![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
It's interesting how the authors of the holocaust denial article has effectively painted the concept of "holocaust denial" as basically conspiracy or anti-semitism; however, Nanjing Massacre denial (and related Japanese War Crime denial) seems almost 'reasonable' or actually can be considered as "another historical perspective", rather than anti-Chinese. Please people, review the introduction of both articles, and think for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
This article should be treated no differently than the Holocaust article with respect to denials in the perpetrator nation. Would Wikipedia accept a link to Holocaust Denial in the lead of the article, much as we have a link to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre here? Jtwang ( talk) 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at both the Chinese and Japanese perspectives on the issue of this topic. I notice legitimate questions as to the sources of the figures for these terrible events including what seems to be logical errors. I have also looked at what seems to be compelling evidence proving this event. My conclusion so far has been that a number of Japanese wont admit what seems obvious and the Chinese have intentionally inflated casualty figures to make the event more significant. I dont want to argue which is a right action, what I want to assert is that it is unfortunate that friction is the case surrounding the investigation of this event and that both sides should work together to bring peace to these families and to reiterate to the people of Japan how their government lied to them. I also want to read your response as to if you provide the facts that question the figures involved with the Nanking massacre, (for example, one person witnessing and counting 57,000 people die). Could it happen, Yes, but even with a strong college education, I dont think I can count that high with patience or tolerance. There are numerous discrepencies within the accumulating of the number dead, however, this should not detract from the overall importance of this horrible event. Just thought you could display more objectivity in stating some of what I have mentioned. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
That has to be hard to deal with edit wars over such a touchy subject. Sorry. I praise your involvement with this article, it must be hard. However, what are the figures of casualties from Japanese perspectives (not the idiots that deny it even happened). In addition, you could also read some of the literature attempting to refute the claims of Nanking, including good literature that refutes some of the assertions by your woman author mentioned within the article. I have read both sides, this is why I ask you about this. You could avoid edit wars if you did. If you want my help please let me know by responding below. I want to contribute any way I can to this article. Thanks
I am curious why you used the word "extremist" so much. What makes them extreme? It looks to be an attack on the people that hold that view. -- 141.129.1.98 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the Japanese actually have official reports while the Chinese are going by verbal stories you need to try and decide who is the more accurate source? That and as some people believe this is a product of Chinese hate propaganda at the Japanese for conquering them. It should be a less black and white label of what happened. Maybe some alleged or claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.241.19 ( talk) 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the time that Japan declared its support for the US against China in the question of the Taiwan issue, then immediately afterwards, China protested textbooks in Japan by destroying Japanese businesses in China and dragging innocent Japanese exchange students into the streets and beating them to near death, then afterwards CNN publishes a article mentioning the several lies within the Chinese textbooks about the cultural revolution, cannabalism of American GIS during the Korean War, etc.etc.etc. and a quote from Chinese scholar at Cambridge that admits that China is using the atrocities of Japan during World War II and textbook objectivity for propaganda and political reasons? If it is , I would like to offer you several articles of sources for a contribution please. I hopr you would look at my sources, if you are open to this path please respond below, I am currently scheduled to write about this topic so I am now in the process of research but hopefully, what I have uncovered may be corrected by you or may beneift you. Thanks.
Chinese people in Taiwan like my parents are anti-comnuist but we know about the lies in Japanese textbooks. CHSGHSF 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About this recent addition to the lenaga textbook incident section:
While most in Japan do not deny that a massacre took place in Nanking, many Japanese citizens feel that the extent of crimes committed have been exaggerrated in order to give a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism, which aims to weaken Japanese power and influence in the region. This is especially true with the more hardline members of the government cabinet, who have grown increasingly wary of China's military build-up in recent years.
I'm concerned about the part where it says "While most in Japan do not deny..." and then "many Japanese citizens feel...". Do we have a source to claim that "most" or "many" Japanese feel this way? Or was this completely anecdotal of the author? Also, does that fall under the usage of weasel words? Hong Qi Gong 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think more accurate description is to say that "After publication of Japanese military reports as well as collected interviews of Japanese veterans of the battle, the debate over whether massacre took place or not has ended by the 80s. The debate shifted in 90s to the estimates of death toll and the legality of killing of "enemy combatant".". I would say past 90s, the debate pretty much died down. I hardly read about it now a day. I think the publication of Iris Chang's book was the peak of the controversy. That didn't go down well on massacre side of the debate. Vapour
I added a section about the Nanking Safety Zone. Normally I wouldn't mention it in the talk page, but since this is such a touchy subject, I thought I would mention it. Please, though, if you have a problem with something I wrote, PLEASE DO NOT DELET IT. Discuss it on the talk page first, make edits, whatever. I just think that the Safety Zone is a very important factor in the massacre, and has been mostly overlooked in the creation of this article. My point: whether or not what I wrote was correct, something about the Nanking Safety Zone needs to be in this article. Heavy Metal Cellist talk contribs
sigh, I hate when users argue over tiny things. I decided to take the "claim" text off for the following reasons:
1. The Japanese denial on the Massacre questioned the factual accuracy of the released Nanking photographs in general (See 南京大虐殺論争#写真の真偽). They did not specifically point out those two photograph is "fake" (unless there is an citation).
2. It is not the best way to "specify" the claim in the photograph. I will add the related text in "Historiography and debate" section because by specifying it in the photograph, there is POV problems (As if your saying "The Japanese rightists claimed this picture is fake. How ridiculous!"). It is truth that they did state so, but you don't describe it like that.
3. I am planning to translate the 南京大虐殺論争 ( Debates on Nanking Massacre) page. It'll be much more specifying on this field of interest.
AQu01rius 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sentence was very unclear however. The "Revisionists claim.." sentence was not neutral because of its lack of citation and the intentional specification, not because of its wording. The wording of the sentence itself was reasonable. AQu01rius 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article here, rather than at Nanjing massacre? The article on the city is Nanjing, not Nanking, and this article should reflect that. The capitalization seems wrong as well. -- tjstrf 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's wrong with the Rape of Nanking -- 203.173.165.132 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nanking was used in the 1940s. Nanjing is the modern name for the city. One should use "Nanjing" when referring to the modern city, and "Nanking" when referring to the city as it was then.-- Ryan! 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think whatever you decide to go with, you should at least use the pinyin (I think that is the common system used on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.252.190 ( talk) 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the EroGuro movement may have influenced the Japanese military to perpetrate the Rape of Nanking. 205.188.116.9 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
For your information, the discussion concerning citation is archived at Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4#.22Citation Style.22 Tag. -- 朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My great grandfather was part of the IJA in China and he can confirm that this never happened.
I beg your pardon? "Exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese?" Bakarocket 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Miborovsky, don't be such a troll. Your point is valid, but the insulting little nuances like "assuming we (my italics) were kind enough not to pop a bullet in his head" and "unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China" don't do your credibility much good. The two of us have been at loggerheads before, but in the past I've managed to convince myself that you are, at heart, fair and objective. Unfortunately this one comment makes it crystal clear what your views are and suggests pretty well what your objective is in stalking this page.
Bathrobe 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
CHSGHSF 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)== Nanking Massacre is not assumed the fact in Japan == Nanking Massacre is not believed for a fact in present Japan. The research how it does and Nanking Massacre was fabricated is active. The evidence photographs of Nanking Massacre were proven to be entire imitation. There was not man who witnessed Nanking Massacre by the Japanese either.-- 202.157.51.120 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
200,000 people of Nanjing when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. 250,000 people of Nanjing after one month when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. The rape case in Nanjing by a Japanese army is one.-- 202.157.50.82 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Testimony person's image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBLDqLU0TU&mode=related&search=
Japanese army(pilot)
There were many foreigners in Nanjing, too and it was peaceful at that time though this person had gone to the barber of the Chinese management of Nanjing.-- 202.157.50.82 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
«Last night about 1000 women and girls were raped. If any husbands or brothers attempted to protect the victims, they were immediately shot to death by the Japanese soldiers.» John Rabe, December 17.
«I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1000 cases a night, and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disaproval, there is bayonet stab or bullet. People are hysterical. Women are being acrried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases.» Reverend James McCallum, December 19.
«Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her one year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby being killed with a bayonet. Some japanese then went to the next room, where were Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74 and her two gdaughters, aged 16 and 14. The soldiers killed the old woman. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2-3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed into her vagina.» Reverend John Magee, commentary of a self-made film sent to the Nanking Office of the German Embassy on 10 February 1938.
Excerpts from American goddess at the rape of Nanking, the courage of Minnie Vautrin, p. 97 and The good man of Nanking, the diaries of John Rabe, p.281.
-- Flying tiger 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
202.157.52.182, I'm afraid you are going to have to do a lot better then that, given your counterpoints are delivered without really stating their sources. Should the amount of evidence you have supposing your incredible proposition that population really increased during the period of the occupation along with other things prove to be anything more then a house of cards that one might desperately like to believe in… perhaps you could educate all of us here by coming up with an article that opens all of the facts to scrutiny?
For one I regret to inform you not only do I find your claims incredible, should they prove to be false would prove to be a great dishonor of sorts to the Japanese people. While one must realize that the PRC government has a vested interest in inflating the scale of the tragedy, to cover up a lie with another lie in the extreme opposite really proves to be no better. Lets get our latent nationalism out of this talk and focus on the true scale of the humanitarian disaster that almost certainly happen.
I for one found the facts on a peaceful and happy life under a Japanese regime extremely hard to believe. For starters I do not live in China and my nation has little vested interested in making the Japanese look bad. HOWEVER, I have long listened to eyewitness accounts from my very own grandparents (who were in china during the war) on how they saw their own friends and families rounded up and killed on often the barest of reasons. I've seen the most nonpolitical of elderly folk harbour extreme bitterness for anything Japanese to the point they cannot bring themselves to even handle anything Japan even thought they are now in Singapore and not China.
As much as the PRC has a vested interest in making the tragedy bigger, I find it extremely hard to believe that this much of harbored personal resentment in many of the war survivors is the result of listening to too much radio PRC… not especially when the people involved often had vivid personal eyewitness accounts to much of the things committed. There's a big difference from saying "I heard they killed Bob," to actually becoming "I SAW them kill Bob and do all those awful things."
If Nanking was the liberated paradise you described, it must be a very odd anomaly in the general conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in their areas of occupation. You are telling me to believe that my grandparents are delusional (or worse lying to be to make me hate anything Japanese for some reason) and that their vivid accounts are all fabrications as part of a general Chinese conspiracy worldwide.
And not to mention I do not think whitewashing history is the way to go about honoring your war dead. Our forefathers did not die for a lie. -Rexregum
Japs, they are always fucking idiot, non-human sense fetcher, before and after time. --
John55556
02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Image after Nanjing surrenders(Image of people who end war and return at shelter destination)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYXmyAW_fw&mode=related&search=
-- 202.157.15.87 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Television program of Japan that explains thing that is lie Nanjing slaughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Njb3sG-7U&eurl= -- 202.157.15.87 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Ha ! Ha ! Your naive propaganda video made me laugh so much !! Thank you !! -- Flying tiger 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Because Chiang Kai-shek and the commander of a Chinese army deserted Chinese soldiers, and only we had escaped, China invited pandemonium. The number of victims kept increasing because a seceding Chinese soldiers took off the service uniform, changed clothes to the citizens clothes, and used the Chinese citizens for the escutcheon. A Chinese soldier who did not have food wore citizens' clothes, and disappeared in the citizens, became the burglar, the thief, and Zoc, and was repeating plunder, the rape, the assault, and the slaughter from the Chinese citizens. A Chinese soldier stole the service uniform and the firearm of a Japanese army, took the shape of a Japanese soldier, set fire in the Nanjing city, raped Chinese's women and children in addition, murdered, and had slaughtered it. And, a Chinese soldier is pretending all these atrocities to the act of a Japanese army. When withdrawing, a Chinese army destroyed and carried out all goods that a Japanese army was able to use. This is 'Scorched-earth strategy ' of a Chinese tradition. (The scorched-earth strategy of the most famous Chinese army is a strategy to which the embankment in Hwang Ho is destroyed, the deluge is caused, and several hundred thousand members' Chinese was drowned. )-- 202.157.18.221 10:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You got to do a lot better then that 202.157.18.221. And firstly I am surprised you could even put up such flimsly arguments which brings up the question if you are really a true Japanese apologist to begin, given your arguments are so silly one tends to wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese by putting such an opinion as their own. Frankly I think there are better arguments to be used even by the most rabid defenders of Japanese actions in WW2.
Not to mention your "idea" on the Chinese army somehow managing to carry out a mass slaughter of Nanking draws entirely from speculation, defies all eye witness accounts, and not to mention suggests that the victims had no common sense themselves are were so competely fooled. You bend so many rules of proper history accounting and basic logic that I wonder if you even bothered with them to begin with... which makes one wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese with such arguments to begin with. I find it hard to believe that any Japanese person would dishonour his forefathers with such a twisting of facts.
How the Chinese army managed to get such a large number of Japanese uniforms and firearms to stage such an act is hard to imagine, not to mention that even if they did manage to do this... the average citizen of Nanking could still easily tell if the soldier was truly Japanese or Chinese, and would hardly be fooled. More tellingly, if this was really the case the surviviors of Nanjing would have easily pointed it out post war and exposed the whole thing to independent sources that were not affiliated to the PRC. If the Chinese army was really behind this thing, there would be no lack of Chinese victims that would eventually speak up. We hear many stories from Chinese Christians, democratic activists and what have you not exposing the actions of their government... but so far no word from any Nanjing victims of the Chinese army pulling such a prank. The red-handedness has really been all pointing towards the Japanese. I won't even start on all the accounts of the tortures and mass killings from the survivors in my country of Singapore of which we can still easily get a first hand eyewitness account from.
Frankly even the most militant Japanese apologists don't deny killing took place in Nanking, they try instead to downplay the severity of the incident or justify it somehow. Your positions of no killing or conspiracy theories simply hold no weight... and often make people wonder if you are even Japanese to begin with. For so far we know most Japanese to be reasonable people who are honorable and brave to admit the truth and face the facts. We see none of that in your posts, if you are truly Japanese, please stop disgracing your nation in this place by such behavior. You are really dragging the name of your nation in the mud before the international community here.
--Hello I am Matsui Tsuyoshi. I do not think Nihonjin kill Chineses. Fake picturs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.27 ( talk) 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Rexregum 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In W W II, military forces that kill a lot of Chinese are not a Japanese armies but Chinese armies.To begin with, there was no intention of invading China in a Japanese army.Japan was only drawn in to the civil war of a national party and the communist party in China.A Japanese army only counterattacked to the attack of a Chinese army.A Chinese army did not stop the attack to a Japanese army though withdrew even if defeated, and the thing occurrence that a Japanese army also stops counterattacking did not come.A Chinese army did the scorched-earth strategy when withdrawing, and killed a lot of Chinese.Japan rebuilt the city that a Chinese army had destroyed.The purpose of Japan is a modernization and a public peace recovery of China. It is the same as the United States in Iraq today. This is true.-- 202.147.217.166 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Ha! Ha! You are even funnier than 202.157.15.87 ! I almost though for a moment you were serious. Thanks a lot ! You prove that dramatic subjects sometimes need humour...-- Flying tiger 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In Asian nations, the majority were colonies in Europe and America. Only Thailand had been barely escaping occupying excluding Japan.China was continued after Qing Dynasty had collapsed confusion in the state of a half colony.Afterwards, China was in the state of the civil war of Kuomintang and Communist.(It looks like Iraq over which Shiite is fighting against Sunni.The transitional government is a Nanjing government of Wang Zhao ming.The standpoint of the U.S. military is a Japanese army. The United States hoped for the democratization of Iraq, and Japan hoped for the modernization of China.) Communist that had started defeating at a Kuomintang drew in Japan to the war.The final target of Japan was to have made Asia where it was able to oppose Europe and America.Stability and the modernization of China were indispensable for that. To defend one's independence, Japan stood up.-- 202.147.217.166 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you have any sort of a good grasp of the situation on the ground then. First and foremost the actual reported actions of the Japanese army on the ground were reported to be invariably, and greatly, different from the propaganda leaflets that they distributed promising liberty and modernization. Not to mention the average Japanese soldier didn’t go into China with the lesson drilled into them that they were supposed to be improving the lives of the Chinese they were supposedly “liberating”. The American grunts have the humanitarian mission on the top of their list in Iraq now and even they can screw it up at times.
I have no reason to see why the Japanese army that was not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, with a brutal and dehumanising military system made up of suppressed conscripts that were drafted for slightly over one ren (and considered at times even more expendable then equipment) bears even the slightest resemblance to the Americans in Iraq now. They had plenty of reasons to act out their murderous impulses unabated and preventing abuses of the civilian populace was never high on the list of Japanese war plans.
I don't recall any great gains that the Japanese made in promoting an "Asian Asia". If anything the revolt of independence against the colonial masters after WW2 was not because the nations had seen the light of independence under Japanese rule, but because the colonial masters had failed to protect these nations from the BRUTALITY of the Japanese empire. I don't think the island of Singapore made any progress from its previous, prosperous state under the occupation... in fact so much was lost and suffered that the current nation of Singapore places a heavy emphasis on DEFENCE to prevent another repeat of any half-assed-in-word-only "liberations" like what the Japanese did to them.
No, I do not think the Japanese came in with the idea of “liberating” China. There were more complex reasons involved. I don’t think Japan is necessarily evil for starting the war, and the situation then was more mixed. What more likely happened however, was that the Japanese military system based on “bullshitdo” (a greatly corrupted form of the actual Samurai code), that encouraged the average Japanese conscript to disregard common morality to do anything for the empire, along with a general apathy to humanitarian concerns, a rigid and repressive life in the Japanese military as well as some racial superiority to mix it all up. What resulted was the perfect conditions for the Japanese army to commit the atrocities they were blamed for.
The prove is pretty exhaustive, and once again I think the plenty of war survivors I can still interview/ have interviewed also told me quite clearly that a lot of the unnecessary killing in Asia was done very by the Japanese army. Non of the sides in the war were really innocent of doing any great wrongs, and I find you idea of this suddenly magnanimous Japanese liberator greatly mistaken. Japan had her interests threatened and she moved to defend them, but she did not move as a righteous liberator striking out in self-defence, but rather in a very aggressive, and often unnecessarily bloody way. Her future generations would do good to learn from these mistakes or they will repeat them. There is no honour in defending a lie, nor making people who became monsters in our interests our heroes.
I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here by trying to twist history around to become as favourable to Japan. I doubt it cuts any ice at all to those moderates who knew that the Japanese were not the simple “bad” guys in WW2, but nevertheless did many very bad things. All the twisting in the world won’t change that, and I’m afraid your attempts to draw from radical right-wing revisionist arguments that flout most common laws of handling historical evidence don’t really help your case here. If anything it drives international opinion against Japan.
Rexregum 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wang Zhao ming organized the Nanjing government of the pro-Japanese in Nanjing.If the Nanjing slaughter is true, he will choose another place.Is the establishment of the pro-Japanese government impossible by the slaughter site even though.
It is a book that verified the thing that is the lie the Nanjing slaughter.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4794213816/ref=sib_dp_pt/503-2243263-6995145#reader-link
-- 202.147.217.166 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You really have to come up with better arguments.
Sorry, the “point” of “Wang Zhao Ming” you raised does not seem to have any bearing on the point of the debate. Wang Jingwei, given his position, never had any real choice in choosing where to set up his “government”, nor did he really have any say in what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese back then, given he was pursuing a policy of collaboration. It’s hardly amazing that he should end up in Nanjing and turn a blind eye to what was being committed there. History has no lack of such characters, so I’m not sure what you prove at all, except trying to read a lot more into what is really there.
Which sums up your arguments here mainly, which consist of trying to dismiss rather blatant and obvious evidence like first-person eyewitness accounts from multiple sources (not just the Chinese), photographic evidence, and a whole array of other concrete evidence with extremely fragile and fanciful speculations like the massacre was perpetrated by “Japanese-dressed Chinese soldiers”, and trying to take neutral facts and twist them to your prove your point, such as saying what printed on Japanese propaganda articles as what actually transpired on the ground.
I’m afraid you have to do a lot, a lot better then that. I am rather disappointed in fact, that you have chosen not to really answer any of the points I raised such as the vivid, first person accounts I can easily get from any of my surviving forefathers on a snap, the consensus of virtually all historians of different nationalities on what transpired, and even the obvious holes I have pointed out in you argument. What you have chosen to do however, is to continually draw from a pool of shallow, right wing conspiracy theories and speculations that invariably support your case with blatant disregard for truth. Truly, this is rather disappointing, and I wonder if your society frowns on such unreasonable behaviour.
Even if there was no PRC to distort things, the agreement of various historians in the international circle that the massacre did indeed take place. And what’s more telling such a massacre is not at odds with the general conduct of the Japanese army in WW2. I think the evidence is pretty damming and anybody trying to deny that is really fighting uphill against a mountain of evidence. Unless you can really come up with something extraordinary rather then the parlour tricks you are putting up here, I doubt you are even making any dent on the credibility of the Nanjing massacre. One could have a far easier job denying the rape of East Timor.
Rexregum 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Capital Punishment. I have added David Bergamini's excellent book, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, to the source list, as this scholar of the Japanese language has reviewed the War Crimes Tribunal testimony in both Japanese and English texts, and done considerable interviews revealing the previously and deliberately hidden role of Emperor Hirohito in authorizing Japan's plans for war. As part of that record, it turns out that the general nominally in charge of the assault on Nanking, General Matsui, actually intended to conduct an honorable battle, but his command was undermined by an uncle of the Emperor, Prince Asaka, who actually carried out the order to "Kill all prisoners." Matsui was hung for the crime; Prince Asaka was never called to testify at the war crimes trial (p. 47), thus Bergamini's scholarship also makes an important contribution to the literature of capital punishment and war crimes.
Why are these still up?
Djma12 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
People who are familiar with my edits know that I feel strongly about preserving the record on international atrocities. However, this statement seems to me to be exceptionally POV and unsourced:
First of all, atrocities are not diminished if recalled with an objective voice. (We don't need the "torn from the flesh of the wounded", etc...) Also, per WP:V, extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. If this statement does not provide any citation, I think it should be removed. Djma12 ( talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Arigato1 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets."
This HAS to be an urban legend. I've heard it said that the Germans did this in WW1, etc. Most of the time, when the story is basically the same, but the names change, it's an urban legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
So the fact that one attrocity happened in a different country makes it an "urban legend?" Since rape happened in other wars, then it cannot POSSIBLY have occurred in Nanking. Really. Is that your big argument? 210.133.127.14 ( talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the Victims which i had known and now long since dead, was forced into sex slavery at the age of 16. She was "thankfully" raped only by the higher officials cause of her looks but she had to watch as other less fortunate(understatement) women were raped by hundreds of men every day. Afterwards, females ransacked by the battalions, whom they were done with or were nearly dead, were then lined up and cut open to rip out the womb(uterus) and placed over their head's so they can suffocate to death.
Grisly. A lot of older chinese elders still say, "You buy a Japanese product, your giving them another bullet to kill you with."
15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 70.18.52.179`
Alot of horrible acts happened, some are so hard to believe that some people decide to reject it all together. Some are exaggerated due to the intense pain of the incident because of the cruelty displayed. It was also said that a group of people were led to a highschool, stripped naked, blindfolded, and forced to run around till they either got shot or ran into a bayonet. Of course, now these incidents are considered to be "urban legends," because there is no proper source other than the words of a surviver, and there is very little survivers, seeing that the population in Nanjing was massacared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 ( talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I`m very curious about the reference to recent excavations in the article, and would like to follow it up. Citations?
133.19.126.5 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Shaun O`Dwyer
Hi why someone deleate the part of Tongshu thats important background right? Wikipedia should not be a one side propaganda Tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 ( talk) 12:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
29th July 1937 Chinse Troops attacked Japanese reserve at Tongshu. Some Japanese Ladies Raped and killed and put the bloom to Vagina,and Chinese Troops pierce the wire at the nose/ hands of Japanese children and dagged and killed. The other Ladies Raped and ripped the stomach. Some family cutted neck and hand and legs and trushed to garbage bin. And a old lady cutted her hand and trushed and a pregnantlady Raped and pierced her stomach by bayonette.
This affair reported by most of Japanese News Paper,and some Japanese Troops swear the retaliation
It's probably because the ammount of casualties isn't as great as the one in the Nanjing Massacare. And although it happened right after, it has nothing to do with Nanjing. Although, the killings were much similar to the killing of Chinese in Nanjing, probably due to the rage the citizens felt, because of the cruelty shown in the previous massacare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 ( talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Should be called Rape of Nanking. There is no such thing as the Nanking Massacre. It is the Rape of Nanking. Use common names and real names. Dont try to appease the Japanese. TingMing 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a link in the section "Theft and arson" to a image 'Nanjing1937_BabyOnTracks.jpeg'. The caption is just "Famous picture of baby stranded among the devastation" which implies that the picture is taken of a scene during the Nanking massacre.
This picture is however found link to the the Shanghai War article and is described as "A baby on the tracks near the Shanghai South Railway Station after it was bombed by the Japanese on August 28, 1937"
I think it is clear from the discussion on the image page that this picture should not be linked by this article. Agree? GrantB 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
http://iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/nanking.php 65.60.208.212 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see the following articles. zh:王小亭, ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist community) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.-- Hare-Yukai 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting this question again - this time without a dangling participle: I was interested to see some brief discussion about archaeological excavations in Nanjing. Could someone provide some references?-- 133.19.126.5 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link with some documented sites:
http://neverforget.sina.com.cn/crime/map.html. The main page of this site also provide comparison of old pictures and a recent picture of the current site. There are some bury grounds discovered during construction, which I heard in the news when I was in China. (
Postdoc
22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
This page is now protected due to revert warring. Please settle your dispute here, and contact me when the dispute has been settled. -- Deskana (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My position is as it was last time we had this discussion. It was not a case of genocide. Just because some sources refer to it as such doesn't mean a thing. Other commentators don't call it genocide. You also don't need to spell out "I don't think it was genocide" to think it was not the case. Some people believe green space lizards control global affairs - just because most people don't keep denying that doesn't mean such theories are correct.
Personally I don't see how we can reconcile our views. Maybe we need to ask for mediation or something. John Smith's 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources I've included in the last discussion:
I'm pretty sure I can find others. [2] [3] [4] It's important to note that none of these sources are actually Chinese, so there's no issue of Chinese bias with these sources. But to be NPOV, I do not mind also including the article in a category called "Incidents". Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute as to whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not.
Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
Comments
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
The key word is "any." More than one condition did indeed apply to the Japanese killings of Chinese during the Nanking massacre. However, (a) could very well apply to armies of various countries, which, like John Smith's said, would make every battle or massacre in history a genocide. Now, going to John Smith's' point (again), there are several seemingly contradicting definitions. Much like Folic Acid did in summary, here is a subjective comparison of definitions. In the following table, I am only going to put a Yes if ALL of the conditions apply, just to be fair; "No" if any doubts are raised. According to Genocide definitions, each of which is cited for proof:
Date | Author | Degree that it applies | Genocide by definition |
---|---|---|---|
1944 | Lemkin 1 [1] | The word "nation" is uncapitalized, which more likely than not refers to a nation of peoples (e.g. the Kurds). However, Lemkin did note the word "not necessarily"; looking further, it says that it's a systematic attempt to yadda yadda yadda. The rapes and atrocities were systematic on a micro scale, but on a macro scale, it can only be speculated at best that they systematically exterminated Nanking residents. It's not as if they went outside the boundaries of the metropolitan area and systematically dealt with the Pekingese, not to mention the rest of China. He also mentions a coordinated plan of actions to ruin the foundations of life. The Jews underwent insane amounts of persecution during WWII, but the term remains genocide, that is to say, they not only ruined lives, but they eliminated them as well. If they had just made them incredibly miserable, then it would qualify more as an outright persecution. | No |
1946 | Lemkin 2 [2] | Here, he mentions a "conspiracy to exterminate national groups." Taking Rwanda as an example, that was targeted at an entire national group. Attacks against life? Yes. Property? Looting, yes. However, was this a conspiracy? According to Higashinakano Shudo's The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction: A Historian's Quest for the Truth, Lt.-Gen. Nakajima Kesago stated that "Since our policy is, in principle, to take no prisoners, we attempted to dispose of all of them." Nakajima asserts that "take no prisoners" meant "not to take prisoners"; however, the statement is essentially contradicted by the intention to dispose. | Yes |
1948 | CPPCG (box above) | Yes | |
1959 | Drost [3] [4] | Drost mentions a "deliberate destruction of human life". I would say killing falls under this category, but he says specifically "...by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such". If this collective unit were comprised of Chinese soldiers, then it's simply a battle or what have you. However, the Nanking Massacre focused on Chinese civilians. The Japanese killed Chinese civilians with intention, as asserted above. | Yes |
1975 | Dadrian [5] | The Chinese were the dominant group in the area, not the Japanese. If the Chinese were to exterminate members of Race X in the city of Beijing, then that's a genocide by this definition. | No |
1976 | Horowitz 1 [6] | He states that genocides target minorities, but this is just the "usual" situation. Systematic descruction of innocent people - again, this only occured on a micro scale (within Nanking's city limits), but it was conducted by a state bureaucratic apparatus, albeit in another country. However, this application is iffy at best. | No |
1981 | Kuper [7] | Includes the notion of political conflict (war is one), but abides by the UN/CPPCG definition as above. | Yes |
1982 | Porter [8] | Porter introduces a "whole or in part" statement; the Nanking Massacre was indeed a deliberate destruction in part by a government (the Japanese military authority in power at the time). However, he states that the targets are minorities; the Chinese were the majority in the region (since they lived there, and the Japanese did not). Was it mass murder by his definition? Yes. | No |
1984 | Bauer [8] [9] | Selective mass murders of parts of the population? Yes, namely the Nanking population. John Magee and other Europeans seem to be spared, by accounts in the article. Enslavement - comfort women were enslaved to service Japanese military personnel. Biological decimation did occur, as indicated by deliberate abortions during the Massacre. However, Bauer does not state whether any condition should apply, or if all conditions have to apply. Economic life is not exactly defined - does he mean simply ruining infrastructure, or forcing the Chinese to work in insane conditions (which was not documented, but not entirely impossible)? | No (for now) |
1987 | Thompson and Quets [10] | Here, they use the phrase "purposive actions which fall outside the recognized conventions of legitimate warfare " | Yes |
1987 | Wallimann and Dobkowski [11] | This is essentially an off-shoot of Porter's definition, but does not include the word "minority." | Yes |
1988 | Huttenbach [12] | "puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy" - were the Chinese in jeopardy? Most definitely not. | No |
1988 | Fein 1 [10] [4] | Fein states that genocides are mass murders of a collectivity, in this case the Chinese. She also states that "The perpetrator may represent [...]another state." | Yes |
1988 | Harff and Gurr [13]Harr and Gurr state that a substatial part of the group must have been victimized in a genocide. Nanking was just a drop in the ocean as far as numbers for the Chinese population were concerned. | No | |
1990 | Chalk and Jonassohn [14] | One-killings are the core of this definition, and the massacre was indeed one-sided. The group and membership were only defined as "the prisoners" in the Fact or Fiction paper. | No |
1993 | Fein 2 [15] | Here, she states that the perpetrator physically destroys a collectively directly or indirectly (directly, as in the Massacre's case) that is "sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat by the victim." | Yes |
1994 | Katz | Genocides, according to Katz, are intentions to murder the totality of a group. However gruesome the massacre was, there was no explicit intention to murder ALL of the Chinese in China. | No |
1994 | Charny | Charny states that a genocide is a mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings (not specific groups!) "when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy." The war was still going on, so there was indeed action against the Chinese military, but he says that the killings must occur when not in the course of yadda yadda yadda. The killings were conducted after Nanking had surrendered. | Yes |
1996 | Horowitz 2 [16] | The intention here is carried out by "those who rule." Prior to the invasion, China governed Nanking; however, after the city's surrender, authority was handled by the occupying Japanese. In this respect, the Japanese, at this particular point in time, were the ruling faction of Nanking. Horowitz does not indicate national groups, just "innocent people". | Yes |
2003 | Harff [15] | Harff states that a genocide is conducted by a governing elite, which it was not. | No |
So what does this leave us with? Thus far:
In other words, there is no consensus, and it would be fair to neither side, according to the pundits, to call it a genocide. Let's take another example: the Muslim attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. The ruling faction of India (or the "governing elite" as defined by some scholars) at the time was predominantly Hindu and Sikh. The author of a book on the incident implies that the attack was an outright genocide. Going by this assertation on its own, the Nanking Massacre too would fit the description of a genocide.
I am going to explicitly state my POV right here and now that I feel that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because the occupying Japanese powers, who were the ruling faction after the surrender of the city, conducted a systematic murder of Chinese people in the city of Nanking, and enslaved scores of women for the purposes of prostitution. However, POV aside, it would be fairer to label this a policide - or the intentional destruction of a city. As opposed to just "bombing the heck out of the buildings," I see policide as a process in which civililans are targeted. Pandacomics 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1037年12月14日
南京日本軍司令官殿
拝啓 貴軍の砲兵部隊が安全区に攻撃を加えなかったことにたいして感謝申し上げる(We appreciate it about the artilleryman of your army didn't add attack to the safety zone.)とともに、安全区内に居住する中国人一般 市民の保護につき今後の計画をたてるために貴下と接触をもちたいのであります。 国際委員会は責任をもって地区内の建物に住民を収容し、当面 、住民に食を与えるために米と小麦を貯蔵し、地域内の民警の管理に当たっております。 以下のことを委員会の手でおこなうことを要請します。安全区の入口各所に日本軍衛兵各一名を配備されたい。 ピストルのみを携行する地区内民警によって地区内を警備することを許可されたい。 地区内において米の販売と無料食堂の営業を続行することを許可されたい。 われわれは市内の他の場所に米の倉庫を幾つかもっているので、貯蔵所を確保するためにトラックを自由に通 行させて頂きたい。 一般市民が帰宅することができるまで、現在の住宅上の配慮を続けることを許されたい。(たとえ、帰宅できるようになったとしても、多数の帰るところもない難民の保護をすることになろう。) 電話・電灯・水道の便をできるだけ早く復旧するよう貴下と協力する機会を与えられたい。 昨日の午後、多数の中国兵が城北に追いつめられた時に不測の事態が展開しました。(Yesterday afternoon, the accident which couldn't be predicted happened when many Chinese soldiers are cornered at the north of the castle.) そのうち若干名は当事務所に来て、人道の名において命を助けてくれるようにと、我々に嘆願しました。委員会の代表達は貴下の司令部を見つけようとしましたが、漢中路の指揮官のところでさしとめられ、それ以上は行くことができませんでした。そこで、我々はこれらの兵士達を全員武装解除し、彼らを安全区内の建物に収容しました。現在、彼らの望み通 りに、これらの人びとを平穏な市民生活に戻してやることをどうか許可されるようお願いします。 さらに、われわれは貴下にジョン・マギー師(米人)を委員長とする国際赤十字南京委員会をご紹介します。この国際赤十字会は、外交部・鉄道部・国防部内の旧野戦病院を管理しており、これらの場所にいた男子を昨日、全員武装解除し、これらの建物が病院としてのみ使用されるように留意いたします。負傷者全員を収容できるならば、中国人負傷者を全員外交部の建物に移したらと思います。 当市の一般市民の保護については、いかなる方法でも喜んで協力に応じます。 敬具
— 南京国際委員会委員長 John H. D. Rabe
Result: Remove genocide category
If nobody opposes an edit, then by default consensus is established. While I won't pursue this issue any longer, however, my lack of involvement doesn't mean consensus is established for all eternity. There is no such thing on WP. The RfC was closed and the edit was made. That doesn't mean somebody cannot come along later to object to the edit. The same thing basically happened with including the Genocide category in the article. For a long time nobody opposed the edit until the issue re-surfaced. Well, now the issue has re-surfaced once again. It's pointless to argue whether or not Giovanni33 has a right to object to that edit. Of course he has that right, and the fact that he objects to the edit now means that we've lost concensus again. Giovanni33, I suggest you just start a new discussion on it instead. The RfC has been closed.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read this debate with interest I would like to make one or two points.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on the two failed deletion requests of the faked photograph is here [6]. Blueshirts 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I can't believe Hare-Yukai removed half the guy's body. Pandacomics 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this image the Nanking of a winter? The shadow angle is too high, and this person wears a white shirt. The shadow angle can not become much than 45degree in Nanjing of winter. And there is no fake shadow in this image [7]?! Furthermore, there is a fake shadow [8] -- Hare-Yukai 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"This shadow in this photo looks wrong, therefore Nanking Massacre is fake." Typical denialist argument right there. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
How is science a denialist argument? If the shadow is off, the massacre never happened. Quid Pro Quo. There is no proof that the Nanking Massacre ever happened that I have been shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.224.120.56 ( talk) 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, there is no "proof" that Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever happened then. I think the pictures and those shadows are way off. All fabricated propaganda by Japanese nationals. 210.133.127.14 ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's quite expecting that false pictures will be made for the massacre. However, it would be quite short-sighted to conclude that the massacre did not happen based on some false pictures. Why not make conclusions later when considered all the human witnesses or rather survivors and the verified pictures and documentary evidences? I maybe biased in my own ways and people are biased in their ways but in a huge event like this, we should try to be objective. ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried reading the intro before the TOC and it is unwieldy, it should be reworded possibly because it just doesn't feel 'correct'. Take B-17 Flying Fortress as an example, It is very big on words for the summary/intro, yet very easy to read. If we could reword the first part a bit better it would help a lot. As it is I feel like I'm slogging through for some reason. I don't feel this on many other articles. Please look at other featured articles here Category:FA-Class military history articles To improve this article. (You may want to extract the bullet points from the introduction and then rewrite it from scratch.) Klichka 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of non-neutral language concerning events that transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.187.35 ( talk) 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.57.61 ( talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kind of hard to be neutral when the issue is something so horrific. I would argue that it is inhuman NOT to use strong words describe it. Reading this is the sort of thing that makes even an optimist like me hope that humanity is wiped out by [insert favorite global disaster here]. Better 6 billion people die than birth yet more unfortunates to suffer. ThVa ( talk) 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This debate is hampered by endless circles of anger. But in the investigation of an incident, related patterns of conduct are useful, both in the investigation, and any conclusions. The U.S. had a terrible pattern of abusing native peoples for two hundred years, which provides guidance in considering a specific matter, such as Wounded Knee.
Many areas were controlled by Japan from 1917 to 1945, offering indications of policy and patterns of conduct which might apply in evaluating credibility of reports on Nanjing in 1937. These areas include Korea, Bataan, Burma, Thailand, and other areas of China. If credible reports of similar conduct are consistent in multiple areas, then credibility of a specific statement is supported.
Other related patterns of conduct can bear on a specific matter. These include suppression or gradual revision of a subject in history books and public debate. The use of violence against those with opposing views can also lend weight to the accuracy of those views. But a confessional attitude lends weight to the facts admitted, and to doubts on matters not admitted. And it sets another example for progress-by-honesty.
Japan is a great resource for a World facing problems that need the best thinking from all nations and individuals. But its radical right wing degrades that nation's status and working relationship with others, which is so important in averting natural and human-caused tragedies that are quickly approaching. Jayband ( talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Jayband ( talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how else to make this request. The gallery of images on this page contains a naked corpse with sticks in her vagina and a collection of decapitated heads. I understand these images are important, and I expect some images on this topic to be very disturbing. But these are above and beyond the pictures usually found with such topics (such as piles of corpses).
Could they be posted on a separate page, with a warning about the unusually barbaric content of these images right above the link? These are not the types of pictures one wants to see accidentally. How can I make it happen, or who do I contact to make this happen?
Thank you.
HelenSan ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Helen San
I agree with HelenSan on this issue. Furthermore, the image gallery seems particularly tacked on and unnecessary because of a lack of captions, explanations or sources for the photos.
Bunny Ann ( talk) 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The start of the massacre and the middle are described in the article, but there is no description of what ended it or why the Japanese eventually left. TimothyFreeman ( talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
terms such as often are leading and imply some sort of frequency, terms like sometimes are neutral and make no implications regarding frequency. if you wish to use a term such as often, I suggest that you find a reliable source that states the exact frequency and replace sometimes with something along the lines of (in 237 cases) Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
let me try once more, it seems certain editors prefer using reverts than using talk pages, but whatever, it wont kill me to try.
1. terms like "infamous" are blatantly POV and leading, dont use them 2. controversial claims such as civilians were executed under the guise of executing opposing military forces, should be backed up with reliable sources, or removed. 3. terms like often imply a high level of frequency, unless you have specific data relating to the actual frequency, dont use such terms.
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Did the Eroguro Nonsense of the 1920s inspire the massacre? The atrocities (rape, murder, torture, mutilation) sounds suspiciously "ero-guro" to me. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well to be honest I read alot about the Nanking Massacre, and I always wondered how come it could be so sadistic? was there any cult or an inspiration behind this nonsense demon acts, after sometime I read about the Ero guro somewhere and this suddenly brought the memory of the Nanking massacre to my mind, and as you say its suspiciously related to me too, I wonder if there's any study regarding it. ( Meshari ( talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
The Wikipedia article on this contest states that the factuality of the contest is called into question. I removed the block quotes and instead posted a link to the page, along with a small summary of the issue. I'm almost certain this edit will be attacked, vandalized and possibly reverted, but I wanted to make sure most editors were O.K. with the decision. Vertigo893 ( talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am moving this material to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate, let them take it to WP:AFD. -- Richard ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If as the lead of the article puts it "commonly known as the Rape of Nanking" this article should be moved back to the "Rape of Nanking" (see the earliest history of this article).
For those who's mother tongue is not English:
Although today rape tends to be associated with the sexual act, its origins is in the stealing something, which in the case of a woman is her virtue and as she was the property of her father or husband the woman became worth less (which today in the West is an old fashioned patriarchal/misogynistic view of what the rape of a woman is, but one still dominant is some societies).
However in a broader sense rape means the taking of another's property including their but not limited to their self worth, or as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it "The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering."
So the "rape of Nanking" works as a name on several levels and does not mean just "the raping of women in Nanking by Japanese soldier" but includes all of the actions taken, and it also as a metaphorical meaning as in "the rape of the innocents". -- PBS ( talk) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Today we have many evidences that the "Nanking Massacre" story was a fabrication and the "photographic evidences" were also false, or unrelated ones. If Wikipedia aims neutrality, I believe that this article should at least include in the beginning a link to the article which mentions about the fablication of the "Nanking Massacre" like the following. "For the theory that the "Nanking Massacre" was a fabrication, see Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arimasa ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a template that might be useful to add to this and other articles about the specific subject. Please comment on whether you think this template should be taken off or should be added to related articles. ...And feel free to edit the template: Template:Nanking Massacre. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm quickfailing the GA nomination of this article. In addition the {{ fact}} tags, which are grounds for quick-failure by themselves (but may have been added after the nomination), I find that
I might be prepared at some point to help copyedit; I'm not a fact expert on this, so the article's facts should be better-cited before then. -- Magic ♪piano 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the controversy was how to define the actual time duration of the Massacre, argued for decades by the Nanking Massacre academics. Yet in this Wikipedia article, they define it so directly in the lead section. Very strange. 121.7.188.232 ( talk) 09:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A few months ago, this information was displayed prominently as its own section, including multiple quotes describing "the horror of it all". I was User:Vertigo893 at the time, and I looked up the Wikipedia article on the event and discovered that it had been declared a hoax. I removed the quotes, added the info and the link, and left the editors here to make of it what they would.
Yesterday I returned to this page out of curiosity to see what had been done with the info. At first I thought it had been removed. Through careful scouring of the page, paragraph by paragraph, I eventually found this:
"Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days. In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967. This "contest" is regularly presented as historical fact, for example, in an exhibit at the Nanking Massacre Memorial. The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan. In 2000, Bob Wakabayashi concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit."
This is ridiculous. It is already established that the entire article violates WP:NPOV in every conceivable way, and this is just another example.
As I continue to pour over this article and its talk page, I am seeing a recurring pattern. The article, and others relating to the massacre, all seem biased towards Chinese nationalism. Compared to recent events... I do not want this to escalate into what the Scientology issue did, but something has to be done.
I have placed a bounty on this page pledging $20 U.S. dollars to Wikimedia if the article reaches GA status, which it will never do without some serious work. I can only hope that certain editors are more interested in improving Wikipedia than they are in pushing their own POV.
Regards, just a little insignificant 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Absurd relativism... or should I write negationism ? ...-- Flying tiger ( talk) 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone expand on the buried alive images? For example, what exactly the image depicts and the circumstances surrounding it? I only briefly skimmed over the article, so apologies if it is in there somewhere. I just couldn't really discern any detail. I think there may have been another image in there that features a naked girl, which isn't covered by the wikipedia censorship policy, but I didn't dwell on that one for two long... 92.0.150.111 ( talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some serious issues regarding the latest pov pushing attempts. Right off the bat in the intro, the denialists are given the more benign name of "skeptics". Secondly, scare quotes are added to the term "denialists" itself. Also, several changes are made to make the dispute solely between Chinese and Japanese "nationalists," as if both sides are equal in creating this mess. It's like saying the holocaust controversy has been caused by Jewish and German nationalists. Try not to slip these things in, please. Blueshirts ( talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Is the article pushing a point of view and what should be done? just a little insignificant 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the word "atrocity" POV? Does IMTFE refer to the massacre as an "atrocity"? Blueshirts ( talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The term "denialist" is used numerous places throughout the text. It is not a word. We should not be using it. If we need something with that meaning, the proper term is "denier". Readin ( talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
It's interesting how the authors of the holocaust denial article has effectively painted the concept of "holocaust denial" as basically conspiracy or anti-semitism; however, Nanjing Massacre denial (and related Japanese War Crime denial) seems almost 'reasonable' or actually can be considered as "another historical perspective", rather than anti-Chinese. Please people, review the introduction of both articles, and think for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
This article should be treated no differently than the Holocaust article with respect to denials in the perpetrator nation. Would Wikipedia accept a link to Holocaust Denial in the lead of the article, much as we have a link to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre here? Jtwang ( talk) 17:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I have looked at both the Chinese and Japanese perspectives on the issue of this topic. I notice legitimate questions as to the sources of the figures for these terrible events including what seems to be logical errors. I have also looked at what seems to be compelling evidence proving this event. My conclusion so far has been that a number of Japanese wont admit what seems obvious and the Chinese have intentionally inflated casualty figures to make the event more significant. I dont want to argue which is a right action, what I want to assert is that it is unfortunate that friction is the case surrounding the investigation of this event and that both sides should work together to bring peace to these families and to reiterate to the people of Japan how their government lied to them. I also want to read your response as to if you provide the facts that question the figures involved with the Nanking massacre, (for example, one person witnessing and counting 57,000 people die). Could it happen, Yes, but even with a strong college education, I dont think I can count that high with patience or tolerance. There are numerous discrepencies within the accumulating of the number dead, however, this should not detract from the overall importance of this horrible event. Just thought you could display more objectivity in stating some of what I have mentioned. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
That has to be hard to deal with edit wars over such a touchy subject. Sorry. I praise your involvement with this article, it must be hard. However, what are the figures of casualties from Japanese perspectives (not the idiots that deny it even happened). In addition, you could also read some of the literature attempting to refute the claims of Nanking, including good literature that refutes some of the assertions by your woman author mentioned within the article. I have read both sides, this is why I ask you about this. You could avoid edit wars if you did. If you want my help please let me know by responding below. I want to contribute any way I can to this article. Thanks
I am curious why you used the word "extremist" so much. What makes them extreme? It looks to be an attack on the people that hold that view. -- 141.129.1.98 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the Japanese actually have official reports while the Chinese are going by verbal stories you need to try and decide who is the more accurate source? That and as some people believe this is a product of Chinese hate propaganda at the Japanese for conquering them. It should be a less black and white label of what happened. Maybe some alleged or claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.241.19 ( talk) 03:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to the time that Japan declared its support for the US against China in the question of the Taiwan issue, then immediately afterwards, China protested textbooks in Japan by destroying Japanese businesses in China and dragging innocent Japanese exchange students into the streets and beating them to near death, then afterwards CNN publishes a article mentioning the several lies within the Chinese textbooks about the cultural revolution, cannabalism of American GIS during the Korean War, etc.etc.etc. and a quote from Chinese scholar at Cambridge that admits that China is using the atrocities of Japan during World War II and textbook objectivity for propaganda and political reasons? If it is , I would like to offer you several articles of sources for a contribution please. I hopr you would look at my sources, if you are open to this path please respond below, I am currently scheduled to write about this topic so I am now in the process of research but hopefully, what I have uncovered may be corrected by you or may beneift you. Thanks.
Chinese people in Taiwan like my parents are anti-comnuist but we know about the lies in Japanese textbooks. CHSGHSF 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About this recent addition to the lenaga textbook incident section:
While most in Japan do not deny that a massacre took place in Nanking, many Japanese citizens feel that the extent of crimes committed have been exaggerrated in order to give a pretext to surging Chinese nationalism, which aims to weaken Japanese power and influence in the region. This is especially true with the more hardline members of the government cabinet, who have grown increasingly wary of China's military build-up in recent years.
I'm concerned about the part where it says "While most in Japan do not deny..." and then "many Japanese citizens feel...". Do we have a source to claim that "most" or "many" Japanese feel this way? Or was this completely anecdotal of the author? Also, does that fall under the usage of weasel words? Hong Qi Gong 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I think more accurate description is to say that "After publication of Japanese military reports as well as collected interviews of Japanese veterans of the battle, the debate over whether massacre took place or not has ended by the 80s. The debate shifted in 90s to the estimates of death toll and the legality of killing of "enemy combatant".". I would say past 90s, the debate pretty much died down. I hardly read about it now a day. I think the publication of Iris Chang's book was the peak of the controversy. That didn't go down well on massacre side of the debate. Vapour
I added a section about the Nanking Safety Zone. Normally I wouldn't mention it in the talk page, but since this is such a touchy subject, I thought I would mention it. Please, though, if you have a problem with something I wrote, PLEASE DO NOT DELET IT. Discuss it on the talk page first, make edits, whatever. I just think that the Safety Zone is a very important factor in the massacre, and has been mostly overlooked in the creation of this article. My point: whether or not what I wrote was correct, something about the Nanking Safety Zone needs to be in this article. Heavy Metal Cellist talk contribs
sigh, I hate when users argue over tiny things. I decided to take the "claim" text off for the following reasons:
1. The Japanese denial on the Massacre questioned the factual accuracy of the released Nanking photographs in general (See 南京大虐殺論争#写真の真偽). They did not specifically point out those two photograph is "fake" (unless there is an citation).
2. It is not the best way to "specify" the claim in the photograph. I will add the related text in "Historiography and debate" section because by specifying it in the photograph, there is POV problems (As if your saying "The Japanese rightists claimed this picture is fake. How ridiculous!"). It is truth that they did state so, but you don't describe it like that.
3. I am planning to translate the 南京大虐殺論争 ( Debates on Nanking Massacre) page. It'll be much more specifying on this field of interest.
AQu01rius 15:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Your sentence was very unclear however. The "Revisionists claim.." sentence was not neutral because of its lack of citation and the intentional specification, not because of its wording. The wording of the sentence itself was reasonable. AQu01rius 21:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article here, rather than at Nanjing massacre? The article on the city is Nanjing, not Nanking, and this article should reflect that. The capitalization seems wrong as well. -- tjstrf 01:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
So what's wrong with the Rape of Nanking -- 203.173.165.132 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Nanking was used in the 1940s. Nanjing is the modern name for the city. One should use "Nanjing" when referring to the modern city, and "Nanking" when referring to the city as it was then.-- Ryan! 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think whatever you decide to go with, you should at least use the pinyin (I think that is the common system used on wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.150.252.190 ( talk) 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if the EroGuro movement may have influenced the Japanese military to perpetrate the Rape of Nanking. 205.188.116.9 20:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
For your information, the discussion concerning citation is archived at Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 4#.22Citation Style.22 Tag. -- 朝彦 (Asahiko) 15:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My great grandfather was part of the IJA in China and he can confirm that this never happened.
I beg your pardon? "Exactly what I would have expected from a Japanese?" Bakarocket 15:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Miborovsky, don't be such a troll. Your point is valid, but the insulting little nuances like "assuming we (my italics) were kind enough not to pop a bullet in his head" and "unless he also part-timed as a rapist in China" don't do your credibility much good. The two of us have been at loggerheads before, but in the past I've managed to convince myself that you are, at heart, fair and objective. Unfortunately this one comment makes it crystal clear what your views are and suggests pretty well what your objective is in stalking this page.
Bathrobe 05:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
CHSGHSF 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)== Nanking Massacre is not assumed the fact in Japan == Nanking Massacre is not believed for a fact in present Japan. The research how it does and Nanking Massacre was fabricated is active. The evidence photographs of Nanking Massacre were proven to be entire imitation. There was not man who witnessed Nanking Massacre by the Japanese either.-- 202.157.51.120 13:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
200,000 people of Nanjing when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. 250,000 people of Nanjing after one month when Japanese army occupied Nanjing. The rape case in Nanjing by a Japanese army is one.-- 202.157.50.82 11:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Testimony person's image
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLBLDqLU0TU&mode=related&search=
Japanese army(pilot)
There were many foreigners in Nanjing, too and it was peaceful at that time though this person had gone to the barber of the Chinese management of Nanjing.-- 202.157.50.82 02:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
«Last night about 1000 women and girls were raped. If any husbands or brothers attempted to protect the victims, they were immediately shot to death by the Japanese soldiers.» John Rabe, December 17.
«I know not where to begin nor to end. Never have I heard or read of such brutality. Rape! Rape! Rape! We estimate at least 1000 cases a night, and many by day. In case of resistance or anything that seems like disaproval, there is bayonet stab or bullet. People are hysterical. Women are being acrried off every morning, afternoon and evening. The whole japanese army seems to be free to go and come as it pleases, and to do whatever it pleases.» Reverend James McCallum, December 19.
«Mrs. Hsia was dragged out from under a table in the guest hall where she had tried to hide with her one year old baby. After being stripped and raped by one or more men, she was bayoneted in the chest, and then had a bottle thrust into her vagina. The baby being killed with a bayonet. Some japanese then went to the next room, where were Mrs. Hsia's parents, aged 76 and 74 and her two gdaughters, aged 16 and 14. The soldiers killed the old woman. The two girls were then stripped, the elder being raped by 2-3 men, and the younger by 3. The older girl was stabbed afterwards and a cane was rammed into her vagina.» Reverend John Magee, commentary of a self-made film sent to the Nanking Office of the German Embassy on 10 February 1938.
Excerpts from American goddess at the rape of Nanking, the courage of Minnie Vautrin, p. 97 and The good man of Nanking, the diaries of John Rabe, p.281.
-- Flying tiger 20:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
202.157.52.182, I'm afraid you are going to have to do a lot better then that, given your counterpoints are delivered without really stating their sources. Should the amount of evidence you have supposing your incredible proposition that population really increased during the period of the occupation along with other things prove to be anything more then a house of cards that one might desperately like to believe in… perhaps you could educate all of us here by coming up with an article that opens all of the facts to scrutiny?
For one I regret to inform you not only do I find your claims incredible, should they prove to be false would prove to be a great dishonor of sorts to the Japanese people. While one must realize that the PRC government has a vested interest in inflating the scale of the tragedy, to cover up a lie with another lie in the extreme opposite really proves to be no better. Lets get our latent nationalism out of this talk and focus on the true scale of the humanitarian disaster that almost certainly happen.
I for one found the facts on a peaceful and happy life under a Japanese regime extremely hard to believe. For starters I do not live in China and my nation has little vested interested in making the Japanese look bad. HOWEVER, I have long listened to eyewitness accounts from my very own grandparents (who were in china during the war) on how they saw their own friends and families rounded up and killed on often the barest of reasons. I've seen the most nonpolitical of elderly folk harbour extreme bitterness for anything Japanese to the point they cannot bring themselves to even handle anything Japan even thought they are now in Singapore and not China.
As much as the PRC has a vested interest in making the tragedy bigger, I find it extremely hard to believe that this much of harbored personal resentment in many of the war survivors is the result of listening to too much radio PRC… not especially when the people involved often had vivid personal eyewitness accounts to much of the things committed. There's a big difference from saying "I heard they killed Bob," to actually becoming "I SAW them kill Bob and do all those awful things."
If Nanking was the liberated paradise you described, it must be a very odd anomaly in the general conduct of the Imperial Japanese Army in their areas of occupation. You are telling me to believe that my grandparents are delusional (or worse lying to be to make me hate anything Japanese for some reason) and that their vivid accounts are all fabrications as part of a general Chinese conspiracy worldwide.
And not to mention I do not think whitewashing history is the way to go about honoring your war dead. Our forefathers did not die for a lie. -Rexregum
Japs, they are always fucking idiot, non-human sense fetcher, before and after time. --
John55556
02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Image after Nanjing surrenders(Image of people who end war and return at shelter destination)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpYXmyAW_fw&mode=related&search=
-- 202.157.15.87 13:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Television program of Japan that explains thing that is lie Nanjing slaughter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Njb3sG-7U&eurl= -- 202.157.15.87 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Ha ! Ha ! Your naive propaganda video made me laugh so much !! Thank you !! -- Flying tiger 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Because Chiang Kai-shek and the commander of a Chinese army deserted Chinese soldiers, and only we had escaped, China invited pandemonium. The number of victims kept increasing because a seceding Chinese soldiers took off the service uniform, changed clothes to the citizens clothes, and used the Chinese citizens for the escutcheon. A Chinese soldier who did not have food wore citizens' clothes, and disappeared in the citizens, became the burglar, the thief, and Zoc, and was repeating plunder, the rape, the assault, and the slaughter from the Chinese citizens. A Chinese soldier stole the service uniform and the firearm of a Japanese army, took the shape of a Japanese soldier, set fire in the Nanjing city, raped Chinese's women and children in addition, murdered, and had slaughtered it. And, a Chinese soldier is pretending all these atrocities to the act of a Japanese army. When withdrawing, a Chinese army destroyed and carried out all goods that a Japanese army was able to use. This is 'Scorched-earth strategy ' of a Chinese tradition. (The scorched-earth strategy of the most famous Chinese army is a strategy to which the embankment in Hwang Ho is destroyed, the deluge is caused, and several hundred thousand members' Chinese was drowned. )-- 202.157.18.221 10:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You got to do a lot better then that 202.157.18.221. And firstly I am surprised you could even put up such flimsly arguments which brings up the question if you are really a true Japanese apologist to begin, given your arguments are so silly one tends to wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese by putting such an opinion as their own. Frankly I think there are better arguments to be used even by the most rabid defenders of Japanese actions in WW2.
Not to mention your "idea" on the Chinese army somehow managing to carry out a mass slaughter of Nanking draws entirely from speculation, defies all eye witness accounts, and not to mention suggests that the victims had no common sense themselves are were so competely fooled. You bend so many rules of proper history accounting and basic logic that I wonder if you even bothered with them to begin with... which makes one wonder if you are actually anti-Japanese trying to discredit the Japanese with such arguments to begin with. I find it hard to believe that any Japanese person would dishonour his forefathers with such a twisting of facts.
How the Chinese army managed to get such a large number of Japanese uniforms and firearms to stage such an act is hard to imagine, not to mention that even if they did manage to do this... the average citizen of Nanking could still easily tell if the soldier was truly Japanese or Chinese, and would hardly be fooled. More tellingly, if this was really the case the surviviors of Nanjing would have easily pointed it out post war and exposed the whole thing to independent sources that were not affiliated to the PRC. If the Chinese army was really behind this thing, there would be no lack of Chinese victims that would eventually speak up. We hear many stories from Chinese Christians, democratic activists and what have you not exposing the actions of their government... but so far no word from any Nanjing victims of the Chinese army pulling such a prank. The red-handedness has really been all pointing towards the Japanese. I won't even start on all the accounts of the tortures and mass killings from the survivors in my country of Singapore of which we can still easily get a first hand eyewitness account from.
Frankly even the most militant Japanese apologists don't deny killing took place in Nanking, they try instead to downplay the severity of the incident or justify it somehow. Your positions of no killing or conspiracy theories simply hold no weight... and often make people wonder if you are even Japanese to begin with. For so far we know most Japanese to be reasonable people who are honorable and brave to admit the truth and face the facts. We see none of that in your posts, if you are truly Japanese, please stop disgracing your nation in this place by such behavior. You are really dragging the name of your nation in the mud before the international community here.
--Hello I am Matsui Tsuyoshi. I do not think Nihonjin kill Chineses. Fake picturs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.22.27 ( talk) 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Rexregum 16:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
In W W II, military forces that kill a lot of Chinese are not a Japanese armies but Chinese armies.To begin with, there was no intention of invading China in a Japanese army.Japan was only drawn in to the civil war of a national party and the communist party in China.A Japanese army only counterattacked to the attack of a Chinese army.A Chinese army did not stop the attack to a Japanese army though withdrew even if defeated, and the thing occurrence that a Japanese army also stops counterattacking did not come.A Chinese army did the scorched-earth strategy when withdrawing, and killed a lot of Chinese.Japan rebuilt the city that a Chinese army had destroyed.The purpose of Japan is a modernization and a public peace recovery of China. It is the same as the United States in Iraq today. This is true.-- 202.147.217.166 10:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Ha! Ha! You are even funnier than 202.157.15.87 ! I almost though for a moment you were serious. Thanks a lot ! You prove that dramatic subjects sometimes need humour...-- Flying tiger 14:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
In Asian nations, the majority were colonies in Europe and America. Only Thailand had been barely escaping occupying excluding Japan.China was continued after Qing Dynasty had collapsed confusion in the state of a half colony.Afterwards, China was in the state of the civil war of Kuomintang and Communist.(It looks like Iraq over which Shiite is fighting against Sunni.The transitional government is a Nanjing government of Wang Zhao ming.The standpoint of the U.S. military is a Japanese army. The United States hoped for the democratization of Iraq, and Japan hoped for the modernization of China.) Communist that had started defeating at a Kuomintang drew in Japan to the war.The final target of Japan was to have made Asia where it was able to oppose Europe and America.Stability and the modernization of China were indispensable for that. To defend one's independence, Japan stood up.-- 202.147.217.166 07:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I doubt you have any sort of a good grasp of the situation on the ground then. First and foremost the actual reported actions of the Japanese army on the ground were reported to be invariably, and greatly, different from the propaganda leaflets that they distributed promising liberty and modernization. Not to mention the average Japanese soldier didn’t go into China with the lesson drilled into them that they were supposed to be improving the lives of the Chinese they were supposedly “liberating”. The American grunts have the humanitarian mission on the top of their list in Iraq now and even they can screw it up at times.
I have no reason to see why the Japanese army that was not a signatory to the Geneva conventions, with a brutal and dehumanising military system made up of suppressed conscripts that were drafted for slightly over one ren (and considered at times even more expendable then equipment) bears even the slightest resemblance to the Americans in Iraq now. They had plenty of reasons to act out their murderous impulses unabated and preventing abuses of the civilian populace was never high on the list of Japanese war plans.
I don't recall any great gains that the Japanese made in promoting an "Asian Asia". If anything the revolt of independence against the colonial masters after WW2 was not because the nations had seen the light of independence under Japanese rule, but because the colonial masters had failed to protect these nations from the BRUTALITY of the Japanese empire. I don't think the island of Singapore made any progress from its previous, prosperous state under the occupation... in fact so much was lost and suffered that the current nation of Singapore places a heavy emphasis on DEFENCE to prevent another repeat of any half-assed-in-word-only "liberations" like what the Japanese did to them.
No, I do not think the Japanese came in with the idea of “liberating” China. There were more complex reasons involved. I don’t think Japan is necessarily evil for starting the war, and the situation then was more mixed. What more likely happened however, was that the Japanese military system based on “bullshitdo” (a greatly corrupted form of the actual Samurai code), that encouraged the average Japanese conscript to disregard common morality to do anything for the empire, along with a general apathy to humanitarian concerns, a rigid and repressive life in the Japanese military as well as some racial superiority to mix it all up. What resulted was the perfect conditions for the Japanese army to commit the atrocities they were blamed for.
The prove is pretty exhaustive, and once again I think the plenty of war survivors I can still interview/ have interviewed also told me quite clearly that a lot of the unnecessary killing in Asia was done very by the Japanese army. Non of the sides in the war were really innocent of doing any great wrongs, and I find you idea of this suddenly magnanimous Japanese liberator greatly mistaken. Japan had her interests threatened and she moved to defend them, but she did not move as a righteous liberator striking out in self-defence, but rather in a very aggressive, and often unnecessarily bloody way. Her future generations would do good to learn from these mistakes or they will repeat them. There is no honour in defending a lie, nor making people who became monsters in our interests our heroes.
I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here by trying to twist history around to become as favourable to Japan. I doubt it cuts any ice at all to those moderates who knew that the Japanese were not the simple “bad” guys in WW2, but nevertheless did many very bad things. All the twisting in the world won’t change that, and I’m afraid your attempts to draw from radical right-wing revisionist arguments that flout most common laws of handling historical evidence don’t really help your case here. If anything it drives international opinion against Japan.
Rexregum 19:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wang Zhao ming organized the Nanjing government of the pro-Japanese in Nanjing.If the Nanjing slaughter is true, he will choose another place.Is the establishment of the pro-Japanese government impossible by the slaughter site even though.
It is a book that verified the thing that is the lie the Nanjing slaughter.
http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4794213816/ref=sib_dp_pt/503-2243263-6995145#reader-link
-- 202.147.217.166 02:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You really have to come up with better arguments.
Sorry, the “point” of “Wang Zhao Ming” you raised does not seem to have any bearing on the point of the debate. Wang Jingwei, given his position, never had any real choice in choosing where to set up his “government”, nor did he really have any say in what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese back then, given he was pursuing a policy of collaboration. It’s hardly amazing that he should end up in Nanjing and turn a blind eye to what was being committed there. History has no lack of such characters, so I’m not sure what you prove at all, except trying to read a lot more into what is really there.
Which sums up your arguments here mainly, which consist of trying to dismiss rather blatant and obvious evidence like first-person eyewitness accounts from multiple sources (not just the Chinese), photographic evidence, and a whole array of other concrete evidence with extremely fragile and fanciful speculations like the massacre was perpetrated by “Japanese-dressed Chinese soldiers”, and trying to take neutral facts and twist them to your prove your point, such as saying what printed on Japanese propaganda articles as what actually transpired on the ground.
I’m afraid you have to do a lot, a lot better then that. I am rather disappointed in fact, that you have chosen not to really answer any of the points I raised such as the vivid, first person accounts I can easily get from any of my surviving forefathers on a snap, the consensus of virtually all historians of different nationalities on what transpired, and even the obvious holes I have pointed out in you argument. What you have chosen to do however, is to continually draw from a pool of shallow, right wing conspiracy theories and speculations that invariably support your case with blatant disregard for truth. Truly, this is rather disappointing, and I wonder if your society frowns on such unreasonable behaviour.
Even if there was no PRC to distort things, the agreement of various historians in the international circle that the massacre did indeed take place. And what’s more telling such a massacre is not at odds with the general conduct of the Japanese army in WW2. I think the evidence is pretty damming and anybody trying to deny that is really fighting uphill against a mountain of evidence. Unless you can really come up with something extraordinary rather then the parlour tricks you are putting up here, I doubt you are even making any dent on the credibility of the Nanjing massacre. One could have a far easier job denying the rape of East Timor.
Rexregum 15:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Joe 04:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Capital Punishment. I have added David Bergamini's excellent book, Japan's Imperial Conspiracy, to the source list, as this scholar of the Japanese language has reviewed the War Crimes Tribunal testimony in both Japanese and English texts, and done considerable interviews revealing the previously and deliberately hidden role of Emperor Hirohito in authorizing Japan's plans for war. As part of that record, it turns out that the general nominally in charge of the assault on Nanking, General Matsui, actually intended to conduct an honorable battle, but his command was undermined by an uncle of the Emperor, Prince Asaka, who actually carried out the order to "Kill all prisoners." Matsui was hung for the crime; Prince Asaka was never called to testify at the war crimes trial (p. 47), thus Bergamini's scholarship also makes an important contribution to the literature of capital punishment and war crimes.
Why are these still up?
Djma12 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
People who are familiar with my edits know that I feel strongly about preserving the record on international atrocities. However, this statement seems to me to be exceptionally POV and unsourced:
First of all, atrocities are not diminished if recalled with an objective voice. (We don't need the "torn from the flesh of the wounded", etc...) Also, per WP:V, extraordinary claims require extraordinary citation. If this statement does not provide any citation, I think it should be removed. Djma12 ( talk) 19:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
-- Arigato1 19:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
"Witnesses recall Japanese soldiers throwing babies into the air and catching them with their bayonets."
This HAS to be an urban legend. I've heard it said that the Germans did this in WW1, etc. Most of the time, when the story is basically the same, but the names change, it's an urban legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheRedVest ( talk • contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
So the fact that one attrocity happened in a different country makes it an "urban legend?" Since rape happened in other wars, then it cannot POSSIBLY have occurred in Nanking. Really. Is that your big argument? 210.133.127.14 ( talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
One of the Victims which i had known and now long since dead, was forced into sex slavery at the age of 16. She was "thankfully" raped only by the higher officials cause of her looks but she had to watch as other less fortunate(understatement) women were raped by hundreds of men every day. Afterwards, females ransacked by the battalions, whom they were done with or were nearly dead, were then lined up and cut open to rip out the womb(uterus) and placed over their head's so they can suffocate to death.
Grisly. A lot of older chinese elders still say, "You buy a Japanese product, your giving them another bullet to kill you with."
15:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC) 70.18.52.179`
Alot of horrible acts happened, some are so hard to believe that some people decide to reject it all together. Some are exaggerated due to the intense pain of the incident because of the cruelty displayed. It was also said that a group of people were led to a highschool, stripped naked, blindfolded, and forced to run around till they either got shot or ran into a bayonet. Of course, now these incidents are considered to be "urban legends," because there is no proper source other than the words of a surviver, and there is very little survivers, seeing that the population in Nanjing was massacared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 ( talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I`m very curious about the reference to recent excavations in the article, and would like to follow it up. Citations?
133.19.126.5 08:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Shaun O`Dwyer
Hi why someone deleate the part of Tongshu thats important background right? Wikipedia should not be a one side propaganda Tool —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.239.229.7 ( talk) 12:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
29th July 1937 Chinse Troops attacked Japanese reserve at Tongshu. Some Japanese Ladies Raped and killed and put the bloom to Vagina,and Chinese Troops pierce the wire at the nose/ hands of Japanese children and dagged and killed. The other Ladies Raped and ripped the stomach. Some family cutted neck and hand and legs and trushed to garbage bin. And a old lady cutted her hand and trushed and a pregnantlady Raped and pierced her stomach by bayonette.
This affair reported by most of Japanese News Paper,and some Japanese Troops swear the retaliation
It's probably because the ammount of casualties isn't as great as the one in the Nanjing Massacare. And although it happened right after, it has nothing to do with Nanjing. Although, the killings were much similar to the killing of Chinese in Nanjing, probably due to the rage the citizens felt, because of the cruelty shown in the previous massacare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.6.115 ( talk) 03:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Should be called Rape of Nanking. There is no such thing as the Nanking Massacre. It is the Rape of Nanking. Use common names and real names. Dont try to appease the Japanese. TingMing 03:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a link in the section "Theft and arson" to a image 'Nanjing1937_BabyOnTracks.jpeg'. The caption is just "Famous picture of baby stranded among the devastation" which implies that the picture is taken of a scene during the Nanking massacre.
This picture is however found link to the the Shanghai War article and is described as "A baby on the tracks near the Shanghai South Railway Station after it was bombed by the Japanese on August 28, 1937"
I think it is clear from the discussion on the image page that this picture should not be linked by this article. Agree? GrantB 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
http://iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/news/nanking.php 65.60.208.212 22:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see the following articles. zh:王小亭, ja:王小亭 It is being written like this there. This picture was taken by 王小亭 in Shanghai, and it was presented through the Hearst media for the world., 王小亭 was in the zh:申報 (it was being under controlled by the Nationalist community) ,and he transferred to the Shanghai branch of the Hearst media, and he chased the National army, furthermore, he became to belong the exclusively movie engineer of the National army.-- Hare-Yukai 02:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting this question again - this time without a dangling participle: I was interested to see some brief discussion about archaeological excavations in Nanjing. Could someone provide some references?-- 133.19.126.5 11:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link with some documented sites:
http://neverforget.sina.com.cn/crime/map.html. The main page of this site also provide comparison of old pictures and a recent picture of the current site. There are some bury grounds discovered during construction, which I heard in the news when I was in China. (
Postdoc
22:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC))
This page is now protected due to revert warring. Please settle your dispute here, and contact me when the dispute has been settled. -- Deskana (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My position is as it was last time we had this discussion. It was not a case of genocide. Just because some sources refer to it as such doesn't mean a thing. Other commentators don't call it genocide. You also don't need to spell out "I don't think it was genocide" to think it was not the case. Some people believe green space lizards control global affairs - just because most people don't keep denying that doesn't mean such theories are correct.
Personally I don't see how we can reconcile our views. Maybe we need to ask for mediation or something. John Smith's 16:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources I've included in the last discussion:
I'm pretty sure I can find others. [2] [3] [4] It's important to note that none of these sources are actually Chinese, so there's no issue of Chinese bias with these sources. But to be NPOV, I do not mind also including the article in a category called "Incidents". Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a dispute as to whether the term "genocide" should be included as a category in the article or not.
Statements by editors previously involved in the dispute
Comments
...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- (a) Killing members of the group;
- (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
- (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
- (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
- (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II
The key word is "any." More than one condition did indeed apply to the Japanese killings of Chinese during the Nanking massacre. However, (a) could very well apply to armies of various countries, which, like John Smith's said, would make every battle or massacre in history a genocide. Now, going to John Smith's' point (again), there are several seemingly contradicting definitions. Much like Folic Acid did in summary, here is a subjective comparison of definitions. In the following table, I am only going to put a Yes if ALL of the conditions apply, just to be fair; "No" if any doubts are raised. According to Genocide definitions, each of which is cited for proof:
Date | Author | Degree that it applies | Genocide by definition |
---|---|---|---|
1944 | Lemkin 1 [1] | The word "nation" is uncapitalized, which more likely than not refers to a nation of peoples (e.g. the Kurds). However, Lemkin did note the word "not necessarily"; looking further, it says that it's a systematic attempt to yadda yadda yadda. The rapes and atrocities were systematic on a micro scale, but on a macro scale, it can only be speculated at best that they systematically exterminated Nanking residents. It's not as if they went outside the boundaries of the metropolitan area and systematically dealt with the Pekingese, not to mention the rest of China. He also mentions a coordinated plan of actions to ruin the foundations of life. The Jews underwent insane amounts of persecution during WWII, but the term remains genocide, that is to say, they not only ruined lives, but they eliminated them as well. If they had just made them incredibly miserable, then it would qualify more as an outright persecution. | No |
1946 | Lemkin 2 [2] | Here, he mentions a "conspiracy to exterminate national groups." Taking Rwanda as an example, that was targeted at an entire national group. Attacks against life? Yes. Property? Looting, yes. However, was this a conspiracy? According to Higashinakano Shudo's The Nanking Massacre: Fact Versus Fiction: A Historian's Quest for the Truth, Lt.-Gen. Nakajima Kesago stated that "Since our policy is, in principle, to take no prisoners, we attempted to dispose of all of them." Nakajima asserts that "take no prisoners" meant "not to take prisoners"; however, the statement is essentially contradicted by the intention to dispose. | Yes |
1948 | CPPCG (box above) | Yes | |
1959 | Drost [3] [4] | Drost mentions a "deliberate destruction of human life". I would say killing falls under this category, but he says specifically "...by reason of their membership of any human collectivity as such". If this collective unit were comprised of Chinese soldiers, then it's simply a battle or what have you. However, the Nanking Massacre focused on Chinese civilians. The Japanese killed Chinese civilians with intention, as asserted above. | Yes |
1975 | Dadrian [5] | The Chinese were the dominant group in the area, not the Japanese. If the Chinese were to exterminate members of Race X in the city of Beijing, then that's a genocide by this definition. | No |
1976 | Horowitz 1 [6] | He states that genocides target minorities, but this is just the "usual" situation. Systematic descruction of innocent people - again, this only occured on a micro scale (within Nanking's city limits), but it was conducted by a state bureaucratic apparatus, albeit in another country. However, this application is iffy at best. | No |
1981 | Kuper [7] | Includes the notion of political conflict (war is one), but abides by the UN/CPPCG definition as above. | Yes |
1982 | Porter [8] | Porter introduces a "whole or in part" statement; the Nanking Massacre was indeed a deliberate destruction in part by a government (the Japanese military authority in power at the time). However, he states that the targets are minorities; the Chinese were the majority in the region (since they lived there, and the Japanese did not). Was it mass murder by his definition? Yes. | No |
1984 | Bauer [8] [9] | Selective mass murders of parts of the population? Yes, namely the Nanking population. John Magee and other Europeans seem to be spared, by accounts in the article. Enslavement - comfort women were enslaved to service Japanese military personnel. Biological decimation did occur, as indicated by deliberate abortions during the Massacre. However, Bauer does not state whether any condition should apply, or if all conditions have to apply. Economic life is not exactly defined - does he mean simply ruining infrastructure, or forcing the Chinese to work in insane conditions (which was not documented, but not entirely impossible)? | No (for now) |
1987 | Thompson and Quets [10] | Here, they use the phrase "purposive actions which fall outside the recognized conventions of legitimate warfare " | Yes |
1987 | Wallimann and Dobkowski [11] | This is essentially an off-shoot of Porter's definition, but does not include the word "minority." | Yes |
1988 | Huttenbach [12] | "puts the very existence of a group in jeopardy" - were the Chinese in jeopardy? Most definitely not. | No |
1988 | Fein 1 [10] [4] | Fein states that genocides are mass murders of a collectivity, in this case the Chinese. She also states that "The perpetrator may represent [...]another state." | Yes |
1988 | Harff and Gurr [13]Harr and Gurr state that a substatial part of the group must have been victimized in a genocide. Nanking was just a drop in the ocean as far as numbers for the Chinese population were concerned. | No | |
1990 | Chalk and Jonassohn [14] | One-killings are the core of this definition, and the massacre was indeed one-sided. The group and membership were only defined as "the prisoners" in the Fact or Fiction paper. | No |
1993 | Fein 2 [15] | Here, she states that the perpetrator physically destroys a collectively directly or indirectly (directly, as in the Massacre's case) that is "sustained regardless of the surrender or lack of threat by the victim." | Yes |
1994 | Katz | Genocides, according to Katz, are intentions to murder the totality of a group. However gruesome the massacre was, there was no explicit intention to murder ALL of the Chinese in China. | No |
1994 | Charny | Charny states that a genocide is a mass killing of substantial numbers of human beings (not specific groups!) "when not in the course of military action against the military forces of an avowed enemy." The war was still going on, so there was indeed action against the Chinese military, but he says that the killings must occur when not in the course of yadda yadda yadda. The killings were conducted after Nanking had surrendered. | Yes |
1996 | Horowitz 2 [16] | The intention here is carried out by "those who rule." Prior to the invasion, China governed Nanking; however, after the city's surrender, authority was handled by the occupying Japanese. In this respect, the Japanese, at this particular point in time, were the ruling faction of Nanking. Horowitz does not indicate national groups, just "innocent people". | Yes |
2003 | Harff [15] | Harff states that a genocide is conducted by a governing elite, which it was not. | No |
So what does this leave us with? Thus far:
In other words, there is no consensus, and it would be fair to neither side, according to the pundits, to call it a genocide. Let's take another example: the Muslim attack on Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. The ruling faction of India (or the "governing elite" as defined by some scholars) at the time was predominantly Hindu and Sikh. The author of a book on the incident implies that the attack was an outright genocide. Going by this assertation on its own, the Nanking Massacre too would fit the description of a genocide.
I am going to explicitly state my POV right here and now that I feel that the Nanking Massacre was a genocide, because the occupying Japanese powers, who were the ruling faction after the surrender of the city, conducted a systematic murder of Chinese people in the city of Nanking, and enslaved scores of women for the purposes of prostitution. However, POV aside, it would be fairer to label this a policide - or the intentional destruction of a city. As opposed to just "bombing the heck out of the buildings," I see policide as a process in which civililans are targeted. Pandacomics 19:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
1037年12月14日
南京日本軍司令官殿
拝啓 貴軍の砲兵部隊が安全区に攻撃を加えなかったことにたいして感謝申し上げる(We appreciate it about the artilleryman of your army didn't add attack to the safety zone.)とともに、安全区内に居住する中国人一般 市民の保護につき今後の計画をたてるために貴下と接触をもちたいのであります。 国際委員会は責任をもって地区内の建物に住民を収容し、当面 、住民に食を与えるために米と小麦を貯蔵し、地域内の民警の管理に当たっております。 以下のことを委員会の手でおこなうことを要請します。安全区の入口各所に日本軍衛兵各一名を配備されたい。 ピストルのみを携行する地区内民警によって地区内を警備することを許可されたい。 地区内において米の販売と無料食堂の営業を続行することを許可されたい。 われわれは市内の他の場所に米の倉庫を幾つかもっているので、貯蔵所を確保するためにトラックを自由に通 行させて頂きたい。 一般市民が帰宅することができるまで、現在の住宅上の配慮を続けることを許されたい。(たとえ、帰宅できるようになったとしても、多数の帰るところもない難民の保護をすることになろう。) 電話・電灯・水道の便をできるだけ早く復旧するよう貴下と協力する機会を与えられたい。 昨日の午後、多数の中国兵が城北に追いつめられた時に不測の事態が展開しました。(Yesterday afternoon, the accident which couldn't be predicted happened when many Chinese soldiers are cornered at the north of the castle.) そのうち若干名は当事務所に来て、人道の名において命を助けてくれるようにと、我々に嘆願しました。委員会の代表達は貴下の司令部を見つけようとしましたが、漢中路の指揮官のところでさしとめられ、それ以上は行くことができませんでした。そこで、我々はこれらの兵士達を全員武装解除し、彼らを安全区内の建物に収容しました。現在、彼らの望み通 りに、これらの人びとを平穏な市民生活に戻してやることをどうか許可されるようお願いします。 さらに、われわれは貴下にジョン・マギー師(米人)を委員長とする国際赤十字南京委員会をご紹介します。この国際赤十字会は、外交部・鉄道部・国防部内の旧野戦病院を管理しており、これらの場所にいた男子を昨日、全員武装解除し、これらの建物が病院としてのみ使用されるように留意いたします。負傷者全員を収容できるならば、中国人負傷者を全員外交部の建物に移したらと思います。 当市の一般市民の保護については、いかなる方法でも喜んで協力に応じます。 敬具
— 南京国際委員会委員長 John H. D. Rabe
Result: Remove genocide category
If nobody opposes an edit, then by default consensus is established. While I won't pursue this issue any longer, however, my lack of involvement doesn't mean consensus is established for all eternity. There is no such thing on WP. The RfC was closed and the edit was made. That doesn't mean somebody cannot come along later to object to the edit. The same thing basically happened with including the Genocide category in the article. For a long time nobody opposed the edit until the issue re-surfaced. Well, now the issue has re-surfaced once again. It's pointless to argue whether or not Giovanni33 has a right to object to that edit. Of course he has that right, and the fact that he objects to the edit now means that we've lost concensus again. Giovanni33, I suggest you just start a new discussion on it instead. The RfC has been closed.
Hong Qi Gong (
Talk -
Contribs)
15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read this debate with interest I would like to make one or two points.
-- Philip Baird Shearer 16:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on the two failed deletion requests of the faked photograph is here [6]. Blueshirts 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I can't believe Hare-Yukai removed half the guy's body. Pandacomics 06:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this image the Nanking of a winter? The shadow angle is too high, and this person wears a white shirt. The shadow angle can not become much than 45degree in Nanjing of winter. And there is no fake shadow in this image [7]?! Furthermore, there is a fake shadow [8] -- Hare-Yukai 08:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"This shadow in this photo looks wrong, therefore Nanking Massacre is fake." Typical denialist argument right there. Hong Qi Gong ( Talk - Contribs) 16:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
How is science a denialist argument? If the shadow is off, the massacre never happened. Quid Pro Quo. There is no proof that the Nanking Massacre ever happened that I have been shown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.224.120.56 ( talk) 04:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case, there is no "proof" that Nagasaki or Hiroshima ever happened then. I think the pictures and those shadows are way off. All fabricated propaganda by Japanese nationals. 210.133.127.14 ( talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's quite expecting that false pictures will be made for the massacre. However, it would be quite short-sighted to conclude that the massacre did not happen based on some false pictures. Why not make conclusions later when considered all the human witnesses or rather survivors and the verified pictures and documentary evidences? I maybe biased in my own ways and people are biased in their ways but in a huge event like this, we should try to be objective. ZouLin 00:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I tried reading the intro before the TOC and it is unwieldy, it should be reworded possibly because it just doesn't feel 'correct'. Take B-17 Flying Fortress as an example, It is very big on words for the summary/intro, yet very easy to read. If we could reword the first part a bit better it would help a lot. As it is I feel like I'm slogging through for some reason. I don't feel this on many other articles. Please look at other featured articles here Category:FA-Class military history articles To improve this article. (You may want to extract the bullet points from the introduction and then rewrite it from scratch.) Klichka 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of non-neutral language concerning events that transpired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.187.35 ( talk) 10:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.57.61 ( talk) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Kind of hard to be neutral when the issue is something so horrific. I would argue that it is inhuman NOT to use strong words describe it. Reading this is the sort of thing that makes even an optimist like me hope that humanity is wiped out by [insert favorite global disaster here]. Better 6 billion people die than birth yet more unfortunates to suffer. ThVa ( talk) 13:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This debate is hampered by endless circles of anger. But in the investigation of an incident, related patterns of conduct are useful, both in the investigation, and any conclusions. The U.S. had a terrible pattern of abusing native peoples for two hundred years, which provides guidance in considering a specific matter, such as Wounded Knee.
Many areas were controlled by Japan from 1917 to 1945, offering indications of policy and patterns of conduct which might apply in evaluating credibility of reports on Nanjing in 1937. These areas include Korea, Bataan, Burma, Thailand, and other areas of China. If credible reports of similar conduct are consistent in multiple areas, then credibility of a specific statement is supported.
Other related patterns of conduct can bear on a specific matter. These include suppression or gradual revision of a subject in history books and public debate. The use of violence against those with opposing views can also lend weight to the accuracy of those views. But a confessional attitude lends weight to the facts admitted, and to doubts on matters not admitted. And it sets another example for progress-by-honesty.
Japan is a great resource for a World facing problems that need the best thinking from all nations and individuals. But its radical right wing degrades that nation's status and working relationship with others, which is so important in averting natural and human-caused tragedies that are quickly approaching. Jayband ( talk) 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Jayband ( talk) 20:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how else to make this request. The gallery of images on this page contains a naked corpse with sticks in her vagina and a collection of decapitated heads. I understand these images are important, and I expect some images on this topic to be very disturbing. But these are above and beyond the pictures usually found with such topics (such as piles of corpses).
Could they be posted on a separate page, with a warning about the unusually barbaric content of these images right above the link? These are not the types of pictures one wants to see accidentally. How can I make it happen, or who do I contact to make this happen?
Thank you.
HelenSan ( talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Helen San
I agree with HelenSan on this issue. Furthermore, the image gallery seems particularly tacked on and unnecessary because of a lack of captions, explanations or sources for the photos.
Bunny Ann ( talk) 00:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The start of the massacre and the middle are described in the article, but there is no description of what ended it or why the Japanese eventually left. TimothyFreeman ( talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
terms such as often are leading and imply some sort of frequency, terms like sometimes are neutral and make no implications regarding frequency. if you wish to use a term such as often, I suggest that you find a reliable source that states the exact frequency and replace sometimes with something along the lines of (in 237 cases) Sennen goroshi ( talk) 05:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
let me try once more, it seems certain editors prefer using reverts than using talk pages, but whatever, it wont kill me to try.
1. terms like "infamous" are blatantly POV and leading, dont use them 2. controversial claims such as civilians were executed under the guise of executing opposing military forces, should be backed up with reliable sources, or removed. 3. terms like often imply a high level of frequency, unless you have specific data relating to the actual frequency, dont use such terms.
Sennen goroshi ( talk) 14:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Did the Eroguro Nonsense of the 1920s inspire the massacre? The atrocities (rape, murder, torture, mutilation) sounds suspiciously "ero-guro" to me. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Well to be honest I read alot about the Nanking Massacre, and I always wondered how come it could be so sadistic? was there any cult or an inspiration behind this nonsense demon acts, after sometime I read about the Ero guro somewhere and this suddenly brought the memory of the Nanking massacre to my mind, and as you say its suspiciously related to me too, I wonder if there's any study regarding it. ( Meshari ( talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC))
The Wikipedia article on this contest states that the factuality of the contest is called into question. I removed the block quotes and instead posted a link to the page, along with a small summary of the issue. I'm almost certain this edit will be attacked, vandalized and possibly reverted, but I wanted to make sure most editors were O.K. with the decision. Vertigo893 ( talk) 23:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I am moving this material to Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. If anyone thinks this is inappropriate, let them take it to WP:AFD. -- Richard ( talk) 15:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If as the lead of the article puts it "commonly known as the Rape of Nanking" this article should be moved back to the "Rape of Nanking" (see the earliest history of this article).
For those who's mother tongue is not English:
Although today rape tends to be associated with the sexual act, its origins is in the stealing something, which in the case of a woman is her virtue and as she was the property of her father or husband the woman became worth less (which today in the West is an old fashioned patriarchal/misogynistic view of what the rape of a woman is, but one still dominant is some societies).
However in a broader sense rape means the taking of another's property including their but not limited to their self worth, or as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it "The act of taking something by force; esp. the seizure of property by violent means; robbery, plundering."
So the "rape of Nanking" works as a name on several levels and does not mean just "the raping of women in Nanking by Japanese soldier" but includes all of the actions taken, and it also as a metaphorical meaning as in "the rape of the innocents". -- PBS ( talk) 10:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Today we have many evidences that the "Nanking Massacre" story was a fabrication and the "photographic evidences" were also false, or unrelated ones. If Wikipedia aims neutrality, I believe that this article should at least include in the beginning a link to the article which mentions about the fablication of the "Nanking Massacre" like the following. "For the theory that the "Nanking Massacre" was a fabrication, see Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arimasa ( talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I created a template that might be useful to add to this and other articles about the specific subject. Please comment on whether you think this template should be taken off or should be added to related articles. ...And feel free to edit the template: Template:Nanking Massacre. Binksternet ( talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm quickfailing the GA nomination of this article. In addition the {{ fact}} tags, which are grounds for quick-failure by themselves (but may have been added after the nomination), I find that
I might be prepared at some point to help copyedit; I'm not a fact expert on this, so the article's facts should be better-cited before then. -- Magic ♪piano 16:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the controversy was how to define the actual time duration of the Massacre, argued for decades by the Nanking Massacre academics. Yet in this Wikipedia article, they define it so directly in the lead section. Very strange. 121.7.188.232 ( talk) 09:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A few months ago, this information was displayed prominently as its own section, including multiple quotes describing "the horror of it all". I was User:Vertigo893 at the time, and I looked up the Wikipedia article on the event and discovered that it had been declared a hoax. I removed the quotes, added the info and the link, and left the editors here to make of it what they would.
Yesterday I returned to this page out of curiosity to see what had been done with the info. At first I thought it had been removed. Through careful scouring of the page, paragraph by paragraph, I eventually found this:
"Perhaps the most notorious atrocity was a killing contest between two Japanese officers as reported in the Tokyo Nichi Nichi Shimbun and the English language Japan Advertiser. The contest was covered much like a sporting event with regular updates on the score over a series of days. In Japan, the veracity of the newspaper article about the contest was the subject of ferocious debate for several decades starting in 1967. This "contest" is regularly presented as historical fact, for example, in an exhibit at the Nanking Massacre Memorial. The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan. In 2000, Bob Wakabayashi concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit."
This is ridiculous. It is already established that the entire article violates WP:NPOV in every conceivable way, and this is just another example.
As I continue to pour over this article and its talk page, I am seeing a recurring pattern. The article, and others relating to the massacre, all seem biased towards Chinese nationalism. Compared to recent events... I do not want this to escalate into what the Scientology issue did, but something has to be done.
I have placed a bounty on this page pledging $20 U.S. dollars to Wikimedia if the article reaches GA status, which it will never do without some serious work. I can only hope that certain editors are more interested in improving Wikipedia than they are in pushing their own POV.
Regards, just a little insignificant 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Absurd relativism... or should I write negationism ? ...-- Flying tiger ( talk) 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone expand on the buried alive images? For example, what exactly the image depicts and the circumstances surrounding it? I only briefly skimmed over the article, so apologies if it is in there somewhere. I just couldn't really discern any detail. I think there may have been another image in there that features a naked girl, which isn't covered by the wikipedia censorship policy, but I didn't dwell on that one for two long... 92.0.150.111 ( talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There are some serious issues regarding the latest pov pushing attempts. Right off the bat in the intro, the denialists are given the more benign name of "skeptics". Secondly, scare quotes are added to the term "denialists" itself. Also, several changes are made to make the dispute solely between Chinese and Japanese "nationalists," as if both sides are equal in creating this mess. It's like saying the holocaust controversy has been caused by Jewish and German nationalists. Try not to slip these things in, please. Blueshirts ( talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Self-explanatory. Is the article pushing a point of view and what should be done? just a little insignificant 22:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is the word "atrocity" POV? Does IMTFE refer to the massacre as an "atrocity"? Blueshirts ( talk) 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The term "denialist" is used numerous places throughout the text. It is not a word. We should not be using it. If we need something with that meaning, the proper term is "denier". Readin ( talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)