Talk:Japanese war crimes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 05:57, December 20, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Korea (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Former good article Japanese war crimes was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
  1. Nov 2004—Jan 2006
  2. Feb 2006—Oct 2006
  3. Oct 2006-Feb 2007
  4. 2007-2008

Japanese Atrocities[edit]

The Article name should be changed to "Japanese Atrocities" to assert the severity and complete lack of humanity that the Japanese showed in these events. CPO PiEman August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CPO Pieman (talkcontribs) 10:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article isn't treated with the same respect or sensitivity as the Holocaust, judging by the past comments in the discussion archive.


Much of the text from "Some in Japan have asserted ..." in the Official apologies section is synthesis, and moreover, does not adequately reflect the cited sources.

  • "Some in Japan have asserted that what is being demanded is that the Japanese Prime Minister and/or the Emperor perform dogeza, in which an individual kneels and bows his head to the ground" is not backed up by the cited source. The controversy about the dogeza statement should simply be described, without adding the (weasel-worded) OR sentence "Some in Japan have asserted."
    • This is indeed backed up by the cited source - please read it. The relevant passage is included in the reference. Jtwang (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • "Some point to an act by German Chancellor Willy Brandt, who knelt at a monument to the Jewish victims of the Warsaw Ghetto, in 1970, as an example of a powerful and effective act of apology and reconciliation similar to dogeza, although not everyone agrees." This is not backed up by the source, which does not mention Japan or anyone in Japan or elsewhere pointing to Brandt's act in connection with Japanese war crimes. The cited source simply discusses Brandt.
  • The paragraph "Citing Brand's action as an example ..." is again synthesis, because none of the sources cites Brandt as an example or model for the Japanese context (the 18-page Borneman document, which uses Brandt as an example of inter-state apologies, has one passing mention of Japan and Korea).
  • If we assert or imply, as the current wording does, that the Brandt example plays a key role in discussions of Japanese war crime apologies, we must bring forth sources that demonstrate that. The current sources do not do that. In the absence of such sources, what we have here may therefore be a novel narrative specific to Wikipedia, rather than reflective of discussions in reliable sources. Jayen466 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape vs Comfort Women[edit]

Where are the mentions of the mass systematic rapes that happened during the war? I strongly feel that we should have a section that details rape as a differing war crime. Thoughts? LOTRrules Talk Contribs 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add a section on "rapes" under "The Crimes" section. You just need to make sure that you provide inline sources for the text you add from reliable sources. Cla68 (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And, as usual...[edit]

My suggestions are completely ignored. I strongly believe the article's name should be changed. --CPO Pieman (talk) 06:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)--

To change the article name, you need to show that the sources out there use the phrase "Japanese atrocities" more often than "Japanese war crimes" to describe the totality of Japan's behavior during the Pacific War. The sources may back you up, you just need to show that. Cla68 (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pacific War...

Anyway, I'm getting to that now. --CPO Pieman (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed lines from Human Experimentation and Biological Warfare[edit]

I removed these lines:

The freeing and reducing of these convicted men was a result of a deal between Japan and the United States, as the US Military was interested in using documented research by the Japanese for their own biological weapons program.

..because no citation was provided, and such a potentially controversial subject should not remain in the article without being verified as stated in the Wikipedia template documentation. I also added a citation needed to the previous sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmdoman (talkcontribs) 07:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Caption Incongruity[edit]

The caption under the beheading image says Yasuno Chikao was convicted, but had his sentence commuted. However, if you click through to the picture, the image description says "Yasuno Chikao died before the end of the war."

These seems at odds; I'm not sure what is factually correct with my limited knowledge in the domain.

XyloDawn (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Small Technical Change[edit]

I added “West” to the reference “German Chancellor, Willie Brandt”, so it now reads “West German Chancellor, Willie Brandt”. It is technically incorrect to simply refer to Brandt as “German Chancellor”, as Brandt was Head of Government of the BDR at a time when it was only one of two extant German states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism allegations[edit]

Removed allegations to cannibalism from article what was based on hearsay from a alleged diary. The website used as reference does not disclose the name of the author, only identifies him as a “Japanese machine-gunner”. This type of journalism is used for entertainment purposes to add drama to the storyline.

If such a diary exists, and is used for this article, then it needs to be verified and sourced. Jim (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Siffleet photo[edit]

I believe this photo is a fake. The shadows do not match up, and the head on the soldier looks out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The photograph should be sourced, other than "public domain". The description of the photograph gives the illusion of propaganda: “Japanese soldiers showing a hunt trophy…” The photograph and unsourced description should be removed, until it can be properly sourced as “real” and not touched-up. Jim (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I take it you chaps are talking about the photo in the "Mass killings" section, not the one of Len Siffleet, which is properly sourced. In that case it might be helpful to change the heading of this section of the talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I assumed the editor was referring to the “Mass Killing” photograph. If not, my comment is out of text, as the Leonard George (Len) Siffleet photograph is properly sourced. Jim (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

After downloading the Siffleet photograph off Wikipedia, and the original photograph that is available from the Australian War Memorial, there is a noticeable difference. The picture hosted here, on Wikipedia has been altered, somewhat. Maybe that is what the IP editor is questioning? Jim (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Japanese invasion money in the see also section[edit]

User:Kasaalan and I are having a disagreement over whether a link to Japanese invasion money belongs in this article's see also section. I contend that it does not because, as far as I am aware and and the basis of what the article states, issuing currency in occupied countries isn't a war crime and there are no clear links between this and Japanese war crimes. This would be an appropriate link in articles such as Japanese occupation of Indonesia and Japanese occupation of Hong Kong which cover Japanese occupation policies, but this article is about war crimes, not occupation policies and having a link to the invasion money confuses the two issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mapanique massacre.[edit]

Hello I think we have to add an article about "Mapanique massacre". It happened in the Philippines. Can anyone make an article about this>?

[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Preventable Famine a war crime?[edit]

Since it is mentioned in this article, which is about war crimes. If it isn't, I think it should be removed. -- (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The "Preventable Famine"-section should be removed, as preventable famine was not a war crime when it happened.[edit]

As this is an article about Japanese war crimes, and preventable famine is not a war crime, I see no reason why it should be mentioned in this article, other than that it is related to deaths of people during Japanese rule. The most famous case of preventable famine to date, Holodomor, is not considered to be a war crime, and could first be legally considered to be a crime against humanity (which is not the same thing as a war crime) after the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling the Holodomor as such. As no war law related to preventable famine existed during the period when Japanese-induced preventable famine occured, and no authoritive organ has declared the preventable famine caused by the Japanese to be a war crime or a crime against humanity, I consider that this section does not belong into this article. If someone disagrees, please say so here. If nobody objects my proposition with arguments related to whether or not preventable famine in itself can be considered as a war crime, I will remove the section from this article. --Raubfreundschaft (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This sounds fair, but perhaps a link in the lead should redirect to an article on Japanese crimes against humanity, explaining that they acted in ways viewed now as immoral on many instances but were not prosecuted for this. This is especially relevant since there is an argument that many war crimes were omitted at the hague because the allied powers had used them in the conflict.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is[edit]

Bloated. Segments of it that cover sections that are less important carry what I see to be undue weight. For example, historians that give dramatically low estimates of total casualties from Japanese war crimes are given significant weight, while those who give high estimates (or claims) are completely ignored (such as the Chinese government). Additionally, more weight is given overall to comfort women then is given to killings (from a word count perspective). There has to be a way to improve this...--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

German comparission[edit]

The comparison with Germany is non-neutral language. Germany was chosen because its behavior was the one expected by the articles editor. For instance, why not compare with one of several other countries which also did not consider as truth (and schoolbook material) all historic accusations against it?

This article should report the allegations of Japanese war crimes and how they are interpreted by different parts. It should not, however, condemn or support any of the visions about it.

I for one, believe the facts talk for themselves, and the childish finger-pointing in the article actually hurts a good cause. --Damiens.rf 16:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a relevant comparison and a suitable summary of section 5 of the article. Your calling my contribution "childish finger-pointing" does not further the article nor discussion of what is suitable. Furthermore, my contribution does not condemn nor support anything, it merely points out the different responses of German officials vs. Japanese officials.
Anyways, I am okay with removing the direct comparisons with Germany as long as we restore more of the summary of section 5. Jtwang (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is a comparison with Germany more relevant than a comparison with Pakistan, Italy, U.S., or Senegal? The answer is: Because the Germans did what you want the Japanese to do.
Do U.S. books consider the Bombing of Hiroshima an atrocity, or they "whitewash" it (to use your extremely biased terms)? Do the Americans formally apologized for that? Do American presidents still visit WWII "heroes" tombs?
Please, do not take this as an attack or disapproval of America. Many other equally useful examples can be gathered. The American's are just more well known and common knowledge appealing. --Damiens.rf 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, we could be extra verbose and duplicate the article at Japanese history textbook controversies here. That was my purpose in linking to it. I don't think it improves the article here to add qualifiers that international observers consider the Japanese history textbooks whitewashed, or provide specific examples - that is what the link is for. Personally I think the German comparison strengthens the article because of the clear double standard. Without it, I agree that my contribution seems more biased as there is no international standard that the Japanese reaction is compared to. I'm open to suggestions for how to incorporate this more elegantly.
The quote from Abe in the body of this article and in the Washington Post article is "The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion." Nowhere does he claim there is no indisputable proof, he claims there is no evidence at all. Thus I have reverted your edit. Jtwang (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Japanese history textbook controversies does not determines there is a whitewash on those books. It reports on the controversy. This article, likewise, shouldn't take that as a given fact.
The German comparison strengthens the pov in the article. If a different pov were being pushed, another country would have to be as standard. My point is that we should only report the facts without comparing it to any arbitrarily chosen standard.
He claims there are no evidence of wrongdoings, and not that there were no wrongdoings. While we would agree this was most likely a bad faith wording by him, we can not say it differently in the article.
What language would you suggest re: the history textbooks? I am simply using the language at Japanese history textbook controversies. My point is that you could source the "whitewash" adjective here to the international observers, but I think this is redundant with Japanese history textbook controversies and does not add to this article.
Point taken on the German comparison / facts. I concede this point.
Regarding Abe, would you prefer the wording Shinzo Abe have denied evidence that atrocities occurred despite first-person confessions from Japanese soldiers. - I am okay with that. I just disagree with your use of "indisputable" as he is talking about evidence in general, not just indisputable evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtwang (talkcontribs) 20:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Since there's a controversy, we should attribute the "whitewash" (or any other interpretation) to its authors, either we agree with them or not. It's not neutral coverage to report on the Japanese denial while taking the accusations as facts. We should simply report on both sides views and the reader will make his/her mind.
I'm think Shinzo Abe have denied evidence that atrocities occurred. is great, but following it with "despite..." is pushing our point of view. The article relates those first person confessions. We need not confront them with Abe's words this way. --Damiens.rf 11:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Upon rereading the lead I am inclined to agree with you. I've reworked my contribution, how do you feel about it now? Jtwang (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Jtwang, you're such a good editor to work with that I almost feel bad for "correcting" you so much. Of course I understand I'm not really correcting anything, since I'm in no special condition for doing so. That said, is still beleive "controversially downplay" is non-neutral. First, a controversy involves more than one party. Describing one of them as controversial is exposing one's viewpoint. Wouldn't you agree that "Some Japanese textbooks controversially..." is as neutral as (say) "Some international observers controversially discredited some boooks...".
Second, "downplay" assumes the books tell less than what they should. On the Japanese nationalists point of view, what the books do is not a downplay.
I believe it could be fixed making the lead to report on the fact that some analysts accused some books of downplaying Japan's role on the war... (accuse may not be thebest word). --Damiens.rf 17:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
We could simply replace controversially with allegedly - this with the citation and link to the history book article are sufficient IMHO. I think the best model for this section is Holocaust denial (at the risk of invoking Godwin's Law). Jtwang (talk) 16:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits need to be made with regard to the following paragraph[edit]

This paragraph need to be edited a little:"Japan officially maintains that no international law nor treaties were violated. Many leaders in the Japanese government, including former prime ministers Junichiro Koizumi and Shinzo Abe, have prayed at the Yasukuni Shrine, which includes convicted Class A war criminals in its honored war dead. Some Japanese history textbooks controversially downplay Japanese actions in World War II,[11] and Japanese officials as high as prime minister Shinzo Abe have denied that atrocities occurred."

First of all most politicans in Japan that have prayed at the Yasukuni Shine are members of the Liberal Democratic Party which has more trouble adknowlaging Japans war crimes than anything. Second of all although Japanese textbooks have in the past downplayed Japans involvement in war crimes most textbooks these days contain referances that to these war crimes. Third although Shinzo Abe has denied the war crimes Shinzo Abe is just one person. There are many politicans in the Social Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan that adknowlage this. I thought that it's only fair to point these out for discussion before I make any changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 19:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no opposition to the above change. Please comment if your still against it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 13:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a few other modifications I'd like to make that look questionable. First of all this article mentions that the Japan offically claims that no international laws were broken. After a bit of research i've heard that the country's government does indeed adknowlage some of it's wrong doing as mentioned here:

I also would like to make an edit mentioning the while textbooks in Japan do referance the atrocities some are mentioned more then others. The one aspect that is mentioned in detail the most is the Nanjing Massacre. I know this because in 2005 China was angry at Japan for allowing a textbook that only breifly refreances the Nanjing Massacre. This means that all other books do go into detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 22:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

None oppose? Alright, changing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a good place to note this, but someone inserted the word pornography into the "debate in Japan" section. There is no source link, so I am unsure what the correct end of the sentence should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"J-Pop" Redirect[edit]

Why the term "J-Pop" redirects here, I have no idea. The result of bigotry/someone with a sick sense of humor, I suppose. --02:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Someone edited J-pop to redirect here and bots fixed resulting double redirects. I fixed them. Thank you. --Kusunose 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Japanese war criminals[edit]

On 10th March 1046 I flew four men from Kallang to Singapore for war trials: Lt. Gen. Watari Sakon(he got 10 years) Col. Terui Yuji (Same) andtwo thers I can't trace. Perhaps you can, They are Col. Komazawa Sadayasu and Col. Yano.

L. Malcolm Cloutt (62 Sqdn) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

requesting another change[edit]

Contary to popular belief textbooks that are used in Japanese high school do referance the atrocities that Japan commited during World War 2 with an exception being comfort women as mentioned here:

However the opening section of this article mentions that textbooks only briefly referance the atrocities. It should be noted that I have reason to believe that textbooks are required to offer more than just referances depending on the atrocity. For example the 2005 textbook was massively critisized for only briefly referancing the Nanjing Massacre:

I believe that untill more information is available about what is used in textbooks the referance to Japanese textbooks only briefly referancing the atrocities should be removed. I will wait for a response of information. If don't recieve it or if no one wishes for the textbook claim to remain then I would like to remove it if it's ok. Just untill more information is availible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to cite more than wiki pages to make your point. Especially as the claim is cited itself. The textbook reference in the text is cited to an actual source. You cannot counter it with wiki page references (not counted here as RS) or your own personal feelings/logic (original research). This is not intended to offend. What I would recommend you do is look for reputable sources (japanese nationalistic publications are not likely to be accepted...) that make your point. Until you do, please do not remove the properly cited claim. (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to mention that the sino-japanese war started in 1931 with the Mukden incident, and the occupation of Manchuria, not in 1937 as given here. I will look for references but if you date the war as 1937 a lot of incidents involving japan would be left out ...Mummywolf09 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC) There is a wiki source for this, a well-researched article on the "Mukden Incident". I dont understand dating the sino-japanese war from 1937 rather than 1931; either it is a typo error or perhaps Manchuria is not counted as China. In either event, Japanese soldiers attacked chinese ones and in this way brought about a change of government in Manchuria. It is my belief that the war would be dated from 1931 by Chinese sources. It is commonly mentioned that the Chinese had been at war for 10 years before ww2 broke out. Any comment / Mummywolf09 (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

So many things in this article are biased, based on very limited subjectively selected facts[edit]

This article is only based on the secondary information and data with no mentioning of concrete source. For me, it looks lke a kind of political propaganda by some countries. Many of the referred articles and books discussing about Japanese war crime had long time ago already been proved not based on the concrete facts. Some of the photos in this article, just showing like proving the war crime of Japanese millitary in the World War II, is so non-sense, since I can see only non-Japnese people within the photos. I found the photo of old newspaper in this article showing the Japanese millitary personnels, saying that they have killed 100 people by a Japanese sword. It is not possible to kill so many people by a sword.

This article is not worth showing to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of inadequately sourced photographs[edit]

I am no Nanking Massacre denier, nor am I interested in removing disturbing photographs simply because they are disturbing or I don't like the message they convey. But has a point in removing two of the photographs in this article: They are much too weakly sourced. I have not yet removed the photographs myself (I am not interested in a revert war) but I will do so soon if we cannot run down some solid information on their original venue.

The photograph of Chinese prisoners being buried alive is, as pointed out, from a student paper at a university server. The student paper does not give a source (there goes a letter grade?) Google shows the image reproduced widely -- but the sites I saw it at are either clearly derived from Wikipedia, or are personal blogs that also do not identify the original source and are of zero reliability on their own. Though I think it quite possible that the photograph is indeed of Chinese prisoners being buried alive by the Japanese Army, it is susceptible to reasonable alternate interpretations: The prisoners are simply being held in a pit and are not about to be buried. The prisoners are not innocent Chinese. Etc. This is why we need a link to a reliable source for the photograph.

The photograph of dead Chinese in a ditch links to a Princeton University server page that no longer exists. Again, I can Google no other reproductions of it that do not trace back to Wikipedia. While I think it very likely that this is, in fact, a photograph of dead Chinese killed by the Imperial Japanese Army, there are again alternate interpretations: The nationality of the victims is not obvious. The soldier standing by the ditch is not wearing typical Japanese Army equipment. Etc. All the previous objections apply. Thus, we need a link to a reliable source for this photograph.

My quick attempt at Googling up a reasonable source for the photographs (published and preferably peer-reviewed secondary source) failed. Google is hardly exhaustive, of course. I invite editors to search reliable sources for the photographs so they can be properly cited. Or I'm taking them down, soon. --Yaush (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The text link is unnecessary. Just click on the photos you will find the original sources of the photos at Wikimedia Common. STSC (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm not referring to the text link. I agree that source information belongs at the Wikimedia Commons page. My point is that even the source information at the Wikimedia Commons page is inadequate. I will, however, take this discussion there. --Yaush (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree with STSC. The images do not need a reference. If they did, this Michigan State University page would suffice. Let's leave the captions plain, without references. Binksternet (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Was the source given at the Wikimedia Commons page verified? If not, I think we should delete the photo. I tried to follow the sources given, but one of them seems to be a dead link, and the other websites do not source the image. As Yaush said, without a source, it is unclear whether or not the men in the photos are Chinese civilians. From the photo, it is unclear whether or not the men were going to be buried or not. I think it is unsafe to make the assumption that these men were civilians, Chinese, and buried. If this photo cannot be properly verified, I will delete them soon. Henrib736 (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
While not discussing your real motive, I would point out user Binksternet has already given another source above at Michigan University; and there're also other sources given in the page hosting the image: Chinese civilians to be buried alive. STSC (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I understand that the photo is widely spread around the internet and can be found on many websites, but none of those websites actually give information of where the photograph is from. If what we want is an unbiased article, is it fair to include this photo whose origin and creator are unknown? Just because it is a popular photograph does not mean that we should assume we know what is going on in the photograph, where the photograph was taken, and who took the photograph. Henrib736 (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The reliable sources have provided the images with its textual contents; if you personally have doubt about these images then the burden of proof is on you. STSC (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

War crimes in Korea[edit]

The article contains the sourced text "Thus, North and South Korea refer to "Japanese war crimes" as events occurring during the period of Korea under Japanese rule." Yet the inclusion of Korea as a location of war crimes keeps being removed from the lead. This doesn't seem consistent. (Hohum @) 01:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

An editor still keeps making this change. I invite them to discuss this per WP:BRD. (Hohum @) 18:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but the sourced text you mention says nothing about North and South Korea referring to Japanese war crimes as events occurring during the period of Korea under Japanese rule. It is only an argument about whether the annexation of Korea was legal or not. It does not mention war crimes. I believe this is a case of bad citation. Perhaps another citation could be found to make the same point, but this is not one that can be used to solve the current edit warring. I suggest that this go to WP:RFC. Michitaro (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Korea, Okinawa, Taiwan became part of Japan before the World War I. About the rule of Korea, For example, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland approves the rule of Japan. (Anglo-Japanese Alliance) --Juzumaru (talk) 06:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hong Sa-ik was executed with war crimes relating to the conduct of the Empire of Japan in World War II. How could Korean be war criminals and war victims at the same time? Oda Mari (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Korea was still a *place* even if Japan had annexed it. Please stop edit warring and engage in consensus building. The article contains references to war crimes in Korea, the lead should contain a reflection of this per WP:LEAD. You have no consensus to remove Korea from the lead. WP:BRD describes Bold editing (you), Reversion (me and others), and then discussion (this). Please abide by this convention and stop reverting to your preferred and unsupported edit. (Hohum @) 12:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe this discussion is part of consensus building. Hohum, could you please cite exactly where in the cited source it states that "North and South Korea refer to "Japanese war crimes" as events occurring during the period of Korea under Japanese rule." If you cannot, I will remove this citation and replace it with a "citation needed" tag. The closest thing I can find is in section 2: "The fundamental objection of the Koreans to Japan is that it fails to face sincerely to its sins of the past. It is their conviction that Japan has continuously avoided admitting its military past and the atrocity associated with their colonial occupation." However, this is not a statement about war crimes, but only about the atrocities of colonial occupation. In section 3 it does say, "both of the Korean governments claim that the 1910 Treaty was concluded under the coercion of Japanese military power and therefore is illegal and void ab initio", but this again is only an argument about the illegality of the treaty, not about war crimes. One could try an argument like this: since the Treaty was the result of military coercion, that was an act of war, so everything that happened during the colonial era happened in a state of war, which makes them war crimes. But the source does not engage in this logic, so using the source in that way is clearly a violation of WP:OR. If anyone tried to nominate this article for GA, this would immediately get caught. To clarify, I am making no argument one way or another about the two sides in the edit warring, I am merely neutrally pointing out that the source does not state what the article says it is stating, and thus cannot be used to solve this issue. Michitaro (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The issue I have made is that if the body of an article mentions something substantive, it should be in the lead. If you have a problem with what is in the body, have at it. (Hohum @) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to use the phrase "on the Korean peninsula" in the lead.MisterCSharp (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Ridiculous.German war crimes includes everything (literally everything) covering the war crimes committed by Germany. Why so anal about excluding Korea? Oh right I guess Auschwitz isn't a Nazi war crime because Germany annexed Poland when the holocaust happened. Thus they were technically torturing/killing their own. Fuck me. The Japanese user blockade in this article is amazing to say the least. Stateofyolandia (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Technically, what you wrote is correct -- these weren't war crimes. They were crimes against humanity. I don't know how closely we want to adhere to the technical distinction. --Yaush (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LIfe Photo of Japanese Soldier Bayonetting a Chinese Person: Dead or Alive?[edit]

The caption of the photo taken by the Life photographer of the Chinese person being bayonetted by a Japanese soldier, says the victim is dead. I question whether the victim is dead or alive based on the position of the arms and shape of the hands, and that the head is blindfolded. Unless rigor had set in before they propped up the corpse, I'd expect the arms and hands to look more limp. Additionally, at least one source[1] states Japanese combat soldiers were indoctrinated by bayonetting a live person.

Can an expert of some sort review this photo to verify they are actually dead? Otherwise please consider revising the caption. == LIfe Photo of Japanese Soldier Bayonetting a Chinese Person: Dead or Alive?

The victim was dead at the time of the practice according to the caption from Life magazine in 1937. The caption says "Bayonet practice, wherein Japanese soldiers used dead Chinese for targets, was photographed by an Associated Press photographer near Tientsin on Sept. 9"
―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Yoshimi's and other References reliable?[edit]

Recently U.S. National Archives stopped to conceal the information about 731 unit and chemical and biological weapons. At this moment, there is no evidence , which supported the opinions of Yohimi written by the article of this site, in the information opened.

Yoshimi's publication is not only reffered but also is supported by substential evidence so it is reasonable to regard his research not for wiki.

The refference Yuki Tanaka, Poison Gas, the Story Japan Would Like to Forget, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988, p. 16-17 is not supported by concrete evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanRIer (talkcontribs) 12:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific with a link to a reliable source or a quote which contradict the claim in this article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


In the caption of the photo of Yamashita, "second left" seems to be a mistake for "second from the right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Initiating hostilities against neutral powers without explicit warning[edit]

While I think the Keenan quote is valuable addition, it also highlights the many problems with this section.

The 14-part message was not a declaration of war as defined in the Conventions. It concluded with the simple statement that further negotiation seemed pointless. Whatever the obvious implications of this might have been, there was no mention of a state of war existing between Japan and the United States, conditional or otherwise. Such an explicit statement is required by the Conventions.

The statement "Some made absurd claims that the attack on Pearl Harbor was legitimate even without a declaration of war. " contains weasel words and is also POV on its face.

These problems really need to be addressed. I have refrained from walking back the check in, both because I value the quote and because some of these problems were already present, but these problems really need to be addressed. --Yaush (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Much better. There's still the problem of describing th 14-part message as a declaration of war. I'll see if I can find a good cite on why it likely wasn't, but don't anyone let that stop them from continuing to improve this section. --Yaush (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Japanese massacres and atrocities against Moro Muslims in Mindanao and Sulu and Suluk Muslims in British Borneo.[edit]

Japanese occupation of the Philippines

Akira Makino

Japanese occupation of British Borneo

Chinese and Suluk Tausug launched joint uprising in 10/10/1943 against the Japanese on Borneo. The Japanese then nearly exterminated the Suluks, massacring nearly all their men, and women and children at a mosque.

Suluks were led by Panglima Ali, Chinese were led by Alberk Kwok (I. N. Kwok)(Guo Yi Nan)(Guo Hengnan) Teochew

Imam Marajukim, from Sulu, coordinated cooperation among the Suluks in the Philippines and Suluks in Borneo, to procure supplies for the resistance against the Japanese.

Rajmaan (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes against Chinese, Malays, and Acehnese in the Dutch East Indies[edit]

Islamist Resistance to the Japanese in Aceh and Borneo

Talk:Sultan Hamid II

The Japanese enacted mass arressts of Malay and Chinese elites in the Pontianak incident, and started mass executions of them. The Malay Sultans of Kalimantan were also arrested and executed, among them Sultan Mohamed Aqadrie of Pontianak;+his+sons+Pangeran+Adipati+and+Pangeran+Agung+were+beheaded.37+All+the+other+native+rulers+of+West+Borneo+were+executed.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=sSpDU7dCx5LIAaCzgcAL&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Japanese%20massacres%20devastated%20the%20local%20Malay%20elite.%20The%20elderly%20sultan%20of%20Pontianak%20died%20in%20prison%3B%20his%20sons%20Pangeran%20Adipati%20and%20Pangeran%20Agung%20were%20beheaded.37%20All%20the%20other%20native%20rulers%20of%20West%20Borneo%20were%20executed.&f=false;+they+included+Malays,+Bugis,+Javanese,+Minangkabaus,+Bataks,+Menadonese,+Chinese,+Eurasians,+and+...+Prominent+on+the+list+were+the+native+rulers,+who+were+entirely+wiped+out+in+this+action.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uStDU5aKFZDlyAHYw4CoCw&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=A%20list%20of%20the%20condemned%20conspirators%20followed%3B%20they%20included%20Malays%2C%20Bugis%2C%20Javanese%2C%20Minangkabaus%2C%20Bataks%2C%20Menadonese%2C%20Chinese%2C%20Eurasians%2C%20and%20...%20Prominent%20on%20the%20list%20were%20the%20native%20rulers%2C%20who%20were%20entirely%20wiped%20out%20in%20this%20action.&f=false

The Japanese claimed their massacre was a response to Chinese, Arabs, Indians, and Sultans who were allegedly plotting to rise up against Japanese rule and massacre the Japanese.

Page 78,+the+Japanese+had+discovered+a+plot+of+Dutch+and+Indonesian+nationalists+in+South+Kalimantan;+similar+intrigue+was+then+'found%22+in+operation+in+Pontianak.+It+was+announced+in+a+Malay+language+newspaper+that+the+plotters+were&dq=In+brief,+the+Japanese+had+discovered+a+plot+of+Dutch+and+Indonesian+nationalists+in+South+Kalimantan;+similar+intrigue+was+then+'found%22+in+operation+in+Pontianak.+It+was+announced+in+a+Malay+language+newspaper+that+the+plotters+were&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UwwiUpnPG6mlsQS-34G4CA&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA

Page 79,+dose+family+members+and+regional+nobles.+139+Intellectuals,+party+leaders+and+merchants+from+multiple+ethnic&dq=Japanese+insti+gated+a+series+of+roundups+and+executions.+Victims+included+the+Sultan+of+Pontianak+(Syarif+Muhammad+Aiqadri),+dose+family+members+and+regional+nobles.+139+Intellectuals,+party+leaders+and+merchants+from+multiple+ethnic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TA8iUv6THKa2sQSejYGQBg&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA

Rajmaan (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The native Indonesian reaction in Java was different from the native reaction in Borneo and Aceh. The Javanese collaborated with the Japanese, while the Acehnese and Borneans fought the Japanese. A Acehnese Islamic cleric led an uprising against Japan and Islamists in Borneo also rose up against the Japanese, and the Japanese responded by massacring the natives.

An Acehnese Islamic cleric led an uprising against the Japanese. The japanese responded with a massacre.

Page 27,+over+100+Acehnese+were+massacred,+18+Japanese+died,+and+yet+another+conqueror+had+learned+the+penalty+of+trying+to+deal+with+Aceh+by+force&dq=When+the+resistance+of+the+religious+school+of+Tjot+Plieng+in+Bayu+was+ended+in+November+1942,+over+100+Acehnese+were+massacred,+18+Japanese+died,+and+yet+another+conqueror+had+learned+the+penalty+of+trying+to+deal+with+Aceh+by+force&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pydDU67DG8OY2QXWrIHQCQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Page 189,+18+Japanese+were+killed+and+more+than+120+Acehnese+perished.+Furthermore+a+local+revolt+broke+out+in+Aceh+in+May+1945.&dq=village+and+the+mosque+at+the+beginning+of+November.+In+the+fighting+that+ensued,+18+Japanese+were+killed+and+more+than+120+Acehnese+perished.+Furthermore+a+local+revolt+broke+out+in+Aceh+in+May+1945.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IShDU8LuGKbO2wWG5YCIDQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA

Page 47,+the+All-Aceh+Religious+Scholars'+Association+(+PUSA),+that+organised+a+revolt+against+the+Dutch+administration+as+the+Japanese+approached+Sumatra+in+February+1942.+By+the+time+the+Japanese+arrived,+the+Dutch&dq=It+was+the+Ulama+organisation,+the+All-Aceh+Religious+Scholars'+Association+(+PUSA),+that+organised+a+revolt+against+the+Dutch+administration+as+the+Japanese+approached+Sumatra+in+February+1942.+By+the+time+the+Japanese+arrived,+the+Dutch&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ByhDU-DkKemh2QWQwoDQCw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA,+the+Japanese+found+themselves+putting+down+a+local+rebellion+against+their+rule+carried+out+by+the+same+Acehnese+who+had+removed+the+Dutch+to+make+way+for+their+arrival.+One+leader+of+a+religious+school+in+Cot+Plieng,+...&dq=In+November+1942,+the+Japanese+found+themselves+putting+down+a+local+rebellion+against+their+rule+carried+out+by+the+same+Acehnese+who+had+removed+the+Dutch+to+make+way+for+their+arrival.+One+leader+of+a+religious+school+in+Cot+Plieng,+...&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yydDU4riG6uG3AWk4oCIBA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA

Rajmaan (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

many photos of this article[edit]

Many photos used in this articles are originaly published Chinese war propaganda picture book "日寇暴行実録". So they lack neutrality and objectivity. I would delete these doubtful photos. OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talkcontribs) 01:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

How about no, since Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Japanese nationalist revisionism.-Zmflavius (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but my point is nothing to do with japanese nationalist revisionism. It's the matter of reliability, neutrality & onjectivity of these photos which came from propaganda book. So I still think Yes. Windersteinburg (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
See this image and this deletion request. Chinese sources are not always correct. I don't think it is appropriate or civil to use the words like "nationalist", "soapbox", and "revisionism" to other editors who have different opinion from yours. Oda Mari (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Windersteinburg: If you have neutral reliable sources that call into question some of the images, please feel free to cite them here and open up a discussion. However, you yourself should do so from an objective, encyclopedic standpoint. Your statement "many photos" is itself hyperbolic (since most of the photos are in fact from other sources), and your history of edit warring and use of non-neutral language on other articles suggest you might be engaging in POV editing. I suggest you closely read WP:NPV and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. Michitaro (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we should keep all the images unless and until individual images are successfully challenged as irrelevant or otherwise unsuitable. Binksternet (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

French prisoners of war in World War II GA-nominated[edit]

Please participate in the review here: Talk:French prisoners of war in World War II/GA1. Thank you! walk victor falk talk 05:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Requesting more links on Japans adknowlagement along with the ones i've found[edit]

I noticed the "Debate in Japan" section and found that there were no referances. I've included 7 sources that referance Japans adknowlagement over the atrocities(thought the publics isn't as aware as much as i'd like it's still something):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)