Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 8

I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre
I see there is a significant change of the Massacre figure by BanzaiBlitz (Change from 250,000- 400,000 300,000 to 40,000 to 200,000). I think this is an important figure and should be discussed here. I hope get a consensus in this discussion. I know there are lots of figures from difference sources. Japanese historian estimate from 40,000 to 200,000. Chinese historian estimate from 300,000 to 400,000. The figure from International Military Tribunal for the Far East is 200,000 or 300,000 (I forget). I suggest to list all of this figures, like Chinese historian think: blablabala, Japanese historian think......., historian from other countries......, figure from International Military Tribunal for the Far East .......... I think wiki should keep the neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miracle dream (talk • contribs) 11:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, as I thought I was doing, you could just list the low and high figures in the lead. Shortly lower in the article (3rd paragraph), the sources of each estimate and the details are explained. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not use hyperboles. First off, the figure change was from 250,000-300,000 deaths to 40,000 to 200,000 deaths.  Second of all, the figure from the military tribunal is 200,000.  I do have an issue with that figure, however, being that it is a post-war account, and based off claims made by witnesses and Chinese generals.  Although being an ethnic Chinese I sincerely sympathize with the emotional burden on these people, we have to realize the possibility of bias in their claims.  Rather, to look at impartial/unbiased estimates we should look at primary sources instead.  John Rabe, the founder, leader, and chief proponent of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone and the Zone itself set the death toll to 50,000-60,000 deaths.  Miner Searle Bates, Vice President of Nanjing University and a graduate of Oxford (Undergrad), Harvard (Graduate), and Yale university (Ph. D) (Another member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone) claims that the death toll was 40,000 total (12,000 civilians).  However, seeing that this is wikipedia and viewers would like to see a range of numbers most representative of significant viewpoints as well as the truth, I decided that I would leave the 200,000.  In spite of this, you insist to keep the 300,000 figure, a figure repeatedly proven to be a exaggeration.  I have listed sources and other viewpoints down below.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs) Edit: Banzaiblitz (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre (non-metaphysical analyses concluding death tolls from 40,000 to 200,000 deaths) and http://www.amazon.com/Nanking-Atrocity-1937-38-Asia-Pacific-Studies/dp/1845455002 (Look into the book by clicking the "Click to look inside!" feature on the top left. Namely Page 103).  The latter is a 5-star, critically acclaimed book containing an empirical analysis of over forty different estimated death tolls by varying sources.  As we know, mainstream media likes to aggrandize events and often take the high figures for a grandeur effect; however seeing as this is wikipedia, I believe that promoting impartial information leads to unbiased discussion which is crucial to an educated community.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * 40,000 seems like its giving undue influence to a fringe viewpoint. Seems like 200,000 would be a good starting point, since that's what the tribunal came up with. LionMans Account (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre. As I've said, through analyses of over forty different death estimates, they conclude empirically that 40,000 to 200,000 deaths is in the right range.  If you do a simple search on the page, you will find that 300,000 is concluded to be an exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs)

It is true that there are various estimates, but Wikipedia is in no position to judge which one is correct or accurate. According to WP:DUE, articles are required to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. For this article, 300,000 has been the official position hold by both ROC and PRC government for more than 60 years and is widely accepted by Chinese people and recogonized by some Japanese as well. Obviously, 300,000 is a significant viewpoint and is A MUST in the introduction to achieve neutrality. --MtBell 07:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO 300,000 is a coarse estimate but 40,000 is absolutely a joke. We need more reliable sources to prove that 40,000 is also a significant viewpoint.  --MtBell 07:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we should put "0" as the lower end because there is significant proof that the Massacre was fabricated as well. Now in no means am I endorsing this; in fact, being Chinese I am outright furious at the people that believe it didn't happen.   As I've said before, the 300,000 has been repeatedly proven by mainstream historians to be a hyperbole.  Also, the 40,000 to 200,000 figure is the consensus at the "Estimating the death toll of the Nanking Massacre" page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * " because there is significant proof that the Massacre was fabricated as well" Banzaiblitz, you've pretty much lost me there. Proof is not the same as weak arguments from nondisinterested sources. --Yaush (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean that denialism is a significant viewpoint? Please prove. We call "300,000" a significant viewpoint because there are tons of reliable sources for this estimate. But how many are those of the denialism? Very few. And, if you read WP:DUE carefully you would have noticed that the significance of viewpoints in reliable sources is not the prevalence of viewpoints among wikipedians (your so called "consensus"). --MtBell 08:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * An NHK spokesperson recently claimed that the Nanking Massacre didn't happen. Wouldn't this be a significant viewpoint, considering he is a part of the largest news station in Japan?  Also, by "quite a few" I think you meant "a few," as "quite a few" refers to "a fairly large number" (Oxford English Dictionary).  If I am mistaken, please correct me.  Moreover, by consensus I am not referring to the wikipedians.  Rather, as I've stated above multiple times, I am referring to the texts.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be "very few". Thank you for the correction. Ghostofnemo is right. A spokesperson's personal claim is not a reliable source. That does not count at all. --MtBell 17:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've only used the spokesperson as an example. Again, by your logic we would have to include the "0" stance because that is what some historians believe; in fact, they made a movie about it.  I believe that a movie is a lot more reliable than just one article.  Once again, I want to reiterate the fact that I'm Chinese and only want to truth to be spread.  (40,000 to 200,000) and how 300,000 has been repeatedly proved as an exaggeration,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Truth_about_Nanjing Banzaiblitz (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * " I believe that a movie is a lot more reliable than just one article." Are you serious? --Yaush (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "0 is what some historians believe ..." Well, please list the names of these serious historians who are denialists. And please also list their published works. Then we will compare the statistics of the denialist side with other viewpoints. This is the only way to determine which viewpoint is significant. --MtBell 01:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've expressed multiple times before, the viewpoint is NOT significant. I'm merely making a claim on the absurdity of the 300,000 figure and how it is akin to claiming that nothing happened.  As I've said, there has been repeated studies that say otherwise, in texts, article, movie, journal, primary source, and every other source that you can think of.  If you think Japanese historians are biased, John Rabe, the person who established the Nanking Safety Zone, only claimed 50,000 to 60,000 deaths total.  Jean-Louis Margolin claimed a death toll of 30,000 civilians and 30,000 to 60,000 soldiers. Miner Searle Bates, who went to Oxford, Harvard, and Yale and was part of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone only claims a grand total of 40,000 deaths (12,000 civilians).  If you want textual evidence, both Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi, "Leftover Problems," in The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, ed. Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi (New York: Berghahn Books, 2008), 362. and Tokushi Kasahara, "数字いじりの不毛な論争は虐殺の実態解明を遠ざける," in 南京大虐殺否定論１３のウソ, ed. Research Committee on the Nanking Incident (Tokyo: Kashiwa Shobo, 1999), 74-96.  These facts point to the death toll being closer in the range of 40,000 to 100,000, however I do want to encompass all "major viewpoints," so I am willing to put 200,000 as the upper end.  However one can't deny that 300,000 is just plain absurd; there are very few claims by prominent historians who claim over 200,000 deaths, just like how there are very few historians who claim that it never happened.  I am enjoying this discussion however, and I hope you understand at least part of what I'm trying to say.  Thank you for keeping it cerebral! :D Banzaiblitz (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We only need to consider reliable sources. Personal opinions are not reliable sources. If you are unclear on this, please see WP:RS Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Top NHK officials seem to be spouting personal opinions, as in this case, where one said that "comfort women" were widely used during WWII by many armies and that this was an accepted practice: http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/new-nhk-heads-comfort-women-remark-stirs-controversy Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You would be surprised seeing the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women#Legacy_in_Korea. Comfort women were used by South Koreans themselves after the Japanese left.  They defended their actions referring to them as "military supplies" and "a necessary evil."  In this case, this wasn't a personal opinion but a fact instead.  Please refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_military_brothels_in_World_War_II and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for_the_U.S._military#Post_Military_Government_rule as well.  Forced prostitution in military brothels are quite commonplace until quite recently (early 2000s).  I wouldn't be surprised if it covertly exists today. Banzaiblitz (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess for this dispute, we need to determine which one is considered the primary source in the world. There are lots of reliable sources which support different figure ranges. When all sources are reliable, we may need to choose a primary source. For example, if we want to research the history of Tang Dynasty， there should be lots of reliable sources about it but the primary sources must be New Book of Tang(新唐书) and Book of Tang(唐书). It is because all other researches are based on these two books.Miracle dream (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2014‎
 * Why not take the estimates from the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone? This is neither Japanese nor Chinese; rather it may give us a rough estimate.  Miner Searle Bates, Vice President of Nanjing University and a graduate of Oxford (Undergrad), Harvard (Graduate), and Yale university (Ph. D) claims that the death toll was 40,000 total (12,000 civilians).  John Rabe, founder and leader of the Nanking Safety Zone responsible for saving over 200,000 Chinese refugees, estimated the total death toll as 50,000-60,000 deaths.  These two are both part of the International Committee stated above, and are the most prominent primary sources that we have.  Other non-Japanese sources include Jean-Louis Margolin, who has claimed the death toll to be 60,000-90,000 total (30,000 civilians).  I could then give a multitude of Japanese historians who claim bigger and fewer numbers, ranging from, as wikipedia says, 40,000 to 200,000 deaths.  I've also given sources above multiple times to texts backing claims made within those values, including a text analyzing empirical estimates given by over forty prominent historians (Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture, Bob T Wakabayashi). As I've stated before, the chinese government claim of 300,000 deaths seems to be at the least a part of the plot to aggrandize one of the most horrendous atrocities in history.  Although I can absolutely sympathize with that sentiment, this is Wikipedia and it is crucial for the greater good to have informative articles that are unbiased and most importantly reflect the truth.  I have no problems mentioning the figure in the succeeding paragraphs; however as the sentence in the first paragraph explicitly states "Historian and witnesses have claimed..." and not "Governments/News reporters have claimed..." I believe that we should stick with the 40,000-200,000 death toll that is backed by scores of historical evidence.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, the claim of 40,000 is generally considered spurious within academic circles, as the primary academic historian arguing for this point is also considered to have a denialist slant. On the other hand, as mentioned above, there is extensive academic support for figures which may reach up to 300,000, and general support for figures in between.  Obviously, the true number of dead is not a range, but an exact figure, but owing to the chaos of the times, we may at most only ever be able to have estimates.  For this reason, it is necessary that we include the full-range of estimates as accepted by serious academic historians.  300,000, while along the upper limit of the estimate, is a figure which leans towards generally wide acceptance among historians for close to sixty ears, which means that at the very least, the figure should be mentioned when describing the range of estimates.  Arguably, 50,000, the initial estimate of John Rabe, would better serve as the lower limit, but 40,000 is not completely in the area of complete fable.  For this reason, the figure of 40,000-300,000 is more appropriate than 40,000-200,000.Zmflavius (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Miner Searle Bates, the Vice President of Nanking University, a graduate of Harvard, Oxford, and Yale, and one of the chief establishers of the Nanking Safety Zone has a denialist stance when this atrocity happened in front of his doorstep? Moreover, please list these "mainstream historians" that you speak of that make the absurd claim of 300,000 deaths, because as I've stated before, very few prominent historians aside from the government of China claim estimates over 200,000 deaths, and almost none claim estimates over 300,000 deaths. A source or two will greatly increase the credibility of your statements because they obviously conflict with what I've established through multiple credible sources.  I stick with my argument that 300,000 is obviously a very, very, very biased estimate and should be removed from the wiki.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Miner Searle Bates as an establisher of the Nanjing Safety Zone, is not an academic historian evaluating this subject, and thus, his academic degrees bear no relevance whatsoever to the discussion of figures at hand. His contribution to the question of figures is solely and exclusively equivalent to that of any other ordinary person making a preliminary estimation based on observation of events he witnessed himself, at a time when his principal concerns were wholly elsewhere.  Thus, his claim bears merit in judging estimates, but only in the context of other similar estimates made at the time, such as, for example, the 300,000 figure.  The only modern academic historians of any note who champion any figure below 50,000, however are almost exclusively denialists.  That said, as I have noted above, the figure of 300,000 is likewise also comparatively sketchy, but as I said, does not quite reach the realm of complete fable, as full denial does.  It, like Bates' figure of 40,000, which, as must be noted, is based on an extremely rough estimate shortly after the massacre, is based on a combination of rough conjecture and estimate at the time period, and must be evaluated in the historical context.  If, however, you think it is a suitable compromise, then the article may be worded as follows: "The number of deaths is the subject of considerable debate, with estimates ranging from 40,000 to 300,000, as well as complete denial by some historical revisionists.  Most academic historians, however, estimate a figure ranging from 100,000 to upwards of 200,000 deaths."Zmflavius (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to completely disagree with your statement regarding Miner Searle Bates.  He received a Ph. D in History from Yale University, and was Professor of History at none other than Nanking University for over 30 years.  This along with him being one of the most prominent members of the International Committee and an establisher of the Nanking Safety Zone makes him much more than just an "an ordinary person making a preliminary estimation.  Furthermore, this estimation of 40,000 is in alignment with the Red Army's official estimation at the time (Hangdibao), along with Joel Rabe's estimation as well. You would be surprised to find out that the first time the estimate of 300,000 even surfaced was the year after the massacre happened, by a journalist (not a historian) Harold Timperly who based his figure off of contemporary eyewitnesses.  I of course sympathize with the eyewitnesses, but they are the definition of what you call "ordinary people" who may very well be biased because of the emotions associated in witnessing such an atrocity.  Now, as I've stated before, you haven't named a single historian that has claimed numbers close to 300,000, or even above 200,000.  All of the evidence points to a true estimate in the 40,000-100,000 range; however I am willing to compromise with 40,000-200,000.  Otherwise, thank you for keeping the discussion civil like the others, and look forward to at at least being able to reach some sort of compromise. :D Also, please take a look at this: "The official stance of the People's Republic of China is that 300,000 Chinese were massacred in Nanking, though mainstream historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated.[1][3] This figure is based off the verdict of the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal which added the burial records of 150,000 bodies with 190,000 allegedly destroyed corpses to arrive at a total of 300,000, though there was an apparent adding mistake in this calculation.[22] Furthermore, this estimate includes an accusation that the Japanese Army murdered 57,418 Chinese POWs at Mufushan, though the latest research indicates that between 4,000 and 20,000 were massacred,[23][24] and it also includes the 112,266 corpses allegedly buried by the Chongshantang, a charitable association, though today mainstream historians agree that the Chongshantang's records were at least greatly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated." Now I'm no math major, but I'm pretty sure 300,000-100,000+ does not equal 300,000.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence, why we are not stating that 300,000 is the absolute correct figure, but that it is the upper limit of a range of generally accepted estimates. While there is debate over precisely how many corpses have been buried or how many have died in particular massacres, the individual massacres described are not under attack themselves.  You, on the other hand, have been arguing very vigorously for a figure which is not supported by any credible historian, nor by any primary source figure except immediate eyewitness accounts, but which in the modern period is almost to exclusion touted solely by denialists.  It goes without saying, that essentially, while 300,000 is a questionable figure, your insistence on retaining 40,000 is not supported by any 'credible source' except denialist historians and debatable primary sources.Zmflavius (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the comment that I posted above. Formatting error, when I copied and pasted it it made a new thread.  Furthermore, there is no debate about the "particular massacres."  Historians are in consensus that "4,000 to 20,000" died at Mufushan, and how Chongshantang was "at least greatly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated." I have already given a multitude of sources whereas you have not given ANY evidence that 300,000 is supported by historians.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have already posted above, the figure of 300,000 is not meant to be a be-all and end-all figure, but rather, the upper limit of generally accepted figures: a range which by its very nature is quite wide, and subject to historical interpretation. The sources that you have listed, while they have their place being mentioned in their respective articles have no relevance at all to the point at hand, and are not relevant in the slightest to the point being discussed.  What this means, as mentioned above, is that a figure of 300,000 being offered does not mean that it is being presented absolutely correct, but rather, that it is a significantly held viewpoint that is later addressed in the relevant articles as being questionable.Zmflavius (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it seems to me that either you're not reading the treasure trove of evidence that I've given you, or that you just do not understand what constitutes "evidence" or "proof." You still have yet to claim ONE historian that has estimated over 200,000 dead.  One piece of advice: At some point, a man needs to man up and realize that he's wrong sometimes, and that it's okay to be so.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Wakabayashi's article correctly identifies the scholarly consensus of the death toll as being between a maximum of 200,000 and a minimum of 40,000 for the entire Nanking Special Administrative District. It would be fair to say in our heading that "Historians estimate the death toll of the massacre within the broad range of 200,000 to 40,000 victims, whereas the position of the Chinese government is that 300,000 were killed." The truth is that the figure of 300,000 is not taken seriously by any historians outside of China who have conducted actual research into the massacre. Many scholars and journalists who don't specialize in Asian history simply take up the figures used by the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal but among historians who have researched the massacre specifically, I'm not aware of any whatsoever outside of China who endorse the figure of 300,000. It's true that some scholars within the People's Republic of China support this figure, but as Wakabayashi notes in the same article, the Chinese government systematically censors alternative viewpoints on the atrocity and has even censored scholars who have put forward figures as high as 200,000. Therefore, scholarship within China is somewhat dubious due to the repressive environment in that country. By contrast, figures of roughly 40,000 are supported by a large number of mainstream historians who have no denialist leanings and are in fact strong opponents of the denialists. Masahiro Yamamoto's book on the subject argues that 50,000 to 15,000 were massacred in the atrocity. His book was praised by David Askew, a historian at Ritsumeikan University, as "easily the most objective historical account of Nanjing in the English-language literature to date" and Wakabayashi called it "pathbreaking for doing nuts-and-bolts history". I could go on because almost every peer-reviewed academic paper gave Yamamoto's book a overall positive review. Hata Ikuhiko estimates that 40,000 were massacred, and he is noted by historians Joshua Fogel and Masahiro Yamamoto to be a centrist in the debate on the massacre who has resolutely opposed Nanking Massacre denialists and been attacked by them for it. Hata has been described by leading military historian Edward Drea as "the doyen of Japanese military historians" and his book on the Nanking Massacre was called "the best introductory work on the Nanjing Incident in any language" by David Askew and was deemed by Yoshida Yutaka, a leading historian of the massacre and professor at Hitotsubashi University, to be one of the five top books on the Nanking Massacre. David Askew is incidentally another reputable and widely published scholar of Nanking Massacre studies who estimates the death toll at about 40,000. Other well respected scholars in this range are Hando Kazutoshi and Hara Takeshi who respectively estimate the death toll at 30,000 and 20,000. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the estimates of Yamamoto, Hata, Hando, Hara, Askew, and others fall further within Wakabayashi's consensus than it seems because all five of these historians limit their studies of the massacre to the definition set by the International Military Tribunal of the Far East, in other words the city of the Nanking and its immediate environs. By contrast, Wakabayashi includes all the rural districts around Nanking, including more than 30,000 casualties of the massacre which Yamamoto, Hata, Hando, Hara, and Askew do not deny but also do not include in their death toll estimates. Incidentally the Chinese government uses the same restricted definition of the massacre as these five historians. We see then, just how outside the mainstream the figure of 300,000 is not only because it is 100,000 outside of the academic consensus but also because it uses a narrower definition of the massacre than Wakabayashi does. In conclusion, everything within Wakabayashi's broad range of 200,000 to 40,000 is credible but figures outside that range should be considered as fringe viewpoints. We ought to mention the existence of these fringe viewpoints but they are not the opinion of scholars and on Wikipedia we should consider the academic consensus to be of paramount importance.CurtisNaito (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with what you're saying, and think that it is the most reasonable solution to this discussion. Copying and pasting from above: Don't forget about Miner Searle Bates; he received a Ph. D in History from Yale University (MA from Harvard, BA from Oxford), and was Professor of History at none other than Nanking University for over 30 years.  This along with him being one of the most prominent members of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone and a chief establisher of the Nanking Safety Zone itself makes him much more than just an "an ordinary person making a preliminary estimation."  Furthermore, this estimation of 40,000 is in alignment with the Red Army's official estimation at the time (Hangdibao), along with Joel Rabe's estimation (50,000-60,000) as well. You would be surprised to find out that the first time the estimate of 300,000 even surfaced was the year after the massacre happened, by a journalist (not a historian) Harold Timperly who based his figure off of contemporary eyewitnesses.  I of course sympathize with the eyewitnesses, but they are the definition of what you call "ordinary people" who may very well be biased because of the emotions associated in witnessing such an atrocity.  Now, as I've stated before, Zmflavius hasn't named a single historian that has claimed numbers close to 300,000, or even above 200,000.  All of the evidence points to a true estimate in the 40,000-100,000 range; however I am willing to compromise with a range of 40,000-200,000. Also, please take a look at this: "The official stance of the People's Republic of China is that 300,000 Chinese were massacred in Nanking, though mainstream historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated.[1][3] This figure is based off the verdict of the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal which added the burial records of 150,000 bodies with 190,000 allegedly destroyed corpses to arrive at a total of 300,000, though there was an apparent adding mistake in this calculation.[22] Furthermore, this estimate includes an accusation that the Japanese Army murdered 57,418 Chinese POWs at Mufushan, though the latest research indicates that between 4,000 and 20,000 were massacred,[23][24] and it also includes the 112,266 corpses allegedly buried by the Chongshantang, a charitable association, though today mainstream historians agree that the Chongshantang's records were at least greatly exaggerated if not entirely fabricated." Now I'm no math major, but I'm pretty sure 300,000-100,000+ does not equal 300,000.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is an article published by a reliable source that treats the Chinese government's estimate of 300,000 as a notable estimate, on an equal basis with other estimates, all of which are unverifiable: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/09/nanjing_by_the_numbers Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We could write "Scholars outside of China believe that between 40,000 and 200,000 were killed in the massacre whereas Chinese scholars favor estimates of 300,000 or more." It's true as the article notes that historians working in China favor 300,000+. However, based on the research of Bob Wakabayashi, a Canadian-based historian and professor, we cannot say that 200,000 is exclusively the view of Japanese historians as that article implies, though note that Wakabayashi is specialized in this field and has written peer-reviewed work about the massacre specifically whereas the authors of that article have not. Wakabayashi's conclusion was based on the findings of many non-Japanese historians who contributed to his edited volume, including Australian historian David Askew, American historian Joshua Fogel, and Canadian historian Timothy Brooks. Incidentally, French historian Jean-Louis Margolin is also within Wakabayashi's range and Masahiro Yamamoto has noted that two of the few Americans to conduct original research into the atrocity rather than repeating the claims of others were Meiron and Susie Harries who put the death toll at close to 40,000 which also falls within Wakabayashi's range. The fact that Wakabayashi had to use such a large range of figures shows that there is not really a specific consensus for the death toll of the atrocity outside of China, but we can at least conclude that outside China scholars who have done actual research into the atrocity go no higher than 200,000 and no lower than 40,000 if the entire Nanking Special Administrative District is included. By contrast, I'm not aware of any scholars in the People's Republic of China who estimate the death toll at any less than 300,000. By the way, the result of the joint China-Japan research mentioned in your article did indeed put the figure at 20,000 to 200,000 for Japanese historians and 300,000+ for Chinese historians but ironically, the report cited only one single historian outside the 40,000 to 200,000 range used by Wakabayashi, and that was namely Sun Chai-wei, probably the leading Chinese historian of the massacre, who now supports a death toll estimate of 400,000.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am wondering why you said that Sun Zhaiwei supports the 400,000 estimate. I have read all his books and papers on the massacre and I am sure Sun has never said that. --MtBell 20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you must have missed one. See this link.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked Sun's original article 《论南京大屠杀的准备、实施和延伸》where he wrote: “日军在南京大屠杀发生前后六七个月的时间中，在南京周边苏浙皖地区的39个县市里，便又屠杀了10万名以上的平民. ……日军在该地区的暴行，既不能简单等同于南京大屠杀本身，也不能同南京大屠杀完全割裂开来. 如果将日军在南京周边地区屠杀平民的数字与南京大屠杀死难人数联系起来考虑，其屠杀的规模就达到了40万人以上. ”(My translation: The Japanese troops massacred more than 100,000 civilians during 6-7 months in 39 counties and towns in the area of Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Anhui near Nanjing. ... These atrocities committed by Janpanese troops should neither be considered as Nanjing Massacre itself, nor completely be splitted from Nanjing Massacre. Combing the figure of the civilians massacred by Japanese troops in the adjacent areas of Nanjing and the death toll in Nanjng Massacre, the scale of mass killings exceeded 400,000.) --MtBell 23:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's not strawman my position. Leaving aside that 40,000 to 100,000 is NOT in any sense of the word a reasonable estimate, the reason we use 300,000 is because it was the conclusion reached by the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal, not to mention a significantly held minority viewpoint within China.  Because we are in this case attempting to define a range of generally accepted viewpoints, which must be represented on Wikipedia, this means that 300,000 absolutely must be included.  While fraught with issues, that must be taken into consideration in the relevant section, this is not a process you, Banzaiblitz, seem to be willing to subject figures such as 0 or 40,000, the former of which is a complete fringe viewpoint, and the latter of which is supported only either by primary sources of less certainty than the NWCT and a denialist Japanese historian.  That there are certain historians who advocate a figure of 200,000, bears no relevance at all to the discussion of the range.  Your obsession with 200,000 as an upper maximum, and insinuation that figures such as 0 are nearly as credible minority viewpoints (merely leaving aside for now that 200,000 is not a minority viewpoint), betrays a slight issue of understanding with the precise definition of 'credible.'Zmflavius (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I honestly cannot believe you are saying this. Your statements so far have been filled with lies.  First off, I said I DO NOT champion the 0 figure.  I'm merely claiming that it's as absurd as claiming that 300,000 died.  Secondly, the Chinese government is known for it's systematic tendency to censor media and past historical events.  Unless you can prove that it's accepted outside of China or that it's accepted by a prominent Chinese historian, this is not the way history should be written.  That in its ultimate sense is a fringe viewpoint.  As I've stated before, the Red Army's official estimation, Miner Searle Bates, and John Rabe all champion a range within the 40,000 to 60,000 range.  I'm not sure why you keep forgetting to bring this up, but I'm putting it in bold so you don't ignore it again.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having said that, I think CurtisNaito's proposal is also sensible.Zmflavius (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you would support the statement, "Scholars outside of China believe that between 40,000 and 200,000 people were killed in the massacre whereas Chinese scholars favor estimates of 300,000 or more." If so, I also consider this a good compromise. As I said, my concern with 300,000 was that Chinese scholars are legally obligated to go no lower than this figure, but having said that I can't deny that they are indeed legitimate and credentialed scholars and no one can be certain whether they actually would make estimates lower than 300,000 if given the opportunity. If we simply note their viewpoint without judging it, as in my proposed sentence, then we can preserve neutral language, though the point I wanted to get across is that the reason why Wakabayashi was able to condense the opinion of so many different scholars from across the world and still arrive at a consensus of 40,000 to 200,000 is because that does in fact represent the academic consensus with the exception of China. (Oh, by the way, since you mentioned the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal I want to point out that 300,000 was not the only estimate made by the Tribunal, but it was the only estimate for which they provided of breakdown of where the number came from. Daqing Yang notes in his essay "A Sino-Japanese Controversy" that the Tribunal also made a separate estimate of 430,000 massacre victims, though there was no breakdown of where that number came from. 430,000 is close to the figure of 400,000 advocated by leading Chinese historian Sun Chai-wei.)CurtisNaito (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems reasonable to me. My point, is not that 300,000 is the absolutely correct figure, which as the article itself states, is doubtful, but rather that the vast majority of Chinese scholarship, even accounting for legal and other restrictions, supports this figure, but that of course, it ought to be noted that only China supports this figure.  However, to completely suppress this figure is absolutely inappropriate and a suppression of an extremely large part of academic scholarship on the Massacre.Zmflavius (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have stated Zmflavius.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Banzaiblitz is fabricating a false "consensus" (40,000-200,000) of the death toll. How a "consensus" can be reached while Chinese viewpoints are absent? Banzaiblitz is not capable to judge which estimate is correct. In fact, Wikipedia is in no position to judge if "300,000", "40,000" or "0" is correct or not. The only concern of Wikipedia is if these viewpoints are significant enough to be included. The significance of a viewpoint is determined only by its prevalence in reliable sources. Keeping this threshold in mind, we conclude that: --MtBell 14:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the "300,000" estimate is significant because this is the judgement made by the postwar tribunal in Nanking and it is the prevalent viewpoint in China, and
 * the "200,000 (or more)" estimate is significant because this is the judgement made by the postwar tribunal in Tokyo, and this estimate is also believed by some Japanese scholars,
 * the "40,000" estimate MAY be significant because this is also accepted by some Japanese scholars, and
 * the "0" estimate is NOT significant because this is the viewpoint of the denialists (a minority fringe group).
 * Read CurtisNaito's proposal. If you've been keeping up, you'll see that the 300,000 figure is not accepted anywhere outside of China (The reason why it is in China is because of strict censorship; it is illegal to champion a number below that figure in China). Also, the Red Army's official estimation, Miner Searle Bates, and John Rabe all champion a range within the 40,000 to 60,000 range. Banzaiblitz (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CurtisNaito's proposal is not, as you advocate, the complete suppression of the 300,000 figure, but noting that it is principally advocated solely by Chinese scholarship, and has been called into question. The fact that China censors and Chinese scholarship generally discourages figures below 300,000 is completely irrelevant, especially as it is spurious to attribute all estimations of over 300,000 to 'government censorship,' whereas what is a fact is that if we are adding primary sources, less reliable primary sources, I might add, such as eyewitness estimates, to the range, then the figures calculated by the NWCT most certainly should be added.  Naturally, both the lower-end eyewitness figures and the upper-limit NWCT and Chinese scholarship figures should be subject to the same scrutiny, qualifications, and clarifications that we are adding.  Finally, I would like to suggest that you not misuse the minor edit option to delete references, as minor edits are supposed to be reserved exclusively for correcting typographical errors and other minor corrections.Zmflavius (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you honestly get off my back? I'm tired of you rewording my statements and not looking at the facts.  First off, CurtisNaito's proposal was what I was championing from the beginning.  I was never in favor of suppressing the 300,000 figure, rather I advocated referencing it later in the introduction, as CurtisNaito proposes.  I'm certain you're unhappy that another person backed my claim, but you need to drop the personal issue and contribute to the discussion rather than repeatedly ignoring my statements and rewording them just to make me look bad.  Secondly, we already proved that none other than the 300,000 estimate alone was based off of none other than eyewitnesses.  On the other hand, all of the primary sources that I've given are in depth research projects devoted to finding the true estimate, and they all support figures in the 40,000-60,000 range.  If you spent more time looking up evidence and less time berating me, I'm sure you could find some yourself.  Finally, your addition of the source, although relevant, is unnecessary.  The figure was already provided in the BBC link, and if we were to provide every death estimate, that would make a long list of references. I've repeatedly tried to tell you that I want this to be an intelligent and enjoyable discussion, but you keep openly attacking me, turning this into a high school, "You're right, I'm wrong" game.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)  Edit: Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Slight quibble. The reason "0" is NOT significant is NOT that the denialists are a minority group. Credible minority opinions belong in Wikipedia. The reason "0" is NOT significant that the denialists are a fringe group. Fringe opinions do not belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in articles discussing the phenomena of fringe groups. --Yaush (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Your wording is better. --MtBell 15:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know if references in Chinese are accepted here. Some studies on the death toll: 论南京大屠杀遇难人数认定的历史演变(On the historical evolution of the estimation of the death toll in Nanking Massacre[2001]), 近十年“ 侵华日军南京大屠杀”研究述评(Summary and comments on the study of the Nanking Massacre of the last ten years[2006]), 新发现南京大屠杀埋尸资料的重要价值(The importance and value of the recent discovered documents on the burial of the deads during Nanking Massacre[2007]).--Snorri (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They are, provided you translate them and they are reliable, published sources, and you can verify this, and they represent a majority or significant minority viewpoint.Zmflavius (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia Britanica, 300,000 is considered a significant estimate while 40,000 is not. If the estimated range of the number of victims should be included in the leading section in enwp, I would like to suggest the estimates used by the Encyclopedia Britanica: 100,000-300,000. --MtBell 19:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""The number of Chinese killed in the massacre has been subject to much debate, with most estimates ranging from 100,000 to more than 300,000.""

- Encyclopedia Britanica


 * There are three problems with that. Firstly, the Encyclopedia Britannica article cited no sources for its estimate, secondly it provided no breakdown of how that figure was arrived at, and thirdly it was not written by a scholar of Nanking Massacre studies. Wakabayashi who supports a range of 40,000 to 200,000 did cite his sources, he did provide a breakdown, and he is a credentialed and well-regarded scholar who made an effort to reach a scholarly consensus. Incidentally, the article makes a factual error in the very next sentence. It says that the massacre "was ordered by Matsui Iwane". There is no historian who says this and even the International Military Tribunal of the Far East only convicted Matsui for failing to stop the massacre, not ordering it. I should point out though, that Wikipedia generally discourages of use of tertiary sources like other encyclopedias.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well said. Couldn't have said it any better.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia Britanica, which is definitely a reliable source, is an example of the significance of the "300,000" estimate. That is the point. --MtBell 20:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CurtisNaito is correct, to this extent: The Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source and so is not a suitable source for Wikipedia articles. However, MtBell's point is still well taken: The Encyclopedia Britannica is a significant work and its use of the 300,000 figure supports the claim that this is a significant estimate. (Which I think is too high -- but that is besides the point). --Yaush (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence, please read CurtisNaito's compromise as stated above and reproduced here. "Scholars outside of China believe that between 40,000 and 200,000 people were killed in the massacre whereas Chinese scholars favor estimates of 300,000 or more."  Currently, 3 out of the six wikipedians debating this agree with it. Banzaiblitz (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CurtisNaito has said this once before, so I'll say it again for emphasis. The Encyclopedia Britannica, although reliable, is not the best source when it comes to detailed events in individual subjects   They list it on their homepage that it's to be used purely as shallow reference, nothing more.  Most of the articles are one person's work, and as such they reflect only one person's opinion (As evidenced by the Matsui Iwane statement).  Furthermore, they are not written by a scholar of Nanking Massacre studies, or a historian of any credential for that matter.Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here the Encyclopedia Britannica article serves as a proof of the significance of the "300,000" estimate. I hope you are not denying that. --MtBell 21:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not denying that. We have included the 300,000 estimate in the leading section, as it is a significant viewpoint.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)  Banzaiblitz (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for Yaush's understanding. Are we agreed that 300,000 is a significant estimate which should be included in the leading section? If such consensus is made, we will move on to discuss how to fairly represent all the significant estimates. --MtBell 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're done. We've included the 300,000 in the leading section.  If you have any problems about that statement, please let me know, as it's achieved general consensus in this discussion. Banzaiblitz (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems the consensus is made. Or anyone still have problem for this? If nobody has problem for this consensus, I hope admin can keep this discussion consensus as an important reference. Miracle dream (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2014‎
 * By far the only consensus is to include the 300,000 estimate in the leading section. There is still a long way to go for a fairly represented introduction of the significant estimates from different sides. --MtBell 05:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead now has a repetition of the numbers in the first and third paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead is not quite a repetition of the numbers. What the third paragraph actually does is briefly explain the numbers given in the first paragraph of the lead.  The dispute in the numbers is a source of some contention in Massacre historiography, so while possibly wordy overall, the relative weight given to this topic in the article means it probably bears mentioning at least in the lead.Zmflavius (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion belongs in the body. The lead should be a brief summary of the article body.  One can sum up the dispute without repeating the numbers (which are still visible on-screen, two paragraphs earlier). Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not agree with the current version of the lead. "over 300000" and "over 200000" are also well recognized versions on Nanking casualty for scholars outside China.--Snorri (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better simply to give a range (40,000–300,000), and leave the commentary to the body. Trying to cover all the grey areas at once can only result in a shitty lead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to point out that the general consensus within Chinese historians over the casualty is "more than 300,000", so the range should be "40,000–more than 300,000".--Snorri (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever, it's the same principal (though I think "over" would look & read better than "more than" with a range). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point I want to make here is that it is not the best way to divide the estimations of casualty into a "China" group and an "outside China" group because there is in fact not a such clear difference by countries. The fact is historians in different countries can hold the same opinion whereas historians in the same country can have different opinions. I quote the conclusion section of the book Nanking 1937(isbn:9780765635600), one of the series Studies of the East Asian Institute of Columbia University:

I considere it as a pretty fair summary.--Snorri (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the main problem with that statement is that he doesn't actually say which historians he is referring to. I am not aware of any Japanese historians who have made estimates exceeding 200,000 and among those who have written books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre specifically, I am not aware of any historians outside of China at all who have made estimates exceeding 200,000. It should be noted that the book you cite, "Nanking 1937", does contain non-mainstream views. For instance, it also includes an essay by Shudo Higashinakano denying that any massacre occurred in Nanking at all. Because we have highly reliable sources identifying the overall scholarly consensus as between 40,000 and 200,000 we should stick with that, but we can also note separately the views of Chinese scholars.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you confuse your ignorance with facts. If you believe that "no Japanese historians has made estimates exceeding 200,000" and "no historians outside of China at all has made estimates exceeding 200,000" then you should give reliable source to prove it. Otherwise that would be a personal guess. The author of this book assesses a lot of views, including mainstream ones and non-mainstream ones. I only quote his conclusion because that is the final conclusion that he makes to describe the overall situation. He does not mention the total denial view in his conclusion and I think this makes a clear sign of what he thinks of it. I think we have here a quite high reliable source stating that the number is between 200,000 and over 300,000 and we should not ignore it.--Snorri (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Snorri, the burden of the proof is on the accuser. If you are going to claim that historians outside of China have claimed numbers greater than 200,000, it is up to you to bring up a source stating such a fact.  Otherwise, we are going to keep the statement as it currently sits because that is what we agreed on above. Banzaiblitz (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snorri. Grouping estimated figures into Chinese side and non-Chinese side is very odd to me. It seems the editor is implying that large estimates are local viewpoints and are very unlikely to be true. This is not fair. Why not group these estimates into three groups such as the denialists', the revisionist's/conservatives' (less than 50,000 for example) and others? --MtBell 05:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Let us see another highly reliable source. The Aggression, victimization and Chinese historiography of the Nanking Massacre by Mark Eykholt. He wrote in the final conclusion section as follow:

A clear estimate between 100,000+ and 300,000+.--Snorri (talk) 05:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't the final conclusion section, it was a small footnote. In that footnote Eykholt is just making a brief reference to the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal which estimated a death toll of 300,000+ and the International Military Tribunal of the Far East which estimated 100,000 to 200,000. Both trials used burial records as key sources. Though the transcripts of these war crime trials are solid primary sources, on Wikipedia scholarship is paramount and a lot of scholarship has been done since the 1940's. As noted, Bob Wakabayashi views the general scholarly consensus as between 40,000 and 200,000 and I never saw any review articles that expressed specific disagreement with that. In the event that we leave out in the heading of the article all discussion over the death toll, then we should just adopt the scholarly consensus and cut out figures above or below the 40,000 to 200,000 range. Having said that, the current version was the product of good compromise and it's just one sentence and not excessively long. I advocate we leave it as it is.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In previous discussions the consensus has been made to include the 300K estimate. If you insist on the 40K-200K range, we will have to start another thread to discuss if the 40K estimate is significant enough. And I noticed one thing that at first you call 40K-200K a consensus viewed by Wakabayashi, but later you consider it scholarly consensus. Please be aware that Wakabayashi's viewpoint is his personal opinion only. --MtBell 06:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons why this isn't just Wakabayashi's personal opinion. The first reason is because Wakabayashi arrived at this conclusion by noting the viewpoints of all major scholars and seeking a broad consensus. The second reason is because those scholars who reviewed Wakabayashi's work generally concurred with his proposed consensus. An article in the Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies called it "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date".CurtisNaito (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am wondering how a consensus was made without viewpoints from Chinese scholars. I don't see any reason of removing the 300K estimate but including the 40K number in the range. This is not a consensus, this is a discrimination. --MtBell 00:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whether it is written in the main text or in the footnote, the author gives the thought about the estimates and he mentions that " war crimes trials and burial records documented death totals that exceed 100,000 and possibly exceed 300,000". I did nothing more than quoting his words. It seems that different authors have different views on the "scholar consensus" and I think we should merge them into a more balanced resume.--Snorri (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the real "scholar consensus" on the casualty is the description "hundreds of thousands were killed". This is the most common way to describe the death toll in English documents.--Snorri (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think a crucial flaw in yours and others' arguments is that there hasn't been a single non-Chinese historian listed that claimed more than 200,000 deaths. On the other hand, CurtisNaito and I have listed a plethora of evidence and historians who claim a death toll in the 40,000-200,000 range, notably the 40,000-60,000 range.  For this reason, we will keep the separation of views in the Chinese and non-Chinese estimates.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mark Eykholt" doesn't sound like a Chinese name to me.
 * That aside: I don't believe the 300,000 figure. If I had a take a wild guess, I'd guess somewhere around 100,000. But this is entirely besides the point, which is that credible scholars, not all Chinese, have quoted a range as high as 300,000. It's not that the figure has a good chance of being correct; I'm quite skeptical of that. It's that the figure is significant. --Yaush (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Mark Eykholt did not say that the death toll was 300,000, he was mentioning in a footnote that the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal said this and from the way he worded it doesn't necessarily appear to believe it. If estimates by qualified experts which are higher or lower than the 40,000 to 200,000 range exist outside of China (and note that no one has yet provided one shred of evidence that they do) they would still be fringe viewpoints overall. That doesn't mean that we can't mention them in both the heading and the text, but they are unmistakably outside the current scholarly consensus outside China where, it should be mentioned, there is no right to dissent from the government's line on the matter. At the end of the day, the most significant figures are those of international historians who have researched the massacre specifically, and thus 40,000 to 200,000 is what we should focus on for the purposes of Wikipedia.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are totally wrong and misleading when you talk about Mark Eykholt's opinion. First I do not see the problem of he wrote his point of view in main text or in a footnote. Secondly, "These initial estimates proved wholly inadequate as war crimes trials and burial records documented death totals that exceed 100,000 and possibly exceed 300,000." He made his estimates based on "war crimes trials and burial records". He was not quoting anything. He did not say the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal said this. He gave credit to the numbers of "war crimes trials and burial records" and believe on a number exceeding 100,000 and possibly exceeding 300,000. --Snorri (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Break 1
I changed "though mainstream historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated" to "though Japanese historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated". I wouldn't be surprised that someone would be eager to revert my change, but I look forward to an explanation of how "globally mainstream" both authors Tokushi Kasahara and Bob Tadashi Wakabayashi of the cited sources are. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Historians around the world have put the death toll of the massacre at 200,000 to 40,000, and Wakabayashi is a Canadian-based scholar whose views are representative of the international viewpoint. The estimate of 200,000 to 40,000 has been described as "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". Kasahara Tokushi has been described by Joshua A. Fogel as "one of the finest scholars, Japanese or otherwise, working on the war years and the Nanjing Massacre in particular". American-based Chinese scholar Daqing Yang calls him "a leading Japanese scholar with many critical works" on the Nanking Massacre. Yoshida Takashi, a historian at Western Washington University, calls Kasahara "a nationally and internationally recognized historian who has specialized in the Nanjing Massacre" and who is author of many "acclaimed works". Kasahara's 1997 book on the Nanking Massacre received universal acclaim from peer-reviewed journals. He puts the number of victims of the massacre at 160,000-170,000, which is within Wakabayashi's range of figures.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just some evidence to support that this wasn't just a Japanese estimate. Miner Searle Bates, a professor of history at the University of Nanking and a member of the International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone, wrote on January 25, 1938, "close to forty thousand unarmed persons were killed within and near the walls of Nanking, of whom some 30 percent had never been soldiers." Lewis Smythe, a sociologist at the University of Nanking, reported on March 21, "... it is estimated that 10,000 persons were killed inside the walls of Nanking and about 30,000 outside the walls." Then in the spring of 1938, Smythe conducted a field survey to assess the damages and losses at Nanking and its vicinity under the auspices of the International Relief Committee. His research resulted in civilian victims of 6,600 (2,400 massacred and 4,200 abducted (and mostly missing)) within the city and 26,870 in the vicinity. The chairman of the International Committee, John Rabe, gave a series of lectures in Germany after he came back to Berlin on April 15, 1938, in which he said, "We Europeans put the number at about 50,000 to 60,000." Another journalist, Edgar Snow, wrote in 1941 that his source in the Nanking International Relief Committee told him "the Japanese murdered no less than 42,000 people in Nanking alone, a large percentage of them women and children." "In one of the bloodiest massacres of recorded history," annotated Frank Capra's U.S. war propaganda documentary, The Battle of China, from the Way We Fight series in 1944, "they [Japanese] murdered 40,000 men, women and children." In 1986, historian Lloyd Eastman at University of Illinois introduced a figure somewhat close to the early estimates reached by the Western missionaries in respected The Cambridge History of China. "During seven weeks of savagery," wrote Eastman, "at least 42,000 Chinese were murdered in cold blood, many of them buried alive or set afire with kerosene." To summarize, the death toll that they champion is within the range of 40,000-60,000 deaths.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have mentioned this before, but it is worth mentioning that of the above estimates, virtually all save Eastman's estimate are primary source estimates, made by the estimators in their capacity as eyewitnesses, and thus, cannot be used to describe 'academic support of these figures.' That said, because the description of exclusively Japanese figures advocating a figure of 40,000 is clearly incorrect, it probably should not be included.  However, I have also noticed that directly above us, another discussion is also taking place with regards to essentially quite similar content, disputing the exclusively Chinese scholarship indicating up to 300,000 deaths (Yaush, above, names Mark Eykholt as one example of a non-Chinese historian who advocates such a figure).  Likewise, a brief search of Google Scholar has also turned up western scholars such as Kaz Ross, who also support a figure of 300,000. Essentially, it is certainly incorrect to say that outside of China, there is no academic support for a figure of 300,000, even if, as the article mentions, it is comparatively a minority viewpoint.  My view, is that in both cases, national references should probably be removed; since rather obviously, even outside China and Japan.  Finally, as I believe has been mentioned above, it is also inaccurate generally to describe academic scholarship as divided into camps such as 'China,' 'Japan,' and 'The West,' because even in cases such as these, the breakdown is rarely particularly clean. Thus, my suggestion 'Japanese scholars' would instead be written as 'scholars' without amendation and Chinese scholars would be written as 'some scholars' but with the relevant qualifications.Zmflavius (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that for the purposes of the heading we shouldn't use primary sources. Note that Mark Eykholt also cited a primary source which he didn't even say that he agreed with. Since you mentioned Kaz Ross, here is a quote about his views on the subject: "The Chinese government claims a figure of 300,000 victims in Nanjing and surrounding areas. Academic researchers, however, privately propose a much more modest estimate of between 40,000 – 150,000." Note three things about this quote. Firstly, both Kaz Ross and the Chinese historians he spoke to accept the validity of estimates as low as 40,000, which is also the position of many mainstream and well-respected Japanese scholars and some non-Japanese and non-Chinese scholars such as David Askew. Secondly, he separates the views of "academic researchers" from the "Chinese government". In other words, the Chinese government's views are not the same as those of historians, and it's the views of historians that matter on Wikipedia. Thirdly, he notes that even Chinese historians accept the estimate of 40,000 to 150,000 as being accurate, but in interviews he says that they "requested anonymity." In other words, even Chinese scholars agree with the international consensus, but they are not allowed to say so openly. Still, explaining in the heading that "Chinese scholars favor estimates of 300,000 or more publicly but estimates of 40,000 to 150,000 privately" is a bit wordy for the heading, so I advocate we just leave it as it as. If we don't leave it as it is I can think of two other possibilities. We could replace "Chinese scholars" with "the government of China" since ultimately it is the government and not the scholars who believe this. Alternatively, if we did decide to eliminate the word "Chinese" we could replace it with "a minority of scholars". Of course it is true that everyone within this minority are Chinese and even those privately disagree with their own figures, but we could mention that in the text instead of the heading.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ultimately it comes down to this, Wikipedia gives primacy to the views of scholars, not the views of the government of China. International scholars of every country favor estimates between 40,000 and 200,000 except in China where scholars favor figures of 40,000 to 150,000. Ultimately the main dissenter in all this is the government of China and not any historian of the Nanking Massacre. I'm not saying that the views of the government of China are not significant, but I am saying that Wikipedia gives primacy to the views of scholars.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How about something like "The number of deaths is hotly contested, ranging from a low of 40,000 to a high of over 300,000; most scholars place the range at ??,000–???,000"—then leave the details of who contests what to the body. It would be beyond ridiculous to leave out the number the Chinese government officially propagates, but stating it isn't committing to it.  Leaving it out simply isn't an option, I'm afraid. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * A good possibility along these lines would be "The number of deaths is hotly contested among scholars, ranging from a low of 40,000 to a high of 200,000. However, the official position of the Chinese government is that 300,000 were killed and in Japan some ultranationalists deny the massacre altogether." There's a lot more that needs to be explained apart from that, but we can leave that for the text of this article or else a different article entirely.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think CurtisNaito's suggestion is overall the best solution. I do think that perhaps we should substitute in 'a minority of scholars' for the Chinese government, but overall, I think that in principle, his suggestion is the best compromise.  Do we have a consensus?Zmflavius (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I might tweak it further to: "The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 200,000. The official position of the Chinese government is that 300,000 were killed, and in Japan some ultranationalists deny the massacre ever occurred."  It's less "hotly" debated amongst scholars than it is amongst the politically active. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best we're doing to do. --Yaush (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse this version though we could slightly change it to "The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 200,000. However, the position of the Chinese government and a minority of scholars is that 300,000 were killed, and in Japan some ultranationalists deny the massacre ever occurred." I am open to adding "and a minority of scholars" because Kaz Ross did not interview every relevant historian in China and there might be a few who genuinely believe that number. By the way, I wholeheartedly concur with Curly Turkey's statement that "It's less 'hotly' debated amongst scholars than it is amongst the politically active." If I may ramble a bit, I want to say that this is true in an important way. Having read dozens of books and even more article on this subject in various languages, what I discovered that was really remarkable is just how much the so-called "debate" on the massacre is based on definitions and NOT facts. It seems like there is a big gap between Hata Ikuhiko (estimate of 40,000) and Kasahara Tokushi (estimate of almost 200,000) but Kasahara includes a huge area outside of Nanking and a longer timeframe which Hata leaves out and Kasahara also includes many Chinese soldiers killed on the battlefield which Hata doesn't. David Askew has noted that their respective estimates would actually be almost identical if they were using the same definitions. When it comes to the facts they are in almost full agreement with one another and from what I understand most historians in the mainstream 40,000 to 200,000 range collaborate and get along with one another quite well.CurtisNaito (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have edited the lead of the article to match the consensus that it seems we have reached in this discussion. Is the new lead suitable to everyone?Zmflavius (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not wait until the consensus is clear? There's still plenty of tweak room.  I feel like taking another stab at this thing:
 * "The number of deaths is contested—most scholars estimate from 40,000 to 200,000, while the Chinese government endorses the figure 300,000, and some Japanese ultranationalists deny the massacre ever occurred." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. A previous consensus has been made to include the 30K estimate in the range. I am against any proposal which excludes the 30K estimate from the consensus range. The consensus on the death toll will never be achieved without the participation of Chinese historians including Gao Xingzu, Zhang Lianhong, Sun Zhaiwei and Cheng Zhaoqi. And comparing 30K with the denialists is implying that the 30K estimate is not true, which is a discrimination to Chinese scholars. --MtBell 00:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For someone who strongly endorses such a figure, please get the figure right (300,000, not 30k). As we have repeatedly started, the 300,000 figure is included in the lead.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to include 300K in the range. Stop playing on words. --MtBell 01:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was an unnecessary comment. As for the consensus, please read above and below. Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this topic has reached a consensus. I would like to start a new thread about the sentence structure. As far as it goes, I agree with Curly Turkey that there is "still plenty of tweak room." As of now the sentence in the lead is a little wordy, notably the "minority of scholars" and "ever occurred" part. I would like to put forth my version, a combination of the two and arguably less wordy. "The number of deaths is contested--most scholars estimate that between 40,000 and 200,000 were killed. However, the Chinese government's official position is that 300,000 were killed and few Japanese ultranationalists deny the massacre altogether." Banzaiblitz (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not hugely different from what we have, but for the record I favor that we keep the current version. The only possible tweak I can think of would be to add "or more" after 300,000 but otherwise I prefer the current version.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any other opinions/suggestions about this? My main issue with the current sentence is that it's very wordy, notably the "minority of scholars part. Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is my proposal: "The number of Chinese killed in the massacre is hotly contested. The Chinese goverment and Chinese scholars estimate approximately 300,000 victims. The Japanese goverment admits that mass killings were committed but has no opinion on the death toll. Estimates by Japanese scholars are widely dispersed, ranging from 200,000 or more to 40,000. Some Japanese scholars even deny the existance of Nanking Massacre. " --MtBell 01:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As things stand, I feel that tweaking of sentence structure is largely superfluous at this point, in my experience, too much tweaking can lead to costs in readability, for at best minor accuracy improvements. However, as Mtbell has raised the names of several Chinese scholars, their scholarship could and probably should be added to the article to present the Chinese perspective, but that would have to take place in the article itself.  In addition, I think that the last sentence, if it is included in any form, should probably emphasize that these Japanese revisionists are a fringe minority, in both Japan and the global academic community.  Otherwise, overall, I say that further editing is probably unnecessary at this point.Zmflavius (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Zmflavius' belief that the current version is adequate. This issue is much bigger than two sentences but that's a matter for the text and not the heading.CurtisNaito (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the current version needs revision, this proposal is out of the question. It's even wordier and more awkward than what we have currently, and furthermore shelves the fact that the majority of historians and scholars estimate within the 40,000-200,000 range.  See my proposal below.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What about this? It removes the awkwardness. "Currently, the most reliable and widely agreed upon figures place the total between the broad range of 40,000 to 200,000 massacre victims. However, the Government of China places the total at 300,000 victims, whereas few Japanese ultranationalists deny the massacre altogether." Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say no, to the above proposal, it not really different from Mtbell's proposal, except that it deletes several agreed upon phrases, and really, the present wording contains all the information in the above phrasing, as well as the deleted material, and with less awkwardness.Zmflavius (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't like the "However"—it appears to take sides against the other views, which under no circumstances we should do here, whatever we believe off-Wiki. We definitely should avoid excessive verbiage, and the various arguments, as they're quite involved, should be kept firmly in the body.  How about this:
 * "China officially states the number killed was 300,000, a figure most scholars contest, placing it between 40,000 and 200,000."
 * I'm thinking "China" would include those scholars mentioned above. I've left the denialists out of this one, but I have to wonder just how "fringe" they are, given that the current prime minister is one of them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be quite accurate, to be honest, China alone essentially implies solely the government of China, which of course, is not the case at all here. I would also support retaining the however; without it, the sentences don't flow quite as well, and essentially it's merely calling attention to the existence opposing viewpoints, which is obviously the case here, and is not really taking sides on the part of Wikipedia.  WRT Abe, I don't think that it really makes a difference, since it's well within the realm of possibility for a very large number of people to believe decidedly unfactual things, that are fringe in the academic community; to give just one example: teaching of evolution in America.  If it is a relatively common belief among ordinary Japanese, then that may be worthy of mention in the article, but we would need sources for that as well, and it's not really relevant to the fringeness of denialism as a historical stance.Zmflavius (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My view of Wikipedia policy is that we humble Wikipedians are indeed not allowed "to take sides against the other views", but by contrast if the ones who are taking sides are a community of reputable scholars, then we are allowed to report their general views as fact. The reason why we are able to dismiss Nanking Massacre denial is not because we are taking sides, but because the worldwide community of Nanking Massacre specialists has taken sides. Having said that, though I do find Curly Turkey's proposal a very thoughtful way to reduce the word count, I still lean towards the current version (though I wonder if "as many as if not more than" could be deleted and replaced with just "or more" after 300,000). I say this not because the current version is spectacularly better, but just because it's not really much worse and I think the majority of us can accept it. I'm aware that this is a very important issue, but even so I still feel a little silly knowing that the thousands of words we have already written in this talk page have translated into just two sentences of article text.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to stress the fact that IMHO, China does not really adequately replace 'a minority of scholars,' (since the usage of China in the vernacular, after all, almost always refers to the Chinese government) but that I do agree, that, at this point, the debate has really run its course entirely, since all the important points have been decided, and as you put it, what we are discussing that is left is the wording of two sentences in the OP. Of course, a large part of the issue is that the historiography of the Nanjing Massacre is fairly unique (or immensely petty) in that it is the smallest details that have the most attention lavished to them (I do not imagine it helps, either, that all of us are proving to be remarkably long-winded), but that's another thing entirely.  In any case, I propose that we keep the article as it is in its present form, since the content has already passed consensus, and overall, the text is reasonably clear.  To put it a bit more bluntly, I don't think the vast majority of readers spend more than two seconds glancing at the lead before moving on to the main article or skimming it for a brief summary, so it's not really worthwhile to continue devoting so much attention to the lead.Zmflavius (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I think that "readers spend[ing] more than two seconds glancing at the lead" is not the best argument, considering that the lead is the first impression to the readers, I do believe that Zmflavius is right in that we have exhausted this topic. I will be keeping the current sentence as it is, with just a few grammatical edits.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 08:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to thank all of you that have participated in this discussion. In alphabetical order, Curly Turkey, CurtisNaito, Ghostofnemo, MiracleDream, MtBell, Sameboat, Snorri, Yaush, and Zmflavius (Please edit if I spelt your name wrong, or suggest a different order) have all contributed in a discussion numbering over 13,000 words (13,452 to be exact, and counting), one of the longest in Wikipedia. As for myself, it was certainly one of the best experiences I've ever had and will remember this discussion for the rest of my life. If I offended anybody in this discussion, I apologize as I was rash, direct, and thoughtless at times. Nonetheless, thank you all for spending countless amounts of time and effort for participating in this experience, and hope that you all will continue to live your lives as virtuous scholars. Keep editing! Banzaiblitz (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted my name in your list as I don't need it. Chinese scholars are suppressed in the discussion by some editors. Chinese viewpoints and efforts are compared with the denialists. This made this discussion a discrimination and BPOV. Someone is fabricating a "consensus" which asserts a 40,000-200,000 range. Ironically, though, any of these estimates mentioned in this article and discussion, including 300,000, 200,000, 100,000 and 40,000, is strongly contested by other estimates. In an investigation published by the Japanese journal 《諸君》in February 2001, 11 out of the 23 Japanese scholars who received the questionnaire believed the death toll is close to 0 or is hard to be proved because of insufficient records; 4 Japanese scholars gave their esimates around 10,000; 7 Japanese scholars gave their estimates ranging from more than 100,000 to 300,000. Based on this questionnaire, there is even no consensus among Japanese scholars about the death toll. It is also noteworthy that 井上久士, one of these Japanese scholars, estimates 300,000 deaths， which makes it clear that the 300,000 estimate is also supported by some Japanese. --MtBell 15:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have read that survey in the original Japanese, and you can read a summary of it in English at this link. None of the scholars said 300,000. 井上久士's answer was a little over 100,000, quite a far cry from 300,000. The historian who gave the highest answer was Akira Fujiwara who said 200,000. Hata, who advocates 40,000, was interviewed in an article right before the survey and so was not part of it. Though one historian did give an answer of 20,000 and many other individuals said about 10,000, none of those people included the surrounding rural areas, which Wakabayashi does include in his scholarly consensus, and thus did not include maybe about 30,000 victims which Wakabayashi does include. However, the survey was not presented to every historian in Japan and some who favor numbers close to 40,000 like Kazutoshi Hando were not represented. As I noted before, Chinese historians are not allowed to state figures lower than 300,000, but those who were interviewed anonymously all gave a range of estimates from 40,000 to 150,000 for the death toll.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In that questionnaire 井上久士 selected "more than 300,000" with additional explanation of "more than 100,000". You need to be honest if you really have read that article as you claimed. "Chinese historians are not allowed to state figures lower than 300,000" -- I am shocked by this serious charge. Your charge, though no credible sources are given, is very offensive to all Chinese scholars. Chinese scholars are NOT, as what you implied, puppets of the Chinese goverment. Sun Zhaiwei wrote in his article that "the death toll can be discussed whether it is more or less than 300,000, providing that the facts (Japanese troops had committed mass killings) are respected". Bu Ping, Chinese chief commissioner of the Joint Research Committee of the Sino-Japananese History, said during the first meeting of this joint research that the figure of the victims will not be an obstacle if the crimes in Nanking Massacre are admitted.--MtBell 17:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I didn't join the discussion because I did not debate or judge anything. I just wait and read others' opinions.Miracle dream (talk)14:55, 14 February 2014

Opinions do not have nationality
I insist on my opinion about using nationality to divide different opinions. It is not like "Chinese government and hired historians claim 300,000+" and "historians outside China claim 40,000 to 200,000". This is not true. There is no such a "gap" between China and "outside China". Iris Chang is Chinese American born in New Jersey. Tien-Wei Wu went to US in 1952 and became professor in South Illinois University. Mark Eykholt works in University of California. Even the historians working in Chinese Universities generally claim estimates over 300,000 does not mean they are a single voice. There are different estimates too (from 300,000, 340,000 to 390,000+). I am strongly against any wording trying to make impressions like "Chinese government and hired historians claim 300,000+ and others not". It is untrue and very misleading.--Snorri (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I quote as a supplement Michael Berry's word on Nanking death toll in his A History of Pain：

It was said directly that "most Western scholars accepted the 300,000 death toll".--Snorri (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that he only gives one scholar by name, Jonathan Spence. Like I said, we should focus as much as possible on historians who have done research on the Nanking Massacre specifically and since he can't actually name any of the historians he believes advocate the 300,000 figure we can't determine whether they are historians specializing in military history, Chinese history, or Latin American history. Incidentally, it's not necessarily true that Jonathan Spence claims 50,000, though it may be true. I read his book on the history of China and if I recall correctly what he says is that the death toll was reported as being 50,000. He doesn't say, "I estimate the death toll at 50,000." There is a difference between scholars who have researched the massacre and have estimated the death toll themselves, and those who are simply reporting what they heard from other sources.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are distorting the source. The author names Jonathan Spence here because he thinks Jonathan Spence is a minority POV that worth mentioning. You ignore the author claims "most Western scholars accepted the 300,000 death toll" as an overall background before he singles out Jonathan Spence as an exception. And since he uses "most Western scholars" he does not have to list all their names. You are discrediting a reliable source without any reason. --Snorri (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Snorri, can you ONE of the western scholars that he references as part of "the majority of scholars"? His book doesn't contain a single Western Scholar who advocates such a figure.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Another important estimate over Nanking Massacre "out side China" is the IMFTE estimate. It gave as estimate of 260,000 and many Western historians adopt this figure. Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman and Angela Bodino support the IMFTE estimate in Racism: A Global Reader and said:

We can tell easily that the Japanese estimates are not so welcome.--Snorri (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, the IMTFE did not say 260,000. I have read the IMTFE judgment and it is actually quite confusing. The IMTFE tallied burial records to arrive at 155,000 and stated this as their official estimate. However, later in the judgment they report some tallies slightly higher than that and stated that based off their original estimate of 155,000, estimates of "over 200,000" could also be credible. Note, however, that the IMTFE did not explicitly endorse figures over 200,000. But then in their final verdict against General Iwane Matsui, they changed their estimate to "upwards of 100,000". I suppose it's fair to say that the IMTFE estimated the death toll at between 100,000 and 200,000. However, this is not entirely relevant since trial transcripts are primary sources and it's better to rely on the opinion of scholars of the Nanking Massacre for the purposes of the heading.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. 155,000 is the Chinese side burial record adopted as a part of the war crime records. The conclusive mention in the judgement said "at least 200,000" civilians were killed in the first six-weeks within Nanking City based on all materials and it considered this estimate as "conservative" because a part of the deads whose bodies were thrown in to rivers by Japanese troops was not counted in. And, the estimate of 260,000 was also noted in the trial and was quoted in Kevin Reilly's book I gave above as well. --Snorri (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority judgment said 155,000 whereas the verdict against Iwane Matsui said "upwards of 100,000". It's true that the Tribunal accepted figures "over 200,000" but ultimately 155,000 was the basic estimate which they made in the majority judgment. At any rate, this sort of material is for the body of the article and not the heading.CurtisNaito (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not true. Most scholars assert that IMFTE left an estimate of 200,000+ deaths. And I think this is the figure that should be adopted to the lead.--Snorri (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

David B. MacDonald wrote in Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide a summary of the different numbers on Nanking Massacre.

It can be clearly seen that 200,000+ is not a minority view but a significant POV even a consensus between scholars.--Snorri (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Back to the main point, it is obvious that grouping estimations into "China" side and "outside China" side is not reasonable. Scholars all over the world are cooperating on this issue. It is not because some authors have a Chinese name or work in a Chinese University that we should wrap them together and tag them as a special minority group. A supplementary result of this discuss section is that 200,000+ is definitely not a minority estimate that should be neglected in the leading section but an important consensus that represents the international mainstream opinions in progress on this issue. I once again propose to use "hundreds of thousands were killed" as the proper description in the leading section.--Snorri (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I congratulate you on being the first person so far to identify actual scholars who endorse a death toll higher than 200,000. Still, there is one significant problem and it is that, as I mentioned in my first posts, the most significant scholars are those who have written books or peer-reviewed articles on the massacre. Those in the 40,000 to 200,000 range are all topic specialists including Askew, Fogel, Hata, Kasahara, and Wakabayashi. By contrast, none of the authors cited above, except Chang who I think misinterprets the IMTFE's ruling, have ever written more than a few sentences on the massacre. Your post leads to me to believe that mentioning that a minority of scholars do support figures higher than 200,000 is a good idea, but I don't think it changes the consensus, which was built by those who have done research on the Nanking Massacre specifically as opposed to the authors cited above who, it must be said in fairness, only mentioned the massacre in passing in general books of Chinese history. For instance, though these authors provided no breakdown and no details of where they might have gotten their estimates from, odds are that many of them mistakenly rely on the burial records of the Chongshantang, which were cited by the IMTFE and the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal but are now universally regarded among historians of the massacre as being largely or entirely fabricated. All things considered, I have to disagree with your proposed change, though note that the current version does not identify the minority of scholars as being Chinese.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in complete agreement with CurtisNaito on this issue. Banzaiblitz (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * References given by Snorri are persuasive that 200,000+ or 300,000 are significant viewpoints, which are accepted by scholars worldwide and not limited to any specific country. I agree with Snorri in two aspects. First, if a range is necessary, it should include 300,000 as this estimate is a significant viewpoint. Second, there is no need to separate the estimates in "Chinese" and "non-Chinese" groups. We only need to enumerate these estimates in one or two sentences and mention that these numbers are debated, leaving detailed debates in the body. --MtBell 19:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly you are judging sources with your own opinion. And you are deliberately listing the historians that do not support 200,000+ numbers including some Japanese scholars, expelling Chinese scholars' view on this issue. As I have listed above, there are also many scholars including Amrican scholars and Chinese (in a large sense, not just those who work in Chinese University) scholars who have published peer-reviewed articles and books on the topic. And they have estimates over 200,000 and even over 300,000. You are calling them unreliable and I do not see why. Besides you are still classifying estimates by nationality and this is exactly what I am opposing. Your argument's significant problem is that you call those scholars who support a death number lower than 200,000 as "significant scholars" and undermine the credibility of all the scholars that do not fit your "40,000 to 200,000" view by calling them a minority. That is not the right way to discuss.--Snorri (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted in all similar discussions that some of the most significant figures on the field of Nanking Massacre issue are Chinese in a larger sense. Sun Zhaiwei, Li En-Han, Young Shi, Iris Chang, Tien-Wei Wu, James Yin, David Liu, Daqing Yang, etc. No matter what their nationalities are and where their researches take place, they are not to be neglected because of their nationality (whether it is Chinese or not).--Snorri (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

As for the problem of Chongshantang's burial record, some revisionist historians regarded it as partially or totally fabricated because there are "only forty members" and "took work in less than three months". These arguments are very weak and have already been refuted by others. For example, Chongshantang has "only forty members" as full time employees but they has hired much more part time workers and volunteers. New found documents also show that Chongshantang's work lasted for about five months and not "less than three months". These details aside, the suspects on Chongshantang are not universally taken credit and has been refuted by others.--Snorri (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No evidence has been found that the Chongshantang did any burial work except possibly under the umbrella of the Red Swastika Society which made its own burial calculations. David Askew notes on the basis of the latest evidence that "the Chongshantang figures can be safely rejected". Acclaimed military historian Masahiro Yamamoto says that "Ch’ung-shan-t’ang data should be dismissed as an unreliable source, which was most likely fabricated". Summing up all the evidence, Bob Wakabayashi concludes that "the CST total of 112,267 burials is inadmissible as evidence of massacres." Unlike the authors listed above, all three of these scholars are specialists on the Nanking Massacre who have published peer-reviewed works on the massacre specifically within the last decade incorporating the latest and best data and under no pressure from any government.CurtisNaito (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lee En-Han said in a 2008 article that David Askew are too influenced by the Japanese side data and cannot make a fair judgement. He thinks revisionists can consider the Chonshantang record as inadmissible because they are not informed by the latest found evidences and because of their bias on the issue. You do not have to try to undermine other historians' credibility and exaggerate the importance of the historians you like with "specialists incorporating the latest and best data". None of the historians I list above has been under pressure from any government, and they have many peer-reviewed works on this issue. It is not a good way to give wrong information as arguments in a fair discussion. You are losing your own credibility by your behavior.--Snorri (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Newly discovered historical files confirm that Chongshantang was an entity operating independent of the Red Swastika. The Administration of the 3rd District's monthly report for February 1938 stated that: they sent a request to the Red Swastika to bury dead bodies on February 3rd, and sent requests to Chongshantang for burial works on the 11th, 12th and 14th. These records were discussed in Sun Zhaiwei's article The Important Value of New Materials about Burying Remains of Nanjing Massacre. These files also reveal that only Chongshantang and the Red Swastika were equipped with trucks and cars for carrying dead bodies, which is an evidence of the scale of Chongshantang's burial works.--MtBell 21:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, I need a source on the first sentence. Second of all, Zhaiwei's article leads to a dead link.  Finally, and probably the most important of all, is that estimating the number of deaths by counting the number of trucks and cars is a horrible way to estimate the death toll.  CurtisNaito and I have provided sources that included real estimates concluded through field surveys and such, but you insist of referencing the minority of Chinese scholars who claim that the death toll is an absurd figure.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: It seems that you have edited the post to fix the link.  However, you need to actually refer to the specific section in your article that says so, because for now it is unreadable (It's all in Chinese).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banzaiblitz (talk • contribs) 02:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)  Banzaiblitz (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First, the source was Sun's article, which was given above. Second, for network connection problems please contact your ISP. Third, “estimating the number of deaths by counting the number of trucks” is your strawman argument, which is indeed horrible in discussion. --MtBell 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you going to deny that you posted “estimating the number of deaths by counting the number of trucks?" Even if you choose to delete it, it will always be in your records.  And I'll check the problem with the link.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You forgot to sign again, Mr. Banzai-strawman-blitz. I find you have a strong inclination distorting other people's opinions every time when you found something difficult to answer. Get rational. --MtBell 23:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it funny that you think quoting you is the same as distorting you. Best of luck on your picnic.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am good with that link in my office and at home. Now I am going for a celebration with my family on this very special Friday. I wish every one, who have joined in this discussion, a nice weekend with your beloved. I also wish Mr. Banzai find his luck in the third coffee shop. --MtBell 23:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Try:  Then maybe mention the denialists, as the denialists are pretty newsworthy. Everything else should be in the body and not allowed to intrude on the lead. I favour "low tens of thousands" over acrimonious hairsplitting over a number that will mean nothing to the lead-readers, and will likely never reach a stable consensus anyways. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I have to go back to my original suggestion—simply giving a range and stating the controversy, then leaving the details to the body. The dispute over numbers should not be allowed to eat up the lead and distract from giving first-time readers a sense of the event itself.  Seriously, do you think readers unfamiliar with the event will have any comprehension whatsoever of the difference in scale between even 30,000 and 300,000?  Both are no more than "Big Numbers" and have no more meaning on a first read-through than as pure abstractions.
 * References provided by Snorri prove that 300,000 is also accepted by many western scholars. Could you explain why you are going to emphasize that 300,000 is an official Chinese figure (which is not true, though)? --MtBell 22:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "the latter the official Chinese figure" was not meant to imply exclusively the official Chinese figure. How about "also the official ...". And since when is it not the official Chinese figure?  Also, you're not seriously accusing me of trying to distort the figures, are you? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * NO WESTERN SCHOLARS ACCEPT THE 300,000 FIGURE. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.  Snorri hasn't given a single western scholar/historian that claims the 300,000 figure.  If you want, I can change the estimate to say 40,000-60,000 deaths, as that is the figure proposed by most sources in the city of Nanking and it's immediate outskirts.  That is the only way we will change the current sentence, as we have already reached a consensus.  You and Snorri are beating a dead horse with your arguments.  As for the 300,000, it is the official stance of the Chinese government, as stated by China's own South China Morning Post.  http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1420651/japanese-government-defends-nhk-director-who-denied-rape-nanking Banzaiblitz (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was in favor of continuing the debate a while longer since new evidence was being introduced, but having said that other users have already expressed their belief that discussion on this issue has more or less been exhausted and I tend to agree. I think there are two possibilities, either we already have a consensus to keep the text in question as it is, or else we at least don't have a consensus to change the text in question to anything else. This issue may have to be revisited in the future, but there is no point in doing that now and we should instead wait for new scholarship to be created. With current scholarship I think we have gone about as far as we can for now. I favor the current version but I think we should leave the debate on these mere two lines with what has already been said and that is what I am going to do.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, if good sources are found listing the opinions of scholars, Western or Chinese, who support figures of over 200,000, then we should probably reopen this discussion and review the figures and sources, and if they are found to be justified or reasonable, then they should be added to the article, both in the lead and the relevant portions. These sources will need to be in the same form as the other figures listed in this thread, academic journal articles, books, or other studies. Snorri, I believe has listed a number of scholars, both Western and Chinese, who support such a figure, however, if discussion is to proceed, we must have more than just a listing of names, but also papers, articles, or books written by or containing the opinions of these scholars. I also would like to urge restraint on the part of all participants here, as it is not in line with the conduct expected of wikipedians to engage in angry displays or ad hominem attacks, and focus exclusively on debate. As with before, I would like to note my opposition to all divisions of scholars by nationality, since it has firstly, had doubt cast upon it since this was last discussed, and secondly, because it is not an accurate way to describe scholarship in any field, which by its nature is performed by individuals, not countries, even if sometimes, the countries exert political influence over scholarship. Also, while there may very well be reason to doubt Askew's analysis of Chongshantang and other figures used in calcuation, I would like to remind everyone that on wikipedia, we should first look to other scholars and their analysis (for example, we could start with the link to Sun Zhai-wei's article, for which a translation and explanation would be useful; the link works for me, but my Chinese language abilities are not quite up to the level of being able to tackle academic articles yet), as analysis by individual wikipedians I believe falls into the category of original research, which is to be discouraged. Finally, my official position is that if we find reliable sources or evidence that indicates support for the figure of 200,000+, which if Snorri or Mtbell has, I would like to ask that they post it here for discussion, that we should edit the article accordingly. Otherwise, we should retain the article here written as is, in the form decided by consensus.Zmflavius (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

So, would anyone else like to weigh in my current proposal? —  Anything so unbalance or non-neutral there that can't be tweaked into something satisfactory? I repeat, the details, breakdowns, and affiliations of these figures belong in the body and should be strictly banished from the lead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC) For the record, I have every intention of remaining neutral on the issue of numbers—I'm only interesting in keeping this mess of a page accessible to readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some issues here with keeping the text written as it is. The text we have now was text that was suggested during this discussion, therefore if there is no consensus, then that text has to be removed and reverted to whatever it said before the discussion began—so, CurtisNaito, you're absolutely flat-out wrong there, as per policy not mere guideline.  Obviously that would not satisfy any of the involved parties, so there is no other choice than to continue the discussion until a consensus falls on something new.
 * Quote from WP:CON "The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately. The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view." Since Zmflavius, CurtisNaito, Banzaiblitz, Ghostofnemo, and Yaush all agreed to the 40,000-200,000 figure, and Curly Turkey didn't voice an objection, this discussion did achieve general consensus (with MtBell being the only dissenter, Snorri came later).  Therefore, if we were to revert the page to it's last consensus, really it would just remain how it is right now.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've agreed to no such thing—I have access to none of the sources and have not offered anything like an opinion on the actual numbers. I have offered no more than suggested wordings trying to balance the needs of the editors and the numbers they've produced with the needs of the readers.  You don't need to quote wp:CONSENSUS at me—what you need to do is read the relevant part, conveniently linked at WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".  That would be the current wording that would be reverted in the case of no consensus, per policy, as that wording didn't exist until I proposed it (and I arrived after Snorri, by the way, which means Snorri was dissenting before the change was made).
 * You faced no objection besides the wording when CurtisNaito proposed the consensus. Furthermore, as evidenced above you proposed a wording of your own in line with the current sentence in wikipedia.  However, as this is a thread about the discussion of numbers and not whether or not we met consensus, so I have edited my post above.


 * Thank you Zmflavius for rationally responding to this sudden uproar. Edit: I didn't mean this as a personal attack to the other users... I was just referencing how when I criticized MtBell's source, he resorted to name-calling such as calling me "Mr. Banzai-strawman-blitz." Sorry Curly Turkey and Snorri.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for implying that the rest of us have been perfectly disruptive. God knows this kerfuffle would have wrapped up by now if Curly turkey hadn't butted in with his totally unacceptable wording proposals (like that zinger that was actually incorporated into the text). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it like that... sorry. I was actually referencing how Zmflavius mentioned ad hominem...MtBell was criticizing me personally above.  I have nothing against anybody here, I apologize if I offended you.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It is important to note that nobody has listed any Western Scholar/historians so far that have estimated figures above 200,000. I would also like you all to see this sentence, "Within China scholars focus on defending the official figures and in the past the government has imposed censorship on historians who have suggested alternative numbers.  In 2006 Kaz Ross anonymously interviewed a number of university researchers in the city of Nanking to learn their private views on the death toll of the Nanking Massacre. He found that Chinese historians favor estimates between 40,000 and 150,000 and that they "speculated that reducing the official Chinese estimate of victims would pave the way for greater reconciliation between Japan and China". However, they feared that speaking out openly "would be detrimental to their careers."  Furthermore, "It is interesting to note that the English website of the memorial hall includes an Associated Press article on commemoration activities in Nanjing which adopts the 150,000 estimate." Banzaiblitz (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not involve this discussion and don't want to judge which source is correct but I have a question for this thing. I see snorri offer some source from David B. MacDonald and Michael Berry. I think based on the sources snorri offered, it cannot be summarized as no western scholar agreed above 200,000. I'm sorry but I wonder whether I miss you contradiction for these two western scholars. Miracle dream (talk)14:55, 14 February 2014
 * The reason why the links Snorri posted don't count as scholarly estimates are due it being estimates made by ordinary people like you and me who have put forth these estimates. As CurtisNaito says, these people that he quotes have posted nothing longer than a few sentences for the Nanking Massacre.  If you can find a single text that these people have quoted, then they obviously have more credibility, but for now they're just the common passer-by spitting estimates on no basis whatsoever.  There is a fundamental difference between scholars who have researched the massacre and have estimated the death toll themselves, and those who are simply reporting what they heard from other sources.  A google search on Martin Bagish, the first "scholar" he cites, only returns photographers and potters, nothing remotely close to a historian.  Also, it is important to note that the first quote Snorri cites was a simple footnote.  Furthermore, Michael Berry goes no further to justify who those "Most western scholars" were, so there is no basis to this argument.  The only historian who he cites is Jonathan Spence, who as we've determined before put forth an estimate of 50,000 deaths.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. I will post original text (with translation) concerning Chongshantan in articles by Sun and other scholars. I would like to also invite the other side to do so in order to support their claims such as Askew's and other scholars' opinions on Chongshantang and the so called "40,000-200,000 consensus" . It will be a good start for the community to have in-depth discussions rather than a debate which is almost out of control. --MtBell 13:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have quoted above the texts in the reliable sources I found about scholars estimating death toll to 200,000+. If you have any problem with my source please explain it to me. In my opinion I have list all evidence clearly.--Snorri (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

table of death toll estimates by scholars
I list in the table below the different death toll estimates by scholars and researchers. The estimates in the IMFTE are also included.coprrepre as

Hope these can be helpful.--Snorri (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I put the table below for the purpose to give a summary of estimates of scholars that I found, as a response to ' demand. It is a summary of my arguments and a part of my comments. It is not to be put in any article. I will report anyone who try to remove the table as vandalism. So this is the table listing the estimates of different scholars as a summary and a supplement of my previous comments.-Snorri (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2014 ;(UTC)


 * This table serves as an illustration of estimates from notable scholars in the study of Nanking Massacre. Snorri and I filled the table with estimates around or over 300,000. It is Banzaiblitz's duty to add estimates from notable scholars who support an estimate from 40,000 to 200,000 based on reliable sources. If "a scholarly consensus ranging from 40,000 to 200,000" really exists, as Banzaiblitz has asserted again and again, we would find that most notable estimates fall in that range. If Banzaiblitz refuses to provide information, or if we find estimates listed in the table disperse in a larger range, we can conclude that his claim the so called "40,000-200,000 consensus" is false. --MtBell 21:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not actually how it works at all, MtBell. We don't hunt down every estimate we can find from every corner of the world and then draw our own conclusions about them—that's Original Research, and is strictly forbidden in a work like an encyclopaedia.  We find those reliable scholars (secondary sources) who have themselves sifted through the numbers and drawn their own conclusions.  We report those conclusions, even if we don't agree with them, unless the "reliability" of the source has been seriously questioned by other reliable sources. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to perform an OR with the table. As what you may have noticed, though Banzaiblitz is talking about a "40,000-200,000 consensus" cooncluded by Wakabayashi, yet he has not provided any detailed original sources with texts. We have no idea of the estimates, as well as their sources, which Wakabayashi has evaluated to assert a scholarly consensus. So I think Banzaiblitz is responsible for giving the estimates evaluated in Wakabayashi's article. A visualized table will be most helpful in this case.
 * And Banzaiblitz is also responsible to prove with reliable sources that "40,000-200,000" is not Wakabayashi's personal opinion. For a genuine scholarly consensus, there must be a large number of supporters with different backgrounds. Who are they? What are their estimates? I am looking forward to these information. --MtBell 22:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. MtBell, please don't try to misinform with your rude/wrong statements regarding policy.  Thank you.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MtBell, please stop directly attacking me by mentioning me by name. I find it rude that you're spearheading your comments directly at me, when there have been multiple others in this discussion.  As I've stated many times, we (Banzitblitz, CurtisNaito, Zmflavius, Yaush, Ghostofnemo, Curly Turkey(neutral)) had reached a general consensus a while back, with you being the only one voicing dissent.  MtBell, you were the only one against the figure.  I suggest you scroll up and see the discussion to see the evidence, as I'm tired of posting the same thing over and over again every time somebody opens a new thread. Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre#Death_toll_estimates This is the table established through consensus by the Wikipedia community. Let's try to put a table that's unbiased here. If you want to add any more, please add it on the table that already exists. I also noticed that you purposefully changed numbers around to meet your argument. Altering data to meet our needs is NOT what we do here in Wikipedia. If you find any mistakes, then please edit it. Once again, this is NOT my table, but rather the table achieved through consensus. Banzaiblitz (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Banzaiblitz's table is incorrect and misleading. I found an error in the first line at first glance. As what I have mentioned above with quoting Sun's article, Sun has never claimed a "400,000" estimate. "400,000" is the number of deaths in a much larger area for a much longer duration, which Sun said not Nanking Massacre itself.--MtBell 21:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then why didn't you fix it? If you didn't notice, that's a direct link to the "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre" article. I have no idea who put in the 400,000 estimate, because that isn't my table; it's a table that the wikipedia community collaborated to put together.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove other's comments and work without permission during a discussion. It is the basic manners of a Wikipedian.--Snorri (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not against wikipedia's policy to remove posts falsifying history or not fairly representing what actually happened. As I've said before, if these are credible, please add these estimates to the death toll estimates table.  You have purposely altered your sources, resulting in a very, very, very biased table.  If some, if not any, of these historians are credible enough to be qualified as a historian, I encourage you to the table that already exists posted above.  Just to reference one aspect of the bias, the IMFTE made an official estimate of UP TO 200,000, not more than.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I have said above, this is a table listing the estimates of the scholars that I found. I use this as argument to prove the following points: First, the range of significant estimates should be from 40,000 to over 300,000. There is not a clear gap between the so call "China" side and "outside China" side. International co-operations are common. --Snorri (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the record, in no way does the sentence that we currently have imply a clear gap between the so called "China" side and "Outside China" side. We only realize that estimates greater than 200,000 can be attributed to a minority of scholars, which it certainly is.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's very rude to remove other editor's comments in a discussion, Banzaiblitz. I have recovered your table. It's a great job. thanks.--MtBell 22:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Snorri: please use a collapsible table—this discussion is already long and difficult to naviagate. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Banzaiblitz: stop removing other editrs' comments, as per WP:TPO—especially if you're not even going to leave an edit comment to explain why.


 * Got it. Also, thank you for resolving the main problem.  The table was long and unwieldly, and difficult to navigate.  (Not to mention biased.)  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Curly Turkey for making it collapsible, and thank you MtBell for readding my table. As I have said, this is a table with the estimates that I found in response to Zmflavius’ demand on providing reliable source of 200,000+ death toll estimates. I never say this is a complete or balanced table. It can clearly be seen from the table that there are many reliable sources (all the sources I listed were published books or peer-reviewed research papers, a part from the IMFTE raw material). I am certainly not saying that estiamtes within the 40,000 to 200,000 range do not exist. It is just that my purpose is to reply Zmflavius’ demand on providing reliable source of 200,000+ death toll estimates. If some one has a problem with the sources which I listed above, please state that in comments. Do not remove it again. --Snorri (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's an idea. How about everyone agrees to stop paying here for a week. This will give everyone a chance to get their figures & arguments in order, and for everyone to cool their heads off. We can begin a new discussion in a week, with a rule that nobody brings up anything anybody did or said in the previous discussions (no more acrimony). Deal? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I prefer to invite all editors who involved this discussion to vote in an appropriate time. Nobody will read such a long discussion again when you start a new discussion which means the previous discussion is totally useless. Miracle dream (talk)
 * That's the whole point. There has been so much information, and so many people have altered or backtracked what they've said that the discussion has become impossible to follow, even for the main participants.  A reboot would give us the opportunity to leave the acrimony at the door, and for everyone to state clearly what their current positions are.  I'm hoping at that time we can simply collapse and ignore the previous discussion, and come to a decision based on what the participants present in a week (I'm hoping all participants will work on their comments beforehand). Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is your proposal required that everyone cannot bring up the previous discussion. Thus, new discussion will not have any detail about previous discussion and nobody will read the long previous discussion. At last,the previous discussion will be missed by everyone and it becomes totally useless.Miracle dream (talk)
 * "The problem is your proposal required that everyone cannot bring up the previous discussion": No, the advantage is that nobody can bring up the previous discussion. The previous discussion is one longwinded tangle of acrimony, accusation, and backpedaling.  Why on earth would we want to continue that?  I've been following the whole conversation (obviously), and I can no longer make sense of it.  I'd like to give everyone a chance to cool off, and to take the time present their positions in a clear, concisely-worded fashion.
 * "new discussion will not have any detail about previous discussion and nobody will read the long previous discussion": That's right!  That's the point!  Bury the grabage and move on!
 * "the previous discussion will be missed by everyone and it becomes totally useless": it will be missed by everyone now, because it is longwinded, disorganized,and at times self-contradictory. It is an opaque, impenetrible mass and a hindrance to finding a workable solution.
 * Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think can just take a break point to put the current position for each side. By this way, everyone can see the current position. Actually I don't think each side would change anything after one week stop. Thus, we just need to put the current position in a break point like "17.5 Current position for each side" and invite editors to go through this.We can simply invite the editors who joined this before to go through this and see their opinion based on current position.Miracle dream (talk)
 * Just wait maybe two days. I think each side doesn't have much new information to update because there are two huge table for their opinion.Miracle dream (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The number of days doesn't matter, but this does: "each side doesn't have much new information"—I'm not asking for new information. I'm looking for the old information clearly and concisely stated so we can hope to make sense of it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If we don't need new information and old information is clearly and concisely, we don't need wait to next week, we can just make consensus now. Because everyone now see these figures, we just need to ask their suggestion based on these figures.Make a temporary consensus now and if someone still have problem, we can reopen discussion. This is what I think.Based on the Zmflavius's comment and table from snorri and banzai, I propose " The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000 " as the temporary consensus.We can discuss other problems in the future, for example low limit and up limit. Miracle dream (talk)

I repeat here: If someone has a problem with the sources which I listed above, please state that in his own comment.--Snorri (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Reminder to everyone: per WP:Talk page guidelines, we do not alter or delete other's comments except for formatting issues. You know who you are—if it happens again I'll be calling an administrator to deal with it.  Also, if you want to retract one of your own comments, do not delete it—instead, strike it out . Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been busy these past few days, so I haven't commented much, but I would like to note that thus far, the evidence quoted in Snorri's table seems fairly convincing to me. The sources listed also seem reliable.  Having seen this evidence, upon review and acceptance of the listed sources, I would support increasing the upper limit of the range, as well as striking out phrases indicating that 200,000+ is an over-estimate.  That said, Ikuhiko Hata does not come off as being overly biased, and his analysis seems solid enough; furthermore, his estimate, while on the extreme lower end, is still just within Wakabayashi's range of plausibility, so I would support retention of 40,000 as the lower limit.  However, based on the sources and scholarship that Snorri has shown us here, I am inclined to support inclusion of his new sources.Zmflavius (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don'w want to debate a lot and just want to get a result soon. Based on your comment and tables from snorri and Banzaiblitz. I propose " The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000 " If most of you can agree this, we can just use this as a temporary consensus.Another problem such as low limit and up limit, we can discuss in the future. Now the one agree me can leave a comment here. Miracle dream (talk)
 * Is it really not obvious to you, after tens of thousand of bytes spilled and continued acrimony, thet we simple will not "get a result soon"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose this because the table from snorri and banzai shows lots of figures which are from China, Japan, Unite State, Australia and other western countries. Most figures from these tables are from 40,000 to 300,000. Moreover, before I started this discussion. The figures are not of the range from 40,000 to 300,000 in this article. Mr.Banzai want to change it so I stated this discussion. Now Banzai give many sources support 40,000 and snorri give many sources support 300,000. The source from snorri are also from US, China and Japan which support 300,000. Hence, I think just recover the figure 40,000 to 300,000 is good for each side. Now Zmflavius think figure 40,000 to 300,000 is good for him why don't we just recover this as temporary consensus and discuss more detail in the future.
 * Actually, you think there will be no result now but after one week, there are also no change for this situation.Banzaiblitz and Snorri will not change their mind. Banzaiblitz will never accept 300,000 and Snorri will never accept 40,000. The debate will continue. At last, the debate will be depend on who have more leisure time on wiki because he can spend more time on expressing his opinion. The one who has busy job in real life will lose this debate. Also,wiki is not the place to judge which source is correct or accurate and if each figure has reliable source to support. We just to keep all figures. Now Snorri offer the western and Japanese sources which support 200,000 to 300,000. I think can be done as "40,000 to 300,000". Based the comment from Zmflavius, I think he may agree this. Also I am not sure but it seems MtBell may also agree this range. The current problem is Snorri may not accept lower limit 40,000 and Banzaiblitz may not agree the up bound 300,000 but at least, range "40,000 to 300,000" consist of part of the opinion from Banzaiblitz and Snorri.Or we may write like The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000, 300,000 is also confirmed by Chinese govermentMiracle dream (talk)
 * and Please see my proposal Miracle dream (talk)
 * Though I believe 40,000 is too understating, I accept "40,000 to 300,000" as a compromise. --MtBell 22:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Kasahara criticized Hata that Hata excluded killings of Chinese soldiers who had surrended, disarmed or had no will to fight. Many civilians in the safty zone were also massacred only because they "looked like" soldiers. Because most mass killings were subjected to Chinese soldiers, exclusion of these mass killings leads to a much downscaled death estimate around 40,000, a counterproposal to "300,000". (Kasahara. On the Nanking Incident: recent researches in Japan. Oversea Researches on Chinese Modern History, 1989(13).) But I agree to include 40,000 in the range as it is a notable minority viewpoint.--MtBell 16:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Zmflavius' comment is a big step toward a consensus. I think 40,000-300,000 is a good compromise for either party. And references listed in Snorri's table is persuasive that the 300,000 estimate receives wide acceptance from scholars in China, Japan and Western countries. There is no need to emphasize 300,000 is supported by PRC/ROC goverment, otherwise we will have to equally address 40,000 is an estimate favored by Japanese conservatives, which will make the leading section too wordy. --MtBell 17:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not mentioning that the official figure is the official figure is non-negotiable. You can't seriously think that could be left out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you didn't mean I am trying to delete the Chinese official position from this article. Why not just leave it in the body so that we have a concies introduction with less controversy? If you insist on emphasizing the official position of China in the leading section, for a balanced expression we shall cite the Japanese official position about the figure as well as backgrounds of those who favor the 40,000 lowerbound. This would make the introduction and our current discussion more complicated. Just to keep it simple, keep it stupid. This is my suggestion.--MtBell 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The official figure of the country it happened in is about as notable as it gets. It's not "complicated" by even the slightest shred—it is the government's official figure.  Not mentioning this is beyond reason. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, Curly Turkey can you tell me your opinion about my new proposal. "The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000, 300,000 is also confirmed by Chinese government". I think I have got three agreement include myself. What about your opinion. My proposal agree with 300,000 is the official figure but state that also lots of historian agree with this figure. Hence, I write "historian estimates range from 40,000 to 300,000, 300,000 is also confirmed by Chinese government." This include the idea from both side.Miracle dream (talk)
 * "Confirmed" is a huge problem (implying the issue is more-or-less settled), and repeating "300,000" is both inelegant and draws attention to this disputed figure. Also, it's not only scholars but prominent politicians and others who contest it.  How about:
 * A major problem exists in that MiracleDream, you've only invited Wikipedians who are pro-300,000. As Curly Turkey proposed, we will resume this discussion in a week.  40,000-300,000 goes against EVERYTHING me and CurtisNaito said, as well as the general consensus achieved in the earlier discussion.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1.I invite Curly Turkey,Zmflavius and Remotepluto. Really? I know Remotepluto pro-300,000 but Curly Turkey and Zmflavius pro-300,000?Why don't I know this. If Curly Turkey,Zmflavius and Remotepluto all agree this, now we don't need to discuss anymore because I have gotten most of support. I did not invite MtBell but I guess he will support this proposal.In fact, he really supported and left a message? I think you and snorri will not agree with my proposal. Hence, I consider you and snorri(he dislike 40,000) will oppose me. That means two oppose， three support. Now I try to ask Curly Turkey and see whether we can get four support.
 * Actually, Zmflavius was a supporter of the 300,000 figure before CurtisNaito came along and convinced him and others to agree to the 40,000-200,000 estimate. So in reality, you invited two pro-300,000 wikipedians and 1 neutral.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder who will follow everyone's comment and see what he said before and what he said now. Do you think I will read every word in such a long discussion? Actually I don't know what Zmflavius previous supported but I see his neutral opinion. Why do you always give a person a tag? Try to determine this guy is pro-300,000 and this guy is neutral. Everyone can have his own opinion and everyone may change his idea. Someone may change his opinion after some time. Moreover, you cannot give a person definition based on your presume. You say Zmflavius is a pro-300,000. Did you get the agreement from him? But it doesn't matter, the reality is I invite everyone. Not only these three guys, but also other guys. You cannot define they are all pro-300,000. Actually, I really want to know everyone's idea.
 * Also I want to say sorry to Remotepluto. I said you are pro-300,000 before ask you. Now I change my word, based on the comments, Remotepluto is a pro-inclusive. I don't know what the opinion of Zmflavius and Curly Turkey so I ask them. Miracle dream (talk)
 * Never mind. I don't think you mispresented my opinion. And even if you did, my own bad wording would be the first to blame. Also, I guess "pro-inclusiveness" is the correct grammar here, my bad. Remotepluto (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * MiracleDream, by pro-300,000 I mean "wikipedians who think that 300,000 should be the upper estimate." Me saying that Zmflavius and you saying that Remotepluto is NOT putting a label on that person; rather, it is just stating the facts.  You are misrepresenting my words and YOU should ask me for what they mean before interpreting it your way.  Furthrmore, Curly Turkey is a self-proclaimed neutral, as you can see if you read above.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Banzaiblitz, actually, by pro-300,000 I think it means "wikipedians who think that 300,000 should be the upper estimate." I don't know whether they are but in my opinion this definition seems like a label.If the person doesn't care, it is OK but if he dislike, I think it may be a little offensive which need to apologize. I think I did not misunderstand the meaning of pro-300,000 because it seems my definition is the same as yours but maybe my presentation shows a wrong signal. Whatever, you misrepresenting my word. I think YOU should ask me for what they mean before interpreting it your way. By the way, I never read any word which doesn't reply me. This discussion is too long. I will not read it. Hence, I don't know others' idea. Did I miss anything? Miracle dream (talk)
 * You need to brush up on your English a tad bit. Your second sentence directly contradicts the first (You apply a label, then continue to say that labels are bad).  Secondly, nobody has expressed discontent on the "labels" that I gave on the person.  I put "label" in quotes because as I've said, I did NOT put a label on anybody, rather I used an adjective to describe a person.  Huge difference.  Third, this is a problem with your "presentation," not my "misrepresentation."  Obviously, your grammar isn't the best, and like the first and second sentence often times your sentences contradict each other.  Finally, ctrl+f for Curly Turkey to see his replies above.  It's fairly recent, but evidently, you missed it.    Banzaiblitz (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. My English is bad so please don't misrepresent my word before asking me. You misrepresent my word again and again.
 * 2. can we stop this useless topic, Ok? Why do we need to talk about this? I think it wastes our time (my time and your time). 3. I never try to be offensive. When I feel I may offend you, I would apologize as you saw before.This is what I do before. Now I feel I didn't get the respect from you and I feel really offensive. 4. Then I don't say you think that word is a label. I say it seems like a label whatever you think so I hope you don't do that. It just like you always get the totally difference meaning from my word and others my also feel unhappy from your word whatever you think. Hence, you misrepresent again.
 * The main problem is this. You keep on accusing me for "misrepresenting your words" when in reality, it's you that is either saying it wrong, or purposefully blaming it on your "bad english."  Moreover, you went ahead and accused me of putting labels on people, so of course I had to defend myself.  If you understand that part, then we're fine.  Finally, don't say that other people may also feel happy from your word" when you have no proof that says so.  As far as I know, the only person expressing discontent when I said pro-300,000 was you. The underlying problem is this; I was discontent at how you said you invited people from the Japanese and Chinese side, when in reality you only invited people from the Chinese side.  It resulted in me and CurtisNaito, who I didn't even invite, furiously debating many of the pro side, and wasting tons of time.   Banzaiblitz (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will tell you who I invite. I invite editors two times. I invited Boneyard90, Jim1138, Diannaa ‎,Greg723, Towerman, Vocared,MtBell,SyaNHs,Renrevo21,Nickice,XXzoonamiXX,Rebliz and Ghostofnemo. I found these guys from Japanese wiki, Chinese wiki and English which I never contact before. I forget how many I invite but at least three from Japanese wiki. I forget who they are but in my memory， Vocared and SyaNHs are from Japanese page. Can you bet with me? If my list has at least three editors from Japanese wiki, you must apologize to me. If there is not, I will make a apologize. Now go to the Japanese wiki page and check these ID. Watch their English talking page which I have left my message about 5 days ago. I will give you example. This is one editor I invited and the link it's his Japanese User page . This is the message I left on  9 February . Give you another example. The Japanese user page, this guy is history student. This is the invitation message I left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Boneyard90. As I said, I invite at least three from Japanese wiki, three from Chinese wiki and more from English wiki by random. .You cannot blame me that the Japanese editor did not join this discussion. I use the same word to invite all guys to join discussion but I cannot determine who will join. If you continue make libel, I will require you apologize. Then I said"Don't reply again,if you want to ask something ,go to my talk page."You still continue this. You must make apologize to me now.Miracle dream (talk)
 * You keep on going back on your words. You said you didn't invite MtBell, but now you say you did.  Think about this situation from my perspective for a second.  I join this discussion, and suddenly 8 people are dismissing my points as wrong.  How was I supposed to tell otherwise? Now that you actually brought up proof, I apologize, but you needed to be clearer about this the first time you addressed it.  You first said you invited 3 people, then you say you didn't invite MtBell, then you say you invited lots of people, and MtBell is one of them.  Please see this situation from an NPOV as well.  It isn't my duty to ask you what you meant every time you post and to check on your talk page; rather, it's your duty to correctly relay your message every time you submit a post.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, you are really funny. I guess you will need to make an apologize again. Did you really see what I said? I said I invite editors two times，OK? The first time is to invite editors to join this discussion and the second time is to invite editor who joined this discussion before to think about my proposal. I said I did not invite MtBell to see my proposal.That is the second time. I just invite him to join this discussion in the first time but I did not invite him to see my proposal. Hence, who do I invite for my proposal. I invite Curly Turkey,Zmflavius, Remotepluto, sameboat, Yush and Ghostofnemo to see my proposal. Please see my word, I said"I did not invite MtBell but I guess he will agree with my proposal." Actually I did not invite him to see my proposal. Why don't I invite you and snorri? I have considered you and snorri as the opposing vote. Hence I will need at least 4 vote to support my idea. Another question, I warned don't reply me again and I want to stop. I warned if you continue to reply me. I will consider you don't want stop this discussion and you don't want to reboot. Now you must be response for this problem.You should apologize. Miracle dream (talk)
 * I think I'm finally understanding what you're saying now. If you want to stop, then just stop replying.  I'm not keeping you from doing that.  I'd rather you not reply either; then we'll all be happy.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also I want to ask you a question. Are you really a professor? Why are you so offensive? You said you are a professor but you behavior is so rude. I don't want to suspect your claim but please keep your behavior like a professor which you claimed before. Respect others, OK? I never see a professor who will care about how many Chinese and how many Japanese in this discussion. Then I remind you again that I invited at least three Japanese and at least three Chinese.You cannot blame me that the Japanese editor did not join this discussion. I use the same word to invite all guys to join discussion but I cannot determine who will join.Miracle dream (talk)
 * Now stop this useless topic. If you are a professor, don't waste your time and my time in this useless topic.Miracle dream (talk)
 * I cannot really prove it on here, nor will I make the effort to do so. Don't think about me as a professor then.  I'm not getting paid for this; rather I'm doing this in my free time, so don't expect me to be overly polite every time I make a post.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * From you reply, it seems like if you are not a professor, you will not be overly polite every time?
 * I never say I require you to prove you are a professor. I just said if you are a professor, please keep your behavior like a professor. Try to respect others. You behavior is hard to accepted by me. Delete and change others' comment and make me feel offensive. Why do you think everyone need a proof. Then I see you delete your claim but I worry about it will make my comment very strange. Hence, I keep this comment from you. I think you may have the right to delete your comment but you don't have the right delete my comment. Now, Banzaiblitz,this is your claim which you delete " I myself am a Chinese Asian Studies Professor in California; however, I will refrain from exposing my personal views " from Banzaiblitz. It doesn't matter whether I consider you are a professor but the important thing is you should keep your behavior like a professor. I just want you to respect me.Also I feel tried to reply these and don't want to continue. Hey, can you stop? Don't require me to explain everything, ok? Do you really want to reboot this discussion? Miracle dream (talk)
 * As I said, I don't need to be overly polite in a random discussion in the internet. And I honestly don't know why you're trying to provoke further arguments.  Just strikethrough your comment above and you should be fine.  Otherwise, don't reply to this anymore; if you do it means that you support the 40,000-200,000 proposal. Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 5.Now don't reply these words. I think you may misrepresent my word again. Hence before you reply these word, please firstly ask in my talk page and see what the meaning of my words. Now I have remind these to you so if you reply me without asking in my talk page and make some misrepresenting. I will require your apologize. I always respect you. When I offend you, I try to apologize before. Don't let me think this is wrong to respect you.Miracle dream (talk)
 * 2. It is because you and snorri will never agree each other's opinion. You and CurtisNaito think should not be 300,000 but snorri and MtBell will oppose and they will also oppose 40,000. Now 2 vs 2. Zmflavius change his mind and became support 40,000 to 300,000. I change my mind after watching the table from snorri and support 40,000 to 300,000. Now MtBell support my proposal. If you want, I will ask Ghostofnemo, Sameboat and Yaush. Now let's do it. Miracle dream (talk)

‎‎
 * You're ignoring the obvious, and that is we will not receive a consensus in the next few days. Rather, as Curly Turkey proposed, we shall reboot this discussion a week from now.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I will stop here but you should also not reply again. If you continue this useless topic, you should be response for these new useless words.If you reply again, it means you don't want to reboot discussion and want to continue nowMiracle dream (talk)
 * Yes, we should stop arguing about this. It was obviously a misunderstanding.  But don't reply again; if you reply again it means that you accept the 40,000-200,000 proposal.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can say I am pro-300,000. My personal opinion was 100,000-300,000, but seeing the tables of estimates, now I think 40,000-300,000 is a good compromise that I agree with.
 * But I'd like to add that I am also pro-inclusiveness. If someone wants to use 13,000-300,000, or even 0-300,000, I'd also regard those as acceptable to put into Wikipedia. But if someone wants cut the range to, e.g. 40,000-150,000, or 200,000-300,000, I'd disagree. It is easy to have a disagreeing disapproving opinion with on a certain scholar's view, but it would take too much scholarly (as well as, unfortunately, political and rhetorical) effort to make a convincing dismissal of his/her research. So it's better to err on the safer side, i.e. to have more scholars' opinions represented. Remotepluto (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree on the range of zero~300k. The denialism may be fringe (and baseless), their advocacy is usually fiercely retorted by Chinese government which makes it notable to Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I may be in agreement with Sameboat's proposal, to include 0 on the lower end and 300,000 in the upper. However, I (as well as CurtisNaito, I presume) am strongly against the 40,000-300,000 estimate.  I rather we leave it as it is, with 40,000 at the lower end and 200,000 at the higher end.  I have a plethora of evidence that I've already accumulated (and will present a week from now) that will disprove many of Snorri's "scholars." Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

'''As Curly Turkey proposed, we will reboot our discussion again in a week. I have already gathered much information on the topic that will disprove many of the figures on Snorri's table. I maintain a hardline stance that anything above 200,000 is a minority viewpoint, and should be addressed as so. Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)'''

Death toll estimates
We're dismissing the elephant in the room, and that is no Western Scholars have advocated a larger than 200,000 figure. If anybody disagrees, please add to the table below, but do not alter data already given. Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Williamsen was not quoted in page 144 in the book Snorri provided, but rather General Frank Dorn. Frank Dorn is a general, not a historian. Hora Tomio estimated 200,000, not over 200,000. Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The IMFTE estimated up to 200,000, not over. 266,000 is just wrong.  Moreover, The International Military Tribunal of the Far East tallied up to 200,000 victims of the massacre, though in their verdict against General Iwane Matsui this figure was modified somewhat to "upwards of 100,000 people". Banzaiblitz (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. So we're going to continue to aggressively bury the conversation, making it impossible to sort through and determine who believes what or which information is pertinent or has been refuted, and ensure that no new contributors will ever contribute to the discussion.  Good job. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's your new contributor below. Granted, he doesn't know a shred of what he's talking about, but for the record I'm still for your compromise, to wait a week.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Banzaiblitz claims "no Western Scholars have advocated a larger than 200,000 figure". In my understanding "advocate" is a strong word, and scholars, by definition, should not "advocate" for a death toll number, but only support a certain number backed with evidence s/he deemed convincing. So in that sense, it is likely true that no Western scholars, in their serious scholarly capacity, have ever "advocated" for death toll numbers over 200,000, or any number from zero to infinity. But there are, for sure, Western scholars who support estimates greater than 200,000, as listed in the table by Snorri.
 * This made me laugh out loud. I'm being completely honest, milk almost spilled out of my nose.  So thanks for that.  All things considered, great job on not addressing the issue that I brought up, and purposefully finding a way around to not answer it.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can LOL all you want. I was just addressing a wording issue here. It is not appropriate to use "advocate" to describe some scholar supporting some number. Of course, non-scholars, e.g. governments, diplomat, denialists, and even scholars not in their scholarly capacity, can advocate all they want. Remotepluto (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: Denialists are scholars. We just dismiss their viewpoint because they are a fringe minority.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You should not edit my comment here, so I reverted your edit. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments) I don't think denialists are really acting in their scholarly capacity when they are engaging in denialism. But I suggest we just agree that we disagree on this point. Remotepluto (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you (or I) believe denialists are acting in their "scholarly capacity" is besides the point. They're historians, and that qualifies them as scholars.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put my long-winded elaboration of philosophy of science and ethics here. Again, I suggest we just agree to disagree and move on. Remotepluto (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Academic ethics aside, I think Banzaiblitz is giving his table the table he cited much less scrutiny than that he applied to Snorri's. Let me just do some criticizing of his table, in his style: Edgar Snow was not a scholar but a journalist. Kaikosha is a Imperial Japanese Army veterans' group, who commissioned a research of dubious neutrality with the intent of total denial of the Nanking Incident. Frank Capra was a film director and the reference is to a propaganda film which mentioned the number of 40,000 (https://archive.org/details/wwf_the_battle_of_china, around 27:35) with no citation to sources. Many of non-Japanese sub-50,000 estimates can be traced to one single article by Ikuhito Hata, or even worse, to nankingatrocities.net, a website set up by a journalism master's student of Japanese extraction. In terms of credentials of scholarship, I think these entries from tertiary sources were as unreliable as, if not more unreliable than, say the official numbers from the ROC or PRC governments.
 * So I suggest you change it. This ISN'T my table, it's the table agreed on by Wikipedia.  I have no idea what Kaikosha is, and I also agree with you that Frank Capra should not be quoted.  However, you saying that journalists shouldn't be quoted just showcases your ignorance on not just the topic, but history in general.   Furthermore, 40,000 has been repeatedly proven throughout this discussion as a credible estimate.  Read above to see.  Lastly I can see you're inexperienced but for the future, if you are going to claim something that's contested, make sure you cite it.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the misattribution. And the table is merely in Wikipedia, which does not necessarily make it authoritative. On the Edgar Snow topic, I brought this up because you criticized the source Frank Dorn, a general, as not having credentials as a historian. Then what makes Edgar Snow, who was not a historian, and was just reporting from other secondary or tertiary sources (See: http://www.nankingatrocities.net/1990s/nineties_01.htm, just search for "Edgar Snow".), more credible? In my opinion they both have some limited credibility, but one can't say Snow was more reliable than Dorn. Remotepluto (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that it was authoritative. Rather, because it was put together through contributions from numerous Wikipedians, is does make sense for us to reference it, as people have the power to veto/change the entries in the table, whereas Snorri's table solely represents people with estimates over 200,000, which over half of is not even credible, and where Snorri alone has the power to change/add to the table.  If you really don't understand what the difference between a journalist and a general is, and what has more credibility, I suggest you research.  Some of the most valuable estimates of historical events cite journalists, but few, if any, cite Generals.  This is not because generals are less credible per se, but because generals report on instinct to relay the gravity of the situation and not as an analysis of events, while professional journalists are careful in going around and documenting the event to the best of their ability. However, as this is a common misunderstanding in historical research, I do not criticize you for bringing it up. Rather, I applaud you on your inquisitiveness. :D  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Then the Spanish-American War comes to my mind, so it not so convincing to me that the best professional journalism is what always happens in the real world.... Anyway, it doesn't really matter since my point was more on the specificity of this case than generality. Snow was not directly reporting the event first-hand, so his report was just as credible as his source(s). On the other hand, I did a search in Google Books. Immediately after reporting John Rabe's "no less than 42,000" estimate, Snow wrote, "It is estimated that 300,000 civilians were murdered by the Japanese in their march between Shanghai and Nanking, a number roughly equal to the casualties suffered by the Chinese armed forces", again it looks like a second or third hand report. I am not trying to blame or discredit Snow, just saying the primary or secondary sources he had access to was not necessarily more reliable than Dorn's.
 * My bottom line is that Snow and Dorn's numbers should both be seen as valid estimates. Remotepluto (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a journalist, Snow's job is to document events to the best of his ability. As a general, Dorn's job is to report roundabout figures to win battles.  Fundamentally, that's where the difference lies.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey,did you see my proposal? Miracle dream (talk)


 * For the record, nankingatrocities.net is a site that is used as a textbook by Universities around the world, including but not limited to Boston College, University of Washington, University of British Columbia, Australian National University, and even Hong Kong University. It is also cited by the China News Digest, ZDNet, as well as USAToday.  You keep saying "I think that" "I think that," but judging by the references, you thought wrong.  Sorry.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess you confused the words "cite" and "site". That aside, nankingatrocities.net is a pretty good site overall, sorry that I gave it some undue criticism. Remotepluto (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There goes your "nitpicking" again. You understood what I meant.  There's no reason to aggravate other Wikipedians by criticizing every little spelling mistake. Otherwise, thank you for your understanding.  I am a little curious though, when you say "Many of non-Japanese sub-50,000 estimates can be traced to one single article by Ikuhito Hata," what do you mean by that? Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I deleted these statements as it is made into a horrible mess by me. Sorry. Remotepluto (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * All in all, the lazy (and pretty fair) way might be to use the range of 40,000 to 300,000, without the mention of nationalities or reliability of the sources. Or should we can start nitpicking on each table entry, and it's likely lots some of these sub-50,000 figures could will also end up dismissed as biased Japanese advocacy.  Remotepluto (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Nitpicking" "Likely" "I think that" I love this.  Do you know what hypocrisy means?  It means, "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."  You "nitpick" my argument on one word, "advocate," and suddenly I'm the nitpicker.  Do you not see the problem here, or do I need to explain it to you Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider the beam in your own eye before beholding the speck in your brother's. Yeah, you've been nitpicking others' sources all along in the above discussions, making accusations of "falsifying history or not fairly representing", while not applying the same standard of scrutiny to the table and sources you advocated. That said, 'I think' (i.e. I respect your opinion if you don't agree with me, and I don't pretend that my opinion as a fact) nitpicking on sources is actually a good thing. It's just that we could use the same level of academic rigor upon all sources, nitpicking on the sources you like and dislike alike.  Remotepluto (talk) 17:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've repeatedly said, you are completely welcome to "nitpick" (or a better word, "criticize") sources. However, nitpicking every little spelling mistake is completely unnecessary (You use advocate here, too).   Furthermore, I've said repeatedly that that is the table proposed by Wikipedia, so I'm completely fine with you changing the entries on the table, as long as you have an edit summary and a good reason why you did so.  It's not my table, it's the table agreed upon by Wikipedians. So please, go ahead and alter it as you please. Lastly, as I've stated above I want you to qualify this statement, because IMHO it's plain wrong to say, "it's likely lots of these sub-50,000 figures will also end up dismissed as biased Japanese advocacy." Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed it to subjunctive, and rooted out some overly subjective wording. Now it delivers what I meant. Remotepluto (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I roughly agree with the "lazy" solution not because it is "lazy" but because it puts all the details and real controversies aside and presents a simple yet relatively complete summary. I think all the details and controversies can be put into according sections. --Snorri (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the nankingatrocities.net site is also providing an estimate overall résumé on Nanking death toll. It says in its "current estimates" section that:

"It is safe to say that today the majority of historians estimate the death toll of the Nanking Atrocities in the range between 200,000 and 300,000 as claimed by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East or the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal."

I think this is also an important viewpoint on this issue. --Snorri (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Snorri, it's NOT providing an estimate on the death toll. Rather, it is a statement that comes out of the blue that decidedly goes against everything they've said before.  They DON'T cite any historians supporting that estimate those following lines, so we can conclude that that statement was made just to qualify the IMFTE estimate and the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal figure, or something of that sort.  That being said, let's wait a week.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. As per WP:SYNTH, you cannot make conclusion C using sources A and B, this is exactly the problem I have with "though mainstream historians concur that this estimate is exaggerated." The conclusion of "mainstream" is synthesized from Wikipedians' deduction (many historians agree on the range of 40k~200k, thus it is a mainstream opinion), which constitutes original research. On the other hand, you can't deny a source (Nanking Atrocities) that is being heavily cited by other institutes even if its conclusion contradicts yours. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The conclusion of "mainstream historians supporting 40,000-200,000" is actually not synthesized from Wikipedian's deduction. Rather, it is the range that Bob Wakabayashi, a Canadian-based historian and professor, proposes.  Wakabayashi is specialized in this field and has written peer-reviewed work about the massacre.  He supports a range of 40,000 to 200,000, did cite his sources, provided a breakdown, and is a credentialed and well-regarded scholar who made an effort to reach a scholarly consensus. Moreover, scholars who reviewed Wakabayashi's work generally concurred with his proposed consensus. An article in the Electronic Journal of Contemporary Japanese Studies called it "the most careful and thoroughly empirical analysis of the death count to date". Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made this point already. It was quickly and thoroughly buried in a mountainrange of text.  Do we not see yet why this discussion needs to be rebooted? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. We need to wait a week for everybody to ease up.  Banzaiblitz (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ：Hey,Sameboat, did you see my proposal? Miracle dream (talk)

Current Figure table of death toll estimates from editors
This is from Snorri.

This is from Wikipedia's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_death_toll_for_the_Nanking_Massacre This is from Banzaiblitz but he think this got agreement from some wikipedian Ok, but I need to state a fact that this article was edited by five three four wikipedian, "Lionmans account, Banzaiblitz, CurtisNaito and Zmflavius" who still continue to discuss this figure in this discussion. It is fairly for both table. I think put two tables in the same section is easy to compare.Also based on wiki rule, everybody can change that article if you have reliable source.The second table is from that article 2/16/2014 Also, nobody can change the two tables except the editor who create the table. Only Snorri can change the first table and Banzaiblitz can change the second .) but you can add new figure or table by yourself.Or can add new proposal. Please don't debate in this section. I create this section for adding figures so that everyone can see the figure from different sources. If you want to debate,please in other section. This section can be only used to add figure. Miracle dream (talk) Now based on the comment (permission) from Banzaiblitz, everybody can change table two because it is the table on the official death toll estimates page. Also, there are lots of dispute for these two table. If you want to see the debate about these two table, please see the previous discussion. The only purpose for this section is to show the figures from different editors. As I stated, nobody can debate here. If you want to debate something,please debate in other sections. I hope everyone can see these two tables and see the previous discussion or debate and give an opinion for this. I will wait for two days.Miracle dream (talk)
 * Don't put my name in this. This is not the table that I proposed, it's a table that wikipedians agreed on. Banzaiblitz (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Banzaiblitz, from your comment, I don't know whether anybody else can change the table. I say nobody can change except you,you delete. I say everybody can change and you also delete. Hence, can you tell me whether others can change the second table.

WE SHALL RESTART THIS DISCUSSION IN A MORE ORGANIZED FASHION A WEEK FROM NOW (Saturday February 22, 2014, 00:00 UTC)
The proposal I prefer to is "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000". This contains all major claim from each side and the figure from previous two tables. I also recommend to add figures from snorri's table in the article "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre".I hope editors join this discussion can think about this proposal. However, it seems nobody wants to continue this discussion after a week break.Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * Not mentioning that 300,000 is the official figure is totally unacceptable, for the very reason that it is highly publicized and, well, official. The very difinition of notable. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000; the latter is also the official Chinese figure". I think this will be OK. Chinese government is not the first one to set death toll as the 300,000. Actually this figure exited before 1949 when Chinese government established. Chinese government just accepted this figure as the official. Miracle dream (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2014‎
 * Yeah, whatever, that kind of thing belongs in the body, obviously. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I means change from the current lead contents "The number of deaths is contested among scholars, whose estimates range from 40,000 to 200,000. However, the position of the Chinese government and that of a minority of scholars is that 300,000 or more were killed, " to "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000; the latter is also the official Chinese figure" From the tables above, we cannot consider 300,000 is minority of scholar believed so we cannot stress "the position of Chinese government" and "minority of scholars"in the lead section. This is unfair. Moreover it is not the minority of scholar.I will not accept current statement in leading section. Miracle dream (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014‎
 * Also, it seems you agree with adding figures from snorri's table in the article "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre". In this article, lots of figures come from Japanese Scholar. None of them comes from Chinese scholar except a figure "Chinese government". It is obviously biased.Miracle dream (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014‎
 * Just to make myself clear once again—all I care about is well-written prose that also reflects the consensus on the numbers reached here. My only contribution to the consensus making is the insistence that the official figure is present and labeled as official. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence, if the statement like this "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000; the latter is also the official Chinese figure". You will agree with this, right?Miracle dream (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2014‎


 * I'd like to provide several qualified scholars' scholarly summary of death toll numbers from others' researches review articles describing previous researches, that I've found during the week. I'll provide excerpts from their work:
 * First, there are two scholars who summarized different school of thoughts by Japanese authors.
 * 1. Yamamoto, Masahiro (2000, Praeger), Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity. ISBN: 978-0275969042. Page 254, Chart 7.1. (Note that Japanese names are written in a family-name first, given-name second manner.)
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!Chart 7.1 Rape of Nanking Controversy in Japan: Schools and Their Opinions ! School !! Number of Victims !! Personalities
 * Extreme Traditionalists || 300,000 or more || Honda Katsuichi, Fujiwara Akira
 * Moderate Traditionalists || 150,000 - 300,000 || Hora Tomio
 * Traditionalist Centrists || 38,000 - 42,000 || Hata Ikuhiko
 * Revisionist Centrists || 10,000 - 20,000 || Itakura Yoshiaki
 * Moderate Revisionists || 50 - 7,000 || Editors of Kaiko series
 * Extreme Revisionists || 50 || Tanaka Masaaki
 * }Remotepluto (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Askew, David. New Research on the Nanjing Incident, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Article ID 1729.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
 * Moderate Revisionists || 50 - 7,000 || Editors of Kaiko series
 * Extreme Revisionists || 50 || Tanaka Masaaki
 * }Remotepluto (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 2. Askew, David. New Research on the Nanjing Incident, The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, Article ID 1729.
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

!Table 1. The number of Chinese ‘victims’ in and around Nanjing: The three schools as defined by Shokun! and Askew ! Source !! Illusion School !! Middle-of-the-Road School !! Great Massacre School
 * Shokun! || 0-50 || Several thousand - 20,000 || 100,000 - 200,000 plus
 * Askew || 0 - 10,000 || 20,000 - 42,000 || 100,000 - 200,000 plus
 * }Remotepluto (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And then there's a more generalized summation:
 * 3. Matsusaka, Yoshihisa Tak (2002), The American Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 2. Page 525.
 * And then there's a more generalized summation:
 * 3. Matsusaka, Yoshihisa Tak (2002), The American Historical Review, Vol. 107, No. 2. Page 525.

"".... At the same time, his [Note: Yamamoto Masahiro's] analysis places him at odds with "traditionalist" Japanese scholars, as well as a majority of Chinese and Western writers, who argue for a far larger scale of slaughter that took the lives of between 100,000 and 400,000 defenseless victims.""


 * Hope this helps. IMHO the 200,000+ (up to 300,000) numbers should not be excluded in the range, since there are well-qualified scholars who do not exclude them in review articles. Remotepluto (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, you see my suggestion to rewrite article"Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre". We cannot ignore all sources from Chinese scholars but accept all figures from Japanese scholars. This is really a biased thing.Then I found this article only select the figure below 200,000 and ignore the figures 300,000 even lots of them from western and Japanese sources. I just recommend to add the figures from snorri's table to this article and maybe add more figures from different kinds of sources.Miracle dream (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014‎
 * Then I stated again I think "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000; the latter is also the official Chinese figure" in leading section can be accepted by all editors. This statement also satisfies Curly Turkey'S requirement. Ok, this is all I want to say today and I leave now. I will check this discussion tomorrow and maybe continue to discuss tomorrow.Miracle dream (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014‎


 * I support Miracle dream's proposal. Curly Turkey's suggestion of emphasizing 300,000 being the Chinese official position sounds reasonable in some extent. However, noticing that Curly Turkey has strongly questioned the Chinese government's credit in an earlier discussion:

"The Chinese government is infamous for inflating or otherwise distorting numbers, and is also infamous for agitating their people against the Japanese. ... CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)"


 * one may have good reason to suspect if Curly Turkey's proposal is suggesting that the 300,000 estimate is unreliable, especially when the current edition puts the Chinese official position and the denialist's POV together in one sentence.
 * I suggest that we add one sentence to quote the official positions of China and Japan after Miracle dream's proposal to avoid any possibility of ambiguity:

"The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000. The Chinese government gives an estimate of 300,000 or more, while the Japanese government has no inclination to any estimate."


 * --MtBell 11:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you "suspect" Curly Turkey of something, then quit the innuendo and spit it out already. Let everyone know what sinister scheme you believe is up Curly Turkey's sleeve. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Either way, the prose is poor, and if you think I'm "emphasizing" the Chinese number, what do you think stating 300,000 twice in rapid succession does? Try: "The latter is also the official Chinese figure, while there is no official count in Japan." Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So we are agreed to state both the Chinese and Japanese official positions in the lead. I think we are very close to a consensus. Your wording looks fine to me. Let's just wait for others' comments. --MtBell 12:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I update the proposal as follows

"The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000. The latter is also the official Chinese figure, while there is no official count in Japan."


 * --MtBell 12:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking a position on whether the Japanese side should be represented in the lead—I'll leave that, and the range, to consensus. The Chinese figure must be there, not because of its reliability (or not), but because of its level of notability, as an official figure that has been held for generations, and that has generated considerable controversy.  Other than that I'm mainly concerned with the quality of the prose, and how well it reflects consensus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Japan's official position is as notable as China's, for Japan is the country who committed Nanking Mmassacre. --MtBell 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I can accept this proposal and I require to rewrite "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre" article.The things I will not accept is to consider 300,000 is the figure supported by "minority of scholars".Miracle dream (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2014‎
 * I think consensus achieved in main articles are well recognized in sub articles. You can modify Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre based on the consensus.
 * If a consensus is made to accept the latest proposal which includes scholars' estimates as well as official positions of China and Japan, I think we can just remove "However, the position of the Chinese government and that of a minority of scholars is that 300,000 or more were killed" from the article. First, there is no need to address China's official position twice in one paragraph. Second, since we are going to accept "40,000-300,000" as a majority POV, it is inappropriate to describe any estimate within that range as a minority. --MtBell 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Under no circumstances can the long-standing, officially held, widely publicized, and openly contested official figure of the Chinese government not be explicitly stated in the lead as the official Chinese figure. It is the very definition of notable.  As there is no "official position" of Japan, whether Japan's lack of position should be mentioned will be left to consensus. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think "Japan's lack of position" is a tricky statement and would rather leave it out. It's hard to prove a negative, it looks very forced, and it's borderline original research, unless someone gives a reliable secondary/tertiary source supporting it. Remotepluto (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Remotepluto and Miracle Dream, in that the range should be from 40,000-200,000, but the "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre" needs to be updated with more sources representing the 200,000+ figure. The wording of the second statement after the range is still up in the air, but I do recommend stating the 300,000 figure since it is the position of the Chinese government, and if we were to include the revisionist standpoint, to state the government position first. Kamakatsu (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Miracle dream's proposal is "from 40,000 to over 300,000". And just to mention that above is User:Kamakatsu's first edit in enwp. --MtBell 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you mentioning this? Is it with the intent of welcome a new user? Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment below. --MtBell 21:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Are new users not allowed to participate in talk page discussions?  Reading the rules, I don't think it says anything against that, but if there is, sorry, and please let me know. Kamakatsu (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All users are allowed to participate in discussions. That is the fundamental spirit of Wikipedia. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * New users are most welcome to join this discussion to achieve a wider consensus. But Banzaiblitz was just confirmed of socking (see Sockpuppet investigations/Banzaiblitz/Archive), we need to make sure no one uses sockpuppets here. I will apologize if I am wrong. --MtBell 21:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, not wanting to add to the animosity here, but I didn't say anywhere that the range should be 40,000-200,000. I support 40,000-300,000 as the range, the language may need improvement though. Edited Remotepluto (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, can you accept my proposal? If so, I want to start a change. I think the debate is totally useless. We have show all figures from each side. There are no new figure can be offered. If this can be accepted, I don't want to continue the endless debate to waste time. I just want a voteMiracle dream (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2014‎
 * As in my tables quoted above, three scholars with Japanese background (two ethnic Japanese and another an Australian professor in Ritsumeikan Univ. in Japan) acknowledged that there are significant opinions (minority or not, but not ignorable nonetheless) of more than 200,000 that exist outside China and Chinese communities (i.e. in Japan and the West), and thus should not be presented, explicitly or implicitly, as China-only or Chinese-only. Also, even "Chinese government" is a little vague here, since both PRC and ROC goverments have/had positions on this, although both did actually put it at or above 300,000. Remotepluto (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting aside that Matsusaka Yoshihisa is not a historian, There is a logical fallacy here. He said that "majority of Chinese and Western writers, who argue for a far larger scale of slaughter that took the lives of between 100,000 and 400,000 defenseless victims."  If the majority of scholars argue between 100,000 and 200,000, Yoshihisa's statement still stands true.  He is not advocating a 100,000-400,000 range; rather he is stating that the majority of historians guess within that figure, which is exactly what Bob Wakabayashi claims in his text.  Kamakatsu (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For Matsusaka, Associate Prof. of History of Wellesley college, please see: http://www.wellesley.edu/history/faculty/matsusaka, and also note that his review article was published in the American History Historical Review, the top journal of history as ranked by Times Higher Eductaion (See: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/top-20-journals-in-history/414798.article). I'd trust the editorial oversight and peer-review process of a reputable academic journal over any Wikipedian's judgment, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Remotepluto (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My bad about the qualification, Sorry. That's why I didn't blatantly state it.  However, and more importantly, my point still stands.  Kamakatsu (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. But I have a semantic problem here with the word "majority". The estimates are essentially a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, and the word "majority" doesn't work well unless we are to be more inclusive. Let me elaborate on this with hypothetical examples:
 * In the situation of simple dichotomy, i.e., a yes-or-no question, "majority" rule works pretty well. Suppose (i.e. I do not hold them to be real) 60% of Japanese scholars agree that "Nanking Massacre happened" while the other 40% disagree, it's fair and square to say "a majority of Japanese scholars agree that Nanking Massacre happened, while a significant minority disagree".
 * Whereas, when there's a continuum, both sides can game the word "majority" to bias the statement to their advantage. Let us suppose the lower 50% of the estimates goes from 0 - 80,000, while the other 50% goes from 80,001 to 450,000, it's technically correct to say either: (1) "a majority (maybe 60%) of scholars estimate the number of victims to be in the range of 0 - 90,000", or (2) "a majority of scholars estimate the number of victims to be from 70,001 - 450,000". You see the problem with the word "majority" here? It doesn't eliminate biases, especially when the "majority" refers to "just a little over 50%". One way to eliminate, or at least reduce the bias, is to be more inclusive, as I suggested before. If we enlarge the range from 60% to 90%, we can probably say: (3) "a majority of scholars estimate the number to be from 0 - 350, 000", or (4) "a majority of scholars estimate the number to be from "5,000 - 450,000". You can see that (3) and (4), while also technically correct, are still biased, but much less so than (1) and (2).
 * Philosophical discussions aside, I don't have the scholarly prowess to dig out every scholarly estimate and make a fair range (e.g. the middle 60% or 90%), and even if I do, that's my original research (WP:NOR) which should not be put into Wikipedia. Therefore we should defer to established scholars, and entrust the judgment to the editors and peer-reviewers of reputable journals and publishing houses. And to lessen the possible biases by these scholars (they can be biased and still be respectable scholars), IMHO we should be more inclusive. Remotepluto (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * On a second note, I just saw Snorri's table, but some of the sources referenced have reason for question. For one, he lists Marvin Williamsen, but if you look at the source itself, there is no reference to his estimate whatsoever.  It only lists General Frank Dorn's estimate, which as a general and not as a historian/scholar, should not be accounted for.  Second, Hora Tomio's estimate is "up to 200,000" (not over 200,000) as referenced in Masaaki Tanaka's "What Really Happened In Nanking: The Refutation of a Common Myth" and Takashi Yoshida's "The Making of the "Rape of Nanking"".   The 1967 book by Tomio himself, Kindai Senshi no Nazo ("Riddles of Modern War History"), state that "up to 200,000" is his estimate.  Finally, the IMFTE never actually gave a death toll estimate, and only state what estimates at a later date conclude.  Furthermore, the IMFTE revised its statement in the verdict against General Iwane Matsui, modifying the figure to say "upwards of 100,000 people."  As I'm beginning to look into the other sources on the table, more and more seem to be falsified/misrepresented.  I encourage you to do the same.  I will present the fruit of my research soon. Kamakatsu (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read a Chinese translation of Tomio Hora's book (I believe translated from the Japanese version of 『南京大虐殺 決定版』（現代史出版会、1982年）). On page 199 of the Chinese version, Hora's summary statement was "不下于二十万人", safely translated to "no less than 200,000". I hope someone can provide a verbatim quotation in English/Japanese version of the book. Remotepluto (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I'm not mistaken (different versions, different pages) at that part he references that the prisoners of war amount to no less than 200,000. Kamakatsu (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do see a problem with the Wikipedia estimates table as well. Frank Dorn Capra is a film producer, and most likely did no research on the topic, so I vote that his estimate be removed from the estimates page.  Kamakatsu (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The film producer was Frank Capra, no Frank Dorn, and I think we can agree to safely dismiss Frank Capra. On the other hand, Frank Dorn was an American soldier (note that he was not a general until 1943. See: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/frank-dorn.htm) that later got into WW2 history writing. His book was published by Macmillan, a reputable publisher, and thus should be deemed as a reliable source per Wikipedia standards (See: WP:SOURCE). Also, there have been plenty of military men who made important historical writings: Julius Caesar wrote Bello Gallico, and some soldiers turned into important historians, from Ammianus Marcellinus to Winston Churchill. Therefore IMHO one's soldiery shouldn't be used as a reason to disqualify him as a reliable source. Remotepluto (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that Frank Dorn got into historical writing later; however the statement that he made was when he was a soldier. If he continued to become a historian then all statements made after he became one are statements that should be recognized. However, statements made before that can be safely dismissed as "non-scholarly," and should not be discussed academically.  Kamakatsu (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * John Rabe is not a historian in that time. From you word, we can ignore his opinion right?Miracle dream you still need to delete the comment you claim Remotepluto agree with "40,000 to 200,000". This is a misrepresenting. Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * This sentence is akin to claiming that the Chinese Government is not a historian. John Rabe was the chief establisher of the Nanking Safety Zone and part of the International Committee.  That more than qualifies him as a "significant viewpoint." Kamakatsu (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, hence, John Rabe is not historian. It is the same whoever he is. If you think Frank Dorn is not historian in that time, you will not accept his opinion. I will do the same thing fairly.
 * If your logic was true, then I don't understand why we're having this discussion at all. By your logic, both of us have just as much credibility as John Rabe.  Kamakatsu (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was not a mere testimony as a soldier. He wrote it in a book in 1974 published by Macmillan. Plus, we should stick to Wikipedia standards regarding sources. Remotepluto (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He indeed references it, but in the next paragraph he qualifies it by saying that this figure was said to provide a "rough estimate" according to "people fleeing the scene," not as his own estimate. Kamakatsu (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not read his book, but from what you paraphrase I surmise that he summarized the accounts from "people fleeing the scene" and gave this number, which stands as his own, albeit rough, estimate. Problem is, self-admitted roughness is not a valid reason to summarily reject this study. Actually, with the lack/loss of records, people who experienced the event dying out, and hyperbole and whitewashing in testimonies from either side, probably the estimate has to stay "rough" until a time machine is invented. Frank Dorn honestly qualified his statements, whereas many of the other authors from both sides were not willing to admit the roughness in their studies. We shouldn't punish Frank for his frankness (pun intended), which is a virtue that some others might not have. Again, we should stick to Wikipedia standards for reliable sources (WP:SOURCE), per which Frank Dorn's book qualifies (and I think most of the sources in the tables here qualify), and refrain from imposing too much personal judgement. Remotepluto (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He explicitly states that it should be taken with a grain of salt. He states (in the succeeding paragraph to his quote), "However, as this was a rough estimate that I gathered from people fleeing the scene, it should not be discussed within academic circles."  I guess we should just agree to disagree about this, as I think it's pointless trying to belabor a single point (By your logic, we would have to include Frank Capra as well, I personally think that we should remove both of them, if you don't mind).  I agree with you in that some of these estimates were indeed rough; however the estimates made that referenced burial records and actual field surveys should be taken, as Bob Wakabayashi says, superlative to other estimates, particularly those referencing "contemporary eyewitnesses." Kamakatsu (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to call out User:Kamakatsu for misrepresenting sources. He contends that Frank Dorn admitted that the 200,000 estimate "gathered from people fleeing the scene", and "should not be discussed within academic circles". Seeing this, I searched for "fleeing the scene" and "academic circles" in the two relevant books (The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-41: From Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor, Macmillan, 1974, ISBN 9780025322004, and China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937-1945, M.E. Sharpe, 1992, ISBN 9780765636324) in Google Books, and no such phrases came up. I'd also provide two screenshots (See: http://imgur.com/a/TGfvr) showing the relevant part of the book, where no such statements as he "quoted" exist. Fabricating quotes from sources is a serious transgression on Wikipedia and such disruptive behavior should not be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remotepluto (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, can you accept my proposal? Miracle dream (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2014‎
 * At first, Remotepluto never said he supported range from "40,000 - 200,000" . I will ask his idea. The figures he offered contains 300,000 which comes from Japanese source. I checked his comments in last week. One of his comment in last week is like this "My personal opinion was 100,000-300,000, but seeing the tables of estimates, now I think 40,000-300,000 is a good compromise that I agree with." He support "40,000 to 300,000" before but I don't know whether he changed his mind. Maybe yes,maybe no. Whatever, you cannot say he support range "40,000 to 200,000" before you ask him. I also put his opinion as unknown but I hope he can represent his opinion of this. Then I said I would not accept to consider 300,000 as the figure of minority of scholars. How do you get the conclusion that I support range from "40,000 to 200,000"? Don't misrepresent my comment. At last, I have a question. I am sorry to say these but I wonder whether you are Banzaiblitz. I see he was blocked so he cannot use his previous ID to join this. If you are, I hope you can claim that. Because the consensus of the people is important, I want to avoid the situation that someone forge a consensus. Hence, I hope you can claim whether you are new or another ID of Banzaiblitz.Miracle dream (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014‎


 * Miracle dream & MtBell: The agreement is that none of us would complicate this discussion or feed animosity by bringing up what has been said in previous discussions. You've both violated this already.  Quit it, and please strike out your inappropriate comments. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't break this rule. I just say Remotepluto never said he supported range"40,000 to 200,000". Please see my comment, I said that  I also put his (Remotepluto) opinion as unknown but I hope he can present his opinion of this. Hence, I never talked about what his opinion is. I just said you should ask him before you represent others' comment. You cannot just stare at my behavior and ignore someone misrepresent others' comments. The thing I tried to do is to avoid someone misrepresent others' opinion. You say I break the rule from the agreement last week but misrepresenting break the rule of wiki. I hope you can fairly see behavior of each side. Then I see Kamakatsu talked about snorri's table so I think I just do the same thing as him. He firstly bring up sonrri's table in discussion. Snorri's table is his previous comment.He cannot bring up this table again. Actually last week, I just agree with reboot after one week. I opposed not to bring up comments in previous discussion but ok, I delete the comment I quote. At last, we cannot forge a consensus so I hope he can claim whether he is  another ID of Banzaiblitz or new one. Otherwise, everyone can register lots of ID and make hundreds IDs support his opinion. If that, this discussion will be more complicated. I guess you will also dislike this situation happened. Miracle dream (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014‎
 * I never knew that we couldn't refer to previous examples. Sorry about that.  It was right above the restart and you said you wanted to keep those tables for reference, so honestly I just wanted to check those sources out.  That being said, as long as we are restarting this discussion, I think that there is no evidence (so far) to include the 300,000 figure in the range.  The de facto figure that we have now has a multitude of sources attached to it, including an analysis by Bob Wakabayashi, an esteemed historian that specializes in this topic.  He proposes the figure of 40,000-200,000.  Furthermore, Masahiro Yamamoto, author of "Nanking: Anatomy of an Atrocity" references Ikuhiko Hata, another specialist in this topic, who concludes that 300,000 is a "symbolic figure" representative of China's wartime suffering and not a figure to be taken literally.  It's no doubt a significant figure (as Curly Turkey says, it HAS to be included in the lead), but I am against putting it in the range especially when "the majority of mainstream scholars" (According to Bob Wakabayashi's text) reject this. Kamakatsu (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you see my comment before? Can you claim whether you are new or another ID of Banzaiblitz? Everyone in this discussion can only have a single identification. If you are Banzaiblitz, I will consider you are him. I say I welcome everyone include Banzaiblitz in this discussion whoever they are. But everyone should have a single identification. Another thing, you should delete "Remotepluto" as the one "40,000 to 200,000" in your previous comment because he now claims he support "40,000 to 300,000".Hence nobody in your comment support "40,000 to 200,000"Miracle dream (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014‎
 * If you didn't get the hint, I am not Banziblitz. I tried to ignore it, but I do not know why you keep on accusing me of being him when I'm supplying you with bountiful evidence on the topic at hand.  Please see my comment above and reply academically, instead of accusing me of impersonation.  Thanks! Kamakatsu (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey. I don't know whether I understand what you opinion. Based on my understanding， the things you opposed for MtBell's proposal is whether to put the official position of Japan. If this is not my misunderstanding, I think we can firstly put the "The number of deaths is actively contested: most scholars' estimates range from 40,000 to over 300,000. The latter is also the official Chinese figure" to replace current statement. Then we can continue to discuss whether to put a position of Japanese government. I don't know Remotepluto's opinion but when he make comment here, I will ask him. I just oppose the claim "300,000 is from "minority of scholars". " Miracle dream (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2014‎
 * I neither support nor oppose the inclusion of Japan's position in the lead. I'm leaving that issue to the rest of you to decide. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please justify how the "300,000" figure is NOT from a "minority of scholars." With a mountain range of text that says otherwise, I am curious to hear your opinion.  Kamakatsu (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We can solve this step by step. I think we are very close to a consensus on the range of the victims. If this consensus is achieved, I think we can modify related sentences first. Then we will move on to Japan's official position in the following subsection. --MtBell 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see Remotepluto's new comment. If I did not misunderstand what he said, he seems to support "40,000 to 300,000" which is also supported by me. MtBell also support this figure. If I didn't misunderstand Curly Turkey, he opposed to add the Japanese government position but is neutral for the range "40,000 to 300,000". Hence, at least, I think we can reach a consensus for the figure range "40,000 to 300,000". If this is true and I did not misunderstand, I will change the leading section based on current discussion. I will wait one hour for this. I hope we can solve the range problem first and talk about other problem latter(rewrite article "Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre" and dispute of Japanese government position.). Actually, the range problem is all I want to discuss.Miracle dream (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2014‎
 * I think that this is a huge change to the status quo, and should NOT be changed until we reach a consensus. Furthermore, there are only four people in this thread as of now; judging by the book you guys wrote above, I'm sure there are a lot more wikipedians who would want to contribute to this topic.  As I've said, somebody has yet to provide valuable source on why we would need to include the 300,000 figure. Kamakatsu (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, did you see my comment before? Can you claim whether you are new or another ID of Banzaiblitz? Everyone in this discussion can only have a single identification. If you are Banzaiblitz, I will consider you are him. I say I welcome everyone include Banzaiblitz in this discussion whoever they are. But everyone should have a single identification. Another thing, you should delete "Remotepluto" as the one "40,000 to 200,000" in your previous comment because he now claims he support "40,000 to 300,000".Hence nobody in your comment support "40,000 to 200,000" 23:15, 22 February 2014‎
 * Sorry, I didn't see your claim. Just ignore this comment but you still need to delete the comment you claim Remotepluto agree with "40,000 to 200,000". This is a misrepresenting. Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * Whatever, there are at least three support and only one opposed. Other will not oppose this. Hence, I think this proposal get more support. The current sentence in leading section is based on more support and one opposed. For the same way, we can consider this get most of support. Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * Miracle dream: Please stop trying to rush the discussion. It will not come to a close after only a single day.  Also, please stop asking if Kamakatsu is Banzaiblitz.  There's an investigation underway—if he is Banzaiblitz, he'll likely be caught; if he's not, then this is not the right place to talk about it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey (gobble) It is necessary to ask his identification. Because if he is, that means someone can use multiple IDs.If I register lots of ID in this discussion, what you will think about? I just ask him to claim whether he is. It means I hope he can claim he is new ID. As you see,when he claim he is new one, I did not ask him again. OK? Also, I wonder you say if he is, he will be likely caught. Hence how do you make sure this? Also, I did not rush the discussion, I just ask others' opinion. I wait your opinion a long time. I want to make sure, you will not at least oppose the range "40,000 to 300,000". right? I hope you can answer this.
 * Also I have some question to you. Are you an administrator? If so, why you ignore Kamakatsu misrepresent others' comment and bring up others' previous comment but just blame me bring up previous comment.Even now his comment is still misrepresenting Remotepluto's comment and never try to change.
 * Also, you say you will not close this discussion in a single day. There are two problem for this. The first one is in fact this discussion continue two weeks not a single day and this discussion is started by me. Hence, I ask whether you are the administrator because I wonder why you can decide when to close it. The second problem is, I didn't say I try to close this discussion. I said we can reach a consensus step by step. I just want to get the first consensus and continue to discuss. We will not be close this.
 * The last question is now you will not close the discussion in one single day. Hence, I want to ask how many days you will keep this discussion? Also what kind of consensus you will satisfy? If there is one or two person never agree the opinion of majority editors, how to deal with this for consensus? Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * MiracleDream, I understand your intent, but what Curly Turkey is trying to say (If I interpreted it right) is that this isn't the place to talk about it. Talk to me about it on my talk page or someplace else, just not the talk page for the Nanking Massacre (Irrelevant), where you've mentioned it multiple times.  Secondly, he's not deciding to when to close it.  Rather, he's expressing discontent at you for saying "I will wait one hour for this."  He's saying that the discussion will come to close at an appropriate time, not when you say so.  Kamakatsu (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * At first, when you answer my question, I never say it again. Hence, I totally understand this is not the place. I asked multiple time because you answer multiple question of me and just ignore the most important one. Moreover, you also ignore the requirement that I require you not to misrepresent others' words. Actually I ask you to claim you are a new one is a really better way for you. I try to stand in your position and I get a conclusion is should have claim to stop others' suspect. I give you a chance to claim your identification. You should thanks me for this ,right? Whatever, this is not the place to say thanks. Also, I never say I will not accept you to discuss here. See my previous comment, I said I welcome everyone include Banzai here. Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * Sorry for causing suspicion. I wasn't aware of a "requirement" either, I'll make sure to watch out for them next time. And I'm not sure what I have to thank you for, but thanks.  As Curley Turkey has stated, the intent of this reboot was to make it "easier to understand."  If my apology here and thanks will stop this meaningless, irrelevant discussion, then I'm more than glad to do so.  Kamakatsu (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Miracle dream: I am not an admin, and I didn't say anything about me closing the discussion. The discussion will continue until everyone involved agrees that a consensus has been reached.  Whether Kamakatsu is Banzaiblitz or not is something that is being investigated (here: Sockpuppet investigations/Banzaiblitz/Archive).
 * Also, Miracle dream, this discussion was rebooted to make it easier to understand and to encourage more people to participate. It's becoming increasingly difficult because your comments are so long and frequent, and your comments often have nothing to do with the discussion.  Please keep your comments short and on topic. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Curly Turkey (gobble).It seems you said the consensus should be everyone agree with this. OK, that make me really confusing. If most of editors reach a consensus but one or two never agree with this. How do we deal with this? Also, I check the discussion, the previous consensus is made when MtBell still oppose this. Why can you make a consensus when someone did not agree with this and now tell me we should get the permission from everyone? This is totally two standard in the same discussion.I did not see any decision is made by permission for everybody in the world. People always use vote to decide something. Now you say we need everyone's permission. Do you means whenever we got consensus and suddenly a new editor say I cannot accept, we will restart this discussion? If so, I will promise we will never make a consensus.Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * I didn't participate in the previous discussion so my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, but I do believe that the previous consensus was reached through 6-days of constant discussion among 11 participants with only 1 dissenter. By contrast, this discussion isn't a day old and only 4 people have contributed so far. Furthermore, the majority of this discussion is NOT related to the topic.  I won't name names, but please keep irrelevant discussion to a minimum.  Kamakatsu (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This question is what I ask Curly Turkey.I did not ask you about this. If you did not join the previous discussion, please do not break my question. I don't need your answer because you are not the one in previous discussion. I also clear one fact. There may be 11 participants but it is not 11 participants to agree with this. Only 4 or 5 agree with this and two oppose. Actually, three oppose this but the third one snorri joined latter.Hence I consider 2 oppose. Someone even say this consensus is misrepresent his opinion. I will also state that I will not accept any range without 300,000 as the upper limit. Don't misrepresent my word.Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * I see Mt. Bell as the only dissenter; who else was against the consensus made above? Kamakatsu (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I start this discussion and you are the new one. You can believe that I realize more detail than you and you missed something. Also, I ask this question to Curly Turkey and wait his answer.You cannot answer this instead of him. Whatever there is less than 5 to agree with and two of them said they have changed their mind. Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎

Seriously, are we gong to need to reboot the reboot? This is all totally embarrassing and unproductive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Curly Turkey (gobble)OK, I will talk my clue. At first, you require a consensus for everyone's agreement not the public vote. I must be the one of them. Based on this, the consensus must have my agreement. Hence, I put my claim I will not accept any range without 300,000 as the upper bound and not accept to consider 300,000 as the figures of minority scholar based on each figure from the tables. It is just like you comment that you will not accept to change leading section without mention Chinese government.I don't see any difference between you and me. ''' I can wait for vote but you tell me the consensus will not be determined by vote and it must be agreed with everyone just like League of Nations in World War II. I will say it is impossible.''' Miracle dream (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2014
 * Jesus Christ, Miracle dream. Statements such as "I don't need your answer because you are not the one in previous discussion" are totally reprehensible.  This discussion was rebooted to make it easier for other editors to join in—do not exclude anyone.  And for Christ's sake everyone, stop talking about the last discussion.
 * Jesus Christ, Curly Turkey (gobble)Because you are the one who think we need to get the permission from everyone. I need you response for this thing. No matter what he answers, it cannot be instead of your opinion. My God, do you think he can stand your opinion? Moreover, don't misrepresent my comment.He is not the previous one and talk about lots of previous discussion what I don't want to talk. I never want to make this discussion endless. The problem is you say we need to get permission for everyone not the vote. That will make the discussion become endless. Just give me a solution if most of people support one thing, one or two oppose this. How to deal with this. Oh Jesus. If you insist everyone should agree with this no matter how many they are, I will say things become really easy. Agreement from everyone means you must have my permission. What I need to say is I will not accept a range without 300,000 as the upper limit and I will not accept this discussion closed or reboot without convincing me. That's all.  Miracle dream (talk) 07:59, 22 February 2014‎
 * Miracle dream: You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, and you are being disruptive. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I change some kind of my word to avoid aggressive. I want to say make a consensus which is accepted by everyone is impossible. The general way is to vote.  I keep my previous claim and I will not accept something just like you claim you will not accept statement without government. Miracle dream (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2014
 * Another thing is I found you misunderstand my comment. The question is what I ask to you and I need your answer. Anybody else cannot answer this question instead of you. If I ask a question to you and someone answer this by his opinion, I wonder whether I can consider this answer as your opinion. This is the response to your comment about "Statements such as ""I don't need your answer because you are not the one in previous discussion" You ignore my comment about "This question is what I ask Curly Turkey.I did not ask you about this."Hence I cannot accept an answer from anyone else.OK, I will delete some of my words and make apology but I don't think everyone's agreement will work for this. Miracle dream (talk) 03:48, 22 February 2014
 * Please don't accuse him for misunderstanding your comment without exploring the possibility that just maybe, your grammar and syntax is not the best. To be honest, I have to take extra time to read your comments to understand what you're saying; you repeatedly accusing others of "misrepresenting" or "misunderstanding" your comments instead of considering your own faults tell me that you may not have the level of understanding required to make edits.  Moreover, please be more civil and generally nicer to other Wikipedians; a major portion of this discussion is nonacademic because of your comments that attack other users or are disruptive to intelligent discussion.  Kamakatsu (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Miracle dream has asked me to look into this discussion in my role as an administrator. I have to say that the above exchange of rude comments (including those by Miracle dream) isn't very productive. I'd suggest that you all take a few days off from this debate, and then make use of the dispute resolution process to seek comments by uninvolved editors. As I understand it, there are a wide range of estimates for the casualty figures from this massacre which have been published in modern reliable sources, and per WP:NPOV the article should not be in the business of giving greater or lesser weight to any of them: we need to present them neutrally to our readers so that they can then make any judgements. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this comment. This is the best way we can do, and a lot of our previous discussion has been deviant from WP:RS and WP:NPOV, thus time-wasting and not really helpful. Remotepluto (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that this was the reboot of the previous discussion—I suggested we give it a week rest, and then start fresh, with the editors' postitions summed up and clarified so we could have a hope of figuring each other out and reaching a consensus. Miracle dream was opposed to the break that time, and doesn't seem to be interested in keeping the letter or spirit of it in this one.  I can't for the life of me figure out what issue he has with me.  When I wrote to him "You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about", I meant with regard to his constant misinterpretation of my comments, rather than with the subject of the discussion.  I don't think the breakdown has anything to do with disagreement over the numbers per se, though there is obviously disagreement. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What I discontented is there are really mess and no order. I need to remind you a fact. Please see you talk page. I was the first one to suggest to you that we can break 2 or 3 day. That means actually I was the first one to suggest this and I want your opinion of my suggestion.From this, you can see I agreed with breaking a short time in that time. You didn't reply me and just asked a break but required everyone not to bring up previous discussion. This is the problem. You said we cannot bring up previous discussion. It made me feel the previous discussion is totally useless and we wasted one-week. For my suggestion in your talk page is to find a way to solve it and break a day.(In that time I think vote may be a way but now I know this is not the wiki rule) Hence I opposed not to bring up previous discussion not the break. The first person who remind you that breakdown may has nothing to do with disagreement over "per se" is also me (Please see the word when I opposed not to bring up the previous talk)I just said we needed to find a way to deal with this before we break. If we still have no way to deal with this, break will not help us.
 * Actually, things are really like what I said. The discussion is mess so I don't think breakdown will deal with anything but current situation is different. If there is a manager to look into and make this in a right order, I don't oppose to break. The discussion is no order before, that made me feel no way to deal this and it was impossible to make consensus which can satisfy everyone's opinion. Also, Kamakatsu joined this and I felt Kamakatsu may be an another ID of Banzaibilitz which made this discussion more complicated. Actually he was proved as Sockpuppet of Banzaibilitz later.He misrepresented others' ideas and also brought up previous discussion but you just blamed me and ignored his behavior in that time. This made me feel you was a little bias.These negative emotions made me loose my calm and became aggressive. Now I will change my way to avoid this. For my previous words, I am very sorry to you. I hope you can forget the rude parts of my words.If this discussion can be down in order, I will keep calm. Can you accept my apology for this? Miracle dream

--MtBell 13:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll accept your apology, though I disagree with what you've written here. I think it would be best to reboot this again—and by reboot, I have to be clear, I mean to start again, and collapse the old discussion.  That means, once again, that nobody should be allowed to bring up the previous discussions.  Why?  Because the previous discussions are almost impossible to follow.  What I'd like is for everyone to take a break, and after the break each participant (new or old) will state their positions, and we'll debate on the merits and demerits of the different positions, without acrimony, innuendo, and accusations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. At first, you can forbid to bring up previous discussion but you cannot forbid to bring up previous figures table. Because our discussion is based on these figures. If we don't bring up these figures, we have nothing to discuss anymore. Then we reboot this discussion only one day and now you suggest to reboot again.Hence, why do we reboot this time? We reboot it and wait one week by one week. It is wasting our time. I think we just need to re-organize the discussion to make it clear like the following section. I am also afraid of some Sockpuppet like Kamakatsu and Banzaibilitz to mess up this discussion after sometime break. Actually, we can do a good discussion this time if there is no Sockpuppet like Kamakatsu. This discussion become mess after this Sockpuppet joined. Now Kamakatsu is blocked and we can continue this discussion. I see the discussion is much better now after the blocking Sockpuppet but you should still be careful someone may register a Sockpuppet. I remind this to you before but you don't believe. Now Kamakatsu is a good example for this. At last, I wonder why you now require to reboot. I see you comment"I don't think the breakdown has anything to do with disagreement over the numbers per se, though there is obviously disagreement.". You comments shows you disagree with reboot before.Now you require a reboot. You change your mind so quickly. It is hard for me to follow your mind. My opinion: we don't need to reboot just re-organize the discussion and bring up previous figures not comments in new section. If there is no Sockpuppet again, the discussion will not have much problem. Miracle dream
 * I think we need to re-organize this discussion in a more readable way. Let's divide our major concerns into some sub topics, and leave your comments in corresponding subsections. Each side please first summarize your arguments concisely (e.g., in one or two sentences) and add your supporting evidences below.
 * Here are the sub topics:
 * Procedure of achieving a consensus. We must clarify how to achieve a consensus. Do we require an unanimous agreement or we can accept a vote?
 * On the proposal of the range of death estimates, including discussions on the death toll table.
 * On the inclusion of Chinese and Japanese official positions of death estimates.

Procedure of achieving a consensus.
I believe that we must clarify how to achieve a consensus in this discussion. Otherwise, we all will waste our time in an endless debate. Do we require an unanimous agreement or we can accept a majority agreement as a consensus? --MtBell 13:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe most people are reasonable and can achieve a consensus through friendly discussion (WP:AGF). Should an editor insist on refusing "in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors" (from: WP:DISRUPTSIGNS), s/he would be engaging in disruptive editing, and would risk his account banned for doing so.    Remotepluto (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of sources: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.
I believe a lot of previous discussion has got unnecessarily acrimonious because people dispute about reliability of primary sources. I'd thus like to remind everyone that on Wikipedia, secondary sources are usually preferred over primary sources, and to hash out a few points regarding Wikipedia policies on sources: For details please consult WP:PSTS and WP:USEPRIMARY. Hope this helps. Remotepluto (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * All sources used here have be reliable. We should identify (or reject) reliable sources in accordance with WP:RS. Consult WP:RS before making personal judgments on sources' reliability.
 * Primary sources. In our case these reliable sources are original research articles, published in reputable journals or by a reputable book publisher. They usually give a single number or a narrow range as the estimate of death toll.
 * Secondary sources. These are reliable sources that are "studies on primary sources". Examples are review articles and book chapters that summarize previous schools of thought. These studies usually give a wide range of numbers, based on a wider range of previous researches.
 * Secondary sources are usually preferred than primary sources on Wikipedia. Not saying primary sources should always be excluded, but secondary sources should take precedence.


 * Thus I list some sources that have appeared here before, that I identify as reliable secondary sources, and the ranges they provide:
 * 1) Bob T. Wakabayashi. 40,000 - 200,000.
 * 2) David B. MacDonald. 42,000 - 350,000.
 * 3) Masahiro Yamamoto. 50 - 300,000, limited to Japanese.
 * 4) David Askew. 0 - 200,000 plus, limited to Japanese.
 * 5) Yoshida Tak Matsusaka. 100,000 - 400,000, limited to the "Great Massacre School" in Japan, and Chinese and Western writers.


 * You are welcome to add reliable secondary sources that you identify.
 * Judging from the five studies above, I think 300,000 serves as a good upper limit of the range. 40,000 is OK as a lower limit, but I'm open to revising it down if other Wikipedians are inclined to include more of the primary sources from the "revisionist school" of thought. Remotepluto (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Japan's official position
I propose to also include Japan's official position of death estimates in the intro (now we only have China's there). First, Japan is the country who committed this massacre, her official position is notable and worthy of mentioning. Second, quoting Japan's official position will contribute to a more balanced description, especially when China's position has been already mentioned. For this part, I agree with Curly Turkey's proposal, which is:
 * "The latter is also the official Chinese figure, while there is no official count in Japan."

--MtBell 22:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's unusual for democracies such as Japan to have "official" figures for things such as this: democratic governments normally don't try to set historical facts in stone, but leave the details to historians. As I understand it, the Japanese government doesn't have official figures for the number of Japanese casualties of the war (due, in part, to the widespread destruction of records during the war), so it hardly seems sensible for the Japanese government to nominate a figure for the number of casualties at Nanking. Boiling this down to a simple "China has an official figure while Japan doesn't" sentence seems to be verballing the Japanese government. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not going to judge whether democracies or any countries should give official statistics of casualties of wars. However, my limited knowledge reminds me that the casualty statistics of the United States during the Korean War were carved in stone, officially. As what I have repeatedly stated, the official attitude of Japan, the country who committed the massacre, is worthy of mentioning because of Notability.
 * And, Japan is responsible for a more accurate estimate of the death in Nanjing Massacre, not only because Japan is the party who injured, but also because Japan occupies most (if not all) official records during the massacre. For example, 57 IJA infantry regiments directly participated the siege of Nanjing, but only 16 (less than 30% of the regiments) have disclosed a limited part of their Combat Reports during this massacre. And I would like to point out that the accumulated death number recorded in these very limited official records is already more than several tens of thousand. --MtBell 12:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't compare the casualty figures for the US military in Korea (which were carefully compiled by a large military bureaucracy in a stable society for the purposes of compulsory reporting and paying benefits to the next of kin) with figures for the casualties Japan inflicted on Chinese civilians. As far as I'm aware, the US government doesn't have a figure for the number of casualties long-deadit inflicted on North Korean and Chinese military personnel, and definitely doesn't have a figure for the number of civilians the US military killed during the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Silly comparison " You are so well-educated to leave such a good-mannered comment. Thank you and thumb-up to you, Admin Nick-D.
 * As a reply to your smart comments, I must point out, reluctantly, that my previous comment which mentioned the US official casualty statistics was a response to your comment "democratic governments normally don't try to set historical facts in stone". I guess now you have realized that this hypothesis is invalid, for you didn't mention "official figures" again. In fact, as a respect to an administrator expertizing in WWII, I even didn't mention that your previous claim of the non-existence of Japanese official casualty figures of their battles in WWII is not ture, either; because the Military History Section of the Japanese Defense Office did publish some Japanese casualty figures (inaccurate though) in a series of their works on the Second Sino-Japanese War, such as 《支那事變陸軍作戰》.
 * For your latest comments, I would like to say, that we are not talking about evaluating the strength or casualties of the hostile side in a war but the situation of the POW's and civilians who were under absolute control of Japanese occupation.
 * Any editors are welcome to join this discussion, especially an admin. But please do some research first and be careful of your attitude as this is a very complicated and controversial topic. --MtBell 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above wording was not "my proposal", but my suggested wording if, and only if, consensus was to include the Japanese "position"—which I've repeatedly stated I'm not committed to. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems that putting all the stuff aside for a week does not help much. I don't have a clue about the direction of the present discussion now. As for what I perceive, no one is against the fact that the proposal "the actual number of deaths in Nanking Massacre is contested among scholars, ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000" is accepted and does not conflict with any valid contradiction. I conclude that we put this proposal as the first consensus. Whether the official position of Chinese and Japanese government should be put on the leading section should be the main topic for the following discussion. --Snorri (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Talking about the official position. I think the most official and cited positions are : the Nanking Trial number:300,000, and the Tokyo trial number: over 200,000. These are the two most official positions that should be mentioned.--Snorri (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion about official estimates given by postwar trials makes a lot of sense. The Chinese government inherited the "300,000" estiamte from the postwar trial. I think we can add this to the proposal. --MtBell 12:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So, what, we'll have the scholars' range, the official Chinese number, the Japanese lack of position, the Nanking Trials number, and the Tokyo trial number? Is that it?  Isn't there another half-dozen or so numbers we can fit in?  Maybe devote a mere paragraph of the lead to the numbers?  We can shunt the actual details of the massacre to the body. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not making any sense here. The 4 main official positions can be put to the lead. I do not see anything inappropriate.--Snorri (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Four official positions (one of which is a non-position), plus a range (two more numbers), plus whatever else anyone else feels they can sneak in now that the doors have been opened (like, say, the denialists, which have already been proposed more than once for inclusion, or the inital guesstimates of those who were there at the time, etc etc etc—all interesting stuff, without question, why exclude any of it?). Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Slippery slope fallacy.--Snorri (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We're already at five separate figures, plus another one that's already been proposed multiple times.  We're already at the bottom of the slope with this proposal.  The experts, China, and possibly Japan are already more than enough for the scope of the lead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think quoting these most notable estimates in the lead is "more than enough for the scope of the lead". I believe these most notable death toll estimates, including postwar trials', scholars', China's and Japan's, deserve a separate paragraph, for the number of death is so important a statistic that has aroused lots of controversies. For such a long article, we have 4 paragraphs which is OK according to WP:Lead. So we have enough space to include all most notable estimates. We can just put all contents about figures in the third paragraph. --MtBell 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, propose it, and we'll see if it achieves consensus. For the record, I'm opposed, and as further evidence of just how far down this "slippery slope" we already are, there's already John Rabe's numbers in the lead, as well as the stuff about Japan destroying evidence, so obviously someone wants it there. Oh, hey, Snorri, notice how quickly my "slippery slope fallacy"turned into a full-on proposal for a full paragraph on this stuff? But obviously I just imagined that. Curly Turkey (gobble) 15:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop it, Curly Turkey. You are misrepresenting my comments. The current version already has some contents about the death estimates. But these estimates are dispersed in different pargraphs. Merge them together in one paragraph, and leave scholars' range as well as official positions there. This is my proposal. Repeat: don't misrepresent my comments.
 * People may have his every right to destroy or prolong a discussion and prevent something he dislikes. Banzai/Kamakatsu was not the first, and I am not surprised to find more. --MtBell 15:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I've been a part of the discussion, effort has been on reducing the death toll to a sentence or two in the lead, and leaving the details to the body. Snorri suggested that my concern that adding more figures to that would result in a full paragraph on them was a "slippery slope fallacy".  You then immediately proposed that we do devote a full paragraph to it.  You now are inisting on that again.  Where have I misrepresented you?  You, on the other hand, appear to be misrepresenting me as a disruptive troll—not just here, but earlier as well, when you tried to suggest I had "suspect" motives for "highlighting" the official Chinese figure.  I've given any number of suggested wordings that could've put an end to this whole discussion.  Meanwhile, you're still haggling over what more you can cram into the lead.  So who is it, exactly, who's trying to "prolong a discussion and prevent something he dislikes"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't propose any other figures. All these figures mentioned in the proposal already appear in different paragraphs of the current introduction. We just need to have them reorganized in a more logical way. If your "efforts" are refusing to make any concession and poisoning the discussion by sarcasm and distortion, I would say "NO" to this showoff. --MtBell 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Before taking a rest for a few days. I'd like to throw in my two cents about the Chinese and Japanese government numbers:
 * i) Some editors seem initially concerned that the 300,000 number is only contended by the Chinese gov't and people brainwashed by it. I think we can agree that this assumption is wrong, as proven by the tables above. If putting in the statement about Chinese government number serves solely for the purpose of implying "300,000 is only Chinese propaganda", then it is, frankly, original research.
 * ii) Some suggest that because of censorship by the Chinese government, any scholars, from China or with a Chinese name, should be taken with great caution. I kind of agree, but maintain a caveat that we don't overdo it to dismiss anything everything Chinese. Let me use a syllogism to demonstrate that this logic, if used too much, is not constructive:
 * 1) Major premise: Censorship is bad. Democracy and freedom of speech is good. Therefore we should value opinions from democracies with freedom of speech more over those having to undergo censorship.
 * 2) Minor premise: Modern-day USA has been a democracy that enjoys a lot of freedom of speech and religion. Medieval Catholic Church, on the other hand, was not a democracy, and exercised a lot of censorship. The Westboro Baptist Church (or Bo Hi Pak, or Joel Osteen if you like) is/was in the modern-day USA, whereas St. Thomas Aquinas was in the medieval Catholic clergy.
 * 3) Conclusion: The Christian theology of Westboro Baptist Church (or any other modern day US clergy) should be more valued over that of St. Thomas Aquinas.
 * This is sort of a slippery slope argument, but I hope everyone sees the danger herein without consulting Jesus. The Chinese-ness does not automatically make an opinion inferior to Japanese and Western counterparts. Not to mention that there are ethnic Chinese scholars born/educated/teaching in the West, or in China before the Communists took power in 1949.
 * iii) IMHO mentioning the lack of Japanese official position is unnecessary. It is hard to prove a negative. It looks very forced. It is borderline original research because unless there is a reliable secondary source saying that, we are doing synthesis from (the lack of) primary sources. Even if it's true, the realpolitik behind it is, IMHO, too complex to be summarized by it.
 * iv) I am ambivalent on whether or not to mention the Chinese gov't number in the lead. There are good reasons to and not to include it. I tend not to include it due to my preference to simplicity in the lead.
 * v) But if someone insists mentioning it, I suggest a compromise. We can reduce the amount of innuendo, while maintaining relative conciseness, by something like "The death toll [in Nanking Massacre] is [heavily] actively contested among scholars, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000, the latter number also the official position of ROC and PRC governments ." I believe there are good sources that show the official number of PRC and ROC are both 300,000, PRC inherited the number from ROC, and my wording here kinda summarized them as such.
 * Remotepluto (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Revised by Remotepluto (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I roughly agree with this proposal, except it lacked an "over" before 300,000. --Snorri (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with you on this. On a second thought I think "over" should be added back. But guess there might be objections to "over" and I'm willing to comprise. Let's wait for other editors. Remotepluto (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That "ROC" is an EGG, as readers will expect it to link to Taiwan. Anyway s I don'tsee the point in highlighting a long-dead government's position on this---it's not like they're actively taking part in the debate, is it? Also, I don't think "heavily" is a good adjective to use---that it's contested enough to warrant mentioning in the lead already signals it's "heavily"contested, and the word itself is just far too subjective to be meaningful.  My suggested "actively", however, lets the reader know the debate is still current. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on "actively" versus "heavily" (btw they're adverbs). On ROC I'm not sure. To some Chinese mainlanders (at least me), on seeing "ROC" or “中华民国” the 1912-1949 era China comes to mind first, and Taiwan may or may not occur at all. Let's say it's roughly like the Tsarist Russia and the USSR, where the latter inherited a lot of historical issues from the former. Tsarist Russia is long dead, but the Crimea issue is inherited by USSR and the post-communist Russia today, as evidenced by recent events in Ukraine.... Okay, my horrendous digressing aside, I could be wrong but from my knowledge the PRC gov't just accepted the number from ROC courts (in a trial against Hisao Tani) without launching a re-investigation, and inscribed it in stone. Obviously I (and a few others) wanted a little more historical context here to reduce the innuendo of "300,000 being the unholy Chinese propaganda" that Banzaiblitz Sockpuppets Inc. wanted to promote. How about changing "ROC" link to its disambiguation page if EGG is an issue? Remotepluto (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I edited my proposal according to some comments that I agree with. Remotepluto (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be linking to disambiguation pages---click through and you'll immediately see why. Also, the vast majority of English speakers are not mainland Chinese, and will associate "ROC" with Taiwan, as that is its current usage in the news. Also, the issues with who inherited what seriously should be kept to the body of the article---the lead is an overview of the subject, not a place to lay out all the fine details, which is one reason I'm opposed to including the trial numbers there. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If I didn't misunderstand, you don't have an objection on the range of numbers (right now "40,000 to over 300,000") but you also don't want to compromise on the Chinese/Japanese/whatever official number issue (i.e. you want to mention the official PRC number but nothing else). Since there ain't much animosity left on this talk page, how about we just achieve consensus through naturally editing? I'll just edit the number range tomorrow and leave out ROC or PRC or whatever kangaroo courts and be done with it. You (and any rule-abiding editors) are obviously very welcome to edit it the way you are happy with.   Remotepluto (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much my position—keep things simple in the lead, then figure out how to tame the mess in the body. I have no position on the actual numbers, as long as the consensus is based on consulting secondary sources and not resorting to Original Research or Synthesis by analyzing primary sources—which, unfortunately, is what some editors appear to be trying to do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just do it, please. --MtBell 08:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe we are on the right track if we continue discussing on Remotepluto's comments. I suggest to represent death estimates in three groups: 1) The historical figures which were provided by postwar trials; 2) China's and/or Japan's official position(s) on death figures; 3) scholars' estimates, possibly we are going to give a range. --MtBell 00:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has egregious NPOV issues with death toll numbers right now without even having a POV tag, thanks to Banzaiblitz-san, and has been like this for weeks. I'd love to, if no one objects, go ahead and edit the number right now after a 48-hour wait and settle the Japanese gov't position issue later. Remotepluto (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thak you for your valuable suggestions. I agree with your proposal. Only one more suggestion: could you move the postwar trial figures from the third paragraph to the beginning of your proposal, and link it with China's official position? How about
 * "The International Military Tribunal of the Far East estimates over 200,000 death in Nanking Massacre, and the Nanking Military Tribunal estimates more than 300,000. The latter is also China's official figure. The death toll has been actively contested among scholars since 1980s, with typical estimates ranging from 40,000 to over 300,000 governments."
 * As I have mentioned previously, China (either PRC or ROC) inherited the estimate 300,000 from the postwar trial, it is more reasonable to put China's official position following the postwar trial numbers. And either "China" or "PRC and ROC" looks fine to me. Concerning Japan's position, I agree to leave it in a later discussion after we make a consensus on your proposal. Please move on. Thanks. --MtBell 00:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a little distortion. The Nanking Tribunal was actually set up by ROC, so its position is the position of ROC, plain and simple. I'd just edit the way that everyone can quickly agree. Any number of editors can improve upon it and I'll not interfere, or I'd risk being banned for edit-warring. Remotepluto (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The China/PRC/ROC/Taiwan issue is out of the scope here. Rather, I'd prefer not even to mention it, for that issue is so controversial and dangerous that an ealier dispute of moving PRC to China and moving ROC to Taiwan almost set the entire Chinese Wikipedian community on fire... --08:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * @Remotepluto (talk) I don' object but I have another suggestion. I hope to rewrite the article Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre in the same time. This article has many problems. As I stated before, none of sources in this article are from Chinese scholar but accept lots of Japanese sources. This is biased and unfair. Another problem is it also reject almost all figures from 200,000 to above 300,000 and list all figures below 200,000. Most of sources in this article are from Japan. Banzaibilitz use this as a sources to challenge main this article but actually it is not a good article. I require to add more figures and sources in this article which we have listed in this talk page. I see there is a table above which divide figures into "Traditionalists", "Centrists" and "Revisionists" but that article only list "Revisionists" figures. This is just my suggestion. Hence, I require to rewrite. Others can determine whether to accept this suggestion. Also I did not object anything above.  Miracle dream (talk)
 * I personally don't really want to bother. The quality (WP:NPOV, WP:RS) of that article is so poor that deleting that table outright and rewrite is better IMHO. But this will almost surely lead to disharmony.
 * For entertainment value, I'd like you guys to visit User talk:Kamakatsu to see how blatantly he lies again when he gets called out on fabricating sources here (among other lies). For my experience, Kamakatsu Brothers Inc. has a habit of sneaking in false information while talking seemingly reasonably, thus sources he provided has, unfortunately, to be taken with a giant pinch of salt, in which case checking every of them to weed out the falsehood will be too great a burden that I'd rather not undertake. Remotepluto (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. Personally, I like this joke and would like to enjoy it. However, in this situation, I am more concerned solving the dispute. As you shown,Kamakatsu/Banzaibilitz always lies. It is hard for me to assume good faith for him. Many figures of the article "Estimates of the death toll" was offered by Kamakatsu/Banzaibilitz. I think it must have much problem such as misrepresenting. Even if I assume it has no problem for all sources in this article, at least this article is too biased and unfair. I just suggest to fairly add reliable sources from each side and neutrally keep all reliable sources from Chinese scholar, Japanese scholar and western scholar. I also clear that I hope to rewrite this article but keep the reliable sources which nobody misrepresented it from this article. This is all of my suggestion. This suggestion also obey the neutral principle of wiki. Ok, now, just wait 48 hours and I hope we can solve this dispute.Miracle dream (talk)


 * Thanks to everyone's patience and Remotepluto's negotiation, we are finally able to revert the range of estimates to what it was before Banzaiblitz's interference . Breathing the air free from Mr. Banzai and his brothers, our weeks-long discussion is becoming more friendly and productive.
 * This time I am not asking for adding or removing anything but "combining like terms". Now in the intro we have 7 sentences related to the death estimates: one in the first paragraph, one in the second, four in the third and one in the last. In fact, they are distributed in all paragraphs. I am going to move these sentences together for logical fluency, and merge repeating expressions (eg. China's position of 300,000 is mentioned twice) to make the intro shorter and simpler. If no one objects, I will begin this reordering in 48 hours. --MtBell 06:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --MtBell 07:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I am moving Rabe's estimate in the 2nd paragraph of the lead to the body because this is another case Banzaiblitz distorts the references. The supporting ref (Ref 8 ) cited by Banzaiblitz clearly indicates that "We Europeans put the number [of civilian casualties] at about 50,000 to 60,000." Banzaiblitz intentionally omitted the bracketed phase. And Erwin Wickert, the editor of The good man of Nanking: the diaries of John Rabe, points out at page 212 of that book that "It is likely that Rabe's estimate is too low, since he could not have had an overview of the entire municipal area during the period of the worst atrocities. Moreover, many troops of captured Chinese soldiers were led out of the city and down to the Yangtze, where they were summarily executed. But, as noted, no one actually counted the dead." Possibly we need a thorough examination for all Banzaiblitz's edits.--MtBell 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the death toll section could do with better wording: "Mainstream scholars consider 40,000–over 300,000 to be an accurate estimate." On first read, this sounded like mainstream scholars accept the 40,000 figure over the 300,000 figure, rather than in the range between 40,000 to over 300,000. Please correct this, thank you! --131.118.72.188 (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)