Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article The Rape of Nanking (book) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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
    • That source was actually used for a very non-controversial fact - that the book has been translated into other languages. Nonetheless, I have replaced it with a US-based source.[1] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Source by the "Women of China" is neither functional or independent
    • Got rid of that source and have copy-edited to better reflect replacement source.[2] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • No particular reason. I knew the exact date and just put it in. But I've changed it to say "November of 2004".[5] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Japanese translation of the book just came out in December 2007

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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[14]. 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[15], and this article[16] 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[17] - 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)

[edit] 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"[18] 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)

[edit] 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[19]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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",[3] Nobukatsu Fujioka and Shudo Higashinakano extensively examine and criticize the photograph evidences used in The Rape of Nanking.[4]"
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",[5] 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.[6]"
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:
  • 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... Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Uninvolved

  • Point 1Timothy M. Kelly critcism should not be thrown out. Itmay be about the book and not the incident itself. However this article is about the book -the incident itself has a distinct separate article. Aatomic1 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • The treatment of the Nanking Massacre in the West and Japan does not need trimming. Aatomic1 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] 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)