![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is the 2004 archive. For more recent comments, please see the Talk page.
I would like to question the neutrality of translating 'Jiken' to 'incident'. This seems to show that 'other side' is trying to downplay this event which is not true. While technically possible translation, 'Jiken' term is used very broadly in Japanese from very minor everyday incident to the like of the Tianmen Square 'Jiken' which is a bona fide masscre or the Aum cult's Sarin 'Jiken' which killed and injured more than 5000. I suggest the use of 'event' for the translation.
Revth 17:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is ist really necessary for NPOV reason to include the reference "ABC...."? Encyclopedia should not mean that it holds every opinion of a certain timepoint. -- unsigned
I think so too. Although Japanese "ABC..." pages have some good materials, English pages are not so good. So, I changed it to another site. How about this one? Kadzuwo 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is not the word "三月亡華" in Japanese language as
you see.
This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--
Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. -- Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海,三月亡支那 is the japanese version
There is not the word "三月亡支那" in Japanese language. [1]-- Snow steed 06:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? -- Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. -- Poo-T 19 May 2004
I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle
This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.-- Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. -- Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kadzuwo - Japan has a whole alphabet appart form Kanji which is exact chineese characters. Hence, it is not definitive that the word is not indeed Japanese.
"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海,三月亡支那 is the japanese version
Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? -- Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. -- Poo-T 19 May 2004
I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle
This was moved from the article space. Rewrite before posting. -- Jia ng 23:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to make some changes on this after reading Honda Katsuichi's book, (The Nanjing Massacre) an excellent account with very good reference backup. Hopefully it will clarify some areas. Mandel 09:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I've gone through some parts of the article and have removed some portions which seems insufficiently substantiated. The problem with writing articles like this is that if it is not sufficiently documented, the right-wing Japanese will have a field-day picking out the errors and inconsistencies, then make a whole hula-point from a nitpick. That's the problem with the Rape of Nanking book by Ms Iris Chang. There're some misquotations and supposed poor documentation, and now it's backfired upon the author. In short, we can't be overly careful. For example, someone added this:
after one party added this:
I'll like either parties to substantiate with a reference. I can do it for the second one, from both a Chinese website [2], which states the number between 535,000 and 635,000. Even so, I think one good reference is not enough.
There's another problem. Apparently a lot of the writing is quoted directly from Kajimoto Masato's website [3] without acknowledgement at all. It's a copyrighted website. See [4] for example and compare with the present article. Mandel 10:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have rewrote the category of Japanese opinion in line with Japanese Wikepedia. This is not to state which opinion is true. Japanese page also say Jyusumannin Ijyou = More than 100,000 and several 10 thousands. I have adjusted this to simply "more than 100,000" FWBOarticle 20:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Care to elaborate?
I'd like to mention that if it is based on Tanaka Masaaki's refutation I'd revert the changes. It is not Iris Chang but rather Tanaka Masaaki who rewrote so-called documents to his liking. [5] Mandel 11:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I was just reading Chinese Wiki page which says, "總數可能會高達一千萬人". O.K. my chinese is not that good but it appear that it say "the death toll potentially reach up to 1000,000". This sounds bit absurd but should I include it by attributing on Chinese POV? FWBOarticle 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm reverting the suspicious edits of User:Qizil bayraq who has only 5 edits before changing this page, and has not explained controversial edits or engaged in discussion. Fuzheado | Talk 12:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm soory. But it is fact that some (not all) nationalist groups in Japan claim the massacre was fabricated as propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China. Surely, their claim itself is suspicious. Qizil bayraq
I edited, and hopefully improved, the English of the Japanese estimates section. I first separated it in its own section since it appeared to come from a different editor. I tried to minimize the changes. The only change I'm not completely comfortable with is that I couldn't think of a good counterpart to the word "apologist" in naming the two sides of the debate. I preferred "apologists" to "revisionist" because the latter feels like someone who'll lie while apologist connotes someone who'll explain Vincent 05:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I have discovered an article which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner. I feel that this paper would help to fix the currenst state of the article where the debate (death toll estimate) is separated on national basis. FWBOarticle
Oh well. I'm quite sure some won't like my edit given that my extra content put 300,000 figures within context. Also I eliminated Japanese perspective and Japanese histography and stremlined into the whole article. I hope this one is considered as the major improvement. I will add more details in "Death toll estimate" section provided the entire section don't get reverted. 84.65.111.142
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
This is the 2004 archive. For more recent comments, please see the Talk page.
I would like to question the neutrality of translating 'Jiken' to 'incident'. This seems to show that 'other side' is trying to downplay this event which is not true. While technically possible translation, 'Jiken' term is used very broadly in Japanese from very minor everyday incident to the like of the Tianmen Square 'Jiken' which is a bona fide masscre or the Aum cult's Sarin 'Jiken' which killed and injured more than 5000. I suggest the use of 'event' for the translation.
Revth 17:10, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is ist really necessary for NPOV reason to include the reference "ABC...."? Encyclopedia should not mean that it holds every opinion of a certain timepoint. -- unsigned
I think so too. Although Japanese "ABC..." pages have some good materials, English pages are not so good. So, I changed it to another site. How about this one? Kadzuwo 01:55, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is not the word "三月亡華" in Japanese language as
you see.
This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.--
Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. -- Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海,三月亡支那 is the japanese version
There is not the word "三月亡支那" in Japanese language. [1]-- Snow steed 06:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? -- Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. -- Poo-T 19 May 2004
I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle
This is a word made by China for anti-Japanese propaganda.-- Kadzuwo 09:53, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
If such word was, Japanese don't use the Kanji "華" (from 中華) but "支" (from 支那 or Shina) then. So. exactly the word is made by China. -- Kadzuwo 12:30, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kadzuwo - Japan has a whole alphabet appart form Kanji which is exact chineese characters. Hence, it is not definitive that the word is not indeed Japanese.
"Politics is War without Bloodshed..." -- Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) 三日下上海,三月亡支那 is the japanese version
Can some know Japanese translation the section "否定説について" in Japanese WP into English, which I think it's valuable? -- Samuel 09:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm going to do it as additional description to the page. I don't agree with the opinion to deny the killing, but it can give another POV about it. -- Poo-T 19 May 2004
I have attributed argument of "sporadic" rape to denial side. Also I left change from "100,000" to "10,000 to 40,000" as it is. "10,000 to 40,000" is based on one guy's work, Ikuhiko Hata, Law Professor from Chiba University. He is a jurist/historian and he is known to employ very stringent standard of proof in accepting historical evidence (possibly in line of "beyond reasonable doubt"). His book on Nanking did become a best seller when the debate was "hot" in Japan. However, he doest apply this standard to any other topics of history and quite meticurously rank the standard in which evidences are accepted or rejected. Therefore he is not classified in the same league as denial side from ideological right wing group. However, his work is widely used by these groups to justify their position. Most academic historians in Japan belong to 100,000 and above group. The fact is that when there are "massacre" in place like war time China which had no effective government, there won't be any proper resident registratio and when there are mass killing, it is impossible o count dead body one by one. Obviousky death toll become "estimate" which is the source of much debate. FWBOarticle
This was moved from the article space. Rewrite before posting. -- Jia ng 23:24, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I would like to make some changes on this after reading Honda Katsuichi's book, (The Nanjing Massacre) an excellent account with very good reference backup. Hopefully it will clarify some areas. Mandel 09:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I've gone through some parts of the article and have removed some portions which seems insufficiently substantiated. The problem with writing articles like this is that if it is not sufficiently documented, the right-wing Japanese will have a field-day picking out the errors and inconsistencies, then make a whole hula-point from a nitpick. That's the problem with the Rape of Nanking book by Ms Iris Chang. There're some misquotations and supposed poor documentation, and now it's backfired upon the author. In short, we can't be overly careful. For example, someone added this:
after one party added this:
I'll like either parties to substantiate with a reference. I can do it for the second one, from both a Chinese website [2], which states the number between 535,000 and 635,000. Even so, I think one good reference is not enough.
There's another problem. Apparently a lot of the writing is quoted directly from Kajimoto Masato's website [3] without acknowledgement at all. It's a copyrighted website. See [4] for example and compare with the present article. Mandel 10:50, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have rewrote the category of Japanese opinion in line with Japanese Wikepedia. This is not to state which opinion is true. Japanese page also say Jyusumannin Ijyou = More than 100,000 and several 10 thousands. I have adjusted this to simply "more than 100,000" FWBOarticle 20:52, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Care to elaborate?
I'd like to mention that if it is based on Tanaka Masaaki's refutation I'd revert the changes. It is not Iris Chang but rather Tanaka Masaaki who rewrote so-called documents to his liking. [5] Mandel 11:04, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
I was just reading Chinese Wiki page which says, "總數可能會高達一千萬人". O.K. my chinese is not that good but it appear that it say "the death toll potentially reach up to 1000,000". This sounds bit absurd but should I include it by attributing on Chinese POV? FWBOarticle 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm reverting the suspicious edits of User:Qizil bayraq who has only 5 edits before changing this page, and has not explained controversial edits or engaged in discussion. Fuzheado | Talk 12:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm soory. But it is fact that some (not all) nationalist groups in Japan claim the massacre was fabricated as propaganda to be used in anti-Japan education in China. Surely, their claim itself is suspicious. Qizil bayraq
I edited, and hopefully improved, the English of the Japanese estimates section. I first separated it in its own section since it appeared to come from a different editor. I tried to minimize the changes. The only change I'm not completely comfortable with is that I couldn't think of a good counterpart to the word "apologist" in naming the two sides of the debate. I preferred "apologists" to "revisionist" because the latter feels like someone who'll lie while apologist connotes someone who'll explain Vincent 05:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think I have discovered an article which is not only fair and impartial but also explain the difference estimate in death toll on more scholastic manner. I feel that this paper would help to fix the currenst state of the article where the debate (death toll estimate) is separated on national basis. FWBOarticle
Oh well. I'm quite sure some won't like my edit given that my extra content put 300,000 figures within context. Also I eliminated Japanese perspective and Japanese histography and stremlined into the whole article. I hope this one is considered as the major improvement. I will add more details in "Death toll estimate" section provided the entire section don't get reverted. 84.65.111.142