Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Some Doubts

I think this section is full of neutrality and source to fit with the rest of the article. Whoever put that section in there put in the necessary citations. If citations can be given, I suggest having that section improved all together given it is an two-sided story with a plethora of support. Thanks you for your wonderful contribution.

ZouLin, the Higashinakano Shudo entry is pure revisionism at work. Is that the section you are talking about? Binksternet 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give sources for "High Shock Value" statements in deleted sections before reinstating. A more clinical and less emotional approach to unverified information is more helpful in dissemination of information. The "ORKIN Man" can be considered 1: A Monster who Ruthlessly Murders Millions with Poison, 2: A Savior of Human Lives and Property through pest extermination, 3: A person who kills unwanted bugs and other pests at the behest of paying consumers. Semantics do in fact count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.1.16 (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"One historian has estimated that if the dead from Nanking were to link hands, they would stretch from Nanking to the city of Hangchow, spanning a distance of some two hundred miles. Their blood would weigh twelve hundred tons, and their bodies would fill twenty-five railroad cars. Stacked on top of each other, these bodies would reach the height of a seventy-four-story building." Paragraph 2 129.21.144.122 (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Genocide" or "massacre"?

This is a very simple question. This event has been called a lot of things. However it isn't appropriate to have both category tags, especially as genocide rather implies massacres went on. So please decide amongst yourselves which you would prefer. It would be a lot simpler that way. John Smith's 18:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer both. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does it require both? I've been through similar pages and they've been happy to use one or the other. Why is this a special event that requires both? It didn't even have "massacres" until recently. John Smith's 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I actually think it strange that you insist on using only one category out of the two, but seeming to no longer have a preference for which category to use. Also, I believe if similar events can be considered both a genocide and a massacre, they also should be included in both categories. The two are not the same things. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a preference at the moment because you were quite obstinant in refusing my earlier edits. So rather than just start an edit war, I thought it would be polite to actually give people here a choice as to what they thought was better for the article. It has got along fine with just one such category in the past.

I have never heard of genocide that did not involve the massacre of human beings. John Smith's 23:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

By the Genocide Convention [insert year], any act intended to wipe out a racial (etc) entity (in whole or in part) is genocide. So, for example, systematic sterilisation of a people is genocide as well.

In this case, I think "Massacre" is much more appropriate. The Japanese soldiers weren't killing to intentionally wipe out the Chinese people. They were killing for fun or revenge or even military expediency. --Sumple (Talk) 05:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I rather agree with Sumple. Genocide isn't really what went on. John Smith's 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We've got links in the External links section saying that it is a genocide. It would either violate no original research or it would be POV to say it's not. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nonsense. You have SOME links that say it was genocide. If they all said genocide, maybe. But there are other sources that dispute the very nature of the event, so that argument won't work. John Smith's 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What this only means is that there needs to be a category for disputed events. Your logic here would mean we should also remove the Massacres category and the Japanese War Crimes category, because not all the sources label it as such. We've got sources that label it only as an "incident". NPOV means we provide opposing points of views. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Geez, what is your problem? I simply asked people to choose between the two categories, as having both was not necessary. Sumple has given his opinion as have I, so I think you should just leave it. John Smith's 21:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what is the point of your rhetoric of asking me what "my problem" is. I simply don't understand why we must choose only one of those two categories. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's have "murder", "rape", "death", "Japan", "China" and any other category you can think of in there too. There is no need for having both categories - it got on fine without both, didn't it? Besides, as I said, I don't think that genocide is appropriate, like Sumple. John Smith's 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have those categories for the article. Also:

1. The fact that we've got sources saying it's a genocide would override editors' personal opinions that it's not a genocide.
2. Your logic that "it got on fine" before would mean that we should no longer add any categories or content to the article.

--- Hong Qi Gong 21:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on - now you're being daft. As I have kept saying, there are many opinions on it. People that say it's used for propaganda, so let's have a propaganda category too! John Smith's 22:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think "categories" is the same as "keywords". --Sumple (Talk) 23:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should have both categories. It is certainly a Massacre. It is also a Genocide because large proportion of the population in Nanking were killed, and therefore it falls under the definition given above. --Vsion 00:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Then go check the dictionary definition. Genocide means when people are out to kill an ethnic group. The soldiers were on a general rampage, but they weren't out to kill all Chinese. If they were they would have entered the safe zone and killed everyone there too. The article makes it quite clear that part of the killing was motivated by trying to detect Chinese soldiers. John Smith's 09:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the same argument could be used against claims of other genocide. If they left a "safe" zone, gave excuse about killing soldiers or insurgents, then it is not a genocide? The fact is, a large proportion of the people in Nanking were killed. What was the long-term effect on native Nanking people? their demographics, their culture? They were as devastated as victims of other genocides. --Vsion 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

In other genocide events, there was a clear agenda to kill everyone based on their race. That is not what happened in Nanjing. Genocide is a term bandied about too often these days, so perhaps in some other cases it shouldn't be used. John Smith's 14:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Not that I did any contribution to this page, just to express my opinion. After reading the rationale by John Smith's, as well as the page of Genocide, I think I agree with John Smith's. While during the second Sino-Japanese war the Japanese army is indeed trying a genocide (such as enforcing Japanese as the only official language), the particular incident of Nanking Massacre doesn't seem to be nationality/race oriented. It looks to me just as simple as "occupy the city, and kill every civilian in it", and I don't think the westerners will be any safer than Chinese if they are out of the safety zone. — Ming Hua 10:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is indeed nationality/race motivated. --Vsion 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't agree that it's a genocide, because they weren't killing ppl with the intention of wiping out the ethnic (etc.) group. If there had been Tibetans or Mongolians in the city, I'm sure the Japanese would've been happy massacring them as well. --Sumple (Talk) 20:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. John Smith's 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the UN definition (from the Genocide article):

"[Genocide means] any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:" (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

- Note the requirement that the actions must be with the 'intent to destroy, in whole or in part' the group being targeted. Personally I believe this excludes the Nanking massacre (for much the same reasons as Ming Hua & Sumple above. Lisiate 22:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for posting out of order, but I think whether the actions of the Japanese constitute genocide or not depends on your definition of genocide. If we work from the "UN definition" quoted above, the Japanese army intended to destroy in part a subset of the Chinese race - specifically, the part in the armed services of China. Japan also clearly caused "serious bodily harm to members" of a racial group.

However, if we work from the original oldest definition of genocide, "the killing of a tribe or race", well, the populace of Nanking did not constitute a single tribe. Nor did the Japanese kill the majority of a race.

My personal opinion is that the UN definition is overly broad. The definition I prefer for genocide is closer to the original meaning. So, yes, the Japanese massacre of Nanking was brutal, bloody, vicious, perverse, dissembled, denied and disguised almost from the get-go. But it was not, to my definition, genocidal.

If you prefer to use a different definition for the word genocide, that is fine. We are speaking (or rather, writing) in English and hence allowed to use the definitions we each prefer. The UN is a noble organization; their definition of genocide is as good as many and better than most. If you disagree with me because you prefer a different definition of genocide than mine, I will understand (even sympathise with) your arguments and defend to the death your right to speak them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.161.30.98 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

The actions of the Japanese military commanders clearly indicate that they intended to wipe out the population of Nanjing, and they almost succeeded. And the carnage was motivated by nationalism and racialism. According to the above definition, it was clearly a genocide. To suggest that they didn't have "intent" or did it for "fun" shows poor understanding of human nature. Why else did they killed women and the youngs? Were the babies insurgents or suicide bombers? Now, 70 years later ... why did Koizumi visit Yasukuni Shrine? for fun? to pay "personal" respect? And the western media are asking: "Why can't they forgive?" The Forgotten Holocaust, indeed! --Vsion 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The actions of the commanders does not show they had the intent to kill everyone. Yes, they killed women and children. So does that mean every time women and children are killed that is genocide? Of course not.

The fact you're now bringing Koizumi and the Holocaust into this shows you're far too emotional. John Smith's 22:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not emotional, but in fact very much amused by your fallacious arguments and attempts to sanitize the whole thing. Anyway, there are sources that refer the incident as a genocide. If you have sources to dispute such classification, please present it. --Vsion 23:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fallacious"? Oh, boo-boo, do I care what you think? Not everyone agrees it was genocide at all. I came up with this with my first search. I'm not going to trawl the internet for information that is readily available. John Smith's 00:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, you managed to find an article that tries to distinguish the Holocaust from other mass murders. Is this the best you can find? --Vsion 00:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I thought I should supply you with a simple source so that you could understand properly. It was also the first result I found. But it's not up to me to prove anything to you. It is for you to tell me why your opinion counts for more than one person, given that more people have considered "massacre" to be more appropriate than genocide. John Smith's 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me supply this quote from [1]

The Japanese-Chinese holocaust (JCH) reached its pinnacle in the infamous 'Rape of Nanking’ when over 300,000 Chinese were raped and slaughtered in a matter of days in 1938, immediately preceded and followed by state-planned, systematic extermination of over 7 million Chinese civilians of all ages and classes. Lacking a powerful holocaust lobby in the West, and given the Cold War realignment of the West and Japan against the People’s Republic of China, no monuments, foundations, billion dollar compensation have commemorated the JCH, despite the fact that far more Chinese civilians were murdered than Jews. No doubt the self-serving claims of Jewish publicists of the 'uniqueness’ of the JNH has contributed to collective amnesia.

If we examine the definition of genocide given by User:Lisiate above, the Japanese soldiers did all of the five things. It was systematic and widespread. It was clearly a genocide. --Vsion 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That article rather seems to be designed to attack the very nature of the Holocaust, which belies its bias. The "Japanese-Chinese Holocaust"? Give me a break! So what is more Chinese were killed in the war than Jews by the Germans? First not every Chinese death was planned, though he may not be taking account of that. But more importantly 7 million Chinese was a drop in the ocean compared to its population even then. On the other hand the 6 million or so Jewish deaths counted for a lot more when compared to their numbers across Europe. Plus the German attempt at genocide was a lot more obvious and centrally planned than any deaths in China. John Smith's 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Read it again, the article does not diminish the magnitude of the Holocaust, please don't misrepresent. Instead, it decries the "failure of Western intellectuals to recognize the multiple holocausts of the 20th and 21st centuries". Your comment above is precisely what the author is denouncing.--Vsion 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, John Smith's, I had given you the benefit of the doubt that your edit was not based on any bias on your part concerning the Nanjing Massacre. But this last comment of yours is really starting to make me change my mind. And it's not what you're trying to say, but the way you're saying it. It really seems like you're trying to lighten the severity of the Nanjing Massacre. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I could write a brand new article with the time you guys spend on pointless arguments.

But hmm, let me take a moment and sort out your logic as it seems from what I'm reading, Mr. John Smith.

1. The Japanese did not intend to kill all residents in Nanking.

2. The percentage of Chinese population slain during the war is less than the percentage of Jews slain by Nazis, therefore the Japanese people did not intend to kill all Chinese people.

3. The percentage of Chinese population slain during the war is tiny, therefore it's not big deal.

4. If you do not previously plan out a massacre, it's technically not a genocide even if you killed nearly all destined targets.

5. Japanese are not racist to Chinese. It's just average war deaths.

If that's what your thinking, I will reply later in detail. Read carefully the opinions of people disagreed with you and respect their opinion. Most of them are more experienced in Asian topics than you and from what your saying, it's as if your trying to justify all Japanese actions during the war with the "neutrality" flag. AQu01rius 03:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A salient point worth noting: The IJA did not kill a single foreigner. In fact, they were afraid to harm the foreigners. Ergo, they were not targeting Nanking residents, they were targeting the Chinese residents of Nanking. -- Миборовский 07:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

HongQiGong, how can you lighten the severity of hundreds of thousands of dead civilians? I think you're being rather snide to suggest that I am.

AQu01rius, I haven't used any of those points as a reason why the event wasn't genocide, though point 1 is somewhat related. 2 & 3 were in relation to an article written by someone who is obviously out to discredit the Holocaust, claiming that because more Chinese died than Jews it meant it was a worse case of genocide (or whatever) - so I pointed out that when compared to the overall populations it was obvious the guy was being selective in what he was discussing.

Anyway, I think I'd better file a mediation request, as this discussion is going nowhere. If anyone has a problem with that, please say so here. John Smith's 14:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know... rhetoric like 7 million Chinese is a "drop in the ocean"...? Again, it's not what you're saying, it's the way you're saying it. You could have said, "7 million Chinese is a much smaller percentage of the Chinese population......" But your rhetoric really sheds light into what you think of the Nanjing Massacre. There's also the insistence that it was "less obvious" and "less planned" - I'm not sure how that matters. Of course it's less obvious to you. If you go to China though, you'll discover that the Jewish Holocaust is the one that is "less obvious" compared to the Nanjing Massacre. --- Hong Qi Gong 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong, I am getting really tired of this rubbish. Are you going to object to mediation or not? Or are you going to throw a temper-tantrum and dig your heels in? Or would you prefer I file with the arbitration committee? John Smith's 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never objected to mediation. What I'm saying, essentially, is that I'm seeing a bias in your views and subsequently it is difficult for me to assume good faith in your editing now. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Listen, I never said deaths weren't important. I said that some anti-Semitic jerk trying to dismiss the Holocaust as the important event it was talking out of his backside. My comments were made in response to his article, not this wikipedia entry. I'm sorry if I offended you, but you'll just have to accept there was a misunderstanding. John Smith's 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I want to point out that if you think someone is being anti-Semitic or trying to lessen the severity of the Jewish Holocaust, the appropriate response should probably be to address that specifically instead of in turn, downplaying the severity of another holocaust like the Nanjing Massacre. And to all the editors here, I suggest we stay away from comparing which holocaust was worse. That is in very bad taste, in my opinion. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

... Can we not go off-topic? Nationalism, revisionism, Koizumi being an idiot, etc, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The quesion is one of semantics, really. What does genocide mean? Given the documented historical facts, is this genocide? Please present on-topic arguments only!

If you are talking about bias, I'm as pro-Chinese on the Nanking Massacre as anyone, just look at the previous discussion. But I'm standing with John Smith's on this point. --Sumple (Talk) 00:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the above. I'm not pro-chinese or pro-PRC, not when editing wikipedia at least. Lets look at the issues:

• (a) did the Japanese army (IJA) committed act to destroy in part, a national, ethnic group? Yes
• (b) Did the IJA Killed members of the group? Yes
• (c) Did the IJA targeting more on the Chinese group? Yes significantly more. If you read Ketuanan Melayu, the IJA even used other races against the Chinese.
• (d) Did the IJA killed civilian? Yes including many women and young.
• (e) Was the atrocities systemic and widespread? Yes
• (f) Did the IJA deliberately inflicted on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part? Yes the IJA even destroy the cultural resource in Nanking. When Prince Asaka was asked about removing Nanking cultural heritage, he said to the effect that the Nanking people didn't need them anymore. The issue here is not really about semantics, it about facing the truth. --Vsion 06:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm "standing" with the sources that say it's a genocide instead of presenting my own original research. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The Genocide Convention is not original research. --Sumple (Talk) 01:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but editors determining whether or not it fits the Genocide Convention would be original research. Better to leave that to our sources. Here's an extra three sources that refer to the Nanjing Massacre as a genocide in addition to what sources we already have that do that. [2][3][4]--- Hong Qi Gong 01:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but when you're talking about the existence of something (in this case, a particular characterisation of an event), source-stacking doesn't work. What i mean is, say I want to prove that the moon landings were fake. Just finding a stack of sources that say that the moon landings were fake doesn't prove it. Ideally we need an academic source that actually discusses whether it was a genocide, rather than just one that calls it a genocide. --Sumple (Talk) 06:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sources like that would be even better. But the point still remains - there are sources that label it as a genocide, and regardless of why they do, it should override editors' own personal opinions on whether or not it is a genocide. We're not here to write original research into the articles. --- Hong Qi Gong 07:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, not just any source would do. On this point, any source which doesn't describe it as a genocide would be a counter to any that does do so, because it is a question of characterisation, not just attributes. To lower the bar a little, I'll fully support your argument if you can find an academic source that calls it a genocide. (Challenge of the week! =D) --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, two more things I want to point out:

1. Nobody is pushing to add a section to the article illustrating why and how the Nanjing Massacre is a genocide. The issue here is simply the categorisation of it as a genocide. This merely and very simply reflects what many sources already do, including the UHRC[5].

2. While you say that you "stand" with User:John Smith's, his concern is not so much that this article is categorised under Genocides, but rather that it is categorised under both Genocides and Massacres. I believe he would be OK with leaving the Genocides category in if we removed the Massacres category, and you'll notice that he has edited to take out the Massacres category while leaving in the Genocides category. --- Hong Qi Gong 07:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hong, I do not think the genocide category is appropriate. However I thought that having just one was a comprimise we could use. However because that was repeatedly thrown back in my face, I might as well press for just the massacre category to be used. John Smith's 10:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm okay. I still don't think it's a genocide. BUT, on the question of whether, if something is both a genocide and a massacre, it can be categorised as both, I think the answer would be "yes". This is because a genocide doesn't have to be a massacre and vice versa. --Sumple (Talk) 12:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sumple's point about sources. There are thousands of things talking about how and why there is a global Jewish conspiracy. In contrast, how many are there that refute it? Not actually as many, because it's deemed to be a point not worth refuting. So just because a lot of websites, etc call the Nanjing Massacre "genocide" isn't a sufficient argument. John Smith's 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, can you qualify what you would consider "academic"? Two of the sources (which refer to the Nanjing Massacre as a genocide) I've already linked up recently in this Talk page are:

1. An online copy of a chapter in the book War and Genocide, written by Martin Shaw, who holds a PhD in Sociology of War and International Relations. [6][7]
2. An article about a conference on genocide denial, held at Georgetown University, where Professor Henry Theriault, talked about the Japanese government's genocidal denial concerning the Nanjing Massacre. Henry Theriault is the Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. [8]

Would you consider these two sources I've already linked up to be "academic"? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's, here is your original comment about your concern with the categories:

• "Genocide" or "massacre"? This is a very simple question. This event has been called a lot of things. However it isn't appropriate to have both category tags, especially as genocide rather implies massacres went on. So please decide amongst yourselves which you would prefer. It would be a lot simpler that way.

For even better context, scroll back to the top of this section in the Talk page. It really seemed like you didn't care which category is there. Would you say you've changed your mind? You said you agree with Sumple's opinion about whether or not the Nanjing Massacre can be considered a genocide, and thus that the Genocides category is not appropriate. Now you are saying it is OK to leave in the Genocides category if the Massacres category is removed? I apologise in advance, but I'm a little confused about what exactly you would like to see. Do you want to see the Genocides category gone? Or do you just want to see either one of the two categories gone? --- Hong Qi Gong 15:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was tired of being accused of making unilateral changes "against the consensus", so I wanted to open the discussion without getting involved in an argument from the start. When I saw a lot of people said they thought genocide wasn't appropriate (as I believed), that encouraged me to actually support that as well on the talk page. John Smith's 23:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Erh, you earlier wrote that 7 million people is a drop in the ocean, now you said you saw "a lot of people" when actually it was only two or three editors. ?!? Your choice of words is very "interesting". --Vsion 06:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm prepared toa ccept the Martin Shaw article as an academic work. The second one appears rather partisan, though. --Sumple (Talk) 22:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK. Just as long as you know that sources that are calling it a genocide are not blogs of 16-year old kids. It's human rights organisations and people with PhDs that are calling it a genocide. --- Hong Qi Gong 00:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, on this question I'm sceptical of anything comeing out of a human rights organisation because they have their own partisan agendas. --Sumple (Talk) 01:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is another source [9] online, hosted at the University of Tokyo. Prof. Henry Theriault is affiliated with Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights. Judging from its name, the center is an academic entity, not a human rights activist organisation. Hence, this should address Sumple's concern about partisan agendas, especially when the workshop was held at U-Tokyo. I thanks Hong Qi Gong for providing the original sources. --Vsion 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

comment for mediator -- You can check my posting history, I've not been involved in this article or this dicussion before tonight, and my ethnicity is not Asian. But, reading the above, it strikes me as very strange that John Smith opened this section of discussion asking "which category do you want, 'massacre' or genocide'" -- seeming to be neutral in the matter -- but was very soon passionately arguing his point that Nanjing was not genocide.

While it may be debatable whether Japanese motives involved the extermination of the Han ethnicity and culture specific to Nanjing and its surrounding area, no workable definition of "genocide" can be dependent on knowledge of motives. The widely-accepted number of deaths that occurred in a period of less than 2 months, the high number of rapes, mutilations and other atrocities inflicted a wound on the population of Jiangsu province that would last far beyond the wartime period. I think it's an important struggle for the survivors of Nanjing, and for all Chinese affected by the Japanese actions there, to see these actions viewed in an appropriate light. There are massacres that are genocidal, and there are massacres that are not. I think the distinction is an important one. The few electrons used to maintain the "genocide" category on this article are not, in my opinion, wasted. Bustter 14:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"But, reading the above, it strikes me as very strange that John Smith opened this section of discussion asking "which category do you want, 'massacre' or genocide'" -- seeming to be neutral in the matter -- but was very soon passionately arguing his point that Nanjing was not genocide."

What do you want to say? You're making an implied allegation about me without having the courage to actually say what you're thinking. Come out and say it or don't make cheap jibes. John Smith's 15:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tsk tsk, saying things like this only make you look worse. -- Миборовский 21:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Jumping in with silly comments like that doesn't do you any credit either. Take a look in the mirror before you start wagging your finger at me. John Smith's 22:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What, so now everyone who criticises you must be a jerk? -- Миборовский 23:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did I call you a jerk? I said making a comment like you did hardly reflected well upon you. If there is a dispute between two people, a third party should act to cool things down, not make them worse. John Smith's 23:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What you said to Bustter was rude and inappropriate. So was your response to my criticism of your reply to Bustter, though I will not comment upon that since it personally involves the two of us. When a third-party editor, who has no prior indication of being negatively predisposed towards you, comments upon an observation he made, the first thing you did was call him a coward. Extremely rude. Where is assuming good faith? More importantly, where are your manners? You know, he was courteous enough not to come out directly and criticise you. But what did you do eh? -- Миборовский 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Mib, you didn't say "you're not being fair on him - assume good faith and don't be rude" the first time, you made a snide little comment, something which has almost become your trademark. Given that, it shouldn't be surprising that I threw the same comment back at yourself. Now I've left two messages on your talk page suggesting we should resolve our differences, so please respond to them.

Personally I would have prefered it if he had made a direct point, because that way I could have addressed it easily. But being ambiguous as he was is not polite as it could mean anything. However, as you eventually said, I shouldn't have assumed he was being nasty - so I'm sorry, Bustter, for over-reacting. John Smith's 00:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I treat people with respect, when they deserve my respect. Unfortunately, I do not respect you as I do most people. But since you already apologised to Bustter, there's nothing else to for me to say here. Good hunting. -- Миборовский 19:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never came across User:Bustter until now. I've never seen his edits or comments, so I have no idea if he has a habit of being ambiguous or not. But may I suggest - maybe he really just thought it was strange that you (User:John Smith's) changed your stance about the issue halfway through the discussion. I certainly thought so myself. --- Hong Qi Gong 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It was hardly halfway through and I did explain. So if he read my change of position, why didn't he read my later point? Someone might think that was strange as well. John Smith's 08:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

About 24 hours after your pointedly 'neutral' question, you stated that 'I think I rather agree with Sumple. Genocide isn't really what went on.' Sumple's statement that genocide is defined by its intentions is not exactly a new twist, so it's rather surprising that this caused a change of mind in you at this late date, when you have long been dealing with this article.

Anyway, Sumple's statement is not a matter of consensus. Perpetrators of genocide are seldom open with their intentions as was the Third Reich; and of course the German example has served well to teach the genocidal to be doubly careful to conceal intentions. For this reason requiring clear intent is not an appropriate requirement in determining genocide.

Yehuda Bauer, for example, has argued that "genocide is the proper name for the brutal process of group elimination accompanied by mass murder resulting in the partial annihilation of the victim population as described by Lemkin and the U.N. Convention. Total annihilation can be labeled Holocaust for want of a more acceptable word." [RETHINKING THE CONCEPT OF GENOCIDE]

No mention of intent. The UN in particular needs to leave intent out of the picture, as it would not be becoming for them to ignore wholesale suffering on the genocidal scale, just because the perpetrators' intent cannot be pinned down.

As to any perceived rudeness to you, I was actually trying to avoid engaging in ad hominem by simply pointing out your words rather than specifically characterizing them. I am not the most skilled at tactful disagreement, and I do apologize for that shortcoming. Bustter 11:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, just thought I'd declare my position on this issue, because I haven't been here for a while and the discussion's taken some interesting turns... Anyway, regarding the original issue, I still personally think it's not genocide. But seeing as 1) there are some reputable sources labelling it as such, and 2) genocides and massacres are not inclusive of each other (? is that the right term? think of inclusive sets here..), I would not oppose dual-categorisation under both. --Sumple (Talk) 11:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, um, Bustter, no offence but "Genocide" being defined with respect to intention is the concensus. There is already a word for killing people on a big scale - "massacre". There are big problems with the Bauer argument, but this is not the place to discuss it - that belongs on the Genocide talk page, if anywhere.

As to your argument that "perpetrators of genocide are seldom open with their intentions", please understand that the fundamental principle of Western criminal law is based on the duality of mens rea and actus reus, the "criminal mind" and the "criminal act". Inherent in any consideration of such a full liability offence is a determination as to mens rea. Even consideration as to a strict liability offences must entail some determination as to the defendant's state of mind - as to volition and, possibly, absence of mistake. Do you think all convicted murderers openly declare, "yes, I shot him with the intent to kill him or to inflict grievous bodily harm?" No. The court makes the determination from the available evidence on his actions and accompanying mental state, if any. In the same way, we know the Third Reich committed genocide, not because it declared "We are proud to announce our new genocide policy", but because of the intentions inferred from their policies of selective elimination of people of certain ethnic groups (primarily the Jews) and large scale killing of these people in the absence of the proper process of law.

In case what I've said there was confusing... in summary, most crimes are defined with respect to intention. Courts can and mostly do determine whether that intention exists based on available evidence. --Sumple (Talk) 11:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Imagine if some great nation were, through murder, rape, enslavement, or whatever other means, to eradicate, in the matter of a few years, an entire native population. Yet, throughout the great nation's literature and culture, there was nothing expressed regarding this native population but admiration for their noble savagery, appreciation of their primitive art, the childlike simplicity of their creation myths and religious ceremonies. Would the fact that they held their victims in such high esteem exculpate them from the crime of genocide? I rather doubt that would be the case. If an aggregation of intentional murders add up to the eradication of a race, I suspect the intent of the individual murders in aggregation would be found sufficient. Bustter 11:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bustter, what are you going on about? Where has anyone said Japan held China in esteem as a defence against a claim of genocide? John Smith's 12:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if a hypothetical doesn't play for you, but don't insult me by pretending you see no point. I am simply saying that a definition of genocide that includes intentions isn't workable. This is the stumbling block that prevented the US from agreeing that Rwanda was a case of genocide until the killing had been done. That will not happen again, I assure you.

As to whether this is the appropriate place for this discussion, I did not open this discussion, nor did I call in a mediator in order to get the genocide category removed. Bustter 12:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Busster, I appreciate your sentiments. But what you are advocating is bordering on WP:OR; I still think it's a valuable opinion - but probably more valuable on the genocide page. --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are not familiar with the literature doesn't mean its original research. I recommend you kick around the [Institute for the Study of Genocide] a bit. Bustter 12:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you think. It's got nothing to do with the Nanking Massacre in any case. This discussion is not about the definition of the genocide. There is a concensus, at least on this talk page, that genocide is whatever international law defines it to be - and your Institute for the Study of Genocide is not the arbiter of international law. If you believe otherwise, the place to raise the matter is at Talk:Genocide, not here. Either that, or try lobbying the UN. --Sumple (Talk) 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you are being deliberately insulting, while telling me that this conversation that you and John engaged in prior to my arrival, and for which John has summoned a mediator, has no need of my input.

I'm pleased for the "consensus" you have on the talk page, except that others here seem also to think that the genocide category does belong, so it isn't a "consensus" at all. It's fine that you believe the present legal definitions of genocide are all that matter, you are entitled. But the definitions offered by social scientists are equally valid. If this matter is to be mediated, I will continue to politely express my point of view. I ask you and John to please kindly curb your insults, thank you in advance. Bustter 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

And, while I don't wish to come off as a Rules lawyer, you might wish to review Rules lawyer. Bustter 13:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bustter, I have already apologised for over-reacting at first. Sumple has not been making personal insults, so I think you're over-reacting certainly in respects to him. John Smith's 13:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sure, whatever you think." Bustter 13:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That is hardly grounds to make a fuss. I was told to assume good faith with you - why can't you assume good faith yourself? "don't insult me by pretending you see no point"? That's not an insult. You need to calm down. John Smith's 13:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about the offensiveness of your language versus mine- offence is a subjective matter, afterall. I mean, I'm offended by people talking to me in Mandarin... Anyway, I meant to clarify the subject of this argument: It's not about what is a genocide. It's about whether the Nanking Massacre is a genocide and/or a massacre. As you will probably see, the two sides of the argument differed on whether the event qualified as a genocide, but both sides argued on the premise that a genocide is as defined under the genocide convention. Sure, the views espoused by social scientists are valualbe. But they do not represent the international law, and there is no clear concensus among them as to what, if anything, should be the alternative to the present international law.

I appreciate from your earlier posts that you have doubts about the authority of the United Nations. Nevertheless, the Genocide Convention is an important part of international law and is acceded to by most nations of the world. Until a coherent concensus emerges otherwise, we really have no choice but to follow the law.

What on earth are you talking about, rules lawyer? Knowing the law does not make one a rules lawyer; a vampire maybe, but as I understand a rules lawyer is specifically someone who acts like a lawyer without knowing it, which is, like, the total opposite of what I'm doing. --Sumple (Talk) 13:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of categories is to organize knowledge, not to conform to law. Nanking is examined in many books regarding 20th century genocide. Your assertion early in this conversation regarding definitions arrived at through the "genocide convention (insert year)' [it was 1948] was not agreed upon by Hong Qi Gong, who only made reference to external links that deal with Nanjing as a genocide.

Only Vsion attempted to argue that the Chinese "intent" met the UN definition. I would argue that the UN would indeed accept Nanking as genocide were it to occur today, but I choose not to argue that point, since the organization of knowledge not law is the reason the genocide category should be kept. If someone chooses to use Wikipedia as a gateway to studies of genocide, the omission of Nanking from the category would make his results incomplete, simply because of the amount of study done of Nanking as genocide.

It is much easier for someone using categories to winnow out a result or two that he finds irrelevant, than for someone who needs comprehensive results to "fill the holes." The category, therefore, should stay; the dichotoomy of "massacre" or "genocide" is false, as each category would have different significance and use. Bustter 13:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Now we are (sort of) on the same planet. There is no dichotomy between massacre and genocide - genocides can be massacres, but don't have to be; likewise massacres can be genocides, but don't have to be. they're intersecting sets. --Sumple (Talk) 13:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, I thought Bustter made that same point at the start. John Smith's 20:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But then he/she started talking about some (delete adjectives) academic's argument about how genocide shouldn't be genocide... anyway, it's all sorted now so that's all good. --Sumple (Talk) 01:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, John Smith, listen. I have encountered you before, and so has HongQiGong, which is why I believe he entered this discussion. First of all, whatever your opinions, please use evidence and sources, not just what you think. Second, there's absolutely no problem with having two similar categories as long as they are valid, which is proven by external links given. Third, removing something because "only some external links" agree with them is absolutely POV. We have a view here, and a view there, and we include both - we don't remove one. Fourth, if two users including you agree on a matter, and another doesn't, that doesn't mean you should say "OK, somebody agreed with me, everything's solved, get out", etc. I'm not going to continue this discussion - avoiding conflicts, they say - but these are a few behavior problems you need to adjust with. And, no, I'm not agreeing with you - what you are claiming is completely wrong in my opinion - but every man has his own view of things, so I hope you'd just discuss logically and strive for the good of Wikipedia instead of for your own pleasure.Aran|heru|nar 10:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide is the mass killing of a population of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as 'any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'" - "Genocide," Wikipedia

I apologize if I was opening up an old wound, but I was wondering about this question myself. One of the issues I've been thinking about is whether or not the Nanking Massacre was an insolated event. Were there other mass killings? I believe one of the reasons the Nanking Massacre is so well known is because Nanking is city with many foreign, or Western, bankers, investors, missionaries, etc. But what of lesser villages, towns, or cities with few or no Western bankers, missionaries, etc.?If that were the case, the Nanking Massacre can be considered a mass killing within a genocide. I'll admit that I have a minor bias in that I am ethnically Chinese myself and I have heard stories of massacre and brutality from my grandparents regarding their hometown as I'm sure many other ethnically Chinese have often heard. I'm going to be pretentious for a second and assume that you ask me for my evidence and why such an event would be concealed from the public. For the first, many of us heard it from word of mouth that is quickly aging and dying, who were also mostly illerate even in their own native language nevertheless English. For the second, I'm going to tell you that ever since the Cold War Communism has become synonymous with Evil. I think any such story would be proclaimed as Communist propaganda or lies by Western media.

But I believe I have a piece of evidence nonetheless. Following the Doolittle Raid on Japan in April of 1942, many of the American pilots involved in the raid were forced to land in rural China. They were hidden from the Japanese army by Chinese peasants. The Japanese in retaliation began the Zhejiang-Jiangxi Campaign in which they sometimes slaughtered entire villages suspected of harboring the Americans. The estimated civilian death toll of this campaign is believed to be around 250,000(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_Campaign). First, I'd like to note the Western involvement in this event, and second, I'd like note how little information there is on this event. There could be countless other similar events that we are not aware of. If the Nanking Massacre itself is not a genocide, then it is at least part of one. AkrobaticMonkey 06:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Smith: it was a massacre, but not a genocide. There were a few genocides in the twentieth century: Holocaust, Armenian, Bosnia-Herzoviginia, and Rwanda. But Nanking doesn't fall in that category. Nanking is in the same group as the Allied bombing of Dresden: the deliberate massacre of innocent civilians during wartime. Reprehensible, but not genocide. Brian Cunnie 05:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I can see where you're coming from when you say it's a massacre, but I do not think the bombing of Dresden would be adequate example to prove such a thing. The Holocause, the Armenian genocide, the genocide in Bosnia-Herzoviginia, and Rwanda all stem from racial hatred or the scape-goating of a particular ethnic/religious group. The Dresden fire-bombings were aimed at no particular ethnic/religious group. It was just a bombing to put a dent in Germany's industrial/economic output and lower German morale during WWII. If the Japanese army had merely taken over the city and then executed a number of people on faked up charges or no reason at all for show (or they could even ransack a couple of houses and rape a couple of women like the Russian did after they took Berlin in WWII), then that could be considered a massacre. However, they did it because they viewed the Chinese as little better than animals that they could slaughter, and there are many quotable sources for this bit of information. Therefore, I think the Nanking Massacre qualifies as genocide because it the mass killing of a group of people of a particular ethnicity out of hatred/prejudice. AkrobaticMonkey 06:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It matters little what we personally think. What matters is that there are credible sources that label it as a genocide. We as WP editors should only be reflecting our sources. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that it was not a genocide. During WWII many towns were entirely wiped out and many massacres happened. That doesn't mean it was genocide. To me the Nanking massacre was a massive rampage by the IJA to instill widespread terror among the populace. In my opinion, the intent was to demoralize China and it get to surrender through terrorization. The Mongols and Manchus did the the same thing before coming to power but few would say what they did was genocide. It was more or less terrorization meant to quicken surrender. Which is just as horrible by the way. Thing is, reasons given earlier to classify the Nanking Massacre as genocide could be apply to almost any event in warfare where large amounts of civilians were killed. For instance, the massive bombings of Germany and Japan and especially the Atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be classify as "genocide". Which wouldn't be prudent in my opinion. The allies did not intend to exterminate their enemies, but many places were indeed completely annihilated. I don't think the Japanese wanted to exterminate the Chinese, like past dynasties, they wanted to dominate and rule China. The Nanking Massacre was not a genocide, it was however a tremedous war crime. Akaloc (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, this section is full of POV warrioring. Here is a simple answer, get writings (or sources with that properly quote them) from the Japanese of the time period to find out if their intention was to destroy a large portion of the Chinese race or to simply conquer China. If it is the former, then it is genocide, if it is the latter, then it is a massacre (albeit an attrocious one even by WWII standards) The problem is that the whole incident has been twisted by so many parties (Japanese, Chinese, and even Western) for various social and political reasons. Also, the definintion of genocide can change depending on who is saying it. For example, the Crusades and the Mongol invasions are many times called acts of 'genocide', despite the fact that the enemies were aloud to pray in conquered cities of the former and the conquered lived for tribute in the latter. By these standards, then the Nanking massacre would be considered "genocide". But, if the Japanese were trying to destroy the Chinese race, I have found little evidence proving this, but I am open to the idea if anyone finds any hard evidence outside of 3rd party sources.--Jtd00123 (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel that this was a genocide for the reason of the Japanese felt that if you weren't Japanese then you weren't human. Therefore you had no right to live and that is why they killed so many Chinese. --dietchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.62.90 (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the definition of genocide from the Oxford dictionary of English (which should be fairly authoritative) is: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or group, which seems to indicate that people can call the Nanjing Massacre an act of genocide, if they so wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.253.84 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

After reading the arguments from you guys; I am more convinced that this Incident alone would be more correctly if it is called "massacre" than "genocide". For starters, the looting, rape and killing in Nanking was motivated by the need to weed out Chinese Soldiers hiding amongst the populace and the amount of hatred accumulated from the Battle of Shanghai. When the Japanese soldiers manage to round up the "soldiers", the easier way to handle them was to kill them all instead of taking care of them; hence the word "massacre". Also, Japanese soldiers believes in not surrendering to the enemy in any situation and thus even angered them even more when they captured these "soldiers". The word "genocide" however would have been less appropriate (but not invalid) because the nature of the killings was what I mentioned above and this is evidenced by the Japanese desire to only manipulate China through its puppet Nanking Government. So if there was a "Genocide", there was no need of such government and it shows that Japanese were keen in recruiting Chinese for their conquest.

On the issue on why they would rape women as well, rape seems to be norm in days where war is common at that time frame. These soldiers were motivated into raping women because:

1. Exhausted after hours of combat 2. Sex seems to be a form of relief by soldiers who have no ways to relief themselves from weariness 3. Lack of dicipline/control over the lower level soldiers.

And they would kill the victim to prevent her from reporting them to relevant authorities which shows that there was not a general order to allow rape.Because this was widely practiced amongst the soldiers, most of the soldiers will usually follow suit; least they being cast away as an outsider. Bear in mind that not only Japanese Soldiers also commited raped during the war but also countries like China, USA, Nazi germany and Soviet Russia. All have a share of this bitter pie.

Of course, this does not mean that I deny any of these horrible acts did not happen. I am a in fact a Chinese but in this occasion, I felt that it would be more apporiate to coin this incident as "Massacre". Regards 60.48.247.176 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone maintaining that the Japanese intent was literally to depopulate China, so that in some number of years you could go there and there would be only Japanese (and/or Europeans or Africans or somebody...) but no Chinese people? Because that's what genocide would mean. It's like in Germany and occupied Europe where the Jews were just gone, as far as anyone could tell at least. Nobody calls the German assault on Russia a genocide even though the Russians took the most devastating losses of all kinds in that whole miserable war. If you mean to express a reasonable level of disapproval for the massacre you can call it an atrocity, a war crime, a crime against humanity, but we must preserve the literal meaning of "genocide" and all such terms in order that they have full force when justly applied. Wnt (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Nanking vs. Nanjing?

Out of curiosity, is there a reason why the article's name is "Nanking Massacre," whilst the article repeatedly refers to "Nanjing?" I realize that they're the same city and all that, but would it be more consistent to strike "Nanjing" throughout and replace with "Nanking?"  _{Folic_Acid | talk}  18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Folic Acid...ya I thing that you right...in terms of how historians would use city names. Because we are talking about the city before it had its name change, we should be using the old name. its just like in modern day documents that talked about the city of Beijing in the 1800 or even in the early 1900, they use Peking instead. nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 19:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

All: My wife is from Nanjing (the present day name), and she says that in 1937 it was called Nanking (then the capital of China), among other names during it's storied history which spans about 2500 years. - Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.140.79 (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nanking and Nanjing are just different spellings of the same Chinese word 南京. --Glgalad (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. I don't think that those old spellings are really more familiar to Americans. I bet that if you asked a crowd of New Yorkers to place Beijing on a map, as many as 5 in 100 might come close, but you'd only get 2 or 3 to place Peking. Alas, this is a made up statistic and the truth is probably worse than that. Wnt (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have heard Cantonese say "Pa-King" when referring to Beijing in Cantonese; Beijingers say "Bei-Zjeng". Likely the Peking/Nanking spelling is taken from early Romanization based on contact with southern China. Qwertyzoop (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are two things going on. One is a different romanization scheme, Chinese Postal Map Romanization. The other has to do with a consonant shift from k -> j, that is to say, sometime around 300 years ago, many Mandarin dialects underwent a sound change where many instances of k went to j (but not all -- notice that Mandarin retains ka and ke, but not *ja or *je). More conservative Chinese languages (like Cantonese) may have retained the older pronunciations, but I don't speak Cantonese so I'm just guessing there. The point though is that while romanization does play a part, the choice of "k" in words like Nanking and Peking is not in fact arbitrary, but the result of an older pronunciation. Eniagrom (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Other Massacres

This section is necessary but needs expanding on. In particular there is no citation for "In 1864 a million Nanjing people were killed, Li Hongzhang estimated Nanjing would take 100 years to recover. This is 73 years before the Nanking massacre." And in any case it isn't good English. I'll remove it in a few days if nobody can provide a citation and/or tidy it up. Noisms (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced sentence along with a reference to a blog. I also reworded the main paragraph, I couldn't find a source for any other massacres besides the Tainjing Incident, so I removed those mentions as well. Does it look okay now? A little insignificant ^{Bloated on candy} 15:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the section as the Taiping Kindom is totally unrelated to Nanjing Massacre, and the Tianjing incident is never called by this name. --MtBell 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanjing was the other capital of the Ming dynasty and the city has since been called by this name since them. The Taiping called them Tianjing. It was not been massacred during the early Qing Dynasty. The Nanjing massacres were one of the most massive massacres committed by the Taiping army and the Xiang Army. Sammyy85 (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I think that needs to be sourced (and probably needs its own entry). Noisms (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nanjing massacre or Nanking Massacre is a special term which can only imply the atrocities committed by Japanese troops in 1937 and 1938. I don't think anyone would confuse Tianjing Incident with this article as apparently they are called by different names. --MtBell 21:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

''personally i think john smith needs to rethink his 

veiw on this perticular event in history before telling anyone

else to because if you can look at this event and tell me
calling this genocide is "improper" or "incorrect" with a 

clear conscience your as heartless and pompous as the men who went out and slaughtered those men women and children. (71.202.237.204 \(talk)Britt tell ya like it is.)

—Preceding
undated comment added 21:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC). 

The atrocities committed by the Taiping army and the Xiang Army are not called by different names.Sammyy85 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it is clear that you do not have enough knowledge about the history of Nanjing. The first incident you mentioned is Tianjing Incident, which was a political repression of the Taiping Kingdom. For the second one, it was part of the cracking down by Qing Dynasty on Taiping Kingdom. I don't know its actual historical term, but you should keep in mind that Tianjing was only the name given by the Taiping Kingdom, and after it was reclaimed by Qing, the city was renamed to Jiangning. Furthermore, you failed to give any reliable sources to support your assertion that the two incidents are called by the same name in English references. --MtBell 17:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Structure of the lemma

Taking into consideration that Wikipedia insists on a neutral standpoint the fastidious description of atrocities committed by the Japanese army is not helpful to make this article readable. Sometimes the text sounds like it was written as if the author savours them. I have removed some of the worst parts, not because I don't believe them, but because they are examples of how cruel man as a species can be. That is not a specific Japanese trait, so for instance showing a picture of a nude female body with something like a bayonet sticking out of its vagina and the caption "killed by the Japanese army" does not differentiate. That's why I like the film "City of Life and Death", a Chinese film which shows that this generalisation is simply inadequate. --Ruggero1 (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits you have made, they are too substantial without discussion. By the logic you provide, we should remove any reference to any wrong doing by any party on every Wikipedia article because such wrongdoing could quite have easily have been committed by any other party. The text you removed was referenced and descibed what happened during the Nanking Massacre, which is why it should remain. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you see the film "city of Life and Death". If a Chinese film can describe the situation like that trying to describe both sides why does this article enjoy just atrocities? Look a the picture of the mutilated woman, for instance - what stupid caption:"Woman killed by the Japanese army" - was it the whole army? This is sheer propaganda. I will rerevert your reverts. Or you will please give me better arguments.--Ruggero1 (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the text regarding the foto: "Photo showing the body of a woman profaned in a similar way to the teenager described in case 5 of John Magee's movie. Higashinakano however claims that the photo has no reliable information about the killer and its authentication.[20]" Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre_controversy#Iris_Chang.27s_book. There you will find more critical remarks!--Ruggero1 (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh - and please don't get me wrong: I am absolutely convinced the massacre took place; but the more gruesome the description, the easier for the denialists to refute it because it appears as biassed and partial!--Ruggero1 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, don't remove sourced text from an article if you think it's biased- make the wording more neutral instead. Secondly, edit-warring will get you blocked, so don't hold it aloft like it's a threat. Thirdly, Higashinakano conducted studies on all evidence of the massacre and concluded that the massacre was fabricated. We aren't going to take his word for it and delete the whole article, and we're not going to delete the photos either. His doubt of their authenticity is discussed in Nanking Massacre controversy. ALI ^{nom nom} 15:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree only in one aspect with you: The wording of some parts of the text has to be more neutral. But how do you want to improve this lemma when any time someone comes along and changes something you threaten do get him blocked? And if this picture is disputed, you have to state that in the caption with a reference to the concerning page. By the way: Who is "we"? As far as I know everybody can improve any text, and no "we" can decide what is included into a page and what isn't. Please take note I have never proposed to delete the article, but I don't accept the lengthy descriptions of atrocities, as they are not neutral and appeal mainly to those that indulge in something like that.- And now I am going to change the caption of the picture in the way I think it is adequate.--Ruggero1 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

By "we" I mean Wikipedians. Editors. Rational people. There is policy designed to outline how one deals with these things. It's alright to be bold, but we aren't completely lawless here.

As for this local discussion, you're not making much sense. You have a problem with the descriptions of rape and murder? If you think you can phrase "thousands of women were raped" differently, I'd like to hear it. But keep it neutral. I understand you're trying to be neutral here, but what you're doing is attempting to water down the massacre. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that "thousands of women were raped" is quite ok, if you call it a description. How do you prove the numbers though? Ok - the reference to the War Court may suffice. But that's it. I do not intend to "water down" the massacre, I want to find phrasing that is adequate and not so bloodthirsty or whatever you may call it (no insult intended). And please give an answer: How do you want to point out that the veracity of the picture is disputed? You may not like the man who disputed it, but does that permit you to put the picture into the text as if it was true beyond doubt?--Ruggero1 (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you reverted the picture already - with a very strange justification: What international consensus? Who are they? Harvard? You don't even know who shot the picture! Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, but this one isn't. I think it is no use keeping on a discussion with you, and as I don't want to start an edit war I will refer the matter to the Wikipedia comittee concerned.--Ruggero1 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the photo File:Nanjing Massacre rape killed.jpg which happened in Xuzhou not Nanking, and added a photo showing a decapitation in Nanking Massacre. More verified photos on Nanking Massacre should be included, no matter how bloody they may appear. Wikipedia expresses different viewpoints in a balanced way, but bloody historical facts must not be neutralized to peaceful ones. -MtBell 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, what are your sources for the claim that the picture was taken in Xuzhou ? --Flying Tiger (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yiqing, Verification on the Historical Photos during Nanjing Massacre, REPUBLICAN ARCHIVES, 2008 (1). 驳《检证南京事件证据照片》——南京大屠杀历史照片再检证. On page 123, photo No. 22. Please revert your edit. --MtBell 13:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Banner vs Fact tags

I think it's time that the issue banner be removed from the top of the article and replaced by more specific tag request tags. The article is fairly well referenced at this point and the banner from last year may be outdated.Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Music about this Event

• In Taiwan, a hip hop group called Machi made a rap about the Nanjing Massacre. Should I put it in as a fact in media? Nathan900130 (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Machi notable? Is the rap notable? See WP:N for a guideline on notability, and decide if you have reliable source per WP:RS.

Comment on lead

The lead could be improved a great deal. It goes far too much into the current controversy and fails adequately to summarise the article. The discussion on the minority revisionist position should be deal with briefly, perhaps in the final paragraph. At the moment the controversy overshadows the events. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, friends. The lead is too long too. DORC (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reverting addition

I just restored a earlier version of the article to revert a large section added by Telena hulotova--the material seemed to be pushing POV and was largely unsourced (I think there were 1-2 references in the whole lot). Just a head's up in case anyone objects. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Good move; Nanking Massacre controversy and denial is already full of this stuff... --Flying Tiger (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Clean up

I removed some descriptions on the Mukden Incident and the united front between KMT and CCP as they are a bit off-topic. --MtBell 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following passage. In my view, this wikipedia entry gives far too much weight to revisionists. There exist at least one historian in this world who believes that Japan does not even exist and that the earth is a figment of our imagination. Is that historian going to get a paragraph here too? Please, report only the majority opinion and relegate the minority opinion to footnotes or, when it's absurd, ignore it altogether. Please exercise judgement!

In 2000, a historian concurred with certain Japanese scholars who had argued that the contest was a concocted story, with the collusion of the soldiers themselves for the purpose of raising the national fighting spirit. In 2005, a Tokyo district judge dismissed a suit by the families of the lieutenants, stating that "the lieutenants admitted the fact that they raced to kill 100 people" and that the story cannot be proven to be clearly false. The judge also ruled against the civil claim of the plaintiffs because the original article was more than 60 years old.　The historicity of the event remains disputed in Japan.

Videogame reference

I'm wondering why reference to a videogame "Healer" depicting Nanking Massacre among other massacres was removed. Especially because game is not an opinion piece but fairly neutral "serious game" developed in an academic context.

It was possibly deleted because Healer doesn't look like it is very notable, at least not right now. - Mojei (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This "video game" sounds like an idea in very bad taste. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Reverting revision 409991143

I reverted this revision because some elements of it (changing "Japanese Army" to "Chinese Army", for example) appeared to be vandalism. Other elements of the revision could plausibly be in good faith, but were poorly worded or made substantive changes without presenting a cite (such as changing the lower limit of the death toll from 40,000 to 100,000). Discuss it here if you think my revert was unjustified. Yaush (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't revert

Trying to undo revision 424912725 by 74.36.103.230 (talk)

Where did these numbers come from? I can't find a source.

What's creeping me out is that, while I can edit other pages fine right now, I've just tried ten times to revert this revision, and every time my connection times out. ONLY on this page. Acidtoyman (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Chinese University of Hong Kong

• http://web.archive.org/web/20090603125658/http://arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NM.html

This is the university's page on the Nanjing Massacre WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations badly needed, etc.

This article needs some serious weeding for dead links, additions of citations (many of the citations needed tags date back several years), and a check of existing references...many seem to be Japanese nationalist propaganda (I deleted some that were dead/unable to check, but some, like reference 12 seem to be denial literature...).

I am recommending removal or re-sourcing all material referenced to ref 12, and a rewrite of any uncited claims that have existed for years. I know this is apparently a hot topic, but this is not a forum for propaganda. AS it is, with no ill intent toward the editors here, this is a a pretty sloppy article in section. I would like to help, but cannot do it alone. Given the notability of this event in WWII and in history in general, I think it needs a much higher degree of editing work done on it.204.65.34.39 (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparent Contradiction

Denial of the massacre (and a divergent array of revisionist accounts of the killings) has become a staple ofJapanese nationalism.[10] In Japan, public opinion of the massacres varies, and few deny the occurrence of the massacre outright.

If few Japanese deny the occurrence of the massacre, but denial of the massacre is a staple of Japanese Nationalism, there must be few Japanese nationalists. Is this the case? Otherwise there is a contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.queso (talk • contribs) 07:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe denial is a minority position, but there are many nationalists in high places. See the article Nanking Massacre denial. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, right-wing denialists are in the minority, but those are exactly the type of people to be very vocal about their opinions, and more likely to take up politics. Overt nationalism, after WWII, is something your average Japanese definitely shies away from.

That being said, there is also a number of Japanese who don't deny the event, but that the numbers are inflated. I've seen those who claim it couldn't have been more than 200,000 dead. Hardly "revisionist" numbers, given that the offical figures are 250,000 to 300,000, but these people still get slapped with the "revisionist" label. Your average Japanese doesn't have a strong opinion as to the numbers, but are easily swayed by those who do (outside of outright denialists), especially given China's history of playing fast & loose with facts & figures. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 13:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Denial

The deniers in this article are good, I will give them that. In the lead paragraphs alone, three different ways of saying, "some think it did not happen", all linked to other facts which are important. It is a tangle I will not attempt to unravel, but someone needs to do so. Anarchangel (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that this needs to be untangled. It is quite surprising that the link regarding this is to Historical revisionism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism where the first paragraph states that "constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing history." instead of to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism) where "Japanese war crimes" are described by pointing out that "The post-war minimisation of the war crimes of Japanese imperialism is an example of illegitimate historical revisionism[24]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.82.57.194 (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

But in order to keep up the idea that this is all a conspiracy, no attempt whatsoever has been made to correct the "Historical revisionism" link. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 01:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Massacre contest

I added the sentence "But the original articles described the contest as hand-to-hand combat. There is no depiction that Mukai and Noda killed non-combatants". Although I just added the truth of the "historical sources" aside from the truth of the "contest", it was deleted without any reasonable excuse. Those who deleted my sentence, however, haven't deleted unsourced parts in the article "Naking massacre". What could that mean? Isebito (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you're trying to claim because the articles didn't say anything about non-combatants being killed, no non-combatants were killed. Simple logic flaw. For the other parts, put a tag on those. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Isebito: Want to bet that we haven't deleted other unsourced parts of the article? Come on now. I will tell you what it means, it means I haven't bothered to contest it nor do I have to do it. You are trying to deflect the issue repeatedly here and in your edit summaries, that is, the issue being your OR per what Mateinsixtynine said.--Cold Season (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

@Mateinsixtynine and Cold Season I have no intention of asserting "the articles didn't say anything about non-combatants being killed → no non-combatants were killed". Don't misunderstand. I said, "I just added the truth of the "historical sources", ASIDE FROM THE TRUTH OF THE "CONTEST"". It is because the part of "massacre contest" is quoted from the Japanese newspapaper articles. It seems that you regard me as so-called "revisionist", thus you repeatedly deleted my contribution. But I've not deleted "the massacre contest" itself. Once again, I just referred to the content of the articles. It's not a matter of "interpretation". It is clear that there is no description that no non-combatants were killed. And it is clear that you haven't(or can't) read the original japanese article. If you delete this, it is you that are trying to deflect the issue. Sincerely yours. Isebito (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

What a smokescreen! Former combatants who are prisoners of war, hands tied and defenseless, are not to be killed. That is the point. Don't confuse the issue. Binksternet (talk) 04:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Image

Hello guys, just want to say, I know that this has been debated to death (I've read the acrhives... yes, all of them, every single one) and I think I have a solution to the explicit image of the woman reportedly raped and killed. I can't remember where I saw this but there was a similar discussion on another page about the use of explicit and graphic pictures being used and the outcome was that the picture was hidden in a collapsable window with a disclaimer warning readers that the hidden image was extremly graphic and to open and view at your own risk. Could a similar solution be used here? It's very difficult to read that section with that picture next to it. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favor. War images are often unsettling and this one of them. Binksternet (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so, but it does make that part of the article extremely difficult to read. I don't see any reason why people should be unsettled when reading the article even though the subject of the article is, in itself, unsettling. If that's the choice of Wikipedia and its editors, fair enough, you are the experts after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.250.138.33 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's fine the way it is. If you're reading about a massacre, I'm assuming you're old enough to see pictures of the atrocities. The pictures in Agent Orange are worse btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slushy9 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's wasn't about age or what is worse in this or that article, it was more of a readability issue for this article. It's just distracting and I don't really think it adds much on the informative side, as in, the article won't be any less without it, in fact, I thought it would make the article easier to read. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 01:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

You're applying your own personal taste/viewpoint over what Reliable Sources (including this image) state, and that's not what an encyclopedia is about.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete graphic images?

A few of the images on the article seem too graphic, disturbing and disrespectful to be accepted as appropriate explicit material for this controversial article. For example, there is a picture with a woman's body that has clearly been raped and stabbed with a sword as well as a beheaded man's face. Although Wikipedia usually allows uncensored images and the topic of the article is controversial enough to allow some explicit material for appropriate, necessary educational purposes, I don't see how these examples really teach much more about the massacre's casualties. Although the casualties were indeed gruesome and numerous, to competely show the most explicit cases is not necessary to a person's education in addition to the article's related facts and statistics. It seems that the images are meant to cause emotion and reaction rather than further helpful education. Can someone who knows how to delete them delete them and maybe replace them with other ones?

Bambimissme421 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The images are disturbing, yes, but they are part of the story. Binksternet (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, these images are fairly tame compared to what is described. There are almost certainly worse out there. The first picture you mentioned appeared in LIFE magazine and the second is shown to American High School students. If we remove the images, it's just another victory for Japanese Nanking deniers. -Mgokuda (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

They are just some undeniable aspects of the disgusting truth which we can't deny. In fact, there are many more disgusting ones. I understand your thoughts, however, you should distinguish some subtle differences between Nanking Massacre and the Holocaust. In the case of Holocaust, the final goal of Nazis was the destruction of a race. In contrast with the Holocaust, the goals of Nanking Massacre included the cruel and bloody torturing of the native people. As you know, Nanjing was then capital of Republic of China, after the bloody battles in Shanghai and conquering then capital of China. The Japanese army wanted to release the extremely abnormal beast in themselves and revenged because of the former fierce resistance met with. So the main points here are torturing and brutal killing. Then, you can see, if someone remove these pictures, it means some of the really important aspects of the massacre would be removed. This would probably be betrayal of historical truth.——Aronlee90 (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I have not heard about this horrible massacre before, and got to this article pretty randomly, but I was really disturbed by the pictures, even as an adult. These images don't let the reader read the article, instead, forcing him to deal with very hard graphic material that could be even traumatic. 08:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.227.0 (talkon't )

Agreed the images are very very graphic, but please don't delete them or the world would forget what happened to those poor souls. Just one word comes to the mind for the rapist Japanese army in Nanking 'SHAME', they should have been castrated. Even shameful is the fact that this genocide has been denied by the Japanese nation and their hypocrite ally US who weeps crocodile tears for the Jewish genocide in Europe...<Fahaam[10]/>

The USA has never denied the 'rape of Nanking,' quite the contrary. Ever hear of the Tokyo war crimes tribunal? The rest of your pointless and off-topic lunatic rant is ignored.HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel the images are excessively graphic. The one with the raped and naked female is particularly inappropriate with respect both to her and the nature of the article. The rape of Nanking was a particularly gruesome atrocity but that does not mean we should illustrate it with the most graphic images available. Are less explicit images available?Chessofnerd (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As a proposed alternative, could we consider this image? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ALI_Xiuying_in_hospital%2C_Nanking_massacre.jpg It conveys the rape aspect while not being as explicit. If there are no objections, I will make the change myself.Chessofnerd (talk) 09:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we get a larger version of the picture? This one is rather cramped. --Yaush (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The beheaded man and and stabbed woman clearly conveys what has happened in what is this topic. It's clear and illustrative to what acts befell to those people (even without a description). Chessofnerd, disregarding that the suggestion is thumbnail size and I can't see what's going on, I don't quite find that image illustrative. Although, it somewhat depicts the results of Dr. Wilson and others in trying to save civilian lives (a woman lying in a hospital bed). --Cold Season (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

['Guidelines for distressing images' –new posting refactored into the existing discussion on graphic images]

Could I please beg the co-ordinators of this article to replace the most distressing image of the female victim of the Nanking massacre with one less confronting ? I assure you my objection does not have the object of trying to tone down the horrific nature of the event itself, but only of trying to protect the rights of victims and their families. In the same way that pornographic images are not shown even whem they can be said to be relevant, for instance in reporting of murders or rapes, depictions of extreme violence are avoided also. I believe there are laws or guidelines that everyone follows with regard to this.Mummywolf09 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Mummywolf09, Chessofnerd and others requesting the removal of graphic images in this article: the article's title is Nanking Massacre, not 'Springtime in Nanking'. The former properly describes the scope of the material in the article. As mentioned earlier in this thread, Wikipedia does not censor its articles for such graphic imagery. This type of request, related to many other images deemed offensive in many articles, has been discussed several times at the very highest levels of Wikipedia, and has been rejected every time. Notwithstanding their offensiveness, you can be assured that the photos in this article are legal in the U.S. state of Florida, where the webservers of every language Wikipedia are located.

More important is the relevance of the photos to the article, which accurately describes the catastrophe that befell hundreds of thousands of citizens in that location. Not utilizing the images would amount to minimizing the suffering of the victims, thus helping to whitewash the crimes committed by the IJA and its Japanese leaders. As evidence of the latter, remember that the edict to kill all prisoners was issued on behalf of one of the key perpetrators, Prince Asaka (who was given immunity for his crimes due to his royal status, and who then played golf until his death at age 84). That many tens of thousands were executed without trials and murdered with extreme violence mandates the use of such graphic images to provide a complete accounting of Japan's actions, however painful they are to look at. As such, I will oppose the removal of any of the graphic images. HarryZilber (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)