Talk:Nanking Safety Zone

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

Disputed edits[edit]

This is blatant POV-pushing. Flowerofchivalry, you are asserting that the Japanese army "cooperated". That's POV. Please explain the following and provide reliable, accurate evidence:

  • that John Rabe was a weapons dealer?
  • that there were guerrilla soldiers in the Safety Zone?
  • that the Japanese army entered the Zone "to keep the Safety Zone demilitarised"?
  • that "John Rabe sent the Japanese Army a letter of appreciation that he [sic]appreciate the Japanese Army [sic]secured the safety of the Safety Zone and the citizens inside [sic]had been saved"?
  • that "there are no witnesses that [sic] the Japanese Army [sic]soldier [sic]killed the innocent [sic]citizen"?
  • that "guerrilla attacks [sic]was illegal according to the International Treaty"? Which Treaty?
  • that "the Japanese Army was friendly rather than [sic]enemy"?
  • that John Maggie was a "Japanese [sic]hatered Christian Father"?
  • that "In May, the citizens went back to [sic]the [sic]home because of restoration of the city's security"?
  • that John Rabe had the "fully cooperation of the Japanese Army"?

You should have signed your comment. From the beginning, you cannot say "blatant POV-pushing." You are just expressing your opinion.

And thank you for recognizing my assertions as POV. You should have recognized this, and you should have tried to resolve dispute here before you started reverting.

  1. The professor, Nobuo Tajima at Seijo University stated Rabe was a weapon dealer. This statement was broadcasted on the nation-wide TV network. Another professor at Harvard said that he sold weapons to China.
  2. According to the record of the Committee. They stated that those illegal guerrillas possessed weapons.
  3. The same as above.
  4. Read his diary.
  5. Read the record of "International Military Tribunal for the Far East" International Ethics Institute also stated the same thing.
  6. International Ethics Institute
  7. Read here
  8. I should have written hostilly instead of enemy. This is from 南京事件の総括　虐殺否定15の論拠 by 田中 正明
  9. Ikuhiko Hata "Nankin Jiken"
  10. The same as above
  11. The same as No.4

--Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the thing, I make some notes here.

Hmib labeled me as "blatant POV-pushing" and asked me bunch of questions. He ignored every single answers and started "blatant POV-pushing."

If you wish to continue the discussion, please answer the following questions:

  1. How did you make sure that John Rabe is not a weapon dealer?
  2. How did you make sure that there were no guerillas in the safety zone?
  3. How did you make sure that Rabe had never sent letter that expressed his appreciation to the army? Or those are only from "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing Japanese politicians and authors"?
  4. How did you make sure that your assertion is confirmed by "vast majority of credible researchers"?
  5. How did you make sure that the only Japanese army believed there were guerilla soldiers?
  6. How did you make sure that the Nationalist Government has never used guerilla tactics at Nanjing?
  7. How did you make sure that there are witnesses, if I say more precisely, how do you explain the fact that Rabe and Magee had never seen any single homicide case at the safety zone, where the place the most citizens lived, and the size is about the central park?
  8. Why you were forced to put "[sic sic passim]"?
  9. How did you make sure that people who those decline the incident is "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing Japanese politicians and authors"? Can I say people who affirm the incident is "an extreme minority of predominantly leftwing" whatever? Please do reasoning your reply. Also, I will appreciate you if you precisely define what is "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing".

--Flowerofchivalry 08:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you approaching this logically.

  1. I need not answer this question, it is you to want to add that he was a weapons dealer, and thus it's your job to prove it.
  2. I need not answer this question, it is you to want to add that there were guerillas in the zone, and thus it's your job to prove it.
  3. I need not answer this question, it is you to want to add that he sent a letter of appreciation to the Japanese army, and thus it's your job to prove it.
  4. You are welcome to state your own evidence to rebutt this claim.
  5. I never said that.
  6. Irrevelent to the discussion. Has nothing to do with the safety zone.
  7. I need not explain this, since you have not produced a shred of evidence asserting that they never did see a single homicide case. When you demand I explain the "fact", I cannot oblige because the "fact" is not a "fact".
  8. sic = thus, sic passim = thus everywhere. It means that did not touch any part of that passage after [sic sic passim]. Perhaps the 2nd sic was redundant, I apologise for my bad Latin.
  9. Since there is no organization in Japan and only 1 or 2 individuals at this time who [sic] decline the incident, they are a minority. Their general belief spectrum places them high on the extremism scale. "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing" A small group (ie. minority) of extremists, the large majority of them rightwing, but not necessarily so.

-Hmib 21:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are written by Flowerofchivalry 12:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC) at 5am!![reply]

  1. I explained at Talk:Nanking_Massacre. There is a such view point, and I have never seen any comment. I now have to ask you again, how did you make sure that John Rabe is not a weapon dealer?
  2. There are many, many, many credible and uncredible works, which state they used guerilla tactics. At this time, I cite some uncredible work. The Memorial Hall of The War of Resistance Against Japan has an exhibit which explains how the tactic worked. I have to ask you again, how did you make sure that there were no guerillas in the safety zone? Or do you have some source that prove this Chinese musuem is a big lie?
  3. Rabe wrote the letter "南京安全区トウ案第１号文書" from "南京安全区国際委員会寧海路５号" to the Japanese Army. You should look at. Now, again, I have to ask you again, how did you make sure that Rabe had never sent letter that expressed his appreciation to the army? Or those are only from "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing Japanese politicians and authors"?
  4. In Japan, many people, from the both sides, and the number of researchers seems the nearly equal. This is from the list of publications.
  5. Then do you think there were people who think there were guerilla soldiers in the safety zone?
  6. This is not irrevelent at all. This is extremely close to the discussion. Please answer the question.
  7. Evidence? I have explained you "many" times at Nanking Massacre talk page. "The Record of International Military Tribunal for the Far East." I think you can obtain both English and Chinese versions easily. Consult the U.S. Government site or Chinese government site for free, of course.
  8. I know what those means, and I'm not blaming your Latin. I'm asking you why you used [sic sic passim].
  9. Are you serious? You can take back this comment now. The organization, probably you really hate, Japanese society for history textbook reform published new textbook from Fusosha. In Japan, only the government authorized textbooks can be used. The most member of the organization has similar to my opinion, which is that it is quite sure that the Japanese soldiers killed a hundreds of the Chinese hostages. History textbooks for junior high are seven or something like that. Is this "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing" in terms of your definition?

I ask you one more question. Is Shintaro Ishihara "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? no more edit today... --Flowerofchivalry 12:35, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you stop messing up the formatting and visual quality of this talk page by rudely disconstructing my comments. Say what you want after mine.

I did answer all 9 of your questions, btw. Look harder.

  1. Until you can produce credible evidence that he was a weapons dealer, there is no need for me to prove he wasn't. There is such a view? Supported by what?
  2. Prove they did use guerilla tactics within the zone. Until then, this question is moot.
  3. Produce that letter in its entirety, or cite a reliable source that mentions it. Until then, I need not explain anything.
  4. Yes, and the evidence? State them if you have, scamper off if you don't. I'm tired of talking to the air.
  5. Of course. You and maybe Ishithara. Hell, he probably doesn't believe in his own spin either. So it's just you.
  6. Extremely close? How so?
  7. "Many" in quotes, indeed. And it says???... Produce evidence. It's useless just citing book names. Hey your honour, in defense of Herr Hitler, there is conclusive evidence from the widely circulated Der Stürmer that Herr Hitler was actually working for the betterment of mankind!
  8. You want the truth? I was tired and correcting your barely comprehensible fourth grade English is not fun.
  9. You seem to have forgotten... the world. So a few loons in the textbook propaganda ministry decides to write some fiction... so they get one or two quack historians. Circulation proves nothing of the authenticity of the circulated information. Nor the number of people supporting that information.

As for your last question: Ishithara and what army? "an extreme minority of predominantly rightwing"? Well, he IS one person... -Hmib 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are not answering my questions, or even didn't read my questions. Look at your comments, and you will find out you are not dicussing anything. This is your problem. You are the only person to improve the quality of your comment.

  1. I did. Your favorite guy, Tanaka, said so.
  2. You ignored my question. Look at the exhibit (or its intro), and I need your answer.
  3. I did the both. I know you are a human so don't want to see something you don't favor, but you need to.
  4. From the beginning, it is your job to show your source of "own research". Please cite your source.
  5. You have said there is no single person who believe there were the guerilla. Please confirm.
  6. Since the reason the Japanese army entered to the safety zone is the guerilla. Please answer now.
  7. I'm tired of talking about Hitler. I know you love him, but I don't. There are no single relationships between Hitler and the incident. In academic field, citation is done by the name of the books. Nobody forces duplicate the contents(and translates) and upload to the internet. That's illegal, even just little bit. You blamed me on the RfC that I refused your request. Sure, I don't break laws. That's the reason why you failed to acquire any comment from the third party. OK, that's the past, but don't make the same mistake in future. please.
  8. Yes, my English sucks. So what? You don't want to improve the article? If you don't, why you are here?
  9. The world? This issue is the conflict between Spain and France? No, this is between Japan and China. OK, cite your source. You almost haven't cite anything. I don't like it.

Are you talking about "石原軍団" or what? I think you have made some big mistakes...

You said only I' think there were the gurilla soldiers in this world. This proves your unfamiliarness of the topic. Ishihara is famous person. I know he is not your favorite person, but people in Japan really like him. Unlike China or other non-democratic countries, people decide who should be a Governor. We Japanese are fed up with those stupid anti-Japan Japanese activists. Is Prime Minister Koizumi is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing? According to your opinion, 20% of Japanese people is an extremely minority of predominantly rightwing. You tried to look down on the view of the Japanese majority, but it's busted.

It's 530am... Unfortunately, I'm a human, not a computer, so I need some sleep. I can't spend unlimited amount of time here. Please be honest and at least try to answer the every single questions. If I believe you failed to do that, I seek third-party's assistance to improve our discussion. They don't have to involve the argument, but I expect that "this answer doesn't make sense" or this kind of comments. Do your research, and please cite your sources.

--Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I have been looking for sources, in either English or German, that confirm (or, to be frank, even allege) that John Rabe was a weapons dealer. I have found none. Flowerofchivalry, I think if you want to make this claim, you need to provide a reliable source. There is no evidence that John Rabe is not secretly the King of Zimbabwe, but it would be unreasonable for me to make that claim and then ask you disprove it. Until you provide substantive evidence behind this claim, I will feel it is my responsibility to revert it wherever it appears: as near as I can tell, this is character assassination, pure and simple. Nandesuka 12:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. One can do a google search on "John Rabe" Waffenhändler and guess how many hits it churns out... zero. Or in English, "John Rabe" "arms dealer" turns out the exact same number as the German search phrase. For "John Rabe" "weapons dealer", there are, big surprise here, THREE hits! So is FoC right, after all? Well... considering that 2 of them are wikipedia articles and talkpage by HIM, and another was a page about Iris Chang buying a gun from a weapons dealer and that John Rabe was not the Oskar Schindler of China... we should know how well FoC's theories stand up to scrutiny. Well, not even scrutiny. Just basic google searches. Heh. -Hmib 08:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tanaka said so. Siemens sold weapons to the Nationalist Government, and Rabe was the head of Nanjin office. I think his assertion makes sense, but there are many reliable sources for the fact that Siemens sold weapons and he was the head. However, it seems other than Tanaka does not say he solds weapons to the government. Tanaka also stated that he sold generators and other stuffs, but this is a common fact and mentioned everywhere.

--Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TANAKA SAID SO??? I simply cannot think of a worse answer than that. Does he have proof? Siemens sold weapons? If you have proof, name them. Even if Siemens did, does that mean Rabe did as well? My dad works for Intel. Does he sell CPUs? No, he just designs them. Of course [sic]other than Tanaka does not say he solds weapons to the government, any self respecting historian would not cook up fiction anyhow. There is no proof John Rabe was a weapons dealer. Someone who sold weapons need not be a weapons dealer. "Weapons dealer" suggests that he makes his living selling and buying weapons. Is that the case for John Rabe? No, because he did not sell weapons, and even if he did, it wasn't his profession. Now that might be difficult for you to comprehend, so let me put it this way: Let's say a prominent politician named Shitaro Ishithara masturbates in his spare time. Do we go put on his wikipedia article, "Shitaro Ishithara" is a prominent politician, and masturbator"? He's a politician, he masturbates, but are these on the same scale of importance?

-Hmib 21:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on dude, don't be silly. Be decently. Please. I don't care you like "masturbation" or not, but your example is not appropriate here. From the beginning, is there any relationships between selling weapons and doing masturbation? This is disgusting.

By the way, don't forget to answer the above 9 questions.

--Flowerofchivalry 01:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both masturbation and selling weapons illegally are things you don't want other people to know about. I think it's an excellent analogy. I have already answered all 9 of your questions. You just don't get it, do you? YOU need to show some evidence to prove YOUR point, I don't, since I have no points I need to prove. I suggest YOU answer MY questions, then this discourse can continue. If not, leave this page alone. -Hmib 03:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know Hmib cannot prove anything. Hmib has never cited any single source but he claims all the works he doesn't favor are not reliable. He also failed to recognize the differences between "truth" and "opinion". If you can't prove anything, I understand you cannot prove anything.

If you need time, that's fine, just tell me so.

--Flowerofchivalry 08:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flower, I read your comments as saying that you are confirming my belief that there is not a single English or German source (let alone a single reliable English or German source) that corroborates your claim that Rabe is a weapons dealer. (Certainly, you are completely open about the fact that you are refusing to provide one). Therefore, unless you find some source, I have to come down on the side of eradicating this claim wherever it appears, on the appearance that this claim is the result of your own original research. See the No Original Research policy page if you have any questions about this. Regards, Nandesuka 22:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an original research. A famous Japanese historian said so. I have never refused to provide any evidence. But I try my best to provide you sources in English rather than Japanese but some sources are available only in Japanese. There are no evidences that prove Japanese sources are not credible, but since this is en.wikipedia.org, I try to provide in English. As I wrote somewhere else, I decided that I should not include "a weapon dealer" even if that is the truth because of the number of evidences are not many so far.
--Flowerofchivalry 20:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I decided not to reply to FoC's slander, as I'm simply too tired of him. Also it's becoming exponentially more difficult to take him seriously. -Hmib 06:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You decided not to discuss anymore. I understand. You refuse the discussion. You cannot answer anything. You cannot provide any single evidence. You cannot cite any single source. Your "sources" actually does not exist in the world but only in your head. It is becoming exponentially more difficult because you busted.
If any of the above is incorrect, let me know (of course with explanation). You can keep "not to reply" to my comment, but this means you agree the above.
--Flowerofchivalry 20:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am obligated to reply just to say I don't agree with the above. Of course, anyone with half a brain cell knows who is getting desperate here. -Hmib 21:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are obligated to reply? No you are not. But you cannot answer anything, provide any single evidence, and cite any single source. Also, your "source" comes from your head and you busted. You are getting desperate here to hide your lie but you cannot reply anything. If these are wrong, cite your sources of the article. You have 2 options: cite your source or agree with the above. If you fail to cite your sources, you automatically agree with the above. But don't hassle, if you need time, just tell me so. That's absolutely no problem.

Again, you have a right to refuse discussion, but refusing discussion means your renunciation of your assertions and therefore all of the above are true.

--Flowerofchivalry 22:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, cite YOUR sources. You have not provided a shred of reliable evidence, if you want us to take you seriously, provide reliable sources. For the umpteenth time I say this: You are the one challenging a well-established fact here, for others to not dismiss it out of hand, you have to provide evidence.
As a matter of principle, I will not answer any of your baseless accusations until you have the reliable evidence to back them up. Until then, they will stay as that, baseless accusations.
Since you originally wrote the article, you need to cite your sources for the article. I did, but you didn't.
Btw thanks for the chem help. It was hopelessly simple. :X
-Hmib 00:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's no problem at all.
--Flowerofchivalry 00:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Grammar[edit]

Apart from the egregious POV issues, this article is embarassingly poorly written. It is barely English. Nandesuka 11:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I was intending for the Engrish to collapse on itself after my RfC on the editor who wrote all that Engrish is over. If you would like to help, you could speed things up a bit by taking a look at this. :) -Hmib 12:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What?? My English is poor??? Yes, my English is poor. Your help will be appreciated. --Flowerofchivalry 12:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have stepped in and tried to tidy this up. However because I don't know much about this, a fluent English-speaker with knowledge of the Zone needs to help Flower get his point across.

Personally this could do with an article, so I suggest everyone pitches in and reaches a comprimise. I'd be happy to try and mediate - but as I said, I don't know a lot about it so I can't say "who's right". John Smith's 29 June 2005 15:41 (UTC)

Cutting the Gordian Knot[edit]

I propose that this article is unsalvageable, and furthermore doesn't address anything that isn't more appropriate in one of the related articles (eg Nanking Massacre). I therefore propose that we mark it for deletion. Flower, Hmib, since you two are the most-locked-in-battle, I'd like you to both agree that this is an appropriate way forward, and help thus forge consensus that way.

Thoughts? --Nandesuka 00:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree your idea. Even if we are forced to conclude the article is not appropriate, deletion is bad idea because there is a risk that Hmiv or FlowerofChilvary appears and create the same article. I think we should wait Hmib's citation.

--Flowerofchivalry 01:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for FoC to present your evidence, not the other way round. The Gordian Knot is definitely un-untieable, since no matter how hard I explain FoC can never get it. But I strongly disagree with your (Nandesuka's) proposition, deleting this article here and now will only serve to inflame POV-warriors like FoC, setting a bad precedent. Deleting this article is also a form of historical revisionism, the very thing we (at least I) are/am trying to fight. Keep. -Hmib 02:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmib has never cited anything and ignore the sources I cited. Hmib needs to cite sources. I know he cannot cite any sources because he does not have any. He confuses with "fact" and "belief." Hmib thinks something he believes is fact. He is a historical revisionist. He is creating his own history, so he cannot cite any single sources. I cited my sources this talk page, but Hmib has ignored that, and he has never cited anything. I think I need to obtain some third party's opinion but I'm pretty sure that no one want to get involved this rediculous battle... well, this is not battle. I'm just asking Hmib to cite sources. I do, he doesn't.

--Flowerofchivalry 10:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Flower, as I noted above, you have never cited a single source to support your outrageous claim that John Rabe was a arms dealer. You haven't produced one cite. Ever. You've said "Tanaka said it," but you have never said where Tanaka said it, or in what document, or on what page. I can't read Japanese, but other editors can, yet you still haven't provided a cite. So yes: when you make outrageous claims that contradict every other reputable document on a give topic, you need to cite sources. If you cannot cite sources, then it is original research. Period. It is not hmib's (or anyone else's) responsibility to cite sources to prove the negative. I am not hmib. I am a third party, and I saying in my opinion, to date, your edits re: this topic have not been credible. Nandesuka 12:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cited that, but I cite that again because it doesn't cost me anything...

Tanaka, Masaaki "Gekkan Nippon" Jan 1998 p55

By the way, you are not the third party... You are Hmib's side. But it doesn't mean you are bad. I appreciate your comment.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mandel explained on Talk:Nanking Massacre that Tanaka is an established fraud and none of his pseudohistory can be taken seriously. His claims are not credible, and if you base your claims solely on his, neither are yours. -Hmib 21:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Mandel expressed his personal opinion that Tanaka is an extremist. He also believes that Tanaka committed perjury. Is there any proof that prove Tanaka intentionally altered the diary? Without any proof, Tanaka is innocent, and therefore he is a credible scholor. By the way, be careful when you use that tactics. Most the incident supporters' works are come from very limited number of authors and the some of authors himself admitted his guilty of perjury, because he is a big liar and he busted. This is funny. I'm gonna use this topic on further discussion (to prove your "source" is not credible).

--Flowerofchivalry 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When 800+ changes were made, it's rather difficult to not think of it as intentional. BTW, who was it who "admitted his guilty of perjury"? Or is this yet another of FoC's unsupported claims? -Hmib 05:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there are many mistakes, is that necessarily means "intentional?" No. I will explain you the details about false testimony after you cite your sources.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Delete. This page would seem more appropriate as a subsection of the Nanjing Massacre page for now. I think it could be split if it became too unwieldy to maintain as such. Alas, I do not think the destruction of this page would be considered "cutting the Gordian Knot."


FoC: I don't think Tanaka Masaaki is the best source for verifiable and reputable evidence with regard to the Nanjing Massacre. A lot of his evidence seems to rely on census statistics, which during wartime, should be considered fairly useless and untrustworthy. Furthermore, he has some interesting quotes to back his claims up including this one by Staff Officer Sakakibara Kazue: 'At the IMTFE, Sakakibara testified that "some of the prisoners were assigned to each unit as laborers. Many escaped, but we didn't try to stop them."' Ignoring Nanjing for a moment, incidents such as the Death Railway and the Battan Death March do not lend much credence to this claim among others including that the "Take No Prisoners" order was misinterpreted.

You also have claimed that since Chinese research is bogus and unreliable, please take a look at Herbert Blix's review of a book on Nanjing (Here), while he may cite a Chinese historian, I would think that his support may lend more credibility to statements regarding previous statements pertaining to Tanaka's views in the eyes of his peers.


Regarding translations, if FoC is concerned about copyright infringement and whatnot, do we have a Wikipedian we can contact that is willing to translate the text (or at least give us a synopsis) as a third-party?

Also, this discussion brings up a point that, perhaps, there should exist a section maybe not in the Nanjing Massacre page itself, but regarding this POV of Japanese atrocities during World War II, since there does exist a section in the page about the Jewish Holocaust. -- Xanadu 05:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xanadu, is Honda a reliable scholar? Tanaka researced based on the official record (during the wartime ofcourse) while people who support the incident researched based on the testimony. Research should be documents-based, or testimony should be from the reliable sources. For example, Magee testified that he had seen only one homicide seen throughout his stay in the safety zone. This is the fact that Hmib wants to ignore. There is a picture the Nanking citizens welcomed the Japanese Army. I cannot upload here because of silly copyright issue so look at here or here. These pictures are from world-famous pro-China Asahi Shimbun. The pictures were taken on Dec. 17th and 20th. These picture show the fully peaceful situation in the safety zone. Is there any single pictures these pictures are fabrication?

Yes, researches made in China are not reliable. Some researchers believe that some of them are reliable. But my assertion is how a neutral research can be made in China, where there are no freedom of speech. A Japanese pro-China author tried to issue an article in China which support the incident, but the article was banned because it denied the number of victims are more than 300000.

I'm quite fed up with people mixed up Jewish and Chinese. Jewish holocaust exists, but Nanking Incident does not exist. The worst holocaust in the history is made by China, called "The Great Cultural Revolution." Jewish holocaust was caused by Hitler's hatered against Jewish. The Revolution was caused by Mao's persistence to power. There are no reasons that Japanese soldiers need to kill innocent citizens.

--Flowerofchivalry 21:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not acquainted with Honda, however, I can assert that I do have access to college research databases and the only person I could find named Tanaka Masaaki is not a historian, but a scientist. And with respect to your photos, you yourself have argued that photos can lie and be misleading (BTW, news1.jpg doesn't load) I can make a picture say anything I want. Furthermore, I have stated that I do not know Japanese copyright law, however, I think it is relatively safe to claim that an article/photo collage from the 1930s has probably lost its copyright claims.
Several people have already asked you about where statements such as, "a Japanese pro-China author tried to issue an article in China which support the incident, but the article was banned because it denied the number of victims are more than 300000," can you give a source? A newspaper article? Also, I do not understand where, !freedom of speech == incorrect research, while I wholly agree that research can be made to push a political or economical agenda, or be outright hidden to avoid telling people about known problems, but where in the world does this not happen? What about Minimata?
You also cite a great deal about Rev. John Magee and John Rabe, ignoring them for a moment. There were others Westerns there, the surgeon, Dr. Robert Wilson? Ms. Minnie Vatrin a teacher at the Ginling Women's Arts and Science College? Are they not credible?
I find it extremely difficult for you to continue to push your arguments if you do not believe in the very thing we are discussing. I don't think it would be considered scholarly for a person who doesn't believe in the value of the Kyoto Protocol to write a paper defending it (or any other myriad items you would like to use as an example). If you continue to assert that the Nanjing Massacre did not happen, what are we talking about then? And on the matter of Japanese not killing innocent civilians...okay...but, leading POWs on a death march is just fine? -- Xanadu 17:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The photos I cited here are more reliable than those from Nanking Massacre because it first appears in the newspaper, and there is no evidence that proves that the pictures have been fabricacted.
How do you think about why Magee did not testify that he had never seen any single homicide case in the safety zone. Your assertion does not make any sense without solving this contradiction.
--Flowerofchivalry 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first statement is rather difficult to understand...because it was in the newspaper? What newspaper(s)? I also believe there was a previously mentioned article covering the beheading contest of Mukai Toshiaki and Noda Takeshi in the Japanese Advertiser, but you denounced it as biased.
With respect to your second statement. If a person sees someone being forced away by some persons, and discovers on the evening news that the person had been found dead, what is the logical conclusion?
I'm getting just a little vexed by all this. You reject 99.9%, if not all, offenses, rebuttals, contrary evidence, etc. to any of your statements. You have denounced people as being Chinese nationalists, anti-Japanese, historical revisionists, and other unfavorable things. Wikipedia is not a political forum, and you seem to be utterly delighted in treating it as such. I personally, have no issue with adding a sub-section respecting the opposing position on the matter, but by and large, it would appear from the common man's point of view that your arguments are not accepted by most Western historians. As such, your attempts to persuade us to accept your standpoint as the absolute truth is about as viable as convincing Americans to drive on the left side of the road. It would be productive to all of us, I think, if you really care about Wikipedia, by refraining from commenting on such matters because it appears you have no tolerance for the existence of the opposing POV on the article in any form. -- Xanadu 08:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Xanadu on this in that FoC appears to be trying some odd revisionist history in denying an historically established fact of what occurred at Nanjing. I did a lot of research into Minnie Vautrin and John Rabe and I find it difficult to believe that either of these foreigners to China would simply falsify their diaries. Minnie, herself, committed suicide because of severe depression related to not being able to save more of the women under her charge. The memories she saw must have haunted her for years. And John Rabe was risking his job by trying to report the atrocities to his Nazi superiors, but nothing was done by the Nazi Leadership who simply didn't want to hear about what was going on there or they were trying to maintain their alliance with Japan. It's time to stop this nonsense and work on creating an article on facts and documented evidence, and not on personal beliefs --WillDarlock 01:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is not historically established. The problem is that the United States could not realize the fact that how China endangered the sacurity of East Asia until the Korean War, according to Douglas MacArthur.
As I cited somewhere else, Nationalist Government is an important customer. THe alliance wasn't important for Japan nor Germany.
--Flowerofchivalry 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well...but what can truly be done if Flowerofchivalry persists? CharlesZ 18:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore him. We have a pretty good concensus that FoC a persistent POV-pusher and his edits should not be taken in good faith. So wherever he pops up we can revert him if his edits are highly repetitive, controversial, or unsupported. BTW FoC claims to be in South Korea, in case you've been wondering why he has been so quiet lately. -Hmib 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not Chinese communist, I don't follow the order from them. Even though you push your strange POV, Wikipedia does not allow that.

Hmib misunderstood that "they" have concensus. You are writing your own idea without any support. You submit the RfC but where is the comment that support "a persistent POV-pusher" and "should not be taken in good faith". You are just insulting the person just because that person does not have your political belief.

--Flowerofchivalry 18:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Chinese communist either. But because I'm not a historical revisionist, I'm not going to let you spew your poison. Judging from the number of people who have critised your POV, and the absense of anyone who supports your POV (where's Pedant?), any fool can see we have a concensus. -Hmib 00:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you are the communist or not but your assertion is very similar to them, and I know you are revising history. Tell me that you got consensus of whose opinion.


Need Sources[edit]

Despite the fact that I cited many sources throughout this talkpage, Hmib has never cited any single sources. This means that Hmib wrote the article without any sources and reverted my edition without any sources.

Hmib's doings resulted in the protection of the article, which is far from encyclopedic, is left.

The situation will be changed only by his citation of his sources.

If he fails to cite his sources, the article should be reverted to my edition, which is based on credible sources.

--Flowerofchivalry 05:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources do not seem to be very credible. Throughout the discussions that have occurred on various pages, no other person has come to vouch for the validity of your sources. In addition, your consistent request to demand sources is rather moot. It is not really a matter of Himb's reverts and whatnot, but the fact that you are attacking what Wikipedia has accepted as the fact of the matter and your attempts to persuade and affirm the truthfulness of your POV is, unfortunately, rather weak, as the use of 1 or 2 scholars do not make for a persuasive argument.
I'm sad that you seem to persist in insisting that your POV is correct despite the fact that seemingly every person who has been involved in this discussion has not supported your position. Furthermore, you show a clear anti-Chinese position. Please show concrete evidence of the threat that the PRC posed to the safety and security of east Asia before saying that the position of Douglas MacArthur was correct. I hope I speak for all Wikipedians involved when I say that we would be happy to reach some sort of compromise whereas both POVs, since your position is clearly shared by others in Japan, could coexist. However, if you continue to follow your current path, I'm afraid this may have to end up in arbitration. -- Xanadu 06:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Xanadu. I'm concerning the fact that Hmib wrote the article without any single source, that's the reason why he could not provide any single source. Besides, he wrote something to insult Shintaro Ishihara on his article.

I have never said that the other opinions besides I support should be vanished. The current article is highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job. The opinions I have stated are the one of the main streams of the Japanese society. Since Japan has freedom of speech, there is the other opinion but other than very left communists, the idea like "300000 people killed" is not supported but considered as propaganda of China.

I'm wondering why some people (including you) are trying to vanish "one of the opinion" from the articles.

If you believe this article is not "highly unencyclopedic and looks like kindergarden student's job," please let me know.

Finally, if this situation does not change, I'm happy to solve the situation by arbitration because I'm sure that I'm not doing anything incorrect.

--Flowerofchivalry 03:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This dispute has gone on for weeks and needs to be resolved so that the page can stay unlocked.

First, the version here that FoC is reverting to is unencyclopedic, contains original research, and is not well written. FoC, please don't revert to that version again.

However, the other version here, although better, needs to cite its sources.

Suggestions:

In the section called "What happened in the Zone":

(1) Say briefly who John Rabe is. Although you've linked the name, readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to know what you're talking about.

(2) Link to or cite a source saying the Japanese soldiers cited this reason (that guerrillas had been arriving) for entering the zone.

(3) Don't use the word atrocities. If a source uses it, quote the source. Otherwise say what the army did without comment, and site a reputable source for your information. Also, when did they do this? You give no dates.

(4) Cite a source for the restoration of order claim. Also for the forcible naming (and what does forcible naming mean?).

(5) You need to cite a source for the long quote you have.

(6) You can't say "most researchers and scholars" unless you start quoting some of them and you'll also have to say more about the minority of predominantly right-wing Japanese politicians and authors who disagree. Name names here rather than saying "most" say this, but "some" say that. Also, the English in the quote is not brilliant: is it a translation and who translated it? And the letter from John Rabe you quote from says "sic" so was it originally in English, and can you cite a source?

Is it possible to use entirely English-language sources for this article? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)


Despite the fact that the current article is POV pushing and highly unencyclopedic, I will not revert the article to my edition for one week. I will find out how the article can be improved without my contribution. However, even after one week or later (at my discretion), if the article still contains POV pushing (such as Hmib is doing on Iris Chang), I will edit the article, including reverting. If I do that, I will cite sources for every single paragraph.

Hmib is keep reverting the article just because the editor cited a source, which Hmib does not favor. This is called POV pushing.

This place must be free from the Chinese propaganda. Flowerofchivalry 12:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it would be appreciated if you would not revert again, as you're editing in several grammatical errors, some highly POV and unencyclopedic language, and no sources.
What should happen now is that the other version should be built up using reputable, English-language sources. Please add to the current version, FoC, rather than reverting or adding to the other one. Anything you add should be sourced and written in an encyclopedic, disinterested style, avoiding original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

My sources=[edit]

It's been a while so this might not be complete. Also, the article was written with facts aggregated from many different places, rather than one single source.

There is much more I could have added to the article, if not for FoC's constant agenda-pushing. Also, we should be asking for sources from FoC, not me, since it's he who is trying to squeeze his version of the story into the article. -Hmib 02:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmib, thanks for those sources. The journal entries are good sources. I'm not so sure of the second one you offered called Section VI of this article, as it's not clear who wrote it, or where it was originally published. Sources have to be reputable, and they should be added to the article after any sentences that have been, or might be, challenged. Could you do that, please, to satisfy FoC's concerns? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
It's from New Jersey Hong Kong Network, P. O. Box 18, Bound Brook, NJ 08805. It doesn't really have anything that's not already said by the Chinese wikipedia article above, so it was included for the sake of non-Chinese readers. -Hmib 03:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have to assume that none of our readers are Chinese speakers, as this is the English Wikipedia, so our sources have to be in English. I don't know what the New Jersey Hong Kong Network is, or who wrote the article. We need scholarly sources, or articles from good newspapers, that kind of thing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:44, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I see. Well I couldn't pinpoint the exact author of the article in question, but if you look below El C has kindly provided links to many more articles. -Hmib 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that, and it's extremely helpful. As you're the editor whose edits are being challenged (by FoC), I'm afraid the burden of evidence lies with you, which means you have to find sources (or use the ones El C has kindly provided) to back up any edit that has been questioned, or else the material may be deleted by any editor. It seems it's necessary to go this way in order to bring this long-running dispute to an end. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is FoC has NOT attacked any of my points directly but tried to bypass them by writing his own version. Therefore I think he has to provide sources to back up his edits. In any case, the passages in the above-mentioned second source can be affirmed by this paper which I also utilised, more specifically, this and this. Hope this helps. Hmib 05:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hmib, that's helpful. I think we should forget about FoC's version for the time being, as it's your version that's on the page, and FoC's objection to it inter alia is that there are no sources, which is a fair objection. Therefore, you have to insert your sources into the text, if possible with a link to the source after each of the disputed sentences or paragraphs, and if the source is not online (say, if it's a book), then a citation of some kind. You can choose which citation form you use; see Wikipedia:Cite sources. My own preference is Harvard referencing, which is the author and year of publication in brackets after the sentence (Smith 2005), and then a full citation below in a References section, like this: Smith, A. How to cite sources, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Hmib, I'm sorry to push this, but FoC is entitled to delete anything he objects to that remains unsourced after a reasonable period. FoC, if you're around, can you say what exactly in this version you object to, and would like to see deleted, sourced, or qualified? (Forgetting the other version for the time being.) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Done. However, now I would like for FoC to present substantiable sources for everything after the [sic sic passim] up to See also. -Hmib 10:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

=Further reading[edit]

El_C 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, El C, much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. These will be extremely useful. Nandesuka 03:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, always pleased to be of service. El_C 03:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Japan Assessment Commentary[edit]

Definitely a good start to the article. Points for improvement:

  • References: There were several places marked in the text. There are several places in the text that aren't marked that need citations, but the next contributor should be able to catch those.
  • Coverage: Many aspects of Nanjing around the Safety Zone are covered, but text on the Safety Zone itself is somewhat weak. The text alludes to many atrocities, but only in terms of repetition not variety. In other words, the article says that the Japanese troops came at night, marched people away and raped and/or executed the people they took. And while that IS quite terrible, I somehow thought there was more to it than that.
  • Are there any personal accounts that can be quoted that give examples of how the Safety Zone helped them?
  • The article isn't even clear how the foreigners helped the Chinese civilians, except by setting up the Safety Zone. Surely they did more.

I realize this is a contentious issue. I hope everybody involved can remain civil, refrain from personal attacks, and stick to credible sources. Good luck to the next contributor. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact area of the safety zone[edit]

I see contradictory statements about the safety zone area in the artice: "The Westerners who remained behind established the Nanking Safety Zone, which was composed of a score of refugee camps that occupied an area of about 3.4 square miles (8.6 square kilometers). The Safety Zone was bordered by roads on all four sides, and had an area of approximately 3.86 km², with 25 refugee camps centred around the U.S. Embassy. This is approximately the same size as Central Park in New York." It seems that the 3.86 km² Nanking Safety Zone was formed from the refugge camps area that initially comprised 8.6 km², but this must be clearly stated in the article. Mazarin07 (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== External links modified

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanking_Safety_Zone&oldid=1213955221"