Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 7

Neutrality is nonexistent
Neutrality in this article is non-existent, and vague. There are many instances that dispute how many people died from 90,000 to 500,000 however the large bulk of the article states "hundreds of thousands" as fact, instead of an opinion of study groups. It should be revised to a more neutral stance, instead stating that "estimates range from just under 100,000 to half a million by various studies commissioned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have sources and feel that the article would benefit from the information that you posess, please feel free to edit the information into the article. No one is going to alter the article just because another person feels it isn't right. If someone questions your source or the way that you have interpreted it, they will bring this up with you then.Ferox Seneca (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a BBC News article to the lead that gives a figure of 250,000 to 300,000 deaths. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How old is your BBC source? Must be more than 80 years old. What source is the BBC source? You don't know and don't care. Just want to spread more lies. Pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.38.190 (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The anon ip must be joking (or just trolling) - 80 years?? Please. I think your later post more or less shows your intentions.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anonymous IP:121.44.38.190, if you read the BBC article you can see it was published on 11 April, 2005. I recognize much of the reporting which is based on multiple reliable sources such as the Times and Western eyewitnesses who actually saw, documented and filmed the events first hand. I sense that you fall into the 'denialist' camp, and that you refuse to believe that the Japanese Army could perpetrate such atrocities. I have significant respect for the Germans due to their efforts to acknowledge and atone for the grievous atrocities they committed during WWII. However many Nanking denialists spend their time seeking to find tidbits of information to refute which are scattered among the mountains of evidence documenting the mass slaughter of innocents and disarmed POWs at Nanking, instead of acknowledging that the Japanese Army carried out wonton, murderous crimes against humanity. Is murdering 50,000 civilians less of a crime than murdering 250,000?  Really?  Too bad, it's bad karma. REBLiz Life is like a box of chocolates, 'cause you never know what you're gonna get 21:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of Japanese do acknowledge the crimes. Only a (vocal) minority deny it.  However, questioning the numbers is nothing like denialism.  The Chinese government is infamous for inflating or otherwise distorting numbers, and is also infamous for agitating their people against the Japanese.  In such a case, it would only be reasonable to be wary of the numbers the Chinese government produces against the Japanese.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

documented and filmed the events first hand

provide the documents and films. Where are they? BBC also said Sadam had WMD. Wikipedia, the electronic toilet wall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.155.240 (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the article about why the Japanese invaded, or, as well, why they said they had to invade. This is a severe deficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

image2
--220.102.158.209 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * North China Daily News 1937.12.24
 * http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/kanris-tyu/imgs/3/a/3af9190f.jpg
 * "japanese distribute gift in nanking"
 * Japanese soldiers distributing gifts to Chinese citizens in the Nanking Safety Zone

Grammatical Change required.
The phrase "... a mass murder and war rape that occurred during the six-week period .." needs revision. Perhaps:

The Nanking Massacre or Nanjing Massacre ... refers to a six-week period of mass murder and war rapes that followed the Japanese capture of the city of Nanking (Nanjing):.

One cannot perfom *a* rape for six weeks, nor was there only one.

60.242.99.106 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Consistency Between Languages
I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on consistency between different-language versions of the same article, but it's worth noting that the Japanese language article differs significantly from this one. 173.166.110.9 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Japanese language article is very biased and reflects the current Japanese Government's stance on the Nanking Massacre - a questionable "incident" or a completely fabricated story. To add insult to injury, the images on the Japanese page all depict the Japanese army performing acts of charity (possibly staged) - a far cry from the terrible events that actually happened. I highly recommend any editors or administrators to look over the Japanese page: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%97%E4%BA%AC%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6_(1937%E5%B9%B4), place images showing the IJA's brutality and molding the article to conform to our English version. The continued existence of this content violently fuels false right-wing beliefs of a benevolent Japanese Empire within the minds of the Japanese people. Wikipedia, being a Encyclopedia of Truth, has a chance to significantly help educate those Japanese who have been denied of their right to free knowledge. Duelist51 (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to put a translation of the Japanese article here? -- Klein zach  02:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape section should be renamed
Rape section should be renamed for more accurate description - maybe Rape&Murder or Rape&BrutalMurder — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanbqnov (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Way to keep it neutral.
There is no opposing view or comparison with situation in other cities. The death toll between civilian:Military during the campaign had been 2:1, many of whom had been military personal dressed as civilians trying to escape, which is below average for an urban conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.164.254 (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

POV Edit War and use of the word "genocide"
There are some editors who continue to add the word "genocide" to the article, despite a lack of sources to show that it has been accepted as a genocide. Cold Season added a reference from a peer-reviewed journal that mentions the Nanking Massacre in passing. Here is the reference:

Harryzilber restored the ref after I removed it, and then added four more as padding. Unfortunate, three of the references made no use of the word "genocide", and the other was a dead link.

As nobody has pointed to a quote from one of the major accepted sources that uses the word "genocide" to describe what happens, this seriously calls into question whether it is seriously considered to be one by experts. If it is, then why is there merely one reference that only makes passing reference to it as a "genocide"? Outside of Japan, it is extremely rare to see books or papers that paint the Japanese in a good light with regards to the Massacre. If it is widely considered to be a "genocide", then why don't the major sources come out and say so? None of these sources seem to shy away from any of the other gruesome aspects of the Massacre.

As I've said on both users talk pages, if it really is widely considered to be a "genocide", then it should be no problem whatsoever to turn up a mountain of references showing us that. It's not like there are a lot of Nanking Massacre revisionists outside of Japan. The repeated attempts to get "genocide" into the article (at one point including it in the first sentence !!!

Looking at the edit history, it appears that Cold Season in particular has been repeatedly reverting any attempts to remove "genocide" from the lead. The user did so multiple times even at a time when the body of the article itself made no mention of "genocide". Talk about POV.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 01:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history, it appears that Curly Turkey in particular has been repeatedly removing any mention to "genocide". The user did so multiple times even when it was cited. Talk about POV. Right back at you, I can self-reflect on my actions and not be sanctimonious about it. Anyway, you removed the mention of "genocide" and asked for a reference, I did so, nevertheless you still removed it. I have provided a source. What you call in passing is a blunt fact stated by the author. It's a reliable source, it's verifiable info, and I have placed the info in the plain format [Author] states [info] by now. Also, this is not an attempt to get "genocide" into the artcle--as you claim--as it is to stop the removal of every mention of it throughout the article. --Cold Season (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You have provided a source whose appropriateness has been called multiple times into question. You have yet to seriously defend that source, and you have yet to explain why the major sources don't mention the word "genocide".  That last bit there is the important part you have to defend, so don't skip it again.
 * Please explain why it is important to retain the word "genocide" in the article despite the fact that no major source has described it as such. And please explain why such a word has to be included in the opening sentence when no major source has been shown to describe it as "genocide".  It's not like the major sources are known to take the side of the Japanese, after all.  And just remember, until I called for a reference, it was compltely uncited, and not mentioned at any point in the body of the article, and yet you repeatedly reverted multiple attempts to remove it from the first line.  If that's not black-and-white POV, then please explain to everyone why it's not.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm fine with the way you've reworded it, but you might want to trim it down, as it may constitute undue weight unless you can find additional sources. Without a large number of major sources showing a consensus that it was, in fact, a "genocide", I think you should keep it out of the lead.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 03:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with the current version on the death toll description. "more than 300,000" is a general consensus among Chinese historians whereas this estimation is also well recognized outside China. I cannot see the legitimacy of the description: "scholars outside of China believe that between 40,000 and 200,000 people were killed".--Snorri (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Name
Why does Rape of Nanking redirect here, rather than the other way around? That is the name almost everyone has used, in English, both around the time the event occurred and in all the intervening decades. And for good reason, as the article makes clear. Uniquely horrific events get unique names, otherwise we would refer to the Holocaust as "the Nazi Massacres in Europe" and to the September 11 attacks as "the Al-Quaeda Massacres in New York and Washington". If the redirect has to go this way, at least the article should include an explanation of why a new name is used. Davidhof (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume "Rape of Nanking" is no longer used because the "rape" in that expression refers to the overall killing, looting and rape that took place. In modern English "rape" generally has a narrower meaning. Also, China changed the spelling of some of its cities in English (Peking to Beijing for example). Nanking became Nanjing. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This article has been mistitled as massacre in an attempt to whitewash history. They wouldn't refer to the holocaust as the jewish massacre, you are right. This is because the term massacre is far to small a word to do the atrocity and suffering justice. 71.96.26.57 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You're suggesting that "massacre" is a lighter offense than "rape"? Holy Christ! Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)