Talk:Tongzhou mutiny

Usage of Yasuo Kato

I have again removed the edits of @Artificialrights as per WP:FRINGE. Yasuo Kato's body of work is primarily focused on warcrime denial.

1. He is not a historian. He is a political scientist and editor. Surely there are better sources than this. 2. He is most famous for publishing a book called: “There was no “Korean massacre” in the Great Kanto Earthquake!” 『関東大震災「朝鮮人虐殺」はなかった!』ワック 2014年。選書判 旧版『関東大震災「朝鮮人虐殺」の真実』（産経新聞出版、2009年）。工藤美代子著者名だったが、新版に際し加藤名義に変更（本項#略歴参照。）。 This book raises many red flags about the author. It posits that the Japanese during the Great Kanto Earthquake acted in self defense amongst several other fringe theories. 3. I can only find his works on Tongzhou cited in the same breath as those bemoaning the 'Nanking Hoax' and 'Comfort Women Lie'. Relm (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This is obvious ad hominem fallency, and constitute censorship of speeches.

Just because an author expresses a controversial opinion on one particular event does not mean that all his other works and opinions should be abolished and censored. Each work or opinion should be analyzed separately, and the value of all his works and opinions cannot be denied because of certain controversial opinion.

Wikipedia's guidelines on fringe theories apply to theory and viewpoints, not individual authors. There is no evidence that the author's Tongzhou Massacre writings are fringe theories that conflict with academic consensus. Deleting the writings on the Tongzhou massacre is a sign of war crime denial.

As for the claim that the author is just a political scientist and that his work should be disparaged, it's notable that the works of Iris Chang, a Chinese-American writer and a political activist with no academic background, are often cited as important source of the Nanjing Massacre, although her book has long been found by historians to contain numerous errors. Artificialrights (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

1. The issue is that this author is known for his repeated denial of Japanese warcrimes, I just highlighted the most objectionable one that isn't buried in the chapters of his Showa era series.

2. The viewpoints expressed by this author are fringe, and his academic merit is questionable as a reliable source. I am just saying that it would be better to use a better source without the issues present with the author. There is a reason David Irving is not cited on Bombing of Dresden except to note how his works were notable in shaping the understanding of the event through his fringe views. I think given the page's age, there is still room to incorporate better sources.

3. His work on Tongzhou is billed as primary source interpretation of the Japanese sources, and so his lack of credentials as a Historian are very notable. His lack of credentials combined with his fringe theories are why there is a higher level of scrutiny. Iris Chang's book - which I do have many criticisms of how it discusses the topic - is a work which works primarily off of secondary scholarship. If you look at its citations on the Nanjing Massacre page, it is in-text attributed to Chang's book - and instances which make factual assertions of the massacre are actually citing her citations as well. This is very different than the usage of Kato here. Iris Chang's book also has a wikipedia page of it's own which mentions the criticisms. The book has also been discussed several times extensively on the talk page there.

Overall my suggestions going forward are:

1. Find a better source/sources and link them here for us to discuss.

2. If you insist that Yasuo Kato is sufficient, we can utilize any number of dispute resolution mechanisms such as posting to WP:DRN, seeking input with a post at WT:JAPAN users, or we could also make a post to WP:RSN or WP:FTN. Depends which matches your point of dispute best.

See WP:DR for more info on those options. Relm (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You didn't proved your accusation that this book is "fringe theory." Please discuss on the talk page before arbitrarily deleting sources. You should reach consensus through civil dialogue without firstly engaging in an edit war. Artificialrights (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You are dodging the core of the issue. You still have not provided concrete and specific evidence to support your false claims about this book, specifically why it is considered "fringe theory", and you continue to resort to ad hominem fallacies. The original intention of WP:FRINGE is intended to ensure that Wikipedia does not disproportionately promote fringe theories that are contradict with academic consensus. But this does not mean that certain authors can be arbitrarily excluded. Nor does it mean that a controversial opinion on one topic automatically invalidate all other works by the same author.

You just keep repeating that the author has published controversial views regarding the Kanto Massacre. While I understand your strong preexisting bias against Kato, this is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy. Nationalists in every country tend to ignore things that is unfavorable to their own nation, but that does not affect their ability to uncover and study the victims from their own country. If you can provide consensus from the academic community regarding widespread criticism of the book's content itself, I would consider searching other less accessible and harder-to-find niche sources. Otherwise, given that this book compiles and presents a wealth of valuable untainted and unprocessed primary sources and testimonies, with little analysis from the author, it remains an good reference for the brutal violence. The facts that civilians were killed and that the methods were exceptionally brutal do not require convoluted mental gymnastics to reach a conclusion.

By the way, if Iris Chang really were just a loyal academic scribe, she wouldn't have become a bestselling author, nor would she have been caught with numerous misattributions and glaring faults Artificialrights (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)