Talk:Iris Chang

Controversial

This article is controversial in many respects: Ms. Chang was only trying her best to preserve and uncover the past that has been passed on to her from her parents. Genocide is unfathomable even to those who underwent it, let alone people who only know it be definition.

We should not judge the effort of those trying to educate. If Nazis can write a book about how the Holocaust is a myth, Ms. Chang had every right to voice her opinion. History is written by humans who are ridden with flaws. Historians or not, we all choose, consciously or subconsciously what we want to see, hear and feel.

Dwarthy 10:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is she a historian

Sadly another beautiful and potent mind of our times has been consumed by our new epidemic. From Califonia to Adelaide mental health affects us all. We need to be able to communicate in a better way so people don't get washed away like this. Simon Windsor, Australia

What a sad day for Chinese people, especially searching for truth of the Nanjing Massacre among Japanese lies. Alex Chun, Sydney

Is she an historian? Historians are supposed to report facts, but not all historians always project an exact image of what went on in history. In fact, to project a perfect or even near perfect replication of history is impossible: there will always be disputed points as well as unfathomable accounts. Iris Chang, at least in Italic The Rape of Nanking, did report several facts and compiled the accounts of eyewitnesses and their relatives. Certainly it is not perfect, but she did the best she could. She spent a considerable time just discussing and making clear the death toll as reported by various agencies and persons. This story cannot be labeled as one-sided. Who is an historian after all? Would there be a dispute if the author had a doctoral degree in History from Bob's University? Certainly five years of studying History does not mean one can tell history better than another. Ben Franklin executed and published several experiments with electricity and he only had a certified 10th grade education. If this isn't enough, who has read the Foreward to the book? "But Ms. Chang shows more clearly than any previous account just what they did." -- William C. Kirby, Department of HISTORY, Harvard University. Do you still think she does not deserve the label "historian? By the way, don't get me wrong, I see errata here and there, but most books are that way -- as a whole the book is of quality.

Dbulwink 07:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Her primary occupation is in journalism, and like TV directors, she deals with history as a journalist. And putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her misleads readers. It sounds as if she is a professional one. --Nanshu 03:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No. She has written several history books. She makes money by writing about history. That is what a historian is. Markalexander100 05:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I take issue with your statement. Academic historian, which the lable "historian" often imply, do not sell their writing. They "publish" their finding in academic journals. Any so called "history" book you buy in book store usually do not come up in the reading list of history course though those book are undoubtedly more entertaining the one you have to read in the history course. FWBOarticle 17:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sort of...I don't want to say "a historian is someone with a PhD in history," but someone who is a journalist who writes about history is, well, a journalist who writes about history. john k 06:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why call her "a journalist who writes about history" rather than "a historian who writes journalism"? Most people's jobs have nothing to do with what they studied at university. I studied law, not education, but that doesn't mean I'm not a teacher. Chang is best known as a historian, she calls herself a historian, she is a historian. (Let's be inclusive. She is a historian, she is a journalist. These are not mutually exclusive categories). Markalexander100 06:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you know, history is the field almost everyone can get into. Bookstores are flooded with low quality history books. Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians. So not to lower the quality of Wikipedia further, we have to note that.

I was surprized to see [1]. Wow, she claims to be a historian! So I changed the introduction a bit. --Nanshu 03:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whether they are trained to deal with primary sources properly draws a distinction between real and bogus historians Are you planning to describe Herodotus and Gibbon as "bogus historians" too? Markalexander100 04:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. I said "putting the designation of historian on modern figures like her" at the beginning. --Nanshu 06:51, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Spelling of her name

Does anyone know if she officially spells her name as "Iris Shun-Ru Chang"? I ask because this romanization is incorrect. Instead of "Shun-Ru" it should technically be "Ch'un-ju". [[User:Spencer195|]]–spencer¹⁹⁵ 00:08, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What shows in her birth certificate may not be translitered in pinyin, so you should go by what she called herself and then annotate her Chinese name in pinyin. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's best not to assume people romanize their names in Mandarin. Her name in Taiwanese, for example, would be Sûn-jû (with an S). I have no idea what her ethnicity is, but for we know, her parents could have named her according to their Chinese language or dialect. A-giau 05:34, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iris Chang, Historian or/and Journalist?

---

She travelled around the world to interview the people who personally experienced the history. Unlike a TV reporter who only summarized his findings in a few hours time, she spent years in researching and writing on the topic. Such dedication is more than a PhD candidate spend on any thesis. All her work were documented with notes and tape recording from her interviews. If you argue she is not a historian, please tell me what is missing. Is it because she presented her work as commercial books instead of thesis? So commercial books are disqualified as history? By that standard, we don't have much history in our libraries, and definitely none in bookstores. 67.170.239.52 07:42, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All you mentioned is journalist works. Apparently, she wasn't taught how to use primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which is essential for historiography, at least in Japan. --Nanshu 07:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If everyone want to argue over linguistic, one could say that anyone who write about history is a historian. That would incluce journalist who write about vietnam or school kids doing town history as their homework. Just that the word "historian" imply (trained) "academic historian" (which Iris Chang certainly wasn't) who are taught how to handle and grade different historical souce. If someone wish to imply from such label that she was a good (trained/proper/academic or whatever) historian, then one is certainly deluding themselves.

I have found out about her death in the obituary of the Economist. I thought it was fair obituary. Afterall, Brits write the best obituary IMO. http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423136

'"Proper" historians cavilled, and with some reason. Her book, several said, was too polemical, and was riddled with mistakes which she refused to correct. her reliance on oral history, especially the fading memories of Chinese witnesses, was unwise. Even her use of the invaluable diaries of foreign "bystanders" in Nanking was suspect, for these people - who had organised a "safety zone" both for foreigners and Chinese - had no idea of the actual numbers killed. When her book was transalted into Japanese, supporters of the Great Massacre school found they could not defend her figures, which were higher even than those claimed in China. ......

She had been planning, too, to publish the diaries of Minnie Vautrin, and American missionary in Nanking during the massacre. .... She had saved thousands of Chinese civilians from the Japanese, ... In 1941, however, a year to the day after leaving Nanking, she had committed sucide, convinced that she had done too little.

Friends wondered whether Miss Chang had felt the same. This was certainly likely, But she was also aware that her writing had playd into the hands of the massacre's deniers: that she had perhaps not only done too little, but protested too much."

I have previously stated something similar, that her book's standard from POW of academic is below per, that her book was sort of embarrasement to historians in Japan who was on the side of "Massacre" school and that right wingers relished her book saying since her book is false, the whole Nanking Massacre is false (which is obviously false argument). My insertion was vigorously contested by some other members of this site, who no doubt was feeling that to criticise Iris Chang is to criticise the "truth" of the massacre (which IMO is to played into the hands of denier). I feel that it is more honest to state that her book's handling historical material was indeed somewhat "slopply" (or "not of standard considered apropriate by academia") because she was not a trained historian but a journalist. It is undoubtedly true, too, that this has made the book immensely more powerful reading. Go to any university library and try readin something like "American History Review". None of the article woule ever top New York Best seller list. FWBOarticle 16:45, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have changed "historian" to "she wrote bestselling book on the history of Nanking Massacre". If someone say physicist, there is no ambiguity that the person is a academic, not highschool kid doing physics or journalist writing about Steven Hawking. The same can be said about economist, biologist, pharmacist, sociologist, criminologist and so on. By calling her historian without explaining her lack of academic training (which was quite obvious in her writing) would be inaccurate description of her credential IMO. On the other hand, calling her a mere "journalist", a profession which public consider equal to lawyers, may be bit unfair. How about adding "bestselling author" of the history of Naking Massacre along with freelance journalist? FWBOarticle

I've changed it back. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: someone who writes about or studies history; M-W: a student or writer of history. This is not an appropriate place to redefine words to suit a particular POV. Mark¹ 06:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as that.

historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian

The term historian clearly have implication that they use academic methodology and not of journalist. Many journalist write book about Vietnam war, for example, and they are not described as historians. As far as historical "research" is concerened, her book's main content was collection of interviews by the survivours. Most of what academic historians call "primary" material in her book was from previously researched materials by academics (not that there is anything wrong with that, even in academia, as long as credit is given in the footnote). Also, If you insist on narrower definition of the term, I can do likewise. I can change the term "historian" to "amature historian". Many "amature" (untrained) historian publish and Iris Chang certainly fall into this category (never mind that the term amature often "imply" second-rate work). There are two agenda at war here, one trying to up her credential as "historian" (with added implied credential as scholarly work which her work wasn't) and other trying to discredit her book as a work of a journalist (one of the least trusted profession in America) which is unfair given that many contention of her book was based on previously researched material by academic though she added quite few bits which is not as solid from academic POW. If your insistence of use of the term "historian" is based on the point that she "wrote" about history, then what is wrong with describing her as "the author" (someone who "write" book) of the best selling book on the history of Naking Massacre which is spot on description. This also allow us to avoidthe issue of (rotten) journalist and/or (academic) historian. FWBOarticle

Amateur does not mean untrained, it means not professional. She was a historian because she is known for writing books about history (plural). Mark¹ 00:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fact that chang wrote several books on (Chinese, Japanese or American) history doesn't change anything about her lack of traning as a historian. And as you should be aware of wikipedia policy, you can't censor a fact. I should also point out that it is your insistence of calling her a "historian" which brought this mud slinging. As the term "historian" has implication that someone is a academic, it is necessarly to clarify the fact that she is a historian but not trained/academic historian. "The best selling author of history of Naking Massacre" would have avoided all the confusion which the term historian would have caused. I will still settle for "the author" but if you want to stick to "historian but not trained one" be my guest.FWBOarticle

The first thing I want to know is who here is actually a historian through academic training at a top-ranked university in their own country? Because some of the views expressed on this page (not just this section) seem like they were written by people who gave history up as soon as they could. Now then:

A historian can technically be anyone - they do not have to be an academic. A historian is a person who researches and writes history. There have been many "amateur" historians in the past, who did not have academic training, but still wrote various historical texts. But this is no different from saying that anyone can be an athlete if they simply practice sport. I don't think anyone here would say that we should say she was an athlete, because one generally assumes that an athlete is someone who competes in national/international competition. That might be unfair, but we have to keep in mind what others will think.

Chang was a historian through virtue of doing historical research. But we have to remember that her lack of academic training has deep ramifications. She seems to have accepted photographic evidence that is certainly questionable. To readily accept such information damages her reputation as a historian. Just as you can be a historian through writing historical works, how you go about doing so also influences your reputation. So we could certainly call her a historian - the issue is, what kind of a historian should we call her. My suggestions are below:

If we are to call her a historian, then criticism about her use of evidence is extremely valid and should be allowed. This isn't just about her book on Nanjing, all her books have been controversial. This doesn't mean she was "wrong", but it isn't just nationalistic Japanese sentiment - there is much scholarly objection as well.

If people here do not think it is fair for her to be under the spotlight, then she should not be given credit as a full historian. She should be mentioned as a journalist who wrote historical texts, or as an amateur historian. She can't get all the credit but be immune from criticism.

Also it was up to her as a historian to prove the historical value of the photographic evidence she used. You cannot say "prove that it is wrong". Criticism was raised and she did not adequately explain it. She based her response on the fact that the photographs were labelled, as if that proved they said what they showed. That is not what a real historian does.

Other notes:

The "works" section needs to be re-edited - the grammar and sense is quite bad sometimes. Can an editor please put my edit back in about the FIRST book. I accept the rest needs to wait until we resolve our differences.

--John Smith's 14.15 24th June, 2005 DST

Chang can certainly be taken to task for being a bad historian, if she was (I've no idea- I haven't read the book, and I'm not a historian whatever your definition). But we should do that by reporting the criticisms of others (e.g. other historians), not by expressing our own opinions. Criticism specific to the Rape of Nanking book belongs on The Rape of Nanking (book); there's already some coverage of it there, but it can certainly be expanded. Mark¹ 04:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some scholors state that she was a historian, and some other scholors state that she was not a historian. According to NPOV, we need to write both POV as I wrote. Since you reverted my articles without saying anything, you oppose this point. Why?

--Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are confusing two different things: whether she was a historian, and whether she was a good historian. She was a historian, because she wrote history books. Whether she was a good historian is open to debate. Mark¹ 06:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand that there is a such POV. However, there is another POV that states Chang was not a historian. As long as not she was a historian, good or bad does not mean. We have to include both POVs that she was a historian, and she was a good historian because of ... said by ..., and other scholors stated she was a bad historian because of xxx said by xxx. However, some other scholors stated she was not a historian because xxxxx said by xxx.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whether someone is a historian is a question of use of the English language rather than of historiography, so historians are no more qualified to judge it than any other native speaker. Out of interest, which scholars (not Japanese lunatics) have said that she wasn't a historian? Mark¹ 08:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can cite, but before I do that, I want you to explain me the meaning of "Japanese lunatics."

--Flowerofchivalry 09:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with flower. You can't discount all Japanese historians simply because the scholarship of some is questionable.

Also if you count her as a historian, I want to be counted as a historian myself in criticising her. Not in terms of being named but in that my views are acceptable - they go no further than the photograph issues. You have to realise that people who get their books published are the ones that have the best publicists - just because they're a public figure doesn't mean that they know squat. You have to get away from this "so-and-so said" attitude - come on, that's what kids do at school.

John Smith's 13.00 25th June, 2005 DST

I certainly don't discount all Japanese historians- I did specify Japanese lunatics. However any non-native speaker's judgment of usage in another language is going to be of little help. On counting you as a historian, sadly Wikipedia is not an academic work- the opinions and jidgments of all users, however qualified, are completely irrelevant. All that we do is to report the views of others. (Your judgments would be relevant if you published them in a reputable source, however, such as an academic journal). "He says she says" is the only way we can get NPOV and avoid original research. Mark¹ 04:13, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the Japanese historian sources Flower produced are all well-known crooks in terms of credibility. -Hmib 12:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When you will find out you are the troublemaker. Prove or cite "sources Flower produced are all well-known crooks in terms of credibility." You claim that I "produced" sources. I'm telling you, your this kind of silly twisted views causes all the problems. Ashame on you.

--Flowerofchivalry 12:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you two really need to calm down and stop antagonising each other. We all care about the topics we talk about, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Please just take five and try to see things from the other's perspective.

Hmib: comments like that are not helpful. Regardless of what you think about these historians, you shouldn't just label them as crooks. If Flower really is as bad as you make him/her out to be, why drop to his/her level and make cheap comments?

Flower: the same applies to you. If Hmib and others "cause trouble" from your perspective, getting angry and making allegations yourself makes you seem like them.

I have seen positive sides to both of you, so don't just be remembered for your negativity. Just don't act as if you both know everything and the other is 100% wrong.

John Smith's 14.25 25th June, 2005 DST

One Word

Why are you people fighting over the word "historian". This article doesn't need to be changed/reverted every 5 seconds. This is the kind of crap that makes people realize what a fucking joke wikipedia really is. func(talk) 07:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because trolls ought not to be fed. Mark¹ 07:48, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refering to yourself? (^_^). You were having disagreement with someone about whether to describe her as a mere journalist or historian. I offered compromise as "the best selling author of the history of Nanking Massacre". Given that your insistence of the term "historian" is based on the fact that the term refer to "someone who writer/author history", your refusal is more amusing than anything. Of course, you can insist on inclusion of "historian" because it is a "linguistically" correct. But similarly, I can insist on inclusion of "untrained historian" because it is linguistically correct too. Oh, feel free to appeal to higher process if you want. I don't have problem with the term "historian" as long as the clarification is made to avoid a confusion about the term.  :) FWBOarticle

Because a book with questionable research standard has become the best seller. The denier in Japan relished nitpicking her book, implying that since this (best selling) book is false, Nanking Massacre is a false propaganda. The correct response for such false logic is to state that there are enough authentic research done by proper academics and one single sloppily researched (but emotionally charged) book is irrelevant to the truth of NM. Unfortunately, some clueless liberals instead decided to defend the book which is to do exactly what denier side would want. They now have a ground to assert that NM is a indeed propaganda by the left wing liberal. FWBOarticle 20:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The comment immediately above, by FWBOarticle, is the one that still stands. Very impressive to read it over sixteen years later. Deniers in Japan DID relish pointing out all the inaccuracies in Chang's book, which they used cynically, one might even say shamelessly, to further their argument that the Nanjing Massacre must be a fabrication. Overall, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Chang's book did more harm than good, because it did raise awareness in other countries, especially the U.S. But that doesn't mean its impact has been uniformly good. It fueled considerable unproductive debate in Japan, and it's simply not a reliable account, as historians of just about every stripe today agree.--98.111.164.239 (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

According to the he American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a historian is:

1. A writer, student, or scholar of history.
2. One who writes or compiles a chronological record of events; a chronicler.

According to that definition, Iris Chang is a historian. I am going to revert FWBOarticle's trollish mangling of this article until he or she can show me a definition coming from a reputable dictionary that shows that Iris Chang is not a historian. Zh 20:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appear that you failed to read the previous discussion. Mark has refered to dictionary definition such as yours with the same line of argument. I have refered to other online dictionary

historian: a student or writer of history; especially : one that produces a "scholarly" synthesis http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=historian

You or anyone else know that historian, economist or physicist for that matter, in strictly logical manner, should mean someone who do/write/study physics, economics or hisotry, but at the same time, popular usage often confine this term to academics or at least someone with a bachelor degree. Strictly linguistic term, engineer is someone who design mechanical or industrial process and do not require engineering degree. There is no law prohibiting someone without engineering degree from performing engineering.

I came in when there was a spin war going on where one side tried to lower her credential by describing her only as mere journalist while the other side was trying to up her credential by describing her as a historian. I don't have problem with the inclusion of historian as long as the clarification is made. Problem occurs when someone insist on deleting such clarification. I'm still happy with "the best selling author of the history of Nanking Massacre". Afterall, what qulify Chang as a historian is the fact that she authored a book concerning history. It is a spot on description which avoid this credential dispute. FWBOarticle

Opps, I broke three revert rule. I won't edit/revert this page for a week. Sorry. FWBOarticle

Whether one conform to a dictionary difinition is totally different from whether it is worth noting at an encyclopedia. One added to an encyclopedia cannot be free from implications FWBOarticle and I mentioned. So I think we make efforts not to mislead readers. --Nanshu 00:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What makes you think it is not worth mentioning in the article? The very fact so many people are willing to defend this definition proves otherwise. Mandel 21:21, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Please don't add assertions about the accuracy or otherwise of the Rape of Nanking book to this article: there is a lot of dispute about what is and is not accurate about the book, which should be reported (but not pursued!) in the article about the book. Is there any evidence for the "political activist" claim? Thanks, Mark¹ 08:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not assertions; this is the fact. She herself claimed that she attended leacture meetings which was supported by anti-Japanese groups and the Chinese government.

Besides, she was a lobbyist. For example, May 8, 1998, she attended the Senate's briefing, and she claimed that the Japanese's government had been twisting the history.

I do not know (and I'm not interested in) whether what she said is truth or not, but it is clear that she was working for political intentions. activist: An activist is a person who works to bring about political or social changes by campaigning in public or working for an organization (Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 3rd edition) --Flowerofchivalry 08:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What political or social changes was she trying to bring about? Mark¹ 08:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

For example, "Nanking Masscre," which is under huge arguing about its truthfulness. She was also working for the Lipinski's Resolution's approval in 1997, etc.

Don't forget, "political activist" does NOT mean something bad. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, not insulting her.--Flowerofchivalry 08:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

That's more like it- I've added the specific info. That activity was after she wrote the book though- I'd appreciate it if you removed the she started composing the book with this as a start statement, and the specific discussion of the book which, as I say, doesn't belong here. Mark¹ 09:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite. She is a political activist. She is a journalist. She might be a historian. It's ok to write those 3, but if we need to slim it down, it will be the best idea to remove "historian" because she is not a historian actually while we might be able to claim so (I read the above discussion). However, I do not oppose to leave "historian" if people agreed not to slim down the sentence so strictly. Beside, the sentences I added is extremely important. Those ideas I wrote are from The Rape of Nanking (Book), and I summarized it briefly. I believe that we do not need to discuss the book in this particular page, but to discuss about Chang, it seems my brief summary is essential. I'm too tired today to edit the page so I am going to edit the article tomorrow. Please continue discuss here so I can utilize the ideas for the revision if it helps the improvement of the article. --Flowerofchivalry 08:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many people campaign for one cause or another without us describing them as "political activists". That term is simply one interpretation of actions; it's more useful and neutral to describe the actions and allow readers to interpret for themselves. I suspect that part of the problem that we are having is that your English is rather hard to interpret itself, and that you are not as familiar as a native speaker would be with the use of particular phrases and terms in English. I have the same problem in Japanese. Your efforts might be better spent on the Japanese wikipedia, where I would not dare to try to edit. ;) Mark¹ 02:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I enjoyed camping in a mountain. Some people call a mountain as "the place closer to the sky" or "the place used to be under the ocean" or whatever. Your interpretation of mountain is similar to those ideas that closer to the sky or under the ocean, which are still true. Chang decided to write the book The Rape of Nanking for the political reasons. This is what she said.--Flowerofchivalry 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One thing I forgot to mention is about "historian." She is not a historian even though she claimed herself so. I'm not a journalist even if I claim so.--Flowerofchivalry 23:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

People call a mountain a mountain, not "the place closer to the sky", because there is no dispute about what it is. If you make your living writing history or journalism, then you are a historian or a journalist respectively. Mark¹ 01:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned already, she wrote her books for political reasons. People call such a person as a political activist. If you (and other people) agree to leave extra info such as a historian, I will agree to leave it, but otherwise, the word "a historian" should be removed. I clearly agree that she is a journalist. Is there any dispute for this point?--Flowerofchivalry 02:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that she wrote the book specifically in order to change Japanese government policy? Do you have a source for that? I was under the impression that she had written it to inform people in general what had happened. In any case your attempted contributions are not in coherent English and cannot stand. Mark¹ 03:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chang tried to influence U.S. residents with the book. The book contains false information (She stated that the Japanese had only spears, for example). If she was a historian, she could detect that easily. She published such the book because she was a political activist. According to her interview with CND, she claimed herself as a political activist; she said "There were other activists..." There are more than enough supporting ideas. How about a historian? She said that the Japanese has only spears. All real historians may disagree, and your ideas does not make any sense so far, unfortunately.--Flowerofchivalry 05:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have explained to you that this is not the place for your interpretations or your opinions. If you can't understand that and add some content which complies with our policies, then you will achieve nothing here. Mark¹ 03:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are writing your own biased opinions. This is not your own private world to express your opinion. You have been writing twisted ideas all the time. I recommend your quitting such activities.--Flowerofchivalry 03:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry: It would be nice if you could source some of your information, such as:

• She was supported by anti-Japan groups, — anti-Japan groups? Like what? And what kind of support? Keep in mind that groups that seek recompensation for Japanese wartime atrocities or changes in Japanese policies are not necessarily anti-Japan groups.
• and then she started composing the book with this as a start. — So she's some sort of proxy for anti-Japan groups?
• However, historical researchers have found at least 90 mistakes. — Which historical researchers? And what kind of errors are we talking about?
• and most pictures shown in the book have been proven as fabricated. — Most? How many pictures are there in the book? How many are "fabricated"? What does fabricated mean — doctored, or simply attributed wrongly?

Also, it would be nice for you to explain why you removed: After publication of the book, she campaigned to persuade the Japanese government to apologise for its troops' wartime conduct and to pay compensation. . -- ran (talk) 04:48, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ran, I'm glad I can start the real discussion.

• She was supported by anti-Japan groups,

This "anti-Japan groups" comes from "Sokokuto Seinen" Sep 1998. The "groups" are refered as "anti-Japan" because they, for example, Alliance in Memory of the Victims of the Nanking Massacre, do not like Japan is playing leadership role. The Japanese govt already paid huge amount and their seeking compensation is illegal, by the way.

• and then she started composing the book with this as a start.

That's correct. Chang stated in her book.

• However, historical researchers have found at least 90 mistakes.
• and most pictures shown in the book have been proven as fabricated.

These are from SAPIO, Sep 1997.

As far as I know, there are no pictures which proove the incident. The pictures are from other wars, synthesized, and/or made by the Chinese govt. Please note that she stated the incident happened in Winter. It is not my job to prove there are no such incident here. However, there are more than enough proofs that questions the quality of her work. This is the point. In addition, Mark claimed she is not a political activist, or she is a historian rather than a political activist. His ideas do not make any sense. Mark ignores all evidences he does not favor. This is slightly offtopic but if such incident exists, the Chinese govt cannot claim any compensation but the Taiwanese govt can. I think Chang is Taiwanese.--Flowerofchivalry 06:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wait... how is seeking recompensation or opposing Japan's leadership role the same from being "anti-Japan"? You don't have to be anti-Japan — in fact, shouldn't at all be anti-Japan — to see that recompensation is justified and that perhaps Japan shouldn't be the only country playing a leadership role. It might be helpful for you to look at some "anti-Japan" websites. Even the most virulent, the really truly anti-Japan ones tend to carry a disclaimer: "Those Japanese who seek truth and justice like us are our friends and comrades-in-arms!" As such, I don't think it's helpful to throw labels like "anti-Japan" around so easily — it demonizes innocent people.

Also, I'm aware that in the Joint Communique, the Government of the PRC renounces all demands for reparations for Japan, however NGO's generally argue that the Government of the PRC does not represent Chinese NGO's and individuals. Moreover it makes no sense to say that Japan should be recompensating the ROC. Are the people who suffered still citizens of the ROC? Is Nanjing still a part of the ROC?

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "no pictures prove the incident". What do you think about the pictures found at Nanking Massacre? Clearly, there are some photos in some books that have been doctored or misattributed, but can you say this about every single picture of the Nanking Massacre, especially every single picture in Iris Chang's book? -- ran (talk) 18:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Technically, a group which is oppose to Japan is called an anti-Japan group(from dic definition). Japan already compensate for the incident which is not yet proven as existed. I don't know you know this or not(are you familiar with the Japanese politics?), but there are huge anti-Japan groups in Japan.

I can't understand what "NGO's" is. I appreciate you if you explain me that more.

There are no pictures prove the incident. This is the point. However, I have never said that there are pictures which prove the incident does not exist. It is Chang's job to prove there is such the incident. I'm very disappointed she commited suicide. She should have seen a better psychiatrist.

I hope this help you and other people.--Flowerofchivalry 21:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NGO = 非政府組織. In the Joint Communique it was the government of the PRC that gave up its rights to recompensation from the Japanese government. The argument is that Chinese NGOs and individuals can still sue for recompensation from Japanese companies.

In any case, once again let me say that asking for recompensation is not "anti-Japan", even if you have doubts about the legal aspects. There are Japanese lawyers and Japanese individuals who are helping Chinese people simply because they feel they're doing the right and decent thing; are they "anti-Japan"? I myself am disgusted by Japanese actions during World War II, and as a Chinese person I am also disgusted by many actions that Chinese governments have taken in the past. But that does not make me "anti-Japan" or "anti-China".

And finally, are you saying that the Nanking Massacre did not happen? In this case, please come to Nanking Massacre and tell us what you think about the article, especially the pictures. -- ran (talk) 18:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I still cannot get the point that why NGOs and people still have rights to demand compensation from the Japanese govt which has been paid already. Such groups are called anti-Japan groups because they are against or oppose to the Japanese govt or Japan or whatever. I have to tell you that those anti-Japan Japanese people are communists and anti-Establishment. Well, there are several people who unknowingly joined them but majority is still anti-Japan. Since there is a freedom of speech in Japan (but not in China), such movement is legal, but still they are anti-Japan. The final point is so-called Nanking Massacre. I have never said Nanking Massacre did not happen. However, I personally believe it did not happen, and I officially claim that there are no known proofs which prove Nanking Massacre happened. This is because it is impossible to prove something does not exist. Once again, it is Chang or supporter's job to prove the incident, but seems it have never succeeded. I wish I could join the argument to the other page at this time, but I have only 24 hours a day. I will join the argument after I finish this argument.--Flowerofchivalry 04:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The outcome of this argument depends on the outcome of the discussion at Talk:Nanking Massacre. It is clear that your view is not represented at Nanking Massacre. But if we don't represent it there then it makes little sense to argue about it in an article about a writer / historian / journalist whatever who's writing about it 60 years later. So please, let us continue there, not here.

Now look, I'm Chinese, I'm not anti-Japan at all. I think China, Japan and Korea share more in terms of culture and values with each other than with any other country in the world. I think sometime in the future, when China becomes developed and democratic, the countries of East Asia should form a military alliance and economic bloc (peacefully and democratically, unlike the "大東亜共栄圏") to defend and promote our shared civilization and shared heritage. This is how far I believe China-Japan cooperation and friendship should go. But I also think the Nanking Massacre happened, and was a terrible chapter in the joint history of China and Japan. I don't think such atrocities should be repeated for the sake of both China and Japan, and I think your viewpoint is dangerous and unacceptable. If you want to call me "anti-Japan" then please do so, but I don't agree with you on that either.

When we get to Talk:Nanking Massacre, I will defend your right to include your view in the article as a part of NPOV policy, because I am a sysop and I'm obliged to do so. But that doesn't mean I agree with or approve of your views. -- ran (talk) 05:28, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm gonna move to Talk:Nanking Massacre and continue on discussion. By the way, where is other people. I think Mark may want to join the discussion if he has any reasoning.--Flowerofchivalry 06:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering when you're going to accept that opposing some of the Japanese government's policies doesn't make an organisation "anti-Japan". The Democratic Party of Japan opposes many of the government's policies: is that an "anti-Japan organisation"? If not, perhaps you could try to explain what you think you are saying. Mark¹ 06:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now that certainly wasn't necessary. No need to get so worked up. There are plenty of ignorant, stupid people in the world; no need to lower yourself to their level by calling names. -Hmib 00:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I was discussing in the other place, vandalism was occured. By the way, why she is not a political activist? She is clearly a political activist rather than a historian. She might be a historian because she claimed herself so. I'm gonna wait one day to modify the article(to discuss here first). --Flowerofchivalry 02:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only support you have provided for the "political activist" claim is the fact that she campaigned on one particular issue. That is already mentioned in the article. Your version implies that she did this for a living, which was not the case. Mark¹ 03:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote on the other page, you are just supporting Chang. She had been paid for her so-called research on China by the Chinese government and she accused the Japanese govt. It is not necessarily to earn money to be a political activist, but she was paid by the Chinese govt.

You have to show me why I should not write "a political activist" on the article. As you know this already, we are discussing about the accuracy of the book and the incident itself. I don't edit that part today because I don't feel good and need some sleep, but the article seriously lacks NPOV. If you believe the book is accurate and most part are the truth, please explain them here. It's your homework.

Once again, this is not your personal place to support Iris Chang. You can open your own website or blog, so you can do whatever you want without arguing annoying guy. I'm not gonna disturb your personal website :D --Flowerofchivalry 09:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mark, you are keep reverting the article without any discussions. That will be considered as vandalism. It seems you cannot make any counterargument but you just want to write your personal opinion. This will not be tolerated. --Flowerofchivalry 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. Ran and I have explained our policies to you at some length. Either you act like a civilised human being and follow them, or you get reverted. It's up to you. Mark¹ 04:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are the person should act like a civilised human being. You are just writing your own personal opinion and trying to defend that. --Flowerofchivalry 11:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK guys, let's ALL act like civilized human beings. Flowerofchivalry, there are certain wikipolicies that you might want to check out, such as what wikipedia is not, NPOV, etc. There are some important points, that I wish to list here.

1. NPOV does NOT mean including every single lopsided theory existing. Let's say, for example, it is my firm personal belief that I, Hmib, am God. I truly believe this. Does this mean we should add to God, that "User:Hmib is God"?
2. As an extension to that, NPOV does NOT mean satisfying every party there is. NPOV means presenting incontrovertible fact. The fact that you don't like something that's said on wikipedia does NOT mean it's POV. Let me present a few examples.
   1. Japan invaded China.
   2. Both Nazi Germany and Japan committed atrocities.
   3. Japan committed worse atrocities than Germany.
3. So, which of these are POV? Number 1 is a fact. Number 2 is a fact. Number 3, although presenting the same basic information that Japan AND Germany committed atrocities (as can be inferred), is an opinion, since there is no way of measuring the severity of atrocities.
4. Back to Iris Chang. You believe that, because (you believe) she is a government agent, she cannot be a historian. Nowhere on OED, Merriam-Webster or Collins does the entry "historian" specifically states that a historian cannot be a government agent. As such, your opinion is not backed by facts.
5. Another reminder, which doesn't have to do with this discussion per se, but one that you might want to keep in mind, is to show respect for your fellow editors. Using phrases like "It's your homework", ignoring comments made by other editors and reply to them when they suit you, etc, are not considered good manners.

-Hmib 06:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Now, back to watching Constantine.)

Welcome. I talked to Mandel at Talk:Nanking_Massacre, and I believe talking to Mandel has higher priority. I'm seeking for help because I have 10 fingers and 1 brain and 2 eyes only. Until I find suitable people, I have to decide what is the priority. Unfortunately, your request such as copy the book is impossible for two reasons: time and law.

To show you my honesty, I answer each of your questions carefully.

1. Some people states that Japan invaded China. Some other people states that Japan had never invaded China until going far from Manchuria. Some other people states that Japan has never invaded China at all but Japan has sent troops to China. I will write all of these three opinions if and only if there are adequate levels of supporting ideas.
2. Besides, I'm not familier with Hitler, so I have no idea about Nazi, but if there are opinions which reasonably support their assertions, I propose to include their strange opinions to the article. But I have no enough knowledge about Nazi and Hitler, so I'm not gonna argue about that.
3. As I mentioned above, Chang is a journalist. I agree with this point. Is chang historian? Might be, because she said so despite the fact Chang made huge number of mistakes historians never made. Is Chang political activist? I agree. She decided to write the book about the incident because of the anti-Japan groups. Also there are many political activities Chang had made. Calling her "journalist", "historian" or "political activist" insult her? I disagree. She stated herself that she is a journalist, historian, and political activist.
4. Since Wikipedia and we have limited resource, we have limit the articles. What represents Iris Chang the best. A journalist and political activist.
5. As I mentioned at the talkpage, I respect your effort and Mark's effort for Cambodian articles. It seems he definitely has more knowledge than me about Cambodia, but I know about Japan-China relationship more than him. Is "homework" insulting you? I don't think so, but if you don't want me use it, I have no reason to stick to the word "homework."
6. I almost forgot to mention this. I disagree that Chang was a government agent. She was paid by the Gov. I have received scholorships. Am I agent of my school? If you add that to the article, I will revert it.
7. I'm a human, and I have a risk to make a mistake. I believe I ansewered all of your Qs, but if there is any unanswered, plz dn't hesitate to ask me. But not questions based on your emotion please. I enjoy to read other people's opinion without agreeing that. I love this phrase, so I will cite that to my page.
8. We have to be neutral. Don't assume Japan, China, Taiwan, the U.S., or Chang are good or bad. Media bias everything. FOX, ABC, NBC, CNN, Aljazeera, all of these are biased. It will be a good training to be neutral.

--Flowerofchivalry 08:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have answered almost none of our questions. Stop your anonymous edits NOW. Please act civilized - our patience is not unlimited. As for copying a passage of the book being impossible, I am not asking you to copy the whole page, just the relevent part which supports your stand. -Hmib 01:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Flowerofchivalry, what are your proofs for alleging that:

The Chinese government paid for her research in China regarding the book. Evidence?

The book gained the Western people's attention despite the fact that the accuracy of the book is questioned. By whom?

In fact, pictures in the book have never been proven as the part of Nanking Massacre but many of them were fabricated and misattributed. Proven to whom, and by whom?

The U.S. media accused that Chang made factual mistakes, however. Was it accused, or merely just reported? Mandel 03:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Mandel, Hmib, and all others. Please, please read NPOV. Mandel stated in Hmib's talkpage that information should not be come from right-wing website. Does this satisfy NPOV? Definitely not.

And Hmib, unfortunately you have violated 3RR by possibly unintentionally because of Mark. I have reported you but I wish you won't be banned for 24hrs.

I will come back after I finish writing Lithium salt article in Japanese, so please read and fully understand NPOV. --Flowerofchivalry 09:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think people who just want to support China by ignoring the rules fed up with the situation.

1. I already cited at Nanking Massacre. But I do this again. 祖国と青年(平成10年9月号)
2. By whom for what?
3. I explained this at Nanking Massacre a millions times.
4. Time Asia. "Those Chinatown Blues." Aug 04, 2003. by Susan Jakes. Jakes states that the book is like "the Chinese mainland's textbook." Flowerofchivalry

I'm falling ill, so I won't go into details. I'll just contend one point, point 4 [2]. It's incredibly careless of anyone to even say that this is a review of Rape of Nanking. It is, of course, a review of Chang's The Chinese in America, and in it Susan Jakes specifically praises Chang in Rape of Nanking as "a solid storyteller with a good eye for human detail and a strong sense of narrative". So much for scholarship. Mandel 02:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you will get well soon and come back here. For number 4, the original article I made is for The Chinese in America, and nothing related to The Rape of Nanking. --Flowerofchivalry 05:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need more help on this ?

If you want a third party to get involved with this, I'd be happy to help. Message me on my talk page if so.Pedant 20:44, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

"Implausible" number

I will edit out reference to hata's estimate as "implausibly low" for the reason that his number is not at all inaccurate in term of "factual" and "legal" (i.e. internaltional treaty)" basis.

The reason for this confusion start from (for some, deliberately) ignoring the fact that intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict. Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform (most actually didnt have guns), in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible.

Only area, where every head counts can be added to "killing of civilians outside of military purpose" (i.e. massacre) is when Japanese army went into "Safety Zone" within Nanking City. This is not to say that atrocities did not take place outside of the Safety Zone. Just that outside of safety zone, attempt to estimate the extent of "massacre" in numerical term is futile exercise. Hata's "implausibly" low number is from estimate of Chinese killed in Safety Zone and he make this point explicit in his book. So I will delete the section of the article which state his number being "wrong". Of course, one could explain the detail of Hata's number but I belive that can be done more appropriatly in NM section, not Iris Chang section. Youji Hajime

intial 300,000 (and 120,000 in other section) presented in War Crime Tribunal in Nanking and Tokyo was about war casualty (i.e soldiers and civilians) of the confilict

Disarmed soldiers and civilians.

Because Nationalist army largely consisted of civilians (kids, old, women included) pressed into fighting and were naturally not wearing military uniform

Wrong. Many of the 50,000 soldiers defending Nanjing were from the elite creme de la creme of the RNA, the 8 German-trained (and led, I believe,) divisions. You should present evidence of your claim before making such apparent attempts at demonisation.

in reality, estimation of the number of "civilians" being "massacred" within that "150,000-+300,000" magic number is practically impossible.

The IMTFE concluded the number to be at least 300,000.

-Hmib 17:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This is Hmib's POV pushing. Hmib accused anything against the communist's propaganda is not reliable. --Flowerofchivalry 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. FoC, would you do me a favour and send me an email accusing me of being a communist? That way I can sue you for slander. -Hmib 23:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

FoC keeps deleting this paragraph and Hmib keeps restoring it.

Chang's defenders point out that many of the sources cited in criticising the work made errors larger than Chang was accused of - for example one common source was Hata Ikuhito and his work "The Nanking Atrocities: Fact and Fable" published in 1998, which contained an implausibly low estimate of fatalities.

Hmib, if you want to keep this, you need to name at least one of Chang's defenders who has pointed this out, and either link to it or otherwise cite it. Without a source, it's original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Here you go:

The Japanese historian Hata Ikuhito makes some telling criticisms, although Hata himself minimizes the extent of the massacre.[6] He questions Chang's estimate of the number of victims, a ghoulish exercise perhaps, but an important one. He argues that Chang's figure of 300,000 is impossibly high, but his own figure of 40,000 killed, although similar to the estimates of some Western witnesses, is implausibly low. [3]

And note, that it's not even from Chang's supporters. (Robert Entenmann , Department of History, St. Olaf College)

Appropriateness of some material

Not wishing to make anyone defensive, but I think it may be inappropriate to post Mrs. Chang’s suicide notes in a public forum such as Wikipedia. Out of respect for her privacy and the feelings of her husband and young son, I think information like this might best be placed in less public places.

Perhaps instead of actually reproducing her suicide notes a brief summary of them would be a better choice. Something like,

Chang suffered a nervous breakdown that required hospitalization while researching her fourth book, about United States soldiers who fought in the Philippines during the Pacific War and the Bataan Death March. Chang’s doctors attributed her illness partially to consistent sleep deprivation. Following her release from the hospital, she continued to suffer from depression. She lived in Sunnyvale, California with her husband their young son. On Tuesday, November 9, 2004 at about 9 a.m., Chang was found dead in her car by a county water district employee on a rural road south of Los Gatos. Investigators concluded that Chang had taken her own life.

Would this change be objectionable to any current contributors? Best Regards, JQ 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The original notes were published in the San Francisco Chronicle, which is public material. Do you think they were sly as newspaper folk sometimes are and obtained and published the material without consent of the family? Or do you think her husband granted them permission to use it? I would hope the latter.

Also, I think it is important to see what she wrote. Any kind of summary would be a disservice to the reason why she took her own life. The falacy with the above summary is that you take the doctor's position. What about her own position? Maybe someone was putting pressure on her. Like any kind of unclear story or mystery, it should be left up to the observer to draw his own conclusions.

As for her family, I don't think they would look her up on Wikipedia. I also imagine they wouldn't be offended by the truth. Nevertheless, if the family did not consent to the suicide notes being published in the paper, I would certainly object to them being posted.

Dan 20:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Dan, these are some good points. I was not aware the notes had been published in the newspaper already. I would be very surprised if the SF Chronicle received Mrs. Chang's husband's blessing to do so. I expect more likely he was either not consulted or was not in a position to prevent their publication regardless as to his wishes. Of course, this is just guess work on my part.

When I wrote about the privacy of the family, I was not thinking that family members would look up Iris’entry on Wikipedia. I had other scenarios in mind such the son going to a school in which all the other students passed around copies of his mother's suicide notes. Something of that nature.

Of course, this is a complicated matter and I do not want to pretend I know absolutely what is right and wrong in situations such as this. When I read the entry myself, I felt some shame that I had intruded on a private tragedy that really was none of my business. I think a less detailed entry would serve the needs of the entry, and be more respectful. That is at least my personal belief.

Should the photo of Elizabeth Smart (Utah) removed now that the case is over? Should we remove Muhammad cartoon because it offend muslims? These information come from verified sources. Deleting such information due to "moral orjbective" would amount to censorship, which is specifically ruled out in "What wikipedia is not". If someone object to these information. They should stop reading. Vapour

Inaccuracies

The inaccuracies in the text "The Rape of Nanking" are NOT "alleged". They are a well-documented fact. I'm not debating the veracity of the Rape itself, just that the book was poorly written. For example, see: [4], which is biased as hell to the Japanese right-wing, and some of their arguments are way out there, but still shows how dishonest her photographs could be. or [5], which not only discusses her NUMEROUS errors in detail, but also her plagiarism.

When this book came out in Japan, even the Japanese historians and scholars in the so-called "Grand Massacre School" (who admit that up to 300,000 were killed in the Rape) argued against the release of the book. There are so many errors in it that the ultranationalist right-wing uses the book as a straw man; they say that this poorly-written book is representative of real Grand Massacre scholarship on the subject, which it is not. In this way, it is her book that is helping to keep alive the crazy Japanese right wing, and increasing the spread of right-wing sites like the one I linked to above.

Here is a list of revisions of mistakes that were revised before the release of the paperback: [6]

There's plenty of GOOD studies out there that verify the Nanjing massacres, but this book surely isn't among them. Denying that this book is full of mistakes is ridiculous hero worship/ideology.Bueller 007 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

But this is in the context of criticism of inaccuracies. Many of the critics are batshit insane, and the "inaccuracies" which they are worried about are not the trivial ones which are not disputed. Henry^Flower 07:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Why link to rebuttals of her book on her bio?

Rebuttals and opposing views about The Rape of Nanking would be relevant for an article on the book. Putting the links here on her bio page seems to violate NPOV. I mean, you don't balance profiles of and eulogies to Chang by linking to personal sites which pick apart one, only one, of her books. Has this been raised before? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think rebuttals of only one of her books are a violation of NPOV, but I agree with you that it would be better to limit those links to the article on her book (given that the book does have its own article). --Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for sleep deprivation?

Her suicide and depression are linked to sleep deprivation in the article. Where did the sleep deprivation come from? Was Chang probably just overworked, did she suffer from insomnia, or what other reasons have been suggested? --Ibn Battuta 21:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Did she suffer from paranoia?

What was all that in her suicide notes about the CIA and the government? Was there an actual reason why she felt that people were watching her, or was it a case of paranoia brought on by her other disorders? A little more info on this please. Ham Pastrami 01:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Is their a better photograph of her than the one available. Her left eye looks somewhat creepy. I think it is the way the shadows appear on her face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.148.167 (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Public notability

Could you verify this claim. She is totally unheard of in South East Asia- many authors pre-dating her have written superior books with a far larger readership- in English and SE Asian languages. This point is highly Americo-centric and thusly biased and inaccurate. I suggest if you lack the supporting evidence-kindly delete it- it seems like a self-promotional cliche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.161.136.54 (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved this out-of-place item from the narrative over here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources .--KJRehberg (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

religion?

What religious affiliations did Iris Chang have in her life? 138.239.60.79 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

I don't see any mention in the article of plagiarism in "The Rape of Nanking".Shrikeangel (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of plagiarism is more germane to the book article rather than the biography. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)