This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is controversial in many respects: Ms. Chang was only trying her best to preserve and uncover the past that has been passed on to her from her parents. Genocide is unfathomable even to those who underwent it, let alone people who only know it be definition.
We should not judge the effort of those trying to educate. If Nazis can write a book about how the Holocaust is a myth, Ms. Chang had every right to voice her opinion. History is written by humans who are ridden with flaws. Historians or not, we all choose, consciously or subconsciously what we want to see, hear and feel.
Dwarthy 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly another beautiful and potent mind of our times has been consumed by our new epidemic. From Califonia to Adelaide mental health affects us all. We need to be able to communicate in a better way so people don't get washed away like this. Simon Windsor, Australia
What a sad day for Chinese people, especially searching for truth of the Nanjing Massacre among Japanese lies. Alex Chun, Sydney
Is she an historian? Historians are supposed to report facts, but not all historians always project an exact image of what went on in history. In fact, to project a perfect or even near perfect replication of history is impossible: there will always be disputed points as well as unfathomable accounts. Iris Chang, at least in Italic The Rape of Nanking, did report several facts and compiled the accounts of eyewitnesses and their relatives. Certainly it is not perfect, but she did the best she could. She spent a considerable time just discussing and making clear the death toll as reported by various agencies and persons. This story cannot be labeled as one-sided. Who is an historian after all? Would there be a dispute if the author had a doctoral degree in History from Bob's University? Certainly five years of studying History does not mean one can tell history better than another. Ben Franklin executed and published several experiments with electricity and he only had a certified 10th grade education. If this isn't enough, who has read the Foreward to the book? "But Ms. Chang shows more clearly than any previous account just what they did." -- William C. Kirby, Department of HISTORY, Harvard University. Do you still think she does not deserve the label "historian? By the way, don't get me wrong, I see errata here and there, but most books are that way -- as a whole the book is of quality.
Her primary occupation is in journalism, and like TV directors, she deals with history as a journalist. And putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her misleads readers. It sounds as if she is a professional one. -- Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sort of...I don't want to say "a historian is someone with a PhD in history," but someone who is a journalist who writes about history is, well, a journalist who writes about history. john k 06:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you know, history is the field almost everyone can get into. Bookstores are flooded with low quality history books. Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians. So not to lower the quality of Wikipedia further, we have to note that.
I was surprized to see [1]. Wow, she claims to be a historian! So I changed the introduction a bit. -- Nanshu 03:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. I said "putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her" at the beginning. -- Nanshu 06:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know if she officially spells her name as "Iris Shun-Ru Chang"? I ask because this romanization is incorrect. Instead of "Shun-Ru" it should technically be "Ch'un-ju". [[User:Spencer195|]]– spencer 195 00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
She travelled around the world to interview the people who personally experienced the history. Unlike a TV reporter who only summarized his findings in a few hours time, she spent years in researching and writing on the topic. Such dedication is more than a PhD candidate spend on any thesis. All her work were documented with notes and tape recording from her interviews. If you argue she is not a historian, please tell me what is missing. Is it because she presented her work as commercial books instead of thesis? So commercial books are disqualified as history? By that standard, we don't have much history in our libraries, and definitely none in bookstores. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All you mentioned is journalist works. Apparently, she wasn't taught how to use primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is essential for historiography, at least in Japan. -- Nanshu 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have changed "historian" to "she wrote bestselling book on the history of Nanking Massacre". If someone say physicist, there is no ambiguity that the person is a academic, not highschool kid doing physics or journalist writing about Steven Hawking. The same can be said about economist, biologist, pharmacist, sociologist, criminologist and so on. By calling her historian without explaining her lack of academic training (which was quite obvious in her writing) would be inaccurate description of her credential IMO. On the other hand, calling her a mere "journalist", a profession which public consider equal to lawyers, may be bit unfair. How about adding "bestselling author" of the history of Naking Massacre along with freelance journalist?
FWBOarticle
The fact that chang wrote several books on (Chinese, Japanese or American) history doesn't change anything about her lack of traning as a historian. And as you should be aware of wikipedia policy, you can't censor a fact. I should also point out that it is your insistence of calling her a "historian" which brought this mud slinging. As the term "historian" has implication that someone is a academic, it is necessarly to clarify the fact that she is a historian but not trained/academic historian. "The best selling author of history of Naking Massacre" would have avoided all the confusion which the term historian would have caused. I will still settle for "the author" but if you want to stick to "historian but not trained one" be my guest. FWBOarticle
-- Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 07:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John Smith's 13.00 25th June, 2005 DST
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you two really need to calm down and stop antagonising each other. We all care about the topics we talk about, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Please just take five and try to see things from the other's perspective.
Hmib: comments like that are not helpful. Regardless of what you think about these historians, you shouldn't just label them as crooks. If Flower really is as bad as you make him/her out to be, why drop to his/her level and make cheap comments?
Flower: the same applies to you. If Hmib and others "cause trouble" from your perspective, getting angry and making allegations yourself makes you seem like them.
I have seen positive sides to both of you, so don't just be remembered for your negativity. Just don't act as if you both know everything and the other is 100% wrong.
John Smith's 14.25 25th June, 2005 DST
Why are you people fighting over the word "historian". This article doesn't need to be changed/reverted every 5 seconds. This is the kind of crap that makes people realize what a fucking joke wikipedia really is. func (talk) 07:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to the he American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a historian is:
According to that definition, Iris Chang is a historian. I am going to revert FWBOarticle's trollish mangling of this article until he or she can show me a definition coming from a reputable dictionary that shows that Iris Chang is not a historian. Zh 20:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian
Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't edit/revert this page for a week. Sorry.
FWBOarticle
Whether one conform to a dictionary difinition is totally different from whether it is worth noting at an encyclopedia. One added to an encyclopedia cannot be free from implications FWBOarticle and I mentioned. So I think we make efforts not to mislead readers. -- Nanshu 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please don't add assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of the Rape of Nanking book to this article: there is a lot of dispute about what is and is not accurate about the book, which should be reported (but not pursued!) in the article about the book. Is there any evidence for the "political activist" claim? Thanks, Mark 1 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not know (and I'm not interested in) whether what she said is truth or not, but it is clear that she was working for political intentions. activist: An activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization (Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 3rd edition) -- Flowerofchivalry 08:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
What political or social changes was she trying to bring about? Mark 1 08:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget, "political activist" does NOT mean something bad. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, not insulting her.-- Flowerofchivalry 08:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
That's more like it- I've added the specific info. That activity was after she wrote the book though- I'd appreciate it if you removed the she started composing the book with this as a start statement, and the specific discussion of the book which, as I say, doesn't belong here. Mark 1 09:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Not quite. She is a political activist. She is a journalist. She might be a historian. It's ok to write those 3, but if we need to slim it down, it will be the best idea to remove "historian" because she is not a historian actually while we might be able to claim so (I read the above discussion). However, I do not oppose to leave "historian" if people agreed not to slim down the sentence so strictly. Beside, the sentences I added is extremely important. Those ideas I wrote are from The Rape of Nanking (Book), and I summarized it briefly. I believe that we do not need to discuss the book in this particular page, but to discuss about Chang, it seems my brief summary is essential. I'm too tired today to edit the page so I am going to edit the article tomorrow. Please continue discuss here so I can utilize the ideas for the revision if it helps the improvement of the article. -- Flowerofchivalry 08:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I enjoyed camping in a mountain. Some people call a mountain as "the place closer to the sky" or "the place used to be under the ocean" or whatever. Your interpretation of mountain is similar to those ideas that closer to the sky or under the ocean, which are still true. Chang decided to write the book The Rape of Nanking for the political reasons. This is what she said.-- Flowerofchivalry 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention is about "historian." She is not a historian even though she claimed herself so. I'm not a journalist even if I claim so.-- Flowerofchivalry 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned already, she wrote her books for political reasons. People call such a person as a political activist. If you (and other people) agree to leave extra info such as a historian, I will agree to leave it, but otherwise, the word "a historian" should be removed. I clearly agree that she is a journalist. Is there any dispute for this point?-- Flowerofchivalry 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chang tried to influence U.S. residents with the book. The book contains false information (She stated that the Japanese had only spears, for example). If she was a historian, she could detect that easily. She published such the book because she was a political activist. According to her interview with CND, she claimed herself as a political activist; she said "There were other activists..." There are more than enough supporting ideas. How about a historian? She said that the Japanese has only spears. All real historians may disagree, and your ideas does not make any sense so far, unfortunately.-- Flowerofchivalry 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Flowerofchivalry: It would be nice if you could source some of your information, such as:
Also, it would be nice for you to explain why you removed: After publication of the book, she campaigned to persuade the Japanese government to apologise for its troops' wartime conduct and to pay compensation. . -- ran ( talk) 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ran, I'm glad I can start the real discussion.
This "anti-Japan groups" comes from "Sokokuto Seinen" Sep 1998. The "groups" are refered as "anti-Japan" because they, for example, Alliance in Memory of the Victims of the Nanking Massacre, do not like Japan is playing leadership role. The Japanese govt already paid huge amount and their seeking compensation is illegal, by the way.
That's correct. Chang stated in her book.
These are from SAPIO, Sep 1997.
As far as I know, there are no pictures which proove the incident. The pictures are from other wars, synthesized, and/or made by the Chinese govt. Please note that she stated the incident happened in Winter. It is not my job to prove there are no such incident here. However, there are more than enough proofs that questions the quality of her work. This is the point. In addition, Mark claimed she is not a political activist, or she is a historian rather than a political activist. His ideas do not make any sense. Mark ignores all evidences he does not favor. This is slightly offtopic but if such incident exists, the Chinese govt cannot claim any compensation but the Taiwanese govt can. I think Chang is Taiwanese.-- Flowerofchivalry 06:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NGO = 非政府組織. In the Joint Communique it was the government of the PRC that gave up its rights to recompensation from the Japanese government. The argument is that Chinese NGOs and individuals can still sue for recompensation from Japanese companies.
In any case, once again let me say that asking for recompensation is not "anti-Japan", even if you have doubts about the legal aspects. There are Japanese lawyers and Japanese individuals who are helping Chinese people simply because they feel they're doing the right and decent thing; are they "anti-Japan"? I myself am disgusted by Japanese actions during World War II, and as a Chinese person I am also disgusted by many actions that Chinese governments have taken in the past. But that does not make me "anti-Japan" or "anti-China".
And finally, are you saying that the Nanking Massacre did not happen? In this case, please come to Nanking Massacre and tell us what you think about the article, especially the pictures. -- ran ( talk) 18:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I still cannot get the point that why NGOs and people still have rights to demand compensation from the Japanese govt which has been paid already. Such groups are called anti-Japan groups because they are against or oppose to the Japanese govt or Japan or whatever. I have to tell you that those anti-Japan Japanese people are communists and anti-Establishment. Well, there are several people who unknowingly joined them but majority is still anti-Japan. Since there is a freedom of speech in Japan (but not in China), such movement is legal, but still they are anti-Japan. The final point is so-called Nanking Massacre. I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened. This is because it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Once again, it is Chang or supporter's job to prove the incident, but seems it have never succeeded. I wish I could join the argument to the other page at this time, but I have only 24 hours a day. I will join the argument after I finish this argument.-- Flowerofchivalry 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I was discussing in the other place, vandalism was occured. By the way, why she is not a political activist? She is clearly a political activist rather than a historian. She might be a historian because she claimed herself so. I'm gonna wait one day to modify the article(to discuss here first). -- Flowerofchivalry 02:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote on the other page, you are just supporting Chang. She had been paid for her so-called research on China by the Chinese government and she accused the Japanese govt. It is not necessarily to earn money to be a political activist, but she was paid by the Chinese govt.
You have to show me why I should not write "a political activist" on the article. As you know this already, we are discussing about the accuracy of the book and the incident itself. I don't edit that part today because I don't feel good and need some sleep, but the article seriously lacks NPOV. If you believe the book is accurate and most part are the truth, please explain them here. It's your homework.
Once again, this is not your personal place to support Iris Chang. You can open your own website or blog, so you can do whatever you want without arguing annoying guy. I'm not gonna disturb your personal website :D -- Flowerofchivalry 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mark, you are keep reverting the article without any discussions. That will be considered as vandalism. It seems you cannot make any counterargument but you just want to write your personal opinion. This will not be tolerated. -- Flowerofchivalry 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are the person should act like a civilised human being. You are just writing your own personal opinion and trying to defend that. -- Flowerofchivalry 11:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmib 06:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Now, back to watching Constantine.)
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Flowerofchivalry, what are your proofs for alleging that:
Mandel, Hmib, and all others. Please, please read NPOV. Mandel stated in Hmib's talkpage that information should not be come from right-wing website. Does this satisfy NPOV? Definitely not.
And Hmib, unfortunately you have violated 3RR by possibly unintentionally because of Mark. I have reported you but I wish you won't be banned for 24hrs.
I will come back after I finish writing Lithium salt article in Japanese, so please read and fully understand NPOV. -- Flowerofchivalry 09:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think people who just want to support China by ignoring the rules fed up with the situation.
I hope you will get well soon and come back here. For number 4, the original article I made is for The Chinese in America, and nothing related to The Rape of Nanking. -- Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want a third party to get involved with this, I'd be happy to help. Message me on my talk page if so. Pedant 20:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
I will edit out reference to hata's estimate as "implausibly low" for the reason that his number is not at all inaccurate in term of "factual" and "legal" (i.e. internaltional treaty)" basis.
The reason for this confusion start from (for some, deliberately) ignoring the fact that intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict. Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform (most actually didnt have guns), in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible.
Only area, where every head counts can be added to "killing of civilians outside of military purpose" (i.e. massacre) is when Japanese army went into "Safety Zone" within Nanking City. This is not to say that atrocities did not take place outside of the Safety Zone. Just that outside of safety zone, attempt to estimate the extent of "massacre" in numerical term is futile exercise. Hata's "implausibly" low number is from estimate of Chinese killed in Safety Zone and he make this point explicit in his book. So I will delete the section of the article which state his number being "wrong". Of course, one could explain the detail of Hata's number but I belive that can be done more appropriatly in NM section, not Iris Chang section. Youji Hajime
This is Hmib's POV pushing. Hmib accused anything against the communist's propaganda is not reliable. -- Flowerofchivalry 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
FoC keeps deleting this paragraph and Hmib keeps restoring it.
Chang's defenders point out that many of the sources cited in criticising the work made errors larger than Chang was accused of - for example one common source was Hata Ikuhito and his work "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable" published in 1998, which contained an implausibly low estimate of fatalities.
Hmib, if you want to keep this, you need to name at least one of Chang's defenders who has pointed this out, and either link to it or otherwise cite it. Without a source, it's original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The Japanese historian Hata Ikuhito makes some telling criticisms, although Hata himself minimizes the extent of the massacre.[6] He questions Chang's estimate of the number of victims, a ghoulish exercise perhaps, but an important one. He argues that Chang's figure of 300,000 is impossibly high, but his own figure of 40,000 killed, although similar to the estimates of some Western witnesses, is implausibly low. [3]
Not wishing to make anyone defensive, but I think it may be inappropriate to post Mrs. Chang’s suicide notes in a public forum such as Wikipedia. Out of respect for her privacy and the feelings of her husband and young son, I think information like this might best be placed in less public places.
Perhaps instead of actually reproducing her suicide notes a brief summary of them would be a better choice. Something like,
Would this change be objectionable to any current contributors? Best Regards, JQ 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Should the photo of Elizabeth Smart (Utah) removed now that the case is over? Should we remove Muhammad cartoon because it offend muslims? These information come from verified sources. Deleting such information due to "moral orjbective" would amount to censorship, which is specifically ruled out in "What wikipedia is not". If someone object to these information. They should stop reading. Vapour
The inaccuracies in the text "The Rape of Nanking" are NOT "alleged". They are a well-documented fact. I'm not debating the veracity of the Rape itself, just that the book was poorly written. For example, see: [4], which is biased as hell to the Japanese right-wing, and some of their arguments are way out there, but still shows how dishonest her photographs could be. or [5], which not only discusses her NUMEROUS errors in detail, but also her plagiarism.
When this book came out in Japan, even the Japanese historians and scholars in the so-called "Grand Massacre School" (who admit that up to 300,000 were killed in the Rape) argued against the release of the book. There are so many errors in it that the ultranationalist right-wing uses the book as a straw man; they say that this poorly-written book is representative of real Grand Massacre scholarship on the subject, which it is not. In this way, it is her book that is helping to keep alive the crazy Japanese right wing, and increasing the spread of right-wing sites like the one I linked to above.
Here is a list of revisions of mistakes that were revised before the release of the paperback: [6]
There's plenty of GOOD studies out there that verify the Nanjing massacres, but this book surely isn't among them. Denying that this book is full of mistakes is ridiculous hero worship/ideology. Bueller 007 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttals and opposing views about The Rape of Nanking would be relevant for an article on the book. Putting the links here on her bio page seems to violate NPOV. I mean, you don't balance profiles of and eulogies to Chang by linking to personal sites which pick apart one, only one, of her books. Has this been raised before? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Her suicide and depression are linked to sleep deprivation in the article. Where did the sleep deprivation come from? Was Chang probably just overworked, did she suffer from insomnia, or what other reasons have been suggested? -- Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What was all that in her suicide notes about the CIA and the government? Was there an actual reason why she felt that people were watching her, or was it a case of paranoia brought on by her other disorders? A little more info on this please. Ham Pastrami 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is their a better photograph of her than the one available. Her left eye looks somewhat creepy. I think it is the way the shadows appear on her face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.148.167 ( talk) 03:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you verify this claim. She is totally unheard of in South East Asia- many authors pre-dating her have written superior books with a far larger readership- in English and SE Asian languages. This point is highly Americo-centric and thusly biased and inaccurate. I suggest if you lack the supporting evidence-kindly delete it- it seems like a self-promotional cliche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.136.54 ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What religious affiliations did Iris Chang have in her life? 138.239.60.79 ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention in the article of plagiarism in "The Rape of Nanking". Shrikeangel ( talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is controversial in many respects: Ms. Chang was only trying her best to preserve and uncover the past that has been passed on to her from her parents. Genocide is unfathomable even to those who underwent it, let alone people who only know it be definition.
We should not judge the effort of those trying to educate. If Nazis can write a book about how the Holocaust is a myth, Ms. Chang had every right to voice her opinion. History is written by humans who are ridden with flaws. Historians or not, we all choose, consciously or subconsciously what we want to see, hear and feel.
Dwarthy 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sadly another beautiful and potent mind of our times has been consumed by our new epidemic. From Califonia to Adelaide mental health affects us all. We need to be able to communicate in a better way so people don't get washed away like this. Simon Windsor, Australia
What a sad day for Chinese people, especially searching for truth of the Nanjing Massacre among Japanese lies. Alex Chun, Sydney
Is she an historian? Historians are supposed to report facts, but not all historians always project an exact image of what went on in history. In fact, to project a perfect or even near perfect replication of history is impossible: there will always be disputed points as well as unfathomable accounts. Iris Chang, at least in Italic The Rape of Nanking, did report several facts and compiled the accounts of eyewitnesses and their relatives. Certainly it is not perfect, but she did the best she could. She spent a considerable time just discussing and making clear the death toll as reported by various agencies and persons. This story cannot be labeled as one-sided. Who is an historian after all? Would there be a dispute if the author had a doctoral degree in History from Bob's University? Certainly five years of studying History does not mean one can tell history better than another. Ben Franklin executed and published several experiments with electricity and he only had a certified 10th grade education. If this isn't enough, who has read the Foreward to the book? "But Ms. Chang shows more clearly than any previous account just what they did." -- William C. Kirby, Department of HISTORY, Harvard University. Do you still think she does not deserve the label "historian? By the way, don't get me wrong, I see errata here and there, but most books are that way -- as a whole the book is of quality.
Her primary occupation is in journalism, and like TV directors, she deals with history as a journalist. And putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her misleads readers. It sounds as if she is a professional one. -- Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sort of...I don't want to say "a historian is someone with a PhD in history," but someone who is a journalist who writes about history is, well, a journalist who writes about history. john k 06:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As you know, history is the field almost everyone can get into. Bookstores are flooded with low quality history books. Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians. So not to lower the quality of Wikipedia further, we have to note that.
I was surprized to see [1]. Wow, she claims to be a historian! So I changed the introduction a bit. -- Nanshu 03:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. I said "putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her" at the beginning. -- Nanshu 06:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know if she officially spells her name as "Iris Shun-Ru Chang"? I ask because this romanization is incorrect. Instead of "Shun-Ru" it should technically be "Ch'un-ju". [[User:Spencer195|]]– spencer 195 00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
She travelled around the world to interview the people who personally experienced the history. Unlike a TV reporter who only summarized his findings in a few hours time, she spent years in researching and writing on the topic. Such dedication is more than a PhD candidate spend on any thesis. All her work were documented with notes and tape recording from her interviews. If you argue she is not a historian, please tell me what is missing. Is it because she presented her work as commercial books instead of thesis? So commercial books are disqualified as history? By that standard, we don't have much history in our libraries, and definitely none in bookstores. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All you mentioned is journalist works. Apparently, she wasn't taught how to use primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is essential for historiography, at least in Japan. -- Nanshu 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have changed "historian" to "she wrote bestselling book on the history of Nanking Massacre". If someone say physicist, there is no ambiguity that the person is a academic, not highschool kid doing physics or journalist writing about Steven Hawking. The same can be said about economist, biologist, pharmacist, sociologist, criminologist and so on. By calling her historian without explaining her lack of academic training (which was quite obvious in her writing) would be inaccurate description of her credential IMO. On the other hand, calling her a mere "journalist", a profession which public consider equal to lawyers, may be bit unfair. How about adding "bestselling author" of the history of Naking Massacre along with freelance journalist?
FWBOarticle
The fact that chang wrote several books on (Chinese, Japanese or American) history doesn't change anything about her lack of traning as a historian. And as you should be aware of wikipedia policy, you can't censor a fact. I should also point out that it is your insistence of calling her a "historian" which brought this mud slinging. As the term "historian" has implication that someone is a academic, it is necessarly to clarify the fact that she is a historian but not trained/academic historian. "The best selling author of history of Naking Massacre" would have avoided all the confusion which the term historian would have caused. I will still settle for "the author" but if you want to stick to "historian but not trained one" be my guest. FWBOarticle
-- Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 07:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
John Smith's 13.00 25th June, 2005 DST
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think you two really need to calm down and stop antagonising each other. We all care about the topics we talk about, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Please just take five and try to see things from the other's perspective.
Hmib: comments like that are not helpful. Regardless of what you think about these historians, you shouldn't just label them as crooks. If Flower really is as bad as you make him/her out to be, why drop to his/her level and make cheap comments?
Flower: the same applies to you. If Hmib and others "cause trouble" from your perspective, getting angry and making allegations yourself makes you seem like them.
I have seen positive sides to both of you, so don't just be remembered for your negativity. Just don't act as if you both know everything and the other is 100% wrong.
John Smith's 14.25 25th June, 2005 DST
Why are you people fighting over the word "historian". This article doesn't need to be changed/reverted every 5 seconds. This is the kind of crap that makes people realize what a fucking joke wikipedia really is. func (talk) 07:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to the he American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a historian is:
According to that definition, Iris Chang is a historian. I am going to revert FWBOarticle's trollish mangling of this article until he or she can show me a definition coming from a reputable dictionary that shows that Iris Chang is not a historian. Zh 20:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian
Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't edit/revert this page for a week. Sorry.
FWBOarticle
Whether one conform to a dictionary difinition is totally different from whether it is worth noting at an encyclopedia. One added to an encyclopedia cannot be free from implications FWBOarticle and I mentioned. So I think we make efforts not to mislead readers. -- Nanshu 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please don't add assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of the Rape of Nanking book to this article: there is a lot of dispute about what is and is not accurate about the book, which should be reported (but not pursued!) in the article about the book. Is there any evidence for the "political activist" claim? Thanks, Mark 1 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not know (and I'm not interested in) whether what she said is truth or not, but it is clear that she was working for political intentions. activist: An activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization (Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 3rd edition) -- Flowerofchivalry 08:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
What political or social changes was she trying to bring about? Mark 1 08:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget, "political activist" does NOT mean something bad. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, not insulting her.-- Flowerofchivalry 08:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
That's more like it- I've added the specific info. That activity was after she wrote the book though- I'd appreciate it if you removed the she started composing the book with this as a start statement, and the specific discussion of the book which, as I say, doesn't belong here. Mark 1 09:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Not quite. She is a political activist. She is a journalist. She might be a historian. It's ok to write those 3, but if we need to slim it down, it will be the best idea to remove "historian" because she is not a historian actually while we might be able to claim so (I read the above discussion). However, I do not oppose to leave "historian" if people agreed not to slim down the sentence so strictly. Beside, the sentences I added is extremely important. Those ideas I wrote are from The Rape of Nanking (Book), and I summarized it briefly. I believe that we do not need to discuss the book in this particular page, but to discuss about Chang, it seems my brief summary is essential. I'm too tired today to edit the page so I am going to edit the article tomorrow. Please continue discuss here so I can utilize the ideas for the revision if it helps the improvement of the article. -- Flowerofchivalry 08:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I enjoyed camping in a mountain. Some people call a mountain as "the place closer to the sky" or "the place used to be under the ocean" or whatever. Your interpretation of mountain is similar to those ideas that closer to the sky or under the ocean, which are still true. Chang decided to write the book The Rape of Nanking for the political reasons. This is what she said.-- Flowerofchivalry 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention is about "historian." She is not a historian even though she claimed herself so. I'm not a journalist even if I claim so.-- Flowerofchivalry 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I mentioned already, she wrote her books for political reasons. People call such a person as a political activist. If you (and other people) agree to leave extra info such as a historian, I will agree to leave it, but otherwise, the word "a historian" should be removed. I clearly agree that she is a journalist. Is there any dispute for this point?-- Flowerofchivalry 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Chang tried to influence U.S. residents with the book. The book contains false information (She stated that the Japanese had only spears, for example). If she was a historian, she could detect that easily. She published such the book because she was a political activist. According to her interview with CND, she claimed herself as a political activist; she said "There were other activists..." There are more than enough supporting ideas. How about a historian? She said that the Japanese has only spears. All real historians may disagree, and your ideas does not make any sense so far, unfortunately.-- Flowerofchivalry 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Flowerofchivalry: It would be nice if you could source some of your information, such as:
Also, it would be nice for you to explain why you removed: After publication of the book, she campaigned to persuade the Japanese government to apologise for its troops' wartime conduct and to pay compensation. . -- ran ( talk) 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ran, I'm glad I can start the real discussion.
This "anti-Japan groups" comes from "Sokokuto Seinen" Sep 1998. The "groups" are refered as "anti-Japan" because they, for example, Alliance in Memory of the Victims of the Nanking Massacre, do not like Japan is playing leadership role. The Japanese govt already paid huge amount and their seeking compensation is illegal, by the way.
That's correct. Chang stated in her book.
These are from SAPIO, Sep 1997.
As far as I know, there are no pictures which proove the incident. The pictures are from other wars, synthesized, and/or made by the Chinese govt. Please note that she stated the incident happened in Winter. It is not my job to prove there are no such incident here. However, there are more than enough proofs that questions the quality of her work. This is the point. In addition, Mark claimed she is not a political activist, or she is a historian rather than a political activist. His ideas do not make any sense. Mark ignores all evidences he does not favor. This is slightly offtopic but if such incident exists, the Chinese govt cannot claim any compensation but the Taiwanese govt can. I think Chang is Taiwanese.-- Flowerofchivalry 06:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
NGO = 非政府組織. In the Joint Communique it was the government of the PRC that gave up its rights to recompensation from the Japanese government. The argument is that Chinese NGOs and individuals can still sue for recompensation from Japanese companies.
In any case, once again let me say that asking for recompensation is not "anti-Japan", even if you have doubts about the legal aspects. There are Japanese lawyers and Japanese individuals who are helping Chinese people simply because they feel they're doing the right and decent thing; are they "anti-Japan"? I myself am disgusted by Japanese actions during World War II, and as a Chinese person I am also disgusted by many actions that Chinese governments have taken in the past. But that does not make me "anti-Japan" or "anti-China".
And finally, are you saying that the Nanking Massacre did not happen? In this case, please come to Nanking Massacre and tell us what you think about the article, especially the pictures. -- ran ( talk) 18:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
I still cannot get the point that why NGOs and people still have rights to demand compensation from the Japanese govt which has been paid already. Such groups are called anti-Japan groups because they are against or oppose to the Japanese govt or Japan or whatever. I have to tell you that those anti-Japan Japanese people are communists and anti-Establishment. Well, there are several people who unknowingly joined them but majority is still anti-Japan. Since there is a freedom of speech in Japan (but not in China), such movement is legal, but still they are anti-Japan. The final point is so-called Nanking Massacre. I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened. This is because it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Once again, it is Chang or supporter's job to prove the incident, but seems it have never succeeded. I wish I could join the argument to the other page at this time, but I have only 24 hours a day. I will join the argument after I finish this argument.-- Flowerofchivalry 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I was discussing in the other place, vandalism was occured. By the way, why she is not a political activist? She is clearly a political activist rather than a historian. She might be a historian because she claimed herself so. I'm gonna wait one day to modify the article(to discuss here first). -- Flowerofchivalry 02:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I wrote on the other page, you are just supporting Chang. She had been paid for her so-called research on China by the Chinese government and she accused the Japanese govt. It is not necessarily to earn money to be a political activist, but she was paid by the Chinese govt.
You have to show me why I should not write "a political activist" on the article. As you know this already, we are discussing about the accuracy of the book and the incident itself. I don't edit that part today because I don't feel good and need some sleep, but the article seriously lacks NPOV. If you believe the book is accurate and most part are the truth, please explain them here. It's your homework.
Once again, this is not your personal place to support Iris Chang. You can open your own website or blog, so you can do whatever you want without arguing annoying guy. I'm not gonna disturb your personal website :D -- Flowerofchivalry 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mark, you are keep reverting the article without any discussions. That will be considered as vandalism. It seems you cannot make any counterargument but you just want to write your personal opinion. This will not be tolerated. -- Flowerofchivalry 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You are the person should act like a civilised human being. You are just writing your own personal opinion and trying to defend that. -- Flowerofchivalry 11:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Hmib 06:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Now, back to watching Constantine.)
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Flowerofchivalry, what are your proofs for alleging that:
Mandel, Hmib, and all others. Please, please read NPOV. Mandel stated in Hmib's talkpage that information should not be come from right-wing website. Does this satisfy NPOV? Definitely not.
And Hmib, unfortunately you have violated 3RR by possibly unintentionally because of Mark. I have reported you but I wish you won't be banned for 24hrs.
I will come back after I finish writing Lithium salt article in Japanese, so please read and fully understand NPOV. -- Flowerofchivalry 09:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think people who just want to support China by ignoring the rules fed up with the situation.
I hope you will get well soon and come back here. For number 4, the original article I made is for The Chinese in America, and nothing related to The Rape of Nanking. -- Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want a third party to get involved with this, I'd be happy to help. Message me on my talk page if so. Pedant 20:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
I will edit out reference to hata's estimate as "implausibly low" for the reason that his number is not at all inaccurate in term of "factual" and "legal" (i.e. internaltional treaty)" basis.
The reason for this confusion start from (for some, deliberately) ignoring the fact that intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict. Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform (most actually didnt have guns), in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible.
Only area, where every head counts can be added to "killing of civilians outside of military purpose" (i.e. massacre) is when Japanese army went into "Safety Zone" within Nanking City. This is not to say that atrocities did not take place outside of the Safety Zone. Just that outside of safety zone, attempt to estimate the extent of "massacre" in numerical term is futile exercise. Hata's "implausibly" low number is from estimate of Chinese killed in Safety Zone and he make this point explicit in his book. So I will delete the section of the article which state his number being "wrong". Of course, one could explain the detail of Hata's number but I belive that can be done more appropriatly in NM section, not Iris Chang section. Youji Hajime
This is Hmib's POV pushing. Hmib accused anything against the communist's propaganda is not reliable. -- Flowerofchivalry 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
FoC keeps deleting this paragraph and Hmib keeps restoring it.
Chang's defenders point out that many of the sources cited in criticising the work made errors larger than Chang was accused of - for example one common source was Hata Ikuhito and his work "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable" published in 1998, which contained an implausibly low estimate of fatalities.
Hmib, if you want to keep this, you need to name at least one of Chang's defenders who has pointed this out, and either link to it or otherwise cite it. Without a source, it's original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
The Japanese historian Hata Ikuhito makes some telling criticisms, although Hata himself minimizes the extent of the massacre.[6] He questions Chang's estimate of the number of victims, a ghoulish exercise perhaps, but an important one. He argues that Chang's figure of 300,000 is impossibly high, but his own figure of 40,000 killed, although similar to the estimates of some Western witnesses, is implausibly low. [3]
Not wishing to make anyone defensive, but I think it may be inappropriate to post Mrs. Chang’s suicide notes in a public forum such as Wikipedia. Out of respect for her privacy and the feelings of her husband and young son, I think information like this might best be placed in less public places.
Perhaps instead of actually reproducing her suicide notes a brief summary of them would be a better choice. Something like,
Would this change be objectionable to any current contributors? Best Regards, JQ 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Should the photo of Elizabeth Smart (Utah) removed now that the case is over? Should we remove Muhammad cartoon because it offend muslims? These information come from verified sources. Deleting such information due to "moral orjbective" would amount to censorship, which is specifically ruled out in "What wikipedia is not". If someone object to these information. They should stop reading. Vapour
The inaccuracies in the text "The Rape of Nanking" are NOT "alleged". They are a well-documented fact. I'm not debating the veracity of the Rape itself, just that the book was poorly written. For example, see: [4], which is biased as hell to the Japanese right-wing, and some of their arguments are way out there, but still shows how dishonest her photographs could be. or [5], which not only discusses her NUMEROUS errors in detail, but also her plagiarism.
When this book came out in Japan, even the Japanese historians and scholars in the so-called "Grand Massacre School" (who admit that up to 300,000 were killed in the Rape) argued against the release of the book. There are so many errors in it that the ultranationalist right-wing uses the book as a straw man; they say that this poorly-written book is representative of real Grand Massacre scholarship on the subject, which it is not. In this way, it is her book that is helping to keep alive the crazy Japanese right wing, and increasing the spread of right-wing sites like the one I linked to above.
Here is a list of revisions of mistakes that were revised before the release of the paperback: [6]
There's plenty of GOOD studies out there that verify the Nanjing massacres, but this book surely isn't among them. Denying that this book is full of mistakes is ridiculous hero worship/ideology. Bueller 007 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rebuttals and opposing views about The Rape of Nanking would be relevant for an article on the book. Putting the links here on her bio page seems to violate NPOV. I mean, you don't balance profiles of and eulogies to Chang by linking to personal sites which pick apart one, only one, of her books. Has this been raised before? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Her suicide and depression are linked to sleep deprivation in the article. Where did the sleep deprivation come from? Was Chang probably just overworked, did she suffer from insomnia, or what other reasons have been suggested? -- Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
What was all that in her suicide notes about the CIA and the government? Was there an actual reason why she felt that people were watching her, or was it a case of paranoia brought on by her other disorders? A little more info on this please. Ham Pastrami 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Is their a better photograph of her than the one available. Her left eye looks somewhat creepy. I think it is the way the shadows appear on her face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.148.167 ( talk) 03:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you verify this claim. She is totally unheard of in South East Asia- many authors pre-dating her have written superior books with a far larger readership- in English and SE Asian languages. This point is highly Americo-centric and thusly biased and inaccurate. I suggest if you lack the supporting evidence-kindly delete it- it seems like a self-promotional cliche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.136.54 ( talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
What religious affiliations did Iris Chang have in her life? 138.239.60.79 ( talk) 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention in the article of plagiarism in "The Rape of Nanking". Shrikeangel ( talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)