This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was copied or moved into Nanking Safety Zone with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is blatant POV-pushing. Flowerofchivalry, you are asserting that the Japanese army "cooperated". That's POV. Please explain the following and provide reliable, accurate evidence:
You should have signed your comment. From the beginning, you cannot say "blatant POV-pushing." You are just expressing your opinion.
And thank you for recognizing my assertions as POV. You should have recognized this, and you should have tried to resolve dispute here before you started reverting.
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To clarify the thing, I make some notes here.
Hmib labeled me as "blatant POV-pushing" and asked me bunch of questions. He ignored every single answers and started "blatant POV-pushing."
If you wish to continue the discussion, please answer the following questions:
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice to see you approaching this logically.
- Hmib 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Those comments are written by Flowerofchivalry 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) at 5am!!
I ask you one more question. Is Shintaro Ishihara "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? no more edit today... -- Flowerofchivalry 12:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you stop messing up the formatting and visual quality of this talk page by rudely disconstructing my comments. Say what you want after mine.
I did answer all 9 of your questions, btw. Look harder.
As for your last question: Ishithara and what army? "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? Well, he IS one person... - Hmib 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems you are not answering my questions, or even didn't read my questions. Look at your comments, and you will find out you are not dicussing anything. This is your problem. You are the only person to improve the quality of your comment.
Are you talking about "石原軍団" or what? I think you have made some big mistakes...
You said only I' think there were the gurilla soldiers in this world. This proves your unfamiliarness of the topic. Ishihara is famous person. I know he is not your favorite person, but people in Japan really like him. Unlike China or other non-democratic countries, people decide who should be a Governor. We Japanese are fed up with those stupid anti-Japan Japanese activists. Is Prime Minister Koizumi is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing? According to your opinion, 20% of Japanese people is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing. You tried to look down on the view of the Japanese majority, but it's busted.
It's 530am... Unfortunately, I'm a human, not a computer, so I need some sleep. I can't spend unlimited amount of time here. Please be honest and at least try to answer the every single questions. If I believe you failed to do that, I seek third-party's assistance to improve our discussion. They don't have to involve the argument, but I expect that "this answer doesn't make sense" or this kind of comments. Do your research, and please cite your sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I have been looking for sources, in either English or German, that confirm (or, to be frank, even allege) that John Rabe was a weapons dealer. I have found none. Flowerofchivalry, I think if you want to make this claim, you need to provide a reliable source. There is no evidence that John Rabe is not secretly the King of Zimbabwe, but it would be unreasonable for me to make that claim and then ask you disprove it. Until you provide substantive evidence behind this claim, I will feel it is my responsibility to revert it wherever it appears: as near as I can tell, this is character assassination, pure and simple.
Nandesuka
12:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hmib 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Come on dude, don't be silly. Be decently. Please. I don't care you like "masturbation" or not, but your example is not appropriate here. From the beginning, is there any relationships between selling weapons and doing masturbation? This is disgusting.
By the way, don't forget to answer the above 9 questions.
-- Flowerofchivalry 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I know Hmib cannot prove anything. Hmib has never cited any single source but he claims all the works he doesn't favor are not reliable. He also failed to recognize the differences between "truth" and "opinion". If you can't prove anything, I understand you cannot prove anything.
If you need time, that's fine, just tell me so.
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You are obligated to reply? No you are not. But you cannot answer anything, provide any single evidence, and cite any single source. Also, your "source" comes from your head and you busted. You are getting desperate here to hide your lie but you cannot reply anything. If these are wrong, cite your sources of the article. You have 2 options: cite your source or agree with the above. If you fail to cite your sources, you automatically agree with the above. But don't hassle, if you need time, just tell me so. That's absolutely no problem.
Again, you have a right to refuse discussion, but refusing discussion means your renunciation of your assertions and therefore all of the above are true.
-- Flowerofchivalry 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Apart from the egregious POV issues, this article is embarassingly poorly written. It is barely English. Nandesuka 11:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What?? My English is poor??? Yes, my English is poor. Your help will be appreciated. -- Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally this could do with an article, so I suggest everyone pitches in and reaches a comprimise. I'd be happy to try and mediate - but as I said, I don't know a lot about it so I can't say "who's right". John Smith's 29 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
I propose that this article is unsalvageable, and furthermore doesn't address anything that isn't more appropriate in one of the related articles (eg Nanking Massacre). I therefore propose that we mark it for deletion. Flower, Hmib, since you two are the most-locked-in-battle, I'd like you to both agree that this is an appropriate way forward, and help thus forge consensus that way.
Thoughts? -- Nandesuka 00:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree your idea. Even if we are forced to conclude the article is not appropriate, deletion is bad idea because there is a risk that Hmiv or FlowerofChilvary appears and create the same article. I think we should wait Hmib's citation.
-- Flowerofchivalry 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I am waiting for FoC to present your evidence, not the other way round. The Gordian Knot is definitely un-untieable, since no matter how hard I explain FoC can never get it. But I strongly disagree with your (Nandesuka's) proposition, deleting this article here and now will only serve to inflame POV-warriors like FoC, setting a bad precedent. Deleting this article is also a form of historical revisionism, the very thing we (at least I) are/am trying to fight. Keep. - Hmib 02:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmib has never cited anything and ignore the sources I cited. Hmib needs to cite sources. I know he cannot cite any sources because he does not have any. He confuses with "fact" and "belief." Hmib thinks something he believes is fact. He is a historical revisionist. He is creating his own history, so he cannot cite any single sources. I cited my sources this talk page, but Hmib has ignored that, and he has never cited anything. I think I need to obtain some third party's opinion but I'm pretty sure that no one want to get involved this rediculous battle... well, this is not battle. I'm just asking Hmib to cite sources. I do, he doesn't.
-- Flowerofchivalry 10:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again. Flower, as I noted above, you have never cited a single source to support your outrageous claim that John Rabe was a arms dealer. You haven't produced one cite. Ever. You've said "Tanaka said it," but you have never said where Tanaka said it, or in what document, or on what page. I can't read Japanese, but other editors can, yet you still haven't provided a cite. So yes: when you make outrageous claims that contradict every other reputable document on a give topic, you need to cite sources. If you cannot cite sources, then it is original research. Period. It is not hmib's (or anyone else's) responsibility to cite sources to prove the negative. I am not hmib. I am a third party, and I saying in my opinion, to date, your edits re: this topic have not been credible. Nandesuka 12:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I cited that, but I cite that again because it doesn't cost me anything...
Tanaka, Masaaki "Gekkan Nippon" Jan 1998 p55
By the way, you are not the third party... You are Hmib's side. But it doesn't mean you are bad. I appreciate your comment.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
No. Mandel expressed his personal opinion that Tanaka is an extremist. He also believes that Tanaka committed perjury. Is there any proof that prove Tanaka intentionally altered the diary? Without any proof, Tanaka is innocent, and therefore he is a credible scholor. By the way, be careful when you use that tactics. Most the incident supporters' works are come from very limited number of authors and the some of authors himself admitted his guilty of perjury, because he is a big liar and he busted. This is funny. I'm gonna use this topic on further discussion (to prove your "source" is not credible).
-- Flowerofchivalry 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If there are many mistakes, is that necessarily means "intentional?" No. I will explain you the details about false testimony after you cite your sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This page would seem more appropriate as a subsection of the
Nanjing Massacre page for now. I think it could be split if it became too unwieldy to maintain as such. Alas, I do not think the destruction of this page would be considered "cutting the Gordian Knot."
FoC: I don't think Tanaka Masaaki is the best source for verifiable and reputable evidence with regard to the Nanjing Massacre. A lot of his evidence seems to rely on census statistics, which during wartime, should be considered fairly useless and untrustworthy. Furthermore, he has some interesting quotes to back his claims up including this one by Staff Officer Sakakibara Kazue: 'At the IMTFE, Sakakibara testified that "some of the prisoners were assigned to each unit as laborers. Many escaped, but we didn't try to stop them."' Ignoring Nanjing for a moment, incidents such as the
Death Railway and the
Battan Death March do not lend much credence to this claim among others including that the "Take No Prisoners" order was misinterpreted.
You also have claimed that since Chinese research is bogus and unreliable, please take a look at Herbert Blix's review of a book on Nanjing ( Here), while he may cite a Chinese historian, I would think that his support may lend more credibility to statements regarding previous statements pertaining to Tanaka's views in the eyes of his peers.
Regarding translations, if FoC is concerned about copyright infringement and whatnot, do we have a Wikipedian we can contact that is willing to translate the text (or at least give us a synopsis) as a third-party?
Also, this discussion brings up a point that, perhaps, there should exist a section maybe not in the Nanjing Massacre page itself, but regarding this POV of Japanese atrocities during World War II, since there does exist a section in the page about the Jewish Holocaust. -- Xanadu 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Xanadu, is Honda a reliable scholar? Tanaka researced based on the official record (during the wartime ofcourse) while people who support the incident researched based on the testimony. Research should be documents-based, or testimony should be from the reliable sources. For example, Magee testified that he had seen only one homicide seen throughout his stay in the safety zone. This is the fact that Hmib wants to ignore. There is a picture the Nanking citizens welcomed the Japanese Army. I cannot upload here because of silly copyright issue so look at here or here. These pictures are from world-famous pro-China Asahi Shimbun. The pictures were taken on Dec. 17th and 20th. These picture show the fully peaceful situation in the safety zone. Is there any single pictures these pictures are fabrication?
Yes, researches made in China are not reliable. Some researchers believe that some of them are reliable. But my assertion is how a neutral research can be made in China, where there are no freedom of speech. A Japanese pro-China author tried to issue an article in China which support the incident, but the article was banned because it denied the number of victims are more than 300000.
I'm quite fed up with people mixed up Jewish and Chinese. Jewish holocaust exists, but Nanking Incident does not exist. The worst holocaust in the history is made by China, called "The Great Cultural Revolution." Jewish holocaust was caused by Hitler's hatered against Jewish. The Revolution was caused by Mao's persistence to power. There are no reasons that Japanese soldiers need to kill innocent citizens.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Because I'm not Chinese communist, I don't follow the order from them. Even though you push your strange POV, Wikipedia does not allow that.
Hmib misunderstood that "they" have concensus. You are writing your own idea without any support. You submit the RfC but where is the comment that support "a persistent POV-pusher" and "should not be taken in good faith". You are just insulting the person just because that person does not have your political belief.
-- Flowerofchivalry 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know you are the communist or not but your assertion is very similar to them, and I know you are revising history. Tell me that you got consensus of whose opinion.
Despite the fact that I cited many sources throughout this talkpage, Hmib has never cited any single sources. This means that Hmib wrote the article without any sources and reverted my edition without any sources.
Hmib's doings resulted in the protection of the article, which is far from encyclopedic, is left.
The situation will be changed only by his citation of his sources.
If he fails to cite his sources, the article should be reverted to my edition, which is based on credible sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 05:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Xanadu. I'm concerning the fact that Hmib wrote the article without any single source, that's the reason why he could not provide any single source. Besides, he wrote something to insult Shintaro Ishihara on his article.
I have never said that the other opinions besides I support should be vanished. The current article is highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job. The opinions I have stated are the one of the main streams of the Japanese society. Since Japan has freedom of speech, there is the other opinion but other than very left communists, the idea like "300000 people killed" is not supported but considered as propaganda of China.
I'm wondering why some people (including you) are trying to vanish "one of the opinion" from the articles.
If you believe this article is not "highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job," please let me know.
Finally, if this situation does not change, I'm happy to solve the situation by arbitration because I'm sure that I'm not doing anything incorrect.
-- Flowerofchivalry 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This dispute has gone on for weeks and needs to be resolved so that the page can stay unlocked.
First, the version here that FoC is reverting to is unencyclopedic, contains original research, and is not well written. FoC, please don't revert to that version again.
However, the other version here, although better, needs to cite its sources.
Suggestions:
In the section called "What happened in the Zone":
(1) Say briefly who John Rabe is. Although you've linked the name, readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to know what you're talking about.
(2) Link to or cite a source saying the Japanese soldiers cited this reason (that guerrillas had been arriving) for entering the zone.
(3) Don't use the word atrocities. If a source uses it, quote the source. Otherwise say what the army did without comment, and site a reputable source for your information. Also, when did they do this? You give no dates.
(4) Cite a source for the restoration of order claim. Also for the forcible naming (and what does forcible naming mean?).
(5) You need to cite a source for the long quote you have.
(6) You can't say "most researchers and scholars" unless you start quoting some of them and you'll also have to say more about the minority of predominantly right-wing Japanese politicians and authors who disagree. Name names here rather than saying "most" say this, but "some" say that. Also, the English in the quote is not brilliant: is it a translation and who translated it? And the letter from John Rabe you quote from says "sic" so was it originally in English, and can you cite a source?
Is it possible to use entirely English-language sources for this article? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the current article is POV pushing and highly unencyclopedic, I will not revert the article to my edition for one week. I will find out how the article can be improved without my contribution. However, even after one week or later (at my discretion), if the article still contains POV pushing (such as Hmib is doing on
Iris Chang), I will edit the article, including reverting. If I do that, I will cite sources for every single paragraph.
Hmib is keep reverting the article just because the editor cited a source, which Hmib does not favor. This is called POV pushing.
This place must be free from the Chinese propaganda. Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It's been a while so this might not be complete. Also, the article was written with facts aggregated from many different places, rather than one single source.
There is much more I could have added to the article, if not for FoC's constant agenda-pushing. Also, we should be asking for sources from FoC, not me, since it's he who is trying to squeeze his version of the story into the article. - Hmib 02:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
El_C 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Definitely a good start to the article. Points for improvement:
I realize this is a contentious issue. I hope everybody involved can remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and stick to credible sources. Good luck to the next contributor. Boneyard90 ( talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I see contradictory statements about the safety zone area in the artice: "The Westerners who remained behind established the Nanking Safety Zone, which was composed of a score of refugee camps that occupied an area of about 3.4 square miles (8.6 square kilometers). The Safety Zone was bordered by roads on all four sides, and had an area of approximately 3.86 km², with 25 refugee camps centred around the U.S. Embassy. This is approximately the same size as Central Park in New York." It seems that the 3.86 km² Nanking Safety Zone was formed from the refugge camps area that initially comprised 8.6 km², but this must be clearly stated in the article. Mazarin07 ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
== External links modified
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from International Committee for the Nanking Safety Zone was copied or moved into Nanking Safety Zone with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This is blatant POV-pushing. Flowerofchivalry, you are asserting that the Japanese army "cooperated". That's POV. Please explain the following and provide reliable, accurate evidence:
You should have signed your comment. From the beginning, you cannot say "blatant POV-pushing." You are just expressing your opinion.
And thank you for recognizing my assertions as POV. You should have recognized this, and you should have tried to resolve dispute here before you started reverting.
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
To clarify the thing, I make some notes here.
Hmib labeled me as "blatant POV-pushing" and asked me bunch of questions. He ignored every single answers and started "blatant POV-pushing."
If you wish to continue the discussion, please answer the following questions:
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice to see you approaching this logically.
- Hmib 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Those comments are written by Flowerofchivalry 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) at 5am!!
I ask you one more question. Is Shintaro Ishihara "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? no more edit today... -- Flowerofchivalry 12:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you stop messing up the formatting and visual quality of this talk page by rudely disconstructing my comments. Say what you want after mine.
I did answer all 9 of your questions, btw. Look harder.
As for your last question: Ishithara and what army? "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? Well, he IS one person... - Hmib 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems you are not answering my questions, or even didn't read my questions. Look at your comments, and you will find out you are not dicussing anything. This is your problem. You are the only person to improve the quality of your comment.
Are you talking about "石原軍団" or what? I think you have made some big mistakes...
You said only I' think there were the gurilla soldiers in this world. This proves your unfamiliarness of the topic. Ishihara is famous person. I know he is not your favorite person, but people in Japan really like him. Unlike China or other non-democratic countries, people decide who should be a Governor. We Japanese are fed up with those stupid anti-Japan Japanese activists. Is Prime Minister Koizumi is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing? According to your opinion, 20% of Japanese people is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing. You tried to look down on the view of the Japanese majority, but it's busted.
It's 530am... Unfortunately, I'm a human, not a computer, so I need some sleep. I can't spend unlimited amount of time here. Please be honest and at least try to answer the every single questions. If I believe you failed to do that, I seek third-party's assistance to improve our discussion. They don't have to involve the argument, but I expect that "this answer doesn't make sense" or this kind of comments. Do your research, and please cite your sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I have been looking for sources, in either English or German, that confirm (or, to be frank, even allege) that John Rabe was a weapons dealer. I have found none. Flowerofchivalry, I think if you want to make this claim, you need to provide a reliable source. There is no evidence that John Rabe is not secretly the King of Zimbabwe, but it would be unreasonable for me to make that claim and then ask you disprove it. Until you provide substantive evidence behind this claim, I will feel it is my responsibility to revert it wherever it appears: as near as I can tell, this is character assassination, pure and simple.
Nandesuka
12:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
-- Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Hmib 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Come on dude, don't be silly. Be decently. Please. I don't care you like "masturbation" or not, but your example is not appropriate here. From the beginning, is there any relationships between selling weapons and doing masturbation? This is disgusting.
By the way, don't forget to answer the above 9 questions.
-- Flowerofchivalry 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I know Hmib cannot prove anything. Hmib has never cited any single source but he claims all the works he doesn't favor are not reliable. He also failed to recognize the differences between "truth" and "opinion". If you can't prove anything, I understand you cannot prove anything.
If you need time, that's fine, just tell me so.
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You are obligated to reply? No you are not. But you cannot answer anything, provide any single evidence, and cite any single source. Also, your "source" comes from your head and you busted. You are getting desperate here to hide your lie but you cannot reply anything. If these are wrong, cite your sources of the article. You have 2 options: cite your source or agree with the above. If you fail to cite your sources, you automatically agree with the above. But don't hassle, if you need time, just tell me so. That's absolutely no problem.
Again, you have a right to refuse discussion, but refusing discussion means your renunciation of your assertions and therefore all of the above are true.
-- Flowerofchivalry 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Apart from the egregious POV issues, this article is embarassingly poorly written. It is barely English. Nandesuka 11:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What?? My English is poor??? Yes, my English is poor. Your help will be appreciated. -- Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally this could do with an article, so I suggest everyone pitches in and reaches a comprimise. I'd be happy to try and mediate - but as I said, I don't know a lot about it so I can't say "who's right". John Smith's 29 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)
I propose that this article is unsalvageable, and furthermore doesn't address anything that isn't more appropriate in one of the related articles (eg Nanking Massacre). I therefore propose that we mark it for deletion. Flower, Hmib, since you two are the most-locked-in-battle, I'd like you to both agree that this is an appropriate way forward, and help thus forge consensus that way.
Thoughts? -- Nandesuka 00:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree your idea. Even if we are forced to conclude the article is not appropriate, deletion is bad idea because there is a risk that Hmiv or FlowerofChilvary appears and create the same article. I think we should wait Hmib's citation.
-- Flowerofchivalry 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I am waiting for FoC to present your evidence, not the other way round. The Gordian Knot is definitely un-untieable, since no matter how hard I explain FoC can never get it. But I strongly disagree with your (Nandesuka's) proposition, deleting this article here and now will only serve to inflame POV-warriors like FoC, setting a bad precedent. Deleting this article is also a form of historical revisionism, the very thing we (at least I) are/am trying to fight. Keep. - Hmib 02:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmib has never cited anything and ignore the sources I cited. Hmib needs to cite sources. I know he cannot cite any sources because he does not have any. He confuses with "fact" and "belief." Hmib thinks something he believes is fact. He is a historical revisionist. He is creating his own history, so he cannot cite any single sources. I cited my sources this talk page, but Hmib has ignored that, and he has never cited anything. I think I need to obtain some third party's opinion but I'm pretty sure that no one want to get involved this rediculous battle... well, this is not battle. I'm just asking Hmib to cite sources. I do, he doesn't.
-- Flowerofchivalry 10:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again. Flower, as I noted above, you have never cited a single source to support your outrageous claim that John Rabe was a arms dealer. You haven't produced one cite. Ever. You've said "Tanaka said it," but you have never said where Tanaka said it, or in what document, or on what page. I can't read Japanese, but other editors can, yet you still haven't provided a cite. So yes: when you make outrageous claims that contradict every other reputable document on a give topic, you need to cite sources. If you cannot cite sources, then it is original research. Period. It is not hmib's (or anyone else's) responsibility to cite sources to prove the negative. I am not hmib. I am a third party, and I saying in my opinion, to date, your edits re: this topic have not been credible. Nandesuka 12:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I cited that, but I cite that again because it doesn't cost me anything...
Tanaka, Masaaki "Gekkan Nippon" Jan 1998 p55
By the way, you are not the third party... You are Hmib's side. But it doesn't mean you are bad. I appreciate your comment.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
No. Mandel expressed his personal opinion that Tanaka is an extremist. He also believes that Tanaka committed perjury. Is there any proof that prove Tanaka intentionally altered the diary? Without any proof, Tanaka is innocent, and therefore he is a credible scholor. By the way, be careful when you use that tactics. Most the incident supporters' works are come from very limited number of authors and the some of authors himself admitted his guilty of perjury, because he is a big liar and he busted. This is funny. I'm gonna use this topic on further discussion (to prove your "source" is not credible).
-- Flowerofchivalry 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If there are many mistakes, is that necessarily means "intentional?" No. I will explain you the details about false testimony after you cite your sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This page would seem more appropriate as a subsection of the
Nanjing Massacre page for now. I think it could be split if it became too unwieldy to maintain as such. Alas, I do not think the destruction of this page would be considered "cutting the Gordian Knot."
FoC: I don't think Tanaka Masaaki is the best source for verifiable and reputable evidence with regard to the Nanjing Massacre. A lot of his evidence seems to rely on census statistics, which during wartime, should be considered fairly useless and untrustworthy. Furthermore, he has some interesting quotes to back his claims up including this one by Staff Officer Sakakibara Kazue: 'At the IMTFE, Sakakibara testified that "some of the prisoners were assigned to each unit as laborers. Many escaped, but we didn't try to stop them."' Ignoring Nanjing for a moment, incidents such as the
Death Railway and the
Battan Death March do not lend much credence to this claim among others including that the "Take No Prisoners" order was misinterpreted.
You also have claimed that since Chinese research is bogus and unreliable, please take a look at Herbert Blix's review of a book on Nanjing ( Here), while he may cite a Chinese historian, I would think that his support may lend more credibility to statements regarding previous statements pertaining to Tanaka's views in the eyes of his peers.
Regarding translations, if FoC is concerned about copyright infringement and whatnot, do we have a Wikipedian we can contact that is willing to translate the text (or at least give us a synopsis) as a third-party?
Also, this discussion brings up a point that, perhaps, there should exist a section maybe not in the Nanjing Massacre page itself, but regarding this POV of Japanese atrocities during World War II, since there does exist a section in the page about the Jewish Holocaust. -- Xanadu 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Xanadu, is Honda a reliable scholar? Tanaka researced based on the official record (during the wartime ofcourse) while people who support the incident researched based on the testimony. Research should be documents-based, or testimony should be from the reliable sources. For example, Magee testified that he had seen only one homicide seen throughout his stay in the safety zone. This is the fact that Hmib wants to ignore. There is a picture the Nanking citizens welcomed the Japanese Army. I cannot upload here because of silly copyright issue so look at here or here. These pictures are from world-famous pro-China Asahi Shimbun. The pictures were taken on Dec. 17th and 20th. These picture show the fully peaceful situation in the safety zone. Is there any single pictures these pictures are fabrication?
Yes, researches made in China are not reliable. Some researchers believe that some of them are reliable. But my assertion is how a neutral research can be made in China, where there are no freedom of speech. A Japanese pro-China author tried to issue an article in China which support the incident, but the article was banned because it denied the number of victims are more than 300000.
I'm quite fed up with people mixed up Jewish and Chinese. Jewish holocaust exists, but Nanking Incident does not exist. The worst holocaust in the history is made by China, called "The Great Cultural Revolution." Jewish holocaust was caused by Hitler's hatered against Jewish. The Revolution was caused by Mao's persistence to power. There are no reasons that Japanese soldiers need to kill innocent citizens.
-- Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Because I'm not Chinese communist, I don't follow the order from them. Even though you push your strange POV, Wikipedia does not allow that.
Hmib misunderstood that "they" have concensus. You are writing your own idea without any support. You submit the RfC but where is the comment that support "a persistent POV-pusher" and "should not be taken in good faith". You are just insulting the person just because that person does not have your political belief.
-- Flowerofchivalry 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't know you are the communist or not but your assertion is very similar to them, and I know you are revising history. Tell me that you got consensus of whose opinion.
Despite the fact that I cited many sources throughout this talkpage, Hmib has never cited any single sources. This means that Hmib wrote the article without any sources and reverted my edition without any sources.
Hmib's doings resulted in the protection of the article, which is far from encyclopedic, is left.
The situation will be changed only by his citation of his sources.
If he fails to cite his sources, the article should be reverted to my edition, which is based on credible sources.
-- Flowerofchivalry 05:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Xanadu. I'm concerning the fact that Hmib wrote the article without any single source, that's the reason why he could not provide any single source. Besides, he wrote something to insult Shintaro Ishihara on his article.
I have never said that the other opinions besides I support should be vanished. The current article is highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job. The opinions I have stated are the one of the main streams of the Japanese society. Since Japan has freedom of speech, there is the other opinion but other than very left communists, the idea like "300000 people killed" is not supported but considered as propaganda of China.
I'm wondering why some people (including you) are trying to vanish "one of the opinion" from the articles.
If you believe this article is not "highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job," please let me know.
Finally, if this situation does not change, I'm happy to solve the situation by arbitration because I'm sure that I'm not doing anything incorrect.
-- Flowerofchivalry 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This dispute has gone on for weeks and needs to be resolved so that the page can stay unlocked.
First, the version here that FoC is reverting to is unencyclopedic, contains original research, and is not well written. FoC, please don't revert to that version again.
However, the other version here, although better, needs to cite its sources.
Suggestions:
In the section called "What happened in the Zone":
(1) Say briefly who John Rabe is. Although you've linked the name, readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to know what you're talking about.
(2) Link to or cite a source saying the Japanese soldiers cited this reason (that guerrillas had been arriving) for entering the zone.
(3) Don't use the word atrocities. If a source uses it, quote the source. Otherwise say what the army did without comment, and site a reputable source for your information. Also, when did they do this? You give no dates.
(4) Cite a source for the restoration of order claim. Also for the forcible naming (and what does forcible naming mean?).
(5) You need to cite a source for the long quote you have.
(6) You can't say "most researchers and scholars" unless you start quoting some of them and you'll also have to say more about the minority of predominantly right-wing Japanese politicians and authors who disagree. Name names here rather than saying "most" say this, but "some" say that. Also, the English in the quote is not brilliant: is it a translation and who translated it? And the letter from John Rabe you quote from says "sic" so was it originally in English, and can you cite a source?
Is it possible to use entirely English-language sources for this article? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the current article is POV pushing and highly unencyclopedic, I will not revert the article to my edition for one week. I will find out how the article can be improved without my contribution. However, even after one week or later (at my discretion), if the article still contains POV pushing (such as Hmib is doing on
Iris Chang), I will edit the article, including reverting. If I do that, I will cite sources for every single paragraph.
Hmib is keep reverting the article just because the editor cited a source, which Hmib does not favor. This is called POV pushing.
This place must be free from the Chinese propaganda. Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
It's been a while so this might not be complete. Also, the article was written with facts aggregated from many different places, rather than one single source.
There is much more I could have added to the article, if not for FoC's constant agenda-pushing. Also, we should be asking for sources from FoC, not me, since it's he who is trying to squeeze his version of the story into the article. - Hmib 02:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
El_C 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Definitely a good start to the article. Points for improvement:
I realize this is a contentious issue. I hope everybody involved can remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and stick to credible sources. Good luck to the next contributor. Boneyard90 ( talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I see contradictory statements about the safety zone area in the artice: "The Westerners who remained behind established the Nanking Safety Zone, which was composed of a score of refugee camps that occupied an area of about 3.4 square miles (8.6 square kilometers). The Safety Zone was bordered by roads on all four sides, and had an area of approximately 3.86 km², with 25 refugee camps centred around the U.S. Embassy. This is approximately the same size as Central Park in New York." It seems that the 3.86 km² Nanking Safety Zone was formed from the refugge camps area that initially comprised 8.6 km², but this must be clearly stated in the article. Mazarin07 ( talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
== External links modified