Talk:Nanjing Massacre/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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)

---

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)

Supplementary data: Google Books results - Nanjing Massacre / Nanking Massacre / Rape of Nanking / Rape of Nanjing / Nanking massacre / Nanjing massacre

Oppose per above discussion, concluded five weeks ago. There are numerous other examples — Black Hole of Calcutta not Black Hole of Kolkata, Siege of Leningrad not Siege of Saint Petersburg, Battle of Stalingrad not Battle of Volgograd, Peking duck not Beijing duck, Chicken Kiev not Chicken Kyiv, etc.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Support. After contemplation of the nominator's arguments, I am replacing my "Oppose" vote, above, with a "Support" vote.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't know who write the objective WP:pinyin guideline (which people misquote it and pinyin everything, without looking at modern English source), but in modern publication, it still commonly refer as Nanking Massacre. Matthew_hk tc 18:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the Ngrams and Google Books searches above??? RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

In exceptional circumstances, it's to be tolerated. This is not such a circumstance. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

References

• Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED , WP:COMMONNAME -- use Rape of Nanking instead, per common name and Wikipedia is not censored -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • NGram contradicts that "Rape of Nanking" is the WP:COMMONNAME as Wikipedia defines it, and—WP:NOTCENSORED?!?!? This reads like pure trolling. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It looks SPA as the ip just have edit on 26 October 2018 the date of voting. Matthew hk (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    • why would you say that? I have edited other topics, not just this vote. -- 65.94.42.18 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the city was commonly known as Nanking at the time of the rape. As this is a historical event, a higher weight is given to sources at the time. feminist (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Oppose. The article should be at "Rape of Nanking" and moving it further away from that title is the wrong direction. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rationale? You haven't given one, and don't appear to have looked at the evidence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The name has been stable for a long time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. STSC (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Apparently, the Ngram only shows the data upto year 2008, isn't a crystal ball. STSC (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

You'll have to demonstrate this. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support Per MOS:COMMONNAME the city isn't known as Nanking by really anybody in the modern context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It was most certainly known as Nanking at the time of the massacre. By pretty much all English-language sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm sorry but MOS:COMMONNAME is about "Organisms". STSC (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is at WP:COMMONNAME, not MOS:COMMONNAME. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

• 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♠Combat_Talk! 05:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

Thanks you said it better than my pre-coffee brain allowed. Simonm223 (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

Possible copyright problem

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)

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)

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)

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. http://en.wiki.x.io/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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Japanese version of this article has almost no pictures and is polluted with revisionist language

I mean I shouldn't be surprised but this incident and many others have pretty much soured Asia-Pacific relations for 75 years. I wouldn't be so upset if it wasn't for the fact that google translate could pick up on some phrases like below, in the second paragraph:

南京軍事法廷や極東国際軍事裁判で裁かれた[5]。 中国側は南京大虐殺や南京大屠殺（後述）と呼称しているが、事件の真相はいまだ不明であり[6]

He was tried in the postwar Nanjing Military Tribunal and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East . [5] The Chinese side calls it the Nanjing Massacre or the Nanjing Massacre ( discussed below ), but the truth of the case is still unknown [6]

This wikipedia page has been vandalized a lot by Japanese nationalists before. As a Canadian I can firmly tell everyone that we don't self-censor about the wrongs that our nation did to its own people and to others. The Somalia Affair, Residential Indian Schools, and the internment camps for japanese-canadians are some of the biggest pieces of our social studies education, not just blindly saying that we are the heroes of WWII. This infuriates me.

The japanese wikipedia page for this issue is in dire need for a renovation, and we need someone that could translate this stuff (properly, not with Google like I did) and kick out the revisionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorruptSnowflake (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"Chinese genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Chinese genocide. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Chinese genocide until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Actually wikipedia editors do whaterver 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.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:5D2A:6C26:647A:144B:A203:F424 (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Please revert to 22:57, 23 May 2021‎

This page is riddled with quotes lacking sources. They use generalities such as "according to witnesses, 'quote'", with poor punctuation and no capitalization. It looks like this was all added in the last week by a single user, and in general serves to make everything seem more shocking.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:1402:1977:6092:C4FE:4F23:76DC (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Violence against women

This relates to a photo in the massacre section of this article.

While it is important to represent the full nature of the horrific acts perpetrated by the Japanese soldiers on the Chinese I feel the inclusion of a semi naked women secured through the genitals adds nothing to the article.

This is particularly so when compared to photos off men in this article. There are several photos of men about to be executed, but none of their dead bodies post executions.

This lack of comparable information shows a blind disregard for the effect of this photo. This is most likely not deliberate however the use of such a photo MUST be fully justified because it is so horrific and is likely to attract in wanted attention from those who would view it as titillation or stimulation for anti female tropes.

Thank you for your consideration Gingertomo (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It does seem different from the others, but I worry it only seems different because this aspect of warfare has been removed from the dignified version of our narrative of World War 2. This page is not about nice things, people who come here should learn that. The photo teaches us more than text could. For me it is about balance, not becoming a gallery of torture and mutilation for reasons of politics or edginess, and not sanitising the narrative. Everyone will have very personal limits on this, not to mention political beliefs that will shift it one way or the other. I would not want us to start fighting on the exact number of which group in what condition we should have photos of. A representative mix is important I believe we are close enough to that. I am interested to see what others think. Dushan Jugum (talk) 00:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I note that the confronting nature of this photo has been debated many times in the archives to this page, sometimes even in depth. Not wanting to detract from any nuance in Gingertomo's argument, but 'Wikipedia is not censured' seems to be the typical response, however unsophisticated that may be. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

my i please edit this i fill like i can add something Mediterranean boy 239 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Guangxi Massacre deserves top stop in the "See Also" list

The Guangxi Massacre deserves top stop in the "See Also" list.

Politics aside, this was at least an equally horrific event and historically significant event in China's recent history with many similarities in brutality and possibly higher casualty counts, both within 30 or so years of each other.

Yes, there is a "List of All Chinese Massacres" near the bottom of the "See Also" list, but I don't think any of the other massacres in this WW2 to modern day China come close to the scale of the Guangxi Massacre or the Nanjing massacre if we're going to related topics of brutality by the army (Japanese vs red Army), rape, massacres, general dehumanization (random killings, cannabilism) etc. It does a disservice to readers not to make this obvious historical connection.

The Nanjing Massacre should also be referenced near the top of the Guangxi Massacres "See Also" page. Look I know nationalist on both sides might not like this, but from a purely rational standpoint "see also, an even with striking similarities which took place in the exact same country near the same time period".

https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre 104.192.45.17 (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Change the Estimated Number of People Murdered in Nanjing

Change "According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanjing and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was up to 200,000." to "According to the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanjing and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000."

Citation: "Estimates made at a later date indicate that the total number of civilians and prisoners of war murdered in Nanking and its vicinity during the first six weeks of the Japanese occupation was over 200,000." from Section 1014 in http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-8.html Jocelynz1234 (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentences in the introduction?

>This is the most recent mass-scale war crime in Nanjing since the 1864 Battle of Nanjing.[6]

I struggle to see the relevance of this fact—the Battle of Nanjing might warrant a mention, but I feel it could be contextualised differently.

>However, the most sophisticated and credible scholars in Japan, which include a large number of authoritative academics,

These "sophisticated and credible" are introduced seemingly out of nowhere. I do not think it is necessary to mention this nebulous group of academics to preface the findings of the tribunal --CongealedBox (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I would agree; these are terribly overwrought sentences. Do you want to try fixing them, or would you want some assistance in doing so? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

Remove the sentence:

"However, the most sophisticated and credible scholars in Japan, which include a large number of authoritative academics, support the validity of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and its findings, which estimate at least 200,000 casualties and at least 20,000 cases of rape.[7][8]" from the article. 

Selective presentation of support from academics from a single nation, specifically a nation involved in the event, can add bias to the article and should either be presented with statements from other academics in other nations, conflicting statements presenting counter views, or removed altogether as they do not add to the article. 2603:900A:1901:C893:DCB:F27D:C963:5945 (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2022

Change "Because of the myriad of factors, death toll estimates vary from 40,000 to over 300,000, with rape cases ranging from 20,000 to over 80,000 cases." to "Because of the myriad of factors, death toll estimates vary from 100,000 to over 300,000, with rape cases ranging from 20,000 to over 80,000 cases." Aquster (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Event missasigned to WW2?

Paragraph 1 >>> Last sentence >>> "The massacre was one of the worst atrocities committed during World War 2.[7]"

The Nanjing Massacre began on December 13, 1937 and lasted 6 weeks. World War II started in 1939.

LaaxPedia (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

While yes the Second World War in Europe began September 1st, 1939 the start of the war in the Pacific is debated between the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. 74.142.25.106 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The figure of 200,000 is poorly sourced

User:LilAhok repeatedly reinstated the line "the most sophisticated and credible scholars in Japan... estimate at least 200,000 casualties" in the lead. He remarked "Plenty of authoritative and credible scholars, including Yale University and academics in Japan, disagree with Bob's assessment" on 30 January 2022's edit summary [Note: Bob Wakabayashi concluded "far exceed 100,000 but fall short of 200,000"]. I read the sources LilAhok cited - they do not support the figure of 200,000 at all. Please LilAhok stop reinstating that.

By "academics in Japan", LilAhok pointed to Askew (2002)'s literature review. Askew actually noted 200,000 was the older orthodoxy. His entire quote goes, "The Great Massacre School ranges from at least 100,000 (Eguchi), 10 sūman [100,000 plus a few 10,000s], a figure which has become the orthodox position of this school and which is advocated by Himeta, Inoue, Kasahara and Yoshida, to the older orthodoxy, 200,000, which is still advocated by Fujiwara and Takasaki." Hence, the current Japanese consensus, as Askew's literature review summarized, is 10 sūman [100,000 plus a few 10,000s]. "10 sūman" might also be rendered as "100,000~200,000", or as Bob Wakabayashi put it, the death toll within Nanjing City Wall to be around 40,000, mostly massacred in the first weeks; while the total victims after a 3-month period in Nanjing and its surrounding six rural counties "far exceed 100,000 but fall short of 200,000".

By "Yale University", LilAhok pointed to YaleNews (1997). The source actually wrote, "By some estimates, between December 1937 and March 1938,... killed more than 300,000 Chinese civilians and raped nearly 80,000". It is troubling that the author does not clarify whether "by some estimates" is the consensus - which obviously look not. This source did not meet academic standard either - it was written by Martha Smalley, a librarian at Yale Divinity School Library, on a school newsletter.

-- love.wh 14:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 17 July 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against move. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Nanjing Massacre → Rape of Nanjing – This seems like a more common name. Jishiboka1 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. This Ngram does not seem to indicate that it is a more common name overall. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

  My impression, which seems to be confirmed by that Ngram, is that "Rape of Nanking" used to be the most common term, but that "Nanjing Massacre" has become more common in recent years. (Also note the difference in usage between the old-fashioned transliteration "Nanking" and modern pinyin "Nanjing".) So I oppose the move unless other evidence can be provided to show that "Rape of Nanjing" or some other name is more common. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 07:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• g scholar hits from the last five years suggest they are pretty even [12], [13] with 'Nanking' transliteration getting way fewer hit's for both—blindlynx 08:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It's worth noting most of the hit's for 'rape of nanjing' also use 'nanjing Massacre'—blindlynx 08:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Rape of Nanking. Still overwhelmingly the common name for the city that was invariably known as Nanking in English-language sources of the time. And no, it makes no difference that this is only a difference in transliteration systems. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no need for inflammatory POV language. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
  • ​If it is the common name, "Rape of Nanj/king" is fine per WP:POVNAME (it is neither trendy nor a colloquialism). —  AjaxSmack  18:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• If there is to be a move, the more common "Rape of Nanking" should be used rather than the anachronistic "Nanjing" (cf. the contemporaneous Battle of Nanking, Nanking Safety Zone). —  AjaxSmack  18:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mx. Granger Loafiewa (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. The proposed name was the name this article carried for 16 years, from 2002 to 2018 when it was moved. The current name has only been in place for three years. Both names appear throughout the literature of the 20th century, for instance the quickly published book American Missionary Eyewitnesses to the Nanking Massacre (1937), and the many contemporary accounts stating "Rape of Nanking" in newspapers and magazines such as Life.[14] These two terms, "Nanjing Massacre" and "Rape of Nanking", are listed as equivalents in the 2007 book The Nanking Atrocity, 1937-38: Complicating the Picture (ISBN 9781845451806), linked by their baggage of emotive language (the author suggests "Nanking Atrocity" as more neutral than either, and as more telling than the bland "Nanjing Incident" descriptor commonly used in Japan.) I don't have an opinion regarding the suggest move request, because either term is acceptable. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The ngram mentioned above shows that it's a close tie between the current title and the proposed change, though the current title does have a slight edge in newer sources. However, WP:COMMONNAME says that "Article titles should be neither vulgar (unless unavoidable) nor pedantic." Since there's no overwhelming difference between the usage of the two titles in reliable sources, the less vulgar name should be used; using "rape" in an article's title is in this instance absolutely avoidable, given that there is no compelling WP:COMMONNAME or other argument for Rape of Nanjing/Nanking that skyrockets it above the current title as an obvious choice. Rape of Nanjing is common enough that it needs to be mentioned as an alternate name in the lede (which it already is), but does the article's title itself need to be changed? When viewing the proposed change through the scope of relevant Wikpedia policy, the answer seems to be a very firm "no". - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Absolutely not, as per the other comments presented here. Nanking is the bastardization of the proper name ofthe city, and 'the rape of' is a romanticization of some of the most heinous acts ever documented. I am admittedly biased on this subject; we are going to call this what it actually was, not what some old fart or publisher wants to call it. .Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor typo in "Legacy" section; unable to edit

Under the section "Legacy", the first paragraph, last sentence, there is a minor typo.

The sentence reads: "This sense of mistrust is strengthened Japan's is unwilling to admit to and apologize for the atrocities."

It should probably read something like: "This sense of mistrust is strengthened by Japan's unwillingness to admit to and apologize for the atrocities."

I'm unable to edit it.

-David DSDeLaMater (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2022

Under the section "Legacy", the first paragraph, last sentence, there is a minor typo.

The sentence reads: "This sense of mistrust is strengthened Japan's is unwilling to admit to and apologize for the atrocities."

It should probably read something like: "This sense of mistrust is strengthened by Japan's unwillingness to admit to and apologize for the atrocities."

I'm unable to edit it. DSDeLaMater (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Loafiewa (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

Please censor some of the photos on here, or at least a warning for such graphic images- like dead babies and weapons impaled in a woman’s vagina. 2600:1702:B80:53F0:E01F:1303:E669:7046 (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia is not censored. Loafiewa (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

References on new evidence

New photos have been discovered by a pawn broker who talked about it on TikTok. I’m curious when there’s a suitable time to add the new information to this page? I am not a wiki master but these photos are likely going to offer significant evidence and talk https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRPPa1wb/ Mikebellman (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I actually saw the same video on TikTok last night, and it's way too early to include anything about this on the Wikipedia article. For one it's one guy's word, he (thankfully) didn't show the photos on the video, so it's not even a confirmed thing. We would need reliable sources to discuss the material, which means someone other than this guy needs to have access to the material, and he's not even sure where or who should have it nor is it even his to give to an appropriate group. So it's interesting for sure, but nowhere near the level of "add anything about it to Wikipedia". - Aoidh (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Content Warning/ Censor Images

Please put a CW or censor the pictures with corpses and mutilated genitalia so people can get a disclaimer before viewing them. 2601:602:8A01:19A0:A4E5:BCCB:4AB4:29F6 (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Loafiewa (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A improvement request to a sentence in the lead

One of the sentences in the lead is "The massacre was one of the worst atrocities committed during World War II." It should be more specific on why or how it is the worst. Roostery123 (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect info

In the opening paragraph it says that this was one of the “worst massacres of the second world war”, despite this event happening 2 years before the start of WW2 90.243.81.88 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

This question has already been asked and answered multiple times in this talk. see the talk history. The start dates vary from historian to historian. the war in Europe started on 1 September 1939, and the Second Sino-Japanese War started on 7 July 1937. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2022

Change: "Due to a myriad of factors, death toll estimates vary from 40,000 to over 300,000"

To: Due to myriad factors, death toll estimates vary from 40,000 to over 300,000.

Myriad used as an adjective in this sentence, not a noun. 73.114.72.44 (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

 Already done by LilAhok. Changed to a easier word "multiple". Thank you very much for pointing this out. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

New Photos

Someone charged to deal with old things in the US just found never before seen photos of this event which were too horrific to show on the video he made. 2601:1C2:501:33C0:C50B:DA92:DD23:EFFA (talk) 15:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed above, but we need coverage in reliable sources to even begin to think about mentioning it in any way on this article. Someone making a TikTok video alleging they have photos is in no way worth mentioning. If some museum or institution acquires said photos and reliable sources cover that or the institution disseminates said photos then it can be addressed, but at this point it's nothing and there's nothing to even discuss. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aoidh Hello, I am following with interest your discussions on this page regarding the Nanjing massacre and the needs to verify sources, I would also like to caution against the use of photos that have no historical relation to the Massacre. Some of them are often used by Japanese negationist sites in order to discredit this historical event (usual method of misinformation) and I would like to draw the attention to the photo of decapitated Chinese heads which seems to be linked to another event.  The legend (true ??) specifies "Decapitated heads of bandits at Tieling" (Tieling being 1600 kilometers from Nanjing) Also, this photo can be seen on many Japanese negationist sites and forums as a "propaganda pic"... perhaps it would be better to remove it and replace it with an equivalent photo actually taken in Nanjing?  (sorry for my poor English) Hanafunda (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

@Hanafunda: Let me look into it, specifically when my kids aren't around due to the nature of the content. It would help, though, if you would be able to provide any sort of reliable sources that can identify the actual source or location or context of the photo in question? Also, would you be able to by chance tell me what the text on the sign at the top of File:Decapitated heads of bandits at Tieling.jpg says? The image I believe you're referring to, File:Nanjingmassacreheads.jpg, looks like a crop of that image that has the sign and I believe the sign can help us identify or contextualize the content. I think it says something about a horse but I can't say with any certainty. If anyone else who watches this page can jump in and weigh in on this or provide context or insight it would be greatly appreciated because this is outside of my area of knowledge and even being able to read the sign in the image would be helpful. - Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as an update for context, an editor removed the image on September 14, so for now at least I think the issue of that particular image is resolved since it's no longer on the article. - Aoidh (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Isamu Chō

On this page it says he was hanged for war crimes in 1948 alongside Iwane Matsui. But his own page details a 1945 death via seppuku alongside Mitsuru Ushijima. 2601:600:987F:1BD0:D505:8860:828D:2511 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nanking? Nanjing?

İf this article uses "Nanjing Massacre", why is "Battle of Nanking" still spelt thus? İ don't understand the inconsistency here. Also, should it remain "Nanking Massacre" per prevalent spelling at the time, like "Battle of Kiev (1941)" not "Battle of Kyiv"? Yekshemesh (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is edited by a rules-governed community rather than a central authority, such inconsistencies can exist. That is, mere precedent in this or that article does not determine the content or titling of other articles. In order to get consistency, one would have to argue at a general policy/style rule level. There are arguments for using both spellings (Nanking was how the name was frequently transliterated at the time so many sources use that, but Nanjing is the modern standard and many sources about historical events now use that), and discussions on different pages can reach different conclusions depending on the editors. There is a difference with Kiev/Kyiv in that Kiev is Russian and Kyiv is Ukrainian ie they're transliterations of names in different languages. Nanking and Nanjing refer to the unchanged Chinese name.OsFish (talk) 11:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

The movement of the Japanese army is written to have been made quicker by commanders allowing looting and rape. While looting absolutely makes sense in the context of an army moving with more ease, rape would not accelerate anything. I suggest removing "and rape" for logic purposes. 2001:4BC9:811:61:1:1:339E:C772 (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is the burden on the person who wants to make the change? Shouldn’t it be on whoever wrote that sentence to provide reliable sources that support its conjecture? Ryguy913 (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2022

"The massacre was one of the worst atrocities committed during World War II." is an opinion. Please remove it. ඞඞඞඞඞඞ (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No. This is supported by a reliable source. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2023

change "The Chinese government left for relocation on December 1"to"The Chinese government left for relocation on November 20th" change"Tang Junshan" to"Tang Shunshan" change"the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall" to"The Memorial Hall of the Victims in Nanjing Massacre by Japanese Invaders" Dabaolove (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 20:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Melmann Where would one establish a consensus? Would he just ask on the talk page? Just trying to help out because it seems these changes still have not been made. Alexysun (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You would lay out the changes you want here in the talk pages, including your sources, and your rationale why your change is better than the current status quo. You would invite the community to comment and amend your proposed changes. Once you've established consensus, you would reopen this request and the edit request reviewer would see evidence of the changes being endorsed (or at least not objected to for valid reasons) by the community, and would make them based on their own uninvolved findings of consensus.

If you post your opening message, and receive no response for at least 7 days, that's generally taken to mean that nobody opposes your proposition and that the consensus has been established. At that point, you can also reopen this request. Melmann 17:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd really like to see any addition concretely cited before it makes it to the live article. This is an article about one of the most atrocious crimes in history, one which the ones committing it are determined to water down their actions; therefore, any destabilization of the article should be strictly avoided. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation-free, narrative description that shows obvious bias

Is anyone actually reading the summary of the event, that exists entirely without citations, and not seeing the bias?

I get why it's locked, but don't understand why it's locked in this state... 142.198.34.87 (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as the rules of Wikipedia go, a concrete change must be proposed first for such high value articles with citations and consensus. It is lightly cited compared to some articles I'll give you that. In regards to your question, I don't see any bias. 70.22.139.70 (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Here's a potential reason for the lack of sources in the lead, from MOS:LEADCITE.

Relevant quote:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

I agree that there are too few citations in the lead, given how controversial the topic is. However, as respectfully as possible, it's worth noting that the controversy really mostly exists within Japan and among foreign fans of Japan; the rest of the world is in widespread agreement about the broad strokes of the incident. That includes Japan's former allies, who would perhaps be incentivized to deny what happened in order to avoid being associated with it. Usually most of what's debated abroad are the specifics of the numbers. toobigtokale (talk) 07:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Human rights abuses in Japan

Is category:Human rights abuses in Japan that Piggy Studio added necessary? Because Nanjing is in China now and then, I feel it strange. If there were category:Human rights abuses by Japan, it is OK in my opinion.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can I added Category:Terrorist incidents in Japan and Category:Terrorist incidents in China? Piggy Studio (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. You should decide whether you do it but you can do it.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2023

I request for Category:Human rights abuses in Japan to be removed and replaced with Category:Terrorist incidents in China in the External Links. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the Nanking Massacre took place in China, not Japan, so the Category:Human rights abuses in Japan in the External Links should be removed and replaced with Category:Terrorist incidents in China instead. 95.151.194.20 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)