Talk:Death toll of the Nanjing Massacre

Hora Tomio

The first citation by Masaaki Tanaka states "Hora Tomio and others who share his views are convinced that approximately 200,000 persons (including 70,000-80,000 civilians) were killed in Nanking." The second book does mention Hora Tomio. Maybe you're reading the wrong page or a different edition. "Hora estimated that some 100,000 combatants were killed while fighting and that 100,000 civilians were killed during and after the battle."CurtisNaito (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but when it says "Hora Tomio and others who share his views" the next sentence says, "Hora also cites the number of dead in the six counties surrounding Nanking as stated in Smythe’s report." Moreover, I found out what the problem was; the second book mistakingly references Hora Tomio as Hora Tornio (Note the RN vs the M). If a book can't even get his name right, I wonder if it qualifies as a reliable source. Banzaiblitz (talk) 11:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You must be using a bad copy of the second book. The copy I own doesn't contain that spelling error. As for the first book, I suppose you can add the six surrounding counties part back. I read Tanaka's book some time ago and I had assumed that Hora was including the surrounding counties in his estimate of 300,000 for deaths between Shanghai itself up to Nanking. In fact I recall that this is true from reading Hora's own book on the subject. However, I don't have the book on me right now so for the time being, you can add back the part about the six counties, though like I said I still need to go and verify whether Hora put the extra counties into the 200,000 figure or his larger 300,000 figure which includes Shanghai.CurtisNaito (talk) 11:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally pressed the "undo" button before I had given an explanation, just give a second to type it in.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Sorry, what I wanted to ask was if you have read Jonathon Spence's book. I don't have a copy with me right now but I read it at the time I first made this article and from what I recall, Spence doesn't say that 50,000 people were massacred in Nanking. I recall that he says that 50,000 was the reported figure, but he made clear that this was not his own opinion. He didn't state his own opinion, and I would just guess that the 50,000 "reported" figure was just a repetition of Miner Searle Bates' estimate which is already on the table.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC) By the way, for the record I also favor deleting Frank Capra. I highly doubt Capra was not just repeating the estimates of either Bates or Smythe which are already on the table.CurtisNaito (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Edgar Snow should be deleted for the same reason. I read the relevant part of his book on Google Books, and he explicitly wrote that he cited the number from Bates. Also, the Kaikosha study, from their book Nankin Senshi, seems to be a self-published source, and thus should be removed. Judging from information on the Google Books page and this webpage, this WW2 Japanese veteran foundation (obviously with conflict of interest, WP:IS) did not only commission this book, but served as its publisher as well. Also, in Kaikosha's curent book catalog a subsequent volume of the Nankin Senshi series is listed in the category of self-published books. Remotepluto (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I favor deleting Edgar Snow, but we should keep Kaikosha. No self-published source is cited here because Kaikosha's figure is itself one of the most widely discussed and cited estimates for the death toll of the Nanking Massacre which has ever been made. Kaikosha's estimates were calculated in extreme detail and since then almost entire books have been written by Japan's leading scholars attempting to either reaffirm or call into question Kaikosha's work. Itakura Yoshiaki's work "Honto Wa Ko Datta Nankin Jiken" includes several chapters exclusively devoted to reaffirming parts of Kaikosha's research and the prominent historian Hando Kazutoshi considers Kaikosha's estimates to be the best available and has reprinted it in some of his works. By contrast, every single chapter in the book "Nanking Daigyakusatsu No Kenkyu", edited by Hora Tomio, Fujiwara Akira, and Honda Katsuichi, includes a rejoinder seeking to rebut an aspect of Kaikosha's estimate.CurtisNaito (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Estimates of the death toll for the Nanking Massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 11:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• You need to include the name of the article, or a reworded version, in bold. Done
• There's no linking to other articles here, such as Nanking Massacre. Sino-Japanese is a bit ambiguous, because I'm not sure what you are referring to. It could be anything lister here, so the appropriate one needs linking. Done
• You haven't explained what the Nanking Massacre is or why it happened. I don't actually know what it is from reading the lead. Done
• There shouldn't be any citations in the lead, as it is meant to be a summary of the entire article, of which everything should be sourced anyway. Done
• The lead just isn't very clear or informative. It could do with being completely re-written. Done
• China needs linking, but I'd write out it out in full (People's Republic of China) as to not confuse with the Republic of China (Taiwan). Done

Before the "Early estimates", you could do with a brief summary titled "Background" which explains what the Nanking Massacre is and why it happened. Because I still don't know. - Is a whole section necessary? I added a sentence describing it in the introduction. The question of why it happened is rather complicated, so much so that even the main article on Nanking Massacre doesn't delve into the reasons. I think potentially a whole article could be written on this subject in the future.

• It doesn't need to be massive. Maybe just one or two paragraphs about the background, because as such, nothing in the article explains by there is a death toll in the first place. I've never heard of this massacre before, so me for, reading this article felt like it wasn't complete because I had no idea why people were being massacred.  — ₳aron 21:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Done

Early estimates

• In this article the Australian journalist → In an article titled [insert title here], Australian journalist Done - The source does not say the name of the article, so I changed the wording.
• In this article the Australian journalist Harold Timperley was quoted as stating that 300,000 civilians had been killed. → Source? Citations should be provided at the end of every sentence. Done
• Link Battle of Shanghai Done
• However, Timperley's source for this number was Father Jacquinot who was in Shanghai at the time of the massacre → Explain who the Father is (nationality). There needs to be a comma here, it doesn't read right Done
• For instance, → too informal  Done
• The 1944 film, The Battle of China stated → comma after China Done
• However, later in → Remove 'later', it doesn't work here Done
• In one estimate the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal put → The Nanking War Crime Tribunal estimated that - That change would not be accurate because the Nanking War Crimes Tribunal made a variety of different estimates.
• Since then the death toll of the massacre has been a major topic of discussion among historians across the world. → Says who? Also, shouldn't it be since the massacre, not since the death toll? Done Since the 1960's. Scholars didn't discuss the issue before then. Many sources, not limited to those cited, mention that the issue is a subject of debate among historians.
• Link Hora in his picture Done

Sources

• , and on the other hand, → misplaced, it doesn't fit in with the sentence Done
• All sentences need citations at the end of them. Done

Debate on the scope of the massacre

• David Askew → You only need to use his surname from the section mention onwards, and this is the second. Done
• Same for Hora in the 'Chinese soldiers and POWs as massacre victims' sub-section. And Kasanara Done
• Most Japanese ultranationalists who deny the Nanking Massacre admit that the Japanese Army killed a large number of Chinese POWs, though they consider these to be legal executions,[26][27] an argument denounced by mainstream historians.[28][29] → Just include this at the end of the third paragraph instead of being a one line paragraph. Done
• Same in the 'Geographic range and duration' sub-section. You shouldn't have one sentence/one line paragraphs. Done
• I don't see the point of having a two sentence/one line paragraph sub-section with regard to 'The Nanking Massacre as the Second Sino-Japanese War'. Can't this be include in the previous sub-section? Done

Japanese views

• In the early 1970s → comma need after 1970s Done
• Only use Hora's surname Done
• Shokun! → Should be in italics and without the exclamation mark, as it appears here. Done(Changed the name of the other article to Shokun!)
• Only use Askew's surname Done
• Again, the finally line/sentence/paragraph could be at the end of the second paragraph instead of being by itself. Done
• In 2006 Kaz Ross → comma after 2006 Done
• Who is Kaz Ross?  Done

References

• Use {{Reflist|2}} for the references to split into two columns instead of one long list. Done

Other

Article seems like a bit of a stub. There is only one category at the bottom, Nanking Massacre. Done I'm sure some more related to the topic could be added (there are several on Nanking Massacre). Perhaps also a See also section? Done With some linked articles related to the topic, such as the massacre itself? There is not navigation template either, I'd recommended adding: {{World War II}} {{JapanEmpireNavbox}} {{Genocide topics}}  Done, but the last one is probably too controversial to add. Of the sources I cited in the article below, every single one of them which mentioned this controversial topic stated that the massacre did not constitute genocide. at the bottom (like on Nanking Massacre.

Outcome

On hold for 7 days.

There are quite a lot of issues here that need addressing. Won't fail it because I believe you can turn this around in 7 days. But there are some fundamental errors, such as not explaining what the Nanking Massacre was or about. Ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have done everything as I have more than 2,300 articles on my watch and I may not see any responses straight away.  — ₳aron 19:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, just a small thing, there needs to be linking in your references, like The Guardian for example. Only link them the first time though.  — ₳aron 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Done

Great, thanks for that. Also, background info is good. That's all you need, just so an unfamiliar reading has some understanding of what the reasoning for the events was. Well done, it was interesting to read. Passing.  — ₳aron 08:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Handou Toshikazu and neutrality of selection method for inclusion in the list

The article currently cites Handou's published opinion as that of a "scholar or eyewitness". He was seven years old at the time so I'm assuming the implicationis that he is a "scholar" rather than an eyewitness. He is not a scholar: he got his BA in Japanese literature before becoming an editor at the literary magazine Bungei Shunjuu in the early 1950s. He has apparently been there ever since.

Additionally, I wonder why these particular authors have been selected for inclusion in the table: if non-historians with exceptionally low estimates are included, then what about historians in other fields who give exceptionally high estimates? Herbert Ziegler's view (400,000) is far out and apparently far above the scholarly consensus. But he expressed it in a world history textbook that is apparently used on college campuses in the United States. I certainly don't think a tertiary source, a world history textbook written by an American historian who apparently has little interest in either China or Japan, should be cited alongside the specialists, but why are the only westerners and Japanese non-historians cited those who give low estimates?

It looks very much like the list has been handcrafted to imply that the Chinese government says 300,000, no one else says anything above or even approaching that, some Japanese historians say 200,000 or 100,000+ and others (more) including both Japanese and western "scholars" (undefined, but apparently including popular essayists and magazine publishers) say less than 100,000. This is not an especially good assessment of the sources, and would seem to also be a non-NPOV breakdown of the scholarly consensus.

As much as it pains me to say this, being as I am a lover of Japan and someone with an ambivalent view of the Chinese government's attitude to this (I agree their estimate is high).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I am implying that I don't think this article meets the NPOV criterion of GA articles. The above GA review failed to address said criterion -- "neutral" and "NPOV" appeared nowhere in the discussion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding some more estimates to the table. In fact, I once added an estimate of 400,000 deaths onto the table, but it was deleted by another user. Furthermore, I never cited Handou Toshikazu's estimate. Handou Toshikazu uses the same estimate as Kaikosha, so including his estimate would be repetition. What I cited was Shigeharu Matsumoto's estimate. He was a journalist who did reporting in Nanking within a few months of the massacre taking place. When I first wrote the table I included only historians specializing in the Nanking Massacre and works of history specifically about the massacre, rather than general works, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Other users have added in non-specialist works and I never objected. I think the article should definitely mention some estimates in excess of 300,000 and less than 40,000. However, I didn't really want to give too much prominence to them because Bob Wakabayashi, representing a large consortium of historians, explicitly said that 40,000 to 200,000 was the "scholarly valid" range. When a large number of leading historians say that numbers outside a certain range are not "scholarly valid", it's a good sign that these numbers represent the minority. As I said though, I'm fine with briefly mentioning more higher and lower estimates.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about what you added or didn't add? I haven't looked at the page history in detail, so I don't know who added or removed what. I can only comment on the article that's there before me, and I didn't mention any user in particular. I don't think this article meets the GA criteria, and I think the previous GA discussion failed to address said criteria. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added estimates in excess of 300,000, but they were repeatedly deleted by other users. I'm okay with re-adding some estimates in excess of 300,000. The article is already neutral though. It emphasizes the scholarly consensus of 40,000 to 200,000 while still mentioning that estimates outside that range also exist.CurtisNaito (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any serious problems with neutrality here. The scholarly consensus is clearly 40,000 to 200,000. We don't need to spend too much space on fringe figures. Ahiroy (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Death toll of the Nanking Massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nankingatrocities.net/1990s/nineties_03.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nankingatrocities.net/1990s/nineties_02.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)