Flying tiger 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The novel is useless to the problem of the history. If "1,000 people had a Japanese army done the rave" is true, International committee doesn't know of what one speaks. --202.157.52.182 06:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

202.157.52.182, I'm afraid you are going to have to do a lot better then that, given your counterpoints are delivered without really stating their sources. Should the amount of evidence you have supposing your incredible proposition that population really increased during the period of the occupation along with other things prove to be anything more then a house of cards that one might desperately like to believe in… perhaps you could educate all of us here by coming up with an article that opens all of the facts to scrutiny?

For one I regret to inform you not only do I find your claims incredible, should they prove to be false would prove to be a great dishonor of sorts to the Japanese people. While one must realize that the PRC government has a vested interest in inflating the scale of the tragedy, to cover up a lie with another lie in the extreme opposite really proves to be no better. Lets get our latent nationalism out of this talk and focus on the true scale of the humanitarian disaster that almost certainly happen.

I for one found the facts on a peaceful and happy life under a Japanese regime extremely hard to believe. For starters I do not live in China and my nation has little vested interested in making the Japanese look bad. HOWEVER, I have long listened to eyewitness accounts from my very own grandparents (who were in china during the war) on how they saw their own friends and families rounded up and killed on often the barest of reasons. I've seen the most nonpolitical of elderly folk harbour extreme bitterness for anything Japanese to the point they cannot bring themselves to even handle anything Japan even thought they are now in Singapore and not China.

As much as the PRC has a vested interest in making the tragedy bigger, I find it extremely hard to believe that this much of harbored personal resentment in many of the war survivors is the result of listening to too much radio PRC… not especially when the people involved often had vivid personal eyewitness accounts to much of the things committed. There's a big difference from saying "I heard they killed Bob," to actually becoming "I SAW them kill Bob and do all those awful things."

If Nanking was the liberated paradise you described, it must be a very odd anomaly in the general conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in their areas of occupation. You are telling me to believe that my grandparents are delusional (or worse lying to be to make me hate anything Japanese for some reason) and that their vivid accounts are all fabrications as part of a general Chinese conspiracy worldwide.

And not to mention I do not think whitewashing history is the way to go about honoring your war dead. Our forefathers did not die for a lie. -Rexregum

Japs, they are always fucking idiot, non-human sense fetcher, before and after time. -- John55556 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Image after Nanjing surrenders(Image of people who end war and return at shelter destination)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYXmyAW_fw&mode=related&search=

--202.157.15.87 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Television program of Japan that explains thing that is lie Nanjing slaughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Njb3sG-7U&eurl= --202.157.15.87 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Ha ! Ha ! Your naive propaganda video made me laugh so much !! Thank you !! --Flying tiger 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Because Chiang Kai-shek and the commander of a Chinese army deserted Chinese soldiers, and only we had escaped, China invited pandemonium. The number of victims kept increasing because a seceding Chinese soldiers took off the service uniform, changed clothes to the citizens clothes, and used the Chinese citizens for the escutcheon. A Chinese soldier who did not have food wore citizens' clothes, and disappeared in the citizens, became the burglar, the thief, and Zoc, and was repeating plunder, the rape, the assault, and the slaughter from the Chinese citizens. A Chinese soldier stole the service uniform and the firearm of a Japanese army, took the shape of a Japanese soldier, set fire in the Nanjing city, raped Chinese's women and children in addition, murdered, and had slaughtered it. And, a Chinese soldier is pretending all these atrocities to the act of a Japanese army. When withdrawing, a Chinese army destroyed and carried out all goods that a Japanese army was able to use. This is 'Scorched-earth strategy ' of a Chinese tradition. (The scorched-earth strategy of the most famous Chinese army is a strategy to which the embankment in Hwang Ho is destroyed, the deluge is caused, and several hundred thousand members' Chinese was drowned. )--202.157.18.221 10:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You got to do a lot better then that 202.157.18.221. And firstly I am surprised you could even put up such flimsly arguments which brings up the question if you are really a true Japanese apologist to begin, given your arguments are so silly one tends to wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese by putting such an opinion as their own. Frankly I think there are better arguments to be used even by the most rabid defenders of Japanese actions in WW2.

Not to mention your "idea" on the Chinese army somehow managing to carry out a mass slaughter of Nanking draws entirely from speculation, defies all eye witness accounts, and not to mention suggests that the victims had no common sense themselves are were so competely fooled. You bend so many rules of proper history accounting and basic logic that I wonder if you even bothered with them to begin with... which makes one wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese with such arguments to begin with. I find it hard to believe that any Japanese person would dishonour his forefathers with such a twisting of facts.

How the Chinese army managed to get such a large number of Japanese uniforms and firearms to stage such an act is hard to imagine, not to mention that even if they did manage to do this... the average citizen of Nanking could still easily tell if the soldier was truly Japanese or Chinese, and would hardly be fooled. More tellingly, if this was really the case the surviviors of Nanjing would have easily pointed it out post war and exposed the whole thing to independent sources that were not affiliated to the PRC. If the Chinese army was really behind this thing, there would be no lack of Chinese victims that would eventually speak up. We hear many stories from Chinese Christians, democratic activists and what have you not exposing the actions of their government... but so far no word from any Nanjing victims of the Chinese army pulling such a prank. The red-handedness has really been all pointing towards the Japanese. I won't even start on all the accounts of the tortures and mass killings from the survivors in my country of Singapore of which we can still easily get a first hand eyewitness account from.

Frankly even the most militant Japanese apologists don't deny killing took place in Nanking, they try instead to downplay the severity of the incident or justify it somehow. Your positions of no killing or conspiracy theories simply hold no weight... and often make people wonder if you are even Japanese to begin with. For so far we know most Japanese to be reasonable people who are honorable and brave to admit the truth and face the facts. We see none of that in your posts, if you are truly Japanese, please stop disgracing your nation in this place by such behavior. You are really dragging the name of your nation in the mud before the international community here.

--Hello I am Matsui Tsuyoshi. I do not think Nihonjin kill Chineses. Fake picturs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.27 (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Rexregum 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In W W II, military forces that kill a lot of Chinese are not a Japanese armies but Chinese armies.To begin with, there was no intention of invading China in a Japanese army.Japan was only drawn in to the civil war of a national party and the communist party in China.A Japanese army only counterattacked to the attack of a Chinese army.A Chinese army did not stop the attack to a Japanese army though withdrew even if defeated, and the thing occurrence that a Japanese army also stops counterattacking did not come.A Chinese army did the scorched-earth strategy when withdrawing, and killed a lot of Chinese.Japan rebuilt the city that a Chinese army had destroyed.The purpose of Japan is a modernization and a public peace recovery of China. It is the same as the United States in Iraq today. This is true.--202.147.217.166 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Ha! Ha! You are even funnier than 202.157.15.87 ! I almost though for a moment you were serious. Thanks a lot ! You prove that dramatic subjects sometimes need humour...--Flying tiger 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In Asian nations, the majority were colonies in Europe and America. Only Thailand had been barely escaping occupying excluding Japan.China was continued after Qing Dynasty had collapsed confusion in the state of a half colony.Afterwards, China was in the state of the civil war of Kuomintang and Communist.（It looks like Iraq over which Shiite is fighting against Sunni.The transitional government is a Nanjing government of Wang Zhao ming.The standpoint of the U.S. military is a Japanese army. The United States hoped for the democratization of Iraq, and Japan hoped for the modernization of China.） Communist that had started defeating at a Kuomintang drew in Japan to the war.The final target of Japan was to have made Asia where it was able to oppose Europe and America.Stability and the modernization of China were indispensable for that. To defend one's independence, Japan stood up.--202.147.217.166 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt you have any sort of a good grasp of the situation on the ground then. First and foremost the actual reported actions of the Japanese army on the ground were reported to be invariably, and greatly, different from the propaganda leaflets that they distributed promising liberty and modernization. Not to mention the average Japanese soldier didn’t go into China with the lesson drilled into them that they were supposed to be improving the lives of the Chinese they were supposedly “liberating”. The American grunts have the humanitarian mission on the top of their list in Iraq now and even they can screw it up at times.

I have no reason to see why the Japanese army that was not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, with a brutal and dehumanising military system made up of suppressed conscripts that were drafted for slightly over one ren (and considered at times even more expendable then equipment) bears even the slightest resemblance to the Americans in Iraq now. They had plenty of reasons to act out their murderous impulses unabated and preventing abuses of the civilian populace was never high on the list of Japanese war plans.

I don't recall any great gains that the Japanese made in promoting an "Asian Asia". If anything the revolt of independence against the colonial masters after WW2 was not because the nations had seen the light of independence under Japanese rule, but because the colonial masters had failed to protect these nations from the BRUTALITY of the Japanese empire. I don't think the island of Singapore made any progress from its previous, prosperous state under the occupation... in fact so much was lost and suffered that the current nation of Singapore places a heavy emphasis on DEFENCE to prevent another repeat of any half-assed-in-word-only "liberations" like what the Japanese did to them.

No, I do not think the Japanese came in with the idea of “liberating” China. There were more complex reasons involved. I don’t think Japan is necessarily evil for starting the war, and the situation then was more mixed. What more likely happened however, was that the Japanese military system based on “bullshitdo” (a greatly corrupted form of the actual Samurai code), that encouraged the average Japanese conscript to disregard common morality to do anything for the empire, along with a general apathy to humanitarian concerns, a rigid and repressive life in the Japanese military as well as some racial superiority to mix it all up. What resulted was the perfect conditions for the Japanese army to commit the atrocities they were blamed for.

The prove is pretty exhaustive, and once again I think the plenty of war survivors I can still interview/ have interviewed also told me quite clearly that a lot of the unnecessary killing in Asia was done very by the Japanese army. Non of the sides in the war were really innocent of doing any great wrongs, and I find you idea of this suddenly magnanimous Japanese liberator greatly mistaken. Japan had her interests threatened and she moved to defend them, but she did not move as a righteous liberator striking out in self-defence, but rather in a very aggressive, and often unnecessarily bloody way. Her future generations would do good to learn from these mistakes or they will repeat them. There is no honour in defending a lie, nor making people who became monsters in our interests our heroes.

I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here by trying to twist history around to become as favourable to Japan. I doubt it cuts any ice at all to those moderates who knew that the Japanese were not the simple “bad” guys in WW2, but nevertheless did many very bad things. All the twisting in the world won’t change that, and I’m afraid your attempts to draw from radical right-wing revisionist arguments that flout most common laws of handling historical evidence don’t really help your case here. If anything it drives international opinion against Japan.

Rexregum 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Wang Zhao ming organized the Nanjing government of the pro-Japanese in Nanjing.If the Nanjing slaughter is true, he will choose another place.Is the establishment of the pro-Japanese government impossible by the slaughter site even though.

It is a book that verified the thing that is the lie the Nanjing slaughter.

http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4794213816/ref=sib_dp_pt/503-2243263-6995145#reader-link

--202.147.217.166 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You really have to come up with better arguments.

Sorry, the “point” of “Wang Zhao Ming” you raised does not seem to have any bearing on the point of the debate. Wang Jingwei, given his position, never had any real choice in choosing where to set up his “government”, nor did he really have any say in what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese back then, given he was pursuing a policy of collaboration. It’s hardly amazing that he should end up in Nanjing and turn a blind eye to what was being committed there. History has no lack of such characters, so I’m not sure what you prove at all, except trying to read a lot more into what is really there.

Which sums up your arguments here mainly, which consist of trying to dismiss rather blatant and obvious evidence like first-person eyewitness accounts from multiple sources (not just the Chinese), photographic evidence, and a whole array of other concrete evidence with extremely fragile and fanciful speculations like the massacre was perpetrated by “Japanese-dressed Chinese soldiers”, and trying to take neutral facts and twist them to your prove your point, such as saying what printed on Japanese propaganda articles as what actually transpired on the ground.

I’m afraid you have to do a lot, a lot better then that. I am rather disappointed in fact, that you have chosen not to really answer any of the points I raised such as the vivid, first person accounts I can easily get from any of my surviving forefathers on a snap, the consensus of virtually all historians of different nationalities on what transpired, and even the obvious holes I have pointed out in you argument. What you have chosen to do however, is to continually draw from a pool of shallow, right wing conspiracy theories and speculations that invariably support your case with blatant disregard for truth. Truly, this is rather disappointing, and I wonder if your society frowns on such unreasonable behaviour.

Even if there was no PRC to distort things, the agreement of various historians in the international circle that the massacre did indeed take place. And what’s more telling such a massacre is not at odds with the general conduct of the Japanese army in WW2. I think the evidence is pretty damming and anybody trying to deny that is really fighting uphill against a mountain of evidence. Unless you can really come up with something extraordinary rather then the parlour tricks you are putting up here, I doubt you are even making any dent on the credibility of the Nanjing massacre. One could have a far easier job denying the rape of East Timor.

Rexregum 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Capital Punishment. I have added David Bergamini's excellent book, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, to the source list, as this scholar of the Japanese language has reviewed the War Crimes Tribunal testimony in both Japanese and English texts, and done considerable interviews revealing the previously and deliberately hidden role of Emperor Hirohito in authorizing Japan's plans for war. As part of that record, it turns out that the general nominally in charge of the assault on Nanking, General Matsui, actually intended to conduct an honorable battle, but his command was undermined by an uncle of the Emperor, Prince Asaka, who actually carried out the order to "Kill all prisoners." Matsui was hung for the crime; Prince Asaka was never called to testify at the war crimes trial (p. 47), thus Bergamini's scholarship also makes an important contribution to the literature of capital punishment and war crimes.

NPOV and Citation tags
Why are these still up? Djma12 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please itemize which statements require citation, otherwise this tag will be removed.
 * Which parts of the article are contested for NPOV?

Nanking Hospital
People who are familiar with my edits know that I feel strongly about preserving the record on international atrocities. However, this statement seems to me to be exceptionally POV and unsourced:


 * Nanjing Hospital was the site of some of the most gruesome atrocities committed during the occupation. Bandages were torn from the flesh of the wounded, casts were smashed with clubs, and nurses were repeatedly raped.[citation needed]

First of all, atrocities are not diminished if recalled with an objective voice. (We don't need the "torn from the flesh of the wounded", etc...) Also, per WP:V, extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. If this statement does not provide any citation, I think it should be removed. Djma12 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: If someone can find a citation for this, it should definitely be re-introduced. (Calmer language, though, please.) Djma12 (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How many bodies has been found?
--Arigato1 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They weren't lost. 71.68.17.30 15:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Urban Legend
"Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets."

This HAS to be an urban legend. I've heard it said that the Germans did this in WW1, etc. Most of the time, when the story is basically the same, but the names change, it's an urban legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest (talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC).


 * How do you know for sure that it is an urban legend? I've read the witness accounts as well, though i'm not saying that it's necessarily true, how can you so readily say it is not?  I've also seen a photo of a japanese soldier with babies impaled on his bayonet, so i'm not so ready to say that it didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.147.43.82 (talk) 2007-04-17 02:34:56

So the fact that one attrocity happened in a different country makes it an "urban legend?" Since rape happened in other wars, then it cannot POSSIBLY have occurred in Nanking. Really. Is that your big argument? 210.133.127.14 (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

One of the Victims which i had known and now long since dead, was forced into sex slavery at the age of 16. She was "thankfully" raped only by the higher officials cause of her looks but she had to watch as other less fortunate(understatement) women were raped by hundreds of men every day. Afterwards, females ransacked by the battalions, whom they were done with or were nearly dead, were then lined up and cut open to rip out the womb(uterus) and placed over their head's so they can suffocate to death.

Grisly. A lot of older chinese elders still say, "You buy a Japanese product, your giving them another bullet to kill you with."

15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)70.18.52.179`

Alot of horrible acts happened, some are so hard to believe that some people decide to reject it all together. Some are exaggerated due to the intense pain of the incident because of the cruelty displayed. It was also said that a group of people were led to a highschool, stripped naked, blindfolded, and forced to run around till they either got shot or ran into a bayonet. Of course, now these incidents are considered to be "urban legends," because there is no proper source other than the words of a surviver, and there is very little survivers, seeing that the population in Nanjing was massacared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Excavations?
I`m very curious about the reference to recent excavations in the article, and would like to follow it up. Citations?

133.19.126.5 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Shaun O`Dwyer

Tongshu massacre
Hi why someone deleate the part of Tongshu thats important background right? Wikipedia should not be a one side propaganda Tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

29th July 1937 Chinse Troops attacked Japanese reserve at Tongshu. Some Japanese Ladies Raped and killed and put the bloom to Vagina,and Chinese Troops pierce the wire at the nose/ hands of Japanese children and dagged and killed. The other Ladies Raped and ripped the stomach. Some family cutted neck and hand and legs and trushed to garbage bin. And a old lady cutted her hand and trushed and a pregnantlady Raped and pierced her stomach by bayonette.

This affair reported by most of Japanese News Paper,and some Japanese Troops swear the retaliation
 * (This is important background because 4month before Nanjing Masacre and Newspaper Propaganda this affair but ofcourse this affair will not justify Nanjing Massacre)


 * Tongshu Massacre1
 * Tongshu Massacre2
 * This Article Under Vandalism,especially all the article with photos burned by Vandalism for hiding truth
 * Wiped out affair Tongshu
 * Reviw China-Japan War
 * Leftist Unti War Org> No more Nanjing Grop report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.239.229.7 (talk)


 * because it has nothing to do with Nanjing Massacre, and no it was not "background" to what happened in Nanjing. And plus it has its own article here. And what you wrote with really bad grammar and organization, not to mention misspellings. Blueshirts 20:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because the ammount of casualties isn't as great as the one in the Nanjing Massacare. And although it happened right after, it has nothing to do with Nanjing. Although, the killings were much similar to the killing of Chinese in Nanjing, probably due to the rage the citizens felt, because of the cruelty shown in the previous massacare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Relations between the Nanking Massacre and the Nanking Incident
Should be called Rape of Nanking. There is no such thing as the Nanking Massacre. It is the Rape of Nanking. Use common names and real names. Dont try to appease the Japanese. TingMing 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I assure you, the name Nanking Massacre does not appease the Japanese, as to the best my knowledge, the Japanese have refered to the series of events in Nanjing as the Nanking Incident. I believe that the name Nanking Massacre is more accurate as the main atrocity that was committed by the Japanese was mass murder, in other words massacre. Although mass rape was evident and was also a major crime committed during the war and during the series of events in Nanjing during this period, mass murder was more evident. --Nat.tang 03:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. This has been discussed, probably extensively throughout the archives as well. --tjstrf talk 04:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * These are not same definition.If these matters will be made one definition, confusion will happen.Please see the Japanese page of the argument of the Nanking Incident 1937.Don't remove stab about the stub of the  .--203.70.54.205 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Intention to remove picture
There is a link in the section "Theft and arson" to a image 'Nanjing1937_BabyOnTracks.jpeg'. The caption is just "Famous picture of baby stranded among the devastation" which implies that the picture is taken of a scene during the Nanking massacre.

This picture is however found link to the the Shanghai War article and is described as  "A baby on the tracks near the Shanghai South Railway Station after it was bombed by the Japanese on August 28, 1937"

I think it is clear from the discussion on the image page that this picture should not be linked by this article. Agree? GrantB 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, and also rename the picture to avoid further confusion. Blueshirts 01:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those arguments are a little different. Historical reconfirmations are necessary. A doubt is presented that this picture was taken by Frank Capra. If so, this picture were taken in 1943.--Hare-Yukai 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * this was taken in 1937 in Shanghai. Frank Capra had nothing to do with it. Stop adding nonsense to the picture and its related article. Blueshirts 03:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? I will prepare the evidence. please wait a little time.--Hare-Yukai 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The photo appeared in Oct.4 1937 of Life Magazine, showing the Shanghai north station after Japanese bombing. It has nothing to do with Nanjing and Frank Capra Blueshirts 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I show you this picture. At least, you should be understood the Fact that this is not a document photograph.--Hare-Yukai 07:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been beaten to death already. Now where's your evidence that Frank Capra or Nanjing had anything to do with it? Blueshirts 08:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You can see the movie (The Battle of China) with the following HP site. Download it, and then see it.Evidence is distinct from 24min07sec to 24min10sec of this movie scene.--Hare-Yukai 09:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't understand my question. Where is the evidence that it was shot by Capra and in Nanjing? You are pointing me to a documentary whose makers did not shoot the primary footage, which is rather useless in this discussion. Blueshirts 09:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When did I say that it was Nanjing about it?The meaning of the evidence which I say is that it is in the film of the Frank Capra.--Hare-Yukai 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's like saying 9/11 terrorist attack was in the film of Michael Moore's because it was in Fahrenheit 9/11. You're not making sense at all. Blueshirts 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At least, it is obviously that this picture was not the documentary one. It was produced picture being used as the documentary picture. All of the things were propaganda of the communist. For the long time, we were deceived by them. As the result, meaningless war was caused between the good friends.--Hare-Yukai 21:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You sound like a dumbass, to be honest with you. Who bombed the station? Did the Chinese get the kid shot up? The same issue has been discussed on the main Second Sino-Japanese War talk page already, you're late. Blueshirts 22:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if the baby had hurt, why were they taking commemoration photography?　It was clear that he (the baby) was the victim of the Shanghigh war, but it was produced too much, too. It should be grieved for the victim of the war, but they used the victim, too.--Hare-Yukai 22:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not making any sense at all, and I'm not sure if that stems from your limited English. "Commemoration photography"? "Should be grieved"? "Used the victim"? So are you saying that the allies shouldn't have taken pictures of holocaust survivors posing with the camp or pictures of dead and injured people? Please just go away. Blueshirts 23:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I say just only, take the pictures as it is. I don't want to see such a made up picture.--Hare-Yukai 00:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Deniers to include
http://iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/nanking.php 65.60.208.212 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Another information
Please see the following articles. zh:王小亭,ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist community) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.--Hare-Yukai 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excavations2?
I'm putting this question again - this time without a dangling participle: I was interested to see some brief discussion about archaeological excavations in Nanjing. Could someone provide some references?--133.19.126.5 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is the conclusive evidence of the fabrication of the Nanjing Massacre.--Hare-Yukai 08:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link with some documented sites: http://neverforget.sina.com.cn/crime/map.html. The main page of this site also provide comparison of old pictures and a recent picture of the current site. There are some bury grounds discovered during construction, which I heard in the news when I was in China. (Postdoc 22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Page protected
This page is now protected due to revert warring. Please settle your dispute here, and contact me when the dispute has been settled. --Deskana (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
My position is as it was last time we had this discussion. It was not a case of genocide. Just because some sources refer to it as such doesn't mean a thing. Other commentators don't call it genocide. You also don't need to spell out "I don't think it was genocide" to think it was not the case. Some people believe green space lizards control global affairs - just because most people don't keep denying that doesn't mean such theories are correct.

Personally I don't see how we can reconcile our views. Maybe we need to ask for mediation or something. John Smith&#39;s 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources I've included in the last discussion:
 * UHRC
 * Martin Shaw, PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations
 * Henry Theriault, Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
 * Prevent Genocide International

I'm pretty sure I can find others. It's important to note that none of these sources are actually Chinese, so there's no issue of Chinese bias with these sources. But to be NPOV, I do not mind also including the article in a category called "Incidents". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, that's irrelevant. I have never said there were no sources that said it was genocide. I said that there is no academic agreement on it. Also the official definition does not apply here. It's not enough to put "incident" in, because it is still classified as genocide. An incident had to have taken place for genocide to take place - but not every incident is genocide.
 * This has been debated to death on this talk page, so I think I will file a case for mediation. John Smith&#39;s 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should try Requests for comment first, to bring some third-party editors into the discussion. At any rate: 1) Those that do not label it as "genocide" also does not state "it's not a genocide".  There's an important distinction there - neutral vs. negative.  2) WP:NPOV dictates that different POVs be represented, not eliminated.  That the Nanking Massacre is labeled a "genocide" by reliable academic sources cannot be ignored.  3) I am absolutely willing to include the article in another category, something like "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something.  So I'm extending my olive branch here for compromise.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We've already had lost of third-parties comment. Are you ignoring the above talk discussion? But if that's the way you want to play it, fine. I doubt any consensus will appear, but I'll make one. John Smith&#39;s 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV talks about article content - it does not refer to categories. I don't think your compromise is really a compromise for the reason I outlined. An incident must take place for genocide to occur - but not all incidents are genocide. John Smith&#39;s 17:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
This is a dispute as to whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not.

Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
 * Genocide is not a term that can be applied here because it was not a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Chinese population of Nanjing. Some sources label it as genocide, but others do not. Thus if there is no clear academic agreement it is much simpler to use the term "massacre", which is already included. John Smith&#39;s 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * Some sample sources that label the Nanking Massacre as a "genocide":
 * UHRC
 * Martin Shaw, PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations
 * Henry Theriault, Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies
 * Prevent Genocide International
 * Donald G. Duttona, Ehor O. Boyanowskyb, Michael Harris Bondc (respectively of Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia; School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University; and Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong
 * Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies Resource Center
 * Jane Springer, author of Genocide
 * However, I do acknowledge that there are sources that claim it is not a genocide, or that there was no massacre at all. In the spirit of WP:NPOV, which states that different POVs be represented instead of eliminated, I suggest we include the article also in a category called "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something similar.  However, reliable sources label it as a "genocide" and this cannot be ignored.  As an aside, getting rid of the "Genocide" category would set a precedent for the category to be deleted from other similar articles, such as The Holocaust, as long as not absolutely all sources say it is a "genocide" - this seems to be User:John Smith's argument.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not misrepresent what I said. I have always said that the fact academics do not agree is a reason to say the fact some academics call it genocide is not enough. Otherwise just about every massacre should be labelled "genocide" on wikipedia because some people always call it that. That seems to be your argument.
 * The important issue is whether it fits the defined terms of "genocide", which the massacre at Nanjing does not. John Smith&#39;s 17:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For us editors to determine amongst ourselves whether or not it is a genocide would be WP:Original research. What we need to do is look to our sources and reflect what they state.  If there are a number of sources to label an event as a "genocide", such as The Holocaust, then yes, absolutely I think articles for such events should be in the "Genocide" category.  That is my argument.  If there are also other sources to refute that it was a genocide or even a massacre at all, then perhaps including it in a category called "Disputed events" or some such should be considered.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to decide on this matter, because the term has been officially coined as discussed last time. For the article content, the disagreement could be discussed. But over something as simple as a category entry wikipedians are allowed to exercise their judgment - otherwise how could anyone decide what went in which category? We are not making a decision on the article content, just what categories should be used.John Smith&#39;s 17:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You asked, "how could anyone decide what went in which category?". The answer is simple - sources.  And that's something which should override editors' own interpretations every single time.  We can disagree till the end of time whether or not the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, that does not matter in the face of sources that call it such.  And to reiterate, I abosolutely acknowledge that there are sources which do not call it a genocide or even a massacre at all.  Which is why I think we should consider including the article in another category to reflect this.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are not needed to classify an article's inclusion in a category when an existing definition clearly identifies whether it should go in or not. Sources are required for content in the main body of an article - I believe they are not needed to decide on categories. John Smith&#39;s 18:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And the only thing I can say to that is that I disagree. I suggest we wait for others to respond to the RfC that you filed here.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, for what it's worth, here's my thinking process on this. I can see both sides, and I don't have a strong feeling either way.  Having read the rather lengthy exchange John Smith's, HQG, and others had regarding this topic from last year, I'm a bit mystified as to why you want to include the Genocide category, Hong.  From what I could tell (admittedly, there was quite a lot of extraneous fluff in that exchange), your main argument for its inclusion was that there were a number of sources that categorized the Nanking Massacre as genocide.  I don't think anyone's contesting that point, but from the very brief look around that I had, there are sources that wouldn't classify it as genocide, and there are quite a number of definitions of genocide, many of which wouldn't apply to Nanking.  So, given that there's a demonstrated lack of agreement on whether Nanking was or was not, is there a compelling reason to include the Nanking Massacre in the Genocide category, other than the fact that some sources describe it as such?  --Folic Acid 18:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's also a lack of agreement on whether the Halocaust was even real. Yet the Halocaust article is included in the Genocide category.  I would assume this is because there are sources that label it as such.  Now, the sources that label the Nanking Massacre as a "genocide" are academic and reliable.  For me, that's a compelling reason to categorise this article in the Genocide category.  But like I said, I acknowledge that not all sources label it as such, and that's exactly why I suggest we consider including the article in another category, called "Incidents" or "Disputed events" or something similar.  The disagreement between John Smith's and me seems to be how to resolve the fact that not all sources label the Nanking Massacre as a genocide (and again, the same can be said of the Halocaust).  I prefer that we include both the Genocide category and another category called "Disputed events" or something similar.  John Smith's prefers that we do not include it in the Genocide category at all.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read his comments again, you will see the point about definition. Please, Hong, stop misrepresenting what I said. The issue of sources is not to say that because there is disagreement the category should not be used - it is to say that the claim that as there are some people who say it is genocide it should be used, is not valid. The matter concerns definitions, as Folic Acid pointed out. Holocaust denial is not relevant, because we are not discussing whether the Nanking massacre happened or not. It is to do with the definition of genocide. Holocaust deniers can't really refute the claim that the "Final Solution" was genocide if they accept the events as they are generally told really happened - they try to dispute the events themselves. No one here is claiming the events at Nanking did not happen, merely that they do not constitute genocide. John Smith&#39;s 19:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, I would like to point out, for us editors to determine amongst ourselves what the definition of "genocide" is would be WP:Original research. We should only reflect what our sources say.  I did not say, "it was a genocide".  I'm saying there are numerous sources that label it as such, so it should be categorised as such.  And as I keep repeating, I think we should consider also categorising the article under "Incidents" or "Disputed events".  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Stupid edit conflict) I understand your point, Hong, but I think if we followed that logic, we'd have to classify any event that had a (credible) dissenting view as a "Disputed Event" - a process that I suspect would result in a lengthy and unwieldy list. In any case, while I continue not to have a strong opinion, my reading of the various definitions of genocide here would seem to indicate that a majority of definitions would exclude the Nanking Massacre, since they deal mainly with the premeditated extermination of an entire racial/ethnic/religious/etc. group, and my (limited) understanding of the Nanking Massacre was that it was more indiscriminate than that.  Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.  --Folic Acid 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are enough sources that dispute an event, then absolutely, I think they should be categorised as a "Disputed event". And the point with my suggestion on that is to offer it as a compromise that adequately addresses the issue that not all sources label it as a genocide.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to go by what the U.N. is saying here, but the High Commission for Human Rights defines genocide as:


 * Were the Japanese killing members of an ethnic group? Yes, namely the Chinese. Were the Chinese targeted, as opposed to other ethnicities? Yes. But we can argue that the Chinese are the native group in their own country, which doesn't make them very ethnic at all. However, in relation to the Japanese, the Chinese are ethnic to them.
 * Bodily harm? Without question
 * Calculated attempts to ruin lives? This was one incident, but the fact that comfort women were used indicates a deliberate deterioration of life conditions for those women. So, hesitant yes.
 * Preventing births? Deliberate abortions were done, as stated by "Often times, Japanese soldiers [...]in the case of pregnant women, cut open the uterus and removed the fetus." (also a cited statement)

The key word is "any." More than one condition did indeed apply to the Japanese killings of Chinese during the Nanking massacre. However, (a) could very well apply to armies of various countries, which, like John Smith's said, would make every battle or massacre in history a genocide. Now, going to John Smith's' point (again), there are several seemingly contradicting definitions. Much like Folic Acid did in summary, here is a subjective comparison of definitions. In the following table, I am only going to put a Yes if ALL of the conditions apply, just to be fair; "No" if any doubts are raised. According to Genocide definitions, each of which is cited for proof:

So what does this leave us with? Thus far:
 * Yes: 8
 * No: 10

In other words, there is no consensus, and it would be fair to neither side, according to the pundits, to call it a genocide. Let's take another example: the Muslim attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. The ruling faction of India (or the "governing elite" as defined by some scholars) at the time was predominantly Hindu and Sikh. The author of a book on the incident implies that the attack was an outright genocide. Going by this assertation on its own, the Nanking Massacre too would fit the description of a genocide.

I am going to explicitly state my POV right here and now that I feel that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because the occupying Japanese powers, who were the ruling faction after the surrender of the city, conducted a systematic murder of Chinese people in the city of Nanking, and enslaved scores of women for the purposes of prostitution. However, POV aside, it would be fairer to label this a policide - or the intentional destruction of a city. As opposed to just "bombing the heck out of the buildings," I see policide as a process in which civililans are targeted. Pandacomics 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Panda, going by the UN definition, one has to show the Japanese were out to wipe out the Chinese population of Nanjing and the surrounding areas (I mention surrounding areas because when death estimates are used, it's argued they include the environs as well) - this is the "group". That is not the case from what I understand. Many, many Chinese were killed, but more as a "general rampage" and to a lesser extent rather heavy-handed attempt to find hiding soldiers. There's also the issue of the safety zone, which appeared to function with the authorisation of the Japanese forces. Had they been intent on genocide, they would never have allowed for it to be set up in the first place. Although they did enter it, they selected people from the group there before taking them away. Again, they would have killed everyone there if they had been intent on wiping out the Chinese population. It is not enough that they simply killed Chinese people.
 * Also I think according to the definition (again) there is no reason to count forced prostitution as a sign of genocide.
 * That said I am glad to see you are actually willing to look at the definition of the word "genocide". John Smith&#39;s 20:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that the very existence of the safety zones negates argument for genocide is very hard to swallow. Do you really think Japan would have gone on a full rampage inside foreign enclaves, at the risk of killing foreigners and further alienating the international community and inviting more embargoes? Realpolitik eh? USS Panay was bad enough. Regardless of whether it was a genocide, I find your take on the presence of safety zones in this discussion rather ridiculous. Blueshirts 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did I say the very existence of the safety zone negates an argument for genocide? Please show me.
 * What I said was, if it had been the intent of the Japanese forces to exterminate all Chinese in Nanjing (as per the definition of genocide) they would have surely not allowed it be set up or simply went in and killed all the Chinese there. Given the Japanese were already indulging in a general rampage of the city, if they had thought about an international response they would have realised they'd already be inviting the maximum probable penalty short of massacring all the foreigners too. The fact they did go in to take some Chinese away at times suggests they didn't care about an international response.
 * It's a point that might suggest it wasn't genocide, but a fairly minor one. John Smith&#39;s 23:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're dodging the question but you specifically said that the safety zones were authorized by the japanese, thus it wasn't a genocide because the japanese surely wouldn't have set up this if they weren't so hell-bent on killing every chinese person there. And then you said it's a "minor point". Plus it's your own opinion that the safety zone is relevant to whether it was or wasn't a genocide.Blueshirts 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Japanese authorities never actually formally recognised the Nanking Safety Zone. The only thing that kept the Chinese civilians safe in the zone was the presence of the foreigners, especially that of John Rabe, for being a member of the Nazi Party.  They've had to literally physically get in between Japanese troops and the Chinese civilians on occasion.  The existence of the Nanking Safety Zone actually argues for why the Nanking Massacre may be considered a genocide, because Japanese troops did not harm the foreigners that ran the zone.  Anyway, we can disagree amongst ourselves till the end of time on whether or not the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, and I very much appreciate User:Pandacomics's research efforts.  But at the end of the day, none of us are, to the best of my knowledge, trained in any formal sense to give us any academic authority on whether or not an event was a "genocide".  This is why I keep emphasising the need to look at our sources.  That's what WP was built on.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Murdering foreigners would have prompted the strongest possible response from Allied nations - the Japanese weren't going to do that whilst they weren't at war with them.
 * Panda has actually tried to look at the definition much like Folic Acid. Currently you're the only person refusing to do so. I'll re-state my position that for something as simple as a category we can make a decision based on the UN/dictionary definition. Sources are for the main body of the article.
 * I note that the article itself has absolutely nothing on it being genocide, so that's another reason for it not to be in a category. The fact that no one has even tried to put in a section rather suggests to me that they don't really think it was genocide. John Smith&#39;s 10:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why the presence of the safety zone suggests that it wasn't a genocide. Blueshirts 15:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My guess is that if a Safety Zone did exist, and the IJA respected (more or less) the sanctity of that zone, and a large number of Chinese civilians escaped the horrors of the massacre because of their presence in the zone, then the actions of the IJA must not have been directly aimed at a particular ethnic group (in this case, ethnic Chinese), but rather was either a case of indiscriminate killing or a targeted attack on Chinese military forces. In either of those two cases (indiscriminate killing or attacking the Chinese military), the criteria for being considered a genocide are not met (IMHO).  --Folic Acid 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Japanese authorities never officially recognised the safety zone. It was the literal presence of the foreigners that prevented Japanese soldiers from harming the civilians because they would not touch the foreigners.  It wasn't the simple perimeters of the zone that kept civilians safe - it was the fact that the foreigners were inside the zone making sure Japanese soldiers do not harm civilians.  From one of the entries of Rabe's diary:
 * You would have thought it impossible, but the raping of women even occurred right in the middle of the women's camp in our zone, which held between 5,000 and 10,000 women. We few foreigners couldn't be at all places all the time in order to protect against these atrocities. One was powerless against these monsters who were armed to the teeth and who shot down anyone who tried to defend themselves. They only had respect for us foreigners - but nearly every one of us was close to being killed dozens of times. We asked ourselves mutually, 'How much longer can we maintain this 'bluff'? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue the point, Hong - I'm just responding to Blueshirts' question. However, I will point out that the current article states that the Japanese government did recognize the safety zone.  I'm not sure where the original author got that information, but that's what it says. --Folic Acid 18:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all good, I know you were just responding to Blueshirts' question. That whole section about the Nanking Safety Zone is unreferenced though.  There was no official recognition from the Japanese authorities.  But I'm sure depending on who you ask, some will say that the Japanese soldiers did (unofficially) respect the zone, and others will say that they did not.  What we do know, however, is that from the personal testamonies of the foreigners that ran the zone, we see that they needed to be physically there to protect the civilians, and that civilians had been harmed when they were not actually with the civilians, even inside the zone.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My 2 cents, I did link to a Nanking Massacre: Fact or Fiction article on there. Well, actually it's a book, and I think t's even linked in the external refs/further reading somewhere. Despite its obviously pro-Japanese POV (the guy was a Japanese author, after all), he did provide arguments to some extent whether this zone was indeed respected. Furthermore, he includes documentation of the Safety Zone in Chapters 11 and 12. If anyone has the book, I guess this info could always be thrown in. (shrug) Pandacomics 19:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Panda, I think it's inappropriate to talk about "pro-Japanese POV", because Japanese academia is split on the matter of whether there was a massacre at Nanjing or not. Some are denialists, whilst others affirm it quite strongly. John Smith&#39;s 19:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point, John. Hong, if you feel so strongly about this, and if there is evidence (as you've laid out in your arguments here) of Nanking being a genocide, perhaps a paragraph about that in the article itself would be in order, and at least in my mind, would help justify the addition of the Genocide Category tag.  Currently, the article says something like "The Japanese did respect the Zone to an extent; no shells entered that part of the city leading up to the Japanese occupation except a few stray shots. During the chaos following the attack of the city, some were killed in the Safety Zone, but the atrocities in the rest of the city were far greater by all accounts," and "The Japanese government had agreed not to attack parts of the city that did not contain Chinese military, and the members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone managed to persuade the Chinese government to move all their troops out of the area," both of which stand in contradiction to your view.  If those conclusions are wrong (and I don't know enough of the event myself to make that judgment), then I think these would need to be corrected in order for the article to qualify for a Genocide Category tag, in my opinion.  --Folic Acid 12:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll be perfectly willing to add to the article when it comes out of protection, to show that experts consider it a "genocide". And the reason that I don't want to engage in a discussion amongst ourselves on what is considered a genocide is because I believe that to be WP:Original research.  None of us here are formally trained to give us any academic authority on what is a "genocide".  So some of us here think it's a genocide and some do not.  But no offense - what made us such experts on the subject matter?  This is why we need to reflect what our sources say.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong, you said that opinion was split - so you can't say "experts" regard it as being genocide. Only that it has been described as genocide. But you can't put anything in until we resolve this matter. You can claim WP:OR as much as you want, but it won't get the block lifted any faster. If anything your refusal to look into the definition of genocide is holding things up. Don't keep repeating yourself - it's a waste of time. If you won't budge, have the courage to say so directly and we can at least say the RfC failed and move on to something else. John Smith&#39;s 16:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * John Smith's, I'm one of the people in this RfC so far that have looked sources up. I have offered sources that label it as a genocide.  As I've repeated, I do not feel that any of us have any academic authority to decide what is or is not a genocide.  This is why I would rather rely on what the sources say.  I'm not sure why this is so unacceptable to you.  WP should reflect what sources say, it's what WP is founded on.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources are irrelevant on the disputed matter because you've already admitted other sources do not call it genocide. Nothing would be achieved by someone digging out sources that do not describe it as genocide. So, I'll say this again, in light of the disagreement over this point by academics we have to make some sort of a judgment because the sources can't make that decision for us! If you are going to default to your old position of "some sources call it genocide so we should list it as such", then as has been pointed out that will make just about every massacre, etc on wikipedia part of the genocide category. In which case it would become very meangingless. We are not deciding on article content - just category usage. It is ridiculous for you to keep claiming that we cannot decide on categories - people do it all the time without looking at sources. I will never be convinced that wikipedians can't use their own brains to classify articles.
 * Now, let's be realistic. If you're going to keep on with your position that we can't make our own decision on the UN definition and I'm not going to change mine, that is going to cause this RfC to fail. So either it fails and we go to mediation and then probably arbitration, or we see if the administrators who manage the categories can help us out by seeing whether they agree we can make up our own minds. Then if we can't make a decision maybe again they could help us out. John Smith&#39;s 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction - I never said we cannot decide on how to categorise the article, I only said that we have no academic authority to decide if the Nanking Massacre was or was not a genocide. I absolutely think we can decide on how to categorise the article, based on what our sources say.  WP:NPOV says that we represent different views, that's why my suggested solution is to include another category.  And a point must be made that many of the sources that do not label it as a "genocide" also do not state that "it is not a genocide" - there's a big difference between a source being in a neutral stance and being in a negative stance.  If you like, I can participate in a discussion specifically about what we think, whether or not it is a genocide, and my stance is that it is a genocide.  The Japanese forces targetted the Chinese, they made the city uninhabitable, looting and burning, they killed whole families and even pregnant women, etc etc.  But just like you, I don't have any academic authority to show our readers that our personal opinions should matter.  This is why I keep saying we should look to our sources.  As far as mediation is concerned, this RfC has only ran for one day, with only three other editors responding.  Let's give it more time.  And John Smith's, how long have you been editing WP articles?  "Sources are irrelevant"?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another category could replace "genocide" if an existing, suitable one can be found - but it should replace it, not go alongside it. As to my comments, don't selectively quote part of a statement - that is an attempt to manipulate what someone has said. John Smith&#39;s 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about your suggestion that we seek mediation and arbitration? I'm sorry if I'm assuming bad faith here, but from the beginning you first sought mediation, only agreeing to RfC because request for mediation failed, due to me disagreeing to participate.  Even after RfC started, within one single day, this is not the first time you've mentioned that we should go to mediation instead.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you've never meant for this RfC to actually work its course.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are assuming bad faith. I went to mediation because you agreed to it last time - it failed because the other user wouldn't agree to it, not because you felt we needed to talk about more. I'm being realistic - mediation will follow if we can't agree on something. So I suggested that rather than get to that stage we ask for the input of administrators that deal with categories to help this RfC along. Why don't you see that as a good idea? John Smith&#39;s 19:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To me this is a simple content dispute. And I know that both you and I have been involved in more elaborate content disputes without going to mediation or arbitration, so I'm not sure why you are so eager to jump on to mediation or even arbitration and deal with all that WP bureaucracy. Procedures like RfC are usually recommended before mediation or arbitration on content disputes, that's why I wanted to try it first. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop lying. I am not "eager" to jump to mediation or arbitration. I have already told you why I listed mediation - you agreed to it last time, so I thought we should carry on where we left off. You refused to, so we're doing this. John Smith&#39;s 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just my opinion that it seems like you're eager to jump to mediation or arbitration. I apologise if I'm completely off on that assumption.  I agreed to mediation last time because there was a lengthy discussion involving a great number of editors.  And since according to Consensus, "silence equals consent", I had thought the matter was resolved when discussions died down.  But then you started editing on the same issue again without discussion, which is why I thought mediation was, and still is, premature.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest you change your opinion, now that you have been corrected. "Silence equals consent". Maybe in terms of getting things done on Wikipedia, but only as a temporary solution. Whether mediation is premature or not, it is a follow-on if we can't resolve this through the RfC. Which is why I mentioned consulting the category administrators. Now should I form an opinion over the fact you have ignored this suggestion despite the fact I've mentioned it more than once? John Smith&#39;s 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong, perhaps you could take a stab at a paragraph here while the page is under protection. I don't doubt that there are sources that say what you say, and I'm sure there are sources that hold to John Smith's view of the situation.  Perhaps those of us participating here could weigh them against each other and make an analytical judgment about which should be predominant.  Or, perhaps as you suggested, a new category (Disputed Events, Suspected Genocide, or some such) could be created that might strike an acceptable compromise. --Folic Acid 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll try to come up with something a little later. The sources which I'm talking about are linked right at the top of this section.  They include professors that specialise in the study of war and halocaust, and even the UHRC.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think any new category like "suspected genocide" would be a good idea - I have a feeling that it would be deleted at some point. The best thing to do is look through existing, established categories that would stay up. Hong if you're going to write anything, please make it balanced and get sources from both sides. John Smith&#39;s 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hong Qi Gong said The Japanese authorities never actually formally recognised the Nanking Safety Zone, but it is a lie. You have to read a letter which came from John Rabe. Japanese army kept the safety zone, and then Japanese army appreciated it from John Rabe.(It will be able to be read if you will use several automatic translation service.)--Hare-Yukai 05:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ps. 昨日の午後、多数の中国兵が城北に追いつめられた時に不測の事態が展開しました.  is one of the famous accident at the Ichiang Gate. --Hare-Yukai 05:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: "Genocide" is a controversial term in its own way with no universally accepted definition. Rummel finds the concept of genocide so flawed that he has put forward the concept of democide (see also .)


 * One reason for the controversy over "genocide" is that it is a highly charged term. It carries within it the opprobrium of being labelled in the same way as the Holocaust and also the (controversial) Armenian genocide. As a result, arguments over assigning the term "genocide" are all too often struggles over whether the event is somehow "heinous" enough to be tarred with this much-feared brush. Or course, labelling any heinous event a "genocide" runs the risk of draining "genocide" of its meaning. When any mass massacre is a "genocide", what are you going to call the real thing (extermination of an entire race)?


 * At any rate, "genocide" itself is contoversial, and so is deciding what is "genocide" and what is not. Whatever may be said in the article about genocide, the categorical assignment of the Nanking Massacre to the category "genocide" looks very much like POV, given that no one is agreed on the issue.


 * Out of curiosity, I looked at the page on Genocides in history, which notes that "Ben Kiernan, a Yale scholar, labelled the destruction of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War (149–46 BC) the "The First Genocide"". Despite this, the page on the Third Punic War doesn't carry the category "genocide". Perhaps no one cares about it as much as the Rape of Nanking -- which only reinforces the impression that the assignment of the Nanking Massacre to the category "genocide" is driven as much by emotion as anything else.
 * Bathrobe 05:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: Perhaps we need a new category of "democide"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathrobe (talk • contribs) 2007-07-28 05:19:43


 * Hare-Yukai - seriously, are you actually using John Rabe letters to justify your points? Do you know how many letters he and the other foreigners sent to the Japanese embassy protesting the atrocities that they were seeing on a daily basis, only to have them ignored?  I've actually read Rabe's diary, since it's been translated into English and published.  Rabe and the other foreigners had sent a letter to the Japanese authorities requesting the establishment of the safety zone.  They never got a reply to indicate that the Japanese authorities would give them permission to do so, and that they would respect the zone.  If there's any official recognition of the safety zone by the Japanese authorities, there's certainly no evidence of it.  Anyway, you don't seem to understand my point.  It wasn't the actual zone that the Japanese military respected, it was the presence of the foreigners in the zone.  Girls were raped right inside the zone and men dragged away when the foreigners weren't actually looking.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hong Qi Gong said  sent to the Japanese embassy protesting the atrocities that they were seeing on a daily basis, only to have them ignored?! You say such a lie again. You should check more than tow documents. You should not have a decision with the opinion of only one side. Based on the record of the Japanese embassy, the Japanese embassy staff went to the incident place together many times with John Rabe. But, nothing was here. It is being written in their. At least 70 Japanese newspaper reporter was in Nanjing in those days. If such incidents broke out like that frequently, it is supposed to be left in the newspaper reporter's diary as well. Actually, the facts which fits each other with the documents of John Rabe are only a little. The thing which doesn't fit each other is a lie, and the thing which fits each other are probably truth. --Hare-Yukai 14:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lie being on the part of the Japanese newspapers. While Rabe's diary and the writings of the foreigners were not controlled and censored by any governments, Japanese newspapers were.  It's called war propaganda.  Japanese troops made sure that when Japanese reporters arrived, it's nothing but smiles and friendliness with everybody.  It's very interesting that Nanking Massacre deniers are basically guilty of the same thing for which they attack their opponents, being so ready to accept the "evidence" that support their views, such as Japanese war propaganda newspaper stories.  And then they question the evidence of their opponents with a whole bunch of circumstantial evidence - "this tree in the background looks funny, so this picture must be fake." "there's no way this man could be that tall, so this picture must be fake."  etc etc.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Hare-Yukai mentioned "newspaper reporter's diary", not just newspaper articles. I think he was saying that even if newspaper articles are going to say the same sort of thing, at least some of the journalists would have written down in their private notes what happened (diaries being very popular then). John Smith&#39;s 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * John Smith's - I have to admit that I seem to have wore myself kind of thin on WP with the other editing that I've personally tasked myself to do, so I really can't spend any more time on this dispute. Arguing about issues like these really takes time away from doing research and contributing real content.  I'm going to bow out of the discussion.  I just want to ask, as a courtesy, to let the RfC run for a couple more days to see if anybody wants to continue in light of me leaving the discussion.  If nobody wants to continue, I would consider the matter resolved.  Though I disagree with it, I won't oppose you if you want to delete the Genocide category.  Cheers.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. John Smith&#39;s 17:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will continue it, so consider it not resolved.Giovanni33 23:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Pandacomics, you're the only other wikipedian here who stated a clear belief in the Nanking Massacre being genocide. Is that merely a personal POV, or does it extend to saying that you would revert a removal of the genocide category? I'm just trying to check that there wouldn't be another revert war if the page is unlocked after this RfC. No one has to like the genocide tag being removed, but if they're willing to live with it then it helps move things on. John Smith&#39;s 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just declared a personal POV, but I am fully aware of what evidence is present. Again, this is not my soapbox, so if removing the tag helps this article go about its writing business, I'm all for it. Pandacomics 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Blueshirts didn't express an opinion/preference in reference to the category tag on genocide. I'll give it another day or so. John Smith&#39;s 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a section or two showing what sources have called the massacre a genocide should suffice. Blueshirts 20:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pandacomics . Do you want to open here for such storker(s)?
 * Orphaned non-free image (Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg)
 * Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg
 * Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg
 * Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 28#Image:BuriedAlive.jpg
 * Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg listed for deletion
 * Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg listed for deletion
 * Image:The baby setuped by Capra s staff.jpg listed for deletion
 * Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg
 * Talk:Nanking Massacre
 * Talk:Nanking Massacre
 * Image:Picture of smiling with army.jpg
 * Talk:Nanking Massacre
 * --Hare-Yukai 20:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But, there is not so many proofs which fits each other between the different standpoint's persons. Some things are provably true, but many things have no proof. For example, the incident of Ichiang Gate is true. At least more than 20 different evidences exist. You must compare it with the incidents which has many evidences and the incidents which has poor information. --Hare-Yukai 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your links, but my point of view will continue to stand. I will reiterate again, however, that I won't let my POV get in the way of how this article is progressing i.e. with academic sources and not photos derived from conspiratorist sources. Pandacomics 05:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is so, the 'Image:BuriedAlive.jpg' is in equal condition too. --Hare-Yukai 05:46, 30 July :2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the topic was 'whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not'. We seem to have gone right off track. The question is not whether the Nanking Massacre was a gruesome affair (it most definitely was), or whether Rabe's evidence is good or not, or whether the Safety Zone was respected by the Japanese or not; the question is whether the Massacre should or should not be indisputably assigned to the category "genocide". I've posted the reasons why I disgaree, which no one has even bothered to address. Perhaps people's emotional involvement in the issue is preventing them from making a sober judgement on the topic under discussion?
 * Bathrobe 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We've actually pretty much dealt with the issue in question. Hong has withdrawn from the debate and no one else is objecting to the removal of the category. John Smith&#39;s 09:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. I had some trouble sorting out comment on the topic in question from all the other issues that were being brought up.
 * Bathrobe 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Closing of RfC
Result: Remove genocide category


 * HongQiGong has withdrawn from the discussion and indicated that he will respect a removal of the genocide category. All other users who have participated in the RfC either approve of or will respect the removal of the genocide category. John Smith&#39;s 14:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If HongQiGong is withdrawing from this, then I am taking his place. This has been termed a genocide by many autoritative sources, and as such the event is notable as being described as a Genocide, the "forgotten Holocaust of WW2" in the words of the late Iris Chang. The category does not signify unanimity, or absense of dispute, it exists for users to find various historical events that have been described by notable and authoritive sources by the term, and thus it should fall within that category. However, the article should also mention that this is described as a genocide, with the best sources, as well. One should not be done without the other.Giovanni33 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Giovanni, it's too late. He asked me to give it a few days from when he withdrew. I did that. You can't assume his position now because the RfC has already finished and been striken from the list. John Smith&#39;s 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Time is not the primary issue. Concensus is. I fail to see how a single user's "withdrawal" should be considered concensus. I, too, will throw my weight behind Hong's viewpoint if this is the way the Rfc is considered "closed".--Huaiwei 14:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But time was important according to what Hong asked me to do. You can't keep an RfC open forever, otherwise it would be very difficult to gain consensus. Also consensus is not requiring everyone to agree with a point, only that they can live with it.
 * If you're not happy you can start another RfC and try to gain consensus yourself. John Smith&#39;s 14:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can demonstrate Hong as the sole opponent towards your viewpoint, his withdrawal has absolutely no bearing on this debate's quest for consensus building. In fact, I would also highlight that withdrawals actually isnt concensus at all. Concensus is about give and take if both parties fail to convince the other to a large degree, which clearly has not happened here. Hence I find it rather ironic that you should be asking anyone to "gain concensus" with a new Rfc when you couldnt get it either at present.--Huaiwei 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the RfC. All the other users either were happy with the genocide category being removed or said they could live with it. Please show me where someone else refused to accept it being removed. John Smith&#39;s 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All the other users? I dont exactly notice that level of contentment coming from User:Blueshirts, User:Pandacomics, User:Hare-Yukai, User:Giovanni33, or even User:Folic Acid, who has stated from the onset that he is happy either way. Only User:Bathrobe has explicitly stated his opinion that this is no genocide. I would certainly like to be enlightened on how you may come to that conclusion above.--Huaiwei 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As I told you, consensus does not require everyone to like an edit, only that they can accept it. The editors who involved themselves in the discussion could live with the removal of the category or didn't express a view. Maybe you don't like that, but that's the way consensus is built. As is said below feel free to open a new discussion if you like. John Smith&#39;s 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am beginning to notice this tendency in "personalising" debates involving youself. Perhaps this may be a reason why dispute resolution appears rather difficult in such an environment. Comments such as "Maybe you don't like that" sounds a tad pointed, if not naively blunt. If I may just repeat myself, your impression of "concensus" from the above debate is flawed, for the number of fence sitters could actually live with either option, while the number of those supporting your viewpoint amounts to just one, compared to at least two who directly oppose your view, even if we omit Hong's viewpoint. And if we were to disregard votecounts, for wikipedia is no democracy, the points raised, and the counter-arguments presented, similarly demonstrate a complete lack of concensus building. My objective is not to reopen a new RFC. I would strongly propose disregarding your motion to close the Rfc, or to reopen it immediately given the objections raised.--Huaiwei 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not personalising this - I'm just trying to point out that the RfC was closed, so a new discussion is required. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. If you want to continue the discussion, you can start a new topic, RfC, etc. Now I'd like to move on if you don't mind. John Smith&#39;s 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Constant references to displeasure on the part of individual wikipedians in dispute cases may not be a positive habit, if I may just point that out to you matter-of-factly. Discuss the topic at hand, not the individual. Your viewpoint is well-established in the above, so there is no need to reiterate. I took issue with the procedures in this RFC, for I sense its closure was rushed at the first opportunity when a key opponent decides to take a break. You may choose to move on if you wish, but if there is no further objection from you or others, I will consider this discussion open and reinstate the disputed category until a proper concensus is reached. Category removed per RfC is simply not accurate.--Huaiwei 16:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Huaiwei, I did not rush anything. Hong quite clearly said he was withdrawing - he did not take a break. He then asked that I kept the RfC open for a few days to see if anyone would take over for him. I was happy to do that. When no one came along I closed it so we could get the page unlocked and editing could restart.
 * The simple fact is that consensus (under the definition in wikipedia) was found. If you reinstate the category you will be violating that consensus. If you want to add it back in, please start a new conversation. John Smith&#39;s 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I do not like to be addressed by name in such a manner, for I consider it rude. Second, you have a user who expressed his wish to continue the debate five days after your statement to close the RFC. You rejected his request on the sole basis that you have closed that RFC. There is, as yet, no black-and-white regulation determining the appriopriate length of time an RFC may run, a determination of who gets to close an RFC, nor is there any regulation preventing the reopening of a case. A refusal to accept opinions with no better excuse than "oh, it's closed" seems to reflect a great anxiety to close the RFC. If the proponent has a strong case, and has built concensus on this talkpage, why the reluctance in allowing anyone else from speaking up? Third, Hong states that he was "withdrawing" due primarily to fatique. He explicitely stated his continued opposition. I would like to hear from you how the above should constitute as "concensus" according to Wikipedia. My reinstatement of the said category will not constitute a violation of concensus as you allerge, for no such concensus exists. A new conversation can start anytime - with the offending category still in place.--Huaiwei 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there was general acceptance of the category's removal. You can start a new conversation to try to get it reinstated if you want. But until there is new consensus it should not be put back. John Smith&#39;s 17:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to retire for the night. You have several hours to proof your case that a concensus has been reached, failing which I will probably consider this closure null and void, and reinstate the category. I hope you may do better than mere partaking of constant parroting of falsehood.--Huaiwei 17:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I have already shown there was consensus. You don't want to believe there was consensus because you don't agree with it - that is not my problem. It's up to you to start a new discussion rather than keep flogging a dead horse. Even Hong agrees the RfC was closed and that consensus was established. As he said While I won't pursue this issue any longer, however, my lack of involvement doesn't mean consensus is established for all eternity. There is no such thing on WP. The RfC was closed and the edit was made. John Smith&#39;s 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If nobody opposes an edit, then by default consensus is established. While I won't pursue this issue any longer, however, my lack of involvement doesn't mean consensus is established for all eternity. There is no such thing on WP. The RfC was closed and the edit was made. That doesn't mean somebody cannot come along later to object to the edit. The same thing basically happened with including the Genocide category in the article. For a long time nobody opposed the edit until the issue re-surfaced. Well, now the issue has re-surfaced once again. It's pointless to argue whether or not Giovanni33 has a right to object to that edit. Of course he has that right, and the fact that he objects to the edit now means that we've lost concensus again. Giovanni33, I suggest you just start a new discussion on it instead. The RfC has been closed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said he couldn't object. What I objected to was the fact that he was trying to re-open the RfC. As I said, anyone can start a new RfC or a new discussion. John Smith&#39;s 15:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read this debate with interest I would like to make one or two points. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CPPCG (The treaty definition) includes "intent to destroy" and "in whole or in part" so
 * So Bustter when you wrote "Perpetrators of genocide are seldom open with their intentions as was the Third Reich; and of course the German example has served well to teach the genocidal to be doubly careful to conceal intentions. For this reason requiring clear intent is not an appropriate requirement in determining genocide" one has to determin the perpetratpors intent to determin if an act is a genocide because of the CPPCG "intent to destroy". Further recent legal opinion is moving in the direction that "intent to destroy" means physical detruction See for example the European Court of Human Rights judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007: As the ICTY has observed, while 'there are obvious similarities between a genocidal policy and the policy commonly known as 'ethnic cleansing' ' (Krstić, IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 562), yet '[a] clear distinction must be drawn between physical destruction and mere dissolution of a group. The expulsion of a group or part of a group does not in itself suffice for genocide.(ECHR Paragraph 45, quoting the ICJ (search on "Jorgic v. Germany"))
 * The "in whole or in part" is covered in detail in the "in part" section of the Genocide article. One could build a case on the "perpetrators' access to the victims" but see the in part section for details as it is not something as Wikipedia editors we are qualified to do.
 * But applying the CPPCG to this article is not what Wikipedia is about. A much more pertinent way of looking at the issue is if there are reliable sources that claim it is a genocide then mention the most reliable ones but include others that refute this claim so to produce a balanced POV. (See the article genocide in history for examples of this).
 * This brings us to the problem of categories, because unlike text they can not be presented in a NPOV, as something is either in a category or not. In those cases it is best to place an incident like this in a massacre category because the majority of reliable sources would not disagree with that categorisation. But as there is significant numbers of sources that would not describe this incident as a genocide it is best that it is not listed in the genocide category, as to do so would not reflect the scholastic consensus of what this incident was.

ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

buried alive
Discussion on the two failed deletion requests of the faked photograph is here. Blueshirts 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I can't believe Hare-Yukai removed half the guy's body. Pandacomics 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you saying, though you changed the picture. Can I edit the new picture too? It can be found easily that there are another Fake-Lines. --Hare-Yukai 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this image the Nanking of a winter? The shadow angle is too high, and this person wears a white shirt. The shadow angle can not become much than 45degree in Nanjing of winter. And there is no fake shadow in this image ?! Furthermore, there is a fake shadow  --Hare-Yukai 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * give us a break. Just what do you know about shadow angles? Low angles at dawn and dusk cast long shadows, near-90s at noon cast shorter shadows. So what's the deal with this "too high" shadow angle? Are you copying the usual suspect reasons from the moon landing hoax or just talking out of you ass directly? Enlighten us please. Blueshirts 16:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"This shadow in this photo looks wrong, therefore Nanking Massacre is fake." Typical denialist argument right there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

How is science a denialist argument? If the shadow is off, the massacre never happened. Quid Pro Quo. There is no proof that the Nanking Massacre ever happened that I have been shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.224.120.56 (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case, there is no "proof" that Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever happened then. I think the pictures and those shadows are way off. All fabricated propaganda by Japanese nationals.210.133.127.14 (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's quite expecting that false pictures will be made for the massacre. However, it would be quite short-sighted to conclude that the massacre did not happen based on some false pictures. Why not make conclusions later when considered all the human witnesses or rather survivors and the verified pictures and documentary evidences? I maybe biased in my own ways and people are biased in their ways but in a huge event like this, we should try to be objective.ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is a bit cumbersome
I tried reading the intro before the TOC and it is unwieldy, it should be reworded possibly because it just doesn't feel 'correct'. Take B-17 Flying Fortress as an example, It is very big on words for the summary/intro, yet very easy to read. If we could reword the first part a bit better it would help a lot. As it is I feel like I'm slogging through for some reason. I don't feel this on many other articles. Please look at other featured articles here Category:FA-Class military history articles To improve this article. (You may want to extract the bullet points from the introduction and then rewrite it from scratch.) Klichka 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It summarizes each section of the article. Unless you'd like to do some précis-ing of your own, it looks fine. Of course, grammar-wise, it could have some copyediting; otherwise, there's no HUGE problem with it. Pandacomics 18:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral language
This article is full of non-neutral language concerning events that transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.187.35 (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.57.61 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kind of hard to be neutral when the issue is something so horrific. I would argue that it is inhuman NOT to use strong words describe it. Reading this is the sort of thing that makes even an optimist like me hope that humanity is wiped out by [insert favorite global disaster here]. Better 6 billion people die than birth yet more unfortunates to suffer. ThVa (talk) 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Related Patterns and Credibility
This debate is hampered by endless circles of anger. But in the investigation of an incident, related patterns of conduct are useful, both in the investigation, and any conclusions. The U.S. had a terrible pattern of abusing native peoples for two hundred years, which provides guidance in considering a specific matter, such as Wounded Knee.

Many areas were controlled by Japan from 1917 to 1945, offering indications of policy and patterns of conduct which might apply in evaluating credibility of reports on Nanjing in 1937. These areas include Korea, Bataan, Burma, Thailand, and other areas of China. If credible reports of similar conduct are consistent in multiple areas, then credibility of a specific statement is supported.

Other related patterns of conduct can bear on a specific matter. These include suppression or gradual revision of a subject in history books and public debate. The use of violence against those with opposing views can also lend weight to the accuracy of those views. But a confessional attitude lends weight to the facts admitted, and to doubts on matters not admitted. And it sets another example for progress-by-honesty.

Japan is a great resource for a World facing problems that need the best thinking from all nations and individuals. But its radical right wing degrades that nation's status and working relationship with others, which is so important in averting natural and human-caused tragedies that are quickly approaching. Jayband (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Jayband (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please post warning for extremely / grotesquely violent images
I don't know how else to make this request. The gallery of images on this page contains a naked corpse with sticks in her vagina and a collection of decapitated heads. I understand these images are important, and I expect some images on this topic to be very disturbing. But these are above and beyond the pictures usually found with such topics (such as piles of corpses).

Could they be posted on a separate page, with a warning about the unusually barbaric content of these images right above the link? These are not the types of pictures one wants to see accidentally. How can I make it happen, or who do I contact to make this happen?

Thank you.

HelenSan (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Helen San

I agree with HelenSan on this issue. Furthermore, the image gallery seems particularly tacked on and unnecessary because of a lack of captions, explanations or sources for the photos.

Bunny Ann (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So what ended it?
The start of the massacre and the middle are described in the article, but there is no description of what ended it or why the Japanese eventually left. TimothyFreeman (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article needs lots of work. This article can achieve GA status. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

leading terms
terms such as often are leading and imply some sort of frequency, terms like sometimes are neutral and make no implications regarding frequency. if you wish to use a term such as often, I suggest that you find a reliable source that states the exact frequency and replace sometimes with something along the lines of (in 237 cases) Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

let me try once more, it seems certain editors prefer using reverts than using talk pages, but whatever, it wont kill me to try.

1. terms like "infamous" are blatantly POV and leading, dont use them 2. controversial claims such as civilians were executed under the guise of executing opposing military forces, should be backed up with reliable sources, or removed. 3. terms like often imply a high level of frequency, unless you have specific data relating to the actual frequency, dont use such terms.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Infamous" has been used by many historians and journalists such as Max Hastings and Steven Conn. If any event qualifies as infamous, this one does.


 * I tagged the paragraph about civilians executed under the guise of etc. All it needs is a cite, not a deletion.


 * Regarding the word "often", I agree that good writing would state the frequency explicitly. In this case, instead of replacing "often" with a specific frequency, you are swapping the word for "sometimes", an equally indirect word that reduces the frequency. You are softening the blow without adding to precision. Binksternet (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because someone has used the term in the past, does not make it suitable for wikipedia. If I find a journalist who used the term "cock-sucker" can I use it in a wikipedia article?
 * I will remove that section again, cite it, then add it - if it is notable then I'm sure you will find the citation somewhere.
 * the term often implies frequency, the term sometimes just implies that the frequency is somewhere between always and never. It does not make it seem any less frequent than often, it's a much better word to use. Sennen goroshi (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ero guro
Did the Eroguro Nonsense of the 1920s inspire the massacre? The atrocities (rape, murder, torture, mutilation) sounds suspiciously "ero-guro" to me. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well to be honest I read alot about the Nanking Massacre, and I always wondered how come it could be so sadistic? was there any cult or an inspiration behind this nonsense demon acts, after sometime I read about the Ero guro somewhere and this suddenly brought the memory of the Nanking massacre to my mind, and as you say its suspiciously related to me too, I wonder if there's any study regarding it. (Meshari (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Recent Edit/"Contest to kill 100 people using a sword"
The Wikipedia article on this contest states that the factuality of the contest is called into question. I removed the block quotes and instead posted a link to the page, along with a small summary of the issue. I'm almost certain this edit will be attacked, vandalized and possibly reverted, but I wanted to make sure most editors were O.K. with the decision. Vertigo893 (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Fabrication of the Nanking Massacre
I am moving this material to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate, let them take it to WP:AFD. --Richard (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rape of Nanking
If as the lead of the article puts it "commonly known as the Rape of Nanking" this article should be moved back to the "Rape of Nanking" (see the earliest history of this article).

For those who's mother tongue is not English:

Although today rape tends to be associated with the sexual act, its origins is in the stealing something, which in the case of a woman is her virtue and as she was the property of her father or husband the woman became worth less (which today in the West is an old fashioned patriarchal/misogynistic view of what the rape of a woman is, but one still dominant is some societies).

However in a broader sense rape means the taking of another's property including their but not limited to their self worth, or as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it "The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering."

So the "rape of Nanking" works as a name on several levels and does not mean just "the raping of women in Nanking by Japanese soldier" but includes all of the actions taken, and it also as a metaphorical meaning as in "the rape of the innocents". --PBS (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral
Today we have many evidences that the "Nanking Massacre" story was a fabrication and the "photographic evidences" were also false, or unrelated ones. If Wikipedia aims neutrality, I believe that this article should at least include in the beginning a link to the article which mentions about the fablication of the "Nanking Massacre" like the following. "For the theory that the "Nanking Massacre" was a fabrication, see Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arimasa (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, this article must align itself with the standard historiography while acknowledging non-standard viewpoints such as your own. It's enough that we have the link you propose down at the bottom at External links. We also have a link placed prominently under the Controversy heading taking the reader to Nanking Massacre controversy. I'm satisfied that this is enough—the reader can take the controversy link and go from there. Binksternet (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre template
I created a template that might be useful to add to this and other articles about the specific subject. Please comment on whether you think this template should be taken off or should be added to related articles. ...And feel free to edit the template: Template:Nanking Massacre. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the template to a few of the connected articles. I don't think it needs to be pasted onto every one of them, but the main ones, yes. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the template meets with other editor's approval, we can take away some of the redundant entries under "See also". Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the template. I also added a link up to the category Japanese war crimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwang (talk • contribs) 17:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review (quickfailed)
I'm quickfailing the GA nomination of this article. In addition the fact tags, which are grounds for quick-failure by themselves (but may have been added after the nomination), I find that I might be prepared at some point to help copyedit; I'm not a fact expert on this, so the article's facts should be better-cited before then. --  Magic ♪piano 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * there are large amounts of uncited text (whole subsections)
 * the article needs copyediting to improve readability and reduce the number of one- and two-sentence paragraphs
 * someone needs to look specifically at laying out (and editorially selecting a suitable set) of images, rather than the current mixed bag of galleries
 * images in the middle gallery need to be captioned (with somewhat uniform-length captions, please)

Strange one
Part of the controversy was how to define the actual time duration of the Massacre, argued for decades by the Nanking Massacre academics. Yet in this Wikipedia article, they define it so directly in the lead section. Very strange. 121.7.188.232 (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Contest to kill 100 people using a sword
A few months ago, this information was displayed prominently as its own section, including multiple quotes describing "the horror of it all". I was User:Vertigo893 at the time, and I looked up the Wikipedia article on the event and discovered that it had been declared a hoax. I removed the quotes, added the info and the link, and left the editors here to make of it what they would.

Yesterday I returned to this page out of curiosity to see what had been done with the info. At first I thought it had been removed. Through careful scouring of the page, paragraph by paragraph, I eventually found this:

"Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days. In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967. This "contest" is regularly presented as historical fact, for example, in an exhibit at the Nanking Massacre Memorial. The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan. In 2000, Bob Wakabayashi concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit."

This is ridiculous. It is already established that the entire article violates WP:NPOV in every conceivable way, and this is just another example.


 * The section begins "Perhaps the most notorious atrocity..." The reader is not informed of any issues with the facts until midway through the paragraph.
 * Wakabayashi did not concur with any "certain Japanese scholars". This is a weasel word.
 * The debate over the veracity of the contest was not restricted to Japan, as the article implies.

As I continue to pour over this article and its talk page, I am seeing a recurring pattern. The article, and others relating to the massacre, all seem biased towards Chinese nationalism. Compared to recent events... I do not want this to escalate into what the Scientology issue did, but something has to be done.

I have placed a bounty on this page pledging $20 U.S. dollars to Wikimedia if the article reaches GA status, which it will never do without some serious work. I can only hope that certain editors are more interested in improving Wikipedia than they are in pushing their own POV.

Regards, just a little   insignificant  17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Absurd relativism... or should I write negationism ? ...--Flying tiger (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Accompanying images
Can anyone expand on the buried alive images? For example, what exactly the image depicts and the circumstances surrounding it? I only briefly skimmed over the article, so apologies if it is in there somewhere. I just couldn't really discern any detail. I think there may have been another image in there that features a naked girl, which isn't covered by the wikipedia censorship policy, but I didn't dwell on that one for two long... 92.0.150.111 (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

POV pushing
There are some serious issues regarding the latest pov pushing attempts. Right off the bat in the intro, the denialists are given the more benign name of "skeptics". Secondly, scare quotes are added to the term "denialists" itself. Also, several changes are made to make the dispute solely between Chinese and Japanese "nationalists," as if both sides are equal in creating this mess. It's like saying the holocaust controversy has been caused by Jewish and German nationalists. Try not to slip these things in, please. Blueshirts (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have edited in what I feel is an appropriate manner for bringing this article up to NPOV. As it stands the article blatantly takes the side of the Chinese, violating Wikipedia guidelines. If you have issues with specific changes, please do not undo my entire edit, rather please change those phrases you have issues with. I intend to have other editors crack down on the POV issue. just a little   insignificant  22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed the "Chinese vs. Japanese nationalist" issue, though. You have a valid point. just a little   insignificant  22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked up the word "denialist" in the dictionary. I can't find it.  I'll change the word in the article to "skeptic".
 * Consider these two sentences of the first paragraph: "During this period, soldiers of the Imperial Japanese Army committed war crimes such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. These findings and other allegations are disputed...". If the first sentence is right to say the events happened with no qualifications, then why should the second sentence use the words "findings" and "allegations"?  If they are "findings", then who "found" them?  If they are "allegations", who is making the allegations?  Perhaps we should just say "These events are disputed...".  Readin (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I couldn't find the word denialism in Merriam-Webster either! Blueshirts (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I switched "skeptic" to "denier". I think it is a better fit. I'm still a bit concerned that it is not a good encyclopedic word - that it carries too much emotion/value judgment, but for now I can't think of anything better. Readin (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment on the POV vs. NPOV of this article
Self-explanatory. Is the article pushing a point of view and what should be done? just a little  insignificant  22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is the word "atrocity" POV? Does IMTFE refer to the massacre as an "atrocity"? Blueshirts (talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster defines an "atrocity" as "an action that is extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel". As for the IMTFE, I'm not sure whether or not they refer to the crimes as "atrocities". If they do, we can use the word when quoting them or their verdict. In other cases, though, I would consider its use questionable. just a little   insignificant  22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As to recent edits of this page, I've been troubled by just a little 's reworking of the page, as well as some of his comments, which seemed to me to bend the entry about the Nanking Massacre into an entry about allegations of a Nanking Massacre. There has been much nationalist activism to advance the contention that the Nanking Massacre is ahistorical or merely an allegation, but this movement lacks traction among historians.  You can't just pull out a couple of dissenters with radical views (or ulterior political motives) to argue that the Nanking Massacre is a mere allegation; it's as certain as a thing can be, historiographically.


 * So I think I should just get this out there to make sure we agree on it: the Nanking Massacre is a fact, as far as any Wikipedia editor is concerned, because it represents the overwhelming consensus of world scholarship. Negationist scholars, for the most part, form a marginal revisionist movement of nationalist bent.  Wacky, bigoted nationalists cannot rightly be deemed "skeptics". DBaba (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to clarify we often talk about "facts" because it represents "overwhelming consensus". In certain cases, we should explain that certain statements represent "overwhelming consensus".  In most of the article, we can write without explicitly noting the "overwhelming consensus" for every statement, since this would be redundant and bring unnecessary attention to denial viewpoints (emphasis of the opposite, ironically, will often have the effect of bringing the denialist view to the forefront).  For example, we don't always mention for every fact about the Apollo 11 moon landings that this is the majority viewpoint, because this would give undue weight and attention to the very minority viewpoint that the moon landings were faked.  I'm getting the impression that certain people here don't understand this, and would undoubtedly like to do the equivalent of changing the Apollo 11 article to always mention after every statement, "...but this is disputed by the hoax proponents, who point out..."  --C S (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the word "atrocity", I see it's used in the Holocaust entry; if that's in accordance with Wikipedia policy, then it's valid here as well. The events at Nanking have been described as atrocities without controversy for decades.  Google books furnishes hundreds of citations in support of the term as a descriptor of these events. DBaba (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement here too. Why would we want to use terms that are used by a fringe?  That in itself would promote the fringe view in violation of WP:NPOV.  --C S (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That makes sense to me. When I looked up the definition of the word 'atrocity', it just seemed very strong for the article's favorite description.


 * In response to DBaba, I think the best approach is to say outright that I am not on the side of the denialists/deniers/whatever. I would like to think you are referring to my earlier edits to the article, in which I attempted to introduce NPOV using the wrong approach. Since then I have calmed down, and asked for assistance introducing NPOV the correct way. I left a message on your and other editors' talk page intending to show that I was willing to take a fresh start, and I have tried to rework my style of editing since then. just a little   insignificant  12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Outside observer here. I would recommend we go by the principle of letting the facts speak for themselves (WP:LTRD).  "Nanjing massacre" is appropriate.  "Nanjing atrocity" is also factually accurate, but imbues a value judgement, which is not what titles should convey.  By all means use 'atrocity' in the text, but try to keep titles bland and descriptive.  Kransky (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

denialist
The term "denialist" is used numerous places throughout the text. It is not a word. We should not be using it. If we need something with that meaning, the proper term is "denier". Readin (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still a bit concerned that "denier" is not a good encyclopedic word - that it carries too much emotion/value judgment, but for now I can't think of anything better. Readin (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Holocaust denial article uses the word "denier"... It does sound weird, though. I've run into the same problem with the word "atrocities", which is questionably POV, but I can't think of anything other than "crimes", "war crimes", "actions", etc. just a little   insignificant  17:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't have to make editorial decisions about what to use as terms based on what we feel makes sense. We use the terms that are used in the literature.  Otherwise we run the risk of using terms that play into the hands of certain groups.  --C S (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've scanned the online references and I can't find any particular use of either term. It looks like they might be found in some of the books. just a little   insignificant  13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a quick search of "Japanese denialism" and both the word "denialism" and "atrocities" are used in this book . Blueshirts (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Atrocities" is easy enough to cite, as I saw it in the title of several works about the massacre. I'd expect it in pretty much every book on the subject. I see "negationists" here  and here, "revisionist" featured in this important text, but only weak support for "denialist". I suggest we use "revisionist" or "negationist". DBaba (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've changed "denialist" to "negationist" throughout the article. just a little   insignificant  19:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)