Talk:The Rape of Nanking (book)

GA on hold

Sourcing issues

• The first source is from a newspaper in China, a country which has a government controlled press. The PRC government is well known for its strident position in condemning JPN, and cannot be taken as a general view as you have done in the lead
  • That source was actually used for a very non-controversial fact - that the book has been translated into other languages. Nonetheless, I have replaced it with a US-based source.[1] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Source by the "Women of China" is neither functional or independent
  • Got rid of that source and have copy-edited to better reflect replacement source.[2] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Irischang.net is only RS for describing Iris Chang's opinions. Need to find another source for all the other acclaim and so forth.
  • The two "acclaims" that were sourced from IrisChang.net are actually quotes printed on the jacket and the interior of the book itself. They just happened to be hosted on IrisChang.net. But I have edited the source to point directly at the book. I have the 1998 Penguin Books edition right next to me right now, and I can see those quotes - The one from Ross Terrill on the back cover, and the one from Beatrice S. Bartlett on the first page in the interior of the book.[3] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead

• Since the book is actually supposed to be about history, it should be mentioned in the lead what new findings have been proposed by the book and what the academic reaction and controversy is. The lead should reflect the article. At the moment, it only focuses on the positives and fanfare.
  • Done. Intro has been expanded. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Info

• ""sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths" - needs to be pointed out that this is her parents' account, which may or may not be true
  • I've specified that she was told this by her parents.[4] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Not enough on the actual research process and the actual research findings. This is only 50% of the "Inspiration and research" section. It claims that she made significant new findings. She located two diaries, what do they tell us? The findings are not actually spelt out at all. Especially with new information that has never been presented before, the means and new primary sources and documents need to be told.
  • I have expanded upon information about Rabe and Vautrin's diaries. I haven't found any sources that actually discuss exactly what new information they offer that we were not aware of before, but sources do call the discovery of these diaries "significant" or otherwise state that the discovery was an important historical find. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Acclaim and criticism" needs to be larger so that the implications of her research and the rebuttal and counter-rebuttal on the alleged flaws and errors are explained properly. If this is supposed to be a history book, then I would say the academic dissection should be more important, come before the public acclaim and be larger.

Style

• "2004-11-09" why suddenly this format for her death?
  • No particular reason. I knew the exact date and just put it in. But I've changed it to say "November of 2004".[5] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Second part of the "public reception" is actually about Chang's death and the reaction to her death, which was after the actual book by a few years. This should be more of an "Aftermath" section at the end since it is a more long term thing
  • I've made an "Aftermath" subsection.[6] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• long sentences
  • "In the letter, in response to criticism of inaccurate use of photographs and an inaccurate number of civilian deaths cited by her book, she wrote that there was no evidence that photographs in the book had been fabricated, that the photographs were properly captioned, that the Japan's Foreign Minister at the time, Koki Hirota, had given a figure of 300,000 civilians killed, and that her critics in Japan were right-wingers who denied the existence of the massacre."
    • Sentence has been broken up.[7] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "According to Japan scholar, Ivan P. Hall,[32] revisionist historians in Japan organised a committee of right-wing scholars to condemned the book with repeated appearances at the Foreign Correspondents' Club in Tokyo and throughout Japan, prevailing on Kashiwa Shobo, the contracted Japanese publisher of the book, to insist that Chang edit the book for "corrections" they wanted made, to delete photographs and alter maps, and also to publish a rebuttal to Chang's book"
    • Sentence has been broken up.[8] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Let me work on these things. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You're making good progress on what you've implemented so far. There is no hurry on this "Hold" - nobody will get in trouble if it is there longer than 7 days if steady progress is being made. The changes so far have been good. It will be better when you document the new information and the dispute surrounding this and expand on this in the body because at the moment the lead is only telling us that the book did some controversial things without specifying Chang's hypotheses. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well this was by far the quickest response from GAN that I've ever gotten. I've had articles waiting in the GAN queue for a whole month, but this one took all of 8 minutes! Thanks! I just happened to have been still editing when you put it on hold, so I just started working on your concerns. Regarding what you said in your message above:

• I'll try to expand upon the "Acclaim and criticism" section, but so far I've only found one detailed rebuttal directly from Chang (from Google searching, at least). It was a letter that specifically addressed an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that criticised her work. Most sources seem to only state that she would fiercely defend her work when met with criticism, without actually offering much of any details on the specifics of the criticism vs. rebuttal. Both this critical article and Chang's rebuttal are already used as references. I do not feel it is very NPOV if I go into more details about criticism on her work without also offering counter-arguments, so I may end up expanding that section just based on that critical article from San Fran Chronicle and her rebuttal letter to it. And from what I can see, the critical article does touch on similar points as other criticisms of her book.
• Sources that I've found do not say what new information her work discovered, but mostly that the book was acclaimed because it brought to light a subject that has been ignored. It seems that her discovery of the diaries of John Rabe and Minnie Vautrin was important not so much because those diaries offer new information we were previously not aware of, but because they offers very detailed accounts on the kind of daily happenings and atrocities that occured during the Nanking Massacre. At least this is what I've gathered from reading articles about the diaries of Rabe and Vautrin. Nothing is saying, "from these diaries, we now know X and Y." I think historians probably consider these diaries significant findings on the face value of their existence alone, since Rabe and Vautrin were both important figures in the Nanking Massacre and these were their diaries. But I'll do a little more searching and maybe do some more copy-editing on the section about their diaries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have expanded upon the "Acclaim and criticism" section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't find any sources on what might be considered newly discovered information from Rabe and Vautrin's diaries, but I've tried to elaborate a little more on the significance of the diaries.[9] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I did a little bit of expansion and copy-edit of the intro to... uh... introduce the book.[10] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's looking pretty good though. However, it doesn't really tell you much about what the book seeks to show. What old information does it seek to debunk? It seems she dug up new diaries which are newly found primary sources. But what of the secondary conclusions that she made from her research. This is a big issue. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for specific examples of what the book says? Because the first few sentences of the intro basically sums up the book already - it's a book about the Nanking Massacre, it talks about the the events leading up the massacre and the atrocities that were committed, and it also talks about how (at least in Chang's opinion) the Japanese government has not done enough to redress WW2 atrocities. That's what the book does, I've read the book, and that's what sources say about the book. Is there something unclear about that? I'm not sure that it "debunks" any old information - I didn't get the sense that that's what the book did, and neither do sources say it debunks anything. The book is famous not for debunking anything, but for being one of the first English-language books on the subject, and because it became controversial when it prompted people to debate on the facts of the Nanking Massacre (this is covered by the article). Unless you think examples or instances of specific subject matters from the book are needed, I'm not sure what else to add that the article hasn't already supplied about the book. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought from the phrase "significant discoveries" that she must have found some new evidence which supports a new theory of what happened. But if that is not the case I will pass the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

They were called "significant discoveries" by one of the sources, specifically the one that's referenced at the end of that sentence. If that may be a little misleading, I can certainly qualify it. Right now, the sentence reads:

Chang's research led her to make significant discoveries on the subject of the Nanking Massacre...

I can edit it to say:

Chang's research led her to make what one San Francisco Chronicle article called "significant discoveries" on the subject of the Nanking Massacre...

Let me know. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that mean it would be better if I make that edit? Or should I just leave the article alone? Sorry wasn't sure. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems better to make the edit. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Done![11] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Passed. Well done. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Your criticism was very helpful in improving the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

HongQiGong's reverts, 16 December 2007

The edit at issue is my addition of two paragraphs [12]. Reasons that HongQiGong gave for removal are as follows:

• 05:42, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (enough. there's plenty of criticism already.) (undo)
• 05:55, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (rv. Look, article is large enough as it is.) (undo)
• 06:02, 16 December 2007 HongQiGong (Again - plenty of criticism is already offered; and the Efron criticism is actually already included in a section below. Please actually bother to read this article.) (undo)

Firstly, this is an article about a book. Criticism is only a natural content of it. The More criticism=the more content, the better. Secondly, this article is hardly too large as it is. The accusation that merely adding two more paragraphs makes it too large is ridiculous. Thirdly, the Efron criticism that I added is different from the existing one and from a different source. --Saintjust (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the idea size of an article is 32KB, this article is already 33KB at the version before your insertion. Secondly, there's NPOV issues to consider, the article already had plenty of balance to it. Thirdly, we don't need to mention as much content about the book as it is possible. I've tried to simplify the volumes of content that's been written about the book, and the existing criticism that was there already covers what your insertion covers. Look, I'm trying to write a fair and balanced article here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of article that are longer than this on Wikipedia. Adding a mere two paragraphs to it will hardly make it unacceptably large.

This is a controvercial book, and like every article on a controvercial book such as Michael Moore's works and the Bell Curve, it's only natural that it has a long criticism section. The criticism section may be divided into subsections, classified by topics rather than the names of critics. --Saintjust (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and notice how none of those articles are FA quality. I'm trying to push the article to FA here. In fact, speaking of Michael Moore, Fahrenheit 9/11 has an entire article just devoted to the controversy around it - Fahrenheit 9/11 controversy. If you would like to create an article on the controversy about this book, I'd even help. But the criticism section of the article was already quite big enough before your insertion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Surely we could discuss the possibility of making the criticism section an independent article, although I don't think it's too large as it is myself. --Saintjust (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely disagree. It's too long right now, with most of the points you added only a repetition of criticism that was already offered from other sources. Furthermore, Efron's criticism was already mentioned, and Fogel's criticism was also already mentioned before your edit. Seriously, I'm trying to write a fair and balanced article here. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to write an FA-class article here. Maybe you are satisfied with leaving the article in a crappy state, but I'm not. These edits you are trying to keep is just not going to work in a FAC. There's undue weight problems, subsections being too small, and points that are being repeated. Again, if you want to write about all the criticism that has been leveled against this book, feel free to write an article on it, and I'd even help you. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If a certain point is being suggested by two or more scholars, then all of them should be mentioned to show the significance of the point. This article still has much room for expansion, especially regarding criticism. It's way too early to consider trimming it pretty for GA nomination. --Saintjust (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is already at GA status. And I think it offers enough information on the book. Again, ideal article size is 32KB. Seriously, your addition is really just not FA quality. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It lacks depth in the criticism section and in that regard it's not "fine" at all. Writing a FA article for controversial topics like this isn't easy. Try some other article if your only purpose of editing Wikipedia is getting FA status. --Saintjust (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does your edit add "depth"? It just added more of the same that was already offered by the article. Note also - I'm really not interested in turning this article into some battleground that's inflated with tit-for-tat praise vs. criticism. The article is about all aspects of the book itself, not just the criticism (or praise). This is why I think there was already enough in the criticism section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

More citation increases the reliability of the article. Wikipedia:Notability states that "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Also the criticism that I added address many new issues that aren't covered by the existing ones.

I might request this article to be demoted from GA status for the obvious attempt to suppress the controversiality of the book in the name of FA. That's a poor excuse that is hardly acceptable. --Saintjust (talk) 07:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. How exactly have I tried to suppress the controversiality of the book? The introduction itself mentions that it is controversial and has been criticised. There was already a good criticism section in it before you came in with your addition. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In either way, as far as you are opposing my addition of the two paragraphs for whatever reason, it constitutes a content dispute.

The paragraphs that I am adding are well-sourced and noteworthy. That you want to keep the article pretty for FA nomination is not a good reason for the flat rejection of them. --Saintjust (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Everything I've wrote here in my argument with you is about article size, NPOV, etc. And FA class quality represents the ideal state of an article. We should basically be writing all articles with FA in mind - what it basically means is article improvement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I am proposing this article to be delisted due to the currently undergoing content dispute above at #HongQiGong's reverts, 16 December 2007.

A certain editor is adamantly opposed to the expansion of the criticism section in the name of keeping it pretty for FA nomination, resulting in content dispute. This is a very controversial book that still has much room for expansion. The article has a npov tag on it now (placed by myself). --Saintjust (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)