Jump to content

Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Has this link been previously considered for this article? I think this is relevant to both supporters and critics of this book.jiyu-shikan 219.163.12.72 14:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Oscar_the_Grouch

Absurd

This is absurd. Is there any way to only LOCK the page from non-registered users? I don't know who the person at 218.221.107.162 is, but the person is from Kyoto. This should be resolved quite simply. If this Kyoto person has a reliable source or any source even that the photos are fabricated, INCLUDE it. Because indeed it is a "photo whose caption is disputed" but there is no evidence that it is fabricated. Dan 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kadzuwo: the review by David Kennedy seems to be a good examination of the achievements (and serious limitations) of Chang's book. Thanks for pointing that out. Also, please note that it seems to support Chang's numbers, and makes absolutely no mention of forged photography!

I haven't looked at the other sources you cited (since there are a lot of them, and they all appear to be Japanese, thus making them less relevant to the point in dispute here), but please feel free to re-introduce some of them, if they can improve the article. -- pde 00:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed

The following text was moved here from the article. It needs to be NPOVed. olivier 03:14 Mar 8, 2003 (UTC)

The photograph currently used is a fabrication photograph and this book cannot be trusted.

Moved

More text moved from the article:

The Japanese translation was halted in according with Chang's demand, because she disagreed with the publisher, who, having troubles with numerous factual errors on it, planed to publish a critical commentary together with it.

See this report. The reasons for the non-publication in Japan seem controversial, but it seems to be the publisher that backed out rather than Iris Chang. -- sannse

Deleting sentences

Maveric149, point out what you think is wrong before deleting sentences. -- Pinko

Read above. --mav

Of course I read. The reasons for the non-publication in Japan seem controversial. So I rewrote: "because she disagreed with the publisher" to "because of disagreement between Chang and Kashiwashobo." The problem was dissolved. --Pinko

Fabrication

The article says:

Some, particularly Japanese scholars claim that the photograph currently used is a fabrication photograph and this book cannot be trusted

Question: do we know of any non-Japanese scholars who agree with these claims? If so, is this an issue adopted by revisionists?

And what is meant by "the photograph currently used"? Are we talking about the front cover? A key piece of evidence? A collection of photographs as evidence (in which case, the grammar is misleading)? -- Pde

Yes. Not only one photo is a fabrication, but this book contains many fabricated photos."Fabrication" includes various techniques other than composite picture. Research Institute of Propaganda Photos gives explanations to such photos. This site is fully written in Japanese, but you will understand what the following series of photos means without reading Japanese. http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~sus/child.htm Note that this is a typical propaganda photo, but not of Nanjing.-- Pinko

OK, that clarifies the allegations against the book.
So, does the "Research Institute of Propaganda Photos" have a larger political agenda? Is there any support from groups which do not have conservative/nationalistic Japanese perspectives, which support the claim of fabrication? If not, then the article should reflect the sources of these allegations.
Analyses of the debate in Japan over Nanjing (such as this one) suggest that revisionists have been unable to find strong evidence to support their claims about the severity of the massacres. Unless you can demonstrate that such evidence exists, and has been generally persuasive (internationally or amongst liberal academe in Japan) to any extent, then the NPOV description of this issue is that particular political groupings in Japan are trying to whitewash the history of the occupation for ideological reasons.
As a result of this situation, claims of fabricated photos (or only 250,000 people being in Nanjing at the time) should be regarded as highly suspect unless they are supported by at least some unbiased reviewers. -- Pde

What are you talking about? We are talking about the book. The incident is important but is not the topic here.

What is "conservative/nationalistic Japanese perspectives"? What is revisionism? Labelling opponents with such ill fames is too common. I welcome objections to claims of fabricated photos themselves, but not such labelling. --Pinko

The purpose of this article should be to inform the readership of the encyclopedia about several things: (1) the accuracy of the book, (2) its usefulness as a source, (3) the controversy surrounding the book in Japan and (4) the place of these events in an ongoing struggle, within Japanese society, over facts about and perceptions of the events in Nanjing.
Now, I do not know whether the allegations of fabrication have come exclusively from the right in Japan. That is why I was asking the question. If, as I suspect, this is the case, then the Wikipedia readership will be better informed about (3) and (4) if they are told about the relationship between the allegations of fabrication and ideological positions. This will also help them judge, for themselves, how this impacts on (1) and (2).
If, on the other hand, there is evidence that scholars internationally or on the left in Japan agree with the claims of fabrication, the readership should be informed about this, because it will change their views, certainly about (1), and almost certainly about (2). It immediately transforms (3) and means we need to do much more work to accurately capture (4).


For clarification, the word "revisionist" means, in general, scholars who are attempting to change the accepted historical account of events, period or phenomena. There is nothing pejorative about this word. I used it also in a different sense, to refer to Holocaust denial, because I was curious about the attitude of Holocaust deniers to the events in Nanjing.
Conservatism and nationalism obviously come in shades of grey, but they are also well documented and understood viewpoints which appear, in slightly different ways, in most places. They may even be measurable using questionaires. Japanese conservatism/nationalism just refers to the way that these ideologies manifest in Japan, where the events in Nanjing take on particular significance, and will tend to be perceived as threatening the credibility of conservative/nationlist ideologies. -- Pde

Peole are too busy to classify people into "neutral", "liberal", "revisionist", "conservative", "nationalistic", etc. "Oh, he is liberal. He must be right."

Nonsense. Unless Japan is very different from the rest of the world, the ideological positions of public figures and scholars is a common point of discussion and speculation. I am hoping that you, or another wikipedian with a good understanding of the situation in Japan, can help on this point.
Being a liberal doesn't make you right or wrong. Being a conservative doesn't make you right or wrong. But the relationships between ideology and beliefs about specific issues is still important.
I fear these labels, irrespective of whether they are positive or negative, implant prejudice (stereotype threat). --Pinko
This may be sad but unavoidable. Ideology and prejudice exist, and have real effects on the world. In writing Wikipedia, we must strive to help the reader understand this, while also rising above any single dogmatic perspective. -- Pde

"Oh, he is a revisionst. His claim is quit doubtful." And they forget to examine their claims. That's my concern. A claim should be evaluated by its content, not by which group he/she belongs to.

You are correct that claims should be evaluated based on content. But because I'm not a historian and I don't have the time, inclination, ability and resources to evaluate such claims directly, I rely on a more efficient mechanism. If a correct but controversial claim is made by anybody (conservative/revisionist/anyone else), then I expect that soon, other historians, from many different schools of thought, will investigate and agree with the claim. I am asking you, or other wikipedians with knowledge of the matter, whether this has occured?

Claims of fabricated photos are objective. They discovered sources of these photos and then compared both versions. One is not of Nanjing. Victims in another photo were Japanese in reality. According to the caption of a photo, a Japanese soldier purchased foods, but the caption of this book explains that he plundered them. Can someone defend the book? --Pinko

I don't know. I personally have no information on the matter. What were the other sources? Where did the other captions come from? Do you believe that the authors of the book inserted these fabrications deliberately? Or were they themselves relying on other sources? Is it just two photos, or many more? I want to know who has defended, and who has attacked, the book.
It may well be that the evidence of fabrication is clear and has been accepted by most of the scholars studying the topic. If this is the case, we can say "the photos were fabricated". If there is no agreement, we can mention the allegations. If the allegations are only supported by scholars with a particular class of viewpoints, then we must say that. -- Pde
You don't have to edit. If someone disagrees with the description, he/she will edit. That's Wikipedia. Remember that everyone can edit. --Pinko
What I'm saying is that I am not happy with the description as it stands, but I don't know enough to fix the article myself. So I was asking questions, in the hope that, working with others, I could make the article more informative. -- Pde

Protected Page

Protected - material present on page copied to Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)/Draft -SV(talk) 01:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article is poor — someone seems to be wanting to hollow it out and remove any substance to it - see the draft to edit, and make notes. Le poizel-SV(talk) 01:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV. Neutral point of view. The accuracy of the book is disputed. This article should say that the accuracy of the book is disputed, not that the book is inaccurate. Markalexander100 08:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think my version says the book is inaccurate. The article says only some say so. Namely this sentence. "Some US and Japanese scholars have disputed the accuracy of the book." -- Taku 15:16, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Your version states as fact that there are "factual errors", that the book "cannot be trusted', and that its figures are "misleading". These are all disputed statements. Markalexander100 01:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you have read sentences correctly. It is the fact that some people contend figures are misleading. It never means the figures are misleading. -- Taku 02:16, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

"They pointed out that the book contains many serious factual errors including fabricated photographs and cannot be trusted. They noted that particular figures presented in the book are misleading--for example, the number of people killed outnumbers the residents in Nanking at that time."

In English, you can only "point out" or "note" something if it is true. Markalexander100 02:22, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Many people do note or point out false things. But it is true that they do say those false things. -- Taku 02:28, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

Who states factual errors are not errors? For propaganda photos, this book shows photos of unknown origin. Critics identified some of these photos and proved that they are trimmed, manipulated or irrelevant photos with misleading captions. Does someone really offer rebuttals to criticism? If so, show me. --Nanshu 02:47, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think you are right, Nanshu but let's not go to a game who is right, who is wrong. I think it would suffice if we just state some scholars, not a couple of crazy guys, questions the accuracy of the book. That's all. -- Taku 02:59, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)

And stop labelling your critics "various conservative and revisionist factions." Kashiwa Shobo is a left-wing, pro-PRC publisher. Even Kashiwa Shobo feared that publishing such an inaccurate book without notes would ruin its credit. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Protected

Taku, the page was protected last time because you reverted to a POV text without even commenting on my explanations of why it was POV. Be calm, talk before reverting. Markalexander100

No, it is you who stopped talking. As I said, some people claim something and nothing is wrong with reporting such. -- Taku 16:07, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

OK, a few examples.

  1. Ptolemy pointed out (or noted) that the sun orbits the earth. This statement is incorrect, as Ptolemy's belief was incorrect.
  2. Noam Chomsky pointed out (or noted) that President Bush is a fool. This statement is POV, as it presents a disputed opinion (Chomsky's ) as a fact.
  3. Noam Chomsky claimed (or alleged) that President Bush is a fool. This statement is accurate and NPOV. It reports a claim without judging its validity. This is the appropriate form for reporting disputed claims. Markalexander100 03:30, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The following

The following writing should be removed. The followings describes Japanese response, And majority of criticism against this book didn't come from right-wing. I want to know Why non-Japanese can say as followings?

In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, both because it is generally accurate and because the volume is more of popular history rather than for academia.

I think mentioning the Japanese response to a book is quite relevant to an article on a book about what the Japanese did. ;-) Non-Japanese people can mention it for the same reason as Japanese people can- it's true. The sites complaining about the book which this page links to are right-wing nationalist sites; if you know of any more moderate ones, let us know. Markalexander100 01:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Before that, I want to know 3 points. <1> Which language you can read. Can you read Japanese? As you can easily imagine, most responses and discussions in Japan are written by Japanese.<2> Could you tell me your definition about Japanese right-wing nationalist? <3> How you could affirm the response of academia /the reason of Mainstream academia response.- Poo-T

  1. I'm not sure it's relevant, but nihongo wa amari yoku wakarimasen. This being the English Wikipedia, we use English-language sources (such as the ones linked to from the article).
  2. I can give you an example. http://www.history.gr.jp/nanking/index2.html asserts not just that the book is exaggerated, but that "The Massacre of Nanking is a lie !" and "The Greater East Asia War was fought in Self-defence.". Those are both somewhat extreme views.
  3. As the article mentions, mainstream academics did not generally concern themselves with the book, because it's popular history, not an academic treatise. Markalexander100 03:18, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

<1> It's very important, as the text describes "mainstream responses in Japan". For example, Do you really trust a description like "Iraqi people trusts US troops" written by a person who can only read/speak English? As for me, I think such text about "Iraqi response" is unreliable. Additionally, How can I show you Japanese discussion? English Wikipedia should be written in English. However it doesn't mean "ignoring responses in non-English country." Especially, the writing is about "mainstream responses in Japan". Can you follow me? <2> It's just an example. I agree that your example is a website of right-wing nationalists. I wanted to know your Borderline to be called "right-wing nationalist" to show you "moderate, not so right-wing web site." But related to <1>, generally, most moderate web sites/books are written in Japanese. As they don't have a strong will to show their opinion in English, as translating is not easy work for most Japanese. <3> I want to know why you could affirm the reason as "both because it is generally accurate and..". Did you think about the possibilities like "just ignored a books sold in U.S., not in Japan" or "recognized as a book with too many mistakes to discuss seriously". As far as I know, most japanese including academic people simply didn't have a concern. Only limited people (left-wing who likes communist countries and right-wing ultra-nationalist) read the book and debated about the book. I can agree if the writing is as follows,

In Japan, it caused an argument only between Right-wing ultra-nationalists and Left-wing communism-familiar people. Japanese mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, because the volume was not for academia.

But this is where academia is a credible source for this type of information, beacuse in general, those circles are multilingual and promote good research in this area. In this sense, the use of academic sources is a good one. For example, see the Comfort women article where I quoted a Japanese professor who performed research and published in English. Fuzheado 04:51, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
To Fuzheado, I want to ask you same 3 questions To Markalexander100. There are many academia "Left-wing communism-familiar" professors (with my definition. see below)in japan. For example, Prof.Yoshimi is well known "left-wing professor" in Japan. This is not the place to discuss about Comfort Women, but I'll talk about it. With research about "Comfort woman" in these 10 years, japanese academia consensus is "Comfort woman was business, supervised by Japanese government. Its recruitment was delegated to local private companies (prostitution agent) in Korea and Japan. In Korea, traffic in women was common from the age before Japan annexation, especially for poverty class people. Debating in Japan focuses on responsibility of japanese government to supervise Korean prostitution agent's doing.". But as you know, left-wing people (Of course right-wing too,)have tendency to confess their mistakes, and insist on their recognition. In Japan, it's free to talk one's own opinion. But, loud voice and repeated advertising doesn't mean "mainstream consensus with scholarly integrity". (Prof.Yoshimi is relatively much fair than most other left-wing professors in Japan, I think.) Do you really think this text needed in Wikipedia, with a doubt of NPOV? If you think so, could you write your text suitable for here. My saying is just 2 points. <1>comments only about right-wing criticism can mislead the reader like "Most Japanese accepted the book true" <2> "because it is generally accurate" has no evidence-Poo-T
Poo, I'm confused by your answer. You say "most moderate web sites/books are written in Japanese"- are you saying that there are books and/or sites criticising the book from a moderate perspective in Japanese? But you also say that only extremists concerned themselves with the book. If it helps, I'd have no objection to removing the reasons given for mainstream academia not criticising the book. Markalexander100 05:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
To Markalexander100. Generrally, most responses including historians in Japan, as far as I could read/hear, just a short comment about the book. The majority response was "There is a million seller book in U.S., but there are many mistakes in the book. (sigh) " Most writings are just one or two lines, that's all. I can show you many such comments written in Japanese, if you want. -Poo-T
Here I describe my definition about right-wing nationalist and left-wing communism-familiar. Japanese Right-wing needs two points. <1>praise old emperor system in Japan <2>saying "Japan did nothing wrong before/during WW2". Left-wing communism-familiar means "Double standards" For example, "accuse U.S. for Gulf War, but never blame Soviet Union or China for Afghanistan /Tibet". -Poo-T
So can we agree on "In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists. Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book."? Markalexander100 01:38, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Generally, I think it much better than present writings. The only thing I want to change, is "Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book." It can still mislead readers like "Mainstream was in favor of the book". I recommend "Mainstream academia did not respond harshly to the book, as it was not for academia", or simply, "Mainstream academia did not respond to the book". -Poo-T 25 May 2004

Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

I have attributed the factual inaccuracies in the book as fact not allegation. Some of it is just so bad that I doubt she bothered to do fact checking before she published the book. However, I have presented the argument that just because the book is poorly researched does not mean the massacre itself is false. Someone might want to explain how significant the book was despite these problem. FWBOarticle 02:57, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also pointed out that criticism of book comes from both side in Japan. The book is sort of embarasement to the advocate of Nanking issue. Chang trying to link atrocities to Japanese culture didn't go down well because it widely opend itself to accusation of propaganda and Japan bashing. FWBOarticle

I've reverted. Miss Chang, to the best of my knowledge, maintains that the book is accurate. I haven't read it and I have no idea whether it is accurate, but there is a dispute over its accuracy. NPOV means we don't take sides. We all have better things to do than starting this again ;). Markalexander100 03:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, her assertion can be attributed to her POV. Some of erros is just so bad that it's quite funny. For example, she says, "In 1868 the rebels...ignited a revolution and transformed a patchwork of warring fiefdoms into a modern, powerful Japan." We had about 250 years of peace when supposedly "warring fiefdoms" were united under Tokugawa Shogunate. Probably for Westerners who has very little knowledge of Eastern history, her erros might appear trivial. But some of her erros is just so bad that it is almost equivelant to saying that "Robert F Kennedy was assasinated in Dallas, Texas". Any Japanese book with this kind of standard will be laughed at in English speaking world. And that what happend to Chang's book in Japan. The issue is not about the truth of nanking massacre. It is all about a sloppy research standard of an American book about history of the East and Western readers who tolorate such standard due to their lack of knowlege. There is no point insisting that the book is accurate when it is not. I'm quite sure she wrote well as a literature. FWBOarticle 09:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not think NPOV policy imply that well established fact should be presented as POV. FWBOarticle 10:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There may or may not be any point in insisting the book is accurate, but she does. There is a dispute as to its accuracy. That's all we need to know not to express an opinion on it. If you want to quote someone saying the book is inaccurate, you're welcome to do so. Markalexander100 10:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm quite sure some people like David Irving would insist that Holocaust is hoax. This doesn't mean we would say Holocaust is an allegation. We simply "attribute" David Irving's insistent to him. You can certainly state her insistence with proper attribution. But that should be stated as her POV while some obvious things should be stated as fact. Her books has numerous erros. Leave it at that. My advice is to add to my article by explaning the contribution which this book made to the issue of the massacre in the West. FWBOarticle 10:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Her website includes praise for the book from two Oxford academics and one from Harvard. We are not talking David Irving here. It would be much more helpful if you would discuss changes to controversial articles on the talk page before leaping in. Markalexander100 10:44, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oxford "academic" but not "historians". It still doesn't change "the facts" that book contains (lot of) factual inaccuracies. I'm not saying Massacre was a fiction or that her writing wasn't powerful. For example, She say Commander Perry. It is Commodore Perry. Are you saying that she is right? Type of mistake she make is things like name person or place or basic factual matter of histories. If I insist that my statement "Robert F Keneedy was assasinated in Dallas Texas" is accurate then would the statement "J.F Kennedy was assasinated in Dallas Texas" become an "allegation" or still remain as a fact? You can certainly praise her book on other aspects especially the impact the book had on the English speaking world. And I'm keep telling you to do that to provide more balanced assesement of the book. That doesn't allow you to distore the facts.

Correction. It does appear that Oxford historian praised the book. Well, for that I apologise. Still doesn't change my main contention that "book contains many factual inaccuracies" being fact.

Your contention is disputed. Not by me- I have no opinion on the matter- but by Miss Chang and her supporters. The minor mistake you mention was corrected in the second edition (and there are not many books which have no mistakes in the first edition!). You are welcome to provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy; I can then add a quote from someone praising the book's accuracy, and we can end up exactly where we started. But you cannot change the content to reflect your own POV. Reading Wikipedia: NPOV would help you a lot in this type of discussion. Markalexander100 00:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My edit duely mentioned that Miss Chang has corrected many (but not all) mistakes she has made in her previoius edition. However, this does not change facts that her book contained many erros. And the list of mistake she made were quite large. The two external links provided in the article provide part of it. (I do grant that some erros listed in the links depends upon one's POV). However, some of her mistake are embarasingly bad. Since you obviously do not know what is or what is not elementary historical fact of the Far East, I can provide you with one which even you can perceive. She say "In March 1944, the United Nations created the Investigation of War Crimes Committee ..." (p.169). " . I do not think anyone dispute that this is a embarrasing mistake in regard to basic fact of history..
And lastly, why should I "provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy". I can instead provide the list of quotes from her book which is flat wrong and let the readers of wikepedia decide whether she made "many errors regarding elementary facts of history". I don't intend to be that much of nitpicker but if you insist on censoring some simple mention of fact, I'll be forced to go to the point where what I do is beyond your criticism. I repeat this point. I'm not discussing whether Miss Chang wrote good or bad book which is obviously POV. And I'm not saying Naking Massacre is fiction because just one book which describe it contain sloppy research. I'm simply insisting that the fact that she made many errors regarding elementary historical facts should not be censored or wrongly attributed as POV. FWBOarticle 05:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's interesting that when you FWBOarticle don't like what someone else wrote, you demand sources, "not from an agenda site" for each claim. I would say that is a good reason why you should "provide a quote from someone who disputes the book's accuracy". You dont like to rely on anyone else's personal knowledge or opinion, so dont expect others to rely on yours.  :-) Jpnwatch Sept 7, 2004.

One more. Your version spin critics of Irish Chang as mainly right wing nationalist. That I consider to be wrong attribution and do disservice to many serious historians which has pointed out the problem of the book. FWBOarticle 05:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem is: 1) your assertions are not backed up by citations or quotes from others and Wikipedia is not meant to be a refutation by a Wikipedian's original research. Also, 2) the spelling and grammar in your revisions is so badly formed it's hard to put much credibility in your charges. If you are complaining about an author's sloppiness and lack of attention to detail, it's hard to take that seriously when the same can be said of your prose.
There were errors in the book indeed, and as has been mentioned already, they have been corrected in a second edition. You yourself have said some of the "errors" are a matter of POV, so nothing you have mentioned dilutes the significance of the central thesis of the book. And setting up the straw man argument of "Robert F. Kennedy" doesn't work either. Fuzheado | Talk 05:22, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
O.K. I will make better attribution of her mistakes. FWBOarticle

Edits deleted

These are edits I just deleted from the article, with explanations below

In Japan, the opinion of book is generally negative even among those who support the truth of Nanking Massacre.

This is not only a sweeping generalization (as well as grammatically incorrect). It is POV to say "the truth of Nanking Massacre" and is unacceptable. You will not see that kind of language in other English Wikipedia articles. The truth is to be determined by the reader after reading factual information.

Her first edition of the book contained erros relating to some elementary facts about Japanese history. She often confuse family name with given name. League of Nations was refered as United Nation. Wrong number, name or date were attributed to certain well known historical figure or event. Though most of them are not related to the main contention of the book, it was widely seen by Japanese that her research standard was "below junior high school";.

Again, this is not a soapbox or a place for one's own theories - get specific with the examples, name the person who said the quote, or point to web sites that specifically address the discrepancies.

Those who deny Naking Massacre seized these erros to imply that the entire allegation of Naking Massacre is propaganda and therefore false. Japanese historians and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre generally distanced itself from the book.

Again, generalities without quotes or facts. It would help your credibility greatly to spell the basic terms correctly.

  • errors, not erros
  • Nanjing or Nanking, not Naking

Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

O.K. then I will quote from the book directly. FWBOarticle 01:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"She often confuse family name with given name".

page 26 Sadao Araki instead of Araki Sadao - also incorrectly indexed under "S" (p.289)
page 30 Tokio Hashimoto instead of Hashimoto Tokio but, correctly indexed under "H" (p.287)
page 40 Taisa Isamo instead of Chô Isamu - Taisa is actually "Colonel" while he was actually liutenant. Also incorrectly indexed under "T"
page 48 Yukio Omata instead of Omata Yukio
page 203 Yasuhiro Nakasone instead of Nakasone Yasuhiro - also incorrectly indexed under "Y" (p.290) He is also very famous Prime Minister
page 209 Nobukatsu Fujioka instead of Fujioka Nobukatsu
page 211 Takehiro Nakane instead of Nakane Takehiro also incorrectly indexed under "T" (p.290)
page 280 Hiroko Yamaji instead of Yamaji Hiroki - Hiroko is a gir's name while Hiroki is completely separate boy's name in Chinse character.
page 281 Noboru Kojima instead of Kojima Noboru

United Nation - League of Nation. On this I admit I probably got it wrong. She say "In March 1944, the United Nations created the Investigation of War Crimes Committee ..." (p.169). " It is likely that she got the date wrong or attributed the committee to wong organisation.

Wrong number, name or date were attributed to certain well known historical figure or event. "For 250 years Japanese military technology failed to advance beyond the bow and sword." page 21 -Japan manufactured rifle and cannons

"in July 1853, he sent two ships belching black smoke into Tokyo Bay" -he sent four not two. Most japanese know this because of a poem which described ships as four cups of strong teas. Plus, he went to Edo Bay not Tokyo Bay. Yokohama has a very famous port but separate from Tokyo.

"Perry strode through the capital of the Shogun" -He never went to the capital.

"With this single visit,Perry not only forced the Tokugawa to sign treaties with the United States..." -He signed treaty on his second visit. What happened between these vist within Japan is also importatnt part of Japanese history.

"Okawa Shumei, a member of the army general staff" -He is nationalist ideologist. Never being a member of the army general staff. It equal to saying Rush Limburgh was a member of the army general staff

""By the late 15th and early 16th centuries Japan was ruled by the Tokugawa family, who sealed off the island nation from foreign influence" -This is quite bad in eyes of Japanese. Tokugawa ruled between 17th to middle of 19th.

"In an era later known as the Meiji Restoration" -Meiji Restoration is an event not an era

"Nichi-Mainichi Newspaper" -Osaka NichiNichi newspaer of Tokyo Nichinichi Newspaper. Mainich Newspaper is now the third biggest daily newspaper

One of denial site which list about 90 mistakes. Some I have to say depends on POV. Others are just poor knowledge and sloppy fact checking. http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8783/mistake.html

I have stated that these erros in her first edition are not much relevant to the central contention of her book. So I believe that proper (and fair) attribution of her mistakes is made. I should mentioned that subsequent edition corrects these mistakes. Are you saying that these mistakes are mere "allegation" when the author herself appear to accept it? FWBOarticle 01:53, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV

I'll put this very clearly - any sentence with pure POV like this:

Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book.

will be removed. Fuzheado | Talk 05:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You have no problem stating that mainstream academia igonred the book. Why the previous statement is not POV while the supporter of Naking Massacre ignored the book is? The book was widely criticise (and ridiculed) for some elementary errors she made. Another reason her book was unpopular in Japan even among the liberal was that it was widely perceived in Japan that her book bashed Japan by linking the massacre to Japanese "culture". This was something the Japanese liberal were extremly keen to avoid. The similar thing happen in U.S. where the liberal are keen to avoid accusation of unpatriotic or being anti-American. Why are you intent on censoring that the academic and the liberal distance itself from the book? FWBOarticle 10:29, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I have "no problem" with mainstream academic ignoring the book. It was an attempt to compromise and allow some of your edits to stand. However, if you're going to use it as the thin end of the wedge then I'll go back on even accepting that small edit. Your bias in pushing "the truth" puts serious doubt on your ability to work towards NPOV. Fuzheado | Talk 00:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Criticism of Chang = Right Wing Denier?

My edit, "In Japan, the criticsm of the book came from the both side of the debate. Right-wing nationalists relished nitpicking some perceived inaccuracies of Chang's book. Mainstream academia there largely ignored the book." was reverted back to "In Japan, the majority of the criticisms came from right-wing nationalists.". I'm quite sure Mark can't speak let alone read Japanese. But still, it appear that he think he is fit to edit something which require at least elementary reading ability of Japanese. Anyway, here is a reference in English relating to Chang's book's reception in Japan from the Economist.

"'"Proper" historians cavilled, and with some reason. Her book, several said, was too polemical, and was riddled with mistakes which she refused to correct. her reliance on oral history, especially the fading memories of Chinese witnesses, was unwise. Even her use of the invaluable diaries of foreign "bystanders" in Nanking was suspect, for these people - who had organised a "safety zone" both for foreigners and Chinese - had no idea of the actual numbers killed. When her book was transalted into Japanese, supporters of the Great Massacre school found they could not defend her figures, which were higher even than those claimed in China."

FWBOarticle

I'm quite sure Mark can't speak let alone read Japanese. Speak for yourself, mate.
In Japan, the criticsm of the book came from the both side of the debate. This has been dealt with. Mark1 01:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, so please tell me how you know it? FWBOarticle

The Economist is a libetarian magazine and it is hardly categorised as a right wing not to mention about the fact that it is a non-Japapese source. However, just to top it off, let me quote other source, this time by Sonni Efron, Time Staff Writer.

"In a bizarre twist, Chang has come under attack not only from Japanese ultranationalists--who assert that the 1937 massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops never took place--but also from Japanese liberals, who insist it happened but allege that Chang's flawed scholarship damages their cause." http://www.geocities.com/wallstreet/floor/9597/his.html

Your attempt to categorise anyone who criticise her book as right wing nationalist deniers is very low not to mention about the lack of logic. You also have no clue or mean to know what was the prevailing debate in Japan at the time. FWBOarticle

Oh, and here is an commentary of her research skill over another book of hers. http://cprr.org/Museum/Chinese_In_America_Chang.html FWBOarticle

I found more mention of how her book was an embarassement to the Great Massacre cause in Japan, which you and few others ostensibly tried to delete.

"Iris Chang’s work has clearly dealt the Great Massacre School a severe blow. Members of this school translated her book into Japanese but, through their publisher, the left-wing Kashiwa Shobö, had a public (and highly embarrassing) falling out with her when she refused her translators permission to correct the enormous number of mistakes her book is riddled with or to add translator’s footnotes, and also when she objected to the publisher putting out a sister volume in which the mistakes would have been explained. In distancing themselves from Chang, and in explaining why their history differs from her myths, academic members of the Great Massacre Faction have found themselves in an unusual position. Rather than concentrating their criticisms on those who argue for a smaller death toll than that which they see as acceptable, they have found themselves criticising a work that argues for a larger death toll, and in doing so have to a certain extent blurred the clear lines that separated them from (or at least introduced some ambiguity in the relationship with) the members of the Middle-of-the-Road School. " FWBOarticle

Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't touch this article for a week. Sorry. FWBOarticle

Mark also broke the rule by reverting it again. ;)

Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

FWBOarticle: there are a few very important things that you don't seem to comprehend. Firstly, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedic source, is NOT the place to conduct a research. I do not dispute with your allegation of Chang's factual errors, but by nature of you having researched and published those errors yourself your allegations are inherently POV. If you feel so strongly and so confident about your research, feel free to create your own web site or publish a paper somewhere and add a link this article to your work. I my opinion, the most you can say is that there are very strong evidence against the book accuracy, though some may not agree with me on this.

Secondly, statement like Mainstream academia and those who support the truth of Naking Massacre in Japan largely ignored the book is necissarily biased. By stating that these people as "those who support the truth" you imply that these people are knowledgeable of the truth to the exclusion of all oppositions. This, of course, cannot possibly be NPOV.

Lastly, Fuzheado already pointed out error is spelt with E-R-R-O-R; not E-R-R-O. (Well, it culd just be my opinio, but I have it on good authurity that it's allso the truth.) Uly 15:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it...

If I went over to Holocaust and changed every instance of Holocaust to the alleged incident that may or may not have happened called the Holocaust, and provide a few links, www.wirmussenderjudenausrotten.de, www.heilmeinfuhrer.de, www.aryannation.us, then copy-paste some treatise by Hermann Goering, an interview of George Lincoln Rockwell, and append at the end of the article, "Note: The Holocaust may not have happened.", how long do you think that edit would last before being reverted?

Then why does this kind of shit happen here?

Mainly because the good people at Talk:Holocaust show a shocking disregard for NPOV. We can probably do better by showing that 1) We're not afraid of debate and 2) We're actually capable of NPOV writing that accommodates everyone to a degree that they find acceptable. -- ran (talk) 19:51, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think the POV at Holocaust is several magnitudes better than that at Nanking Massacre and its sister pages. -Hmib 22:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The good people at Talk:Holocaust show a shocking disregard for NPOV by not allowing neo-Nazi Holocaust denial into the article? If you meant that, you've seriously misunderstood the NPOV policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

What is the NPOV policy, then? Ban all non-mainstream ideas? -- ran (talk) 21:51, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could read the policy pages, rather than ask me. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that majority and significant-minority views must be represented in WP. Tiny-minority views should not be represented. Wikipedia:No original research says that everything in Wikipedia must already have been published elsewhere in a credible publication, and we should produce sources for our edits if asked to, to prove that. Jointly then, these policies tell you we should publish only majority and significant-minority views published by credible publications. Holocaust denial is (a) a tiny-minority idea position and (b) is not published by credible publications, so on both those counts it fails our policies.
Are you seriously arguing that Holocaust denial should be covered in The Holocaust? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

The two events are not comparable. The issue here is NOT whether people were killed at Nanjing. The issue concerns more how many and why. Holocaust apologists state that the dead were in the thousands, or that the Holocaust never took place. They ignore all information highlighting the Nazi desire to "get rid" of all Jews - there is certainly evidence that suggests the Holocaust was ordered by senior Nazi officials if not Hitler himself.

On the other hand, critics of the "300,000" Nanjing view only suggest that the figure was partially lower. Most still say it was over 100,000 and they agree it happened. However there was no evidence to suggest it was a premeditated cleansing. Japanese soldiers were nasty to many people in the various occupied nations, but they didn't have a policy of wanting to slaughter all Chinese people. What these scholars want to do is examine what happened in Nanjing as calmly as they can. That doesn't mean we have to turn this article into a "nothing happened at Nanjing" post.

I should also point out that Chang took a rather inappropriate attitude towards the photographic evidence. A historian does not say "prove I'm wrong" - he/she says I am right because.... That is one reason why I am uncomfortable describing her as a historian, because she did not display the characteristics historians do (or should do). John Smith's 16.30 (DST), 24th June 2005

I think we're talking about different things. The view that the number killed was less than 300,000 is perfectly respectable (IMHO quite likely true) and should be fully represented (at Nanking Massacre, not here). Some people, like Flower, do deny that there was any massacre. Whether that view is academically respectable and therefore worthy of inclusion (at Nanking Massacre) I doubt, but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. Mark1 03:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who denied the Massacre itself. Don't lie. I introduced credible scholors' opinions, which you wish to ignore. You have to realize how many credible publicities decline the incident. I do not oppose to include that there was the incident. --Flowerofchivalry 06:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On Talk:Iris Chang you wrote I personally believe it did not happen. Mark1 06:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I said "personally", which means that has never affected to my contribution, and it does not make sense to say that.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say that it had affected your "contributions". I said that you denied the massacre. You do. Mark1 08:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't understand your ``"contributions"` means. Did you need to put quotations mark to show my contributions?
OK, I have stated my personal opinion which is totally not related to the contributions. How about the rest of the post.
I introduced credible scholors' opinions, which you wish to ignore. You have to realize how many credible publicities decline the incident. I do not oppose to include that there was the incident.
I still cannot understand why you reverted. Explain me, please.

--Flowerofchivalry 09:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's the hell going on here

What is the problem??? The Rape of Nanking is, unfortunately, less than kid's work. User from So-net, Japan, please join talking here and why your assersions have the reasoning. Mark, I think you are just supporting Chang. You need NPOV. Yeah, she is cute :P But we have to deal with the contents of the book. If you want to prove the book is great, cite the source of the pictures in the book. --Flowerofchivalry 09:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kid's work? I'll tell you what's kid's work, your bloody revisionist Jap history textbooks.

i minored in east asian studies, speak/read a waning japanese and a waxing mandarin. when i read chang's mini-history of japan i laughed aloud--and this was in a corrected edition. she not only constantly lists japanese names in GN-SN order, despite announcing in the front of the book that all asian names would be in SN-GN order, but she actually managed to transpose a chinese name into GN-SN (tho take that with some salt; i left my copy in taiwan when i came back to the mainland). she waxes anthropologic to the effect of sword-über-chysanthemum to a degree which invites charges of polemicism. her expertise, and ability to access primary sources, was limited to english, chinese and (maybe, im not sure) german--but did not exend to japanese. the dispersions being cast on whether or not she is a historian stem from the simple fact that a peer review by a Western scholar of Japanese history would have caught errors like those regarding Matthew Perry with little difficulty, and would have done so prior to the publication of the first edition.

Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Multiple sets of stats

One problem with attacking/defending Chang's stats is that she actually cites several different numbers. One is incredibly high, one is as low as, IIRC, 40,000 or so(?). she claims one stat as a personal preference, but knowing which stats are actually underfire would help. Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

How about...

Something to the effect of:

"While several right-wing and ulta-nationalist critics in Japan have vehemently opposed the book's assertions and research methodology, the general Japanese public was too discouraged by the appearance of simple factual errors regarding the non-controversial history of Japan--where it was included for context or background--to take the rest of the book seriously. Chang's assertions regarding Japanese national character and the thought processes of the typical Japanese at the time were viewed by many in Japan as an adoption of broad-stroke racial stereotyping to further an anti-Japan polemic. That several instances of Japanese names occurred given name first, despite Chang's note that all Japaneses name would appear surname first, and employed romanizations of Japanese names that would be impossible to revert to hiragana, did not help her credibility."

どうですか?/怎么样/how 'bout it? Nateji77 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless you know of a survey of "the general Japanese public"'s opinions on the book, all this is just your guesswork, and not something that belongs in the article. Mark1 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
it's not my guesswork, it's the guesswork of above posters. i personally feel mocking someone for being a non-native speaker of english to be very close to an ad hominem attack, and was attempting to play advocate for what i understood to be some of their requests. i'll see what turns up, though i might be at it a little while. does it have to be the results of a scientific survey, or will a book review/essay suffice? Nateji77 10:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't care whose guesswork it is. Mark1 05:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
so, will anything short of a scientific survey on a locally unnotable (and locally untranslated) book suffice? Nateji77 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that trying to ascertain Japanese attitudes to, as you say, a book which hardly anyone in the country has read, is pointless.
Most of your changes look fine: I cut down the bit about Mr Gibney- since Grey's view and Chang's view obviously differ, we can say so without quoting Gibney. I also took out the bit on the debate with the ambassador- I think we cover this in Iris Chang. In the position you wrote it, you seemed to imply some connection with the liberal attacks on the book, and I couldn't find a place where it really fitted. Mark1 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
(this is a reply, they're just starting to look over-indented)
yeah, the gibney line looked verbose to me, and i'd really just stuck the ambassador line in for the time being until i could find some direct quotes for what he'd said. i think at present it'll be more productive for me to find ways to back up "who is deeply respected in China and among overseas Chinese," which i think is a more or less fair claim, but one still being represented as a personal judgement and phrased so as to be hard to verify. even listing some of the prominent obituaries in chinese newspapers would help. though i think that would fit in better in the Iris Chang page--we could leave in "is deeply respected in China... (see Iris Chang)" rather than repeating supporting info in both places. i'm also going to remove the hanzi/kanji for her name from this page, as it's unnecesaary duplicate info that has been around since the 3rd revision.
it would be nice for balance to find a reference to what some critics w/o a history of professed political agendas (be it the ultranationalist right or the activist left) thought of the book, but you're right, it shouldnt be that large a priority, especially with other articles on the subject, as likely to run into pov trouble, yet to be written or needing expansion. Nateji77 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Preface to debate and regarding Ambrose

The preface in the debate section,

"As to be expected from a subject of high sensitivity, Chang's book has provoked widespread response from readers and critics alike,"

unfairly biases that particular section by implying that high-emotion rather than reasoned criticisms are the primary motivations for Chang's critics. Furthermore, I must insist that mention of Ambrose contain some mention of his having been almost entirely discredited within the academic community after the revelations regarding his having used false or plagiarized material over the course of his career.

I've no particular objection to removing the preface, though I would take it to cover her supporters at least as much as her opponents. The Stephen Ambrose article does not seem to reflect your evaluation of him; you're entitled to your opinion of him, and it should be reflected in the Ambrose article, but it shouldn't be inserted here as unquestioned fact. Mark1 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

post-WWII view

It seems to me that the post-WWII view that many historians take on the Rape of Nanking reflects the turning perspectives in the wake of American intervention and occupation, not to mention the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Rape of Nanking IS an important historical benchmark, but it is also important to remember that war crimes occurred on all sides. The point in debate on this topic is whether or not the massacres were in as large or as small numbers as hypothesized, and whether or not it was an organized effort. Yes, there was the imfamous Unit 731 that conducted human experiments, but the overall sentimentality of the incident was taken out of context of East Asian history. The treatment of the Han Chinese was just as harsh, though not in such numbers, by the Mongols. High and low estimates range from hundreds of thousands to a mere 20,000. Not to discount the tragedy, no doubt, but in a struggle that is based on occupation, the civilian population (which outnumbered the Japanese force by about 8 to 1) presented a large problem. However, if the executions, etc. were actually organized, planned, and officiated practices, then the appropriate demonization and chastisement has been paid (historically speaking). The pictures and documents have been interestingly interpreted, and while many may see Japanese or Chinese scholarship as unreliabe, it is crucial to respect professionalism--how often has American history been written by the winners? (Reccommended read, A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, and John W. Dower, “The Bombed: Hiroshimas and Nagasakis in Japanese Memory,” in Hiroshima in History and Memory, ed. Michael J. Hogan (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 116-142.) Overall, Japanese historical views on the war have focues more on the American atrocities from the atomic bomb, the occupation, and censorship. Recent Japanese scholarship, however, has introduced reflections upon Japanese military misconduct, such as in the surrounding islands under occupation. In general, the responsible historian leaves this matter to a positive view, not a normative one. The appropriate attitudes at the time, as well as the political, social, and military climates contributed to each event preceeding and following the nanking "incident." (no connotation intended)

Chang's telegram misatribution

Chang did not just make claim Japanese government of acknowledge of the massacre. In addtion, she clearly made claim that Japanese government acknowledged the death toll of 300,000 civilians. This is not clearly spelt out in the previous edit, therefore, this information cannot be redundant. Moreover, the claim of misatribution is not mentioned in previous version of the edit, therefore, this section cannot be redundant. Plus, I have clearly attributed the claim of misatribution to critics so it also clear NPOV hurdle. Chang's two "separate" claim is not redundant. Her critics's view that this is due to Chang's misatribution is not redundant. If one is more proChang, one could expand on Chang's side of claim but censoring the clarification of the debate as well as explanation of the other side of debate is against NPOV and not productive for wikipedia.FWBOarticle

I don't know which part of acknowledged the higher death toll you have trouble understanding, but that's really your problem. Markyour words 23:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If I write "Jew is evil (Hitler)", did I "acknowledge" Jew being evil, or did I merely quote (relay) Hitler's (hypothetical) comment? JGoverment's "acknowledgement" is Chang "POV" and many disagree on her POV. NPOV require that the controversy being clearly spelt out and different POV explained and attributed. Moreover, report of massacre by japanese militarly itself is well documented and are not disputed by historians. Chang did not stop there and made extra claim that Japanese government acknowledge 300,000 figure. She then, in turn, use this "fact" to claim that anyone who disputre 300,000 figures are revisionists. In Wikipedia, one is not supposed to push someone's POV as a fact. I have clearly indicate criticism of Chang's POV as a "criticims". So please stop trying to bias the presentation of the debate. FWBOarticle

The article says, "Chang cited this relayed telegraph as proof the Japanese government acknowledged the higher death toll". It makes it clear that this is her interpretation. The rest of your point is incoherent; if you can make sense of it, I'll try to respond. Markyour words 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And does that allow you to censor the original criticism of Chang making misatribution which Chang's is responding? And where does it make clear that her stance diverge with majority of scholastic consensus which agree on Japanese government acknowledgement of massacre but not of the deattolls. How are the readers suppose to make up their own mind about her "defence" when they don't know what she is responding to? You are deleting edit which clarify what the controversy is. Is "I did not have sexual relationship with that women" edit enough to allow Clinton advocate to censor mention of Monica or issue of differense between vaginal and oral intercourse? I have no problem for you presenting Chang's defence. Please stop deleting Chang's critics. FWBOarticle

What original criticism? Markyour words 10:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding your revert, Henry Flower (please look at the surrounding text when making edits- coherent sentences and structure), you eliminated information without giving a reason. Yes, one sentence had incoherent sentence structure, but the other did not. You also eliminated an off page link. Do you mind justifying this revert as it comes across heavy handed. Loft3 12:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The onus is on you to add coherent content. If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, why expect others to? HenryFlower 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Instead of eliminating that content under the false pretense of "structure" (I.e. an external link that was perfectly alright), perhaps you could be a little more patient? Loft3 12:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Again regarding this Henry Flower guy; perhaps you can give a reason as to why the fact that the book is filled with factual errors is not worth mentioning, when the rather more debatable photographs are? --Rmc 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost all books contain more or less trivial factual errors; the uncontested errors in the first edition are pretty trivial and do not merit mention in the lead. HenryFlower 19:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
To the contrary, the errors that the book contains are not quite so trivial that they can be dismissed so readily. Take a look at the stuff she made up about post-war Japan. It's not that having mistakes like those is any serious issue, but as it is now the paragraph makes it sound like it's a credible, scholarly book that just happens to include some controversial photos. Using wrong photos is really the least of the things that she did wrong. I'm not saying that she made up the atrocity or anything like that, but given the multitude of factual errors shouldn't it be clear that Iris Chang's work is not an academic resource at all? --Rmc 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'd suggest something like, "It is a work of popular history rather than the authoritative book on the subject". HenryFlower 16:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's good. I'll chang the article then. --Rmc 16:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that this is a poor solution, and I've changed it. It sounds very much like a disclaimer about errors, which is Q.E.D. for the page. And it sounds absolutely un-encyclopedic.

More generally, the text as it currently stands does not seem to present the central thesis of the book, and the various discussion of factual inaccuracies, which obviously will be dynamic on this page for some time, do not mention whether or not they overwhelm that thesis. It is my very cursorsy understanding of the controversy that they do not. The book essentially presented to historical review (and especially to a Japanese audience) that atrocities X, Y, and Z had been committed. The rebuttal is that the atrocity X wasn't really so bad, and Y never happened, and Z is being mis-represented somewhat. That's all very important, but it doesn't undercut the thesis, and there is no way for the reader to appreciate that as is. Ethan Mitchell 17:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, the thing is that everyone knows that the Nanking Massacre happened, so it's not much of a thesis. I mean you won't say that a book on the American Civil War has a thesis of A: the war happened, and B: the war ended, now would you? The rebuttal is not in fact a rebuttal, but a defense of what actually occurred, historically. That the central theme of her book did happen does not excuse the fact that it is full of errors. --Rmc 05:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GA on hold

Sourcing issues

  • The first source is from a newspaper in China, a country which has a government controlled press. The PRC government is well known for its strident position in condemning JPN, and cannot be taken as a general view as you have done in the lead
  • Source by the "Women of China" is neither functional or independent
  • Irischang.net is only RS for describing Iris Chang's opinions. Need to find another source for all the other acclaim and so forth.
    • The two "acclaims" that were sourced from IrisChang.net are actually quotes printed on the jacket and the interior of the book itself. They just happened to be hosted on IrisChang.net. But I have edited the source to point directly at the book. I have the 1998 Penguin Books edition right next to me right now, and I can see those quotes - The one from Ross Terrill on the back cover, and the one from Beatrice S. Bartlett on the first page in the interior of the book.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

  • Since the book is actually supposed to be about history, it should be mentioned in the lead what new findings have been proposed by the book and what the academic reaction and controversy is. The lead should reflect the article. At the moment, it only focuses on the positives and fanfare.

Info

  • ""sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths" - needs to be pointed out that this is her parents' account, which may or may not be true
  • Not enough on the actual research process and the actual research findings. This is only 50% of the "Inspiration and research" section. It claims that she made significant new findings. She located two diaries, what do they tell us? The findings are not actually spelt out at all. Especially with new information that has never been presented before, the means and new primary sources and documents need to be told.
    • I have expanded upon information about Rabe and Vautrin's diaries. I haven't found any sources that actually discuss exactly what new information they offer that we were not aware of before, but sources do call the discovery of these diaries "significant" or otherwise state that the discovery was an important historical find. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Acclaim and criticism" needs to be larger so that the implications of her research and the rebuttal and counter-rebuttal on the alleged flaws and errors are explained properly. If this is supposed to be a history book, then I would say the academic dissection should be more important, come before the public acclaim and be larger.

Style

  • "2004-11-09" why suddenly this format for her death?
  • Second part of the "public reception" is actually about Chang's death and the reaction to her death, which was after the actual book by a few years. This should be more of an "Aftermath" section at the end since it is a more long term thing
  • long sentences
    • "In the letter, in response to criticism of inaccurate use of photographs and an inaccurate number of civilian deaths cited by her book, she wrote that there was no evidence that photographs in the book had been fabricated, that the photographs were properly captioned, that the Japan's Foreign Minister at the time, Koki Hirota, had given a figure of 300,000 civilians killed, and that her critics in Japan were right-wingers who denied the existence of the massacre."
    • "According to Japan scholar, Ivan P. Hall,[32] revisionist historians in Japan organised a committee of right-wing scholars to condemned the book with repeated appearances at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo and throughout Japan, prevailing on Kashiwa Shobo, the contracted Japanese publisher of the book, to insist that Chang edit the book for "corrections" they wanted made, to delete photographs and alter maps, and also to publish a rebuttal to Chang's book"

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Let me work on these things. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're making good progress on what you've implemented so far. There is no hurry on this "Hold" - nobody will get in trouble if it is there longer than 7 days if steady progress is being made. The changes so far have been good. It will be better when you document the new information and the dispute surrounding this and expand on this in the body because at the moment the lead is only telling us that the book did some controversial things without specifying Chang's hypotheses. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Well this was by far the quickest response from GAN that I've ever gotten. I've had articles waiting in the GAN queue for a whole month, but this one took all of 8 minutes! Thanks! I just happened to have been still editing when you put it on hold, so I just started working on your concerns. Regarding what you said in your message above:
  • I'll try to expand upon the "Acclaim and criticism" section, but so far I've only found one detailed rebuttal directly from Chang (from Google searching, at least). It was a letter that specifically addressed an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that criticised her work. Most sources seem to only state that she would fiercely defend her work when met with criticism, without actually offering much of any details on the specifics of the criticism vs. rebuttal. Both this critical article and Chang's rebuttal are already used as references. I do not feel it is very NPOV if I go into more details about criticism on her work without also offering counter-arguments, so I may end up expanding that section just based on that critical article from San Fran Chronicle and her rebuttal letter to it. And from what I can see, the critical article does touch on similar points as other criticisms of her book.
  • Sources that I've found do not say what new information her work discovered, but mostly that the book was acclaimed because it brought to light a subject that has been ignored. It seems that her discovery of the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin was important not so much because those diaries offer new information we were previously not aware of, but because they offers very detailed accounts on the kind of daily happenings and atrocities that occured during the Nanking Massacre. At least this is what I've gathered from reading articles about the diaries of Rabe and Vautrin. Nothing is saying, "from these diaries, we now know X and Y." I think historians probably consider these diaries significant findings on the face value of their existence alone, since Rabe and Vautrin were both important figures in the Nanking Massacre and these were their diaries. But I'll do a little more searching and maybe do some more copy-editing on the section about their diaries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have expanded upon the "Acclaim and criticism" section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any sources on what might be considered newly discovered information from Rabe and Vautrin's diaries, but I've tried to elaborate a little more on the significance of the diaries.[9] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I did a little bit of expansion and copy-edit of the intro to... uh... introduce the book.[10] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's looking pretty good though. However, it doesn't really tell you much about what the book seeks to show. What old information does it seek to debunk? It seems she dug up new diaries which are newly found primary sources. But what of the secondary conclusions that she made from her research. This is a big issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you looking for specific examples of what the book says? Because the first few sentences of the intro basically sums up the book already - it's a book about the Nanking Massacre, it talks about the the events leading up the massacre and the atrocities that were committed, and it also talks about how (at least in Chang's opinion) the Japanese government has not done enough to redress WW2 atrocities. That's what the book does, I've read the book, and that's what sources say about the book. Is there something unclear about that? I'm not sure that it "debunks" any old information - I didn't get the sense that that's what the book did, and neither do sources say it debunks anything. The book is famous not for debunking anything, but for being one of the first English-language books on the subject, and because it became controversial when it prompted people to debate on the facts of the Nanking Massacre (this is covered by the article). Unless you think examples or instances of specific subject matters from the book are needed, I'm not sure what else to add that the article hasn't already supplied about the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought from the phrase "significant discoveries" that she must have found some new evidence which supports a new theory of what happened. But if that is not the case I will pass the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
They were called "significant discoveries" by one of the sources, specifically the one that's referenced at the end of that sentence. If that may be a little misleading, I can certainly qualify it. Right now, the sentence reads:
Chang's research led her to make significant discoveries on the subject of the Nanking Massacre...
I can edit it to say:
Chang's research led her to make what one San Francisco Chronicle article called "significant discoveries" on the subject of the Nanking Massacre...
Let me know. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean it would be better if I make that edit? Or should I just leave the article alone? Sorry wasn't sure. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems better to make the edit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Done![11] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your criticism was very helpful in improving the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong's reverts, 16 December 2007

The edit at issue is my addition of two paragraphs [12]. Reasons that HongQiGong gave for removal are as follows:

  • 05:42, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (enough. there's plenty of criticism already.) (undo)
  • 05:55, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (rv. Look, article is large enough as it is.) (undo)
  • 06:02, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (Again - plenty of criticism is already offered; and the Efron criticism is actually already included in a section below. Please actually bother to read this article.) (undo)

Firstly, this is an article about a book. Criticism is only a natural content of it. The More criticism=the more content, the better. Secondly, this article is hardly too large as it is. The accusation that merely adding two more paragraphs makes it too large is ridiculous. Thirdly, the Efron criticism that I added is different from the existing one and from a different source. --Saintjust (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the idea size of an article is 32KB, this article is already 33KB at the version before your insertion. Secondly, there's NPOV issues to consider, the article already had plenty of balance to it. Thirdly, we don't need to mention as much content about the book as it is possible. I've tried to simplify the volumes of content that's been written about the book, and the existing criticism that was there already covers what your insertion covers. Look, I'm trying to write a fair and balanced article here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
There are tons of article that are longer than this on Wikipedia. Adding a mere two paragraphs to it will hardly make it unacceptably large.
This is a controvercial book, and like every article on a controvercial book such as Michael Moore's works and the Bell Curve, it's only natural that it has a long criticism section. The criticism section may be divided into subsections, classified by topics rather than the names of critics. --Saintjust (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and notice how none of those articles are FA quality. I'm trying to push the article to FA here. In fact, speaking of Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 has an entire article just devoted to the controversy around it - Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy. If you would like to create an article on the controversy about this book, I'd even help. But the criticism section of the article was already quite big enough before your insertion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Surely we could discuss the possibility of making the criticism section an independent article, although I don't think it's too large as it is myself. --Saintjust (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Definitely disagree. It's too long right now, with most of the points you added only a repetition of criticism that was already offered from other sources. Furthermore, Efron's criticism was already mentioned, and Fogel's criticism was also already mentioned before your edit. Seriously, I'm trying to write a fair and balanced article here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to write an FA-class article here. Maybe you are satisfied with leaving the article in a crappy state, but I'm not. These edits you are trying to keep is just not going to work in a FAC. There's undue weight problems, subsections being too small, and points that are being repeated. Again, if you want to write about all the criticism that has been leveled against this book, feel free to write an article on it, and I'd even help you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If a certain point is being suggested by two or more scholars, then all of them should be mentioned to show the significance of the point. This article still has much room for expansion, especially regarding criticism. It's way too early to consider trimming it pretty for GA nomination. --Saintjust (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Article is already at GA status. And I think it offers enough information on the book. Again, ideal article size is 32KB. Seriously, your addition is really just not FA quality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
It lacks depth in the criticism section and in that regard it's not "fine" at all. Writing a FA article for controversial topics like this isn't easy. Try some other article if your only purpose of editing Wikipedia is getting FA status. --Saintjust (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does your edit add "depth"? It just added more of the same that was already offered by the article. Note also - I'm really not interested in turning this article into some battleground that's inflated with tit-for-tat praise vs. criticism. The article is about all aspects of the book itself, not just the criticism (or praise). This is why I think there was already enough in the criticism section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

More citation increases the reliability of the article. Wikipedia:Notability states that "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Also the criticism that I added address many new issues that aren't covered by the existing ones.
I might request this article to be demoted from GA status for the obvious attempt to suppress the controversiality of the book in the name of FA. That's a poor excuse that is hardly acceptable. --Saintjust (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Jeez. How exactly have I tried to suppress the controversiality of the book? The introduction itself mentions that it is controversial and has been criticised. There was already a good criticism section in it before you came in with your addition. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In either way, as far as you are opposing my addition of the two paragraphs for whatever reason, it constitutes a content dispute.
The paragraphs that I am adding are well-sourced and noteworthy. That you want to keep the article pretty for FA nomination is not a good reason for the flat rejection of them. --Saintjust (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Everything I've wrote here in my argument with you is about article size, NPOV, etc. And FA class quality represents the ideal state of an article. We should basically be writing all articles with FA in mind - what it basically means is article improvement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #1

  1. Hong Qi Gong's claim that adding a mere two paragraphs to the article will disqualify it from future FA status just because of its length is ridiculous when there are many featured articles that are longer than this (e.g. Japan, Arrested Development).
  2. This is an article about a book and not about a historical fact. Criticism is only a natural content of articles on books. Moreover, this is a controversial book. Like every other article on a controversial book such as the Bell Curve and Michael Moore's works, it's only natural that it has a long criticism section. The sections "Research" and "The book" already describe Chang's point of view in great length. The size of these two sections plus the section "Responding to criticism" is way bigger than that of the criticism section. In fact, the criticism section should be expanded and split into subsections by the topics of criticisms rather than the names of critics.
  3. The criticisms by David M. Kennedy and Sonni Efron that I added in my edit are well-sourced and noteworthy. They address new issues that are not mentioned by the ones existing in the old version of the article. Flat rejection of them in their entirety is uncalled-for.
  4. Even if Kennedy and Efron address some same issues that are already mentioned by other critics in the article, that they address those issues also is still a noteworthy fact because it shows the very significance of the issues. That many critics are making an issue out of the same point shows the greater significance of the point than only one critic questioning it. Wikipedia:Notability states that "multiple sources are generally preferred." At the least the criticisms by Kennedy and Efron should be incorporated into the article partially if not in their entirety; or just the citation of their criticisms may be footnoted in the relevant section of the article. In either way, flat rejection is not acceptable.
  5. While Kennedy and Efron are addressing the same issue of factual inaccuracy, for example, they are not pointing out the inaccuracy of exact same parts of the book as other critics. What's important is not just the general inaccuracy of the book, but the inaccuracy of the specific claims that Chang is making in the book. She discusses many issues, and each of them is important and noteworthy in its own right. --Saintjust (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I will make one comment to say that SJ is correct on the length issue. Adding a few paragraphs will not stop the book getting FA status is they are properly sourced, balanced, etc. Maybe one paragraph would do instead of 2-3, but there shouldn't be a total veto on addition of new sources just because they're critical. John Smith's (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot agree on what to do, I suggest a RfC to get more outside views on the matter. John Smith's (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Japanese translation of the book just came out in December 2007

Need more info on this. --Saintjust (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I am proposing this article to be delisted due to the currently undergoing content dispute above at #HongQiGong's reverts, 16 December 2007.

A certain editor is adamantly opposed to the expansion of the criticism section in the name of keeping it pretty for FA nomination, resulting in content dispute. This is a very controversial book that still has much room for expansion. The article has a npov tag on it now (placed by myself). --Saintjust (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The GAR was archived here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 33. GAR is not the place to solve content disputes. Please keep these discussions on the article talk page. If you seek additional comment or wish to build consensus, please go to WP:RFC.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems of Saintjust's editing

I deeply concern about your lack of logical strategy" like your repeating one sentence several times and confusing personal attacking with my valid criticism on the professor's writing. I haven't attacked the professor unlike you doing this to me. I only "criticize" his credibility on the history of East Asia and the critic. Like I said, he has his own controversies on his critics per "Wikipedia" (of course, sourced). Besides, your selected citations of the professor is to defame the quality of this featured book and author. That is beyond good faith. And the judgement of his criticism is up to many readers like me. --Appletrees (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Your criticism of professor Kennedy is that his criticism is "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism." This is what you wrote yourself right above, in your very second reply in the section. You also mentioned Kennedy's "bias" in the edit summary of [13]: "The source is biased, so the whole citation by Kennedy can be deleted." This is the very first comment that you made on Kennedy. This is an unsourced, ad hominem attack on Kennedy, that could very well be in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. --Saintjust (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
What a thoughtful editor you are. You don't need to bother yourself searching the link over the jungle. I need to paste his several comments here from the web text. I'm really curious as to why you missed to put the link in the cite template which is easily found and accessible by googling. By the way, your ad hominem attack on me is certainly inexcusable and please stop doing disruptive behaviors. We're here to build up Wikipedia in a constructive way. I get you are not "happy" about the article's GA status. My comment on the edit summary was to initiate a rebuttal against your unilateral expansion. You need to be more patient of other people following your "so-call improvement". My criticism on the professor is not violating anything but is like the all criticisms against our author here.--Appletrees (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your criticism of professor Kennedy is an unfounded, ad hominem attack. Either provide reliable sources to back up your criticism or it's not worth consideration. Any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in WP:V, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (cf. WP:NOR) are unacceptable on Wikipedia. This applies to user and talk pages also. Please be careful. --Saintjust (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your bare assertion fallacy doesn't prove your theory that I made a personal attack on the professor. But your certainly made ad hominem attack on me. Your comments resorting to the fallacy of appealing to authority are also "unsourced" and "unconfirmed" except you. And you're acting like a ruler of the article, which behaviors can be found throughout this talk page and the GA discussion. You should also re-read WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Kennedy is a valid source, no matter what other imbroglios he's gotten himself into. His criticism of the book is right on the money. Chang should never have written that the book was "not intended as a commentary on the Japanese character". The storm of her writing within belies this calm statement. The Kennedy quote stays. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Golf stick

What is the point of this - bar a desire to include any criticism one can find:

"Timothy M. Kelly writes that Chang was "less than a polished writer" and that "her editor and proofreaders were negligent in their duties." He provided examples of writing from the book as evidence: Chang wrote, "Another rape victim was found with a golf stick rammed into her" but that, he wrote, "Golfers do colloquially refer to their clubs as 'sticks,' but surely the generic term 'golf club' is called for here or possibly 'the shaft of a golf club'."[43]"

Firstly, this is a criticism of the editorial team, not of the author, but more importantly it is so utterly trivial it makes the "criticism" seem desperate and petty. Thirdly, it is not a "contradiction" (the title of the section in which it appears) Paul B (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC);

(Saw the GAR and came over here to offer an observation). I agree with Paul Barlow's observation. While the article should contain criticism, the current version is swamped with trivia critical of the book. Trim it back to make the article encyclopedic. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The golf stick criticism is from the old version of the article that became GA, not from the expanded version of mine. --Saintjust (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Your excessively expanded version holds too many trivial contents. --Appletrees (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
None of the criticisms that I added is "trivial." --Saintjust (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No, Saintjust. You broke the balance as adding "trivial" contents to the article from your sources. Prof. Kennedy's critic is full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism. According to wiki, Mr. Kennedy is specializing in "American history" not in "East Asia" and has his own controversies. Even though his reputation is notable to study of American history, but not to history of East Asia. --Appletrees (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Kennedy is a reputable professor of history at Standard whose credibility is far greater than that of Iris Chang or most of other scholars mentioned in the article. Your personal opinion of him doesn't count without reputable sources to back it up. --Saintjust (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You picked especially the "trivial sentences" among his critic along with "petty" subcategories from your own standard, which makes the article "unbalanced". The reputable professor is also a human and if his critic were not worthy to include here, then we can delete his opinion with "consensus".--Appletrees (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor's unsourced, ad hominem attack on a reputable scholar like Kennedy doesn't count. --Saintjust (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Like you said? when? where? here? You might've mistook your wording to someone somewhere else with your above comment. And yeah, you're making this article with your "ad hominem attack". And I simply point out on the general problems of his critic and your writings--Appletrees (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that as far as the source of the info on professor Kennedy's criticism being "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism" is a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor and nothing else, it doesn't merit consideration. --Saintjust (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is made and operated by the very "pseudonymous Wikipedia editors". You're forgetting Wkipedia spirit? My opinion itself also has amerit to enrich Wikipedia unlike vandals or disruptive editors. I, of course, have my opinion and thought on the "notable professor". So far, you're the only one to insist expanding the criticism section. Interesting. --Appletrees (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Not without reputable sources. Please read WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. --Saintjust (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The reputation of the professor does not always guarantee the quality of his every writings. Please don't use fallacies like "appeal to authority". I think you should re-read the mentioned the likes. --Appletrees (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The pseudonymity of a regular Wikipedia editor will never guarantee the quality of such a loaded judgement of a reputable Stanford history professor's criticism as that it is "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism." --Saintjust (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
A certain Wikipedian with pseudonymous ID also hasn't convinced others here at all because of the user's fallacies. His/her general expanded wording looks "petty" and are not favorable by far. The editor's personal attacking is also in the same vein.--Appletrees (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the only one making an unsourced, ad hominem attack on the Stanford professor as being "full of biases against China, and blatant pro-Japanese approach, and Eurocentrism" here. --Saintjust (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A final set of suggestions before I leave this talk page:

  • Combine the Criticism section and response sections. Eliminate all sub-sections.
  • Pare down the criticism. Keep the most noteable criticism, eliminating the rest. For example, the article doesn't benefit by including Efron's comments, nor does the "pure baloney" quotation help.

Good luck with your editing. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong's removal of the NPOV tag

Please stop removing the NPOV tag at the least. That you consider your version neutral is not a good reason to remove it when there are other editors who are contesting its neutrality. Whatever version the article stays at a moment, it doesn't change the fact that the POV of this article is being disputed. --Saintjust (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You wrote earlier that you put the tag in for MY sake[14]. So that's why I've removed it. But if you insist, I'll keep the tag in for the time being. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The NPOV tag is for the state of the article, not just for a particular version. Of course the disputing parties consider their own version "neutral". That's the very cause of the dispute. --Saintjust (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Chang's death

This section should be moved down to the very last text position above "References". Why would her death be under "Acclaim"? Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Before the addition about her depression, that section was only about how her death caused others to memorialise her for her work on this book. That's why it was in the Acclaim section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I get it. In fact, I'm the one who added the depression info. I just couldn't see the logical flow from "Yay, she's loved in China" directly to "Succumbing to her battle with depression..." in the next sentence. That's why I felt drawn to add a little connective tissue to tie the paragraph together. There was a danger of adding too much to the Death paragraph; too much makes it edges toward being appropriate only on the Iris Chang biography page. I think the compact amount of depression data I added helps establish that people near Chang thought it was the Nanking book that pushed her further into mental illness.
I'll move the paragraph to the bottom when I get the chance. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving the criticism section

Kennedy is in, Kelly is out. I agree that Kennedy is a valid source, but Saintjust basically copied and pasted entire passages from the source. It also launched into a tirade about the modern treatnment of the Nanking Massacre itself that can be easily simplified. Kelly is out - his criticism essentially has nothing to do with the meat of the book itself - which is the Nanking Massacre. It was all about how Chang should have wrote "golf club" instead of "golf stick", and how she supposedly plagiarised passages that don't actually have anything to do with the Nanking Massacre itself. You can read it yourself here[15]. His criticism was mentioned in the article before I started editing it, so I did not want to take it out because there was a stable balance of POVs at the time. I've also moved Higashinakano back to the "Reaction in Japan" section - there was a good reason why he was there instead of in the "Criticism" section. He doesn't even think the massacre happened, and that it was fabricated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, your revision looks better than Saintjust's untidy version in disorder. The direct citation about Japanese apologies with Japanese terms was really cliche and unnecessary to this article although Kennedy pointed out some critical faults of the book: lack of the researches, motives of the crime, etc.
I think that improving "acclaims and her activities related to the book is needed now. The criticism section still seems long in proportion of the entire article.--Appletrees (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the criticism section is still disproportionally long, but if the amount of criticism stays at its current amount, I'm actually neutral about the size of the "Acclaims" section. Having said that, I've been trying to get access to this book review[16], and this article[17] in order to add to the Acclaims section. The second link I provided in particular is important because George Will's praise has actually been mentioned in a few articles about the book. If we can't gain access to that book review and that article, I'm still OK with the current size of the Acclaims section. They just would make great additions. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
The controversiality is one of the important, noteworthy facts about this book, and it's only natural for an article on such a controversial book to have a long criticism section. Criticism isn't just about the reception of the book as a whole and can't be simply paired with "acclaim" like for other uncontroversial books. It is more about the important historical issues that book has raised, as it invigorated the whole industry of the Nanking Massacre scholarship, especially in Japan where several books have been published in express response to Chang. In terms of proportion the criticism section is hardly too long when the other sections such as "Research," "The book," "Acclaim," and "Responding to criticism" all support Chang's POV.
Higashinakano is a historian and critic nonetheless. Segregating his criticism is biased and unacceptable. Chang herself isn't any better than him anyway. The Golf stick criticism is out. Other criticisms made by Kelly and Efron stay. --Saintjust (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
None of Kelly's criticism actually had to do with the facts of the massacre itself. He's out. Higashinakano belongs in the "Reaction in Japan" section because we shouldn't give undue weight to someone who goes as far as deny that the massacre exists. Efron talks about the reaction in Japan, so that's where he belongs too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the book The Rape of Nanking and not about the Nanking Massacre itself.
That Higashinakano doesn't qualify for a notable critic is an unsourced opinion of yours and doesn't merit consideration without reputable sources to back it up. --Saintjust (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Strawman arguement - I could say the same about his inclusion in the criticism section, that he is a notable critic is an unsourced opinion of yours. But anyway, that's exactly why we have WP:UNDUE. Please read it: NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
He is a professor of Intellectual History at Asia University. That's good enough a source on his notability, whereas you've got zero source to back up your own opinion of him. --Saintjust (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Here you go[18] - he denies that there was a massacre and that the whole thing is "pure baloney". This qualifies him as a tiny minority, even in Japan, I suspect. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Higashinakano is hardly a small minority when the whole conservative half of the history scholarship in Japan are harshly critical of Iris Chang's work. Even Japanese liberals are arguing that "Chang's flawed scholarship damages their cause." Besides, this article is about the book by Iris Chang and not the Nanking Massacre itself. --Saintjust (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you trying to tell me that the entire "conservative half of the history scholarship in Japan" thinks the massacre never happened like Higashinakano does? So to use an argument employed by yourself, where is your source? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a variety of arguments against Chang from Japanese scholars. Higashinakano is just one of them. --Saintjust (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That still doesn't take away from the fact that including Higashinakan in the criticism section is a violation of WP:UNDUE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Higashinakano is just one of many critics of Chang. Your accusation of him as being a small minority that lacks notability is unsourced. --Saintjust (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I already gave you the source actually. He thinks the massacre was made up. That's a minority view, even in Japan. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just an article that Higashinakano wrote. Your interpretation of it constituting an evidence for his lack of notability or what not is a product of WP:NOR. --Saintjust (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please actually take the time to WP:NOR. Nothing I want to insert in the article is unsourced or taken out of context. And I have never said he lacks notability, I have only said that including him in the criticism section is undue weight. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Your accusation of him causing "undue weight" is unsourced. The article that you cited is just an article written by Higashinakano himself. Besides, like I said earlier, this is an article about the book by Iris Chang and not the Nanking Massacre itself. --Saintjust (talk) 05:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Saintjust's arguing

Again, please read WP:NOR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and represent those sources accurately.

I am not trying to publish original research or original thought - I have never advocated we should write in the article that he is in the minority view. WP:NOR pertains to what we should and should not add to articles, not how we ascertain if WP:UNDUE applies. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Your rational behind the treatment of Higashinakano in your version of the article makes it an original research.
Higashinakano is not the only critic who criticizes the factual accuracy of the book. Nor is Higashinakano the only critic who questions the photographic evidences used in the book. The criticism section is in fact full of critics who make such criticisms. Higashinakano is hardly a minority here. --Saintjust (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually the photo critique was already mentioned before you decided to inflate the article with other criticism. The Buress criticism specifically mentions Ikuhiko Hata as the source of the photo critique. Furthermore, Higashinakano's critique of "90 historical factual errors"[19] doesn't even address the Nanking Massacre itself. It's trivial and it does a huge disservice to the readers to include him in the criticism section. And again, WP:NOR pertains to what we should and should not add to an article, not how we determine whether or not WP:UNDUE applies. You keep repeating "original research", but it's quite irrelevant. I'm not trying to add anything to the article that is not sourced. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the book The Rape of Nanking, and not about the massacre itself. Higashinakano's opinion on the massacre itself is not a concern here. This article mentions his specific criticism of Chang's use of photographic evidences in her book. There is no concern of undue weight about it when there are many other critics who make similar criticisms of the book.
You want to have Higashinakano's criticism in the "Reaction in Japan" section, whereas I want it in the criticism section. Your version of the article is OR because your rational behind the treatment of Higashinakano is unsourced. --Saintjust (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how many times I must repeat this, but again, WP:NOR pertains to what specific text we should add or not add to the article, not how we determine if something violates WP:UNDUE. I've never said that we should add anything to the article that is unsourced. And currently, the Higashinakano criticism doesn't even mention any photograph-related issues. I mean, no offense, but do you actually read the article? Right now, the Higashinakano criticism doesn't say anything about photographs, and neither do the sources for Higashinakano's criticism mention any photographs either. And the book is about the Nanking Massacre itself, if someone thinks the whole massacre was fabricated, then it most definitely is a minority view applicable to WP:UNDUE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that your accusation of Higashinakano causing "undue weight" is unsourced. It's not much of a difference if the case most directly falls under WP:NOR or WP:V or what not since all the the policies work together hand in hand anyway. It's not worth consideration as far as it's unsourced. You can't reject an sourced edit without equally sourced reasoning. If you consider Higashinakano's criticism of Chang's book as being a small minority that doesn't merit reference, then cite some reputable sources that argue so. You can't remove a sourced edit just by alleging it's causing undue weight without providing equally reputable sources to back up your allegation.
The current paragraph on Higashinakano's criticism may be moved to the factual inaccuracies section.
The paragraphic evidences section then could have this sentence instead: In the best-selling book A Study of "The Rape of Nanking",[1] Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano extensively examine and criticize the photograph evidences used in The Rape of Nanking.[2]
This sentence of Higashinakano may be removed from the article: "As further criticism of Chang's book, Higashinakano argued, in an opinion column that appeared in Sankei Shimbun, that the book was "pure baloney", that there was "no witness of illegal executions or murders", and that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial." --Saintjust (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line really is that WP:NOR applies to adding unsourced content to the article that is original research - not how we determine if something is undue weight. And I have provided a source already on why he is in the minority opinion. You keep harping WP:NOR, but it's irrelevant. It's a strawman argument and I could apply it to your own opinion that he does deserve to be in the criticism section: that you think he should be in the criticism section because he is a "professor of Intellectual History at Asia University" is original research. And what is the implication here if Higashinakano is not actually in the minority opinion? Are you trying to tell me that the majority of historians in Japan think like he does, that the massacre was all made up? And no I don't think the current text mentioning him ought to be deleted - it should be placed in the "Reaction in Japan" section, because that's what it is, it's part of the reaction in Japan to the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 11:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A reply posted in the section below. --Saintjust (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu and Higashinakano Shudo (1999). 『ザ・レイプ・オブ・南京』の研究ﾑ中国における「情報戦」の手口と戦略 (in Japanese). 祥伝社. ISBN 4396610904.
  2. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu. "Exploding the Myth: The Problem of Photographic "Evidence"". 自由主義史観研究会.

Saintjust's edit (Criticism section)

I would like to gauge what other editors think of Saintjust's edit. Take the time to read the current version of the Criticism section, which is Saintjust's preferred version. Let me point out that I was actually the one that wrote most of the "Contradictions and factual inaccuracies" and "Photographic evidences" sections - Saintjust only rearranged the passages. I see at least three problems with the Criticism section right now:

  1. Timothy M. Kelly's criticism[20] should be thrown out. It actually has nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre itself. It was all on editorial problems, things like how Chang wrote "a golf stick rammed into her" when he thinks she should have used "golf club".
  2. The current Shudo Higashinakano criticism passage about "90 historical factual errors" should be moved to the "Reaction in Japan" section. Those "factual errors" are trivial at best and Higashinakano plainly denies that a massacre even existed. It is WP:Undue weight to present him to the readers as credible criticism.
  3. The current section called "The treatment of the Nanking Massacre in the West and Japan" needs to be trimmed down because it diverges into a discussion of the modern treatment of the massacre itself. It is sufficient to end Kennedy's criticism in this section at the sentence ...let alone express regret for them." Sonni Efron's part of that section can be thrown out - with the exception of the first half of the first sentence, that entire passage has more to do with modern treatment of the Nanking Massacre than it does the book itself.

Anyway, I think I basically know that Saintjust disagrees with all these points. I would like to hear what other editors think about these issues. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

1.A. The inclusion of Higashinakano's criticism is not causing any "WP:Undue weight" problem like HongQiGong alleges. Firstly, Higashinakano is not the only critic who criticizes the factual accuracies of the book. The criticism section is in fact full of critics who make such criticisms. Higashinakano is hardly a minority here when even Japanese liberals are arguing that "Chang's flawed scholarship damages their cause." Secondly, this is an article about Chang's book and not the massacre itself. His opinion on the massacre itself is not directly relevant to the acceptance of his criticism of the accuracy of the book. Thirdly, he is not a small minority even in the Nanking massacre debate also when the whole conservative half of the history scholarship in Japan downplay the size of the massacre and are harshly critical of Iris Chang's work.
1.B. This is the alleged "source" that HongQiGong provided for his accusation of Higashinakano being a small minority that causes an "undue weight" problem: [21]. It's an article titled "California State Assembly Should Indict the Atomic Bomb Droppings on Japan," written by Shudo Higashinakano himself. Where in the article does Higashinakano say that he is "a small minority" of anything? Where does he say that his criticism of the factual accuracies of Chang's book a small minority? The fact of the mater is nowhere in the article does he mention such a thing. The only known fact about Higashinakano's notability now is that he is a professor of Intellectual History at Asia University, and that he is a co-author of A Study of "The Rape of Nanking". And that's sourced.
1.C. Higashinakano's criticism currently in the photographic evidences section only needs to be moved to the factual inaccuracies section. The photographic evidences section then could have this sentence instead:
"In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking",[1] Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano extensively examine and criticize the photograph evidences used in The Rape of Nanking.[2]"
1.D. This sentence of Higashinakano may be removed from the article:
"As further criticism of Chang's book, Higashinakano argued, in an opinion column that appeared in Sankei Shimbun, that the book was "pure baloney", that there was "no witness of illegal executions or murders", and that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial."
2. Kelly's criticism is fine and should stay. Kelly's golf stick criticism is no longer in the article and nobody is insisting on its inclusion now. This is the description of Kelly's criticism in the current version:
"Journalist Timothy M. Kelly described the book as "simple carelessness, sheer sloppiness, historical inaccuracies, and shameless plagiarism." He pointed out that "Chang's discussion of Japanese history exhibits several gross errors," citing her writing of subjects such as 15th and 16th century Japan and Matthew C. Perry. According to Kelly, Chang also had plagiarized passages and an illustration from Japan's Imperial Conspiracy by David Bergamini."
3. The section "The treatment of the Nanking Massacre in the West and Japan" isn't any disproportionately longer than other sections in the article. It is fine as it is. --Saintjust (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever we do though, if we are to keep Higashinakano's criticism somewhere in the article, it is extremely important that we include how he thinks that the massacre is made up. It's a huge disservice to the readers to present him as criticism without giving them the context that he's a massacre denier. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Create a new article on Higashinakano and write there if you are so concerned about his opinion on the massacre, like Nobukatsu Fujioka and Ikuhiko Hata. --Saintjust (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
My point still stands - it's a huge disservice to use him without mentioning that he's a massacre denier. And it's strange that you think we ought to leave that out when you want to leave in most of the passages from Efron and Kennedy - most of those passages are about their opinions on the massacre itself, which, as you yourself have said, is "not directly relevant". Anyway, I know you want to have your say, but I would like to hear what others think of the issues that are raised here, too. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want the info so much, then it could be incorporated in this paragraph:
"In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking",[3] Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano extensively examine and criticize the photograph evidences used in The Rape of Nanking, concluding that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident.[4]"
That's relevant.
Higashinakano and others are mentioned in the Reaction in Japan section also anyway. Mention their background and what not there. --Saintjust (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Saintjust - I've requested an RfC on our current dispute. I would like to ask though, are you willing to compromise? Because if you are not, then much of our discussion is pointless. There are a few possible places I am willing to compromise. Amongst them, but not exclusive to: we can leave Higashinakano somewhere in the Criticism section if we also add that he does not think the massacre existed, and we can leave the Criticism section with subsections provided that the subsections are big enough. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't mind if you write it in the Reaction in Japan section. --Saintjust (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To assist other editors who may be entering the discussion -

  1. Timothy M. Kelly's criticism is sourced here - [22]
  2. That Higashinakano denies the massacre even existed is sourced here - [23] - the article is written by Higashinakano himself: Not only is the claim that 300,000 Chinese in Nanking were killed a falsity, there existed no "Rape of Nanking" as alleged by the Tokyo Trial.
  3. The source for Kennedy is here - [24], and the source for Efron is here - [25]. My stance is that what is mentioned for these two critics can be shortened from what the article currently reads. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says that "no "Rape of Nanking" as alleged by the Tokyo Trial". It doesn't say that no massacre or killing of any magnitude ever happened there. --Saintjust (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the impression I got from Higashinakano as well. He seems to define the killings as legal (chasing down Chinese soldiers in hiding, punishing criminals, etc.) Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but can we add that about him in the Criticism section if we leave him in the Criticism section? Something like this:
I am OK with putting the above in the Criticism section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"Concluding that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident" is more accurate and relevant in this context. Write "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" in the Reaction in Japan section. --Saintjust (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, what I quoted was just a shortened version. This is what I'm proposing:
  • In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano, who alleged that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial", examined and criticized the photographic evidence and concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident.
That's what I would like to have in the Criticism section. Also, what source should we use to say that they "concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident"? This source you gave earlier - [26] - does not state that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
From the book. "Rape of Nanking as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" is not the same as "Rape of Nanking as alleged by Iris Chang" --Saintjust (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
What? "there existed no "Rape of Nanking" as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" is a direct quote from Higashinakano - [27]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This Wikipedia article is about Chang's book and not the massacre itself. --Saintjust (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, it's important to provide readers with the context of where he stands since he thinks there "existed no Rape of Nanking". Using him as a criticism without giving readers that context is like using Holocaust deniers as criticism without telling the readers that they are Holocaust deniers. It's not an addition about the massacre itself, it's an addition about Higashinakano. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If you want to insinuate that Higashinakano and his fellow conservative scholars of Japan are the same as the Nazi Holocaust deniers, then that's pov. Whatever detailed "context" of him may be mentioned in his own article Shudo Higashinakano. --Saintjust (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I did not say we should add text in the article that says he's the same as Holocaust deniers. I am saying that the text should be this:

  • In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano, who alleged that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial", examined and criticized the photographic evidence and concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident.

Because it's important to let the readers know where Higashinakano stands if we are to present him as a valid criticism. What I am suggesting here is only an expansion to the text you suggested. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stating that they concluded that none of the photo constitutes evidence of the incident is enough. Or, if you seriously want to mention the whole Higashinakano criticism of Chang's book in this article rather than just the ones on factual accuracies and photo evidences, then you need to write a longer paragraph on how he denies "the Rape of Nanking as alleged by Iris Chang." --Saintjust (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually he denies the validity of the Tokyo Trial itself, and that's a direct quote. How about this then?
  • In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano, who alleged that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" and that Chang's book is "pure baloney", examined and criticized the photographic evidence and concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident.
Again, these are direct quotes from Higashinakano. My suggestion keeps what you want included in the Criticism section, namely his criticism of the photographic evidence, while expanding on his position on the Nanking Massacre itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No need for "context" when no context is given to Kennedy and other critics as well as the defenders of Iris Chang and Communist China.
However, if you are going to create a new paragraph on Higashinakano's comprehensive criticism that denies "the Rape of Nanking as alleged by Iris Chang," I don't mind. That's an effective denial of the massacre itself also.
That Higashinakano article is primarily about the California State Assembly resolution and isn't a good source for this Wikipedia article btw. --Saintjust (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In essence, the text I'm proposing above is the "new paragraph" on Higashinakano that I would like to see. And the source about California State Assembly resolution is in fact relevant - it talks about Chang's book directly.[28] It is even hosted on a site that devotes an entire section on criticising Chang's book.[29] I can agree to leaving your text about him in the Criticism section, I only want to add to that that he thinks "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial". Again, that's a direct quote from something that he himself wrote. It is sourced and notable, and like you said, what is sourced and notable should be added. My proposal does not take away from your proposal, it's only an expansion of your proposal. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Higashinakano's criticism of factual accuracies and photographic evidences stay in the current sections. If you are going to create another paragraph on his other criticisms, then that's fine, although I don't know where it will belong. --Saintjust (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is what I propose as what goes in the Criticism section for Higashinakano:

  • In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano, who alleged that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" and that Chang's book is "pure baloney", examined and criticized the photographic evidence and concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident.

Is this OK? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about one less 'alleged'?
  • In A Study of "The Rape of Nanking", Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano, who have written that "there existed no 'Rape of Nanking' as alleged by the Tokyo Trial" and wrote in 1998 that Chang's book "is pure baloney", examined and criticized the photographic evidence and concluded that none of them constitutes evidence of the incident. Binksternet (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes thank you. Actually I think it was only Higashinakano that wrote this, so it should be "...who has written..." Binksternet - so what do you think of that proposal? I'm only trying to find a compromise with Saintjust here, so hopefully we can agree on something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd compromise with that if subsections and other critics stay. --Saintjust (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The Kennedy criticism needs to be shortened and the Efron criticism needs to go though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just obtained a copy of the book from a local library. The book is co-authored by Fujiwara and Higashinakano, and the chapter that discusses photographic evidences is written by Fujioka alone: "以上、チャン本に掲載された34枚の写真のうち、直接に虐殺があったことの証拠とみなされるもののすべてを検証した。結論を言おう。チャン本の写真には、南京虐殺を証明するものは、ただの一枚も存在しない。" (p. 108). Translation: "Thus far, I have examined all the photos that are alleged to constitute a direct proof that the massacre occurred (out of 34 photos included in Chang's book). In conclusion, Chang's book contains no photo that proves the existence of the Nanking massacre." --Saintjust (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's never been any evidence that Higashinakano discussed the photograph issue. I have no idea why you kept insisting on reverting to put him in the "Photographic evidences" section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the one who deleted the sentence from the old version of the article. [30] --Saintjust (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved

  • Shudo Higashinakano critcism equals roughly 20-25% of criticism section; The context of that criticism is further mentioned in the Reaction in Japan Examples of his critcisms are provided. As an uninformed reader, my impression is that he has made some minor pertinant points and is POV pushing. I do not think there is undue weight but I do think the context aspect could be further emphasized by a reference to Reaction in Japan below. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu and Higashinakano Shudo (1999). 『ザ・レイプ・オブ・南京』の研究ﾑ中国における「情報戦」の手口と戦略 (in Japanese). 祥伝社. ISBN 4396610904.
  2. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu. "Exploding the Myth: The Problem of Photographic "Evidence"". 自由主義史観研究会.
  3. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu and Higashinakano Shudo (1999). 『ザ・レイプ・オブ・南京』の研究 -- 中国における「情報戦」の手口と戦略 (in Japanese). 祥伝社. ISBN 4396610904.
  4. ^ Fujioka Nobukatsu. "Exploding the Myth: The Problem of Photographic "Evidence"". 自由主義史観研究会.


Redirection

Would somebody please make a redirection, so that when you type "The rape of Nanking" you are directed to this page? (I do not quite understand how to do that myself) --Kåre Fog (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the current redirection situation where it takes you to the article about the historic event. The event itself was referred to as The rape of Nanking long before Chang's book. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)/Archive_1&oldid=1245517174"