Jump to content

Talk:Nanjing Massacre: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 208: Line 208:
== No mention of torture in introduction, only two mentions in the article ==
== No mention of torture in introduction, only two mentions in the article ==


Is there any reason to omit the word "mass torture" in the very first sentence along with murder and rape? I've always thought of Nanjing infamous not just because of the amount of victims, but also because of the scale (and variety) of torture. I was surprised that, outside of a quote, the word only appears once in the article. --[[Special:Contributions/152.165.121.116|152.165.121.116]] ([[User talk:152.165.121.116|talk]]) 14:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any reason to omit the word "mass torture" in the very first sentence along with murder and rape? I've always thought of Nanjing infamous not just because of the amount of victims, but also because of the scale (and variety) of torture. I was surprised that, outside of a quote, the word only appears once in the article. Compare with rape*, which appears 94 times. --[[Special:Contributions/152.165.121.116|152.165.121.116]] ([[User talk:152.165.121.116|talk]]) 14:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:11, 10 January 2021

Former good article nomineeNanjing Massacre was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

Requested move 22 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to Nanjing Massacre as proposed. The support arguments are strong enough to even persuade some opposers to change their positions to support. Strongest oppose is to keep spelling (with k, not j) that was used at the time of the massacre, but there is no consensus for that. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 19:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nanking Massacre → Nanjing Massacre – The present page title is inadequate. As for why, we all know that the common name of this event is 'Rape of Nanking'. However, various editors have in the past opposed this title on various (often spurious) grounds. As some sort of compromise, it was moved to the present 'Nanking Massacre'. The problem with this is, by the time the literature started using 'massacre' as opposed to 'rape', pinyin romanisation had become completely accepted in the English-speaking world. For this reason, if you look at Google ngrams, you will see that 'Nanjing Massacre' is many times more common than 'Nanking Massacre'. In fact, even 'Nanjing massacre' with a lowercase 'm', and 'Rape of Nanjing', have become more common than 'Nanking Massacre'. In other words, we are not using the real common name, 'Rape of Nanking', but we are also not even using the common descriptive name of this event. This is unsatisfactory. Therefore, I propose a move to 'Nanjing Massacre'. It is the most common name of this event, if we discount 'Rape of Nanking', more recognisable, because pinyin romanisation is now 100% dominant in normal discourse, and more consistent with the title of the city's article, Nanjing. Let us move this article in line with the article title criteria, and produce a better result for our readers and the encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 16:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary data: Google Books results - Nanjing Massacre / Nanking Massacre / Rape of Nanking / Rape of Nanjing / Nanking massacre / Nanjing massacre
I don't understand...the discussion from five weeks ago did not involve any reliable sources, just random claims. I've shown you with Ngrams that the present title is by far and away not common...please look at the article title criteria, and the evidence provided above, and tell me why it makes sense to follow this title? Chicken Kiev is never called 'Chicken Kyiv', and 'Peking duck' is very rarely called 'Beijing duck', but this event is not usually called 'Nanking Massacre', and is much more commonly called 'Nanjing Massacre'...you're comparing apples to oranges. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never say "never" — Chicken Kyiv [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10], to name but ten. Other examples include Fall of Saigon not Fall of Ho Chi Minh City, Grand Duchy of Cracow not Grand Duchy of Kraków, etc.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are reliable sources, which is why we use Ngrams and Google Books instead of broad net Google searches. I really don't understand what you're talking about now...we base article titles on the usage of significant majorities of reliable sources. Significant majorities of reliable sources do not use 'Chicken Kyiv' or 'Fall of Ho Chi Minh City' (Grand Duchy of Kraków is the current title of that article), so we don't use those as article titles. But, a significant majority of sources do use Nanjing Massacre...so what is your point? RGloucester — ☎ 18:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The modern-day name of the Chinese city is Nanjing in the same manner as the modern-day name of the Ukrainian capital is Kyiv. Historical references, however, tend to remain stable. Although various modern-day references have started using Nanjing Massacre in the same manner as restaurant menus and culinary guides have started using Chicken Kyiv, the best known traditional forms are still Nanking Massacre and Chicken Kiev. I don't know if any entity has been using the form Chennai cloth but, in the English-speaking world, the traditional form is Madras cloth.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the city has stayed the same, it's only the romanisation that has changed. But, we're not debating the name of the city, we're debating the name of the event. We follow reliable sources, in the same manner we just moved our article on 'Swaziland to Eswatini'. We also must consider WP:CONSISTENCY, and indeed, WP:PINYIN. All in all, a significant majority of reliable sources have favoured "Nanjing Massacre" over "Nanking Massacre" for decades. Isn't it time Wikipedia caught up? RGloucester — ☎ 19:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Chennai/Madras or Saint Petersburg/Leningrad, city names such as Nanjing/Nanking, Beijing/Peking, Kolkata/Calcutta, Kyiv/Kiev or Odesa/Odessa, have indeed stayed the same, with only the romanization undergoing change. I was one of those who !voted to change Grand Duchy of Cracow to Grand Duchy of Kraków, thus confirming that even historical references can move with the times. On that basis, it does seem reasonable to accept that, unlike titles which must remain, such as Siege of Leningrad, Battle of Stalingrad or Fall of Saigon, city names with adjusted romanization can undergo historical change, such as Black Hole of Kolkata or Nanjing Massacre. Even culinary revisions, such as Beijing duck or Chicken Kyiv appear to be within realm of acceptance. Taking those considerations into account, I am striking my "Oppose" vote and submitting a "Support" vote.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look at the Ngrams and Google Books searches above??? RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When the WWW now littering with junk, i want to hear qualitative analysis of data. May be listing modern history book by Oxford, Cambridge, using which version. Matthew_hk tc 18:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ngrams and Google Books only index published material, not random blogs. That's why we use them to determine common names per WP:UCN. We use names used in a significant majority of reliable sources, and do not base our naming on any one source. That's Wikipedia policy...enshrined in WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 18:26, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support—this isn't the first time it's been brought up, and the only reason the move has failed in the past is lack of participation in the discussion, not due to opposition. Sources—especially from the last couple decades—prefer the romanization Nanjing, as they should. If it weren't for Iris Chang's book, this article probably would have been created at Nanjing massacre in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shared this before, but here's an NGram that shows Nanjing has been the preferred spelling since 1995—two years before Chang's book appeared—and that usage of Nanking has absolutely plummeted since about 2000. In other words, Nanjing has been the preferred spelling since years before Wikipedia even came in to existence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Pure semantics. The city was not known as Nanjing at the time. It is blatantly ludicrous and revisionist to use a name that wasn't used when the event happened. Even if we're not going to use Rape of Nanking (which we obviously should), to use a modern city name in an article about an historical event is just plain wrong. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the city has not changed. Whether you write Nanjing or Nanking, the city still has the same name of 'southern capital'. Only the romanisation has changed. However, using a modern romanisation for historical events is the standard, as the original Chinese remains the same regardless of what romanisation one uses. We do not use Postal or Wade-Giles on Wikipedia for these purposes...when you read our article on Nanjing, it includes this event, of course, piped to 'Nanjing'...which hardly makes any sense. In any case, on Wikipedia we're supposed to follow reliable sources...if reliable sources see it fit to change from Nanking to Nanjing, what justification do we have for rejecting that change? There isn't any in policy, and certainly, WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:NATURALNESS suggest that we should be consistent with the Nanjing article, and also use the most natural title for the city, which is now Nanjing...and WP:UCN is pretty clear too. So, whilst I understand what you're saying, and while I too have a nostalgia for English exonyms, this is not one of those cases. Nanjing and Nanking are the same name...just a different graphical representation of the Chinese. Using the modern form makes sense, for the sake of comprehension. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least Confucius still Confucius, not Kǒngzǐ (missing the Chinese: 夫 sound). Yes you can rebut me with ngram that the pinyin is not as popular as Confucius. Matthew_hk tc 15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing for a change to the name of Confucius...again, we go by usage in reliable sources, and that dear old fellow is still called 'Confucius' by them...but this incident is not usually called 'Nanking Massacre'...I don't understand why this is not comprehensible. RGloucester — ☎ 15:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just flipping ngram.....[11] The most popular result would be Rape of Nanking. So may i change my oppose to support Rape of Nanking. Matthew_hk tc 15:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew_hkThere are problems with the NGram you give—you forgot to turn on case insensitivity, and you set the cutoff year at 2000. When you fix that, you get this NGram, which destroys "Rape of Nanking"'s lead (and that goes only to 2008). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wrote that in my proposal. I would support 'Rape of Nanking', if anyone wants to try that. It clearly is the most common name. However, in the past, there has been certain opposition to such usage of 'rape', regardless of its dictionary definition. In any case, if we retain the use of a descriptive title (WP:NDESC), rather than the most common name, we should use 'Nanjing' for the reasons already expressed above. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the current title "Nanking Massacre" is fairly resemble the most common name (Rape of Nanking) and pretty much the same as second most popular common name in ngram "Nanjing massacre", that is my opinion. Matthew_hk tc 16:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp: You've made a number of important errors. You imply the city was once spelled Nanking, but this was only one of a number of competing romanizations (Wade-Giles, in this case), and was never official—other spellings included Nankin and Nanching. There was no official romanization of the city's name until the CCP adopted Pinyin, which gives us Nanjing. You have to understand that Nanjing is not "a modern city name"—it is the exact same name with the exact same pronunciation—the k in Wade-Giles is pronounced the same as the j in Pinyin.
"to use a modern city name in an article about an historical event is just plain wrong"—ignoring the fallacy I've just described, I've already brought up that this is exactly what actual scholars have been doing for at least a quarter century now, and by a wide margin. The prevalance of "Rape of Nanking" in popular parlance is due to Chang's book, but scholars had shared this before, but already moved on to "Nanjing Massacre" several years before that book appeared, and have done only more so since it did.
Re: "Confucius"—few sources in English use any Chinese variant of his name, and the pronunciation you give is not what he would have used in his time. There is no parallel to Nanking vs Nanjing, where the scholarly consensus is overwhelmingly to use Nanjing.
And if you think about it, using what the scholars have used for over a quarter-century helps us avoid textual atrocities such as "The Nanking Massacre occurred in Nanjing in 1937 ..." Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Nanking" is not Wade-Giles. It is Postal, and based on the former pronunciation in Nanjing dialect, which was at one point the Chinese lingua franca. "Rape of Nanking" was the common name long before that book appeared. Look at the Ngram. Of course, Nanjing Massacre had by that time already surpassed all variants that were not the set phrase that is "Rape of Nanking", as you say. RGloucester — ☎ 23:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! You're right—Wade–Giles is Nan-ching. but I didn't say Chang came up with "Rape of Nanking", only that its widespread popular (non-scholarly) usage resulted from that book. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a Chinese (Cantonese-Hongkonger), it is not that terrible to had a lede such as Peking University is a university in Beijing (Peking), China. When there is 6 or more parallel Cantonese romanization and they are not all that popular, that is terrible. At least more people used Wade-Giles as their human name at that time, more place names were using postal at that time. Matthew hk (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Peking University" is the official name of the university—it's even in the logo. There is no "official" English name for the event described in this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It just an example that a lead is not that terrible to have different romanization of placename. In this article, it just not that terrible if the lede contain any combination of "Rape", "Massacre" , "Nanking " and " Nanjing", also i piped the image with : for good. Matthew hk (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In exceptional circumstances, it's to be tolerated. This is not such a circumstance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, no errors here. Nanking was always the common name in English-language sources at the time. I am fully aware of the romanisation issues. As for "The Nanking Massacre occurred in Nanjing in 1937 ..." No, "The Nanking Massacre occurred in Nanking in 1937 ..." We use the common name of the place at the time throughout the article. That was Nanking. We don't go on about Istanbul in articles about the city when it was commonly known as Constantinople (even though many would probably prefer we referred to it as Istanbul at all times from the Ottoman conquest onwards)! No difference here. It's entirely irrelevant that this is just a romanisation issue. This is English Wikipedia, not romanised Chinese Wikipedia! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp: "We use the common name of the place at the time throughout the article."—you really need to do a quick CTRL-F, because Nanjing is used throughout the article. 50 times, in fact.
The whole "Instanbul"/"Constantinople" thing shows just how poorly you understand what's happening—Constantinople changed its name to Istanbul (and the two in fact have separate articles). Nanjing has not changed its name—it's still 南京, and is still pronounced the same ([nǎn.tɕíŋ]) regardless of romanization (just as the capital of Japan is pronouced exactly the same regardless of whether it's spelt Tokio, Tokyo, Toukyou, Tōkyō, or Tohkyoh).
You're also still failing to address the fact that books and articles on the incident have overwhelmingly favoured Nanjing for decades—since years before there was a Wikipedia. We also have the articles Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal and Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders—the latter is in fact the official, literally written-in-stone name of the facility. You're insisting on Wikipedia's article being decades out of step with the real world, as well as other, related Wikipedia articles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the patronising tone and assuming I don't know what I'm talking about. I can assure you I do. You misunderstood what I wrote above. I was not implying the name had been used in the article. I was stating it should be in order to avoid revisionism! Yes, I'm aware that Istanbul has changed its name. But it was commonly known as Istanbul by Turks long before it was known as Istanbul in the English-speaking world (which didn't happen until at least the 1930s), which was clearly my point. The separate articles generally cover the city before the Ottoman conquest (Constantinople) and the modern city (Istanbul), so I'm not sure why you think the two separate articles are relevant to the point I was making. It is a fact that China wishes the city to be known as Nanjing. So naturally they refer to it as Nanjing, even in historical terms, and put that on the side of the building in Nanjing! How does this in any way make it the common name in the English-speaking world for the events that occurred in the 1930s? As to pronunciation, it may be pronounced the same by Chinese people, but Nanking and Nanjing are clearly pronounced differently by non-Chinese. Again, this is English Wikipedia. It's not just a difference in spelling for English-speakers (as Tokyo and Tokio are); it's essentially a different word. Note that the first use of the word Nanjing in The Times is in 1980 and they have continued to refer to the city as Nanking in an historical context (especially the Nanking massacre) right up to the present day! Because it is the common name in the English-speaking world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp: I'm sorry, but if you keep hammering down on the Istanbul/Constantinople thing, you're only demonstrating the more that you are not understanding the situation. "it's essentially a different word"—deserves no more than an eyeroll. Please don't insult our intelligence.
"revisionism"—that's an audacious claim, and you'll need to back that up with something. Who are you accusing of what?
And you're still neglecting to address how the world has moved on to Nanjing massacre—or is this "revisionism"? We're talking tens of thousands of works. You don't get to just ignore that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, RGloucester makes a convincing argument. As for the historical appropriateness of "Nanjing" vs "Nanking", it is not correct to say that we'd have to use the older form because it was the one used at the time of the event. The criterion is not what English speakers used to say back at the time, but what English speakers say today when speaking about back then. Yes, we're the English Wikipedia, not the Transliterated Chinese Wikipedia, but we're also the 2018 Wikipedia, not the 1940 Wikipedia. So if, as RGloucester has shown, English speakers today preferentially use "Nanjing", then there's no reason for us not to do the same (Just as in an article about an event that took part in Livorno in the 18th century, we'd still say "Livorno", even if English speakers back then would have called it "Leghorn".) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the ngrams data; I see no reason to use an archaic romanization of 南京 in the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hu Hualing; Zhang Lian-hong, eds. (2010) [original diaries written in 1937–1940 and 1937–38 respectively]. "Notes". The Undaunted Women of Nanking: The Wartime Diaries of Minnie Vautrin and Tsen Shui-Fang. Translated by Hu Hualing; Zhang Lian-hong. Carbondale, Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. p. 215. ISBN 978-0-8093-2963-2.
According to what policy or guideline? I don't see anything about that in WP:AT. WP:PINYIN explicitly states "English Wikipedia uses pinyin as the default Romanisation method for Chinese characters, except where a non-pinyin form of a word is used by modern reliable secondary sources". That criteria is not met, and overarching policy at WP:AT is even more clear. We've also got WP:MPN ('Use modern names'), which states "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same". This burden is also not met. RGloucester — ☎ 05:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking along the lines of WP:RECENT, but fair point. One thing I'd note is that Nanking/Nanjing are different in a way Tokio/Tokyo is not, because Chinese government maintains a policy of promoting Standard Chinese over regional dialects. feminist (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Er, it is broken. Our article title policy says use common names, and indeed, names consistent with other similar articles, in this case Nanjing. In addition, our place name guidelines say not to use historical names in this sort of context unless a significant majority of reliable sources do, which they don't. If something doesn't align with our policies and guidelines, that's the definition of broken. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not broken. Is there any evidence of a real problem by keeping the name? Does someone now not know what Nanking Massacre is? Basically you're just wikilawyering - "Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express". Some editors have tried to get the name changed but failed. You've offered no new argument. Just read WP:TITLECHANGES carefully. STSC (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I offered you data that was never provided previously in an RM. Data that clearly favours a page move. I don't see how I went against the underlying principles of the policies and guidelines...that'd be the present title. I'm well aware of WP:TITLECHANGES, thank you. RGloucester — ☎ 20:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, just one set of old data itself would not favour any page move. "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." This is not about "Nanking" or "Nanjing" itself. The historical incident has long since been known as Nanking Massacre. May I ask again... Do people now not know what Nanking Massacre is? Your proposed move is absolutely not necessary. STSC (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The historical incident has long since been known as Nanking Massacre."—the evidence provided shows it that "Nanjing massacre" has been preferred to "Nanking massacre" longer than there has been a Wikipedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the Ngram only shows the data upto year 2008, isn't a crystal ball. STSC (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not seriously suggesting the trend might have reversed since 2008?! Do you have even the slightest shard of evidence?
Since 2008, at least two books with "Nanjing Massacre" in the title have appeared: nanking&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHuurG8KreAhVKErwKHbz2A04Q6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=intitle%3A%22nanjing%20massacre%22%20-nanking&f=false The Nanjing Massacre: A Japanese Journalist Confronts Japan's National Shame by Katsuichi Honda and The Nanjing Massacre By Angie Timmons. I can find no book with Nanking Massacre in th etitle, and only one book with "Rape of Nanking" in the title: The Woman Who Could Not Forget: Iris Chang Before and Beyond The Rape of Nanking by Ying-Ying Chang, where "Rape of Nanking" clearly is a reference to the title of Chang's book, not the event itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we had taken out the smoothing factor, we could see the actual trends did go up and down over a period of time. STSC (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to demonstrate this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp: And the capital of Japan was romanized universally as Yedo even decades after its change to Tokyo; yet all modern sources spell it Edo, so we have Fall of Edo and not Fall of Yedo, and Edo period and not Yedo period. Is this also "revisionism"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but WP:MPN says "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same". We go by modern sources...and their usage is clear. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd certainly argue that the most common way of transcribing Nanjing at the time of the massacre was 南京 - which doesn't have anything even remotely like a hard-k sound in it. Frankly, the older romanizations that led to failures of transcription like "Peking" and "Nanking" are relics of the past that are best buried. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the relevant place name romanisation was based on 1700s Nanjing dialect, which was already becoming archaic in the 1700s...there were political reasons for its use in the early 20th century, which you can read about at Chinese postal romanisation. The contemporary Wade-Giles romanisation, 'Nan-ching', was much more reflective of the actual pronunciation, but was considered anglocentric by certain colonialist parties. RGloucester — ☎ 16:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True story, I once threw a novel across the room when, in the appendix, the author spent half a page waxing poetical about how "superior" Wade-Giles was to Pingyin. But yeah, Nanking isn't the relevant placename for anyone who actually speaks the word in the modern world, including both the first half of the twentieth century and now. And Nanjing is much closer to the actual word-sound, and is the official romanization of the city. So I stand by that MOS:COMMONNAME would prefer it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but MOS:COMMONNAME is about "Organisms". STSC (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant guideline is at WP:COMMONNAME, not MOS:COMMONNAME. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was tired and cranky yesterday and mixed up my commonname policies. Byt yes, I meant WP:COMMONNAME. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support When I first came across this article, I thought perhaps there had been another massacre at a different place called Nanking... I have only ever heard it called Nanjing and it's ridiculous to insist on using an outdated name, when there are piles of sources all showing it should be called Nanjing Massacre. Air♠CombatTalk! 05:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect terms.

Massacre refers to killing. What happened in Nanjing was an inhuman act of sodomy, and we should not try to avoid it. Rape, is the correct term. It was the Rape of Nanjing. It all centered around rape, extreme sodomy. Rape and humiliation of women and children as a weapon of war.

Massacre is too light word to describe what happened & people see this as cleansing history. We don't call the holocaust a mass death. We shouldn't call this a massacre.

I of course understand that calling it by its correct name would cause problems as there is a book with the same name, but I'd request we find a better, more respectful name for this.

I hope I made my point well and hope I'm not offending anyone. Wantsumfactsrn (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the mass-killing of civilians was a more serious war crime than sodomy; and the "rape of Nanjing" was always as much of a figurative statement as an explicit reference to that particular category of atrocity. tl;dr while rape occurred at Nanjing, the principal defining act of this event was mass murder of civilians. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Rape" in "Rape of Nanjing" doesn't refer to "rape" in the modern sense...it refers to the general wanton violence/destruction/&c with which the city was captured. Take a look at the OED (def 1), and you'll understand. See also (def 1c). RGloucester — ☎ 13:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you said it better than my pre-coffee brain allowed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "incorrect terms"

I'm curious why my change of the Nanjing page was reverted. Certainly we all must understand there are differing accounts of what happened and so the word "differing" is more appropriate than the loaded, biased term "revisionist". For instance, it could be said that the International Settlement was basically the heart of Europe's corruption of China, and that Europe's money had been corrupting China for a hundred years. Regardless of separate issues of Japanese Imperialism in Manchuria, 南京 was most likely severely corrupt from the influence of the International Settlement. China could be said to have been the occupied territory of Europe. And then this "Amongst all this, Shanghai was notable for a long period as the only place in the world that unconditionally offered refuge for Jews escaping from the Nazis." The only place in the world...

Can we be absolutely sure of who is "revising" history here? We have a pretty good idea of ballpark facts for things hundreds or even thousands of years earlier, how many soldiers died in the Napoleonic wars, that Napoleon was exiled twice, etc., for instance, but for some reason World War II is shrouded in confusion. "revisionist" is a biased term used by one side to discredit the other. Wikipedia cannot be a source of knowledge if it takes sides. Peterius (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you start with "it could be said that the International Settlement was basically the heart of Europe's corruption of China", you're going to have the hardest time convincing people that calling "revisionism" a mere difference of opinion is a simple, good faith contribution to the article. You're obviously pushing a POV.
WP:WEIGHT is a prime consideration in WP:NPOV, and the weight of our sources makes it clear that the people we are reporting about are revisionists, not merely people with differing opinions. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

a "large number" is a Weasel Term

Doing a search on "the rape of nanking", based off something I watched in a Youtube video, the initial (snippet) search results looked something like "Rape: A large number...." and my first reaction to this was "Huh. Like they couldn't bring themselves to give some kind of ballpark figure, or what?" So I clicked the Article, read a bit (it's very long and detailed), and then on a whim I did a page search of the text "a large number" and found four iterations of this text in the whole Article, one of which is in the Lede itself. I don't know enough to "know", but I KNOW that there are better numbers available than "a large number", which is first meaningless (how many rapes, and how many murders, make a "large number"? I say one is enough, but let's go with ten. Was it ten, or ten thousand?), but given that the weasel phrase is used four times, and given the resistance and controversy around the events, I wonder if this weasel phrase isn't being employed to assuage the concerns of those who would like to minimize what happened. Else, what other possible explanation could there be? Four times in a single Article. That's a LARGE NUMBER of times for failing to give an estimate that gives at least some sense of scale. FOUR times this phrase has been used. FOUR. Not one, or three, but FOUR. Once is oversight, but FOUR looks like a concerted effort to obfuscate numbers that I believe exist. FOUR. I hope I've banged on this enough to provoke someone who knows the subject to look into it. FOUR.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

What, do you think some one went around with a pencil and paper and asked every surviving woman if she was raped? There have most likely been many interviews where this has been mentioned. You should find a first hand account. I highly doubt that there will ever be a number. There are no bodies to count. Again, every woman would have had to be asked and her response recorded. Sorry, no survey like that exists.
Sorry, what I came here to mention was a problem I, a reader, have with the introduction to this article:

Is it really necessary to mention that some, a very small number of people, believe that this did not happen? This encourages readers to doubt this occurrence ever happened and is irrelevant. There is no such mention of deniers of the holocaust on that horrid event's page. There is a group of people who think the earth is flat. Should there be a disclaimer on every page regarding the earth or its geography? This is an attempt to raise doubt in the readers mind that this happened. It, and all other mentions or revisionism, must be deleted to truly educate people about this event.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2019

Change the URL of the fifth item under the External Links section because the site, Online Documentary: The Nanking Atrocities, has been moved. Change the link to the new URL: https://thenankingmassacre.org/ 2001:CE0:2201:836:BCD5:9EDD:1F7E:A96D (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is more accurate to describe that clothes soldiers are included in the number of dead.

It is more accurate to describe that clothes soldiers are included in the number of dead. Supercall12 (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what precisely are you talking about? Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate photo of abuse on this page

I believe Wikipedia has no censorship of articles. I want to point out that the photo of the mutilated, tortured woman's body seems to me to overstretch the freedom of information sharing. While it illustrates how bad the massacre was, the verbal description is enough to make the point without a graphic photograph. In my view the photo comes under the category of ultra-extreme violence rather than academic interest. This page is visible to all ages including children and the photo erases all human dignity from the victim and families involved. There are those alive today who were present in Nanking. I feel the line should be drawn by Wikipedia in the same way that social media sites is becoming accountable for postings. Richardf01 (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely, vehemently disagree. In fact, there should be more pictures of the atrocities committed. To mute any of these crimes by concealing the photographic evidence is to allow someone to claim that they did not happen, as well as minimize the great risk to life and limb that the people who took and smuggled these pictures out to the rest of the world.
As editors, we are required to be neutral with regards to content. As a human being, there is a realization that the moment one allows a war atrocity to be forgotten allows it to occur again.
I will oppose any effort to remove any photographic content from this article. That is not meant to serve as a challenge, but as a promise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please for the sake of knowledge, do not cite wrong title books, thanks (correct it please)

Actually wikipedia editors do wahterver they want..It's not so free, I realized this also in my country, it's a little bit human limited. People managing these pages are not always cool rational people often not have a minimal knowledge of the topics they touch. Anyway... Dear admins, i see you blocked the article, i know that for these topics there are constant attacks of noobs that have strange missions in their lives. I just wanna suggest that, it is clearly visibile from any research that Ishikawa book is not "living soldiers" it's titled SOLDIERS ALIVE. Please do not prevent people to read things whatever and whoever had made atrocities, it's human atrocities we need to know and books should be mentioned with their TITLE. Thanks.

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🌴Talk🌲Help out at CCI! 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay to add the book source for 80,000 Chinese women raped in Nanjing Massacre

I recently added a estimate for 80,000 Chinese women. My recent edit here

Using from the book source that is already in this wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_of_Nanking_(book)

"On the rape that occurred during the massacre, Chang wrote that "certainly it was one of the greatest mass rapes in world history." She estimates that the number of women raped ranged from 20,000 to as many as 80,000,[19]" Vamlos (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are conspiracy theories allowed here?

when Chiang Kai-shek was in charge he retreated his military from the cities while using slash and burn tactics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.69.119 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

{{edit semi-protected|Nanjing Massacre|answered=yes} Change "Then the" to "The then" in the first sentence. 124.123.184.115 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorta. I reworded it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of torture in introduction, only two mentions in the article

Is there any reason to omit the word "mass torture" in the very first sentence along with murder and rape? I've always thought of Nanjing infamous not just because of the amount of victims, but also because of the scale (and variety) of torture. I was surprised that, outside of a quote, the word only appears once in the article. Compare with rape*, which appears 94 times. --152.165.121.116 (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nanjing_Massacre&oldid=999499555"