Jump to content

Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FWBOarticle (talk | contribs) at 06:11, 21 December 2004 (Criticism of Chang). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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


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

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


More text moved from the article:

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

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


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

Read above. --mav

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


The article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

OK, a few examples.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Factual Inaccuracies, allegation or fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"She often confuse family name with given name".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Criticism of Chang = Right Wing Denier?

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

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

FWBOarticle

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

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

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

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

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